Industry Report Agriculture Crime Report

•Police felt farmers were more likely to be receptive to crime prevention when they have been a victim. However, farmers suggested that even when they have been a victim, they still do not adopt crime prevention. Despite victimisation being a key influencing factor in crime prevention decision-making, this research also found that farmers’ wider experiences, ‘gut instinct’, and the possibility of crime prevention being multi-purpose aided decisions. •Police recognised that farmers have done things the same way for decades and resent change. However, farmers were aware there was a problem and that something had to be done about it. Can the findings be used to improve the appropriate, effective crime prevention decision- making of farmers? • The advice provided must be suitable and effective for the individual farm, tailored to the farm, and provided by a trusted messenger. • By providing adequate and complete information about crime prevention the police could encourage more farmers to use these methods. Furthermore, crime prevention advice needs to go beyond protecting physical property, as farmers also displayed worries about things like cybercrime. • Female farmers were more likely to try new crime prevention methods, and talk to non-farming friends about crime prevention. Furthermore, this research also shows that older farmers felt that crime prevention was more time consuming. • Farmers discussed the potential for crime prevention cooperatives and peer mentors for information sharing among local farming communities. Furthermore, framing crime prevention options as ways to avoid losses, may improve uptake. Recommendations This research has identified recommendations for key stakeholders to consider in light of the findings of this work. • Based on survey participant responses, it is estimated that approximately 137,000 farmers in the UK will have been victimised, of those 73,000 have been victimised more than once. Therefore, there is a need for stakeholders to recognise that farm crime needs to be considered as serious crime and allocate resources accordingly. • There are a range of offenders identified by farmers, but there is a need to better understand the increasing role of Organised Criminal Groups in farm crime. • Fear of crime is rising, exacerbated by the very nature of farms. PCCs, CPAs and other key stakeholders must address these fears, and the factors that influence these fears, to reduce poor decision-making among farmers. • All stakeholders need to have a better understanding of the psychological impact farm crime has on farmers, and the wider implications of this, and should address these aspects more thoroughly as early as possible. • More consistency is needed at a national level on the definition of rural crime and farm crime to enable accurate recording of these crimes, and therefore more reliable datasets on which to base future analyses and strategies. • Low-tech FCP is being used widely, but a range of FCP is being used in a variety of combinations. However, farmers are aware of the limitations of most measures. This is indicative of the heterogeneous nature of farmers, and the need for tailored FCP advice to avoid the need for farmers to get F CP off the internet without any guidance and without knowing if it is likely to be effective for their farm. • There is a need to move away from a reliance on FarmWatch schemes, or rethink how they are coordinated. Farmers are aware of them, but not all seem to be positive about the efficacy. If a FarmWatch would suit a certain location, then it may be adopted, but the police should be guided by the community members. • It must be recognised that, just because a farmer has been a victim, it does not necessarily mean they will be more likely to adopt/improve FCP. It is suggested that improved communication between farmers, police, and insurers may help, and that a follow-up with farmers who have been victims would be beneficial in aiding their FCP decision- making. Industry Report - FarmCrime 5