Police Presence & Public Confidence in Local Policing: An Analysis of the British Crime survey

e

POLICE PRESENCE AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN LOCAL POLICING: An Analysis of the British Crime Survey Prof. Martin Innes & Dr. Helen Cooper Universities' Police Science Institute, Cardiff University

POLICE PRESENCE AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN LOCAL POLICING: An Analysis of the British Crime Survey Dr. Helen Innes & Prof. Martin Innes Universities’ Police Science Institute Cardiff University www.upsi.org.uk March 2011

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines the relationship between police presence and public confidence in the police. The concept of police presence is constructed along three key dimensions: ‘local police visibility’ measured by the number of times police are observed on patrol; ‘familiarity’ assessed on the basis of whether an officer is known by name or sight; and levels of ‘contact’ with the police Analysis of the British Crime Survey identifies an association between police visibility and confidence. The more people see the police the more confidence they have. This is a stepped association. For every additional sighting there is an increase in reported confidence.

Visibility is more important than familiarity (measured by knowing police by name or sight).

Familiarity does increase confidence, but not as strongly as visibility.

Actual contact with the police (either police or public initiated) decreases confidence.

Trend analysis identified that over recent years there has been a modest but distinct increase in levels of public confidence in the police. This is in part a reflection of a significant increase in the numbers of people reporting seeing police on patrol in the local area. This is probably attributable to the roll-out of Neighbourhood Policing. The figure below summarises the trend data for male respondents to the British Crime Survey.

2

Introduction This report examines the relationship between ‘police presence’ and public confidence in policing. It is based upon available British Crime Survey data for 2006/7 through to 2008/9.

Police presence is an umbrella concept capturing the relative prominence of local police in day-to-day life, as perceived by members of the public. The concept has three key dimensions that are constructed as follows using the available survey data: POLICE PRESENCE CONCEPT a. Visibility – ‘how often do you see police officers or PCSOs on foot patrol in the local area?’ Responses to this question distinguish the frequency of sightings, ranging from every day, once a day, once a week, once a month or never. b. Familiarity – ‘do you know any police officers or PCSOs?’ Responses to this question distinguish different levels of familiarity, whether a police officer of PCSO is known by name and sight, by name only, by sight only or by neither. c. Contact – if the respondent has contacted the police in the last 12 months (yes/no) OR if police contacted respondent in last year (yes/no). These questions allow respondent-initiated contact to be distinguished from police-initiated contact and for investigation of any combination of these contacts.

Police presence therefore incorporates different modes of interaction that might be had at any one time between members of the public and the police, as well as gradations in how visible the police are, and the extent to which the public feel a more interpersonal connection with a representative of the police force. The analysis examines the domains of familiarity, visibility and contact singly and then in combination in order to ascertain whether one has a particular value in understanding public confidence in local policing.

Specifically, the analysis in this report addresses the following questions: 1. What are the key demographic and social patterns in relation to police presence and confidence?

2. To what extent do the different dimensions of police presence account for changes in levels of public confidence in the police, compared with other potentially salient factors?

3. Have trends in the relationship between police presence and public confidence shifted at all over the past five years?

3

1. What are the key demographic and social patterns in relation to police presence and public confidence?

This section begins by investigating how perceptions of police presence are variable for different population sub-groups. Using the most recently available BCS data for 2008/9, each domain of police presence is analysed in turn by the key demographic indicators of age, gender, social class and ethnic group. (Further details about the data in this section are noted in the appendix).

Familiarity Table 1 shows that nearly three-quarters of all adults do not report any familiarity with a Police Officer or PCSO, that is, they feel unable to recognise by sight or recall a name of any police worker in their local area. Zero familiarity is greatest in the oldest age group, especially for women where approximately 8 out of 10 aged 65+ report no familiarity with the police. Young men aged 16 to 24 are least likely to report having no familiarity with the police (67 percent) whereas for women it is those in the middle age groups (35-44 and 4554). Overall, this most ‘personal’ dimension of police presence shows high levels of unfamiliarity with the police across the age spectrum.

