KEY INSIGHTS

So what has the CCAR discovered through application of the engagement model about community cohesion, confidence in the police, and views on different types of initiatives? And what else did the Project Delivery Team observe and learn through reflecting on delivery?

The following is a summary of the main insights attributable to delivering the CCAR in the four localities. Details and analysis are also captured in the individual locality reports published on the CCAR website. These are broken down by locality and by the different steps of the engagement model.

Sense of community spirit is strong

There was a relatively high level of agreement among people that their locality had a strong sense of community. Participants frequently referenced how people in the local area help and support one another, and that most people are friendly towards one another. People generally know one another in the streets where they live, had often lived in the area for a long time, and people had family living close by.

Where people did not feel that there was a strong sense of community spirit, a diverse range of reasons were given:

Visible drug dealing and endemic antisocial behaviour

Drug dealing (and openly consuming drugs) was frequently cited as being a problem, making people feel afraid of the people around them. There was also a common perception that the police should/must know who is involved in such activities but are not prioritising intervention. Scenes of
young children gathering in groups and ‘openly vaping’ also raised concerns among some participants about how they had acquired these, and why teachers and police were seemingly not intervening. The availability of disposable vape pens was also cited by children and young people through their surveys as being an issue that concerned them.

Certain forms of antisocial behaviour were described as being endemic in the communities. The spectrum of behaviours mentioned was broad, ranging from noisy gatherings, neighbour disputes and issues, littering in public places, youths loitering about, aggressive begging, and vandalism.

Disrespectful attitudes

Some participants also referenced a general trend towards more disrespectful, uncivil and impolite behaviour and attitudes among people. There was often an intergenerational aspect woven into the discussions: older people felt that younger people were disrespectful towards them, and younger people felt that older people were rude, unfriendly and judgmental.

Road safety

Road safety was frequently cited as an issue where people felt that the police could be taking more action. Children and young people also mentioned how road safety issues are a matter of concern. The predominant point related to speeding, both in residential streets and, in the case of Wick and Caithness, country roads.

Deteriorating community fabric and feeling of abandonment

The closure of shops and other community facilities was seen by some to be a sign of abandonment and economic depression. Some people said that the physical fabric of the community is becoming run down and that nobody seems to care. A common theme was that people (and agencies) are not uniting strongly enough and instead turning a blind eye to community deterioration, which is leading to a loss of community pride.

Mixed views on the term deprivation

The term ‘deprivation’ was discussed during early meetings with community group representatives at Step 1.

A view was expressed to the Project Delivery Team that the term is stigmatising and could put people off from participating. In response to this, the Project Delivery Team re-branded the Project as the Community Confidence Action Research Project (the original name being used was the ‘Deprivation and Confidence Project’).

Since the genesis for the Project was based largely on the evidence of a link between deprivation and low confidence in the police, and since localities had been identified and selected using deprivation statistics, all Project materials continued to explain the aims of the Project and why deprivation was important to the Project, for reasons of being clear and transparent.

The Project Delivery Team tested the stigmatisation theory in the course of community conversations and found that views and feelings were mixed. Some participants felt that the term ‘deprivation’ was a ‘fair and real description’ of where they live, whilst others said that they didn’t feel the area they lived in was especially deprived. Others said that they did not like the term but understood that it is a term used by government based on a social metrics.

Relatively low confidence in the police but high trust

The question of whether people had confidence in their local police, and the reasons for this, were explored both through community surveys and in community conversations. As expected, people reported having generally low levels of confidence in policing.

However, people spoke favourably about policing as a public service, and it was clear that people valued the principle of policing. People had high levels faith in the police officers that they have had experience of dealing with, and strong, anti-police sentiments were not expressed.

There was also no sense that the police were in any way ‘over-policing’ areas or ‘over-reaching’ with their powers.

Positive views on ‘campus cops’ and dedicated community officers

There was a positive view regarding the deployment of ‘campus cops’ in local schools, and also a very positive view of community officers who were more embedded in community roles, and who meet the public in community settings at scheduled and regular times.

Provision of policing viewed as insufficient to meet local demand The main point that came up repeatedly in conversations is a belief that the community is being under-serviced by the police and other local agencies, relative to the scale, repetition and predictability of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour matters.

Police not sufficiently visible and accessible

People felt that the police are not sufficiently visible to them in their community, with many people saying that they never or rarely see police officers patrolling their communities.

People also felt that it was difficult to access police officers and speak to them about issues that concern them or share intelligence with them.

This was largely because the local police station’s front counter had limited opening hours, or was frequently closed despite being advertised as being open. In a similar vein, people frequently expressed frustration in their use of the 101 telephone system, due to what felt like long and increasing call waiting times.

