Neighbourhood Policing and Reassurance Policing

Question 1

The reassurance gap: What was the problem in the late 1990s?

Answer 1

• Crime falling but public perceptions of risk remain high
• Policing programmes’ failure to address feelings of security
• Social distance between police and public

Question 2

The reassurance gap: What was solution in the early 2000s to the problem in the late 1990s?

Answer 2

• Reassurance as an objective in its own right (Povey 2001)

- Make police accessible and familiar

Question 3

What is a signal crime?

Answer 3

“…an incident that is disproportionately influential in terms of causing a person or persons to perceive themselves to be at risk in some sense.” (Innes & Fielding 2002)

Question 4

Signal crime perspective is made up of several main features…(7)

Answer 4

1) signal disorders
2) strong and weak signal values - different crimes have different values
3) Identify fear triggers and respond - prioritising what crimes to deal with
4) control signals - symbolic interventions - police role can give off appropriate control signals (e.g. friendly patrol) vs inappropriate (e.g. riot vans, armed police)
5) Peoples opinions are shaped by the situational context of the place that the crime happened, e.g. midday in a children play park
6) Media can amplify crimes to have a higher signal value
7) lack of informal social controls and lack of cooperation with the police allows criminal activity to flourish

Question 5

How is the signal crime perspective influenced by Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS)?

Answer 5

• Beat meetings used to identify community problems

- Multi-agency, problem solving approach

Question 6

How is the signal crime perspective influenced by Sampsons (2004) collective efficacy?

Answer 6

• Social cohesion, trust, willingness to intervene = predicts lower crime rates
• Linked to structural inequality and concentrated disadvantage (poverty, home ownership, etc)
• Importance of ‘neighbourhood’ - links to NP as if withdraw from community then crime flourishes

Question 7

Reassurance on Trial: The National Reassurance Policing Programme (3)

Answer 7

• Visible, accessible, and locally known authority figures – PCs/PCSOs - become familiar with the local area, therefore should not be moved around or relocated
• Use of surveys, interviews and other methods to identify, map and prioritise local issues, and engages with communities in PACT meetings
• Tackle identified crime and disorder through targeted policing activities and problem-solving

Question 8

What is Tuffin et al (2006)’s Home Office Evaluation of reassurance policing? (5)

Answer 8

• Positive effects on most measures, especially engagement e.g. public confidence was up by 15 points
• Little effect on social capacity
• Rising confidence associated with the three ‘delivery mechanisms’
  1) Problem solving, 2) community engagement, 3) visibility
• ‘Ringfencing’ vital to stop abstractions (Millie and Herrington 2004) - Allocated and kept in one area
• risk of crime didnt change much, but it didnt get worse

Question 9

Neighbourhood policing programme: what are the key features? and what are the neighbourhood policing teams?

Answer 9

• NP is a ‘political construct’ (Innes 2005)
• RP seemed to airy fairy whilst NP is more tangible and clear, especially to policy makers
• ‘Citizen focus’ (Home Office 2004)
• National roll-out with Neighbourhood Policing Fund
• Neighbourhood Policing Teams: 1)Geographic boundaries 2)Home of Community Support Officers 3) Based on MPS ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’  1 Serg, 2 PCs, 3 PCSOs