Crime information & public confidence in the police Paul Quinton - NPIA Research, Analysis and Information Unit

A brief policy history

Force implementation

National implementation

A growing body of research People who are well- informed tend to hold better opinions about the police Intervention studies have tended to focus on newsletters and leaflets Generally found to have a positive impact with few drawbacks The existing evidence base

Aims of the study To test the immediate effect of web-based crime and policing information on public perceptions Force level implementation: –Crime maps –Neighbourhood Policing (NP) information Intended outcomes: –Perceptions of the local police  –Perceptions of crime and ASB in the local area  –Perceptions of personal safety ?

Research design A basic randomised field trial (post-test only) A multi-stage sampling approach A nationally representative sample (n=7,434) Random assignment to three interventions: –Crime maps –NP information –Combined intervention Intervention then face-to-face interview

A dose of reality The ‘framing’ of perception – neighbourhood conditions, personal experience and signal crimes The quality of force websites The delivery of the intervention material The focus on the wider general public The type of crime maps used Localised hot-spots and cold-spots The sustainability of impact

Informativeness

Trustworthiness

Overall effects Crime maps NP information Combined intervention Perceptions of the local police The police seen to be community-oriented 1 –  0.16**  0.13* The police seen to be effective 1 ––– Confidence in the police (‘how good a job’) 2 ––– Perceptions of the local area Crime seen to be a problem in the local area 3 ––– Crime seen to be increasing locally 3  0.84* –– Perceptions of personal safety Perceived likelihood of being a victim 1 –  0.16**  0.15* Worry about being a victim 3 ––– *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***<p0.001 Notes: 1 Linear regression with scaled dependent variable; 2 Linear regression with single indicator dependent variable; 3 Logistic regression with single indicator dependent variable.

Overall effects Crime maps NP information Combined intervention Perceptions of the local police The police seen to be community-oriented 1 –  0.16**  0.13* The police seen to be effective 1 ––– Confidence in the police (‘how good a job’) 2 ––– Perceptions of the local area Crime seen to be a problem in the local area 3 ––– Crime seen to be increasing locally 3  0.84* –– Perceptions of personal safety Perceived likelihood of being a victim 1 –  0.16**  0.15* Worry about being a victim 3 ––– *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***<p0.001 Notes: 1 Linear regression with scaled dependent variable; 2 Linear regression with single indicator dependent variable; 3 Logistic regression with single indicator dependent variable.

What lies beneath? Overall effects are inevitably ‘averaged out’ What works, and for whom? Information may be more effective for some… –Victims of crime –People living in higher crime areas –People who think crime is a problem, or increasing, in their local area But less good for others…

Conclusions Transparency and police accountability Some (small) overall improvements No overall harm Evidence of reassurance The need for additional contextual information… crime prevention advice? Information can enhance good quality local policing, but should not be a substitute for it

Thank you