New South Wales Farm Crime Survey 2020 The University of New England, Centre for Rural Criminology

Discussion of Key Findings

Farmers in NSW experience very high levels of crime victimisation and often experience this victimisation repeatedly and across multiple occasions. The most common forms of victimisation reported by farmers include trespass, illegal shooting and hunting, the theft of livestock, break and enter and the theft of equipment and tools. The impact of crime on Australian farmers and other rural property owners is significant psychologically and financially, and there are direct and broader social and economic implications.

Consider stock theft alone, for example. NSW police figures indicate that between 2015 and 2020, an average of 1,800 cattle and 16,700 sheep were stolen each year across the state at a cost of nearly $4 million (annually) to farmers. If we add the value of stud stock, loss of animal by-products like wool or milk, and loss of future breeding potential, the annual monetary impact on NSW primary producers could realistically be over $60 million. These estimates are especially conservative not least due to under reporting and the subsequent ‘dark figure’ of farm crime. These costs are also borne by farmers already facing serious challenges from droughts, flooding, bush fires, climate change and mental health.

The violation of an intruder entering private property and stealing property has a substantial bearing on a person’s emotional state, and sense of safety and security, especially when we consider that many of these offences occur in isolated rural spaces where a police response will not be immediate. Notably, there are other on-costs as productive farmers may leave the sector all-together due to the personal stress and anxiety associated with victimisation. In regional areas, perceptions of a community, its safety, people and culture can affect tourism, impact on its attraction of high-quality health professionals or teachers, and retention of other essential service providers. These crimes can have an additional flow-on effect, impacting pricing, distribution, and the availability of produce. Additionally, high levels of victimisation decrease the capacity of communities to prevent and respond to crime more generally. Specifically, replicating established criminological findings, in this survey we see that, when compared to those who have not experienced farm crime, victims are a) less likely to report crime; b) have lower levels of confidence and satisfaction in the police; and c) exhibit higher levels of worry about crime.

Given the high levels of repeated victimisation, it is unsurprising that many farmers believe that crime in NSW has risen ‘a lot more’ in the past two years and that the large majority of farmers tend to classify crime in their local area as serious. More specifically, farmers had high levels of worry about crime in general and about offences of which they experience the most, such as stock theft, trespass and illegal shooting and hunting. Worry itself is a serious concern, with its consequences rivalling that of actual victimisation. Excessive worry about crime can impact on an individual's quality of life through stress, physiological effects and negative psychological well-being. As with crime, worry about crime may also undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and social trust, which can contribute to further social disorder and crime.

Farmers indicated rather high levels of reporting at least one farm crime in their lifetime. However, less than half of farmers surveyed indicated they would report crime they experienced ‘all of the time’. In fact, the likelihood of reporting was very much dependent on the type of crime experienced. For example, despite being the primary offences experienced by farmers, both trespassing (45%) and illegal shooting (43%) were reported at least once under half of the time and stock-theft was reported on at least one occasion only 67% of the time. Reluctance to report crime revolved primarily around a lack of confidence in police capacity to solve the crime, as well as perceptions of barriers to investigating crime in rural spaces. Interestingly, farmers also expressed high levels of worry of revenge or retaliation from offenders if they were to report.

These reasons indicate both an acute awareness among farmers of the reality of rural policing (e.g., response times; difficult to gather evidence) as well as attention to the social dynamics of rural communities and farm crime more specifically, where offences often occur alongside high levels of social density and acquaintanceship. The data also indicates that farmers have been willing to report over their lifetime, but understandings around the limitations of policing certain offences (i.e. trespass) and negative past experiences may prohibit continued or sustained engagement. Speaking of social density, farmers also indicated a strong reliance on informal social control. For example, if not the police, many farmers reported and discussed crime with family, friends, neighbours, and co-workers. The value of this information, from a policing perspective, cannot be understated. It is imperative that police seek to be included as a trusted partner in the sharing of rural crime information in small communities.

