Transforming public contact in modern policing
The way the public interacts with policing is changing. Mirroring the shift in societal norms, phone calls and station visits are increasingly being replaced by digital alternatives. Technology is reshaping the interplay between the public and policing, from online reporting platforms and AI-powered communication tools to the use of social media and beyond.
This shift is not just about modernisation, it serves as a trust barometer, reflecting how effectively technology can balance transparency, efficiency, and accessibility while addressing concerns such as digital exclusion and the declining role of human judgement. The UK’s Policing Vision 2030 sets out a digital-first strategy to boost public confidence, but the next decade will determine whether these advancements enhance trust with the public or deepen existing divides in the relationship.1
An increasing demand for services, limited resources, and changing public expectations have put pressure on the traditional systems for public-police contact, prompting a shift towards innovative digital approaches.
As an example, call handling times have become a persistent issue with police forces nationwide. Suffolk Constabulary for example, reported a 30% increase in 999 calls over the past three years, highlighting the increasing strain on emergency response systems.2
To tackle these difficulties, police forces are introducing digital alternatives. Suffolk Police’s “digital desk” initiative, for instance, aims to improve responsiveness by offering an online-first contact system for non-urgent inquiries to give the public swift responses for non-urgent matters and reduce call demand and waiting times.3
Yet, there are concerns. Critics warn that while digital policing can improve service delivery, it must not result in a “faceless” police force that particularly alienates those who don’t have the necessary digital skills or the access to it.4 An over-reliance on digital technologies, especially AI-driven platforms, risks undermining human judgement in situations where empathy and nuanced decision-making are essential.
The Police Foundation’s Contact and Confidence in a Digital Age report highlights how digital channels, such as online reporting, live chats, and AI-assisted interactions have helped break down barriers to engagement, making it easier for victims to access police support. For victims of crime, digital platforms offer a more discreet and convenient way to seek help, especially in cases of domestic abuse, hate crimes, or cyber-related offences, where anonymity can be crucial.5 However, the same report highlights the importance of assessing algorithmic bias to ensure policing decisions remain fair and impartial. Digital exclusion also remains a pressing issue, as those without internet access or sufficient digital skills risk being left behind, creating the risk of a digital policing model that may only truly serve the tech-savvy.
Furthermore, maintaining procedural justice - ensuring fairness, giving individuals a voice, and treating them with respect - becomes more challenging when interactions are automated and transactional. Victims and witnesses may feel overlooked or dismissed if their concerns are met with pre-programmed responses or inflexible online forms rather than the empathy and compassion that only human interaction can provide. The lack of a human presence can also make it harder to demonstrate fairness in decision-making, recognise the emotional weight of a situation, or tailor communication to meet individual needs.
Findings from the London Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC User Satisfaction Survey) reinforce these concerns. While many people value the convenience of digital contact, their overall confidence in policing depends heavily on feeling listened to and taken seriously, qualities that are difficult to replicate and mimic at a digital level, particularly through AI-driven interactions.6
Digital transformation in policing cannot follow a one-size-fits-all approach. While online services increase accessibility for many, they also create new barriers for others.
The INTERACT project (Investigating New Types of Engagement, Response, and Contact Technologies in Policing) highlights how neurodivergent individuals, particularly those with autism, often find traditional police interactions stressful, leading to heightened anxiety. Digital reporting provides a valuable solution by enabling individuals to communicate at their own pace, easing the pressure of in-person interactions. However, if digital platforms are not intuitively designed or fail to offer personalised communication options, they risk becoming just as alienating as traditional methods. The INTERACT project calls for enhanced neurodiversity training among police officers and digital services designed with greater flexibility and accessibility.8
Similarly, older demographics and people with disabilities often face challenges with digital-first policing. An assumption that all citizens are digitally literate risks further marginalising those already underserved by traditional policing methods. To ensure digital services are genuinely inclusive, proactive design, accessible training, and alternative contact options are essential, alongside maintaining high-quality human discretion where it is needed.
The key to maintaining public confidence may rest in a hybrid approach, where technology complements rather than replaces human decision-making. Various initiatives show how digital tools can improve service quality while preserving the importance of personal engagement.
Video Response services for domestic abuse victims offers a remote alternative to in-person visits, allowing victims to receive immediate support through video calls with trained officers, rather than waiting hours or days for an in-person response. Importantly, this hybrid approach gives victims the opportunity to choose between digital and face-to-face contact, fostering a sense of agency and building trust.9 The introduction of Enhanced Video Response (EVR) established by Dorset Police builds on the successful Rapid Video Response (RVR) piloted within Kent Police, providing victims the opportunity to speak to an officer over live video rather than seeing them in person.
A similar example is seen in West Midlands Police’s Andi-Esra system, an AI assistant that triages 101 calls in real time, detects vulnerability, and frees up staff to focus on complex cases.10
Norfolk Constabulary’s StreetSafe platform allows individuals to anonymously report safety concerns within their neighbourhoods and communities. Norfolk Police strengthened public trust by using this platform to respond directly to community concerns, deploying high-visibility patrols to address issues raised.11
Similarly, case-tracking portals such as Citizens Portal provide crime victims with real-time updates on case progress, reducing the need for repeated calls or inquiries. By minimising ‘failure demand’ - where victims seek updates due to insufficient communication - the portal enables officers to prioritise meaningful interactions, such as offering victim support and case investigations rather than handling routine updates.12
For digital policing to foster trust in public interactions, it must incorporate the principles of procedural justice, ensuring transparency, public voice, and impartiality in all digital engagements. Transparency, in this context, involves clearly communicating how digital reports are handled, who reviews them, and the rationale behind decisions made. Without such clarity, digital policing risks appearing impersonal and may undermine public confidence in policing.
The public voice must also be safeguarded. While traditional policing enables people to express their concerns face-to-face, digital tools must replicate this opportunity by providing accessible feedback channels and mechanisms to challenge decisions. The INTERACT project highlights how standardised digital systems often exclude neurodivergent individuals and deaf BSL users, making inclusivity a priority.
Impartiality also remains a challenge. AI-driven public contact tools for example, can perpetuate existing biases if not carefully designed and closely monitored. To prevent discrimination and uphold fairness, AI-enhanced risk-based tools must undergo rigorous human oversight and regular evaluation.
When thoughtfully implemented, digital tools can improve public engagement, enhance responsiveness, and improve accessibility, ultimately reinforcing trust rather than eroding it. The transition to digital policing is not just about efficiency, it is an opportunity to redefine how trust is cultivated in an era of technological change. The future of policing will not just be digital, it will and must be digitally enhanced, human-centred, and trust-driven.
