Boosting Public Confidence Through Neighbourhood Policing

Neighbourhood policing, done to a high standard, produces “quick, large and sustained” gains in public confidence — the College of Policing’s own systematic reviews back the claim. What’s missing isn’t evidence. It’s consistent delivery across all 43 forces. The frameworks exist, several forces have already proved they work, and what follows draws together the case studies, statutory powers and partnership models that let neighbourhood teams do the job they exist to do.

The research is consistent on what works: three components delivered together — targeted visible presence, community engagement, and problem-solving — not run as separate activities. Hot spots policing paired with problem-oriented approaches produces larger, more durable effects than either does alone.

The evidence base for neighbourhood policing

Professor Lawrence Sherman’s finding that 50% of all crime concentrates in less than 4% of addresses reshaped policing science. This “hot spots” finding, replicated across cities worldwide, shows crime clustering in predictable, targetable patterns rather than spreading evenly. The College of Policing reports that 58% of all crime occurs in the top 10% of places with the most serious crime — geographic targeting is close to the only efficient option available.

The SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) is the operational framework for turning that finding into practice. Developed by John Eck and William Spelman following Herman Goldstein’s foundational Problem-Oriented Policing work, SARA structures how neighbourhood teams identify persistent problems, analyse their causes, develop tailored responses, and evaluate outcomes. The College of Policing’s CHEERS test helps officers pick the right ones: Community impact, Harm generated, Expected police response, clearly defined Events, Recurring patterns, and Similarity to other problems.

The meta-analytic evidence is substantial. Hinkle and colleagues’ 2020 Campbell Systematic Review of 34 primary studies found problem-oriented policing has a positive impact on targeted problems, with 26 place-based interventions showing diffusion of benefits — crime reduction spreading to nearby areas rather than simply displacing it. Braga and colleagues’ hot spots research, across 80+ rigorous evaluations, shows consistent benefits with no evidence of displacement.

The Cambridge Crime Harm Index, developed by Sherman and Peter Neyroud, lets forces prioritise by harm rather than crime counts. A robbery causes substantially more harm than shoplifting, yet traditional volume metrics treat them the same; harm-weighted targeting sends resources where they do the most good.

The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction — run by the College of Policing as part of the UK Government’s What Works Network — provides the Crime Reduction Toolkit for practitioners, rating interventions on the EMMIE framework (Effect, Mechanism, Moderators, Implementation, Economics). Lancashire’s Police and Crime Commissioner now uses EMMIE to assess how rigorous a funding bid actually is — a model other forces should consider.

UK case studies in problem-solving practice

Operation Blink (Surrey Police) shows what rigorous problem-solving looks like in practice. Catalytic converter thefts had risen from 0.32 to 4.49 per day between 2018 and early 2021, with only 5.3% of thefts reported in progress. The Problem Solving Team traced the cause to public unawareness of what the theft actually looked like — and found the average victim was 52, a demographic social media campaigns were missing entirely.

The response was education, not enforcement: 1,000 lamppost signs showing what theft in progress looks like, targeted flyers to vulnerable vehicle owners, and a partnership with Toyota UK for demonstration videos. The results: a 171% increase in 999 calls reporting thefts in progress, 119% increase in suspect vehicles identified, 13 arrests (against one in the previous 5.5 months), and a 64% reduction in thefts. The force put the net public saving at £298,000, and British Transport Police adopted the approach nationally.

Operation Vulcan (Greater Manchester Police) shows the same methodology scaling to serious organised crime. Cheetham Hill and Strangeways was the “counterfeit capital of Europe,” linked to 50% of the UK’s £8.6 billion counterfeit trade, with 33 Organised Crime Groups operating there. Its MoRiLE harm score, 2842, was extreme.

Using a “Clear, Hold, Build” strategy, the multi-agency team closed 216 counterfeit shops — every identified premises — over two years, seized 1,050 tonnes of counterfeit goods including a single 580-tonne haul (the largest in UK history), made 238 arrests, and cut violent crime by 62% and public order offences by 50%. Fire service closures for safety violations did more than warrants ever managed. Neighbourhood teams were phased back in for the “hold” phase — the point where this stops being a one-off operation and becomes ordinary neighbourhood work again.

