Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative Final Report: January 2005

1.8 MB·English

by  Rick Brown, Evidence Led Solutions, Matt Hopkins, Morgan Harris Burrows, Amanda Cannings, Evidence Led Solutions Stephen Raybould, CRG Research

Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s
New Projects Initiative
Final Report: January 2005:
Technical Annex
January 2005
Rick Brown, Evidence Led Solutions
Matt Hopkins, Morgan Harris Burrows
Amanda Cannings, Evidence Led Solutions
Stephen Raybould, CRG Research
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
Tel: [phone]
Website: www.odpm.gov.uk
© The Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2005.
Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown.
This publication (excluding the Royal Arms and logos) may be reproduced free of
charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not
used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright
with the title and source of the publication specified.
For any other use of this material, please write to HMSO Licensing, St Clements House,
2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: [phone] or e-mail: [email protected].
Further copies of this publication are available from:
ODPM Publications
PO Box 236
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7NB
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: [email protected]
or online via www.odpm.gov.uk
January 2005
Product code: 04 LRGG 02798
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
This study reports on the findings from an evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s
New Projects Initiative (NPI). This programme was launched in England and Wales in
April 2001. Funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the NPI set up projects
designed to tackle arson using a variety of interventions. Between 2001 and 2003, the
NPI funded 45 projects over two rounds of bidding, with an additional round of
projects commencing in 2004. Of these, 31 projects were subsequently evaluated.
METHODOLOGY
The research consisted of three main components:
• A process evaluation, to gain an understanding of what was implemented and
how it was undertaken.
• An impact evaluation, to gain an understanding of the extent to which the
projects were associated with a reduction in arson.
• A cost effectivenessanalysis to assess the costs associated with achieving the
observed impact.
Ten of the 31 evaluated projects were chosen as case studies and these were subjected
to more detailed fieldwork and formed the basis for the process evaluation and cost-
effectiveness analysis.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS
The 31 projects were located in 23 separate brigade areas, which covered every
government region in England and Wales. In general projects set out to address three
distinct problem categories:
• Fires where the targets were specific combustible materials – such as vehicles,
refuse, bonfires and grassland.
• Fires where the targets were specific vulnerable locations – such as schools,
businesses, insecure and derelict buildings.
• Fires where the targets were vulnerable populations- such as ethnic minority
groups.
These problems were addressed through a variety of interventions. Overall, 280
interventions were identified, averaging eight per project. These consisted of 35 distinct
typesof intervention. The most common form of intervention were ‘capacity building’
approaches, that were designed to strengthen the project team and its partner’s ability
3
Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative
to deliver arson reduction activities. Forty three percent of interventions undertaken by
projects were of the capacity building variety.
Awareness raising interventions accounted for 29% of interventions. These involved a
range of approaches, including the printing of leaflets, booklets etc and provision of
advice to a range of organisations. The remaining interventions included those
associated with the removal of fuel, diversion, reducing offending, detection and
situational prevention.
Implementation was generally well executed by projects. By the end of the evaluation
fieldwork, few interventions had failed to get off the drawing board, or had stalled mid
way through implementation.
EXPERIENCES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Strong implementation resulted from a number of factors. Firstly, many projects
devoted considerable effort to scanning and analysis of local arson problems and one
of the by-products of this has been improved data systems and improved data sharing
between agencies.
In setting up projects, implementation was facilitated by strong partnership working
and by strong steering groups in some areas. However, the initial project set-up phase
was hampered in some areas by the time it took to notify projects that funding was
available and by problems associated with the recruitment of suitable staff.
Once implementation commenced, projects were facilitated by a clear focus on specific
arson problems and many avoided the ‘scatter-gun’ approach in which limited
resources were spread too thinly. Furthermore, the fact that many projects used
funding to employ or second dedicated staff was probably a key factor in
implementation success as this allowed the team to focus on the project without the
distraction of other areas of work. However, there appeared to be a need for a balance
between funding staff and making sufficient funds available for the day-to-day running
of projects. In some cases, a lack of funds meant that additional fund-raising was
necessary.
IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME
The New Projects Initiative was associated with a high degree of impact. Projects were
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with different types of analysis being undertaken
dependent on the types of fire tackled and on the method of implementation. A
summation of the individual project impacts indicated that 22 (out of the 24 examined)
were associated with a positive impact.
Analysis of total deliberate primary fires revealed that there were between 1,046 and
4,251 fewer fires as a result of the 14 projects that had an impact on this type of
problem.
Where deliberate primary vehicle fires were concerned, the impact analysis suggested
that there were between 672 and 2,690 fewer incidents following intervention among
the 15 projects that showed an impact.
Executive Summary
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Analysis of the costs associated with the ten case studies revealed that the funding
provided by the NPI was a relatively small proportion of the total cost of projects,
accounting for approximately one third of all costs.
A breakdown of how costs were distributed showed that start-up costs were very low.
On average, only 5% of the costs were associated with the start-up phase. This suggests
that most of the costs are on-going and means that continued implementation of
projects will require on-going funding. Over half of the costs were associated with staff
salary costs, which underlines the focus of expenditure on employing staff, rather than
on ‘working-capital’ associated with the day-to-day running of projects.
Where cost-savings were concerned, analysis of four case studies found to reduce
deliberate fires were estimated to have saved between £2.40 and £33.20 for every £1
invested. Extrapolating the results to the 14 projects (including non-case study
projects) that showed a reduction in total deliberate primary fires resulted in a net
saving of between £19.6 million and £94.4 million for the projects concerned.
CONCLUSIONS
The Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative would appear to have been well
implemented and associated with significant reductions in the level of arson across a
wide range of projects. As such, there is merit in continuing to fund projects in this
way.
5
Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative
6
Contents
SECTION 1
Introduction 9
SECTION 2
Description of the projects 16
SECTION 3
Experiences of implementing projects 26
SECTION 4
Impact of projects 32
SECTION 5
Cost effectiveness 38
SECTION 6
Conclusions and recommendations 46
REFERENCES 49
ANNEX A
Project Summaries (Non-Case Study Sites) 50
ANNEX B
Case study descriptions 74
ANNEX C
Impact Analysis of individual Projects 145
ANNEX D
Cost Analysis for Case Study Sites 256
7
Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative
8
SECTION 1
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of arson incidents
recorded by the Fire Service in the UK. Between 1991 and 2001 (the latest figures
available) the number of malicious1incidents increased by 78%, from 69,300 to
123,200.
In response to the growing problem, the Home Office2commissioned the Arson
Scoping Study (1999)3. The key result of the scoping study was the establishment of the
Arson Control Forum (ACF) in October 2000. This was established upon the
recommendation that a central strategic agency should be formed to direct efforts to
combat arson.
In April 2001, the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative (NPI) was launched in
England and Wales. Funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the NPI set up
projects designed to tackle arson using a variety of interventions. Between 2001 and
2003, the NPI funded 45 projects over two rounds of bidding, with an additional round
of projects commencing in 2004.
This report provides an evaluation of the 45 projects funded under the first two rounds
of the New Projects Initiative (April 2001 and 2002). It provides a description of the
projects undertaken, comments on the process of implementing projects, examines the
impact and assesses the cost effectiveness of the projects.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON ARSON
While there has been a great deal of literature produced on arson (see, for example,
Edmunds, (1978), Prins et al(1985) and Barker, (1994)) most of this has concentrated
on the characteristics and motivations of the perpetrator, rather than on examining
methods of tackling the problem. Among those that have dealt with arson reduction
initiatives are Burrows et al(1992) study of arson in schools, a study of Newcastle
Arson Task Force by Marsh (2000), and Canter and Almonds’ (2002) review of arson
reduction interventions.
Burrows et al’s(1992) study was initiated to gauge the prevalence of arson in schools,
to document what schools and Education Authorities were doing to prevent such fires
and provide guidance on the direction and shape of future preventive strategies. The
results of the study were based upon the findings of interviews with 450 schools. The
study found that 17% of schools experienced at least one incident of fire per year,
1 The term ‘malicious’ in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Fire Statistics report includes malicious and deliberate
fires. Through out this report, the term deliberate will be used as a preference to ‘malicious’.
2 Responsibility for the Fire Service now sits with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).
3 Home Office (1999)
9
Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative
around four in ten incidents were not reported to the fire brigade and it was suspected
that around 71% of incidents were started deliberately. The report also examined the
precautions taken by schools to prevent arson and made recommendations for the
prevention of arson. The survey suggested that schools tended to underestimate the
risk of arson, the provision of prevention measures was ‘patchy overall’ and that little
advice about prevention was given by the fire brigade or police.
Marsh (2000) evaluated the effectiveness of the Newcastle Arson Task Force – a multi-
agency partnership approach dedicated to reducing the incidence of arson. This
showed that in the task force area there was a significant reduction in deliberate fires in
property and those involving litter, refuse and derelict furniture compared with an
increase in the whole Tyne and Wear area. The Newcastle task force subsequently
became a model for a number of similar task forces developed through the New
Projects Initiative.
The publications by Burrows et al(1992) and Marsh (2000) reported on projects that
had been implemented to reduce arson. A more recent report by Canter and Almond
(2002) highlighted the need to further understand offender motivation and the types of
property likely to be targeted by offenders if effective strategies for the reduction of
arson are to be established. Drawing on existing research they suggested four types of
motivation:
• Youth Disorder (curiosity and vandalism)
• Malicious Intent (fire as a weapon and revenge)
• Emotional Expression (means of communication)
• Criminal Action (to cover another crime or fraud).
Canter and Almond suggested a number of potential interventions to prevent / reduce
arson. These included:
1) Interventions concerning arsonist / potential arsonist. These included
education, counselling, treatment and increasing detection and conviction (these
were broken down and discussed with reference to types of motivation).
2) Target hardening. These included the removal of fuel (i.e. cars, litter), a focus
towards discouraging minor disorder (i.e. to halt the decay cycle4and prevent
escalation to arson attacks), a concentration on ‘secured by design’ and an
increase in guidance available for individuals.
The authors also commented on the lack of research regarding existing intervention
schemes, stating it is “noticeable that very few approaches are systematically monitored
or evaluated”(p.19). They called for further research specifically focusing on
determining the nature and extent of fire-setting and its associated criminal activity, the
motivation of the young to start fires (including their ‘natural’ fascination), fraudulent
arson, prediction / risk factors (with reference to offenders) and evaluation of
initiatives aimed at tackling arson.
The introduction of the Arson Control Forum’s New Projects Initiative addresses these
issues by funding projects that tackle the problem through situational prevention
methods as well as projects that address the behaviour of those involved in committing
arson. The following pages examine the findings from the evaluation of these projects.
4 Wilson & Kelling (1982)
10