Guidance

Safer Streets Fund round 4 application process (accessible version)

Updated 8 August 2022

© Crown copyright 2022

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safer-streets-fund-round-4-application-process/safer-streets-fund-round-4-application-process-accessible-version

March 2022

Safer Streets Fund

Protecting Public Spaces 2022-24

1. Introduction and background

1.1 The Government is clear that everyone in this country should have the security and confidence that comes from having a safe street and a safe home, and this is central to the mission of levelling up. The Government’s strategic approach to cutting crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB), reducing the number of victims of crime, and making the country safer is set out in the Beating Crime Plan. This plan shows how we will focus our efforts on ‘hotspot’ areas where crimes are disproportionately concentrated; the Safer Streets Fund forms a key part of this approach in supporting local areas.

1.2 The first, £25 million, round of the Safer Streets Fund, which ran over 2020/21, was introduced as a manifesto commitment designed to deliver well-evidenced crime prevention activity in areas disproportionately and persistently impacted by acquisitive crimes such as burglary, robbery and theft. This round provided funding to 35 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to invest in a range physical, situational crime prevention measures, such as alleygating, CCTV, street lighting and home security, across 52 high crime areas in England and Wales. The second, £20 million of the Safer Streets Fund, running over 2021/22, builds closely on the first round, but allowed investment into a wider range of areas, such as commercial zones, and allowed local authorities to lead bids, in recognition of the core role they play in community safety. This round supports 50 projects across England and Wales to invest in areas with high levels of neighbourhood crimes like burglary and vehicle crime, through both physical and community-based interventions.

1.3 The third, £25 million round of funding expanded beyond acquisitive and neighbourhood crime to focus on improving public safety for all, with an emphasis on women and girls’ safety and feelings of safety in public places. The third round supports 57 projects across England and Wales over 2021/22 to introduce measures such as improved CCTV and streetlighting as well as educational initiatives to change attitudes and influence behaviour. The ambition of tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) in public was shared with the £5 million Safety of Women at Night Fund (SWaN), which supports initiatives to target potential perpetrators and protect victims, including in and around night-time economy establishments, through 22 projects over 2021/22. A key aim for both these funds is to build the evidence base around VAWG in public spaces to inform future policy and funding decisions.

1.4 The fourth round of funding is an innovative initiative that will combine and expand previous focuses of the Safer Streets Fund and the SWaN Fund through targeting neighbourhood crime, VAWG and ASB. Bidders can choose which crime or issue type, or combination of crimes and issues, to focus on based on their understanding of local needs.

1.5 Tackling neighbourhood crime is core to the Safer Streets Fund, as we know these crimes occur in high volumes and can be extremely intrusive and upsetting to victims. In addition, there is compelling evidence they can be prevented through simple, sustainable interventions. The coronavirus pandemic has contributed to a substantial suppression in neighbourhood crime as there have been reduced opportunities for theft due to government restrictions. In the latest period, neighbourhood crime has fallen to 1.51m incidents in the year ending September 2021, which equates to a 30% decrease compared to the year ending September 2019[footnote 1]. Police recorded crime data – which is more up to date - shows levels of neighbourhood crime are starting to bounce back following the easing of restrictions; however, levels are still significantly below pre-pandemic levels.

1.6 The Safer Streets Fund will retain its focus on VAWG introduced in the third round and will incorporate the focus of the related SWaN Fund. Tackling VAWG is a Government priority, and we know women are disproportionately likely to experience certain crime types; for example, they are around four times more likely than men to experience a sexual assault. According to the 2019/20 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), 2.9% of women aged 16 to 74 and 0.7% of men aged 16 to 74 were estimated to be victims of sexual assault in the last year[footnote 2]. The Office for National Statistics reported that between 2 and 27 June 2021, one in two women and one in seven men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a quiet street near their home according to their Opinions and Lifestyle Survey. Moreover, two out of three women aged 16 to 34 years experienced one form of harassment in the previous 12 months, with 44% of women aged 16 to 34 years having experienced catcalls, whistles, unwanted sexual comments or jokes, and 29% having felt like they were being followed[footnote 3]. While only a small proportion of sexual assaults are recorded as taking place in public[footnote 4], the Government is clear all such crimes are completely unacceptable and is committed to acting against them in public, as well as private spaces.

1.7 It is important to note that ‘violence against women and girls’ is an umbrella term which encompasses acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately, but not exclusively, affect women and girls. Crimes and behaviours covered by this term can include sexual offences, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse, up-skirting, female genital mutilation, forced marriage as well as many others. They can have a profound and long-lasting impact on victims and have absolutely no place in our society. Many groups can be affected by these crimes, including men and boys, transgender people, those who identify as non-binary, deaf and disabled people and others, and bidders are encouraged to consult diversely to inform their bids.

1.8 Round Four of the Safer Streets Fund is just one part of a wider Government effort to tackle VAWG. On July 21 we published our new cross-Government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy to help ensure women and girls are safe everywhere - at home, online and on the streets. We are committing to radically changing how we end VAWG with a whole system approach focusing on: prioritising prevention, supporting survivors, pursuing perpetrators, underpinned by a stronger system. For the first time, our Strategy has been shaped by the public’s views – we ran a national Call for Evidence on Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls which received an unprecedented 180,000 responses and highlighted numerous issues the Government is determined to address.

1.9 In the coming months, we will also publish a strategy dedicated to tackling domestic abuse. It will be informed by the 180,000 responses we received to our Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Call for Evidence. The strategy will seek to transform the whole of society’s response to domestic abuse in order to prevent offending, support victims and pursue perpetrators, as well as to strengthen the systems in place needed to deliver these goals. The strategy will seek to build on the spotlight the pandemic has shone on domestic abuse, putting it front and centre of the public’s conscience, to make tackling it everyone’s business. The Domestic Abuse Strategy will also be closely aligned to complement the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy mentioned above, following a similar structure and style.

1.10 The Government made clear we are committed to tackling ASB by featuring it prominently in the Beating Crime Plan. While ASB has been a secondary focus of many Safer Streets bids in previous rounds of funding, ASB is included as a primary focus in this round of the Safer Streets Fund. This will help local agencies to prevent and tackle an issue which we know can blight communities, have a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of individuals, and ruin the enjoyment of, and feelings of safety within, public spaces. ASB is a symptom of, and can contribute to, the social and economic decline of neighbourhoods. It can be an indicator of, and in some instances lead to, more serious forms of crime. A recent review found that globally there was a significant association between socio-economic status and ASB. Some research has suggested that houses in streets with higher levels of ASB, even when measured through environmental forms of ASB (the presence of graffiti and / or litter), have a higher risk of being subject to acquisitive crimes. ASB accounted for 28% of total police recorded crime in year ending September 2021, with around 1.7 million incidents recorded. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), public perceptions of ASB have shown an increase over the last five years, with 40% of adults aged 16 and over experiencing ASB in their local area in 2019/20, from 27% in 2014/15.