Durham’s Community Peer Mentoring Project shows demand reduction through partnership rather than enforcement. High-impact repeat callers with complex vulnerabilities were consuming disproportionate resources without anything getting better. The response was volunteer peer mentors with lived experience, offering bespoke, open-ended support. Contact with services fell 78–81%, offending and hospital admissions dropped, and Durham Constabulary put the saving at £466,000 a year against running costs of £130,000. The project won the Tilley Award in 2018/19 and a Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service.

Sussex Police paired hotspot policing with Night Safety Marshals and Project WAVE (Wellbeing and Vulnerability Engagement) patrols. Year one: a 15% reduction in overall crime in hotspot areas and a 19.5% reduction in anti-social behaviour. Individual results follow the same pattern at a smaller scale — Sergeant Amy McAlees (Arun & Chichester) took one teenage shoplifter from 50 thefts in three months to zero through targeted intervention.

A caveat worth stating plainly: these are forces reporting on their own successes, not independent evaluations against a matched comparison area. Operation Blink’s 64% reduction is measured against the same period the previous year, not against a similar force that didn’t run the campaign. Operation Vulcan’s 100% closure rate describes execution against premises it had already identified, not the scale of the underlying problem when it started. None of that makes the numbers fake — arrests, closures and reduced repeat calls are hard to invent — but it means these figures are a best case worth aiming for, not a typical result to expect on the first attempt.

The common thread across all four: rigorous use of SARA, multi-agency partnerships from the outset, community intelligence as a primary source, outcomes tracked throughout, and PCC funding and backing to keep it going.

Partnerships and shared powers

Community Safety Partnerships, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are the statutory framework for multi-agency working. Responsible authorities include police, local authorities, fire and rescue services, Integrated Care Boards, and probation services, with statutory duties covering Community Safety Strategic Assessments, three-year Community Safety Plans, ASB Case Reviews, Domestic Homicide Reviews, and the Serious Violence Duty introduced in 2022.

Violence Reduction Units, established in 2019 across 20 police force areas with £391.7 million invested through the Serious Violence Fund, lead whole-systems approaches to serious violence prevention. The March 2024 evaluation found statistically significant reductions in hospital admissions from sharp object violence — an estimated 472 admissions prevented among under-25s. VRUs commission interventions using evidence-informed approaches, and the Youth Endowment Fund Toolkit requires 10% of intervention budgets to go on evaluation.

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) bring children’s social care, police public protection, health, education, housing, probation, and the voluntary sector into one place. The model, pioneered in Devon and Cornwall around 2010, gives a single point of referral for safeguarding concerns with multi-agency triage. NPT officers, often the first to spot a vulnerable child or adult, feed intelligence into MASH systems that trigger the right response.

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) share information on the highest-risk domestic abuse cases between police, probation, health, child protection, housing, and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. North Yorkshire Police’s MATAC model turns the focus onto perpetrators rather than victims: 73–82% of offenders had lower harm scores after engagement, and 138 were archived from the system for no new offending within a year.

Local Focus Hubs, as run in Avon and Somerset, bring police, local authorities, registered social landlords, community mental health, and fire and rescue services together around the SARA methodology to resolve repeat crime, disorder, and anti-social behaviour. The range of interventions on the table — criminal justice outcomes, housing association powers, environmental health enforcement — means the response can be built to fit the problem rather than the other way round.

Public health approaches, particularly Adverse Childhood Experiences and trauma-informed practice, are changing how forces understand and respond to vulnerability. The Welsh Early Action Together programme trained all four Welsh forces in ACEs between 2018 and 2020, with research showing a marked improvement in officers’ understanding of trauma and more empathetic decision-making. Northamptonshire’s trauma-informed custody changes and Police Scotland’s “Act Don’t React” training are the operational version of the same idea.

Statutory powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced 19 overlapping powers with six tools built to be quicker, more flexible, and victim-focused. Most use the civil standard of proof — balance of probabilities — which allows action where the criminal threshold isn’t met, useful for persistent low-level ASB that never quite clears it.

