Police non-emergency response time survey

Report: 14
Date: 27 February 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

This report attaches, at the request of Lynne Featherstone, results of a survey into police non-emergency response times.

A. Recommendations

1. The Authority is asked to decide whether it wishes to consider this item.

B. Supporting information

1. As provided for in Standing Orders, MPA members may place an item for discussion on the agenda of the Authority, or a committee of which they are a member.

2. Lynne Featherstone has asked that the results of a survey into police non-emergency response times be placed on the agenda. This is attached as Appendix 1. To reduce printing costs, the response times for each individual borough have been sent separately to members, are available for viewing on the MPA website and are available on request from the MPA.

C. Equality and diversity implications

None.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Simon Vile, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Police non-emergency response time survey

Background

As a response to anecdotal evidence that Londoners were routinely having difficulty contacting their local police station for non-urgent matters, we undertook direct research to test whether this was indeed the case.

Method

A list was compiled of all the police stations in London with open front counters. Each station was then called and asked a basic, non-urgent question, such as what to do about lost property. The time taken for the local police station to answer the call was recorded.

Details

1. The list of open police stations was taken from the Metropolitan Police website. Following a number of revisions due to outdated information, it was established that 132 police stations were currently open and active.
2. The research was carried out on 19 -20 December and 3 January during office hours.
3. All calls are initially directed to a central operator. The operator then transfers the call to the front desk of a local station. The time recorded is the length of time taken to connect to the local station.
4. Callers let the phone ring until either: there was a response; they were cut off; the call ‘timed out’ (rung off); they were connected to an answerphone; or the phone had rung 100 times without answer – approximately 6 minutes 36 seconds. This time was considered the upper limit for a police station to answer a call.
5. If the local station was engaged, researchers attempted to call again, up to a limit of three attempts.
6. Following connection, the basic enquiry took less than 30 seconds.

Results

1. Overall:

• Researchers were unable to get through to 52 stations of the 132 called*.
• Of the remaining 80 stations, 30 took more than 1 minute to respond.
• 1 minute equates to approximately 24 rings. By means of comparison Richmond Borough Council has a response target of 6 rings.
• Only 50 stations responded within 1 minute.
• If 6 rings can be said to equate to approximately 15 seconds, only 14 police stations would have reached Richmond Borough’s target.

2. Borough Performance:

• The best performers were Newham, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Brent and Bexley. In each case, callers were able to get through to all the Borough’s police stations.
• Of these, the fastest average response time was in Hackney: 1 min 5 secs. This is still over 25 rings.
• The worst performing Boroughs were Harrow and Wandsworth. Researchers were unable to connect to any of the police stations in these Boroughs.
• See table for full details.

Note:

*‘Unable to get through’ means the caller was unable to speak to an officer at the police station called. This occurred in a number of ways: either the call was unanswered after 100 rings (6.36 minutes); the call was cut off; the call was not connected to the correct police station; the station was repeatedly engaged; or the call was transferred to an answerphone.

Conclusion

The survey represents a snap shot of the accessibility of local police stations. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive assessment. It simply looked at performance against the most measurable aspect of police response to non-urgent calls – time taken to get through.

On this aspect, though, it is clear that contacting your local police station represents a considerable challenge. In almost forty percent of cases researchers were unable to connect to anyone at all.

Even if someone did answer the phone, in only 11% of cases did they do so in a time deemed reasonable by a local council.

The frequently cited belief amongst the public that their local police are distant and inaccessible has been strongly backed up by the research.

Implications

What makes this situation all the more serious is that the 999 service is desperately overloaded, mainly because it is jammed with non-urgent calls.

Home Office research in 2001 found that 5,800,000 of the 8,400,000 calls made nationwide via 999 to the police did not need an emergency response. This is almost 70% of calls. It is reasonable to assume that a significant part of the reason for this overload is that people are unable to contact their local police station to air their non-urgent concerns, and therefore resort to calling 999.

Improving the performance of local police stations in answering non-urgent calls would be advantageous on a number of fronts. It would combat feelings amongst the public that the police are inaccessible and distant, uninterested in the low level disturbances that blight their life, and it would significantly reduce the burden on the 999 service, thus increasing the efficiency of police response in the case of genuine emergencies.

Follow up recommendations/observations

In the course of the research a number of other observations arose that could not be measured in numerical terms:

1. The survey did not directly measure the quality of the response received. Nevertheless, there was evidence of great variations in the knowledge and helpfulness of the responder. Much further scope exists to investigate and hopefully improve this aspect of non-emergency response.
2. Front counters staffed by volunteers tended to answer calls quickly. However, they seemed to lack confidence in their ability to answer enquiries, often recommending the caller try another police station.
3. The use of an operator system is obviously useful as a mechanism for vetting and directing calls. However, it has the major disadvantage of meaning that a call is deemed to be connected as soon as the operator has responded. This means that all the time a caller is trying to connect to their local station – up to 6 and a half minutes in some cases – they are being charged for the call. This is likely to cause some callers significant difficulties, particularly those calling from phone boxes.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback