The power of anonymity: An exploratory study into the role of Crimestoppers in reporting and investigating crime in England and Wales

Research design

The study was conducted between July and September 2020, during which 15 semi-structured interviews were carried out, which provided a rich data set. This data were subject to manual analysis which identified five main themes. The research aimed to explore the role of Crimestoppers through the lived experience of those working within the organisation and from the perspective of police officers working in two Welsh police forces. A qualitative research instrument was employed to consider the meanings and interpretations of social processes (between the public, Crimestoppers and the police) and the context in which they occur (Sumner, 2006). The use of semi-structured interviewing gives flexibility for participants to use their ‘own voice’ and discuss their own experiences without the limits of pre-determined quantitative enquiry or survey (Sofaer, 1999). Given that Crimestoppers is over 30 years old and the last substantive research was 20 years ago (see Gresham et al., 2003), the opportunity to gather a rich source of qualitative data can assist in considering ‘complex phenomena’ that may have developed over time (Crow and Semmens 2008: 119).

Sampling

The data, using semi-structured interviews, were generated from three organisations, namely a convenience sample of professional adults working in two police forces within Wales and the UK charity Crimestoppers. Given the researcher did not interview people who report anonymously themselves, the sample consisted of a blend of participants and informants. Key informants can bring expert knowledge but may be limited in terms of their interests and representation (Lokot, 2021). Fifteen participants were interviewed in total for this research (six females/nine males); a reasonable sample size for an exploratory study, which rather than seeking conclusive answers, is developing new insights where little is known about an area (Bows, 2018). Five participants engaged from the Crimestoppers Contact-Centre, including call-agents and those with supervisory responsibility, with varying lengths of experience. The Contact-Centre is based within England and the call-agents take calls from across the UK. Ten participants were drawn from two police forces in Wales; half at Police Constable or Detective Constable rank and half at a supervisory rank (the most senior at Superintendent level). Over half of the police participants had a significant length of service. To maintain the confidentiality of the participants, pseudonyms were allocated to interviewees – Crimestoppers (C1 to C5) and Police (P1 to P10).

Data collection and analysis

Due to the constraints of the Covid-19 pandemic, interviews were carried out mainly by telephone and were recorded and transcribed. There is a strong connection between data collection and analysis, including with reference to the literature, to achieve validity and generalisability (Davies et al., 2011). Whilst a normative position may consider that views of those working within law enforcement are trustworthy, this research aims to support the validity of qualitative analysis by consideration of credibility, dependability, conformability, transferability, and authenticity which can be improved by a rich data set and advanced skills in analysis (Elo et al., 2014). However, it is accepted that, unlike quantitative data, there are no clear rules or procedures for analysis (Crow and Semmens, 2008). Therefore, an inductive approach was taken to the thematic analysis, using a framework-based method which supports the ordering and synthesising of data (Ritchie et al., 2003). Building on the initial frame of the interview questions, the researcher used a phased approach as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) – manual coding, searching for themes, ordering and refining themes into a detailed analysis, to tell the story of the research.

Ethical considerations

This study adheres to Swansea University’s research integrity policy and the British Society of Criminology’s Statement of Ethics (BSC, 2015). The formal application and arrangements made with the participating organisations and university ethics committee outlined the processes and mitigating factors to uphold proper ethical principles throughout the study.

Theme 1: perceptions of fear and procedural injustice impacting on crime-reporting activity

Most participants (13 out of 15) spoke about the fear of repercussions, as a primary barrier for the public in reporting crime (particularly serious crime) to the police and the public worry that officers will be observed outside their house, leading to the risk of being labelled a ‘snitch’. Furthermore, eight participants considered the fear of those living in deprived and close-knit communities was amplified:

A lot of crime tends to happen on estates and I think the biggest barrier for reporting stuff to us is that they don’t want the repercussions. It’s usually the same people causing the issues and the crime, so it’s a massive issue for people to report things or put pen-to-paper (P1)

It was noted that 12 out of 15 participants discussed barriers to reporting crime as a result of public perceptions, experiences of police responses and wider criminal justice processes. Participants described a concern that the police will unwantedly ‘turn up on the doorstep’ and ‘they don’t want to be seen to be talking to the police’ (P8). Moreover, it was suggested the response can be indiscreet, which acts as a driver to Crimestoppers:

Crimestoppers give [the public] a lot more safety than the police. I do not think police reassure them that they can help them, without shouting from the rooftops that it was them that reported something (C3)

All contact-centre participants described a frustration around police capacity to answer 101 or whether they will take any action as a result of their report:

You hear people are frustrated. They’re trying to report something and they can’t, and it feels like no-one’s interested (C3)

Arguably of more concern, is the increase in ‘time critical’ calls received by Crimestoppers due to the public worry they are being recorded:

