A Tool for Policy Development

Purpose: This tool has been developed to provide support to policy-makers in the first phase of policy development. It helps them to develop a good evidence-based understanding of the problem they face and identify the most promising policy options. It is most useful to policy-makers who are new to a problem or are addressing a new problem. It does not provide guidance on later stages of the policy development process such as option appraisal, costbenefit analysis and issues relating to design and implementation of policies. The tool corresponds to sections 2 (purpose and intended effect) and 4 (options) of the Regulatory Impact Assessment - see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/index.asp Note 1: 'Agents' is a term used to refer to individuals, households, firms, communities, or any 'body' that is involved in some way in the problem. According to this tool, the purpose of government policy is to encourage, incentivise, force or in any way 'enable' agents to change their behaviour and take actions that address costly social problems. Note 2: 'Policy-makers' refers to anyone who has a role in the development of policy. It is expected that the tool will require input from a range of people, including researchers, analysts and practitioners. Structure: The tool consists of a series of steps. Step 1: Setting the scene. Step 1 contains three parts; defining the problem; identifying the incidence of the problem, and who is affected by it and how. It has a number of purposes. It helps to develop a better understanding of the problem, provides information that is required in subsequent steps and gives some sense of the scale of the problem. Step 2: Can and should anything be done? Step 2 has two parts. The first part involves identifying who can impact on the problem and what actions they may take. For example, 'householders locking doors' impacts on 'burglary'; 'bar staff NOT serving drunks' reduces alcohol-related violence. This step is likely to generate a long list. In the second part these actions are filtered to identify which of them are likely to have the most impact, considering the benefits to society and the costs to the agent who takes it. The purpose is to focus policy-making on designing policy that 'encourages' only those actions that are most worthwhile. This step forces users to think about costs at a relatively early stage in the policy development process. Step 3: Why is the problem happening? This step involves understanding what motivates agents and why they may fail to take actions that are beneficial (i.e. those identified in step 2). Developing this understanding is a key step in designing effective policy. Step 4: What can be done about it? The final step contains two parts. The first involves identifying all the policy options that may encourage agents to change their behaviour and take the actions identified in step 2. The second involves selecting those that seem most promising and which merit taking forward to a more rigorous appraisal of the costs and benefits (beyond the scope of this tool). Links are provided to an evidence base on policy effectiveness that should help in this. How to use the tool? Each step contains short guidance, instruction and two examples. The examples ( alcohol-related violence and crime on industrial estates) can be viewed by pressing the example buttons at the bottom of the tables. In most cases, a simple template is provided to capture the relevant information. These have been designed to be sufficiently flexible that users have freedom to note any relevant information. However, they do require users to be transparent about the source of evidence, where appropriate. There are many ways in which this tool may be used. It has been used as the basis for a workshop. Alternatively, it can just be used less formally, for example, as an aid to thinking about policy. It may not be possible to complete every element of the tool and, in some cases, it will not be necessary. However, you are advised to consider all the elements and, where it is not possible to complete, this indicates where further research, analysis or consultation may be required. The examples contained in the tool are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent Home Office policy.

Step 1: Setting the scene Part A: What is the problem? Purpose: To define the problem. Guidance: A problem is defined as an outcome which has negative consequences (e.g., alcohol-related violence, people-smuggling, burglary). The problem may be specified in a particular context (e.g.burglary in London, domestic violence where the victim is a male, etc.) Instructions: Enter the problem in the yellow box below. Problem

Step 1: Setting the scene Part B: What is the scale of the problem? Purpose: To estimate the incidence of the problem (e.g. incidence of burglary in London, incidence of domestic violence against males in England and Wales). Guidance: In some cases, it will be appropriate to break the problem up into its components. For example, if the problem is 'crime on industrial estates', it is important to identify the incidence of the range of crimes affecting estates. Secondly, incidence will vary according to many factors and these should be identified. For example, crime may affect certain firms and estates disproportionately. Finally, include any comparator (e.g. to other areas, other similar crimes etc.) that may seem relevant. To gauge the extent of the problem of crime on estates, it is useful to know how crime on an estate compares with crime for firms NOT located on an estate. Provide sources of evidence against the relevant data, where possible. Note: the incidence is NOT the only determinant of the scale of the problem (see part C).

Instructions: Enter information on the incidence and context of the problem in Table 1 below, with evidence and sources. Table 1
Incidence, context and source

Step 1: Setting the scene Part C: Who is affected by the 'problem' and how? Purpose: This step has at least two purposes. Firstly, it provides important information that gives us an indication of the impact and scale of the problem and how seriously policy-makers should regard it. Secondly, it provides us with information that will be used in later steps to indicate whether it is worthwhile taking action to address the problem. Guidance: Complete Table 2. It is important to appreciate that costs refer to costs of ALL negative consequences associated with the problem even those more intangible ones (e.g. cost of emotional and psychological damage to victims of crime). Try to be as comprehensive as possible and identify all costs and who is affected. Where possible, quantify the cost providing the source of data. In some cases, it may be appropriate to first break the problem down into components before costing. For example, for crime on industrial estates, it is appropriate to first identify the relevant crimes before costing each (e.g. commercial burglary, theft of a commercial vehicle, etc.). A final column is provided for additional comments. This can contain any information that you feel is relevant. For example, this might contain information on how costs of burglary vary from incident to incident. Table 2 Problem Who bears the cost? Description of cost Cost Source Additional comments

Step 2: Can and should anything be done? PART A: What actions could be taken to address the problem, and by whom? Purpose: This step is a brainstorming exercise. Its purpose is to identify ALL the 'agents' that can impact on the problem, and what actions they can take. Guidance: Complete Table 3. An 'agent' is a term used to refer to individuals, households, firms, communities, or any 'body' that is involved in some way in the problem either because their actions contribute to the problem or help to alleviate it. An action is defined as something that impacts on the problem in a relatively direct way. For example, locking doors is an action that impacts on burglary. By contrast, a policy is defined as something that encourages, forces or by any means 'enables' agents to take these actions. Therefore, in identifying agents and actions, include private sector agents (e.g. individuals, households, and communities) AND public sector agents who take action to deliver existing policies (e.g. police, teachers, etc.) BUT do NOT include POLI CY-MAKERS or NEW POLICY OPTIONS. Consideration of policy comes at a later stage in the tool. Note: in some cases, an action will involve NOT doing something. For example, 'not drinking excessively' and 'not going to risky pubs' reduces alcohol-related violence. Some actions have a more indirect effect on the problem, and you may wish to distinguish these 'intermediate actions'. For example, 'analysing the problem and developing a strategy to reduce crime' is an intermediate action. Instructions: Enter the relevant agents and actions in the first and second columns, and enter evidence in the final column. Table 3 Agent Actions Evidence

#REF!

Step 2: Can and should anything be done? B: Which of these actions are most beneficial? Purpose: This step is a filtering device. It challenges policy-makers to think about costs and benefits at an early stage. The purpose is to identify which of the actions identified in the previous step are likely to have the greatest impact on the problem and therefore where policy-makers should concentrate most attention, at least initially. The step also aims to identify actions that may reduce the problem but which are not worthwhile because of the cost. There is no point in designing policy to encourage these actions. Guidance: Complete Table 4 considering all actions identified in 2A. First, you are required to assess whether 'further action is worthwhile'. To do this, you are required to answer two questions with YES, NO or UNKNOWN. The questions are 'Will the action reduce the harms associated with the problem (i.e. the costs of the problem, as identified in step 1)?' and 'Will the reduction in harms exceed the costs to the AGENT taking the action?' Bear in mind we are interested in costs and benefits of taking FURTHER action than is already taking place. If the answer to both questions is YES, the Table will conclude the action IS worthwhile (column 5). Second, where an action is deemed worthwhile or results in an 'unknown', rank the actions, with 1 corresponding to actions where benefits most significantly exceed costs. This ranking will determine priorities in step 3. Where possible, cite the source of evidence in assessing costs and benefits. A column 'Comments' is provided for you to add any information that may be relevant. For example, costs and benefits are likely to vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime or you may wish to comment on the reliability of any evidence. Instructions: Answer the questions in columns 3 and 4 by using the drop-down boxes. All rankings must be unique (i.e. no actions can have a joint ranking). Table 4 Will further action significantly reduce the harms that arise from this problem? Are the costs to the agent incurred in the action less than the benefits to himself Is FURTHER and others in action really society? worthwhile?