1.11 By widening the targeted scope of bids, incorporating features from the SWaN Fund, and including ASB, we hope to achieve a series of aims which we believe to be common amongst them. This includes increased feelings of safety and community ownership, increased community cohesion, increased community trust in police and local government, levelling up and crime prevention. The evidence base of what works to tackle VAWG in public spaces and ASB and is not currently well-developed, and one of the goals of the Fund is to is to trial approaches to build evidence of what is successful in preventing and deterring these offences.

2. Overview of the fourth round of Safer Streets Funding

2.1 Below is a summary of the key elements of Round Four of the Safer Streets Fund, though bidders are asked to read the prospectus in full before developing proposals. The design of the fourth round has been influenced by lessons learnt and feedback from previous rounds of the Fund.

  • Timescales: Round Four will run across the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years, with the final delivery deadline for Home Office funded activity being 30 September 2023. HM Treasury rules on annual spending still apply: Government funds awarded for the 2022/23 financial year must be spent by March 2023. See section ‘3.f’ for further information.
  • Bidder eligibility: Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), local authorities (LAs), the British Transport Police (BTP), and certain Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are eligible to lead bids. PCCs are allowed four prioritised bids per PCC geographic region and may delegate any number of these bids to LAs. LA bids must be co-ordinated and prioritised by the relevant PCC. CSOs are allowed one bid per organisation and are strongly encouraged to consult with their local PCC regarding their bid to avoid duplication. Further detail is at section ‘3.a’.
  • Maximum bid amount: The maximum bid amount is £750,000 over the entire delivery period, ending 30 September 2023. Bidders may bid for up to £500,000 in the first financial year, 2022/23, which must be spent by 31 March 2023, and may bid for up to £250,000 to spend between April and 30 September 2023. Funds cannot be transferred between financial years as per HM Treasury regulations. Bidders may choose to bid for funding for only one financial year.
  • Matched funding: There is a mandatory 50% matched funding requirement for PCCs, LAs and the BTP; this must be spent over the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years and reported to the Home Office. Further detail is at section ‘3.e’.
  • Target crime/issue types: bidders may choose to target neighbourhood crimes (domestic burglary, robbery, theft from person, vehicle crime), ASB, VAWG in public places, improving feelings of safety from VAWG or ASB, or a combination of these crime types and issues. Further detail is at section ‘3.h’.
  • Area requirements: bidders must tackle a defined geographic area which they have evidence is disproportionately impacted by the crime or issue type/s they are targeting with the bid. Further detail is at section ‘3.c’.
  • No mandatory crime benchmark: bidders are not required to demonstrate that their target area meets a certain level of crime. However, those targeting neighbourhood crime are strongly encouraged to use crime benchmarks to justify their chosen target area. Those targeting ASB and VAWG are asked to seek out and use the best data and evidence available to demonstrate their target area is disproportionately impacted by the crimes or issues targeted. Further information is at paragraph 3.22, with supporting resources at Annex A.
  • Consultation requirements: bidders must consult with relevant local and/or national organisations to inform bid development. Bidders are also strongly encouraged to carry out a public survey of the affected area(s). Further detail is at section ‘3.d’.
  • Eligible activity: bidders must propose interventions intended to prevent the primary crime and issue types outlined, with the aim of showing some impact within the delivery timeline. Bidders should use the resources such as the Safer Streets Fund toolkit to help determine which interventions are most likely to make an impact on the target crimes or issues. Where evidence is more limited for what interventions may be effective, bidders are encouraged to propose innovative interventions so long as there is a strong rationale for why the approach could be impactful. Examples of activity in scope are provided in section ‘3.b’.
  • What activity we can’t fund: interventions that would take longer than the delivery period to implement, unless funding is secured for future years; replacing funding for activity already underway (although continuation of SWaN and SSF Round Three projects is in scope); activity primarily targeting crime types or issues that are not outlined as primary objectives. Please see further information at sections ‘3.b’ and ‘3.h’.
  • Supporting information and resources: provided at Annex A are resources and information to help bidders understand more about the target crime types, selecting target areas, and which interventions may be most effective. Bidders are encouraged to view the updated Safer Streets Fund toolkit.
  • Evaluation: successful bidders must agree to work with the independent evaluator for the Fund. Further information is at section ‘3.g’.
  • Assessment: bids can be entered in one of four competitions dependent on the level of priority. Bids in the first competition will be assessed first and if funding remains, assessors will move onto subsequent competitions. Further detail on assessment is provided in the separate application form and the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ document.
  • Problem-solving approach: bidders are expected to employ a problem-solving approach to proposals. This is an approach to tackling crime and disorder that involves the identification of a specific problem, thorough analysis to understand the problem, and the development of a tailored response.

2.2 The key objectives of the fourth round of funding are:

  • Reduce neighbourhood crimes (burglary, robbery, theft from person, vehicle crime).
  • Reduce ASB incidents, making individuals and communities safer.
  • Change attitudes and behaviours towards VAWG in public places, with the long-term goal of reducing VAWG crimes and disorder in public. However, for VAWG and ASB, it should be noted that increased reporting of some crimes or issues could be seen as a positive outcome.
  • Improve feelings of safety for everyone within the community, in particular women and girls’ feelings of safety in public spaces and the night-time economy.
  • Make local areas safer and reduce demand on the police to focus on higher harm crimes.
  • Increase local area trust in Policing and local Government and their activities within the community.
  • Build the evidence base for what works on reducing neighbourhood crimes and ASB and for changing attitudes and behaviours in relation to VAWG in the public domain.

