Observations from a decade inside: Policing cultures and evidence based policing Professor Betsy Stanko Metropolitan Police Service/Royal Holloway, University of London October 2011 SIPR Annual Lecture

This presentation… First, explores ‘what is evidence’ in the ‘what works’ policing discussions?;

Second, argues that the evidence for confidence in policing suggests that we keep the legitimacy of policing in the forefront of our work;

Then offers A view that systematic research offers other forms of evidence for change, drawing on insight from a seven year tracker of rape allegations

And finally considers how the above requires improvement from the inside, by continuously challenging neo-tribal resistance to outside/outsider evidence

Over the past decade ‘what works’… Offers accumulated knowledge and shows that there are replicable strategies to reduce crime (the policing of problems places for example can reap sustainable reduction) Demonstrates that there are benefits of problem solving people’s problems – crime, anti social behaviour, quality of life and public confidence.

A look at public confidence

MPS model of confidence Bridging procedural justice model with police improvement Information about local policing activities shapes Public Opinion Perception of how well the police are: responding to emergencies, tackling and preventing crime, supporting victims and witnesses, providing a visible presence and policing public events Views that the police are: committed to and engaged with the community, by listening, understanding and dealing with their concerns, Are reliable People feel that the police are: fair and treat them with respect, regardless of who they are or the reason for contact helpful, friendly and approachable People perceive that there has been a decrease in local disorder and ASB, e.g. noisy/nuisance neighbours, teenagers hanging around, drinking in the street and vandalism Effectiveness in dealing with crime Engagement with the community Confidence in Policing Fair treatment Alleviating Local ASB 8

Influence of key drivers Confidence Model: the drivers explained Worry about Alleviating local ASB Effectiveness in dealing with crime Fair treatment Engagement with the community crime

People experience local crime and local problems differently Yet, despite diversity of local people, opinions tend to converge around what and where the ‘most serious’ local problems are perceived to be. Serious and organised crime – locally specific to key areas in London; certain people know where it happens in their localities; over the years there has been no or little change in people’s perceptions about the existence of this kind of crime locally in London. Volume and violent crime – some evidence of locally specific, however little variation across wards about how volume crime is distributed across London. Incivilities – widespread concern across all the wards, but not locally specific; generally linked to people’s feelings about decline of social cohesion and sharing values with their neighbours. So – how do people perceive local problems in their areas: We know that despite this local diversity I talked about, when it comes to local problems and the locations of them, we find that people’s opinions converge. Residents in a ward tend to agree on what constitutes the most serious problems and where they are located. But we also found that some people are more likely than others to see these local problems. This includes: Younger people - with those aged between 15 to 21 being the most likely Those whose immediate local area is in poor condition; Those who have been victims of property and even more so victims of violent crime Those most in need of social cohesion – those who said that they do not feel part of the local community, but say it is very important to them = probably your most isolated residents. Knowing this, means the police can be more targeted about finding out where local problem locations are. For example, considering victims and proactively including them in engagement (as is now done via victim visits by SN teams) will give valuable community intelligence. It also means we need to think about how we are capturing local views on problems – especially of those people who may not talk to us that often or that easily. And if you think about it, some of those more likely to identify problems are also those who may be more disenfranchised / less empowered to give us their views. Just taking the example of young people - how many people between 15 and 21 are regularly part of ward panels / how easy is it to ‘recruit’ them to give you their views. Now, another thing we did was to investigate how people’s perceptions of local problems are structured in their minds. (This was done via Principal Components Analysis of SN survey question 27 - Here is a list of issues that may or may not be a problem in this area. For each one please tell me whether it is a major problem, a minor problem or no problem). = looking at extent to which identification of different types of crimes and disorders co-occurred. And we found that the kinds of problems people identified sat around three categories. And this was: Firstly, incivilities: disorder / ASB – noise, litter, fly tipping, graffiti. Then, Organised crime: things like businesses paying protection money to gangs, organised violence between gangs/criminal groups … any type of organised crime, immigrants working illegally and the selling of counterfeit goods locally. And lastly, Violent crime: racially motivated attacks, rape, but also muggings, theft and burglary. Which category was seen as the predominant local problem differed from ward to ward. In some places incivilities were perceived to be the most serious local problems, whilst in others people identified organised or violent crime as the most serious local problems that impacted on their confidence! This shows that it is not necessarily ‘just’ low-level disorder that is a problem locally. And it shows that it really is essential that we engage with local people about the local problems they see, take seriously what they tell us and then match policing to these identified problems – whether that is low-level disorder or serious problems around crime and intimidation by local gangs. So, that was a little bit about local experiences and perceptions – but there was another element of the model which kept coming up in our research – both surveys and qualitative studies – and that was information provision And it is also a good example of how our learning developed over the years – initially analysis suggested information provision was a driver of confidence – but ongoing analysis (in conjunction with feedback from Boroughs and teams) has shown that it is not as easy as that, but that certainly info can have a huge impact on confidence and reassurance… Geographical clustering – groups of people in the same location feeling the same about serious/ organised crime. Distinct groups. A group of people in one area who feel the same about the issue. Meaning those who say it is a concern will have specific experience of it or knowledge of it. Incivilities – the vast majority perceive it to some extent and therefore feeling is across London/ no big variation across London. More linked to feelings on social cohesion and shared morals Source: MPS Safer Neighbourhoods Survey 2004 - 2009 10

