Table 3.

Case Study 3b: evaluation of the impact of defunding and restructuring of LLG on selected outcomes, as well as results of temporal and spatial falsification tests for observed effects.

Outcome	12‐month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
Drunk and disorderly behaviour	−37%	−213, +123%	0.31
Sexual offences	−8%	−152%, +138%	0.46
Antisocial behaviour	−61%	−109%, −19%	0.01
Domestic violence	11%	−10%, +35%	0.14

Falsification tests for antisocial behaviour
Temporal falsificationa , b	4 month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
3 months earlier	−3%	−33%, +24%	0.43
3 months later	−41%	−79%, −4%	0.01
Spatial falsificationa , c	4 month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
Control area 1	−6%	−79%, +62%	0.44
Control area 2	−24%	−119%, +71%	0.31
Control area 3	−49%	−112%, +19%	0.07
Control area 4	−38%	−124%, +42%	0.2
Control area 5	−42%	−131%, +46%	0.17
Control area 6	−43%	−95%, +9%	0.05

Falsification tests for domestic violence
Temporal falsification testa , b	4‐month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
3 months earlier	4%	−21%, 36%	0.42
3 month later	−0.20%	−22%, 23%	0.48
Spatial case areaa , c	4 month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
Control area 1	7%	−14%, 28%	0.25
Control area 2	6%	−18%, 34%	0.32
Control area 3	−5%	−19%, 12%	0.27
Control area 4	−6%	−32%, 22%	0.32
Control area 5	−3%	−38%, 31%	0.42
Control area 6	25%	−36%, 72%	0.15

^a3 months instead of 6 months temporal falsification was a priori selected to minimize the effects of the introduction of the LLG and additional inspections, which overlaps with the earlier temporal falsification test. This allowed for 4‐month impact periods which, for consistency, were also used for the spatial falsification tests;

^bthe time‐point of the intervention was artificially moved forwards or backwards;

^ceach control area was artificially assigned as the intervention area. CrI = credible interval; LLG = local licensing guidance.