[The caller says] ‘Yeah I’ve seen the [TV] programmes and they playback the calls. I know they are recording’. They just don’t want to be involved at any level. That has probably doubled. At least 10% of our contacts are time critical, threats to life and crime in action. They are coming to us, knowing that we are anonymous (C4)

A third of participants described how, for some people, speaking to the police is not an option for social and cultural reasons. A neighbourhood officer talked about generations of people in certain communities that are unlikely to go to the police, including his own family:

My mother, in her 60s, lives on a council estate, if she sees things, she’s highly unlikely to ring police. Same with my grandmother, she’s the font of knowledge in the village where she lives, she wouldn’t be going to the police as a first port of call (P4)

This was supported by another police participant:

You get people who its historically engrained – anti-police – will never tell you anything regardless whether it’s against their principles or not (P8)

However, seven (police) participants felt that the public are also silenced by wider criminal justice processes and are reluctant to engage in prosecutions. This was clearly described by a neighbourhood policing officer, who stated experiences around giving evidence was a barrier:

A lack of confidence [exists] either in the information they give, what are we going to do with it, is it going to be disclosed, or is it going to result in an outcome, is it going to make any notable difference and some of it is a lack of confidence in the justice system as well. Most people will happily tell you what’s happened. But they won’t put pen to paper. Largely because, and we’ve seen it time and time again, they go to court, they give their evidence, and the outcome at court is not what people expect (P3)

Theme 2: reassurance and trust enables citizen information-sharing

All 15 participants considered Crimestoppers to be an established service for giving information on visible crime, especially drugs and driving offences, anonymously:

The word anonymous is linked to Crimestoppers and most people realise that (C2)

Information about drugs was viewed as helpful, as it can support applications for search warrants and leads to further intelligence:

If they’re involved in drugs then they will probably be involved in something else. We’re good at feeding that sort of information to the police, that builds their intelligence (C5)

Notably, 12 out of 15 participants considered Crimestoppers acts as an enabler to reporting crime by providing reassurance and promoting trust:

[Crimestoppers] protects people and its reassurance for them. They’re not going to be in trouble by giving that information (P7)

This is arguably reinforced by Crimestoppers’ charity status and values:

They don’t want to tell the police but they are quite happy to tell a charity such as Crimestoppers. That’s not grassing to the police, that’s telling a nice pink and fluffy organisation (P8)

Furthermore, 12 out of 15 participants referenced Crimestoppers specific role in taking information related to serious violence and organised crime. With six participants referencing its value in taking information about weapons.

We do have some really good specific information…like such-and-such has a firearm in his shed. It’s stored behind a blue pot. And stuff linked to organised crime groups, so-and-so is keeping [drug-dealing] phones at this address (P3).

Notably, participant views suggested that the level of trust Crimestoppers can offer is critical for homicide investigations:

Researcher: if there is a murder, how do you think giving anonymous information can help?

It is suggested that trust and anonymity are vital for people reporting on Organised Crime Groups (OCGs) who have their own intelligence networks:

Serious criminality have incredible capability sometimes, in relation to having their own intelligence system, finding out who’s reporting on them (P5)

Therefore, the combination of anonymity, reassurance, and trust acts as a catalyst for important information passed to Crimestoppers that would not be otherwise passed to the police.

I don’t think we would get half of things reported to us if people didn’t have the comfort of remaining anonymous (P1)

All 15 participants considered that Crimestoppers improves the police intelligence picture, with 11 out of 15 participants using the concept of the ‘missing piece of the jigsaw’ or ‘golden nugget’ where the information is a critical source of information. It can help drive the direction of the investigation, or it’s an important source of confirmation:

I think it [Crimestoppers information] is really important. It’s often a missing piece, an insight into something bigger, or builds on something bigger (P3)

Theme 3: incentivising intelligence through Crimestoppers rewards

Police participants were of the opinion that ‘money talks’, particularly to those on the peripheries of criminality:

Sometimes, the best placed individuals who can assist investigations are the ones closest to the criminality and the ones who want or demand financial renumeration (P5)

Generally, all police participants were positive about the availability of Crimestoppers monetary rewards, with Crimestoppers staff more sceptical about whether they motivate people. The question of the importance of rewards drew strong and varying responses with a consensus around the value of rewards for serious criminality:

Where people are holding information, especially around organised crime, it’s the risk versus reward. I’m not convinced that being able to sleep better at night, knowing you’ve given that information is a good enough reward for most within that community (P3)

However, it was questioned whether the several thousand pounds offered by Crimestoppers may be enough for the most serious crimes and criminals:

I’m going to be controversial, but I don’t think they play a big part in it. I think on larger crimes, unless you offer a significant amount of money, because the higher the crime, the higher the risk, the more impact you have if you give that information. (P6)

This view was supported by C1:

When a murder has happened, there is only three or four people involved …they are not going to report each other. Even for five grand.

