Prospective crime mapping in operational context Final report

Table 5.3: Number of respondents who had heard of prospective mapping, by sectionSection Yes No No, b/c newTotalstarterAlfreton 88% (8) 12% (1) 0% (0) 16% (9)Belper 92% (12) 8% (1) 0% (0) 23% (13)Ilkeston 27% (4) 73% (11) 0% (0) 26% (15)LongEaton83% (10) 17% (2) 0% (0) 21% (12)Ripley 75% (6) 12% (1) 12% (1) 14% (8)Total 70.2% (40) 28.1% (16) 1.8% (1) 100.0% (57)When asked how frequently the maps were routinely used for targeted police activity, officersreported using them with different frequencies. Table 5.4 shows that around 30 per centreported using them more than twice a week, and a similar proportion reported that theirsupervisors had used them at this rate. Follow-up interviews with the Section Sergeants, theLIOs and the analysts suggested that this had been the case when burglary was a priority, butthat, understandably, the maps were used significantly less when it was not. The generalperception, which is corroborated by the records from the tactical options log, was that themaps were used more during the first few months of the pilot when burglary was more of apriority 6 , although the maps were still produced and disseminated throughout the pilot periodtwice a week thereafter.Table 5.4: Number of times maps were used for targeted police activityNumber of timesofficers usedprospectivemaps(s) fortargeted policeactivityNumber of times officers’supervisors usedprospective map(s) fortargeted police activityMore than twice a21% 21%weekTwice a week 9% 11%Once a week 11% 11%Once every two4% 4%weeksOnce every three0% 2%weeksLess than once a5% 2%monthDon't know 0% 2%No answer 27% 47%6 Unfortunately, this was when the maps produced reflected retrospective point maps rather than predictive surfaces.54