2.3 Secondary objectives for the Fund are to:

  • Grow local capability, and increase community ownership, to undertake data driven problem solving and capture evidence and practical learning about how best to implement interventions to prevent crime. • Understand secondary crime benefits associated with preventing and reducing neighbourhood crime, VAWG and ASB.
  • Improve the national and local data picture regarding neighbourhood crime, ASB, and VAWG in public spaces.
  • Improve awareness of the ASB tools and powers from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

3. Eligibility and Criteria

a) Bidder Eligibility

3.1 Those eligible to lead bids for the fourth round of funding and number of bids permitted:

Eligible bidders Number of bids permitted
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) Four prioritised bids per PCC area. Any number of these bids may be delegated to LAs within the area.
Local authorities (LAs) Four bids per LA, but each LA-led bid requires sign off and prioritisation by the relevant PCC.
The British Transport Police (BTP) Four self-prioritised bids across BTP’s network of England and Wales.
Eligible Civil society organisations (CSOs) (explanation of eligibility for CSOs at paragraph 3.5) One bid per organisation (though CSOs are strongly encouraged to work in partnership with other CSOs in the same area to ensure maximum benefits for the local community; one organisation must be the lead bidder).

3.2 LAs, PCCs, the BTP and eligible CSOs are permitted to lead bids for this round of funding, reflecting the importance of their roles in both community safety and crime and ASB prevention. Partnership working is integral to all bids and information about this is laid out further at section ‘3.d’.

3.3 PCCs and LAs: to avoid duplication and ensure coordination of funding applications locally for PCC and LA bidders, there will be a limit of up to four prioritised bids per PCC area, regardless of the lead bidder. PCCs and LAs within their area must co-ordinate and work closely together, deciding which organisation will ‘lead’ each bid. Any bid led by a LA will require the endorsement and written sign off from the relevant local PCC. PCCs will have the final decision on the prioritisation of these bids, reflecting their responsibility for the totality of policing in their area. Whilst this is only required of LA led bids, we expect all bids to be made in partnership and this should be clearly evidenced in your bid.

3.4 BTP can submit up to four prioritised bids for funding across their coverage of England and Wales due to information regarding the prevalence of VAWG on public transport. BTP should engage with PCCs, LAs and other agencies that operate within the locations selected, but PCCs and LAs should be aware they will not lead these bids, nor receive funding for them. Given its different area of responsibility, the BTP may propose up to four self-prioritised bids across England and Wales, regardless of whether the areas chosen are areas in which PCCs and LAs are already proposing bids.

3.5 CSOs are permitted to make one bid per organisation. While CSOs are not required to provide PCC sign off for bids, they are strongly encouraged to engage with their local PCC to avoid duplication and ensure co-ordination between bids. As with other bidders, CSOs placing a bid should work closely with other agencies in the area where appropriate, such as other CSOs, LAs and CSPs to build a strong evidence-base about local levels of crime. They are advised to work with other CSOs in the area and work on one joint bid to maximise the positive impact for the community, with one CSO as lead. To be eligible to bid, the lead CSO must provide certain information alongside their application, as detailed in the separate application form at Parts C and D. It is expected that most eligible CSOs will be able to confirm the following points:

  • They are a registered charity, a regulated ‘exempt charity’, a charitable incorporated organisation or a social enterprise;
  • They have been established for at least two years;
  • The amount of funding sought does not represent more than 50% of annual turnover for that financial year; and
  • The bid should result in a wide community impact. As an indication, bidders in previous rounds of the Fund have been advised to target areas of between 500 and 3,500 households (or 1,000 to 9,000 residents), which corresponds approximately to between one and three Lower Super Output Areas (see Annex A for further information on LSOAs). However, this will depend on the amount of funding requested and the rationale provided for the proposals.

b) Eligible Activity – What we will fund

3.6 Bidders may take forward interventions to:

  • Reduce neighbourhood crime: domestic burglary, robbery, theft from person, vehicle crime (further information at section 3.39)
  • Reduce ASB (further information at section 3.41)
  • Reduce VAWG in public spaces (further information at section 3.44)
  • Increase feelings of safety from VAWG and / or ASB in public places.
  • A combination of the above.

Bidders should outline as part of their application other types of crimes that may be impacted by the proposed interventions, such as wider acquisitive crime.

3.7 Bidders should choose interventions which should have some demonstrable impact within the designated delivery period ending 30 September 2023, though longer-term impacts will also be evaluated. For VAWG in public spaces, demonstrable impact could be in changed attitudes towards VAWG, or increased reporting of, or confidence to report, certain crime types or issues.

3.8 When targeting any of the crime types or issues in scope, bidders should aim to propose interventions that have the best chance of making an impact through consulting available evidence. See Annex A for supporting information.

3.9 For neighbourhood crimes, given the strength of available evidence, bidders are encouraged to take forward situational interventions that can be sustained beyond the funding period and bidders are asked to consult the Safer Streets Fund Toolkit to help determine which interventions are most likely to have an impact on the problems they are facing, while using local knowledge to complement this. Bidders are not mandated to spend a proportion of their funding on capital purchases and one-off physical interventions. Example interventions to target neighbourhood crime could include:

  • Improved streetlighting to target burglary and robbery.
  • Alley gating to target burglary, where the necessary consultation can be achieved within the timescales.
  • Improved home security for properties that are at risk of repeat burglary.
  • CCTV where ongoing costs can be maintained. The SSF toolkit finds evidence that CCTV may be particularly effective in car parks to prevent vehicle crime.

3.10 For bidders targeting VAWG in public spaces/improving feelings of safety in relation to VAWG, we acknowledge that evidence is more limited on which interventions will have the intended impact. Bidders are asked to make every effort to seek out and make use of the best evidence to understand the problems in their target area and which interventions are most likely to make an impact in addressing these issues. They are also encouraged to test innovative proposals if they have a strong rationale for why they will have the desired impact. As noted, VAWG is an umbrella term referring to crimes and issues that primarily impact women and girls, such as sexual crimes. Bidders must, however, give due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty when developing proposals and are expected to consult with a diverse range of groups to inform their bids. They may propose activity that targets groups with a protected characteristic other than women and girls (e.g. LGBT community, men and boys), should they have information that these groups are particularly impacted by VAWG in a particular area. Annex A provides suggested resources that bidders may wish to consult when developing bids and further information on targeting VAWG is at 3.44. Example interventions to target VAWG/improve feelings of safety could include:

  • Educational products and programmes focusing on attitudinal change and awareness raising to prevent street harassment.
  • Bystander interventions. Bystander action refers to actions taken by a person (or persons) not directly involved as subject(s) or perpetrator of violence against women to identify, speak out about or seek to engage others in responding to violence.
  • Guardianship initiatives. Guardians are ‘everyday citizens who are present when an offender in search of crime opportunities intersects with a potential crime target’, their presence increasing risk and therefore reducing opportunities for a crime to occur.
  • A combination of measures, such as CCTV and streetlighting, or improving visibility and staffing, as studies have suggested that combining measures is more effective than one singular intervention.
  • Policing interventions such as the deployment of officers in public spaces/NTE areas to target predatory behaviour and protect and support potential victims.
  • The use of safe spaces in public spaces/NTE areas to provide support to individuals and potential victims.

Bidders are asked to consider interventions that put the emphasis on potential perpetrators of VAWG to change their behaviour in the first instance, rather than asking potential victims to change their behaviour to avoid VAWG, although it will be for local areas to determine the needs and wants of the local community.

3.11 For bidders targeting ASB and feelings of safety in relation to ASB, bidders are also asked to make every effort to seek out and present within their bids the best evidence of the problems in their target area and which interventions are most likely to make an impact in addressing these issues. Bidders are encouraged to consult the updated Safer Streets Fund Toolkit and other relevant sources (explained at 5.19). We encourage bidders to consider how they might use any of the ASB powers from the Anti-social, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the ‘2014 Act’) as part of their projects. For example, bids are welcomed that look at the training of practitioners in using the powers available to them through the ‘2014 Act’, including on effective processes for the Community Trigger, should this be something that the bidder would then continue funding once Government funding ends. Innovative interventions relating to community-based projects are encouraged to build the evidence base of what works to tackle ASB, provided there is a strong rationale for why this could be effective. Bidders are encouraged to consider behavioural change, impact awareness raising and community cohesion interventions, such as ASB and community safety educational campaigns within education settings and community organisations in areas that suffer through high levels of ASB. Further information on targeting ASB is at section 3.41, with supporting resources at Annex A. Example interventions to target ASB could include:

  • Educational products and programmes focusing on attitudinal and behavioural change and awareness of the impacts of ASB on the local community and victims (including those with the aim of reducing prejudice);
  • Training young people to become advocates or ambassadors in tackling ASB, promoting inclusive and positive environments in their schools;
  • Marketing campaigns about ASB and public safety (including raising awareness of how to report ASB and the mechanisms available to victims of ASB, such as the Community Trigger);
  • Situational interventions (e.g. alleygating, CCTV, anti-graffiti);
  • Diversionary activities – engaging individuals in community programmes before they commit ASB and other crimes, such as youth services projects and activities to stop offences; for example, community workshops, legal graffiti walls and mural projects have been used to stop graffiti offences;
  • Social Impact Stencils - stencilling spots where fly-tipping (or other ASB activity) has taken place with messaging about drawing community resources away from essential services;
  • Enhancing local awareness of, and use of, restorative justice practices to increase community cohesion and avoid potential reoffending (including strengthening local Community Remedy processes);
  • Making improvements to how the local preventative powers from the Anti-social, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are being used, including to the processes used for the Community Trigger;
  • Improved security for properties and estates that are at risk of repeated ASB.

3.12 For all crime and issue types, engagement, buy-in and acceptance of communities in the interventions undertaken is a critical factor contributing to the outcomes of the Fund and we ask that bids include community focused elements. This could include, but is not limited to:

  • Funding the training, support and mentoring of a community organiser or community group/local organisation to work with a community to undertake and organise action on local priorities.
  • Funding for community groups to undertake crime and ASB prevention activity (such as engagement events, distributing prevention advice and communication campaigns).
  • Funding to increase community support for physical changes in an area – e.g. a community garden in a park that has had increased security installed.

3.13 Public Sector Equality Duty: when developing proposals, bidders should ensure they give due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out at section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Administration costs

3.14 We acknowledge the success of local plans depends on the quality of implementation. As a result, we encourage bidders to only use up to 7% of the grant funding awarded to fund indirect administration costs. This can be used to fund posts to oversee implementation of the Safer Streets plan and bidders are required to confirm the percentage of the overall budget as part of the bid. Safer Streets funding should not be used to replace funding for existing posts or activity, although funding can be used to expand or improve existing work. Should bidders choose to recruit for posts to support delivery of the objectives, they should note this funding is for the 2022/23 financial year and up to September 2023 in the 2023/24 financial year only; any future costs beyond the funded period must be met by bidders.

3.15 If a post is being used directly for the purposes of delivering an intervention (e.g. undertaking environmental assessments to allow for installations or delivering crime prevention advice) then it would not be classified as an indirect cost and would not be subject to the 7% target figure.

Ineligible expenditure

3.16 The Safer Streets Fund Grant Agreement will contain information on ineligible expenditure that pertains to all forms of grant funding.

3.17 To ensure the Fund delivers its objectives, there are certain types of crime prevention activity that cannot be funded by the Safer Streets Fund grant:

  • Activity that cannot be completed by 30 September 2023 (unless there is funding secured for future years).
  • Replacing funding for work that is already underway, although funding can be used to expand or improve existing work.
  • Activity that is not aimed at targeting the primary objectives of the fund (i.e. activity that is not primarily preventative or activity that does not firstly target the key crime or issue types outlined).

c) Area eligibility – Where we will fund

3.18 Bidders must select areas which have a defined and sensible geography and are hotspots for the crime types or issues targeted. For bidders targeting neighbourhood crime, we strongly encourage the use of crime benchmarks to demonstrate the target areas are hotspot locations. Areas targeted can be commercial, residential, or rural, so long as the appropriate crime types or issues are targeted. Further examples of the types of areas eligible are provided below. As an indication of appropriate population size to target, bidders in previous rounds of the Fund have been advised to target areas of between 500 and 3,500 households (or 1,000 to 9,000 residents), which corresponds approximately to between one and three Lower Super Output Areas (see Annex A for further information on LSOAs).

3.19 Defined Geography: all selected areas must have a clearly defined geography. For consistency and to facilitate evaluation, we ask all areas provide Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) as the basis of their selected geography; guidance on LSOAs is provided at Annex A. We understand, however, this may not always reflect the realities on the ground – e.g. where a locally recognised area crosses multiple LSOA boundaries. Where this is the case, we ask bidders to provide a map defining geographical boundaries, as well as providing the LSOA/s. Areas covered by a single bid do not have to be ‘coterminous’ (adjoined on a map) provided there is a clear and sensible rationale for why they are included. For example, if a lead bidder wanted to make a single bid that covers more than one small, disparate rural community, impacted by the same crime types or issues for similar reasons, they would be able to do so.