Moreover, all Crimestoppers call-agents considered rewards were not a key motivator for giving information:

Generally, the people who give the best information are not interested in a reward (C2)

There was some participant concern that people would try to seek out information to get a reward:

It wouldn’t sit right with me if people put themselves at risk just to make themselves eligible for a reward (P4)

Crimestoppers staff considered the value of rewards is in raising media interest.

Researcher: What if Crimestoppers stopped rewards?

Intelligence officers found reward appeals were ‘a double-edged sword’ and as a result, put a greater emphasis on considering motivations when reviewing the Crimestoppers log:

It can double or treble your workload, with false information. On the other hand …it may give someone that extra incentive to tell the police what they know (P8)

This was supported by ‘P5’ who explained that criminals feed false information to draw away from the real perpetrator and create a ‘smoke screen’ which emphasises the importance of parallel sourcing of Crimestoppers information:

I think it makes the police and other law enforcement agencies check the information, generate parallel sourced evidence or intelligence to ensure that the investigation remains transparent and credible

Even where the information is excellent, there was a healthy scepticism from all police intelligence participants:

At the back of my mind, I question the Crimestoppers intelligence when it comes through as really detailed valuable stuff, where has this come from? ... Does that person have an axe to grind? Are they trying to take out a rival? (P8)

Potential implications for the growth of Crimestoppers’ anonymous online reporting

Reviewing the findings together, it is evident that that anonymity acts as a ‘golden thread’ strengthening the work of Crimestoppers. For neighbourhood police officers, anonymity allows close-knit communities to share information safely. For police intelligence personnel, anonymity enables them to receive information to support or establish investigations. And for call-agents, promoting anonymity helps to give people reassurance and build trust. Anonymity overcomes the fear of reporting crime dependent on the personal, social and cultural circumstances of the reporter, and the seriousness of the crime. Whilst anonymity was viewed largely positively throughout the interviews, the concept is multi-faceted, and there is a dark-side to it, particularly when used online:

‘online anonymity can be arguably compared to a weapon: on one hand, it can be used to harm; but on the other hand, it is an instrument for self-defence’ (Sardá et al., 2019: 560)

Indeed, some participants described how criminals use Crimestoppers to harm other criminals and it is unknown how far malicious reports are problematic. Limited examples exist of the service being misused (The Irish News, 2016; BBC News, 2022). A further instance that considers ‘vengence’ is provided through a US study (Cintron, 2000). Therefore, anonymity can offer security but also deny responsibility, which is amplified in the online arena (Jordan, 2019). However, negative assumptions about anonymity can also be challenged, such as the social media platform Twitter reporting that 99% of its accounts suspended due to online racist abuse were not anonymous (Twitter UK, 2021). Moreover, in a digital era, within increased connectivity, Crimestoppers supports crowd sourcing of information within a context of collective intelligence (Estellés-Arolas, 2020) and online campaigns and appeals act as a driver to online Crimestoppers reporting. Indeed, Crimestoppers report a 131% increase in information submitted online during the last 5 years (Crimestoppers, 2020b).

Notably, the College of Policing warn that ‘the digital era has ushered in new technologies which both undermine and allow people to sidestep existing actors, institutions and systems’ (CoP, 2020: 5). This could act as an opportunity for Crimestoppers to work in a more agile fashion, as an alternative policing provider by exploring innovations, such as using ‘chat-bots’ and receiving digital images (Crimestoppers, 2020b). It has been argued that trust and anonymity should be integral to the design and effective use of future crime reporting platforms (Cole and Stickings, 2017). Moreover, the integrity of the anonymity promise is critical to Crimestoppers’ future success (Griffiths and Murphy, 2001).

Drivers and enablers legitimising citizen participation in crime reporting

The significance of the fear of criminality driving the use of Crimestoppers is not a modern concern. Over thirty years ago, soon after the charity was established in the UK, Pfuhl argued that the fear of crime, together with public pessimism has legitimised the use of Crimestoppers’ service (Pfuhl, 1992). In the 2020s little has changed; research supporting the recently published Strategic Review of Policing has found that fear of crime and criminals continues to be a rising concern, whilst positive public ratings of the police have declined, affected by social group (Police Foundation, 2020). The findings support the notion that fear can be intertwined with anxieties around ‘place’ and social solidarity (Sparks et al., 2001). These interrelated layers of concern at an individual, social and structural level demonstrate the complexities of barriers to reporting crime (Hardy, 2019). The implications of this means for some, reporting crime to the police is simply not possible and 58% of surveyed Crimestoppers users had not contacted the police (Crimestoppers, 2020b).

Public frustrations, as described by participants, can impact on perceptions of legitimacy and motivations to report crime. Indeed, Tyler and Jackson argued that the most important finding from their study on the legitimacy landscape was the notion that ‘legitimacy plays a role in motivating law related behaviour’ particularly around the desired pro-active citizen engagement to fight crime and criminals (2014, 89). Furthermore, it is the fairness of the treatment by authorities that will shape perceptions of legitimacy, so it follows that negative experiences described by research participants led to people being less likely to give information to the police. Almost half of all witnesses who attended court said they would never do so again, due to poor communication and lengthy delays (Victims’ Commissioner, 2020). Whilst applying the concept of procedural justice to policing may oversimplify the debate (see Newburn, 2022), it is argued that Tyler and Jackson’s conclusions that legitimacy can motivate engagement and help communities to build themselves socially, can be seen in how the public have responded positively to interactions with the Crimestoppers contact centre. Crimestoppers provides added value through the concept of ‘anonymous justice’ by providing the public with an opportunity to share information that does not include the ‘costs’ of becoming involved in the criminal justice system (Marlow and Miller, 2000).

Citizens are more actively engaged in tackling crime than previously considered and their participation, both support and information, sits firmly within contemporary policing (Lincoln and McGillivray, 2019; Lee and McGovern, 2015). Arguably, the Crimestoppers model is a strong example of discreet citizen participation within policing: ‘the essential message from Crimestoppers to the community is that they can seize the initiative and take control of their neighbourhoods’ (Griffiths and Murphy, 2001: 142). Taking a more critical perspective, the use of ‘informants’ within Crimestoppers is arguably normalised within a ‘subtle social control’ of everyday life and through the law-and-order approaches to crime prevention policy (White, 2017). Indeed, Crimestoppers is legitimised through support of key officials, police and the media (Pfuhl, 1992) as well as the importance the public place on its charity status (Crimestoppers, 2020a). It is therefore not surprising that participants described how Crimestoppers acts as an enabler, by building reassurance and trust, particularly in relation to serious violence and organised crime. However, it is debatable whether Crimestoppers is the solution to building confidence in reporting serious crime or whether it is instead, simply a sticking plaster for disengaged communities. For example, whilst information about weapons has grown by 179% in 3 years (Crimestoppers, 2020b), promoting Crimestoppers has been viewed as a short-term alternative to engaging communities around knife crime (Metropolitan Police, 2019). Furthermore, it has been suggested that anonymity is not always the right enabler to reporting crime (Nicksa, 2015) and this is particularly evident around participant concern regarding the growth of time critical information provided to Crimestoppers.

Crimestoppers as a fixture of the plural policing landscape

Crimestoppers exists within a framework of plural policing, by assisting police investigations and supporting intelligence-led policing. Using Loader’s typology, the charity delivers ‘through government’ by means of its funding, ‘below government’ using ‘responsibilised citizens’ and ‘beyond government’ through its lesser-known role in running whistleblowing lines (Loader, 2000: 324; Crimestoppers, 2020a). This multi-faced persona could be considered problematic; promoting confusion for its service users, a lack of independence from funders and a complex positionality that ‘evades a democratic gaze’ (Loader, 2000: 340).

Whilst Crimestoppers is the primary UK anonymous crime reporting mechanism, there are confidential alternative reporting and helplines for specific crimes (e.g. domestic violence, see Snowdon et al., 2020). However, Crimestoppers is uniquely able to incentivise the sharing of intelligence through the provision of rewards. Participants’ position on rewards mirrors previous research, that whilst officers see a value in retaining rewards, their availability is a motivating factor in only a minority of cases (Gresham et al., 2003). This is supported by research which found that citizens were not aware of rewards, nor it was not a motivator (Metropolitan Police, 2019). Other Crimestoppers schemes have chosen to stop their reward programme and reinvest reward monies into community safety (Toronto Crimestoppers, 2020).

Aside from rewards, Crimestoppers have sought to strengthen their service by introducing a ‘keep in contact’ process where users can set up an anonymous log-in to clarify information provided (Crimestoppers, 2022b). Notably, London’s Metropolitan police service have made use of this tactic in their recent anti-corruption operations (Metropolitan Police, 2022). All participants unanimously considered this a helpful development by Crimestoppers as long as safeguards exist so sources were not ‘tasked’. Whilst the scale of this contact method is unknown and would benefit from further exploration, police participants were keen to take immediate steps within their organisations to realise its potential. Using ‘research-in-action’, albeit in a limited sense here, can arguably enhance policing practices (see Clayman and Skinns, 2011; Stott et al., 2015).