Agent

Actions

Evidence

Comments

Rank

Step 3: Why is the problem happening? Why don't agents take these actions? Purpose: To understand why agents behave as they do, and why they fail to take actions that would address the problem. This information will help in the design of policy. Guidance: Complete Table 5. One approach is to list the agents and actions according to the ranking in step 2B, and consider each in turn. At least initially, you might wish to focus only on the topranked actions. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to re-define the actions. For example, where a number of actions appear to be related and there is a common reason why they do not take place, you may wish to treat them together (see the Industrial Estates example). In identifying why agents behave as they do there (column 4) there are a number of factors to consider, and Box 1 provides guidance on these. Column 5 ask you to categorise the reasons agents fail to take actions that are socially beneficial. Most categories are 'market failures' box 2 provides some guidance, but this step may need the assistance of an economist. The purpose is to link with an policy evidence base that will help in completing the final step and identifying policy options, links are activated in the final column. Note: not all actions will be associated with a category. Box 2 provides guidance. Instructions: If you wish, press the button to transfer the 1st ranked 'agent' and 'action' from the last step. Press the button again to transfer the 2nd and so on. Use the drop-down box to select the market failure in the 5th column. Table 5 Rank Agents

Actions

Why do they FAIL to take this action?

Category

More Information

Box 1: Guidance for completing column 4 of Table 5 In considering why agents behave as they do, it may be useful to think about _ what the agent cares about (enjoyment, profits, what peers think) _ how the agent makes decisions (rationally, i.e. the agent has the ability to make good choices for themselves or are decisions based on habit) _ the resources and capabilities available to them when they make decisions (skills, knowledge) _ what are the alternative actions they could take _ the critical factors in their decision-making (the perceived costs and benefits) Box 2: Guidance for completing column 5 of Table 5 The reasons agents do NOT take the best course of action for themselves and/or for others in society can be categorised according to market failures, government failure and other reasons not consistent with the traditional economic model. These are: Category Definition Externalities occur when an individual’s actions or behaviour directly impacts on others’ welfare and the individual does not take these spillover effects into account (e.g. a Externality firm that pollutes, individuals who fail to get vaccinated against infectious diseases). Imperfect information Asymmetric information Public goods Imperfect information arises where individuals are not perfectly ‘informed’ about the options available to them and the costs and consequences of their decision-making (e.g. an individual that is not aware of the risk and consequence of fraud). Asymmetric information exists where one party to a transaction is better informed than the other is and is able to use this to their advantage (e.g. tradepeople and private doctors providing unnecessary services). “Pure” public goods are said to be ‘non-rival’ (the consumption of a good by one person does not impact on the amount available to others) and non-excludable (once the good is made available, it is not possible or very difficult to exclude others from consuming it). Examples include national security, clean air, street-lighting. In practice, most public goods exhibit some degree of rivalry and/or excludability (e.g. roads, natural resources). Imperfect competition arises when one or more firms have some degree of control in the market. In the extreme, market structure is characterised by perfect competition (lots of firms all without market power) and monopoly (where one firm controls the market). In reality though, most markets tend to fall in between these two extremes. Government failure arises when government intervention reduces welfare (e.g. where excessive taxation reduces incentives to work, where government ownership creates a monopoly). Non-rationality Some behaviour is non-rational (e.g. caused by inertia, habit, influence of others).

Imperfect competition Government failure Non-rationality

Step 4: What can you do about it? What are the most promising policies ? Purpose: To identify the policies that are likely to lead agents to take actions that address the problem and benefit society. Guidance: Complete Table 6 below for those agents and actions identified in the previous step 3. Identify all possible policy options and consider the pros and cons of each. The evidence base, 'Understanding policy' provides some help by setting out criteria for judging policy effectiveness and appraising effectiveness of policy interventions in various contexts. Finally, where possible, rank options, the highest ranked should provide the 'Policy options' for formal appraisal in, for example, Regulatory Impact Assessment. The rankings should be based on a provisional estimate of the likely costs and benefits of each option. Table 6 Agent Action Policy Option Pros Cons Rank

YES NO UNKNOWN

Externality Imperfect information Asymmetric information Public goods Imperfect competition Government failure Non-rationality

Externality Imperfect Information Asymmetric information Public Goods Imperfect Competition Government Failure Non- Rationality.

. . .

Step 1a Alcohol-related violence Step 1b
Victims believed the more likely to Incidence, context and source Binge drinkers were offender or Leading crimes : Violence, offend than be under the 1 offenders toother regular offences criminal damage, sexual drinkers influence of alcoholonce a month least in about half 1 (who drink at incidents annually are associated with alcohol misuse ( Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, Prime Minister's Strategy Unit 2004) 1.2M Violent of all violent (48 get drunk less often) per cent) but 1 Binge drinkers account for aper incidents (BCS 04/05).Justice The 2001/02 BCSand 44 found (Offending Crimevolume of crime disproportionate 1 cent 2001/02 BCS foundoccurred Survey violent incidents that The of 2003). reported by adults (Offending 21per cent Justice Survey 2003). 1 at the weekend (6pm Friday to Crime and of all violent incidents Crimes are concentrated by 6am Monday) and 63 per cent Research consistently shows the 1 occurred in or around a pub or time, location and perpetrator occurred during of evening club. 38 per centthe violence or time In a UK for al., 2003). 1 peak (Allen etviolent offending is night study of 142 men in that between strangers occurred weekend nights and 58 per cent imprisoned for rape, the peak Young male 1 location (Allen et venues pubsbe Violenceis in binge drinkers were outside around may and location drinking al.,the six hours and in 2003). reported than associated with as likely to 1 moreto thetwice large numbers of clubs (Allenrape (Grubin and et al., 2003). prior a violent offence (16%) commit people congregating 1 intoxicatedyoung male regular Gunn, 1990). thancompeting for limited food and and other Factors associated with violence in 1 Maguire (7%). and(Marshinclude drinkers and Nettleton (2003) Foxtransport pubs high-risk facilities clubs and 1 found A&E data boosted the poor Kibby, 1992).access routes, inconvenient number of violent incidents ventilation, overcrowdingnine 1 Crimes arepolicefoundby 16per The 2001/02 BCS data and per identified by under-reported cent 1 permissive social environments, cent.of stranger and seven per communicated through pub/club 1 cent of acquaintance 'high risk' Some venues are violence policies and staff behaviour a incidents involved the use of 1 (Homel et al., 2001). glass or bottle as a weapon (Allen 1 et al., 2003).

Step 1c £5,472.00 Home Office Online report 30/05

Violent crimes

Victim

Family & friends Licensees

Pain and suffering Lost earnings (if self-employed) Impaired leisure time Emotional cost (e.g. worry) Time spent caring Lost sales (deterred custom) Security costs Victim cost (if own victimisation)

Time spent in CJS (attending court etc.) Tax payers £1,928.00 Home Office Online report 30/05 Home Office Online report 30/05 Home Office Online report 30/05 Home Office Online report 30/05 Home Office Online report 30/05

CJS Costs

NHS costs

£1,347.00 £1,648.00

Employers

Lost output

Criminal Damage

Licensees

Damage to property

£212.00

Security costs Lost sales (deterred custom) Time spent in CJS (attending court etc.)

£13.00

Neighbourhood business

Damage to property

£212.00

Home Office Online report 30/05

Security costs

£13.00

Home Office Online report 30/05

Community

Lost sales (deterred custom) Time spent in CJS (attending court etc) Damage to local amenities Home Office Online report 30/05

Tax payers Step 2a Agent Victim Victim Victim Offender Offender Offender Offender Licensee Licensee Actions Not drinking excessively Avoiding risky areas Avoiding confrontation

CJS Costs Binge drinkers account for a disproportionate volume incidents 21 per cent of all violent of crime Evidence or around a pub or club. reported by adults (Offending Crime occurred in and Justice Survey 2003).strangers 38% of violence between occurred in that location (BCS)

£126.00

48 per cent of offenders believed to be under the influence of alcohol in violent Not drinking excessively incidents (BCS) Avoiding risky areas See above Avoiding confrontation Not perpetrating violence Not encouraging excessive drinking Providing safe environments The 2001/02 BCS found nine per cent of stranger and seven per cent of acquaintance violence incidents involved the use of a glass or bottle as a weapon (Allen et al., 2003).

