Pressure for more bobbies on the beat has led to increased private patrolling on estates – including the use of security guards, community support officers, neighbourhood wardens and ‘active citizen’ volunteers, as well as officers provided under contract by police forces.

But research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that the roles of these additional policing services are often unclear, leaving the public confused about their responsibilities and what can be expected of them in tackling crime.

The study concludes that uneven co-ordination and weak accountability mean that new regional regulation arrangements should be introduced to ensure fairer competition between the different providers, as well as more effective policing.

The study, by Adam Crawford and Stuart Lister of the University of Leeds, combined surveys of security firms, social housing providers and police forces with an examination of the different types of additional patrol being used in Yorkshire and Humberside. The research found that:

• Police forces and private security firms both regarded additional policing as a potentially valuable source of revenue. Two-thirds of police divisional commanders and finance directors saw it as an important way of increasing their income, while security companies identified residential services as their greatest potential growth area for the next five years.
• Over half the housing associations and departments surveyed said they had become a lot more concerned about crime and disorder issues in recent years. Three out of four agreed that the police needed to improve the accreditation and co-ordination of work by other providers of security and patrolling services.
• There were wide variations across Yorkshire and Humberside in the use and visibility of additional policing. This reflected different approaches by senior police managers to patrolling and work with other providers, as well as an uneven response by local authorities to public anxieties about crime.
• The division of tasks between the different types of policing patrol tended to be poorly organised. Relations between the providers varied from effective co-operation and co-ordination to indifference, competition and hostility. Some police officers still felt that they alone should provide patrols and that patrolling by others was a hindrance rather than a help.
• All the initiatives under study highlighted the importance of engaging with local residents, exploiting their knowledge of local crime problems and providing them with a stake in the success of community policing efforts.

Prof. Crawford said: “Greater mutual understanding and trust are essential if the local delivery of community policing by different providers, with different roles and powers, is to become a joined-up endeavour. There is an urgent need for better local liaison between the police, crime and disorder partnerships and the private sector.”

“The regulation of private security companies hired to patrol in residential areas is set to increase when a licensing scheme for private security officers and their managers is introduced, possibly later this year.”

“However, the role of the police as an accreditor and competitor for community policing contracts places them in an ambiguous position and raises potential conflicts of interest. That is why we recommend the introduction of regional policing boards with responsibility for regulating and co-ordinating the ‘extended policing family’.”

“These new bodies could play a major role in enhancing community safety efforts and encouraging best practice.”