Locally Identified Solutions for Neighbourhood Policing (LISP

Locally Identified Solutions and
Practices (LISP)
Tim Curtis
March 2018 1

WHY?
What are the pressures on neighbourhood policing?
2

The context
• “engagement and consultation with their
communities was predominately focused on
public meetings, local priorities were based on
the concerns of a small and unrepresentative part
of the community, and some hard-to-reach
groups in these areas reported that
neighbourhood teams did not engage with them”
• Myhill, A (2006/12) Community engagement in
Policing; Lessons from the literature. National
Policing Improvement Agency
3

Neighbourhood policing is a ‘complex problem’
• Can’t agree on what the problem is, let alone what the
solutions should be
• Recognised by policy makers, the PCC and Chief Constable
• A category of problems that are ‘resistant’ to the National
Decision Model approach
• Cannot be solved by projects, committees or joint working
by professionals
• Needs to be co-produced ‘with’ communities rather than
solved by experts ‘on behalf’ of communities
• The police cannot own the solution but can organise the
community
• Requires ‘Intensive Engagement’ with communities to
understand the problem better
Ackoff, Russell, "Systems, Messes, and Interactive Planning" Portions of
Chapters I and 2 of Redesigning the Future. New York/London: Wiley, 1974.

Problems with current approach
• Police only see a part of the problem
• Other agencies and the residents are seen as a
problem, rather than part of the solution
• The Police like to solve problems
• The Police can’t solve all of the problems that
influence their performance
• The Police spends a lot of resource on repeats
of ASB and SAC
5

‘Hard’ problem analysis-
the standard approach
6

Early days- SARA
• Scanning - spotting problems using knowledge,
basic data and electronic maps;
• Analysis - using hunches and IT to dig deeper into
problems’ characteristics and causes;
• Response - working with the community, where
necessary and possible, to devise a solution; and
• Assessment - looking back to see if the solution
worked and what lessons can be learned
7

Instead of forcing change, we plan to
‘motivate’ change
11

Challenges
• How to DO problem-oriented policing better
• How to integrate it into the police systems and
methodologies
• Shifting from a “strategy that could only be applied
short-term, in certain circumstances and to deal with
particular issues” to
• Normal business
• Have clear lines of responsibility & accountability in
and outside Police through a (shared) agreement – LISP
• Shift from ‘problems’ to ‘solutions & practices’
12

LISP JOURNEY
gather information & intelligence
13

An 8 step process
14
Intensive Engagement- Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP)- 8 step toolkit
LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the
neighbourhood. What does crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is
the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for adopting as a location?
LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there?
What are the vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?)
LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this
issue? (individuals, agencies, businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved
associated?
LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all
stakeholders see the problem? Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are
successful? Map the results
LISP step 5 Form a working group made up of stakeholders who are engaged and able to make changes
LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like
from the stakeholders perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood
look like if all the issues were solved?
LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success
look like?)
LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the
interventions fails? What are you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you
need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?

Choosing a problem situation
• 1. A vulnerable neighbourhood: The Vulnerable Localities Index
(referred to as the VLI) is a method which can help to identify
residential neighbourhoods that require prioritised attention for
community safety.
• 2. Crime statistics: the Police led activity will focus on
neighbourhoods that have been subject to long-term high levels of
reported crime or anti-social behaviour, or in situations where PCSOs
predict (with appropriate evidence) that crime patterns will increase in
a given location due to external factors. Crime harm index data can
also be used to further refine choices over vulnerable areas.
• 3. Complexity of the problem: crime patterns that involve a number
of different stakeholders, victims or perpetrators are sufficiently
complex to warrant a LISP process within the localities identified in
steps 1 and 2. Different stakeholders may have different opinions
regarding the causes of the problem; or significant amounts of the
problem are not under the direct influence or control of the Police
15

Benefits for communities
• Solutions-focussed, not problem-oriented
• Gathering different perspectives from all types
of citizen
• Helping citizens to see that different people
see problems differently
• Focusses on capabilities and assets, not deficit
and blame
• Allows (hard to hear) residents to speak on
their own terms
17

Benefits for the practitioner
• Demonstrates and legitimates what you already
do
• Systematic and repeatable
• Creates an evidence base for you to influence
behaviour
• A clear basis of action in partnership with other
statutory agencies
• Doesn’t require ‘resources’ or funding
• Can be done ‘on the fly’
18

TASK 1: RAPID APPRAISAL
first engagement with a neighbourhood
‘good enough’ data
informal engagement
19
Time for the walkabout

Contexts and methods
• Visibility & Street walking
• Reassurance visits
• Victim support
• Community meetings
• Get the residents
– talking to you
– explaining what they see ‘I’m not sure I understand fully,
can you draw that?’
– doing rich pictures
– remember grass roots, not ‘tips’
20

Essential distinction
• ‘Grass-tips’ - usual suspects/’professional’
community activists
– Consultees are only partly connected to their
community and not well informed about
community politics, (or not demonstrated) or
• ‘Grass-roots’- unusual suspects
– Consultees are not well informed about the
interests of the organisation consulting
– Or might be ambivalent about the Police
21
Make a list of people you know in each category

WALKABOUT
• Be as observant as possible- people, places
and processes
• Ask questions of your guide- what is going on?
• You will be expected to recall your
observations
• You will be looking for non-police problems
• And identify solutions
22

24
Working out a ‘perspectives’ map

EXERCISE: On the flipchart paper in
front of you, draw a picture of
‘what you saw’
32

Guidelines on RP drawing
• Try to represent everything you know about the situation.
• Artistic ability not required (no need for preliminary
sketching).
• Title the picture.
• Everyone should draw.
• Draw people doing things, give context and include objects
and processes.
• Show interconnections and relationships.
• Make observations about culture, emotions and common
beliefs.
• Text to be kept to a minimum.
• Use colour
33

Share your rich picture with each
other
34

TASK 2: DEVELOP NETWORKS
getting to the grassroots
finding capable & connected people
35

Social Capital- networks
• How many
acquaintances does
an individual have?
• Who knows who?
• How do they solve
problems?
• Who do they go to
get problems
solved?
Rough Guide to Social Capital: How do you get a problem solved with no money?36

Instead of forcing change, we plan to
‘motivate’ change
38

MI
• Rooted in work of Carl Rogers.
• ‘A collaborative, person-centred form of
guiding to elicit and strengthen motivation for
change’
(Miller and Rollnick, 2009)

4 PRINCIPLES OF MI
• Express Empathy (vs sympathy)
Empathy because you have ‘been there’ vs
sympathy when you have not.
• Support Self-Efficacy
Supporting the belief that change is possible.
Focus on previous successes.

4 PRINCIPLES OF MI (cont)
• Develop Discrepancy
Mismatch between ‘where they are’ and ‘where they
want to be’. Conflict between current behaviour and
future goal. ‘Throw away’ comments.
• Roll with Resistance
Comes from conflict between view of ‘problem’ and
‘solution’. Non-confrontation using de-escalation
techniques. ‘Yes, but….’ MI focus on client define
problem results in more ‘dancing and less wrestling’.

STRATEGIES FOR EVOKING CHANGE
TALK
• Ask evocative questions
• Explore decisional balance (pros/cons-more pros)
• Good/not so good about behaviour
• Ask for examples
• Look back
• Look forward
• Query extremes
• Use change rulers
• Explore goals/values

EXERCISE: draw over your original
rich picture, the people that you
would expect to find in this locality
Nominate two ‘names’ to the
working group. Explain why they are
highly connected and highly capable
43

TASK 3: ASSETS AND CAPABILITIES
DOES YOUR RP LOOK A BIT THIS?.........
addressing the deficit model
44

Traditional development vs ABCD
• Needs, deficiencies,
problems
• Negative mental map
• Client mentality
• Resources go to social
service agencies
• Undermines local
leadership
• Dependency
• Separates community
• Outside in
• Capacities, assets,
dreams, strengths
• Optimistic mental map
• Citizen participation
• Minimizes bureaucracy,
resources to community
• Builds local leadership and
confidence
• Empowerment
• Builds connections
• Inside out
46
Discovering Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and Your Organization’s Capacity
by John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, with Sarah Dobrowolski and Deborah Puntenney (2005).