3.20 Public and private spaces: bidders may target public places – the parts of a village, town or city (whether publicly or privately owned) that are available for everyone to use, free of charge, including roads, streets, squares and parks, and including rural settings. For the purpose of BTP inclusion, interventions on public transport, where a charge for use would be applied, will also be in scope. In addition, the inside of NTE venues, where a charge to enter may be applied, are also in scope. Private spaces may also be targeted where there is an appropriate rationale, so long as the primary objectives of the funding are met.

Example spaces that would be appropriate to target are:

  • Private properties, for target hardening interventions to prevent burglary
  • Streets, residential and non-residential
  • High streets and other commercial areas
  • City, town, and village centres
  • Night-Time Economy (NTE) [footnote 5] public areas to tackle VAWG related activity, such as the inside of NTE venues.
  • Routes home from NTE venues.
  • Public transport hubs (train stations, bus stations, taxi ranks).
  • Car parks.
  • University, school, or college campuses.
  • Communal entranceways and hallways (e.g. into a block of flats).
  • On public transport (e.g. trains, buses)

3.21 The following areas are not in scope:

  • Offices and other workplaces.
  • Online spaces (e.g. facilitating online harassment)
  • Inside commercial establishments (which are not related to the NTE).

3.22 Hotspot approach: bidders must provide evidence that their chosen area or areas for interventions are disproportionally and persistently impacted by the crime or issue types targeted. For all crime types, bidders should make every effort to seek out and employ the best data and evidence available to make the case for why their chosen area should be targeted and why funding will have the greatest impact. The mandatory consultation requirements described at section ‘3.d’ should help inform this through demonstrating support from the community and local organisations to target the chosen area.

  • Meeting crime benchmarks is not mandatory for this round of funding, as it was for Rounds One and Two of the Safer Streets Fund. However, if targeting neighbourhood crime, we strongly encourage areas to make use of crime benchmarks in the ‘scanning and analysis’ part of their application form to justify why the chosen area requires intervention.
  • Please see Annex A for further information about crime benchmarks.

3.23 Environmental Visual Audit: bidders are strongly encouraged, but not mandated, to conduct an Environmental Visual Audit (EVA) to complement their bid. An Environmental Visual Audit (EVA) is when the police, community members and other agencies carry out a walk-through together of a site to identify crime and disorder issues and opportunities to prevent these through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. Details of police Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs) who can assist in the conducting of an EVA can be found here, and a template EVA with further explanation is downloadable via the Jaggaer portal. EVAs will not be scored but can be submitted alongside bids to provide additional context to their bid. These may be of particular use for those areas targeting neighbourhood crime and/or ASB. Assessors should be able to understand the bid’s rationale without reading the EVA.

3.24 Commercial, residential and rural areas: bidders can target activity in any ‘category’ of area, such as commercial zones, retail zones, NTE hubs, residential areas, and rural areas.

3.25 Repeat funding: areas which received funding for Safer Streets Fund Round Three and the SWaN Fund are eligible to apply for funding for the same areas/interventions from this fourth round of funding. This is in recognition that the SWaN and Safer Streets Round Three projects had a limited delivery window during 2021/22.

d) Consultation requirements and partnership working

3.26 Mandatory consultation with relevant organisations: all bidders - regardless of whether they are PCCs, LAs, or CSOs - must demonstrate they have consulted with at least two local or national organisations with relevant expertise for the crime or issue type/s they wish to address to be eligible for funding. It is strongly advised to engage with more organisations. For example, for a bidder targeting VAWG, relevant organisations could include third sector VAWG organisations or bodies with responsibility for groups of women and girls such as schools and universities. Bidders are encouraged to draw on their existing relationships with local VAWG services and are reminded that VAWG stakeholders can include groups that seek to protect groups other than women, such as male victims, from VAWG. For an ASB-focused bid, housing associations and providers and local CSOs could be appropriate for consultation. Community Safety Partnerships are also recommended to ensure a full range of expertise. These examples are not exhaustive.

3.27 Public survey: bidders are also strongly encouraged to conduct public surveys of areas to inform their understanding of local issues, community concerns, and which areas to target. Bidders are reminded of their Public Sector Equality Duty when conducting public consultation. Additionally, bidders are strongly encouraged to conduct a follow up survey as part of their own impact monitoring for interventions, following implementation.

Partnership working and commissioning arrangements

3.28 For all crime types and issues targeted, taking a multi-agency / partnership approach is vital. Bidders should take the overall lead in selecting areas and overseeing plans but are asked to work very closely with other relevant partners in their area, extending beyond the mandatory consultation requirements. Relevant local partners could include local VAWG and ASB groups, local police forces, local authorities, Community Safety Partnerships, Housing Associations and CSOs. CSOs may be able to provide their expertise on particular crimes or behaviour types in the local area, as well as evidence and best practice about prevention and intervention. CSO and local community knowledge being fed into PCC and LA bids is strongly encouraged. We understand the input of CSOs can be beneficial at a local level to reach and interact with key target audiences, particularly the less engaged. Bidders are required to include named individuals within all partner organisations that have a role in delivery as part of their declaration within the application. We expect the partnership approach to be taken both during the bid development stage, and once successful projects commence. This will help ensure the full and wide-ranging expertise necessary are in place to successfully complete the projects and deliver the results for the local community.

e) Matched funding requirements

3.29 For PCCs, LAs and the BTP there is a 50% matched funding requirement to encourage sustainability and reflect PCCs and LAs responsibility for tackling crime and driving this agenda forward with partners in their local areas. This matched funding contribution can be monetary or in kind (e.g. officer or volunteer time). If a PCC or LA bid was to secure the total £750,000 home office funding across the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years, the bidder would need to provide £375,000 in matched resources.

3.30 Matched funding must be spent by 31 March 2024. Bidders have an additional six months to spend matched funding following the end of the Home Office funded delivery period (September 2023). Bidders should endeavour to spend their matched funding contribution by 30 September 2023, but in some cases, we understand this may not be possible and the final deadline for matched funding spend and delivery is end March 2024.

3.31 As matched funding is an eligibility requirement, the Home Office is required to monitor matched spend throughout the delivery period and funded projects must report matched funding spend to the Home Office. If the matched funding requirement is not being met or reported to the Home Office during the delivery period, the Home Office may be required to stop providing funding or request back Home Office funding, as the project would be in breach of the terms of the grant agreement.

3.32 For CSOs, there is no matched funding requirement, but CSOs are encouraged to provide matched funding where possible.

f) Implementation and financial timelines

3.33 The Home Office funded period will run until September 2023. All Home Office funding must be spent, and Home Office-funded interventions delivered by 30 September 2023. Bidders must note that rules on annual spending still apply, as per grant regulations laid out by HM Treasury. Any funding requested for the 2022/23 financial year must be spent by end March 2023. Any Home Office funding for the 2023/24 financial year must be spent by 30 September 2023; funding unspent by 30 September 2023 can no longer be claimed by projects. Bidders must spend matched funding and complete match funded activity by March 2024. For example:

Extown successfully secures £500,000 funding for the 2022/23 financial year, and £250,000 for the first six months of the 2023/24 financial year. Anything that is not spent from the first £500,000 by 31 March 2023 can no longer be claimed and cannot be transferred into the first six months of the next financial year. The £250,000 of funding for the 2023/24 financial year is available for use between April 2023 and 30 September 2023. Extown would also need to spend £375,000 in matched funding/resource by end March 2024.

3.34 We ask that bidders seriously consider how much funding, including matched funding, they will be able to spend within the allocated delivery period and bid for no more than this; bidders may wish to draw on previous experience to judge how many interventions they will be able to deliver within the period or consult the Safer Streets Fund Toolkit to understand more about implementation lead-in times. Funding cannot be provided for interventions that are not delivered within the stated delivery window. Any invoices relating to spend beyond this date (including for future staff or installation costs of purchased interventions) will not be funded.

3.35 Bidders are encouraged to think pragmatically when selecting areas and designing plans. For instance, they might want to choose areas where there are existing strong partnership arrangements to support delivery. Bidders should only choose interventions they are confident they can deliver within the funding period.

g) Independent Evaluation of the Fund

3.36 To ensure that successful bids are evaluated in a consistent way, we will be contracting a central evaluation partner. It is a funding requirement that successful bidders work with the evaluator throughout the life cycle of delivery and post-implementation, with a view to gaining long term impacts for the Safer Streets Fund. This will require areas to take part in interviews, surveys and wider monitoring and evaluation activity if selected.

3.37 The programme evaluation will contain both an impact evaluation, looking at the impact of funded interventions on acquisitive crime, ASB, VAWG and other crime rates, and a process evaluation, looking at the factors affecting implementation. Where possible, the impact evaluation will look to assess value for money, although the feasibility of this analysis will depend upon the extent to which impacts are evidenced in the data over the data collection period. At the end of the programme, we will share findings and best practice. Outputs will be designed in a practical way to best support future commissioning and government investment.

3.38 No specific funding will be made available for the purpose of self-evaluation. However, as good practice we encourage areas to monitor and evaluate their interventions against their own priorities, both during and after the funding period to understand the impact. Where bidders are implementing innovative or experimental proposals, the sustainability section of the application form asks that bidders regularly make some assessment of the impact of these to judge whether they should be maintained.

h) Crime and issue types in scope

Neighbourhood crime

3.39 Following on from Round Two of the Safer Streets Fund, bidders may choose to target neighbourhood crime which encompasses the following: domestic burglary, robbery (against the individual/household rather than commercial robbery), theft from person, and vehicle crime.

3.40 Other acquisitive crime types, such as bicycle theft and shoplifting, may be targeted as a secondary benefit of interventions, but should not be the primary outcome targeted.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

3.41 The types of ASB in scope for funding are behaviours that fall within the definition in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 legislation:

“‘anti-social behaviour’ means—

  • (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person,
  • (b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
  • (c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”

This broad definition is to recognise the need for local area definitions to reflect local problems.

Home Office statutory guidance was created to assist local agencies with their use of the powers and tools from this act, to ensure a victim-centred approach to dealing with ASB incidents.

3.42 Any bids for preventing ASB will need to detail the specific ‘types’ of behaviours being targeted, rather than simply referring to ASB as a general term, although it is understood interventions are likely to help tackle numerous ‘types’ of ASB. Bids should explain what affect the ASB is having on the wider community, and this should be evidenced from engagement with the local community. We strongly recommend that, as well as PCCs and local authorities, Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) should be involved with the bid. This will reflect that the bidder is considering the knowledge of a wide variety of practitioners and there is a good understanding of what the local ASB issues are.

Behaviours and crimes typically regarded as examples of ASB and that the funding can be used to target are:

  • Areas subject to regular incidents of street drinking or drunken behaviour;
  • Environmental ASB, such as Litter and fly-tipping, that is distressing residents;
  • Other forms of environmental ASB, such as vandalism, criminal damage, or graffiti to public buildings, vehicles, bus shelters, phone boxes, that is distressing residents and may be seen to be encouraging more serious types of crimes;
  • Inconsiderate and repeated nuisance behaviours in public spaces (such as the inappropriate use of fireworks; individuals kicking or throwing that is causing distress; cycling or skateboarding in pedestrianised areas);
  • Areas that are subject to repeated loud noises (such as loud music playing in public parks);
  • People using or dealing drugs or evidence left of drugs (such as discarded needles);
  • An area where people are being repeatedly intimidated, threatened, verbally abused, or harassed (including ASB related to people’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or other characteristic);
  • Persistent vehicle related ASB in the same area (such as repeated illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, speeding cars or motorcycles, joyriding);
  • Persistent sexually inappropriate acts in a public space (such as areas that are subject to people committing indecent sexual acts);
  • Problems in a public space with out of control or dangerous dogs.

This list is not exhaustive and other types of ASB will be considered.

3.43 What activity is excluded?

  • Targeting areas where groups merely ‘hang about’ on streets or other public spaces, who are not partaking in any form of anti-social or nuisance behaviour.
  • Any interventions that target homeless people or those who are rough sleeping (or areas where homeless people or rough sleepers often congregate) or areas that are prone to begging.
  • Interventions that may put those in society who are classed as ‘at risk’ or as vulnerable groups in potential danger or amplify vulnerabilities.
  • Using the Fund to pay for the implementation of Public Space Protection Orders or administration related to the other powers from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (bids to raise awareness of the powers and to improve local processes around the victim-centred tools of the Community Trigger and Community Remedy will, however, be welcomed - more details are given at 5.23).
  • Using the Fund to implement Licensing schemes for private rented properties.

