Evaluation of a hotel burglary project

Transcription

1 Evaluation of a hotel burglary project Rob Mawby Carol Jones Home Office Online Report 16/04 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).

2 Evaluation of a hotel burglary project Professor Rob Mawby and Carol Jones, University of Plymouth Online Report 16/04

3 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Key findings 3 The evaluation 4 3. Intelligence 4 The crime problem 4 4. Interventions 5 5. Implementation 6 Conference aimed at increasing awareness among local hoteliers 6 Information packs and videos 6 Stand-alone alarm system 6 Graded response to burglary victims 6 Crime prevention training module 7 6. Involvement 7 7. Impact 7 Explanation of project impact 8 8. Conclusions 8 References 9 The Reducing Burglary Initiative 10 2

4 1. Introduction This is a summary of research conducted to evaluate a Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI) project that aimed to reduce burglary from visitors to a virtual community of hotels in a town where tourism is a key industry. The project ran from October 2000 to March It is one of 247 projects funded by the Home Office s Reducing Burglary Initiative. The objective was to reduce the level of hotel burglary through target hardening and increasing staff awareness of hotel burglary. A number of lessons can be learnt from this project which could prove useful in informing similar projects in the future. 2. Key findings Between April 1999 and March 2002, 1,226 offences took place in the 450 hotels in the project target area. Fifty per cent of these offences were recorded as burglary dwelling or burglary other. Repeat burglaries were also particularly common. For burglary (other) no less than fourteen hotels in the project area were targeted on at least ten occasions over three years. Overall, 35 per cent of burglaries (other) were committed at fourteen of the 450 hotels. Two-thirds (69%) of the hotels in the target area were aware of the hotel burglary project. Twenty-eight per cent of the hoteliers were aware of a crime reduction conference run by the project and approximately half of these attended. After the project, levels of security were still inadequate in the hotels in a number of respects. Responses from hoteliers suggested that only guest room keys, window locks in guest rooms, and window locks on other windows were provided in a majority of hotels. The provision of a safe for guest use, the securing of keys out of sight and CCTV in reception areas were present in at least a third of hotels. However, hoteliers were asked what, if any, improvements they had made to their security since the start of the project. For only two types of security did more than ten per cent of hotels suggest they had made improvements. This included 16 per cent of hoteliers adding CCTV in their reception area and 11 per cent in public places, such as corridors or restaurants. Overall 26 per cent of the hotels had improved their security, however, these were not all directly as a result of the project. Hoteliers did not consider that hotel burglary was a problem for them or their businesses. Adequately engaging with the hotel owners through a partnership approach would have given the project the potential to increase the hotelier s awareness of the burglary problem. The project did not consider the cost implications for the different hotels in the area. Due to the small size of some of the hotels, they often did not have the finances available to take advantage of the matched funding side of the project. Therefore, a further key factor to the success of the project would have involved tailoring the its aims directly to the needs of the hotel industry, through consideration of the different sizes of hotels. One of the main difficulties faced by the project was the lack of involvement of local tourism representatives. The project was led by the police and there was no pre-existing local partnership structure between the local police and the tourism sector on which to build. A strategic level approach to the project that included a tighter focus on the individual needs of the hotels and a stronger partnership approach could have ensured that the project successfully achieved its aims. 3

5 The evaluation The objectives of the evaluation were to: examine the extent of the problem posed by hotel burglary in the area; assess the appropriateness of the project interventions; explore the implementation of the project, and obstacles faced, in order to develop guidelines for future similar projects. The evaluation involved three key strategies: analysis of local crime statistics; semi-structured interviews with three key groups: council members and officers responsible for tourism; police and partners involved in crime prevention and community safety, with a particular responsibility for this project; and key officials from organisations representing hoteliers; a face-to-face structured interview survey of hoteliers and guesthouse owners: 140 hotel representatives in the target area out of an approximate total of 450 hotels. There has been little research into hotel crime and interventions to reduce the incidence of such crime. Research on crimes against businesses indicates high levels of risk amongst hotels (Gill et al, 1993), and research on the relationship between tourism and crime demonstrates both high crime rates in tourist areas and high levels of risk amongst tourists (Mawby et al, 1999). 3. Intelligence The crime problem In order to put the extent of hotel burglary in the target area in context, data collated by the police were analysed for a three-year period: April 1999 to March All crimes that were coded as taking place in hotels, guesthouses etc. were included. Over the three years, 1,226 offences were recorded. As there were approximately 450 hotels in the area, on average each hotel had experienced 2.7 such incidents. Fifty per cent of the recorded offences in the target area hotels were classified as either burglary (dwelling) (6%) or burglary (other) (44%). Additionally, over a quarter were classified as other theft, some of which may well have been burglaries. The definition of hotel burglary In the context of hotels, the distinction between burglary (dwelling) and burglary (other) is complex. Burglary (dwelling) refers to an offence where either: the burglary is committed against a room or part of the hotel used by the owner; or the burglary is committed against the room of a long-term resident of the hotel, i.e. someone who gives the hotel as a permanent address. Burglary (other) refers to an offence committed against: a guestroom that is unoccupied at the time; a room that is vacant and not habitable at the time. 4

