Policing the Reassurance gap
The notion that police needed a programme to reassure some people, as well as a programme to catch others, originated from concerns expressed by some chief constables during discussions at Lancaster House in 2000, with the then Home Secretary Jack Straw.

The notion that police needed a programme to reassure some people, as well as a programme to catch others, originated from concerns expressed by some chief constables during discussions at Lancaster House in 2000, with the then Home Secretary Jack Straw.
The chief constables were conscious of growing evidence of police and public disengagement. The effect of the huge increases in demand on police, coupled with the introduction of the National Intelligence Model with its greater emphasis on intelligence-driven activity, had led to reduced visibility of police and with it public support.
The Chief Constable of Surrey, Denis OConnor, with others, including Dr Martin Innes at Surrey University, researched what this might mean in practical terms. Subsequently they were able to persuade the Police Standards Unit that it was necessary to find out what police needed to do in neighbourhoods in order to turn peoples views around.
Hence the launch of the National Reassurance Policing Programme, a joint ACPO and Home Office study led by Mr OConnor and Tim Godwin, ACC Metropolitan Police.
This work was being carried out in the context of research already done in America. In the early 1980s in New Jersey, J Q Wilson and G Kelling conducted their research into the different effects of foot and mobile patrol. Here, although it was found that foot patrol had not reduced crime rates, it was noted that the residents did feel more secure than residents in other areas, and thought that crime had been reduced. The authors attributed this finding to a source of fear that they felt tended to be overlooked, namely the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. They cautioned that anxiety, created from a sense that the streets are disorderly and a source of distasteful encounters, should not be understated.
There was also the long project on community policing being conducted by Professor Wes Skogan in Chicago. This research clearly indicated that if you can convince people that you are able to deal with the local agenda even if you do not solve it all, but are visibly taking action the community will believe that you can exercise some control for them.
Fortified by the research in America, the first real breakthrough for the reassurance project came quite early on in the process with the finding that some incidents have more impact than others in terms of influencing peoples feelings of fear and insecurity hence the signal crime concept.
It also became apparent that people did not necessarily expect a zero tolerance approach. However, where there was some obvious disorder in their neighbourhood, at prominent locations (for instance a doctors surgery or telephone kiosks), or kids behaving noisily and violently in front of people, then they expected positive action. Concluding that if police could not do something about problems directly affecting them, why should they believe police could control crime?
The similarity between the research in America was obvious; the difference now, however, is that the research is specifying which broken window police officers and others should focus their attention on.
The signal crimes perspective is based on four inter-linked concepts:
A signal crime is any criminal incident that acts as a warning signal for people about the presence of risk.
A signal disorder is any form of disorderly conduct that indicates to people the presence of risk. Signal disorders are either physical involving degradation to the environment, or social involving behaviour.
A signal event is any occurrence that, although not involving deviant behaviour, nevertheless shapes public risk perceptions.
A control signal is an act of social control that communicates an attempt to regulate disorderly and deviant behaviour. Control signals can be positive or negative.
Mr OConnor, ACPOs lead on public reassurance, explained that, as with the effort against persistent offenders, it was important to try to get a disproportionate effect in neighbourhood policing. The logic is th