Do not underestimate the value of legitimacy …higher levels of public trust are linked to more positive policing/justice outcomes Policing strategies that take into account Victim focus/offender focus/place focus Key locations/micro place Harm reduction vs total enforcement

Think continuously about how to maximise public cooperation… Fair treatment and co operation with police Evidence suggests that detections often arise through information provided by victims and witnesses Those who believe in state legitimacy are more willing to comply with law (Tyler) Less likely to be willing to use violence outside the law (Bradford, Jackson, Tyler, Aziz)

Public Confidence can be influenced Local information is a form of direct contact. MPS data tells us that an MPS leaflet is the most preferred form of finding out about local policing. Direct effort to inform local people about police activity improves confidence (Hohl et al 2010) Fair and respectful treatment predicts whether the public viewed the police as legitimate (Myhill and Quinton 2011)

Confidence in Local and London-wide Policing (MPS PAS 09/10-11/12 Rolling 12 month data)

London 2011, a disorder with bystanders… A crisis in legitimacy?

And when cooperation breaks down

Those who believe in state legitimacy are more willing to comply with law (Tyler) less likely to be willing to use violence outside the law (Bradford, Jackson, Tyler, Aziz)

A look at Victim centred evidence: Rape in London

Reported rape in London over 6 years suggests the consistent appearance of the 'un-real' (Estrich 1987) victim The vast majority of those who report rape to the MPS can be considered to be vulnerable in some way or other (87% in 2005; 84% in 2010). One third victims who report rape are aged below 18 at the time of the offence (33% in 2005; 34% in 2010) One in six of victims who report rape have a mental health issue (18% in 2005; 14% in 2010) One third of victims who report rape have consumed alcohol / drugs prior to the rape (35% in 2005; 35% in 2010) One quarter of victims who report rape are or have been in an intimate relationship with their assailant (24% in 2005; 26% in 2010) Remind that this was key finding of 2005 review – argument that definition of vulnerability ought to be wider and we need to acknowledge that these impact on victim's vulnerability to attack in the first place , but also the vulnerability of the case itself to attrition – victims whose recall might be clouded by alcohol, victims torn by their personal histories with their attacker; etc…(the damaged, un-real victim) One in three are aged below 18 at the time of the offence - consistent One in six have a mental health issue – fluctuates somewhat – but: recording / undercount probably anyway One in three have consumed alcohol / drugs prior to the rape - consistent One quarter are or have been in an intimate relationship with the assailant - spike in 07 and 08 – recording changes 21

Change and continuity SRAU, SID, DOR SRAU, SID, DOR

Police practice has changed, as key attrition points show differences over time More allegations are classified as crime (67% in 2005; 91% in 2010) More suspects are identified (53% in 2005; 72% in 2010) More suspects are arrested (39% in 2005; 53% in 2010) Fewer suspects are charged (44% of all arrested suspects in 2005; 26% of all arrested suspects in 2010) Once charged, more suspects are convicted (31% in 2005; 44% in 2010) Overall outcome: In 2005 5% of all allegations lead to a conviction. In 2010, it is 6%. Need to review the above percentages – use proportions of all allegations or proportions identified out of crimed; and arrested out of identified? In terms of classification to charge (i.e. those charged out of all those classified): in 2005 75% of cases fall out; in 2010: 85% of cases fall out! In other words – overall, fewer cases reach charge.

Investigate exploitation of vulnerability There continues to be a wide gap between rape that ‘happens’ to people who report to the police and the number of these allegations that lead (or not) to a finding of guilty of rape in a criminal court This ‘justice gap’ has not significantly improved despite a significant change in the allocation of resources

After a decade working inside the police, I think internal change is slow… Thinking about evidence as a (social) scientist is at a slow creep inside policing

Evidence and policing culture… knowing you, knowing me As a non uniformed ‘professor’ I have insisted that analysis of ‘what police know’ be robust Yet the analysis is only successful in sparking a different way of working when a senior uniformed sponsor has used the analysis in decision making

Features of police culture Police scholars and fiction writers have comments on how uniformed officers 'behave, think, act' Studied Behaviours have achieved a 'folklore': use of force, coercion, racism, sexism, anti intellectualism, corruption, biased law enforcement, secrecy, exclusivity, loyalty to each other, brotherhood, guarded trust, competitive, authoritarian, entitled, bullying, abusive, good humoured, brave, helpful, reliable, selfless…….

Using conceptual evidence to impact the ‘doing’ of policing requires shifting the way ‘we do things here’ Using the two examples set out here reconceptualising confidence locating rape victims along a continuum of vulnerability

Uniformed world view Affects the way 'evidence' verified by those outside is accepted, incorporated as a core part of improvement Evidence is not only the way one adapts to 'turning right or left out of the station' Evidence presented here requires changing the way one 'sees' and one does things

Confidence: Moving beyond the uniform to understand public need Still much work to do to break out of the ‘shield of police culture’ Requires breaking the traditional hold that policing cultures have on a ‘uniformed’ understanding of the world Must be an active transition/translation, Must require ‘acting’ and feeling like a citizen, but does happen easily (in my experience)

Novel? approach to investigation of rape Investigate knowing that there is likely to be a presumption that the victim is vulnerable; Investigate the offender to explore whether (and how) the assailant exploited vulnerability; Continually facing external social resistance to criminal justice outcomes for rape victims

Yet… Crossing continents, crossing worlds, bridging, translating, challenging both, With humour, respect, impatience, and optimism