PUBLIC TRUST AND PERCEIVED SAFETY AS OUTCOME INDICATORS OF CRIME PREVENTION: EVIDENCE FROM UZBEKISTAN

Abstract

This conference paper argues that crime-prevention effectiveness should not be assessed through recorded crime rates alone. It uses survey evidence from Uzbekistan to examine perceived safety, victimization, non-reporting, and trust in local prevention officers as complementary outcome indicators. The empirical material comes from two surveys conducted in April 2026: a district-level sample in Tashkent (n=341) and a nationwide sample (n=2,433). The local sample reported higher overall perceived safety than the national sample (85.0% versus 78.7%), but substantially lower perceived safety after 22:00 (44.3% versus 57.0%). Self-reported victimization during the previous year was lower locally (15.2% versus 24.1%), while non-reporting among respondents who had experienced or witnessed an offence was broadly similar (14.7% versus 13.3%). Average trust in the local prevention inspector was slightly higher (6.89 versus 6.49 on a ten-point scale), yet direct willingness to contact the inspector was lower (46.0% versus 55.3%). The paper identifies this as a “passive trust” gap and argues for a multidimensional outcome framework combining crime data with survey-based measures of safety, victimization, reporting behaviour, and institutional trust.