Results from the public consultation to inform the Policing London Business Plan 2010/11

Report: 9
Date: 5 March 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines the process and key findings from the public consultation on policing priorities conducted by the MPA to inform the Policing London Plan 2010/11. The report provides a list of all areas prioritised by respondents to the consultation and further analysis of the top five areas prioritised. Analysis of all consultation responses and demographics details of respondents is available in the full consultation analysis report on the MPA website.

A. Recommendation

That members are asked to note the report and to consider the results of the consultation when deciding on the policing priorities for the 2010/11 Policing London Business Plan.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) ‘Have Your Say on Policing in London’ consultation, to inform the 2010/11 Policing London Business Plan, ran between 1 October and 15 December 2008. Respondents were asked to complete a short questionnaire stating their top three priorities for policing in London together with details of why they thought they should be priorities and what the police should be doing to tackle them [1].

2. Advertisements promoting the questionnaire were placed in some of the London press (London Lite, 1 October 2008 and The Evening Standard, 6 October 2008), every Local Policing Summary which appeared in free Local Authority publications distributed to households between September and December 2008 and on the MPA and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) websites. A link to the consultation was also sent to all Safer Neighbourhoods (SN) sergeants via the MPS central Safer Neighbourhoods Unit, to distribute to their ward panels, Key Individual Networks (KINs) and through other communication channels. In addition, an email inviting people to take part in the consultation was sent to a variety of contacts from databases held by colleagues within the MPA [2]. The consultation was promoted at conferences that MPA colleagues attended including a domestic violence workshop and an Imam conference. Details of the consultation were distributed further through word of mouth and organisations placing links on their websites. These included The Guardian, The Londonist and Mayorwatch websites [3].

3. In total there were 776 completed responses to the consultation questionnaire [4]. The majority (738) were completed online with a further 31 hard copy postal questionnaires and seven telephone interviews [5] . All responses were inputted into an Excel spreadsheet and respondents’ priorities coded for ease of analysis [6] .

Priorities identified

4. Priorities were analysed by respondent’s first priority and all priorities combined [7]. A full list of respondents’ first and combined priorities is included in appendix 1.

5. The same top five priorities emerged in analysis of both respondents’ first and combined priorities.

• Antisocial behaviour (ASB)
• Accessibility and visibility of the police
• Youth crime and other youth related issues
• Traffic and road related issues
• Gun and knife crime

6. Similar priorities emerged in the consultation conducted in March 2008 to inform the 2009/10 policing plan, with the exception of drugs and drug related crime: this priority just slipped out of the top five in the most recent consultation, replaced by youth and youth related issues [8].

Analysis of top five priorities

Anti social behaviour (ASB)

7. Respondent’s most commonly cited the impact of ASB on fear of crime, intimidation and personal safety, the negative impact on quality of life and how ASB leads to more serious crimes as reasons for prioritising this area.

8. Respondents highlighted how ASB often instils more concern and fear than more serious crimes. One respondent stated “It's the one thing that causes me most concern. I'm unlikely to be the victim of a terrorist plot, but I feel intimidated by yobs hanging around” while another felt that ASB “...affects most people on a day to day basis as opposed to the 'bigger' more serious crimes such as knife crime which we hear about in the news all the time”.

9. It was felt that ASB often caused fear of crime in general, making people think that crime is higher than reality. One respondent stated “ASB activities make people feel that all types of crime are on the increase whether they actually are or not”. It was felt that this may damage confidence in policing. One respondent felt ASB “...has a big impact on public perception of the effectiveness of policing to help make London a safe place to live and work.”

10. There was a sense of fear and apprehension from respondents in telling people to stop if they witnessed anti-social acts, as this may lead to victimisation. One respondent stated, “People should feel secure about telling people not to do something without fear of being abused or injured”.

11. The impact of ASB on quality of life was frequently raised by respondents. Many highlighted how this can lead to misery for ordinary, law abiding residents, who lose pride in their home and may alter their day to day activities due to fear or damage to the area. Some related this to a lack of respect for others by perpetrators. As one respondent stated, “Repeated disrespect for other members of the community, their possessions, property, and local area in general creates an intimidating atmosphere of fear and resentment, which ultimately damages the quality of life of ordinary people who just want to get on with their daily lives”.