Licensee Licensee

Using glass containers Not serving drunks

Licensee Bar Staff

Licensed trade

Not diverting problems off-premises Not serving drunks Factors associated with violence in high-risk pubs and clubs include inconvenient access routes, poor ventilation, overcrowding, and permissive social environments, communicated through pub/club policies and staff behaviour (Homely et al., 2001). Providing safe environments

Licensed trade Police/CJS Police/CJS Police/CJS Local authorities Local authorities Bar Staff Licensee Licensee

Not encouraging excessive drinking Increasing resourcing of prevention Management of problem Increasing enforcement of sanctions Reducing licensing in congested areas Increasing provision of services at peak times Not serving under-age drinkers Advising other licensees of potential problems Cooperating to ban known 'trouble makers'

Step 2b Victim Not drinking excessively YES YES YES

Victim Victim Offender Offender Offender Offender Licensee Licensee Licensee Licensee Licensee Bar Staff Licensed trade Licensed trade Police/CJS Police/CJS Police/CJS Local authorities Local authorities Bar Staff Licensee Licensee Licensee

Avoiding risky areas UNKNOWN Avoiding confrontation UNKNOWN Not drinking excessively YES Avoiding risky areas YES Avoiding confrontation YES Not perpetrating violence YES Not encouraging excessive drinking YES Providing safe environments UNKNOWN Using glass containers YES Not serving drunks YES Not diverting problems off-premises UNKNOWN Not serving drunks YES Not encouraging excessive drinking YES Providing safe environments UNKNOWN Increasing resourcing of prevention YES Management of problem UNKNOWN Increasing enforcement of sanctions UNKNOWN Reducing licensing in congested areas UNKNOWN Increasing provision of services at peak times YES Not serving under-age drinkers UNKNOWN Advising other licensees of potential problems YES Cooperating to ban known 'trouble makers' YES Employing SIA -accrediated door staff UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0

UNKNOWN YES YES YES YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES YES NO YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN YES YES YES UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES YES YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES YES NO YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES YES UNKNOWN

Step 3 Psychological factors 1 Offender Not perpetrating violence Family History NonRationality .

Effect of alcohol

Externality .

Lack of care for victim

Low price of alcohol 2 Offender Not drinking excessively No liability for full cost of victimisation and disorder

Externality . Externality .

Low (perceived) risk and cost of sanction Enjoyment

Governme nt Failure

Encouraged by licensed trade

Asymmetri c informatio n

Lack of alternative entertainment Low price of alcohol 3 Victim Not drinking excessively Lack of alternative entertainment Externality .

Enjoyment

Encouraged by licensed trade

Don't pay full health care costs etc.

Asymmetri c informatio n Externality .

Don't accurately assess risks

Imperfect Informatio n .

Profit 4 Licensee Not serving drunks Fear of confrontation

Externality .

Low risk of sanction Governme nt Failure Pressure from employer Up-front costs, before realisation of benefits

5 Licensee

Advising other licensees of potential problems.

Difficulties agreeing on cooperative actions

Public Goods .

Lack of knowledge

Imperfect Informatio n .

Difficulties of estimating how individual pubs will benefit from collective actions

Public Goods .

Step 4 Agent Offender Action Not perpetrating violence Policy Option Enforcing exclusion orders banning perpetrators from premises Pros Cons Increases risk of penalty at Difficult to next offence enforce

The perpetrato r may just go elsewhere

Offender

Excessive drinking

Increase tax on alcohol

Reduce consumption Increased tax revenue

Penalises all drinkers Cost of levying taxes Industry reluctance Increased CJS costs

Victim

Excessive drinking

Increase sanction for drunkenness As above Information campaign on risks

Increases cost of drinking Make people aware of dangers

Licensee

Serving drunks

Increase penalty

Reduce alcohol consumption

Targeted at drunks

Licensee

Not advising other licensees of potential problems

Pub Watch Scheme

Relatively cheap Facilitates cooperation between pubs to prevent violent situations

Costly Lack of evidence on effectiven ess Cost of enforcem ent Reprisals might be more costly Response of licensee Difficult to start up Set up costs

Only affects 'trouble makers'

Requires continued cooperatio n of all pubs that are involved

The cost figure is for violence against the person

The cost figure is for violence against the person

The cost figure is for violence against the person

The cost figure is for violence against the person Home Office Online report £22,754.00 30/05

Sexual offences

Victim

Pain and suffering

Family & friends

Lost earnings (if selfemployed) Impaired leisure time Emotional cost (e.g. worry)

Time spent caring

Tax payers

CJS Costs

Home Office Online report £3,298.00 30/05 Home Office Online report 30/05

Employers

NHS costs Lost output

£916.00

All costs are in 2003 prices.

