Industry Report Agriculture Crime Report

Impact: •Farmers believe offenders were mostly local. Farmers also recognised the role market forces play in farm crime, e.g. increased theft of Land Rover Defenders following the end of production. However, there were still those who thought criminals were foreigners or from the travelling community, even if they have no proof. Farmers openly admitted to worries about delivery drivers, and farmers and farmworkers are openly accused of crimes. •Fear of crime was rising, with geographic and social isolation, criminals using technology, violent repercussions, what was taken/how it was taken/where it was taken from, all affecting fear of crime. Increasing fear of crime could lead to poor decision-making and negative choices, which may affect the use of appropriate and effective crime prevention. •Farm crime may be creating a rural contra-masculinity, with the psychological impact being so great that some farmers have considered giving up farming because of crime. •Farm crime has a major psychological impact on farmers. Crime erodes trust, not just towards strangers, but also towards friends. Farmers admitted they cannot sleep because of fear of repeat victimisation, but accepted this as part of being a farmer. The prolonged psychological impact of farm crime may lead to issues with the physical health of farmers. Does the level of confidence farmers have in the police affect the likelihood of farmers reporting these crimes? •There is a lack of consistency in how police define rural crime, with some forces treating all crime the same which is not reflected by farmers’ experiences. Moreover, this is leading to inconsistencies in the recording of farm crime by police, thus suggesting the need for training for call handlers and CPAs. Some PCCs state that the responsibility of protecting farms is down to the farmers. •68%of farmers report crimes to the police, and only 40% report to their insurers. Despite this, over 80%of participants felt the police were not doing enough to tackle farm crime. Most participants felt the police and government response to farm crime was inadequate, and 1/3 felt their insurers were not providing adequate crime prevention advice. •Farmers were unanimously negative about police feedback, poor or inconsistent messaging services, and a lack of police commitment to keep messaging services going in the long-term. If farmers are using crime prevention measures, what measures are being used? •There was a mixed response towards FarmWatch schemes. Support depended upon a proactive coordinator, the Watch needed to be proactive and not reactive to a particular problem, and required long-term buy-in from the police. •Farmers felt that crime prevention was seen as a sport for criminals, with the excitement of beating the crime prevention farmers put in place being a key motivator for criminals. •Farmers were more likely to use low-tech crime prevention. The main reasons for using crime prevention were how easy it is to get to the farm, and victimisation, both direct and indirect. What are the factors influencing farmer crime prevention decision-making? •The main sources of crime prevention information for farmers were the police and insurers, despite feeling both could do more to tackle farm crime. Other sources of information included the media, particularly the farming press despite the impact on fear of crime, other farmers, and farming organisations such as the NFU, however it is questionable that such advice was consistent. •Farmers put off crime prevention due to the cost and time involved, but they recognised it was getting easier to protect their farms.