Crime information & public confidence in the policePaul 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

28

58

10

4

24

53

15

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very informative Fairly informative Fairly uninformative Very uninformative

Per

cent

NP informationCrime maps

Trustworthiness

48

42

8

3

41 42

11

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Trusted a lot Trusted a little Distrusted a little Distrusted a lot

Per

cent

NP informationCrime maps

Overall effects

Crime maps NP informationCombined

intervention

Perceptions of the local police

The police seen to be community-oriented1 – 0.16** 0.13*

The police seen to be effective1 – – –

Confidence in the police (‘how good a job’)2 – – –

Perceptions of the local area

Crime seen to be a problem in the local area3 – – –

Crime seen to be increasing locally3 0.84* – –

Perceptions of personal safety

Perceived likelihood of being a victim1 – 0.16** 0.15*

Worry about being a victim3 – – –*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 informationCombined

intervention

Perceptions of the local police

The police seen to be community-oriented1 – 0.16** 0.13*

The police seen to be effective1 – – –

Confidence in the police (‘how good a job’)2 – – –

Perceptions of the local area

Crime seen to be a problem in the local area3 – – –

Crime seen to be increasing locally3 0.84* – –

Perceptions of personal safety

Perceived likelihood of being a victim1 – 0.16** 0.15*

Worry about being a victim3 – – –*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