Post on 20-Jan-2016
description
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