Positivity among children and young people

From the surveys issued to children and young people, the majority viewed policing very positively, seeking more engagement with schools.

Confusion regarding the tackling of antisocial behaviour

People also frequently cited antisocial behaviour as an issue that they not only experience and witness often, but have also reported to the police, with little or no action being seen to be taken from their perspective.

People often said that they are not sure what matters are worthy of reporting to the police, and questioned whether they are reporting things to the right agency. There was a keenness to avoid wasting police time, but people did not know what else to do in order to get help.

Police attendance at local community events

People also felt that although the police might sometimes proactively attend community events/meetings as a means of trying to maintain relationships with the community, the officers attending would often be pulled away at short notice to respond to incidents. Some participants
said that this discourages people from speaking to the police because they are not sure whether they are attending in a proactive capacity or in a response capacity, and would not want to disturb them if it is the latter.

There was a common view that local community police officers should be dedicated to carrying out community policing activity rather than trying to do this in between responding to calls, and the use of physical, semi-permanent devices such as stands, marquees and portakabins at events can help to create the perception that the police are present for the entirety of the event, area accessible, and want to be part of the community.

Information about policing and local priorities

People also said that they were unaware of information about policing, crime and antisocial behaviour for their area, in the form of statistics and information as opposed to just ‘social media news items’. Awareness of the existence of local police plans and local performance reporting to local authorities was extremely minimal, and people did not know that Police Scotland publishes local plans, and some local authority level statistics, on its website.

The Project Delivery Team observed surprise among attendees at community conversations when the local policing team management presented statistics, often showing reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour. People were surprised that they had not heard this before, and felt that wider communication of positive information would build confidence and lead to people feeling safer.

Unfamiliarity with Local Officers

People also mentioned that they do not know, by name or face, who the local policing team is. On a related point, some local stakeholders said that when they have managed to establish a relationship with the police, the officer(s) in question frequently move on to other roles, leading to a relationship characterised by gaps and inconsistency, with less investment in any relationships
that form.

Education around modern policing demands

People also felt that the police should be doing more to explain to communities the nature of modern policing and what it entails. People were surprised to learn that a lot of police time is spent
safeguarding people experiencing mental health distress, as well as dealing with less-visible protective work e.g. domestic abuse, child protection, and online crime such as fraud and threats to public safety.

People said that if they don’t see the police out on patrol, don’t come to community events, and don’t get to hear about this less visible but important work, then it is easy for local people to jump to the conclusion that the police are not doing very much with
their time.

People also agreed that the police, and governments, continue to promote policing services using images that reference high-visibility and interactive community policing, and questioned whether this sets false expectations about what modern policing means.

Social media use should be more interactive and more ‘hyperlocal’

People also said that if the police are going to rely more on social media to communicate and engage with communities, then they need to be active on multiple platforms and at a more hyperlocalised level, to ensure that the reach is satisfactory and the content meaningful.

There was also a feeling that many police communication pieces on social media are very generic in nature, do not feel local enough, and the accounts are used in a one-way messaging capacity, rather than being genuinely interactive. There was a feeling that the police need to get with the times and make better use of digital channels for reporting, intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing as communities are keen to interact with the police in this way and be part of the ‘policing effort’,

Understanding of the policing system in Scotland is limited

The Project Delivery Team observed that most people attending the community conversation sessions were not familiar with how the system of policing in Scotland had changed in 2013 as a consequence of the enactment of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.

Very few participants had heard of the Scottish Police Authority or understood what its role is, in terms of allocating funding to Police Scotland, publishing a strategic police plan, promoting continuous improvement in policing, and holding the Chief Constable to account for policing.

There was more awareness of how the regional police forces had merged to become Police Scotland, but limited awareness of changes to local policing. As mentioned before, awareness regarding local police plans and local police scrutiny arrangements was minimal.

Limited awareness of the Tests of Change

At steps 6 and 7 of the engagement model, the Project Delivery Team was keen to understand how people felt about the tests of change that had been implemented by local policing teams.

The survey at step 6, and the final conversations at step 7, revealed that only half of participants had seen, or were aware, of one initiative (usually via a social media platform). The vast majority of people had not seen (or were not aware of) two or more initiatives taking place in the community. The reasons for this were discussed at the final community conversation in each area (Step 7).

There was an agreement that some of initiatives targeted particular sections of the community (e.g. engagement in school settings) or had been delivered through social media platforms that they were not members of. Other initiatives had simply not had enough time to embed (e.g. newsletters and drop-ins).

Where people had been aware of an initiative, the feedback was positive and optimistic, however the reduced number of people answering the ‘checking in’ survey (Survey 2) and attending the final community conversations, minimises the value of insights into the effectiveness of particular ‘tests of change’ at building confidence.