Rank 3

UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 2

1 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 4

UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 5

UNKNOWN

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper chapter 4 of the Understanding Policy Options Paper

Rank

Tessa. If you want to make changes to this last column (i.e. the one with the ranks) let me know and I will change the code. Changing these values here will have no affect

Step 1a Crime on Industrial Estates Step 1b Leading crimes: theft by outsiders, vandalism, burglary, theft by employees, vehicle theft (based on CVS 2002)

For manufacturers on IE: average four crimes p.a. Higher incidence of overall crime, burglary & theft by employees & outsiders for firms located on IE than for those not located on an industrial estate(CVS 2002) For retailers on IE: Average 15 crimes p.a. lower incidence of overall crime, but higher burglary & vehicle theft for firms located on IE than for firms not located on IE (CVS 2002) Crime highly concentrated on some estates & firms (CVS 2002, supported by consultation with IE Working Group) Crime concentrated on estates which are: in deprived areas, have easy access, are run-down (Police Research Group Paper No. 54) IE is Industrial Estate Step 1c £900 Commercial burglary Business Security costs £50 Businesses/consumers Insurance administration £1,200 HORS 217 HORS 217 HORS 217 Security Theft of a commercail vehicle Business costs Businesse Insurance s/consum administra ers tion Replacem ent & repair of lost and damaged Business property Business Lost output CJS Tax-payer response Reduced investmen t (reduced Region/So wages/pro ciety fits) Househol d burglary costs £1,400 Total cost per commerci al burglary £3,400 £1,500 £4,600 HORS 217 HORS 217 HORS 217

Business Business Tax-payer

Replacement & repair of lost and damaged property £40 Lost output £490 CJS response HORS 217 HORS 217

£60 £70

HORS 217 HORS 217

Region/Society

Reduced investment (reduced wages/profits)

? £2,700

? £9,700 Normal vehicle theft costs £890

Total cost per commercial burglary Step 2a Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, LA Landlords, businesses Businesses, employees Businesses, employees Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, security Landlords, businesses, security Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, security Landlords, businesses, security Police Businesses Businesses Landlords, businesses, LA Businesses Landlords, developers, LA Landlords, developers, businesses, LA Window grills IE Working Group Perimeter fences Wrexham, Bolton, Slough, Langwaite IEs Access barriers Evaluations Removal of valuables (cash, easier stolen products) at night Security of keys Locking doors Lighting Firm-level CCTV (includes monitoring) Shared CCTV (includes monitoring) Signage (signs warning that the site is protected) Patrol estate (esp. outside working hours) Presence of security Investigation and detection Pre-employment checks ‘Mark’ property Attractive well-maintained environment Community-based initiatives Design of estate and its buildings (e.g. absence of exposed end-units) Absence of features that hide offenders (e.g. waste-land, hedges) Intermediate Actions Analysis of the crime problem and development of a strategy for addressing it.

HORS 217

HORS 217

Police, security firms, business, landlords Businesses Police

Reporting crime to police and others Recording crime effectively Development of an estate-wide strategy for Landlords, businesses, police, security, LA crime prevention Provision of advice on crime prevention Police, security industry, insurance industry Implementing provision for security in Local authorities, police planning Security industry, police Training of security staff Note: LA is Local Authority Step 2b Landlords, businesses Window grills NO UNKNOWN NO Anecdotal evidence regarding effectiven ess

Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, LA Landlords, businesses Businesses, employees Businesses, employees Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, security

Perimeter fences Access barriers Removal of valuables at night Security of keys Locking doors Lighting Firm-level CCTV (includes monitoring)

YES YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES

YES YES YES YES YES UNKNOWN NO

YES YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN NO

4 5

Landlords, businesses, security Landlords, businesses Landlords, businesses, security Landlords, businesses, security Police Businesses Businesses Landlords, businesses, LA Businesses Landlords, developers, LA Landlords, developers, businesses, LA

Shared CCTV (includes monitoring) Signage Patrol estate (esp. outside working hours) Presence of security Investigation and detection Pre-employment checks ‘Mark’ property Attractive well-maintained environment Community-based initiatives Design of estate and its buildings (e.g. absence of exposed end-units) Absence of features that hide offenders (e.g., waste-land, hedges) 0 Intermediate Actions

YES UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES NO

YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN

YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN NO

Anecdotal evidence regarding effectiven ess

3

6

Police, security firms, business, landlords Businesses Police

Analysis of the crime problem and development of a strategy for addressing it. YES Reporting crime to police and others UNKNOWN Recording crime effectively YES

YES YES UNKNOWN

YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Evidence of >50% reduction in crime reduction effect

2

Landlords, businesses, police, security, LA Development of an estate-wide strategy Police, security industry, insurance industry Provision of advice on crime prevention Implementing provision for security in Local authorities, police planning Step 3 1 Businesses

YES UNKNOWN YES

YES YES YES

YES UNKNOWN YES

1

Working together to develop estate-wide strategies (e.g. estate-wide CCTV, patrol etc.)