12. Many respondents referred to a link between low-level incivilities and ASB with more serious crime. It was felt that tolerating ASB sent out a message that more serious crimes were also acceptable and that ‘nipping ASB and disorder in the bud’ may lead to a reduction in more serious offences. One respondent said “Most people are unaffected by high level serious crime. Anti-social behaviour however appears to be tolerated in many communities making the lives of ordinary people miserable. If ignored it makes this level of behaviour acceptable”.

13. Young people as perpetrators of ASB was highlighted by a number of respondents, however this appeared lower in the list of reasons compared to the last consultation [9]. Although young people were usually referred to in negative terms, a few respondents highlighted how problematic ASB can be for young people themselves. One respondent in particular stated “... young people are terribly scared of leaving the very small area where they live, many are losing hope of accessing jobs/education etc”.

14. An increased police presence was the most common tactic respondents cited as needed to tackle ASB.

15. Respondents also felt that stricter enforcement and punishments was important and, although the MPS has a role in this, other agencies, such as the courts, are also responsible. One respondent stated “Police, but particularly local authorities and courts, should take a hard line with low level anti-social behaviour as when people get away with that they feel secure enough to step it up a degree”. One respondent felt “The MPS is doing what it can. The answer lies with the court by handing out tougher fines and sentence”.

16. The need to engage with other agencies, most commonly the local council was highlighted by many respondents. It was felt that joint working to identify appropriate solutions to ASB would be effective in tackling the issue. One respondent wanted to see “…more work with the local community and safety teams, roll out citizenship programmes and civic pride programmes through the local council and the Mayor’s office”. Respondents also felt that the police should link up with other agencies to provide youth engagement projects as a mechanism to get young people off the streets.

17. Better community engagement as a means of tackling ASB was suggested by a number of respondents. This included joint work between the police and community to deal with issues at a local level, better integration of police within the community and recruitment of people to work within their own communities. One respondent felt there should be “Greater youth engagement via working with community groups, direct relationships with groups of young people who have been disassociated from their local community and working closely with schools and parents to help the wider community understand the impact of youth crime”.

Accessibility and visibility of the police

18. The most common reasons for prioritising accessibility and visibility of the police were to deter, reduce or prevent crime and ASB, to reduce fear of crime, to improve reassurance and feelings of safety and to improve response times.

19. Many respondents felt that a more visible police presence would be effective in deterring, reducing or preventing crime or ASB from occurring, although one respondent acknowledged that this may be difficult to measure. However, as one respondent stated, “At least there would be a ‘threat’ of not getting away with it if there was consistent knowledge that there was a law enforcing officer about to appear around the next corner”.

20. The positive impact on reassurance and tackling fear of crime were also commonly cited by respondents who prioritised accessibility and visibility of the police. Similar to respondents who prioritised ASB, fear of crime is an important issue. One respondent felt that “...fear of crime is more debilitating than crime itself”.

21. Response times were an important issue for a number of respondents and not just in relation to how quickly officers physically attend incidents, but also how quickly calls for assistance are dealt with. Respondents indicated that if calls are not answered or responded to quickly, this makes victims feel that the police do not care and deters them from reporting in the future. One respondent stated, “If something happens and no-one answers the phone, as happened to us twice, next time something happens you just won't bother and feelings of 'the police don't care, it's all pointless' prevail”. It was also felt that timely responses to incidents increase the chances of detection and lead to positive interactions with the community.

22. To some respondents, accessibility and visibility issues were about more than just seeing police officers on the streets and receiving a prompt service when they call for assistance. A number of respondents highlighted how important it was to get to know police officers in their local area and for them to become part of the community. It was felt this made officers more approachable and encouraged the public to raise issues with them. One respondent felt it was important to “...give the community a sense...that the police are part of the community; giving a sense of safety and enabling the police to grasp community interests”. Another respondent reflected on successes in their area: “It [high profile, visible policing] has worked in our neighbourhood and in fact the police have become our friends and are much more approachable than they were a few years ago. I realise that it does not stop hardened criminals, but a better neighbourhood network helps to combat this”.

23. The most common tactic suggested to improve accessibility and visibility of the police was to deploy more trained police officers onto the streets at appropriate times, especially during weekends and at night. One respondent felt there was a need for “More police officers on the streets, walking, on bikes and in high visibility jackets. More resources should be dedicated to this. Need to be more police people on the street – even if just volunteers”. Respondents commonly raised the need to see more police officers on foot, rather than in cars.

24. Some respondents felt there was a link between reducing paperwork and desk duties, and ensuring that police officers are out patrolling the streets. One respondent stated “Ensure greater numbers of officers on the street and available to respond to calls by reduction of red tape, abolition of targets and paperwork”. Respondents felt that many desk based jobs should be undertaken by civilian staff, enabling more police officers to patrol the streets.

25. In line with the tactics mentioned above was the need to increase numbers of police officers. Some respondents felt there should be more police officers and less police community support officers (PCSOs) as limited powers meant they were often unable to fully deal with problems. One respondent stated “Less money on community support officers and more on real police…training so police are best equipped to work in difficult communities”.

26. An increase in resources and funding was of high importance to a number of respondents. The general view was to simply get more police officers back on the streets, with additional funding needed to implement this. One respondent felt the MPS should “…lobby for adequate resources to be allocated to the police. The police seem to be completely overwhelmed by the demands placed on them”.

27. Other tactics suggested included ensuring that police stations were accessible and kept open, working with the community and local authorities to identify priority areas and maintaining SNTs, ensuring that there is adequate visibility of teams across wards at all times.

Youth crime and youth related issues

28. Weapons and violence was frequently raised by respondents who prioritised youth crime and youth related issues. This was usually due to concerns around the safety of young people. As one respondent stated, “Children are often victims from both adults and their peer groups and should be entitled to protection and grow up with an understanding of the help that the law can provide”.

29. Young people as perpetrators of crime and ASB was also raised by a number of respondents, with some relating this to young people having low aspirations, poor family relationships and being disengaged from society in general. One respondent stated, “Young people are getting further disengaged and antisocial. There should be a no tolerance policy combined with education and relationship building to re-engage youth”.

30. Intimidation and quality of life issues were key for respondents prioritising this area. Respondents often referred to gangs or large groups of young people ‘hanging around’, committing low level crime and disorder and causing alarm or distress to other people. Young people as part of gangs were also highlighted. Some respondents felt that young people turn to gangs in the absence of family support or lack of confidence in the police to protect them.

31. Positive engagement with the police and general investment in young people to divert them from crime was seen as a priority when tackling youth crime and youth related issues. It was felt that young people “…do not believe that the police are there for them [and]… take other measures to protect themselves”. One respondent felt, “Building relationships with younger people early on could go a long way to preventing issues at a later stage”.

32. Ensuring that there are sufficient activities and youth clubs or services was the most common tactic respondents cited for tackling youth crime or youth issues. One respondent stated “...set up projects with GOOD and ONGOING funding so that the young people can access safe places to socialise away from the streets”.

33. Working with schools was often highlighted by respondents. Comments ranged from educating young people, to giving teachers more powers to firmly discipline pupils. One respondent felt there should be a “…more scientific and systematic attempt to address gang and drug crime - making full use of all community safety partners in education, health services, local authorities…..There needs to be a very high level campaign, including links to the school curriculum, to tackle this issue”. Involving SNTs in tackling youth issues was also raised. As one respondent stated, “SN teams need to make regular visits to all the schools (primary and secondary) and young people’s clubs in their ward so they know every pupil and vice-versa. They need to help with sports and play schemes”.

34. Many respondents felt that an increased presence and greater visibility of the police was the most effective way to address youth crime and youth issues. One respondent felt the MPS need to “work proactively with local authorities to ensure that sufficient joint partnership team is able to patrol and respond to hot-spots when required. This needs to be a 24hrs a day initiative”. The need for round the clock patrolling was often highlighted by respondents, who were concerned that there is currently less visibility during the evenings.

35. Stricter enforcement of laws and punishment was also highlighted by respondents. One stated “To be honest I think the police are doing all they can, it’s the courts and judges that aren’t. There’s not enough deterrent on knife crime so it’s not surprising youths go out and re-offend”.

Traffic and road related issues [10]

36. Respondents who prioritised traffic and road related issues particularly highlighted concerns around public safety, drivers or cyclists ignoring road laws or traffic markings and speeding.