Nearly half of respondents were unaware they could report crime to Crime Stoppers or the Police Assistance Line. This is especially relevant as farmers often do not want to call police a long distance out to deal with crimes they may often perceive as minor or trivial, and therefore not worthy of a triple zero call. Once again, issues of social density may also discourage a farmer’s interest in having a marked police vehicle attend the property, especially if the offence is thought to be perpetrated by neighbours or acquaintances. While most farmers indicated a strong preference to report crime directly at their local police station, Crime Stoppers or the Police Assistance Line provide alternative mechanisms for reporting which are less urgent and provide for greater privacy when reporting. Farmers should be strongly encouraged to report crime through a variety of mediums as a more holistic picture of farm crime provides a strong basis for resource allocation and intervention. Encouraging multiple avenues and means of reporting is imperative in combatting farm crime.

Farmers expressed mixed views on police. For example, slightly more respondents were satisfied with the police overall than were dissatisfied. However, most felt that the local police were not well resourced and that not enough was being done to prevent crime. Farmers also expressed a lack of confidence in the police to deal with farm crime specifically. When all questions asked in the survey relating to varying aspects of police confidence (6 questions) are combined, we see that the overall confident index suggests mid to low-levels of confidence in the police across the board.

Farmers also indicated dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system in relation to farm crime. For example, a large majority felt that the sentences handed down by courts were far too lenient and there was significant desire to see harsher penalties imposed for farm crime. This is perhaps not surprising as criminological research has found that high levels of victimisation, worry about crime and low confidence in the criminal justice system are related to punitive attitudes towards crime. Taken together, mid to low confidence in the police and dissatisfaction with perceptions of justice may also explain, in part, the reluctance of farmers to report crime, as well as their reliance on themselves and informal social control more generally.

At the same time, the majority of farmers felt that we should attend to wider social issues which may propel theft from farms such as poverty and inequality. This indicates that farmers desired responses to farm crime are more nuanced than is often assumed. With this in mind, despite the apparent calls for getting tougher on farm crime, the data suggests that punishment does not constitute the totality of farmer needs. Rather, farmers indicate a strong desire for an informed and engaged rural police force which is well-resourced, and which can be relied upon to be both reactive (successful prosecutions; clearance rates etc.) and proactive (public engagement; crime prevention etc.). To this end, there exists very strong support amongst farmers for a dedicated team of police officers trained to deal with rural crime specifically. Farmers also long to be engaged with personally and more often.

The majority of farmers were aware of the NSW Police Force Rural Crime Prevention Team (RCPT) and, of those who had direct contact with the team, the large majority were satisfied/very satisfied with their experiences. Most respondents see the RCPT as a positive development in the fight against rural crime and nearly half indicated they were more likely to report crime since the advent of this specialised team. Nevertheless, we still see that a considerable number of respondents indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed with whether they were inclined to report crime more since the advent of the RCPT or if the creation of the RCPT has been a positive development in the fight against rural crime. Additionally, while most famers were aware of the RCPT, the large majority indicated they could not recognise their distinct uniforms, nor had they come across their social media page. This suggests there is more work to be done both in terms of outreach and engagement, as well as in relationship and confidence building to move a large sub section of farmers from passive and agnostic to informed and engaged.

Nevertheless, we see several positive developments. Specifically, the survey found that those who have had direct contact with the RCPT are significantly more satisfied with the police overall than those who had not. Additionally, both awareness and direct contact with the RCPT was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of farmers reporting crime. Those who were aware of the RCPT also has significantly lower levels of worry about crime. However, direct interaction with the RCPT did not reduce worry. This may be, in part, as those with direct interaction are likely victims of farm crime and victims of crime tend to have significantly higher levels of worry. Given the RCPT in its current form was only established in 2018, these results indicate significant promise and further evaluation should be undertaken to explore the impact of the team more holistically and overtime.

These greater levels of satisfaction and higher rates of reporting may result from farmers feeling seen, heard, and understood by the police (i.e., cultural awareness) and indicate greater confidence in these police to be able to respond to farm crime. For example, commentary by farmers in the survey, along with past research, indicates that farmers feel the police often do not understand the nuances of farm crime. However, officers trained in matters of rural crime prevention, and in the cultural aspects of ‘farming’ more generally can instil confidence that the police may be able to do something about the issue and, otherwise, at least understand the nature and scope of the problem (i.e., empathise that the theft of stock is not simply a minor theft or even theft alone, but often a high value theft that may impact on one’s livelihood). Solving crime is very important; however, the impact of victims simply feeling seen and heard cannot be overstated, especially when it comes to matters of satisfaction and confidence.