Community Protection Notices address conduct that has a detrimental effect on quality of life and is persistent, unreasonable and continuing. Police officers, council officers, and designated social landlords can issue one after a written warning. Breach carries a Fixed Penalty Notice of up to £100 or a level 4 fine on conviction. CPNs suit noise nuisance, rubbish accumulation, graffiti, and gardens affecting neighbours.

Public Spaces Protection Orders target a place rather than a person. Only local authorities can make a PSPO, but police (including designated PCSOs) and council officers can enforce it. Orders last up to three years, renewable indefinitely, must be published and signposted, and require consultation with police, PCCs, community representatives, and landowners. Breach carries a maximum £1,000 fine. Common uses: alcohol control zones, dog control, vehicle nuisance.

Closure Powers give immediate relief where premises are driving disorder. An Inspector can issue a 24-hour closure notice; a Superintendent can authorise 48 hours; a Magistrates’ Court order can close premises for up to six months. A closure order also triggers an absolute ground for possession for social landlords under the Housing Act 1988. Dyfed-Powys Police’s structured escalation — warning letters, then a Community Protection Warning, then a CPN, then a Closure Order, with multi-agency evidence gathered from the start — is a model worth copying.

Civil Injunctions stop or prevent ASB quickly, available for anyone aged 10 or over, and can combine prohibitions with positive requirements such as alcohol treatment or anger management. Adult breach is civil contempt, carrying up to two years in prison. A power of arrest can be attached where there’s violence or a significant risk of harm.

Dispersal Powers let uniformed officers (and designated PCSOs) exclude someone from a specified area for up to 48 hours following Inspector authorisation, where their behaviour is contributing to harassment, alarm, distress, or crime and disorder. Under-16s can be taken home or to a place of safety. Officers still have to respect Articles 10 and 11 ECHR — expression and assembly.

Criminal Behaviour Orders are available post-conviction for any criminal offence where the offender has caused harassment, alarm, or distress — the ASB doesn’t need to relate to the conviction offence itself. Breach carries up to five years in prison. Early engagement with the CPS matters here.

The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 will add Respect Orders (a new civil behavioural order), extend dispersal powers from 48 to 72 hours, and require mandatory reporting on how non-police agencies use ASB powers.

Cultural and structural barriers

Academic research consistently finds tension between police “craft” culture and evidence-based approaches. Officers surveyed rate experience over research evidence as a guide to practice; only 2% say they often discuss problems with university researchers, and 73% never have. Direct line managers often treat engagement with research evidence as a poor use of time.

Loftus (2009), Reiner (2010), and Cockcroft (2013) document the cultural traits that resist evidence-based reform: solidarity and isolation, the “thin blue line” mentality, and practical wisdom valued over formal research. Chief officers describe the lack of evaluation as “a strongly embedded cultural norm” — recognising it is the easy part; changing it takes sustained effort at every level of leadership.

The tension between reactive demand and proactive prevention is probably the biggest operational barrier of all. The Police Foundation’s research shows emergency response demand intensifying while neighbourhood resources get cut. Hybrid models that combine response and neighbourhood functions have led to what the research calls “withdrawal from communities”: reactive demand eats into neighbourhood time unpredictably, so “meetings and engagement commitments get cancelled at the last minute.” Break enough promises and public confidence goes with them.

Systematic abstraction of neighbourhood officers onto response work has become normal enough that the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee (2025) now tracks it directly, with national definitions distinguishing “planned” from “spontaneous” abstraction. Protecting neighbourhood capacity is a leadership decision, not something that happens by default.

Siloed working between teams and forces compounds all of this. HMICFRS finds forces spend over £250 million a year on collaborations that don’t achieve what they set out to, because objectives aren’t understood, benefits aren’t tracked, and governance is complicated. Regional Organised Crime Units operate across “many disparate police systems,” which makes intelligence exchange inefficient by design. The 43-force structure, with each Chief Constable operationally independent, makes coordination voluntary rather than mandatory.

