Results from the ‘Have your say on policing in London’ policing priorities consultation to inform the Policing London Business Plan 2011/12

Report: 11
Date: 4 March 2010
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 Business Plan 2011/12. The paper provides details of areas prioritised by respondents who took part in the various elements of the consultation and further analysis of the top five areas prioritised by respondents to the qualitative element of the consultation. Analysis of all qualitative consultation responses and demographic details of respondents will be available in the full consultation analysis report below.

A. Recommendation

That members are asked to note the report and consider the results of the consultation when deciding the policing priorities for the 2011/12 Policing London Business Plan.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) ‘Have Your Say on Policing in London’ consultation to inform the 2011/12 Policing London Business Plan ran between July and November 2009 [1]. The consultation used four different sources to obtain information about Londoners’ priorities for policing in London:

• A full qualitative questionnaire asking respondents to state 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 [2].
• A shorter postcard style questionnaire asking people to select their top three priorities from a set list. The shorter questionnaires were used at various community events across London including the Biggin Hill Air Show youth day and Time of Your Life older people event in Hammersmith and Fulham.
• A question around priorities included in the MPS Public Attitudes Survey (PAS) [3].
• A question around priorities included in the MPS online youth survey [4].
• Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit staff also considered the findings of other related surveys across London (e.g. GLA Young Londoners Survey, GLA Annual London Survey, Place Survey and British Crime Survey (BCS)) and policing priorities of bordering police force areas [5].

2. In total, 762 full qualitative questionnaires were completed either online, hard copy or via telephone, 713 shorter postcard style questionnaires were completed at various community events across London, 6,261 people were interviewed for the PAS (quarter 2 2009/10) and over 31,000 young people took part in the MPS online youth survey.

3. Table one below presents the top five priorities raised by respondents to the various parts of the consultation.

Table one: Top five priorities raised by respondents to the various parts of the consultation

4. It is important to note that methods varied between different parts of the consultation. The full consultation questionnaire asked people to simply state their top three priorities, the shorter postcard style questionnaire and MPS online youth survey asked respondents to tick their top three priorities from a set list and respondents to the PAS were asked for details of their priorities towards the end of a face to face interview about their perceptions and experiences of crime and policing. Each of these methods could elicit different types of priorities from respondents. However, there were some clear similarities in priorities highlighted in each method:

• ASB and gun and knife crime were prioritised by respondents to all consultations
• Accessibility and visibility of the police and drugs and drug related crime were prioritised by respondents to three of the four methods.

5. The similarity in the top five priorities that emerged from all four methods used as part of this consultation demonstrates a considerable agreement in the issues that Londoners want their police service to focus on. It is important that the MPS take these priorities (and others raised as part of each consultation method) into consideration when developing future service provision and reviewing policing priorities for London for 2011/12 and future years.

6. The Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit will be reviewing current methods prior to the next consultation 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 discussion groups at borough based community events, use of the internet (particularly social networking sites) and utilising community contacts of Safer Neighbourhoods’ colleagues.

C. Race and equality impact

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.

Though not demographically representative, the age profile of respondent’s in this year’s consultation was considerably more varied than last year, with a fifth of all respondents to the shorter postcard questionnaires aged between 10 and 15 years. The inclusion of a question in the PAS and MPS Youth Survey has also provided 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

D. Financial implications

The total cost of conducting the consultation was £5,370.00. This included £4,387.00 to advertise in the Metro, £577.00 for printing flyers and shorter postcard style questionnaires and £406.00 to subscribe to Smart Survey [8]. All consultation design, administration and analysis was conducted in-house and absorbed within current staffing costs. Additional resources may be needed to improve the range of participation in the qualitative aspects of future consultations.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Melissa Pepper, MPA (Consultation analysis conducted by Melissa Pepper, James Bennett and Chloe Hughes, Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit, MPA).

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Analysis of why respondents prioritised top five issues in the full qualitative questionnaire and what they want the MPS to do to tackle them

Anti social behaviour (ASB)

1. Respondent’s most commonly cited the impact on fear of crime and personal safety and effect on Londoner’s quality of life as reasons for prioritising ASB. Many respondents felt that ‘law abiding’ people had the right to go about their daily lives without being scared of ASB or intimidated by perpetrators. There was concern that some parts of neighbourhoods were ‘no go areas’ due to high levels of ASB. Respondents spoke of residents’ lives (often older people) being made a misery by ASB and restricting their movements.