Categories of Assets
• Individuals
– Skills, talents, capacities
– Dreams, visions
• Associations
– Families, friends, groups, teams
• Institutions
– Businesses, schools, libraries, police, fire, non-
profits
• Physical environment
– Greenspaces, transportation
• Local economy 47

A B C D Processes
• Map of community’s assets
– Rich picture format
• Individuals mobilize, contribute gifts, talents
• Internal connections
– Develop a vision, “common good”
– Define and solve problems
– Multiple pathways for leadership
• External connections
– Reinforce internal strengths
– Appropriate to community’s vision
• It is a guide for relationship building, not just data.
• Knowing others in your community that have similar
interests allows groups to gather for a common cause
48

TASK 4: ANALYSE COMPLEX ISSUES
avoiding jumping to solutions
understanding the problem better
solving the right problems
50

51
Historically intractable problems

52
Crimes are not always
committed by criminals

53
Crime is often a
symptom of other
problems

55
What we need is to understand how different stakeholders ‘see’ the problem in the first
place and appreciate how they go about problem solving

Chapter 1 of Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding
of Wicked Problems, by Jeff Conklin, Ph.D., Wiley,
October 2006.
56
“Some problems are so complex that you
have to be highly intelligent and well
informed just to be undecided about
them.”
Lawrence J Peter

Wicked Problems
• The solution depends on how the problem is framed and vice-
versa (i.e., the problem definition depends on the solution)
• Stakeholders have radically different world views and different
frames for understanding the problem.
• The constraints that the problem is subject to and the
resources needed to solve it change over time.
• The problem is never solved definitively.
• You don’t have the right to get it wrong
57

Avoid taming the problem
• Simplistic causes “it’s all because…..”
• Tackle a small part of the real problem
• End of a project means the problem has been
‘fixed’
• Solution is definitely right or wrong.
• Problem is just like one that we have seen
before.
• Solutions can be tried and abandoned.
58

ENRICHING OUR PERSPECTIVES
use ‘rich pictures’ (RP) to understanding different worldviews
use RP as an engagement tool
use RP as a problem analysis tool
59
This is NOT the only community engagement method
It is my favourite
It works for me most of the time
I teach it to my students

60
Metaphorical language is superior to literal language because it captures experience
and emotions better and because it can communicate meaning in complex, ambiguous
situations where literal language is inadequate (Palmer & Dunford, 1996 p. 694).

What to put in a rich picture
• People, places, processes, perspectives
– Structure, e.g.
• departmental or organisation boundaries,
• geographical considerations,
• people and institutions.
– Process - activities, information or material flows.
– Climate - the relationship between structure and
process, and any associated problems.
– ‘Soft facts’ - concerns, conflicts, views.
– Environment - external interested bodies, factors
affecting the organisation.
61

Hints and tips
• Start with a person in the middle
• Think about ‘boundaries’
– The limits of your ‘system of interest’
– External factors: that affect your system, but is not
affected by changes inside your system
• Think geographically
– map emotions and reactions in specific locations
– map known data on the same RP
62

TASK 5: IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS &
PRACTICES
behaviours and practices as well as projects
65

What does success look like?
• For you?
• For the victims?
• For the perpetrators?
• For the other stakeholders?
• What 7 steps do you need to make to achieve
your vision?
66