37. Public safety issues were mainly related to death or injury caused by drivers. There was particular concern for vulnerable road users and that deaths and injuries through dangerous driving were more prevalent than those caused by ‘higher publicity’ crimes such as gun and knife crime, but often not given sufficient attention by the police.

38. Public safety issues were also at the source of other reasons given for prioritising traffic and road related issues. Drivers and cyclists ignoring road laws and traffic markings such as driving or cycling through red lights, not stopping for pedestrians at zebra crossings, cycling on pavements and illegal parking and speeding were often related to deaths and injuries caused by drivers or cyclists.

39. The effect on health and quality of life was raised by a number of respondents, particularly in relation to vulnerable people (e.g. elderly people and children) who may avoid leaving their home as they are scared of speeding traffic. In addition, it was felt that perceived or actual danger may deter people from opting for healthier modes of transport such as walking or cycling.

40. Other areas that were of particular concern for respondents were uninsured, untaxed or unlicensed vehicles (it was felt that these drivers may also commit other offences), illegal riding of motor bikes (particularly by young people) and dangerous lorries and large vehicles (mainly highlighted by respondents who indicated that they were regular cyclists [11]).

41. When asked what the MPS should be doing to tackle traffic and road related issues, respondents mainly felt there should be more police officers and resources. These were often seen as preferable to ‘technological’ policing methods such as speed cameras.

42. Respondents also felt that the police should enforce current traffic driving regulations, conduct more speed checks and ensure that offenders receive harsher penalties. It was felt that the police should make traffic and road related issues a higher priority.

43. Education and publicity, particularly around mobile phone use and speeding was raised by a number of respondents. Some referred to hard hitting campaigns around drink driving and felt there should be similar initiatives around mobile phones and speeding.

4. More partnership working, particularly traffic officers working with SNTs, PCSOs, the council and general public to tackle road and traffic issues was also raised by respondents.

Gun and knife crime

45. Loss of life, particularly that of young people, was the most frequently cited reason for prioritising this crime type. One respondent thought that gun and knife crime should be a priority for the police in London, “…because of the young lives being taken so needlessly and the young lives of the offenders being impaired for the rest of their lives”. There was also particular concern for innocent people who can be ‘caught up’ in knife crime incidents. As one respondent stated, “This crime is random, vicious, often kills the innocent as third-party victims”. Some respondents were scared that young members of their family may become involved in knife crime incidents, either as victims or perpetrators.

46. The prevalence or increase in gun and knife crime incidents was another reason given by respondents when asked why this area should be a priority. There was a perception that the number of incidents had increased recently and that the problem was widespread across London. Some respondents referred specifically to the number of young people killed by weapons in the capital in the last year or so.

47. This had clearly impacted on fear of crime which was also highlighted as a key area for respondents. Respondents spoke about how this affects quality of life both for adults and young people. One respondent stated, “It, indirectly, effects people's freedom to travel about London, particularly at night, but also, in some areas, during the day” while another spoke of the impact on young people stating “[gun and knife crime is]…having a more major change effect on the way in which society and parents behave. Parents now see potential attackers in all areas of life and end up restricting children’s movements unnecessarily. This is leading to a generation becoming less streetwise, not more so”.

48. Fear of knife crime can also affect perceptions of crime in general and confidence in the police to deal with issues, which may deter people from reporting crime.

49. The most common tactic stated by respondents was to employ tougher sentences and penalties for those found in possession of a gun or knife, as well as those using them to commit offences. It was often thought that work should be done in collaboration with other agencies to ensure that sentences are tough enough to deter offenders. There was also a feeling that shops selling knives and guns should be given harsher sentences.

50. More stop and search was seen by many respondents as an important tactic in tackling the gun and knife crime issues. Respondents felt that stop and search should be used on large groups of young people or known gangs to deter them from carrying a weapon. The use of knife arches or metal detectors at known hotspots was also raised.

51. Education and work with schools was a common tactic highlighted by respondents. It was felt that the effects of using a gun or knife should be publicised to discourage young people from carrying weapons. The reasons behind young people carrying and using guns and knives was also raised, along with the need to invest in diversionary activities to prevent young people becoming involved in such offences.