2. A number of respondents felt that young people were the main perpetrators of ASB. Some felt that young people lacked respect for others and that issues should be dealt with early before they progress to more serious offending. The link between ASB and more serious offending was mentioned frequently, not just in relation to young people. As one respondent stated, ASB was often seen as “the gateway to more serious offending” and that failing to tackle lower level ASB gave out a message of “anything goes”. It was felt that addressing ASB would go some way to tackling more serious offending. One respondent referred to ‘Broken Windows’ theory stating “…fix the minor crime and you go a long way to tackling the bigger stuff” [9].

3. Feeling that ASB is currently not being tackled and that the problem needs more attention or tougher penalties for offenders was another key reason why respondent’s prioritised ASB. There was concern that current penalties had limited deterrent effect and ASB offenders were often allowed to ‘get away with’ anti social acts. It was felt that this sent out a message that the behaviour was acceptable or tolerated. This issue was not just related to lack of police or local authority action. Some respondents highlighted how they and other members of the community were also reluctant to challenge ASB due to fear of reprisal.

4. A number of respondents highlighted the link between ASB and consumption of drugs and alcohol as a reason for prioritising the issue. Some respondents specifically raised the problem of young people consuming alcohol and becoming involved in ASB.

5. The widespread nature of ASB and the amount of people it affects was highlighted by a number of respondents who prioritised the issue. ASB was seen as the “biggest blight on day-to-day lives of Londoners” and many respondents referred to the large numbers of people in the capital regularly affected by ASB. Some respondents highlighted how Londoners are considerably more likely to be affected by ASB than other more serious crimes. One respondent stated “…this [ASB] affects the vast majority of the population in London…rather than terrorism”.

6. Other reasons given for prioritising ASB included: the impact on communities (including local businesses), perceptions that ASB is increasing (some respondents noted this particularly in relation to ASB on public transport), the damage ASB causes to the local area, and that the issue consumes often limited police resources.

7. The majority of respondents cited increased police presence and visibility when asked how the police should tackle ASB. Respondents were particularly keen to see more police officers on foot (rather than in cars) and visible at all times, not just ‘walking the beat’ during the day. As one respondent stated, “Adjust duty time to antisocial behaviour time”. It was felt that increasing police presence would both deter offenders and make people feel safer. One respondent said “[there] should be a larger police presence - so that residents can see them and feel more confident”.

8. Enforcing current laws or adopting a zero tolerance approach was mentioned by a large number of respondents. Cracking down on low level ASB (before it escalates into more serious offending), alcohol related ASB and offences committed by young people was often raised. Some respondents also felt there should be harsher penalties for people who commit ASB, particularly young people. These included more ‘community pay back’ type sentences (e.g. cleaning up graffiti or litter), tougher Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) conditions and heavier on the spot fines.

9. A number of respondents felt that increasing community engagement and work with the community would assist in tackling ASB. As well as generally getting to know people in the area, being approachable and listening to their concerns, a considerable number of respondents felt that the police should be working closely with schools and colleges to discourage young people from committing ASB. One respondent felt that this would “encourage the youth to be part of the community” while another thought that it may “help develop a sense of inclusion and community among younger people, who may then be less inclined to follow bad examples from older people at home”.

10. Respondents also mentioned working with other agencies, particularly local authorities, as a method of addressing ASB. Respondents felt the police and other agencies could work together to share intelligence, ensure that community based punishments or ASBO conditions are being adhered to and pool funding for diversionary projects with young people. Respondents felt that the police should be “liaising [with other agencies] around things which impact on crime – albeit indirectly”. One respondent felt that the police should work with local authorities as “…it's important that low level things like littering are taken seriously and addressed - these things make people feel negatively or positively about an area”.

11. Other methods proposed by respondents for tackling ASB included increasing current policing methods (particularly stop and search), tackling the drivers of ASB, targeting hotspot areas and known offenders, providing more education to young people to deter them from committing ASB, reducing paperwork and bureaucracy for police officers and making ASB a higher priority for the police and government.

Accessibility and visibility of the police

12. The majority of respondents who prioritised accessibility and visibility of the police did so because they felt it would assist in deterring, preventing or reducing crime, whilst also making people in London feel safer and decrease their fear of crime. As one respondent stated “…the majority of people would feel safer and more confident about going about their innocent business and hopefully criminals, anti-social types would feel less confident and more at risk about going about theirs”.

13. A number of respondents specifically stated that they wanted to see more officers on foot rather than in cars as this made them more approachable and likely to deter potential offenders. They felt that being in a vehicle limited an officers’ opportunity for engagement and intelligence gathering. It was felt this may also impact on the ability of the police to address fear of crime. As one respondent stated “To many people the sight of an officer patrolling on foot is reassuring, a car whizzing past is not” while another felt that “Police on the streets can hear things and reassure the public in the way that a police car cannot”. A small number of respondents mentioned single patrols and felt that officers could be visible in more areas and offer more reassurance to the public if not patrolling in pairs.

14. As indicated above, improving community engagement between the public and police was a key reason for prioritising accessibility and visibility issues. Respondents felt that establishing good relationships with the public was vital for reassurance, improving confidence and deterring offenders. One respondent felt that “The police are more than just law enforcers. They are part of the community and I feel a greater presence makes them more approachable”. A comment from another respondent illustrated how increased engagement can improve perceptions of policing services, stating that they liked “…the way I can meet the police at the end of my road once a month, should I wish, to find out what they are doing about crime”.

15. A number of respondents prioritised accessibility and visibility issues specifically in relation to response times and action taken by the police. It was felt that an inadequate response would discourage people from reporting in the future and send a message to offenders that their behaviour will not be tackled. As one respondent stated “Members of the public lose confidence when crime is reported and half an hour later the crime is still happening and the police don't come until the next time. Criminals gain in confidence and repeat their crimes when confident that no police will attend”.

16. Some respondents referred to Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) stating that they would prefer resources to be used to fund fewer warranted police officers, rather than a larger number of PCSOs with limited powers.

17. Other reasons given for prioritising accessibility and visibility of the police included: perceptions of limited availability of the police ‘on the beat’ early in the morning and late at night, concern about the accessibility of and service received at police station front counters and large amounts of paperwork that keep police officers in the police station and ‘off the beat’.

18. Increasing accessibility and visibility of officers was the main tactic suggested to address this area. This covered a variety of issues including:

• Increased accessibility and visibility at night, in town centres and general ‘trouble spots’ where crimes often take place. One respondent called for “Less 9 to 5 policing, Police on duty to match times when crimes are highest”.
• More police officers on foot, rather than in cars. One respondent stated “I for one see plenty of police dashing around in cars with sirens blaring, but I would like to see more face to face communication with local communities”.
• Similar to the comment above, respondents often mentioned the need for police to generally engage with people on a day-to-day basis. One respondent stated “get out of the office, get out of the cars and ENGAGE with people”. One respondent gave an example of how engagement with and getting to know their local police had a positive impact: “our local safer neighbourhood team…send out regular emails and are very approachable. It certainly helps me feel safer, and happy that should I need help there is a familiar name to contact”.
• Ensuring that police stations are open, easy to access and offer good quality of service. One respondent felt “the public areas of police stations could also be made more 'user friendly' so that members of the public are encouraged rather than discouraged to approach the police”.
• High quality police response when the public call for assistance. Respondents indicated that a poor police response (either in terms of time to arrive, keeping people informed or general quality of service) damaged confidence and willingness of the public to engage with the police. One respondent stated “Only by letting the public see that police actually care about all calls will co-operation be obtained” while another said “sort out the systems so that the manpower is available to contact victims so that they can begin to feel that what happens to them matters”.

19. A number of respondents felt that paperwork and other tasks that kept officers in the police station rather than out in the community, should be reduced. This was often linked to government interference and ‘target culture’. It was felt that administrative and paper based tasks should be the responsibility of civilian support staff rather than warranted officers.

20. Some respondents felt that more police officers should be recruited to maximise visibility and accessibility within London. A number of respondents felt that resources should be used to fund more police officers, rather than PCSOs, even if this meant fewer officers in total. Despite this, some respondents made comments about the positive impact of PCSOs in London.

21. Increasing government and local authority funding for police was mentioned by some respondents as a tactic to address visibility and accessibility issues. This was largely in relation to funding more police officers, however some respondents also mentioned increased funding to improve call handling and prevent police stations from closing.

22. Other methods to address accessibility and visibility of the police included: stricter enforcement of laws or adopting a ‘zero tolerance’ approach, faster police response times, making the issue a higher priority for the police and government, increasing current policing methods or activities and increasing SNT hours and/or areas patrolled.

Traffic and road related issues

23. Traffic and road related issues were largely prioritised due to concerns about public safety, particularly the number of people killed or seriously injured on the road. Respondents were often particularly concerned about vulnerable road users including pedestrians (most notably the elderly) and cyclists.