VAWG in public places and feelings of safety from VAWG

3.44 Bidders may choose to target VAWG in public spaces/improved feelings of safety in relation to VAWG in public spaces[footnote 6]. For the purposes of this fund, VAWG in public spaces is defined broadly as crimes and issues that disproportionately impact women and girls’ safety and feelings of safety in public spaces. However, we recognise it is not only women and girls who experience these crime types, and bidders are welcome to propose target areas where other persons with protected characteristics are found to experience high levels of these crime types and issues, and to propose interventions that aim to reduce VAWG against these groups in the target areas. Please see a non-exhaustive list of crimes in scope below:

  • Rape
  • Causing sexual activity without consent
  • Sexual coercion
  • Sexual assault/ indecent assault
  • Abduction
  • Street harassment
  • Stalking
  • Indecent exposure and voyeurism
  • Unwanted sexual touching
  • Up-skirting

3.45 The following VAWG related areas are not in scope:

  • Offences committed online (including harassment and stalking);
  • Domestic abuse/violence offences which have been committed in a private residence;
  • Forced marriage and female genital mutilation committed within a private residence;
  • ‘So called’ revenge porn and image-based abuse; and
  • Other offences (not including acquisitive crime and ASB) which have been committed in public spaces which are not associated with the safety of women, such as knife crime.

4. Timeline

Indicative competition timeline:

  • March 2022–10 week bidding window launches.
  • May 2022-Bidding window closes; Home Office assesses bids and seeks necessary approvals.
  • June 2022 –Home Office receives necessary approvals, announces successful bids, and distributes grant agreements to successful bidders for signature.

Annex A: Supporting resources

5.1 This section suggests resources to consult when formulating bids and provides supporting information. The resources relate to both deciding and defining the target area, as well as possible crime prevention interventions.

LSOA code supporting information

5.2 LSOAs (Lower Super Output Areas) are a geographical hierarchy originally designed to improve the reporting of small area statistics in England and Wales. LSOAs are built from groups of contiguous Output Areas and have been automatically generated to be as consistent in population size as possible. There are 34,753 LSOAs in England and Wales, which have between 1,000 and 3,000 residents or 400 and 1,200 households. Further details on census geography (including LSOAs) are available via the ONS.

5.3 Bidders are required to define the areas their bid relates to according to the full LSOA code/s, a 9-digit number, and they must provide the name and 4-digit area code, e.g. E01009412 Birmingham 030C.

Neighbourhood Crime

Possible resources

Crime benchmark information

5.4 There is no strict requirement for bidders to evidence chosen areas meet a neighbourhood crime benchmark as required in previous rounds. However, bidders are strongly encouraged to evidence how the selected areas of focus are neighbourhood crime hotspots and are encouraged to take a data driven problem solving approach.

5.5 Therefore, bidders are able to download data from the Jaggaer portal system for their police force area to help identify LSOA’s that would have been eligible based on previous neighbourhood crime rate benchmarks that were set for SSF2. These benchmarks are based on a 3-year average covering the period of 2017/18 to 2019/20 so suitable to reflect pre-pandemic levels of neighbourhood crime. Publicly available data from police.uk has been used to calculate these crime benchmarks but bidders may wish to use internal police force data or police.uk data to demonstrate this. However, areas should be aware that there are a number of known issues with police.uk data quality. Moreover, the crime categories on police.uk are relatively broad and cannot be broken down. In practice, this means areas may be using a broader data category to show they pass the benchmark than is targeted in their plan. For example, the police.uk burglary category includes both residential and non-residential burglary. To pass the benchmark for a residential burglary focused plan, areas must demonstrate they pass using the broader police.uk burglary definition, even if they do not intend to target non-residential burglary.[footnote 7]

5.6 More recently, neighbourhood crime levels have been impacted by the tightening and easing of restrictions to control the spread of coronavirus and bidders should be aware of potential changes to the distribution of crime in their areas as a result. Given the reduction in neighbourhood crime due to the reduced opportunities for theft, it would not be accurate to assess recent crime rates (i.e. post March 2020) to the previous benchmarks. Instead, when using more recent data, it would be more appropriate for bidders to evidence high levels of crime in chosen areas through comparison of LSOA’s in neighbouring areas in the police force area, region or nationally through the use of police recorded crime data. We’d encourage areas to present more recent neighbourhood crime data alongside chosen areas based on pre-pandemic levels of neighbourhood crime.

5.7 We would also anticipate that insight gained from community engagement is well considered in the development of the bid such as evidence from public surveys, local resident consultations. Anecdotal evidence and case study information gained from liaising with wider stakeholders is also encouraged to provide some illustrative examples.

Anti-social Behaviour

ASB data sources for bidder applications

5.8 It is difficult to establish a single accurate prevalence figure of ASB as not all agencies collect and publish data on the number of incidences of ASB or the use of ASB powers. Bidders may wish to use the available data sources outlined below to inform their application when evidencing the picture of ASB in their area(s) but should be mindful of their limitations. This is not intended as an exhaustive list.

Police recorded ASB incident data

5.9 This data contains incidents of ASB as recorded by the police, produced on a quarterly and annual basis. Data is shared with the ONS, who publish the data alongside their CSEW ASB data. The quarterly data is available in an aggregated format, at a total for England and Wales and by the three National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) categories: Personal, Nuisance or Environmental ASB. This is useful for an overall indication of the scale of ASB at a national level. Data is also available on an annual basis at Police Force Area (PFA) level and by the three above categories. This is useful for giving an indication of the scale of ASB in a regional area.

5.10 The most recent quarterly release, with data for total England and Wales to September 2021 is available here. The most recent annual police force level data, to March 2021, is available here.

Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) ASB data

5.11 The CSEW collects information on perceptions and experiences of ASB, and how well respondents think that the police and local council are dealing with the issue. This is regardless of whether any ASB has been reported to, or recorded by, any agency. This is useful as it shows the experiences of ASB that were not necessarily reported. Data is available at an aggregated national level, and also police force area estimates have been made available following requests. As with police recorded data, this is also useful in offering broader, contextual information of ASB. It is useful in illustrating public perceptions, experiences, and satisfaction at a broad level.

5.12 The survey was paused due face-to-face interviewing being stopped as a result of COVID-19 public health restrictions. The latest available national data, for year ending March 2020, is available here.

The latest available PFA breakdown data is available here.

Telephone-Operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW)

5.13 Whilst the full CSEW interviews were paused due to COVID restrictions, the TCSEW began data collection in May 2020 to capture trends in crime, including perceptions and experiences of ASB during the COVID-19 pandemic. This may be useful in providing further context, more specifically related to the pandemic.

The latest available TCSEW data, to September 2021, is available here.

Police.uk monthly ASB data

5.14 This includes data sets uploaded monthly by each police force, from December 2018 to November 2021. The data goes through a thorough quality control process. This provides more granular location data for ASB than other sources as it is broken down by police force and lower layer super output area (LSOA). ASB is at an aggregated level which covers personal, environmental and nuisance. This data is useful in providing a more granular view of ASB in an area. Using this source in conjunction with the police and CSEW data would offer a more complete view of levels of ASB.

The full data sets are available to download here. This requires further analysis by the user.

There is also an interactive dashboard for each LSOA available here. This includes visualisations showing the past 12 months and 3 years.

SSF local area engagement surveys

5.15 Bidders are strongly encouraged to conduct surveys in their local area with local businesses, organisations, and community members about perceptions of ASB and thoughts on proposed interventions. This would be useful to bidders as it would provide a valuable local focus and to will also provide a recent picture of the area, which is less possible with other available sources.

5.16 There is no set template for this survey, so bidders can determine what they feel is appropriate in order to collect a range of data to support their bid, such as around feelings of safety, where in particular in the area people feel unsafe, and perceptions of ASB.

Local authority data and Community Trigger (ASB Case Review) data

5.17 LA data is not centrally coordinated and there is variation in what data is available in each LA. However, bidders may wish to access some of these sources depending on their role and what is available as this evidence can enhance the picture of ASB in a given area. A range of agencies and organisations are likely to bid, each of whom may have access to different sources. For example, if a bid is led by an LA, they may have their own ASB incident data, or health data. Your local Community Safety Partnership would be a good source to speak with.

5.18 More specifically, case review data should be available. Agencies have a legal duty to publish data which covers the number of applications for ASB case reviews, the number of times the threshold for review was not met, the number of case reviews carried out, and the number of case reviews that resulted in recommendations being made. Case review data is not centrally collated, and there is variation of available data across areas.

Case studies/ad hoc/anecdotal evidence

5.19 Bidders may also have anecdotal examples or ad hoc articles to help illustrate the problem of ASB in their area. These may be useful to supplement the more robust evidence with some illustrative examples.

Other resources and advice

5.20 Advise from the College of Policing for previous rounds of the SSF has suggested some traditional interventions for ASB and acquisitive crimes together, in designing out crime:

  • They noted a strong evidence base on the use of alleygating in reducing ASB.
  • They noted a moderate evidence base around the closing of unused roads and footpaths, with a particular focus on subways, to reduce ASB.
  • Traffic calming measures can reduce vehicle related ASB.
  • A focus on Secure parking is evidenced to reduce ASB, including looking at the signage, landscaping, CCTV, lighting, and security patrols (if bidder can fund a security patrol beyond the initial Government funding) in these areas, as ungated courtyard spaces provide spots of concealment that can encourage ASB.
  • The compartmentation of public areas within large dwelling developments, which often suffer from larger levels of ASB than other types of housing, can also help in preventing ASB. For example, restricting access to stairwells from the communal lobby to allow only residents.
  • Image management of areas, when matched with other initiatives, can deter neighbourhood crimes and ASB. Well-maintained areas give the impression that they are likely to be subject to surveillance. Poorly maintained areas can attract crime and deter proper use of spaces by legitimate users, reducing the element of natural surveillance.
  • Some evidence suggests that Neighbourhood and Community wardens (if bidder can fund Community Wardens beyond the initial Government funding) can reduce ASB as they promote community safety, contribute to community development, and assist with environmental improvements and housing management. This may improve LA relations with their communities, which can also contribute to reductions in crime and ASB.

5.21 However, as previously stated, we would very much encourage behavioural change and community cohesion interventions, such as ASB and community safety educational campaigns within local schools and other community organisations in areas that suffer with high levels of ASB.

5.22 The Home Office and the Minister for Safeguarding supported a first ever ‘ASB Awareness Week’ in July 2021 to bring a focus on what we know is a vital issue for many communities. We would welcome bids for educational campaigns or community events that take this week into consideration and refer to such local community events for ASB Awareness week within their bid (2022 week is yet to be confirmed, but likely to be around the same time as 2021).

5.23 We would also encourage the training of practitioners in using the powers available to them through the ‘2014 Act’, should this be something that the bidder would then wish to continue once the funding period had ended and the trial had been successful. Effective use of these powers and the encouragement to work closely with local partners and take the necessary multi-agency approach to prevent and tackle ASB would help reduce the effects of ASB on the community.

5.24 Interventions that look to develop community capacity to tackle ASB, making people feel more comfortable to deal with smaller incidents of ASB themselves, where there is no danger to them or others involved, would also be welcomed. As well as ensuring that people know which local agency to go to with their ASB issue(s) when help is indeed needed. These types of interventions would have the aims of increasing local feelings of safety and improving social cohesion which, in turn, may make people less likely to commit ASB (and other crimes) in their neighbourhood.

Violence Against Women and Girls in Public Spaces and Feelings of Safety from VAWG

Possible resources

Note on VAWG data/evidence

5.25 Data and evidence around VAWG, and VAWG in public places in particular, are limited. Many VAWG crimes are not part of official statistics and surveys or have only become so recently. For example, the CSEW estimates the prevalence of domestic abuse, stalking, rape (including assault by penetration), indecent exposure and unwanted touching, but does not provide estimates of other forms of VAWG (e.g. “honour-based” abuse or FGM). Because of the pandemic meaning that the survey switched to being telephone-based, there are no data on these sensitive crimes since 2020. Police data provides us with some understanding of these wider crime types. However, it only captures crimes which have been reported to and recorded by the police and so does not give us a measure of prevalence.

  1. Adjusted crime figures are published as part of the Crime Survey for England and Wales statistical release to allow for comparison across the CSEW and Telephone operated CSEW (TCSEW) Crime in England and Wales: Appendix tables - Office for National Statistics. ↩

  2. Sexual offences victim characteristics, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. ↩

  3. Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics. ↩

  4. Nature of sexual assault by rape or penetration, year ending March 2020. ↩

  5. The NTE is defined as economic activity taking place in the evening and at night-time. An NTE area is one where there is a concentration of such economic activity. NTE venues are any premises serving food and drink, and/or offering entertainment, cultural or sporting events at night (between 6pm and 6am). ↩

  6. Public spaces are defined in this guidance as the parts of a village, town or city (whether publicly or privately owned) that are available for everyone to use, free of charge, including roads, streets, squares and parks, and including rural settings. Interventions on public transport and inside NTE venues, where a charge for use would be applied, are also in scope. ↩

  7. safer streets prospectus ↩

Back to top