Resources

• Preventing repeat victimisation should reduce costs for all agencies involved.

• Developing new programmes can initially be seen as resource intensive, but the aim should be to integrate changes in practice into established routines as soon as possible

• Other measures – for example, incorporating security into new housing developments may well be cost neutral.

Where measures do require resources, the case for investment can be strengthened by:

• Demonstrating public concern/demand, e.g. as measured in local or national surveys.

(Link to HO Research Findings 83: Concern about crime)

• Demonstrating the impact the issue has on staff. (Clarke and Mayhew 1998 cite one survey of workers at a regional hospital when nearly 70% of the 1,000 respondents expressed fear of being a victim of assault or abusive behaviour at Accident & Emergency Departments).

• Demonstrating wider benefits (e.g. impact on property values)

• Making links with other local and national policy objectives, e.g.

-   Youth inclusion

-   Neighbourhood renewal

-   School attainment

-   School attendance

-   Access to/take up of further education or training.

Making these links may help to open avenues to a wider range of funding sources.

Spending Review 2000 (http://l01hc002/srfacts.htm)has provided funding to support local anti-social initiatives in areas with a significant problem.

Other relevant strands of the crime reduction programme can be found at: 

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/atoz/index.htm

Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships are advised to familiarise themselves with the cost of crime measure that has been developed by the Home Office which can be used in both appraisal and evaluation of repeat victimisation initiatives. They can help Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships to prioritise, focus scarce resources on tackling repeat victimisation. See Brand.,S. & Price, R. (2000) The Economic & Social Costs of Crime. Home Office Research Study 217. 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf