What happened in the pilot of a controversial stop and search measure introduced to tackle knife crime matters.
Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs), which gave the police the power to stop and search those subject to an order without the usual need for reasonable suspicion, were introduced in a two year pilot in 2023. Championed by the then Conservative government as tool to tackle knife crime, the orders were implemented by four police forces. In these areas people convicted of a knife-related offence could be given an order up to two years in length.
A controversial power
SVROs were highly controversial at the time of legislation and what they would achieve was contested. Our initial assessment of their use was that they may well do more harm than good.
The pilot ended last April.
So what happened? The Home Office is not saying.
The department commissioned an evaluation of the pilot. That evaluation has not been made public. Multiple parliamentary questions about what was learnt during the pilot or when we might expect the evaluation to be published have not received adequate answers.
In the absence of official information, the Centre, with our colleagues at StopWatch, have taken a look at the publicly available data that does exist about SVROs, through an analysis of the Home Office’s stop and search database.
What this data reveals
What the available figures appear to show is the power produced very little in the way of arrests or identifying weapons. More than 90% of the 357 recorded SVRO searches resulted in no further action. In terms of weapons, of the 294 searches in which the outcome is recorded, in 293 searches no weapon was found. In one search a weapon was found.
Use of the power was also highly uneven. Nearly 70% of all SVRO searches took place in a single force area: Merseyside. The remaining three pilot forces used the power rarely by comparison. Merseyside was also the only force to pursue a media campaign around the introduction of SVROs.
Given the low yield of searches, this raises the question of whether this stop and search power is more about visibility and being seen to be doing something on a politically charged issue, rather than a well-evidenced contribution to reducing knife crime.
The data does not allow us to confirm the number of times that any one individual was stopped and searched as a result of an order. But high frequency, repeat searches of a small number of individuals seems likely in the one area of high use, because the high number of searches there relate to relatively few demographic profiles. Such a concentrated power raises questions about proportionality and fairness that should receive proper scrutiny.
An evidence deficit
We do not know what the evaluation found, nor how easily discernible ‘results’ from the pilot were. What, if anything, the government will do next regarding this power is also unclear. Perhaps the government have decided not to roll out SVROs. Given our doubts about the power, that outcome would not be unwelcome. But the evaluation should still be published.
Pilots exist to test assumptions, identify problems, and provide a clear basis for policy decisions. Not publishing the findings, whatever they may be, of a publicly funded pilot and evaluation is disappointing. Especially given the promises of transparency provided in response to serious concerns raised about these powers at the time of their legislation.
If SVROs didn't work, the public should know why. If they raised concerns about proportionality, effectiveness or workability, this should be documented. And if future governments are tempted to revive similar powers, they should do so with full knowledge of what the evidence shows.
Transparency matters
In an era where outlandish claims can travel fast, bringing evidence to bear on policy claims is a vital public duty. Stop and search has long been a political football, with calls to expand or restrict its use, going in and out of political fashion. It does not require much imagination to foresee future politicians calling for even broader discretionary stop and search powers – perhaps for anyone with a criminal conviction.
If and when they do, the public deserve to know what happened last time.