Table 1: Percentage of respondents who report no familiarity with the police by age and gender 16-24

24-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

All

Men

67

76

74

68

71

76

72

Women

73

75

67

65

75

79

72

All

70

75

70

66

73

78

72

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 Figures 1 and 2 examine variations among those men and women who did report familiarity with the police. Young men are by far the most likely group to report maximum familiarity with the police – approximately 2 in 10 report knowing someone by name and sight. This level of familiarity then halves for men in the 23-35 age group before reaching a lower peak of 16 percent for men aged 55-64 years. After aged 45, there is a sharp increase in the percentage of men who know a police officer by sight, but the percentage that have familiarity by sight or by sight and name drops markedly for men in the oldest age group (65+). Reports of familiarity by name are much lower for all age groups at only 2 percent for younger adults, increasing to 5 percent for the middle age group but once again decreasing in older age.

4

Figure 1: Police familiarity for men by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 For women, maximum familiarity with the police is not among the young but for those aged 35-44 and 45-54 at 16 percent. After age 54, the percentage of women who know a police officer by sight and name halves to only 8 percent. Familiarity by sight only increases for women after age 34 and then falls to approximately 11 percent for women after the age of 55.

However, unlike the other indicators of familiarity, it does not decrease any further for women in the oldest age group. Familiarity by name follows a similar trajectory for women as for men, with a slight peak at age 45-54 and low levels among those aged 65 and above.

Figure 2: Police familiarity for women by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

5 Â Â

Figures 3 and 4 show that police familarity varies markedly with ethnic group. The vast majority of men and women who are Indian or Pakistani/ Bangladeshi have zero familarity with the police. This equates to approximately 9 out of 10 Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. White men and women are much more likely than any minority ethnic group to report knowing a police officer by name and sight. Black African Caribbean men and women are more likely than other ethnic groups to report familarity by sight only, whereas Pakistani/ Bangladeshi women are more likely to know a police officer by name only.

Figure 3: Police familiarity by ethnic group for men only

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

Figure 4: Police familiarity by ethnic group for women only

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 6 Â Â

Visibility Having so far seen that peoples’ sense of ‘knowing’ a police officer is generally very low, particularly in old age and for Asian ethnic groups, we now examine levels of police visibility among the same population groups. This measure focuses on the frequency of sightings of police on foot patrol, in other words ‘doing policing’ on local streets.

Table 2 shows men and women who reported that they ‘never’ see police on foot patrol, for whom the police have no visibility. The first point to note is that the percentages for zero visibility are much lower than for zero familiarity, meaning that people are overall much more likely to report ‘seeing’ a police officer than ‘knowing’ one. The second point is that there is an age related increase in the percentage reporting no visibility. One quarter of adults aged 16-24 report ‘never’ seeing an officer on foot patrol and this increases to 31 percent by age 45 to 54 and is greatest at 38 percent for adults aged 65 and above. This lack of visibility for the oldest age group is most marked for women; where approximately 4 out of 10 report no sightings. By contrast, at the other end of the age spectrum, visibility is high among young men as only 2 out of 10 aged between 16 and 24 report never seeing a police officer on foot patrol. This pattern is consistent with what is known about the available street population and use of public spaces.

Table 2: Percentage of respondents reporting no police visibility No Visibility

16-24

24-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

All

Men

20

26

27

31

36

34

29

Women

29

28

29

31

38

41

33

All

25

27

28

31

37

38

31

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

Young men (16-24 years) are most likely to report seeing police on foot patrol and Figure 5 shows that 15 percent of these sightings are ‘at least once a day’ and over one-third are ‘once a week’. High frequency sightings fall markedly for men with increasing age, with reports of ‘less than monthly’ sightings increasing through middle age groups. Interestingly, despite low police familiarity at age 65+, there is a slight rise in police visibility at this age for high frequency or monthly sightings, although the majority see the police ‘less than monthly’.

7

Figure 5: Frequency of police visibility for men by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 For women, it is the same picture of high police visibility in the youngest age group, with over a quarter of 16 to 24 year olds seeing the police on foot patrol ‘once a week’. However, sightings at high frequency decline markedly with older age, such that only 15 percent of older women see police ‘once a week’ and 6 percent ‘at least once a day’. Conversely, the percentage of women sighting police ‘less than monthly’ rises steeply from 15 percent at age 16-24 to 25 percent by 45 to 54.

Figure 6: Frequency of police visibility for women by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

8

The profile of police sightings differs markedly by ethnic group and presents a different picture to that seen using an indicator of police familiarity (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 7: Police visibility by ethnic group for men 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

31

22

20 21 15

9

15

19

10 12

11

8

32

37

White

14

Less than monthly Once a month

37

23 11

Never

31

24

Asian Indian Asian P/B

Once a week

At least once a day Black African Caribbean

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 Whereas minority ethnic groups – particularly the Asian groups – are much more likely to have zero familiarity with the police, the percentage reporting high frequency sightings of police on patrol is greater among non-white groups. Approximately 3 in 10 Black African Caribbean men and women report seeing police on patrol ‘at least once a day’ compared with 1 in 10 white men and women. When high frequency sightings of ‘at least once a day’ and ‘once a week’ are taken together, police visibility is at 60 percent for Black African Caribbean and Pakistani/Bangladeshi men and 50 percent for Indian men. The same pattern is found for women, with visibility at 50 percent for Black African Caribbean women, 40 Figure 8: Police visibility by ethnic group for women

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 9

percent for Pakistani/ Bangladeshi women and 35 percent for Indian women. The contrast between familiarity and visibility is particularly striking for Pakistani/Bangladeshi women because 91 percent reported ‘not knowing’ any police offer by either sight or name, yet only 11 percent report ‘never’ seeing a police officer on foot patrol. This example clearly illustrates that zero familiarity with the police does not equate with zero visibility.

Figure 9 shows that police visibility was also linked in a consistent way with occupational social class (NSSEC), based on the working conditions of current or last main job. For both sexes, the percentage reporting zero police visibility – never seeing the police on foot patrol – is greatest for those in professional and managerial occupations. Zero visibility then falls consistently across intermediate, routine and non manual occupations and is lower still for those men and women who are long-term unemployed (12 months or more) or who have never had a paid job. It is important to note that the opposite class gradient is to be found at the other end of the visibility spectrum (analyses not shown). Seeing a police officer ‘at least once a day’ is 28 percent for professional and managerial men, rising to 34 percent and 39 percent for men in intermediate, routine and non manual classes respectively and substantially greater at 51 percent for men outside the labour market.

Figure 9: Percentage reporting no police visibility by gender and occupational class

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

10

Contact Having noted marked differences between familiarity and visibility of the police, we now attend to reported contact with the police in the last twelve months. Here we make a distinction between contact that is initiated by the police and contact initiated by the respondent. Out of all our measures of police presence, contact is the only one that guarantees a social interaction has taken place between the individual and at least one member of the police.

Figures 10 and 11 show that respondent led contact with the police is much more common for men and women than police led contact. There are however marked age differences between these contacts. Men are most likely to contact the police between the ages of 25 and 44 – contact is markedly lower for men in other age groups, and is halved from 30 percent at age 45-54 to only 15 percent at age 65+. Contact led by the police is also at its lowest level for older men (7 percent), having reached a peak of 15 percent for young men (16-24) and men aged 45 to 54 years.

Figure 10: Nature of contact with police for men by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 The contact that women initiate with the police clearly peaks at age 35 to 44 at 33 percent but thereafter falls substantially in each age group to only 11 percent at age 65 and above. The data suggests that police led contact is also elevated in the 35 to 44 age group for women, who along with young women aged 16-24 are most likely to have been contacted by the police in the last year. The age differences in police contact add to the overall picture of low familiarity and visibility in older age especially where police presence can be judged to be low.

11 Â Â

Figure 11: Nature of contact with police for women by age

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 To examine ethnic differences in police contact, a variable was constructed to show the combined nature of contact over a one year period, whether or not an individual had both respondent and police initiated contact, one type or nothing at all.

Figure 12 shows that a small percentage of men had both police and respondent led contact over the reference period and that this was higher for some minority ethnic groups than for whites; 9 percent among Pakistani/Bangladeshi and 7 percent among Indian men. For Black African Caribbean men, the percentage contacted by the police only was greater than the percentage who had self- initiated contact only (10 percent and 8 percent respectively), but Figure 12: Nature of contact with police for men by ethnic group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

68

7 21 5

White

65

73

21 9

Asian P/B

None Police initiated

5

5 15 7 Asian Indian

78

10 8 4

Respondent initiated Both

Black African Caribbean

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 12

in general men were more likely to have contact that they themselves initiated. For women, those belonging to minority ethnic groups were slightly more likely than whites to report no contacts at all over the last year, but Indian and Pakistani/Bangladeshi women were most likely to have had a contact led by the police.

Figure 13: Nature of contact with police for women by ethnic group

These ethnic group differences in contact provide a mixed picture to add to the one of low familarity but high visibility. There is some evidence that minority groups are more likely to have ‘no contact’ with the police over a year relative to whites, but equally it can be seen the that members of minority communities are contacting the police or having a two-way interaction with police.

Figure 14 shows how contact varies for men and women by occupational class (NSSEC).

Women in professional or managerial occupations are most likely to initiate contact with the police (20 percent), but respondent contact is comparable for all other occupational groups, the long-term unemployed and never worked at 15 percent. Respondent led contact is greatest for men in the professional and managerial class and also the category of never worked and long-term unemployed, the latter also having the lowest contact led by the police.

13

Figure 14: Nature of contact with police by occupational class and gender

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 Police Presence and PFA We now examine key measures of police presence within Police Force Areas (PFAs). Figure 15 (appended to this report) identifies the ten largest PFA’s and uses logistic regression modelling to examine the likelihood of public confidence in each area relative to a combined category of the remaining PFAs grouped together. Thus, when reading the OR’s plotted on this figure, a value greater than 1.00 is indicative of a increased likelihood of confidence in that PFA relative to all other smaller PFAs – it does not follow that we can directly compare individually identified forces.

The figure shows some PFA’s with a particularly high contact profile relative to the reference category. In particular, there is a substantially increased likelihood of reciprocal contact (both respondent and police led) between public and police in the Lancashire and Thames Valley PFAs. South Yorkshire is notable for an increased likelihood of police lead contact, but not other types, relative to all other smaller PFAs. Contact initiated by the public is lower for West Midlands Police and Avon & Somerset relative to the reference category. A marked disjuncture between visibility and familiarity is evident when the odds ratios are compared by PFA. Metropolitan & City, Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Merseyside PFAs all have high odds of police visibility but at the same time low odds on police familiarity.

Conversely, the PFAs Avon & Somerset, South Yorkshire, Devon & Cornwall can be characterised as having a high likelihood of familiarity but not visibility. This suggests that it is possible for people to see a police officer on patrol with feeling that they ‘know’ them, or else to ‘know’ an individual more personally without ‘seeing’ them patrolling the streets.

14

2. To what extent do different dimensions of police presence account for changes in levels of public confidence in the police, compared with other potentially salient factors?

In this section, we focus on how police presence impacts on public confidence in local police.

Our measure of public confidence refers to confidence in local policing and is based on agreement to the question ‘taking everything into account, I have confidence in the police in the local area’. Figure 16 shows that public confidence on this measure is generally applicable as it does not fall below 60 percent for any age group of men or women.

However, looking across the age groups, there is an overall increase in confidence for women with older age; young women are least likely to express confidence (61 percent) but confidence is greater at 76 percent for those aged 65 or above. For men, confidence in the police is at comparably high levels at either end of the age spectrum – approximately 70 percent of young men (16-24 years) and older men (65+) years express confidence in local police but confidence dips a little in middle age groups to just above 60 percent at age 45 to 54 years.

Figure 16: Public confidence in local police by age and gender

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 There is a general finding of higher confidence among minority ethnic groups than for whites as approximately three quarters of Asian men and women and Black African Caribbean women affirm that they have confidence in local police (Figures 17 and 18). The exception is for Black African Caribbean women where confidence is markedly lower than for any other ethnic group at 58 percent. Figure 17 shows, however, that one-third of Black African Caribbean women respond ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to a question about confidence in local police and they are no more likely to reject this statement by answering ‘disagree’ than any other ethnic group. Of all the ethnic groups, white men and women are most likely to reject the premise of having ‘confidence in police in the local area’.

15

Figure 17: Public confidence in local police by ethnic group for men

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

Figure 18: Public confidence in local police by ethnic group for women

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 Having seen that confidence is generally high, Table 3 takes a preliminary look at how it is associated with police presence. The table summarises the nature of the association between confidence and each indicator of police presence using Pearson’s R2 correlation coefficients (see appendix for further detail on how to interpret these coefficients).

16

R2

Visibility weekly +

Know by name & sight

Policeinitiated contact

Respondent initiated contact

No visibility

No familiarity

Table 3: Correlation coefficients for public confidence in local police and police presence

Confidence in local police

.14 **

.03 **

-.03 **

-.06 **

-.11 **

-.06 **

P (Sig) **<.005 Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9 The table shows that high frequency police visibility is positively associated with public confidence; those who see a police officer on foot patrol once a week or more are more likely to express confidence in local police. Conversely, zero police visibility is negatively linked to public confidence, in other words, those who ‘never’ see any police on patrol are less likely to feel confident about them. The same pattern of results is found using our measure of familiarity. Knowing a police officer by name and sight is associated with greater confidence, whilst not knowing by either sight or name is linked to less confidence.

However, the smaller size of the coefficients for familiarity compared with visibility show that it is visibility that makes the greatest impact on public perceptions of confidence in local police. The correlations between our contact measures and confidence are both negative, indicating that respondents who report contact with the police over the last year are less likely to agree that they have confidence in their local police. The coefficients show that the negative impact of contact on confidence is slightly greater when the contact is respondent initiated than when police led. It should be noted, however, that the likelihood of an individual making contact with the police may itself be shaped by prior feelings of confidence. Public worry concerning local crime, their own victim status and the outcome of any police inquiry impacting on them as individuals is also likely to colour perceptions of confidence.

To understand more fully the differential impact that police presence indicators have on public confidence, we now present results of a multivariate logistic regression analysis that allows the effects of a number of variables to be taken into account at the same time. Table 4 first models the main effects of each police presence measure, along with key demographics.

It then includes other potentially salient factors to determine their relative association with public confidence for men and women. This association can be interpreted by the Odds Ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1.00 for any given category indicates a greater likelihood of public confidence relative to the reference category for that variable whose value is set at 1.00. An OR of less than 1.00 indicates a lower likelihood of public confidence relative to the same reference category.

17

Table 4:

Logistic regression model for the main effects of police presence on public confidence, controlling for key demographics and other salient factors Men OR

OR

Women OR

OR

Age Ethnic group White Indian Pakistani/ Bangladeshi Black African Caribbean Other

1.01 +++ 1.00 1.80 1.68 1.42 1.30

1.01 +++ 1.00 1.62 1.97 1.73 1.36

1.01 +++ 1.00 1.35 1.75 0.56 0.80

1.01 +++ 1.00 1.66 1.59 0.50 0.74

Visibility At least once a day Once a week or more Once a month Less than mthly Never Familiarity Know by name & sight Name only Sight only Neither Respondent initiated contact No Yes Police initiated contact No Yes Number of contacts None Any type Victim of any crime No Yes Health status No illness or disability Any illness or disability Occupational class (NSSEC) Professional & managerial Intermediate occ Routine & non manual LT unemployed & never worked Area type Urban Rural

+++ 1.00 0.98 0.70 0.52 0.47 +++ 1.00 0.61 1.00 (ns) 0.73 +++ 1.00 0.83 ns 1.00 1.00 (ns) +++ 1.00 0.68

+++ 1.00 0.96 0.65 0.50 0.41 +++ 1.00 0.60 0.92 0.70 +++ 1.00 0.88 +++ 1.00 1.08 +++ 1.00 0.66 +++ 1.00 0.70 +++ 1.00 0.89 +++ 1.00 0.69 0.78 0.43

+++ 1.00 0.70 0.52 0.39 0.32 +++ 1.00 0.79 1.01 0.80 +++ 1.00 0.73 ns 1.00 0.98 +++ 1.00 0.80

+++ 1.00 0.74 0.53 0.40 0.31 +++ 1.00 0.78 1.14 0.81 +++ 1.00 0.77 +++ 1.00 0.94 +++ 1.00 0.90 +++ 1.00 0.68 +++ 1.00 0.87 +++ 1.00 0.88 0.74 1.25

N=

5175

+++ 1.00 1.33 4951

+++ 1.00 1.20 6259

5993

+++ variable is statistically significant in the model, p<.001. All OR’s are statistically significant at p<.001 level unless stated.

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

18

The table shows that confidence in policing is greater for men from minority ethnic groups (relative to white men) after taking into account age and all other police presence indicators.

This is also the case for women who are Indian or Pakistani/ Bangladeshi. However, the likelihood of a Black Caribbean woman expressing confidence is nearly halved relative to white women. For both sexes, the odds ratios show a clear gradient in the likelihood of public confidence according to the frequency with which police officers are seen on foot patrol. The value of the OR’s steadily decrease with the number of reported sightings - the likelihood of having confidence in local policing is reduced to approximately half for men who ‘never’ see a police officer and two-thirds for women relative to men and women who report sightings ‘at least once a day’. In addition to visibility, the model shows that the significant main effect for familiarity is to maximise public confidence when police officers are known ‘by name and sight’. However the magnitude of the differences are weaker than for visibility. Knowing a police officer ‘by sight only’ does not have any significant impact on public confidence relative to those with maximum familiarity, whereas knowing an officer ‘by name only’ significantly reduces the odds of feeling confident in local police. The three contact variables included in the model generally show that having any form of contact with the police is associated with a reduced likelihood of confidence, although respondent initiated contact emerges more strongly in this regard than police led contact for both sexes.

The second column in the table for men and women adds to the model other potentially salient variables that may impact on public confidence. Including these variables in the model means that we can see whether or not police presence has any impact on confidence over and above these other factors. The results show that men and women who have been a victim of any crime over the last twelve months are less likely than non-victims to express confidence in local policing. Those reporting any ill-health or disability are less likely than the healthy to have public confidence, whilst living in a rural area is associated with an increased likelihood of having confidence in local police when compared to urban dwellers. Public confidence in the police is most likely for men and women in the professional and managerial occupational class, after taking into account all of the other variables in the model, a finding which is notable considering that this class were least likely to report police visibility, in turn linked to lower confidence. Unlike for men, the odds ratio of public confidence is increased by one quarter for women who are long-term unemployed or never worked. This group is likely to include a disproportionate number of South Asian women, a group noted in this analysis for high confidence in the police.

Whilst health, victim status, social class and area type are all significant factors in understanding variations in public confidence, their inclusion does not change or lessen the impact of police presence on confidence. It is striking that there remains a gradient in public confidence using the measure of visibility for both men and women. This demonstrates, for example, that class differences in visibility (figure 9) cannot explain why visibility has such a strong and consistent impact on public confidence in the police.

19

To complete our analysis of variations in public confidence in the police, we use the geographical data available in the BCS to compare Police Force Areas (PFA’s). Figure 19 (appended to this report) identifies the ten largest PFA’s and uses logistic regression modelling to examine the likelihood of public confidence in each area relative to a combined category of the remaining PFA’s grouped together. Thus, when reading the OR’s plotted on this figure, a value greater than 1.00 is indicative of a increased likelihood of confidence in that PFA relative to all other smaller PFA’s – it does not follow that we can directly compare individually identified forces. The data shows that in three PFA’s – Greater Manchester, South Wales and South Yorkshire – the odds of public confidence are significantly reduced relative to ‘All other’ PFA’s. Other PFA’s emerge as broadly comparable with the reference category with values close to 1.00, namely London Metropolitan and City, Devon and Cornwall. Lancashire PFA and Avon & Somerset both have OR’s of 1.14, demonstrating an increased likelihood of public confidence in local policing relative to other smaller PFA’s.

20

3. Have trends in the relationship between police visibility and public confidence shifted at all over the past five years.

This section maps out time trends in public confidence and police presence, using our indicators of visibility, familiarity and respondent initiated contact available in the BCS from 2006/7. (Our measure of police led contact was unavailable for time series analysis).

For both men and women, public confidence in local police is at a much higher baseline level over time than any indicator of police presence. For men, confidence is at 62 percent in 2006/7 and increases at a gradual rate over time to approximately 65 percent in 2008/9. The percentage expressing confidence in police is generally a little higher for women over time, starting at 65 percent in 2006/7 and increasing between 2007/8 and 2008/9 to nearly 70 percent.

Over the same three year time period, we see that police visibility for men has risen markedly, as indicated by the percentage who report seeing a police officer on foot patrol ‘weekly or more’. This rises from 27 percent in 2006/7 to 35 percent in 2008/9. There is a more modest rise in police visibility for women using the same measure, from 24 percent in 2006/7 to 30 percent in 2008/9. The analysis in this report has demonstrated that, out of all measures of police presence, police visibility has a powerful positive impact on public perceptions of confidence.

Figure 20: Time trends in police confidence and police presence for men

Source: British Crime Survey, 2006/7 to 2008/9

21

In contrast to police visibility, the percentage of men and women who intitiate contact with the police shows a slight downward trajectory over the last three years. In 2006/7, respondent-led contact was more likely than high frequency visibility, particularly for women, but this had reversed by 2007/8 and the gap between visibility and contact had widened still further in 2008/9. It is likely that this is attributable to reductions in crime over this period and increasing local police availability through the roll-out of Neighbourhood Policing.

Familiarity arguably represents a more personal connection between public and police, based in Figures 20 and 21 on people’s sense of ‘knowing’ a police officer or PCSO by name and sight. Perhaps unsurprsingly then, the percentage reporting maximum familiarity is at a much lower baseline for men and women than for the other measures of police presence.

Moreover, the data shows that familiarity of this nature to be static over the time period at approximately 12 percent of women and 15 percent of men.

Figure 21: Time trends in police confidence and police presence for women

Source: British Crime Survey, 2006/7 to 2008/9

22

Figure 15: Logistic regression of police presence indicators by PFA. 2.4 2.2

2.08

2 1.8

1.68

1.6 1.4 1.2 1

1.55

1.46 1.36

1

1

1.02 1.01

1 0.96

0.8

0.9 0.77

0.6

1.28 1.2 1.08

1.24

1.18

0.99

0.92 0.81 0.82 0.58

0.4

0.95 0.99 0.86

0.76 0.65

Respondent i nitiated` Police i nitiated Both

0.86 0.81 0.71

0.89

0.95

0.2 All Other

2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

MPS

GMS

WMS

2.11

Merseyside

TVP

Lancs

1.45

1.29 1.06

1 1 0.95 0.86

All Other

MPS

Avon & Som

S Yorks

Devon & Cornwall

1.97

1.23

0.3

SWP

0.53 GMS

0.48

WMS

0.99

TVP

Lancs

1.16

SWP

1.15 0.94

0.91

0.53 Merseyside

1.17

0.54

0.5

Avon & Som

S Yorks

Know by sight & name See weekly or more

Devon & Cornwall

23

Figure 19: Logistic regression model of public confidence in local policing by PFA 1.2 1.14 1.1

1

1.14

1.07 1 0.99

0.95

0.9 0.88

0.89

Police c onfidence

0.8 0.77

0.77

0.7 0.66

0.6 All Other

MPS

GMS

WMS

Merseyside

TVP

Lancs

SWP

Avon & Som

S Yorks

Devon & Cornwall

Source: British Crime Survey, 2008/9

24