Neighbourhood policing and community intelligence

There is well-worn phrase that the “public are the police and the police are the public”, attributed to Robert Peel and the first Metropolitan Commissioners, Rowan and Mayne (1829). Storch (1975) reminds us that the notion of the creation of a professional police was not popular, partly because of a mistrust that it would operate as a force of imposition and surveillance, against the people.

In the earliest drafting of the policing strategies it was evident there was strenuous effort made to distinguish the police from the Army (such as in the colour of uniforms) (Emsley, 2014) but also to optimise the opportunities and benefits of the policing working closely with the public it served. Although Tilley and Sidebottom (2017) argue for the need for partnership working, even back then there was a recognition that the police could not do it all on their own and that citizen eyes and ears enabled the policing function (Rogers and Frevel, 2018).

Policing by consent

Dr Ian Loader, Professor of Criminology at the University of Oxford, narrates how the relationship between policing and the public has ebbed and flowed over the decades; representing a dynamic negotiation, contextualised to the times (Loader, 2020). This is often referred to as ‘policing by consent’, yet even though much has been written about it, the term remains fluid (Morgan, 1989); perhaps more of concept than a doctrine.

When it comes to operationalising the concept of that working relationship between policing and the public, even internationally, there are principles rather than rules because context is everything (Crichlow, 2022). Let us take a look at some of the key literature that offers insights into the relationship between particular neighbourhood (local) policing to see what practical take-aways for applying are out there for professional policing practice.

A co-production model

Innes, Lowe & Roberts (2020) analysed ten years of neighbourhood policing in the UK through to its decline (from reassurance piloting of the National Neighbourhood Policing Programme of 2008, evaluated by Tuffin, Morris and Poole in 2006, and again by Quinton and Morris in 2008) and subsequent contemporary challenges.

Innes and Roberts (2008) also explored the co-production of community intelligence, via its various engagement models, and the interface between this and public confidence and trust.

Again, Lowe and Innes (2012) made important contributions in unpacking how the mechanism of the National Intelligence Model tasking process relates to community consultation interfaces, from information to actionable intelligence within operational decision-making.

Innes, Abbot, Lowe and Roberts (2009) also provided ethnographical insight in seeing things from the citizen point of view, by using case studies, which tended to support the merits of intelligence-led policing. Ratcliffe (2016) also explored intelligence-led policing and the benefits of using the concept as a sound business model to inform decision making, via case studies, and by considering the growing potential of greater use of technology.

A juggling act

Higgins and Hales (2018) contrasted two neighbourhood policing models to examine effectiveness and found the most benefits came from well-informed proactive local capabilities; all of which carry implications for demand management and workforce development.

Given changing contexts include budgetary limitations, Longstaff, Willer, Chapman, Czarnomski, and Graham (2015) (commissioned by Thames Valley Police) considered how to best juggle core functions with shifting demand and scarce resources; an ongoing challenge acknowledged by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (2024).

Everything is a matter of priorities, yet the literature has consistently included neighbourhood policing as one of these, suggesting its decline was a policy mistake.

Thomas (2016), for example, makes the point that neighbourhood policing is vital for proactivity against the threat of terrorism (which Europol, in 2025, reiterated) and Tilley and Sidebottom (2017) argue it performs a critical bridge for wider partnership efforts. Even though policy decisions resulted in a decline of neighbourhood policing around 2015 there is no substantive evidence base to argue this was a sensible thing to do then and, now, the need to re-build, amidst further financial challenge, makes the job of police decision-makers challenging: to do more with often less.

Learning from policy failure

Having learnt painful lessons about the importance of neighbourhood policing there is now a need re-build it and regain public trust, so that cooperation and intelligence improves.

Fitzgerald, Papazoglou and Collins (2023), based on research involving Greater Manchester, argue for the vitality of building sustainable ‘Community Connect protocols’ as public trust and confidence (and intelligence sharing) comes from positive interactions and relationships. Dodd (2025) promotes Community Intelligence-Led Policing Methodology (CILPM) to enhance intelligence gathering and rebuild public trust.

Coxhead, Pancholi and Uduwerage-Perera (2025) have argued we need to move beyond a reactive model towards Solution Oriented Practice (not just ‘policing’) rather than relying on problem solving, as the latter is unaffordable; meaning more effort should be made to understand and replicate cold spots rather than just throw resources at hot spots. Gilmour (2025) advocates for the Five Keystones Framework, namely to define strategic purpose, put in place an organisational structure that can deliver; integrate community intelligence as core; ensure the working culture drives this; and adopt a continual learning ethos.

The bottom line

Research consistently shows that neighbourhood policing works best when three elements are combined; identifying local priorities and concerns; tackling underlying causes (not just symptoms) of crime and disorder and being visible for reassurance and deterrence (although foot patrol, alone, has not been shown to reduce crime it has been show to instil confidence).

The National Reassurance Policing Programme evaluation found that by effectively combining foot patrol, community engagement and problem solving it met its aims, at least in the short term. Working with communities to identify the causes of crime and disorder that matter to the public have demonstrated causal effects on public confidence when implemented together.

What that means in practice is officers embedded in neighbourhoods for extended periods, not diverted to ‘hybrid’ reactive response work, with geographic consistency to build local knowledge and relationships. Research also shows we would be better to pursue the quality of interactions over quantity as the quality of routine, daily encounters with members of the public are more important to improving public confidence than formal mechanisms of engagement, such as public meetings.

Research shows informal contact works better than formal meetings; how officers treat people matters more than the outcome of specific encounters and respectful, fair treatment builds legitimacy regardless of the interaction’s result. This principle, too, goes for strong relationships with multi-agency forums (building from Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act), as local community safety can only be achieved together by working to a common goal.

Dr John Coxhead SFHEA, FRSA is a Visiting Professor of Policing at the University of Staffordshire and Professor of Community Safety at Loughborough University.