6 Furthermore, repeat burglaries are particularly common against commercial targets and hotels are no exception (Mawby, 2001) For example, 14 hotels in the target area were victims of burglary (other) on at least ten occasions over the three-year period. Put another way, 35 per cent of all burglaries occurred at 14 (3% of) hotels. The most common hotspots were six hotels accounting for 17 per cent of all burglary (other). Nevertheless, hoteliers were not convinced that crime in general, and burglary in particular, were problems, either in the area or for them specifically. They felt that the most negative impacts of tourism were traffic congestion, litter and vandalism, public disorder and alcohol abuse. Drug abuse was the only serious crime cited by many. A significant concern behind the project was the impact it could have on the tourist industry. For example, tourists, perceiving the town as unsafe, might be reluctant to visit or return. Of the hotel representatives responding to the survey, a third considered burglary to be either a very or fairly big problem in the area where their hotel was located. 4. Interventions The bid submitted for this project stressed the importance of partnership work in moving to reduce hotel burglary. It incorporated four interrelated features: A conference, video and information packs to highlight the local burglary problem and increase awareness among local hoteliers of the proposed interventions that formed the project. Stand-alone alarm systems available to hotels, on a temporary basis, that were at high risk of burglary. They would be placed in unoccupied rooms and if someone entered the room an alarm would be activated. A graded response to burglary victims, based on the ten principles of crime prevention, (Anderson et al, 1995), incorporating three grades: (i) (ii) (iii) Hotels burgled more than four times would be classified as Gold. They would receive a crime prevention survey and action plan and be offered up to 2,000 matched funding to improve security. Hotels burgled one to three times would be classified as Silver. They would be sent a self-assessment crime prevention survey and receive a score based on the information provided, with hotels then offered matched funding to carry out improvements. Hotels that had not been burgled would be classified as Bronze and sent a crime prevention information pack. A training module on crime prevention to be incorporated in a Hotel Management NVQ run at a local college, but with the potential for expansion nationally. This would increase understanding of the importance of crime prevention, training and effective management. Taken together, these measures appeared to be an appropriate response to the hotel burglary problem. 5

7 5. Implementation This section discusses the interventions that were implemented in the project area. Conference aimed at increasing awareness among local hoteliers The conference coincided with the Easter holiday period (March 2002), and this may be one reason why attendance was disappointing, with only about 70 hotels represented from the 400 or more identified by the police. A survey showed that a high proportion of hoteliers were aware of the project (69%). Of those hoteliers who were aware of it, 59 per cent knew of the conference (or 41% of all hoteliers who were surveyed). However, only 47 per cent of hoteliers who knew about the conference had attended or sent along a representative. Overwhelmingly, hoteliers cited lack of time themselves or lack of available staff as the reason for non-attendance, with few claiming that crime was not a problem or that they already had adequate security. The minority of respondents who had attended, however, appeared to have gained some additional knowledge. This mainly included: more information on the project itself, including the fact that they may have been eligible for money to improve their hotel security; that hotel burglary was a particular problem in their area; and increased knowledge about different security devices. Information packs and videos Information packs were provided for conference attendees. These gave general crime prevention advice rather than specific advice about hotel crime and had not been specifically written for the project. The video was not available for distribution until after the event and was subsequently sent out to all hotels in mid-2002, along with the information packs for those that had not attended the conference. Stand-alone alarm system Two sets of stand-alone alarm equipment were available in the project area. The aim was to temporarily install the systems into high-risk hotels, for use in rooms that were unoccupied. These appear to have been used in only three hotels. Graded response to burglary victims In relation to the graded response to burglary victims, in the project area, 13 hotels were classified as Gold, and four as Silver. A total of four hotels, including one that reported twenty burglaries (other) did not take up the offer of funding. There was also an issue whereby six hotels who should have been classified as Gold or Silver did not receive any funding. These six hotels experienced 73 burglaries (other) over a three-year period. There was a lack of awareness amongst the hoteliers about the availability of matched funding for security improvements. Just over one third (36%) said that they had known about the funding. The problem with a lack of hotels taking up the offer of extra funding appeared to stem from hoteliers who felt that the project was only targeting the larger hotels. 6