Getting agreement
67
SOLUTIONS – One off events, projects or facilities
What? Why? (What
is the intend
effect?)
With whom? How? By when? Measures of
success
PRACTICES – ongoing behaviours or activities to sustain success
What? Why? (What
is the intend
effect?)
With whom? How? By when? Measures of
success

Evaluation & Escalation
• Evaluation
– What factors will indicate ongoing success?
• i.e. How many crime incidents are being prevented
– How are they to be measured?
– Measure progress to target
• Escalation
– When, how or why should this LISP be escalated up
the Police for action at a higher level?
– When, how or why should this LISP be escalated
outside the working group for action?
69

Next steps
• You have the following 8 steps to complete
• Plan!!
70

71
LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the
neighbourhood. What does crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is
the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for adopting as a location?
LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there?
What are the vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?)
LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this
issue? (individuals, agencies, businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved
associated?
LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all
stakeholders see the problem? Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are
successful? Map the results
LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like
from the stakeholders perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood
look like if all the issues were solved?
LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success
look like?)
LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the
interventions fails? What are you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you
need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?

CASE STUDIES
Asian Gold Burglaries

94
HO Group HO Classification
CountCrim
e
BURGLARY DWELLING ATTEMPTED BURGLARY IN A DWELLING 4
BURGLARY DWELLING BURGLARY IN A DWELLING 5
BURGLARY OTHER
BURGLARY IN A BUILDING (NOT
DWELLING)
1
CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIM DAMAGE TO DWELLINGS 1
CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO VEHS 6
OTHER OFFENCES ROWDY/INCONSIDERATE BEHAVIOUR 20
TOTAL 37
The results indicate the
amount of crime that
occurred over a two year
period. Nearly all those
burglaries occurred in the
last 6 months of 2013.

95
Spencer Haven is a
geographical cluster of
Sheltered Housing, where
vulnerable people live.
This includes the elderly, hard
of hearing or deaf, people with
learning difficulties or mental
health problems.
Some of these residents are
house bound or suffer with
dementia/ Alzheimer’s.
Some of these have fallen
victim to those Burglaries.

96
Their issues How we saw the problem
Putting the mind maps next to each other there were some clear similarities, which helped us to see how we
might be able to tackle not only the crime aspect that had hit the location, but some of the issues raised around
communication as well.

Before the multi agency work After
By cutting back the bushes trimming the tree’s provided better visibility,
a sense of belonging

After a consultation with the deaf community these cards were designed, and over
2000 have been distributed. From the same consultation training on dealing with the
Deaf, Autism and those with speak impediments, was requested to be included.
Training has since been provided on best practise on communication and
Understanding, which was provided by the charities themselves, in what is known as
PVP training.

To improve security each home was provided with some security
devises, which were provide by all stakeholders. Such as sticker,
leaflets, door and window alarms, door chains and mirrors, purse
bells, key safes, and better security front and rear doors, repaired
garden fencing and Smartwater. These measures were welcomed
as some had been victims more than once.

100
Finally we are pushing to get the street lights back on, to
increase visibility which and act as a deterrent and improve
safety. By closing off a few unnecessary boundary
entrances would improve security and not leave the area
totally exposed as a rat run for anyone. With the majority of
residents in the SPENCER HAVEN being vulnerable and
often deemed as easy targets, a large number of reports of
stranger /strangers going round to their homes, often being
harassed, or pressured into having expensive, unnecessary
work carried out on their homes. Reports of being bullied
into buying something, or to hand over bank details for
direct debits by charities. These often left them feeling
distressed and confused. Residences were therefore
encouraged to display a “NO COLD CALLING” sticker. The
purpose of these sticker is to make “Cold calling doorstep
traders” aware that they were not welcome, and to remind
the householders to report them to the police and trading
standards. To help end the heartache and financial loss to
the victim caused by their unscrupulous behaviour towards
the elderly and vulnerable. Boundary “NO COLD
CALLING ZONE” signs were put up to remind traders
they would not be welcomed.