Further comments

52. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments at the end of the consultation questionnaire. Over half (52% or 404) of respondents provided comments.

53. Around a fifth of further comments provided were complimentary or supportive of the MPS, particularly SNTs. Respondents recognised the hard work of officers and many stated that they had seen improvements in their area and gave examples of good police community relations. Respondents often called for more funding or expansion of SNTs and respondents in areas with 24/7 policing teams recommended they were rolled out further.

54. Comments from respondents included: “I really appreciate getting emails from our local police station in Fulham - fantastic work, thanks!” and “I think that attitude towards policing is improving, more visible presence and the emergence of PCSOs and wardens have definitely helped and bought back the community feel”.

55. Most other comments largely reflected those made in other sections of the questionnaire. Areas raised included: the need for a multi-agency response to crime and disorder, tougher sentences for offenders, a need for more accessible crime statistics and public information about crime and policing, ensuring that the police workforce represents the London population, concern about leadership in the MPS following negative press coverage and that local areas should prioritise local (rather than force wide) issues.

Public Attitude Survey

56. The Public Attitude Survey (PAS) measure Londoners’ perceptions of policing and experiences of crime and has taken place since 1983. The PAS surveys 20,480 people annually, equating to 640 interviews per borough, with interviewing taking place continually throughout the year. The PAS adopts a probability sampling method to ensure the sample of respondents is representative of the population of London and at borough level.

57. To make the public consultation into policing priorities more statistically robust, two new questions were added to the PAS in quarter three 2008/09 (September to December 2008). The questions were worded “What would you say are the top three things that the police should be dealing with across London?” and “What would you like the police to do about these issues?”

58. Responses to the questions were freetext and coded by the MRUK research who manage the survey. There were 5,490 responses to the first question (“What would you say are the top three things that the police should be dealing with across London?”). Based on a combination of all three issues, the top five areas prioritised by respondents were [12]:

• Gun and knife crime
• Gang culture
• Crime in general/safer streets etc
• ASB/vandalism
• Drugs crimes

59. There were 3,581 responses to the second question (“What would you like the police to do about these issues?”). The top five combined most popular tactics for dealing with issues raised were [13]:

• More police patrols/more visible policing
• Find a way of stopping/dealing with it
• Be stricter in dealing with/give harsher sentences to offenders
• More for young people/youths to do
• Be given more power/resources to deal with it

Source: MPS Strategic Research and Analysis Unit

60. A more detailed analysis of priority areas and policing issues raised by respondents to the PAS is included in the full consultation analysis report.

Concluding remarks and next steps

61. It is vital that both the MPA and MPS consider the results of this consultation when developing future service provision and reviewing policing priorities for London for 2010/11 and future years. This necessity is also highlighted in the Policing and Crime Bill currently before Parliament which states that police authorities must have regard for the views of people in their area about policing.

62. This work is part of an integrated consultation process being overseen by the MPA that includes questions in the PAS. The Planning and Performance Unit will be reviewing the work carried out to date in order to enhance the process and improve the diversity of those people taking part in the more in-depth aspects of the consultation. Options being considered include focus groups, road shows and use of the internet (particularly social networking sites).

C. Race and equality impact

1. The MPA seek to encourage as many people from as many different backgrounds as possible to participate in the consultation and be involved in setting the priorities for their police service. Full demographic information is collected from respondents in order to monitor this and conduct analysis by demographic of respondent.

2. Though not demographically representative, the profile of respondent’s in this year’s consultation was considerably more varied than last year. The inclusion of a question in the PAS will provide a statistically robust return of information. The MPA are constantly reviewing the consultation process and exploring new and innovative ways to encourage more people to take part.

F. Financial implications

The cost of advertising the consultation in some London press (London Lite, 1 October 2008 and The Evening Standard, 6 October 2008) was £3,150 plus VAT. The cost of formatting and placing the consultation questionnaire online was £560. The remainder of the consultation design, collation of questionnaires, telephone interviews, data inputting and analysis was conducted in-house and absorbed within current staffing costs. Additional resources will be needed to improve the range of participation in the qualitative aspects of future consultations.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Melissa Wagstaff and Gemma Deadman, Planning and Performance Unit, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback