Fylde Council’s recent press release celebrates a year of “significant achievements” in community safety, claiming that residents have benefited from collaborative action. However, independent evidence and guidance have highlighted the need for measurable outcomes to substantiate such statements. This is reinforced by an interview with Professor Andy Newton, a criminology expert, who feels that providing authoritative resources for evaluating what genuinely works in crime prevention and anti-social behaviour (ASB) initiatives is very important.
What do national evaluations say about community safety partnerships?
Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) are multi-agency collaborations intended to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB). However, research and national evaluations consistently show that claims of success must be underpinned by clear and robust evidence. Professor Newton has highlighted the College of Policing Crime Reduction Toolkit, which offers data-driven insights into interventions proven to be effective in tackling ASB, from targeted patrols to preventative programs
The ASB Hotspot Response Pilot Evaluation indicates that visible enforcement measures, such as hotspot policing, produced mixed results. In several areas, residents reported little or no change, while in others any improvements were heavily dependent on effective multi-agency collaboration and sustained follow-up interventions.
Professor Newton also emphasised the importance of independent verification. As set out in The Magenta Book, credible evaluations require baseline data, clear outcome measurement and independent assessment to ensure transparent and reliable reporting of CSP performance. In the absence of these elements, claims of “significant achievements” risk being misleading.
Fylde Council’s claims under the microscope
The Fylde Council press release highlights initiatives such as:
- CCTV upgrades across Kirkham, Lytham, and St Annes
- Risk Management Meetings designed to bring multiple agencies together
- Operation Centurion in St Annes town centre
While these interventions may contribute to improved community safety, national guidance places strong emphasis on evaluation and evidence-based reporting. For instance, the College of Policing recommends that anti-social behaviour (ASB) initiatives should be systematically monitored, with data consistently recorded and subject to independent review, rather than relying solely on internal assessments of descriptive reporting.
Against this backdrop, several important questions arise. Which areas, if any, experienced measurable reductions in crime or ASB as a result of these measures? Do certain communities remain disproportionately affected despite the interventions? How much public money was allocated to these initiatives, and what evidence exists to demonstrate their cost-effectiveness? At present, these issues are not addressed in the press release, leaving the overall impact of the measures unclear.
Residents’ and businesses’ perspectives
Residents and local business owners are crucial sources for understanding the real impact of interventions. Anecdotal experience can often diverge from official statements. Professor Newton’s work underlines the value of surveying communities to compare perceived safety with measured outcomes
For example, Operation Centurion, while praised in council communications, may have provided only temporary reassurance for some businesses or displaced crime to nearby areas, a phenomenon identified in national ASB evaluations. Independent verification, such as comparing crime statistics across multiple years, can help to clarify whether initiatives deliver genuine impact or merely improve public perception.
Lessons from national guidance
Professor Newton highlighted the Partnership Working framework, which sets out the key factors required for successful multi-agency collaborations. These include clearly defined goals and responsibilities, regular and structured communication between partner organisations, and appropriate training for staff – particularly in risk management and working with vulnerable residents. The framework also emphasises the importance of transparent reporting processes and clear accountability mechanisms.
Evidence suggests that visible enforcement alone does not guarantee sustained reductions in crime. Measures such as Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), CCTV, and hotspot policing may improve perceptions of safety, however, without complementary prevention initiatives and support services, their impact on long-term crime reduction is limited.
How should councils measure and report success?
The Magenta Book and the Crime Reduction Toolkit offer practical guidance on the use of metrics and robust evaluation. Councils should therefore consider a range of measures, including publishing annual crime and anti-social behaviour statistics both before and after interventions; conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of initiatives such as CCTV upgrades or Operation Centurion; gathering resident surveys to assess perceptions of safety and confidence in reporting crime. In addition, commissioning independent or academic evaluations of Community Safety Partnership effectiveness can strengthen accountability. Professor Newton has emphasised that such transparency builds public trust and helps ensure that reported “achievements” represent measurable outcomes rather than aspirational claims. Without this, progress may unintentionally mislead residents or policymakers.
The Fylde context and broader challenges
Fylde faces a set of emerging challenges common to many local authorities, including retail crime, substance misuse, and counter-terrorism preparedness following the introduction of Martyn’s Law. While the press release acknowledges these pressures, it provides little clarity on how resources are allocated to address them, or whether partnership arrangements include clear, measurable strategies to mitigate these risks.
National evidence suggests that political pressure and public perception can significantly influence Community Safety Partnership priorities, sometimes diverting attention from high-risk or vulnerable groups. For example, prioritising highly visible town centres may improve public confidence, but risks overlooking smaller communities where anti-social behaviour remains persistent and unresolved.
Recommendations and next steps
Based on Professor Newton’s guidance, Fylde Council could significantly improve its reporting and evaluation practices by adopting a more transparent, evidence-led approach. This would include publishing clear crime-reduction metrics for each initiative and systematically comparing pre- and post-intervention data against established baseline measures. Incorporating structured resident feedback would help to validate whether perceived improvements align with lived experience. In addition, ensuring that risk management staff receive targeted, ongoing training would strengthen delivery. Finally, commissioning independent external evaluations would enhance credibility. Taken together, these steps would move council communications beyond aspirational PR, enabling journalists and residents to judge whether Community Safety Partnership interventions deliver meaningful and measurable change.
Evidence over assertion
Fylde Council’s press release offers an upbeat account of community safety, yet national guidance and the expertise of Professor Newton point to significant shortcomings in measurement, reporting, and independent verification. While initiatives such as CCTV upgrades and Operation Centurion may well play a role in improving safety, assertions of “significant achievements” require more than reassurance. They should be supported by robust crime data, independent evaluation, and clear, transparent reporting. Without this evidence, it is difficult to assess the true impact of these measures. For residents, journalists, and policymakers alike, the central question remains unresolved: has crime genuinely declined, or are these claims based largely on perception rather than demonstrable outcomes?
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