Crisis in NHP
• lack of clarity of thought and vocabulary at all levels may be leading to some
tokenistic and unproductive activity
• most of it would be better described as consultation than engagement or
participation.
• transfer of power and decision-making to citizens and communities has either not
been fully grasped, or is being resisted
• roles for citizens are passive or limited in scope
• “mission drift” of engagement resources is taking place.
• a vision of pleasing [is common], rather than involving, citizens
• facilitated and strengthened …[a} type of symbolic and tokenistic representation
[from easy-to-reach people].
• the police service has developed an ethos of customer service, in which people are
seen as consumers of a service
• ignoring the needs and opportunities of many people and other models are
needed to harness the participation of individuals who are not affiliated in any
conventional way
• lack of recognition of informal policing carried out by citizens and institutions in
the course of their daily lives
101
Simmonds, D. (2015) Why is the clutch slipping? Developing clarity, capacity and
culture for Citizen and Community Engagement.

Initial response
• PCSOs operating in complex (messy) social
environments
– Soft Systems Methodology specifically designed for this
• Police being measured on performance where
solutions owned by non-Police actors
– Community organising to get other working to deliver
Police outcomes
• Long tradition of expecting Police to solve everything
– Weekly ‘you said, we did’ closed loop cycle
– Required developing ‘self-efficacy’ in neighbourhoods
102

Principles
• Focussed, intensive and sustained dialogue with
refreshed community representatives, going beyond
the ‘usual suspects’
• Supporting the self-efficacy of the community to
contribute to safer communities
• Developing a dialogue rather the just informing and
reassuring
• Policing the boundaries of what is genuinely a policing
issue, and sharing the burden with other parties
• Providing a backdrop of intelligence and engaged
community support for operations, projects and other
reactive work
103

An 8 step process
104
LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the neighbourhood. What does
crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for
adopting as a location?
LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there? What are the
vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?)
LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this issue? (individuals, agencies,
businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved associated?
LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all stakeholders see the problem?
Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are successful? Map the results
LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like from the stakeholders
perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood look like if all the issues were solved?
LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success look like?)
LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the interventions fails? What are
you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?

105
Principles of Quality LISPing
Good Poor
1. Breadth and depth of engagement
on a few localities
1. Large numbers of LISPS not focussed
on complex issues
2. Refreshed community contacts of
capable people
2. Usual suspects, professional
consultees, agency representatives
3. Engage and active contacts 3. Passive and dependent contacts
4. Evidence of co-solving of problems 4. Limited to informing and reassuring
5. Group based analysis of problems to
increase community ‘buy-in’
5. Solo ‘I know how to sort this’
process, telling people what to do
6. Challenging apathy and inactivity 6. Supporting status quo or getting
frustrated and moving too quickly
7. Sustained activity 7. Focus on projects and one-off
events
8. Developing teams of teams to affect
behaviour of hundreds of people
8. Delivering interventions to a few
tens of people
9. Clear escalation pathways 9. Inertia or barriers not addressed
10. Partner agencies held accountable 10. Police doing it all

106
Different contexts = different neighbourhoods
Different outcomes = different success factors
Same process and same mechanisms every time

Contexts
107
C1 Vulnerable locality or area of significant multiple deprivation, and
C2 Long-term chronic crime patterns
C3 Complex, publicly contested crime types inc ASB, SAC

Mechanisms 1
108
No. Proposed Mechanism Features of LISP based Intensive Engagement
Neighbourhood Policing Evidence:
What works
M 1 In-depth understanding of people,
place and problems
In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of
the other problems experienced in the locality
M2 Full and consistent application of
interventions
The training (and subsequent evaluation of the quality of LISP work),
and standard proforma
M3 Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive
engagement with sufficient time
Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of
the interventions is determined by the working group rather than
police timeframes
M4 Proactive contact Deliberate choices are made at the screening stage about the
importance of the locality to policing outcomes.
Process requires identification of all potential stakeholder groups,
including hard to reach.
M5 A group of residents Where community organisations appropriate to the problems don’t
exist, the LISP process creates the social capital and networks to allow
this to happen
M6 Joint problem solving Co-production of the problem analysis and solving stages is central