The College of Policing’s Neighbourhood Policing Programme, piloted from June 2024 with national rollout from June 2025, is aimed at the training gap directly — community engagement, problem-solving through SARA, tackling ASB, partnership working, and protecting communities from serious organised crime. The dedicated ASB module answers HMICFRS findings that most forces need to improve how they identify, record, and respond to anti-social behaviour.

Authorised Professional Practice is the official source of professional practice for policing, continuously updated as legislation and practice change. It isn’t mandatory, but HMICFRS uses it for inspections and courts reference it in judicial proceedings. Knowledge Hub, run by Police Digital Service, is the main platform for cross-force knowledge sharing, supporting all 43 forces, national agencies, and government departments handling OFFICIAL and OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE data.

The Society of Evidence-Based Policing, founded in 2010 and now a registered charity, grew its membership by over 1,500 in a single year through its partnership with the Youth Endowment Fund. More than 85% of event participants say the sessions add real value to their work. Its implementation workshops on hotspots, focused deterrence, and problem-solving are grassroots evidence adoption in practice.

The Peelian foundation and modern practice

Sir Robert Peel’s first principle — “to prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment” — makes prevention the original mission of British policing. The ninth — “the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them” — reads almost like a direct statement of what evidence-based policing measures today: outcomes, not activity.

Lentz and Chaires (2007) showed the nine principles as commonly cited were actually codified by the historian Charles Reith in 1948, not written by Peel himself. That doesn’t diminish them — they draw together Peel’s own speeches, the Metropolitan Police Act 1829, and the early commissioners’ writings into a philosophy that has shaped British policing’s self-image for two centuries. The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics leans on this heritage explicitly, noting that Peel’s principles “focus heavily on the importance of public support and emphasise the need for the police to ‘secure and maintain public respect.’”

Professor Lawrence Sherman’s Triple-T strategy — Targeting, Testing, Tracking — is Peelian prevention translated for modern policing. Targeting, through systematic ranking of harm by place, time and person, does the prevention work Peel had in mind. Testing, through controlled experiments, checks that policing isn’t quietly increasing crime or wasting resources while it does so. Tracking, through continuous monitoring, is the modern version of the “absence of crime” test itself.

The procedural justice research of Jackson, Hough, and Bradford at LSE bears out Peel’s original insight: public cooperation depends on trust, fairness, and how legitimate people think the police are. Treat people fairly and with dignity, and it predicts both compliance with the law and cooperation with police — the willing cooperation Peel was after.

Evidence-based neighbourhood policing is not an imported management fad. It is the fulfilment of what British policing was built to do. Every time an NPT uses SARA to prevent crime before it happens, measures success by harm reduction rather than arrest counts, or builds a partnership that earns community cooperation, it is doing what Peel set out nearly two centuries ago — with the advantage of two centuries of evidence about what actually works.

What senior leaders should do with this

Hot spots policing is, in the Policing Minister’s words, “the crime reduction strategy with the strongest evidence” — and deployment still varies wildly between forces. SARA is endorsed by the College of Policing, and HMICFRS inspections still find forces running “SAR, not SARA” — assessment, the fourth stage, is the one that keeps getting skipped. Partnership structures exist at every level and still remain hard to coordinate well.

For an Inspector to Superintendent working this problem, the priorities that follow from the evidence above are:

• Protect neighbourhood capacity from reactive abstraction. Prevention doesn’t happen when officers are constantly pulled onto response.
• Fund the analytical support SARA actually needs. Most NPTs currently lack the data and analysis capability the model assumes they have.
• Measure harm reduction, not activity. The Cambridge Crime Harm Index or something like it — what gets measured gets done.
• Back the College of Policing’s Neighbourhood Policing Programme as the foundation for consistent capability across forces.
• Use the cross-force learning that already exists — the Problem Solving Conference, the Tilley Awards, Knowledge Hub, the Society of Evidence-Based Policing.
• Build partnerships that actually share power and intelligence. Every case study above that produced an outsized result did it by combining police enforcement with housing, fire, environmental health, or the voluntary sector — not by policing alone.

None of this needs a new national programme or new legislation to get started. Most of the tools above already exist, tested and costed. What neighbourhood policing needs is what it has needed since 1829: protection from everything else competing for an officer’s time on any given shift.