Finally, among the farmers surveyed, the large majority felt personal responsibility to prevent farm crime, with many indicating they actively employ specific measures to do this such as counting livestock, target hardening and using warning signage. Yet, farmers also pointed out the challenges to adopting more crime-prevention measures, including the financial cost, difficulty of implementation and a lack of knowledge around what works. These challenges often discourage them from undertaking crime prevention efforts, which ultimately may undermine the capacity to prevent crimes. In rural spaces, the tyranny of distance means that crime prevention is a shared responsibility, with both farmers and police alike needing to adopt preventative practices. As such, farmers must be supported and encouraged to uptake crime prevention efforts which can often be applied with minimal cost and effort, yet yield meaningful results.

Taken together, the data highlights a number of key issues which present challenges for the policing of farm crime: (i) very high levels of crime victimisation and worry about crime victimisation; (ii) significant under-reporting of crime; and (iii) low levels of confidence in the police to deal with farm crime, along with low levels of satisfaction with the police and criminal justice system more generally. These issues are also strongly interrelated and may greatly hinder the capacity of communities and the police to prevent and respond to crime. For example, when people have low confidence in the police to do something about crime they are much less likely to report crime, which limits police ability to apprehend offenders and results in an incomplete picture of actual offending rates for policy and decision-makers. These core issues are all the more emphasised by the physical and cultural environment in which much farm crime takes place.

There exist unique geographic and cultural attributes in rural farming communities: factors which are reflected in the incidence and responses to crime in rural spaces, as well as access to criminal justice services. Many offences (e.g., stock-theft; illegal hunting) are quintessentially ‘rural’, as are the targets of acquisitive crime (e.g., theft of farm machinery; water; agricultural chemicals). Culturally, there are historically more relaxed attitudes to security, and there are implications brought about by lower population densities. The sheer distances between settlements and properties are much greater than in urbanised environments, and local policing presences are much sparser. In terms of social density, while strong social bonds have been shown to mitigate crime, for example through increased informal social controls, others have highlighted that these same tight-knit acquaintanceship networks may facilitate crime (e.g., worry about reprisal for reporting crime).

Together, these elements combine to create a criminogenic environment that may still be dependent upon local characteristics (i.e., presence of agricultural farms) yet is vastly different than an urban environment in terms of types of offending, opportunities for offending and in preventing and responding to crime. For example, let's consider geography alone. Much crime prevention is predicated on rational choice theory which suggests that offenders make decisions based on a calculation of risks and rewards. Thus, for instance, one mechanism to increase the risk of offending is through natural surveillance based on the notion that a busy city-street is apt to be a safe street as people are around to witness and intervene in crime, thus deterring such behaviour. Yet, in the rural environment, the risk/reward calculation made by a potential offender is often skewed to them favourably as there are a myriad of valuable assets on farms; yet ‘eyes in the paddock' are sparse resulting in an absence of both formal and informal ‘guardianship’.

This, however, is not to suggest that crime prevention theory, tools and techniques cannot be applied on farms, only that we must consider the characteristics of rural spaces which demand a rural specific and localised approach in preventing and responding to crime (i.e. smart animal ear tags). The geography of the rural also emphasises that addressing rural crime is a shared responsibility, and that farmers must participate and engage for crime prevention to be successful. Police cannot simply ‘go it alone’, particularly given the pressures on police resourcing in rural spaces where an instantaneous first response is highly unlikely. In this regard, public crime prevention campaigns such as the Crime Stoppers 'draw the line on regional crime' serve to not only inform farmers about key issues in rural crime, but also directly include them and rural communities more broadly in the process of combatting rural crime by supporting and encouraging the sharing of information and the reporting of crime.

At the same time, officers armed with knowledge of locational context and cultural geography, and trained to deal with rural crime and its nuances, are best placed to address these issues. Indeed, farmers clearly desire an informed and engaged rural police force which is well-resourced, and which can be relied upon to be proactive as well as reactive. Farmers also indicate an eagerness to be active participants in the prevention of farm crime and for the police to engage with them more directly and in-person to combat farm crime cooperatively. The test of police efficiency may well be the absence of crime and disorder, but the absence of crime and disorder in the rural is very much predicated upon community collaboration, education and engagement. Thus, public approval and willing cooperation cannot be an afterthought.