8 As a result of the shortfall in applications for funding, the police carried out a further assessment of high-risk hotels and offered matched funding to a number of these. Twelve of these, reporting 74 burglaries (other) during the three years, subsequently received a total of 4,340. One issue with the graded response is that this naturally biases larger hotels; with more rooms, they are more likely to suffer more burglaries. This system may therefore preclude small hotels, with a burglary problem, from receiving the funding they need. Crime prevention training module The incorporation of the crime prevention training module in the Hotel Management NVQ was delayed but eventually began in September 2002, after the planned end of the project. Though only a small minority of hoteliers (N = 13) were aware of the NVQ, 32 per cent of hoteliers who were informed by the evaluators about the course, said they would be interested in attending. 6. Involvement It is clear that despite the presentation of a partnership model in the original proposal for this project, no effective partnership structure existed. Partners who were informed about the project, but who had little involvement, included the local tourist board, the district council s tourism section, and the local college. One hotel association was closely involved: the police spoke at one of its regular meetings and information was published in its newsletter. However, its chairperson at the time clearly saw the project as one designed by the police rather than a joint project. Most crucially, neither of the other two main organisations representing hotels in the district were involved, and the police were unaware of their existence until the project was underway. The lack of communication was exacerbated by the fact that no representatives from tourism or the hotel industry sat on any district Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) subgroups. Thus, while one meeting was convened prior to the conference, there was no ongoing multi-agency steering group involvement. Discussions with key players from the tourism industry confirmed their lack of formal contact with the police and their lack of policy awareness of crime and disorder issues pertaining to tourism. The district council had no formal policies regarding crime and tourism, and the Head of Tourism and Resort Services considered crime prevention issues to be on the margins of his responsibilities. In general, then, the notion of partnership was absent in the context of tourism-related crime reduction in the target area. There was no official police involvement on the executive of the three hotel associations, and, significantly, crime matters were dealt with on a case by case basis. 7. Impact One of the major concerns behind the project was that security measures adopted by hotels in the area were inadequate. A measure of the impact of the project was the number of improvements made since March Survey respondents were asked what security improvements had been made to their hotel since then. In total, 26 per cent said they had 7

9 improved their security in some way during the project. The extra security measures installed included CCTV in the reception or public areas, adding slots in receptions for returned keys, adding safes to the hotel or providing more security information for guests. Even then, by the end, levels of security were still wanting in a number of respects. Explanation of project impact The evaluators asked the key players involved in the project and representing the tourism sector in the town why they felt the project had not been as successful as hoped. Essentially, their answers centred on the poor take-up from hoteliers. They sought to explain this in terms of either the attitude of the hotel industry or project shortcomings. The reasons for the hoteliers lack of involvement included; their apathy towards crime and disorder; their vested interest in not acknowledging the hotel burglary problem; the high turnover of hotel owners and managers; lack of business resources to provide the matched funding; feeling that graded response was unfair and that it excluded some hotels; and their reluctance to become involved in partnership work. 8. Conclusions This summary has examined some key issues in relation to various agencies working together in partnership, such as the police, the Local Authority and hotel owners in tackling hotel burglary. There was considerable support from these key partners in recognising the key crime reduction principles underpinning this project. When the hoteliers in the target area were asked for their views on how hotel burglary could be reduced, 61 per cent cited responses that were at the heart of the hotel burglary project, namely improved security, vigilance and awareness. Some key learning points from this project show that it is essential for all partners with a vested interest in dealing with the problem of hotel burglary to be identified and to work together. The partners - including, hoteliers, the police, local authority and hotel associations - ideally need to liase through a steering group so that they can meet on a regular basis to discuss key issues. This project also demonstrated that there is a need for each partner to understand each other s business commitments. A crucial point involves agreeing suitable times for each partner to take an active role in key stages of the project. For example, ensuring that hotel owners or key staff are able to attend project meetings. Hotel owners or managers also need to be involved in all stages of the decision making process. Regular communication with hoteliers will help to ensure that they are aware of how the project works and the potential benefits it can offer their businesses. A number of hoteliers did not consider hotel burglary as a problem. To ensure that hoteliers are kept informed the police should ideally liase with hoteliers to discuss any potential risks to their businesses. For example, this could involve giving them advice about any weaknesses in their hotel security. The use of crime statistics and the experiences of other hotels could also be used to convey the message that burglary is a concern and how it can have a direct impact on hotels and their business. Making hotels more liable for guests losses and introducing an accreditation system are possible measures designed to promote involvement. Partnership working within the criminal justice system has generally been built around a core group of agencies, perhaps even a core group of players: police, probation, local government (including social services and housing), and agencies from the voluntary sector representing drug policy, crime victims etc. Agencies representing the tourist industry also need to take an active role, notably in areas where tourism is integral to the local economy. 8