Lack of knowledge about crime Imperfect Information prevention Uncertainty over effectiveness of collective action Co-operative firms need assurance that others will contribute and that they aren't wasting time and money Collective action has up front costs (communication, development of plan). The benefits are realised later. Difficulties agreeing on collective action and cost-shares due to problems estimating how much individual firms benefit, especially where benefits vary from firm to firm. Free riding because it is difficult to exclude non -contributors from enjoying benefits of collective security. Inertia Benefits of policing low if firms fail to provide surveillance etc. Performance measures discourage action against business crime. Public Goods .

.

chapter 4 of the Understan ding Policy chapter 4 Options of the Paper Understan ding Policy chapter 4 Options of the Paper Understan ding Policy Options Paper

7

Public Goods

.

Non- Rationality.

2 Police

Provision of advice on crime prevention, investigation and detection.

chapter 4 of the Understan ding Policy Options Paper

Government Failure

Performance measures discourage Government Failure strategic approach to crime prevention and provision of advice. 3 Landlords Investing in security and environment Do not bear the costs of crime. Imperfect Competition Crime is NOT a significant factor in firm's decisions to enter and exit estates. Therefore there is little incentive for landlords to improve security.

Step 4 Tessa. If you want to make changes to this last column (i.e. the one with the ranks) let me know and I will change the code. Changing these values here will have no affect

Businesses

Working together to develop estate-wide strategies (e.g. estate-wide CCTV, patrol, etc.)

Tying public goods to private goods i.e. provide a package of services incl. collective security AND goods firms only receive if they pay (e.g. collective waste management, IT support, traffic Reduces incentive to free-ride news)

Doesn’t work where possible for freeriders to de-couple goods and where private goods are NOT sufficiently valuable No cost-sharing mechanims perfect for Use of a variety of cost-sharing mechanisms to Collective action depends on collective security. Serial cost-sharing determine who pays how much to provide appropriate sharing of costs (e.g. creates incentive for firms to lie about collective security. E.g. equal cost-sharing, serial serial cost-sharing involves bigger how much they benefit. Equal costcost-sharing (where firm who benefits mosts pays contribution from firm that benefits sharing leads to too little collective most) most) action. Use of publicity in developing and implementing Mishandled publicity can cause estate plans (e.g. involvement of media, holding Can reduce free-riding by creating resentment and destroy partnershippublic meetings, etc.) a reputational cost to free-riders working Very popular option. Provides formal structure, mechanism for firms to state preference (i.e. Use of Business Improvement District Scheme in through voting), contracts firms to developing collective working to prevent crime pay over period, sufficiently flexible Range of reasons firms fail to provide security justify public funding (inertia, imperfect info, Public funding of a 'co-ordination service' to help uncertainty). In most cases, firms communicate with each other and develop collective action by firms 'kickan estate plan started' by external assistance Addresses problem that police forces are not incentivised to address business crime because it Measure business crime with regular crime is not reported by firms or survey; provide recording systems for polices otherwise measured (CVS only force to record reported business crime happened twice) Involves some bureaucracy; only really appropriate where partnership-working already established; doesn’t provide guidance on how to communicate with each other and share costs appropriately

1

Co-ordination is a highly skilled job, and recruitment and incentives of coordinators is key; helping firms develop a plan will not ensure they implement it

2

Police

Provision of advice, investigation and detection

Firms don’t report crime sufficiently because perceive few private incentives to do so. CVS is expensive

3

Provide police with business crime target

Police have many targets. Further Likely to have rapid effect, signals targets can cause resentment and, if government commitment to inappropriately set, cause inefficiencies businesss crime (e.g.some forces may have no problem)

35 42 42 41 41 44

44

42

35 35 35 35 42 10 10 33

42

32 32 32 35 35 42

28

10 26 26 26 28 28 10