Given that farmers express such personal responsibility for farm crime, it is imperative that police work to build confidence in these communities so that these personal efforts may work collaboratively with policing efforts to combat farm crime. This, again, is where the role of specialised rural policing teams can play a vital role in not only enforcing the law but also in preventing offending from occurring by bridging the gap between police, farmers, and rural communities more generally. Although in its relative contemporaneous infancy, the team of full-time rural crime prevention officers in NSW appear to be making headway on tackling these issues. Significant resources should be allocated to increase the capacity of the RCPT to address the high levels of crime victimisation experienced by farmers, not least as the evidence indicates the team is seeing success in confidence building and the reporting of rural crime, both of which are integral to combatting farm crime.

Additionally, while such resources should focus on increasing the capacity to respond to rural crime (investigative capacity; use of technology etc.), a continued focus going forward should be on addressing the high levels of worry about crime found in the survey, not only for its own sake but also as a means to prevent crime. For example, those with lower levels of worry about crime tend to have higher levels of confidence in the police, and vice versa, and are more likely to report crime and participate in crime prevention efforts more generally. By targeting worry about crime, rural police may positively intervene in the significant personal and social consequences posed by such worry, but at the same time build confidence in the police and, subsequently, develop and nurture engaged and cooperative partnership with farmers and their representative bodies (e.g., NSW Farmers Association); partnerships that are so consequential to combatting rural crime. This can be done through the building of confidence in the police, but also by empowering farmers through the provision of knowledge, education, tools and resources around farm crime and crime prevention.

Principle 9 of Sir Robert Peel's Principles of Law Enforcement 1829 notes that "the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it". Victimisation rates amongst farmers must be reduced. While the rural environment poses significant challenges to policing, proactive enforcement efforts and the adoption and implementation of novel strategies and technologies should be supported and specifically pursued. We have emphasised that the role of police action in terms of confidence building, reducing worry, increasing report etc. ultimately aids in reducing crime and disorder, yet explicit efforts, energies and resources should also be focused on key areas of victimisation including stock-theft, trespass and illegal shooting/hunting. With regard to farmers desires for more punitive responses to farm crime, such effort should seek to increase the surety of being caught and the consistent enforcement current penalties. Operation Stock Check and Strike Force Venari are two example of such visible enforcement strategies seeking to combat stock theft and illegal hunting respectively.

Six years on from Dr. Elaine Barclay's research on farm crime in NSW and Queensland (2001, 2015) many of the problem still persist, including very high rates of victimisation and low levels of reporting, while certain offences appear to be gaining in significance and new problems present themselves. Namely, many issues related to farm crime are likely to be increasingly problematic as, for example, farmers face environmental threats, food security is jeopardised and prices rise and bio-security concerns continue present themselves. While Dr. Barclay's research led to increased attention and resources for policing farm crime, this survey had the opportunity to take short-term stock of some of these developments. New efforts and initiatives appear to be making in-roads into rural communities and progress in combatting farm crime. Given this, lessons learned from NSW, with a resourced and dedicated specialised police team, can and should be absorbed in other jurisdictions facing similar issues. Additionally, more recent efforts, such as the proactive enforcement of Operation Stock Check and public awareness and education campaigns such as the Crime Stoppers 'draw the line on regional crime', are promising and such efforts should be increased and replicated Nationally.

Evidently, there is much work to be done and present and forthcoming challenges to rise too. It is our hope that the evidence and information provided in this report will be utilised by the Government, police and other agencies and farmers to allocate resources and develop solutions aimed at the prevention and reduction of farm crime across New South Wales and beyond. The results of this survey are already informing forthcoming research from The Centre for Rural Criminology which seeks to develop practical solutions to many of the problems identified here. Examples of this include research on: the use of new technologies to prevent the left of livestock; issues of trespass and biosecurity; illegal shooting and hunting; as well as on rural policing more broadly, among others. Below we have outlined some general recommendations based on the outcomes of this survey which we suggest should be pursued in an effort to reduce farm crime and farmer victimisation.

Thank you to the community and industry partners who helped get the word out about this survey, and a special thank you to the farmers of NSW who gave of their time and knowledge.