Mechanisms 2
109
What is promising
M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of ‘highly connected and
highly capable people’
M8 Support is won Working group members elicit a clearly understood self-interest
that underpins expected successes to secure and ‘win’ support
M9 Attuned to community dynamics The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic
understanding of the community and the issues and tensions
within it.
M10 Tacit skills Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings
to senior officers and a process of identifying the best
implementations of LISP and mentoring of officers ensure that
police skills are embedded and propagated across the force
M11 Not reliant on multi-agency delivery Where statutory partners are actively engaged, LISP provides a
clear and discrete method for limited involvement. Where
statutory agencies are not engaged, LISP provides a clear
evidence base for Police and community to hold statutory
agencies to account.

Mechanisms 3
110
Pawson’s Public Policy ‘Hidden’
Mechanisms
Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement
M13 Recruit the stakeholders with care Looking for the most highly connected, capable, and
motivated: whose self-interest and motivation to contribute to
public safety is understood
M14 Create expectations of change Intensive Engagement is oriented towards collaboratively
deciding on what change is needed, to design Solutions &
Practices
M15 Demand effort from stakeholders The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response from
‘what can we do?’ to ‘What solutions have you got?’ for the
Police.
M15 Offer encouragement and feedback The process is designed to recognise existing assets and
capabilities that the community, with the help of the Police, that
can be enhanced to support Police outcomes (Kretzmann and
McKnight, 1993)
M17 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing
mature LISP informed interventions
M18 Make accommodations for set-backs The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of
change model’ (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick and
Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-backs
within the process of engagement
M19 Explain the theory of change The theory of change for LISP is described as “collaboratively
designed solutions and co-produced practices are more robust
than short-term projects and limited engagement”
M20 Share execution and control of the
intervention
The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and
connected decision-makers and resources to the support of
Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of Police
controlled design and implementation
M21 Ensure onward external continuation The purpose of the community designing and delivering the
interventions that are unique to a locality is to ensure that the
Police have a ‘step-back and sustain’ (rather than an exit)
strategy freeing resource up to tackle other localities and

Mechanisms 4
111
Additional insights from
case study
Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement
M22 Stable team Inspectors ought to be clear about the resource implications of choosing to undertake a LISP, in terms of long-
term commitment (against a backdrop of ‘weeks of action’ and three month long ‘operations’). Outcomes based
resource planning is required within LISPs rather than activity based.
Sergeants need to decide with Inspectors on the justification to LISP. The decision was made by the PCSOs to
undertake the LISP, but in this, the decision was aligned to the sergeants’ interests in managing the high profile
performance issues. This was sustained through a change of sergeant, but only after significant progress had been
made on the LISP process. The long-term stability of the PCSOs allowed significant connections to a marginalised
and hard-to-reach community to be made within the attention span of the senior officers.
M23 Responsibilisation This LISP hinged around a form of responsibilisation, a quid pro quo where the attention of the police shifted from
being visible through patrols to being the distributor of socially valuable goods- the smartwater etc. Rather than
this being devalued though being given away, the LISP established a ‘transaction value’ – being required to
complete the 6 points of action before receiving enhanced ‘attention’ through the distribution of freebies and
receiving funding from the PCC.
M24 A mix of ‘contingent’
interventions
The PCSO was clear that a number of different strategies, that could be introduced at different times, and with
drawn if they don’t work, would strengthen the initiative. The six point action plan developed in the Asian Gold
burglaries case is insufficient here, and over 20 different initiatives are used, including those that are existing
successful practices
M25 Perspective taking A cognitive shift required to think of all the different stakeholders in a given problem situation, and systematically
think through their interest and investment in the status quo in that context. The needs to be a deliberate attempt
to this, at the point of evaluating the potential stakeholder group. The interests (and perhaps importantly, the
self-interest) of the stakeholders need to be considered, as does the lived experience of those stakeholders
(empathy).
M26 Hidden community Attention should be paid to the less obvious communities of interest. Whilst there was a strong sense in which the
street drinking was being driven by transient workers and off-licenses exploiting the immediate situation, the more
powerful communities of interest were the estate agents, landlords and employers, whose interests in the features
of the problem situation were significant but invisible. When doing the scanning stage in the early part of the LISP
process, there needs to be a more specific attention given to the owners or operators of buildings and consider
them as a part of the community of interest
M27 Connecting communities The briefing in the LISP documentation regarding the stakeholders is to ask whether they can be connected to
together. This is too oblique. This case indicates strongly that vulnerability localities suffer from low bonding social
capital (especially when the residents are transient) and social cohesion is low. Bringing eastern European workers
together may be a part of the solution, but also bringing together business interests (who might not understand
their responsibility to a given neighbourhood) like landlord and employers of specific segments of the population
(bridging social capital). This requires much harder work bringing together and motivating stakeholders who might
consider their contribution to a neighbourhood to be even more minimal than the transient residents.

Outcomes
112
Code For whom Outcome
PO1 Police Performance. Reduced demand, lower crime rates, less enforcement activity
PO2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Reduced activity per outcome. Greater focus on prevention than
patrolling. Other statutory partners participating fully. Skills and assets levered from
community to support crime reduction
PO3 Improved legitimacy and/or confidence in policing

Most ‘active’ mechanisms
113
M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of highly connected and highly capable people,
M9 Attuned to community dynamics
The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic understanding of the community
and the issues and tensions within it.
M10 Tacit skills
Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings to senior officers and a process
of identifying the best implementations of LISP and mentoring of officers ensure that police skills
are embedded and propagated across the force
M14 Demand effort from stakeholders
The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘What
solutions have you got?’ for the Police.
M16 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing mature LISP informed interventions

‘Least active’ mechanisms
114
M1
In-depth understanding of people,
place and problems
In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of the other problems
experienced in the locality
M3
Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive
engagement with sufficient time
Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of the interventions is
determined by the working group rather than police timeframes
M17
Make accommodations for set-
backs
The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of change model’ (Prochaska and
DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick and Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-backs
within the process of engagement
M18 Explain the theory of change
The theory of change for LISP is described as “collaboratively designed solutions and co-produced
practices are more robust than short-term projects and limited engagement”
M19
Share execution and control of the
intervention
The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and connected decision-makers and resources
to the support of Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of Police controlled design
and implementation
Ps, this does not mean that they are not relevant, just
more difficult to activate

Conclusions
• “The above analysis demonstrates that within the four
most active mechanisms operating in the LISP toolkit,
strong CMO configurations can readily be constructed
between the context of a ‘vulnerable locality’, and a
complex problem situation.
• This doesn’t mean that in all other types of areas (low
deprivation/high crime or low deprivation/low crime or
low deprivation/low crime) LISP doesn’t work, but, in
the terms mentioned above, less ‘pressure’ would be
necessary on different mechanisms.”
115

Conclusions
• “This study has demonstrated that the 27
mechanisms satisfactorily map from the
vulnerable locality contexts to the PEEL
policing outcomes, therefore LISP is an
effective new tool in the neighbourhood
policing toolkit for engaging with high risk
vulnerable neighbourhoods in an effective,
legitimate and confidence building manner.”
116

Locally Identified Solutions for Neighbourhood Policing (LISP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Locally Identified Solutions for Neighbourhood Policing (LISP

Similar to Locally Identified Solutions for Neighbourhood Policing (LISP (20)

More from Tim Curtis

More from Tim Curtis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Locally Identified Solutions for Neighbourhood Policing (LISP