10 References Anderson, D., Chenery, S., and Pease, K. (1995). Biting Back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime. Crime Detection and Prevention Series: Paper No 58, London, Home Office. Gill, M., Salmon, M. and Hill, J. (1993). Crime on holiday, Studies in Crime, Order and Policing, research paper no.1, University of Leicester. Mawby, R. l., Brunt, P. and Hambly, Z. (1999). Victimisation on holiday: a British survey, International Review of Victimology, 6, Mawby, R. I. (2001) Burglary. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. The authors Professor Rob Mawby and Carol Jones are based in the Community Justice Research Centre at the University of Plymouth. Acknowledgement The Crime and Policing Group (RDS) would like to thank Professor Martin Gill, (Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International) for acting as an independent assessor for an earlier version of this report. 9

11 The Reducing Burglary Initiative In 1998 the Home Office announced the Crime Reduction Programme. The programme is intended to develop and implement an integrated approach to reducing crime and making communities safer. The Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI), launched in 1999, was one of the first parts of this programme to commence. The aims of the RBI are to: reduce burglary nationally by targeting areas with the worst domestic burglary problems; evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different approaches; and find out what works best where. Two hundred and forty seven burglary reduction projects have been funded, covering over 2.1million households that suffered around 110,000 burglaries a year. Three distraction burglary projects have also been funded. The evaluation Three consortia of universities have intensively evaluated the first round of 63 RBI projects. A further five projects from subsequent rounds of the RBI (rounds two and three) are also being evaluated. This report is part of a series of studies examining burglary reduction, which have recently been published. Also to be published is a full report on the overall impact and costeffectiveness of Round 1 of the RBI. Another theme to be covered in this series is the delivery of burglary reduction projects. Published reports Early lessons and findings from the Reducing Burglary Initiative have already been published in the following reports, which are available from: Bowers, K., Johnson, S. and Hirschfield, A. (2003). Pushing back the boundaries: new techniques for assessing the impact of burglary schemes, RDS Online Report 24/03, London: Home Office. Bowers, K. J. and Johnson, S. D. (2003). The role of publicity in crime prevention: findings from the Reducing Burglary Initiative, HORS 272, London: Home Office. Curtin, L., Tilley, N., Owen, M. and Pease, K. (2001). Developing Crime Reduction Plans: Some Examples from the Reducing Burglary Initiative, Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 7, London: Home Office. Hedderman, C. and Williams, C. (2001). Making Partnership Work: Emerging Findings from the Reducing Burglary Initiative, RDS Briefing Note 1/01, London: Home Office. Jacobson,.J, Maitland, L. and Hough, M. (2003). The Reducing Burglary Initiative: investigating burglary, Home Office Research Study 264, London: Home Office. Jacobson, J. (2003). The Reducing Burglary Initiative: planning for partnership, RDS Development and Practice Report 4, London: Home Office. Kodz, J. and Pease, K. (2003). Reducing Burglary Initiative: early findings on burglary reduction, Findings 204, London: Home Office. Tilley, N., Pease, K., Hough, M. and Brown, R. (1999). Burglary Prevention: Early Lessons from the Crime Reduction Programme, Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 1, London: Home Office. 10

12 Produced by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office This document is available only in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) through the RDS website Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Communication Development Unit Room Queen Anne s Gate London SW1H 9AT Tel: (answerphone outside of office hours) Fax: publications.rds@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk ISBN Crown copyright 2004