24. Respondents often cited insufficient police presence or penalties to deter road users from committing traffic related offences or insufficient enforcement of current laws. One respondent stated “It is so demoralising to know that with very rare exceptions nothing is being done by the police to prevent these offences happening”. Other respondents were concerned that knowledge that they will not be prosecuted encouraged drivers to continue their behaviour, while another felt that not being held to account for breaking motoring laws may make offenders feel they can get away with breaking other laws.

25. Drivers and cyclists ignoring traffic markings or rules of the road (e.g. traffic lights, cycling on pavements, Advance Stop Lines) was mentioned by a number of respondents prioritising traffic and road related issues. Respondents also cited speeding and drivers continuing to use mobile phones (despite publicity that it is illegal) as reasons for prioritising this area. As one respondent stated “drivers are STILL using mobile phones whilst driving, and despite the threat of a fine or points on their licence the message still isn’t getting through”.

26. Uninsured, untaxed or unlicensed vehicles and drivers was a cause of concern for a number of respondents. Some felt that these drivers may also commit other offences which could be detected if the driver was stopped for a traffic issue, while others were unhappy about the impact on their own insurance costs. Issues around the safety of cars being on the road without an MOT or other adequate safety checks were also highlighted.

27. Dangerous and careless driving was a key reason for prioritising traffic and road related issues. Dangerous and careless cycling was also raised, particularly cyclists ignoring road markings and cycling on the pavement. Some respondents expressed concern that cyclists were rarely penalised. This issue was also raised verbally at a small number of consultation events that Policing, Planning and Performance Improvement Unit staff attended, particularly by older people. Some respondents also raised concerns about the safety of cyclists as their reason for prioritising traffic and road related issues.

28. A number of respondents raised concerns about the effect of heavy traffic and dangerous or careless driving on health, the environment and quality of life particularly for elderly people and children. It was felt that people may be deterred from healthier modes of transport such as walking and cycling. Respondents also mentioned nuisance caused by drivers who play loud music in their cars.

29. Other reasons given for prioritising traffic and road related issues included the seriousness of road and traffic offences (particularly in terms of deaths and injuries on the road and impact on quality of life) and that it is not prioritised sufficiently by the police or other authorities, illegal riding of motor bikes or scramblers which impacted on quality of life for some respondents and dangerous lorries or large vehicles, particularly for cyclists.

30. Stricter enforcement of existing laws and adopting a zero tolerance approach to traffic and road related offenders was the most common tactic suggested by respondents when asked how the police should address traffic and road related issues. This was raised by the vast majority of respondents, particularly in relation to speeding, ignoring road markings (both drivers and cyclists) and dangerous practices such as talking on mobile phones whilst driving.

31. Increased police presence and accessibility, both specific traffic officers and officers generally patrolling the roads, to monitor drivers and cyclists and enforce the law when necessary was raised by a number of respondents as was increased policing activity or methods. These included more Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) operations and stops and checks of drivers to ensure they have the correct documentation and that their vehicles are safe. Some respondents mentioned this particularly in relation to large vehicles or lorries.

32. Respondents often cited harsher penalties or sentences as a way of dealing with traffic and road related offenders. This included more on-the-spot fines, ‘crushing’ of road and traffic offenders’ cars and more educational or remedial punishments (e.g. intensive safer driver courses). Some respondents felt that punishments issued to offenders should be advertised to make an example and deter others.

33. More education or publicity to drivers and cyclists to remind them of the law and inform them of the risks/consequences of disobeying it was also highlighted. Some respondents felt this should be delivered in conjunction with other agencies e.g. the DVLA or Highways Agency.

34. In addition to those mentioned above, some respondents felt that the police should work with other agencies or organisations such as local authorities to tackle road and traffic issues and conduct research into the effects of reducing the speed limit and other traffic calming measures. One respondent felt the police should be working with schools to educate young people about the importance of safe and responsible driving and cycling, while another felt that the police should work with mobile phone manufacturers to devise methods to reduce the number of drivers using hand held phones.

35. Other tactics mentioned included: making traffic and road related issues a higher priority for the government and police, working with the community to understand where traffic and road offences are particularly problematic, increasing the number of police officers; increasing police resources to tackle road and traffic related issues; improving police response times; targeting hotspot areas or known offenders and tackling the causes of road and traffic offences as soon as possible before they escalate into more serious offending.

Drugs and drug related crime

36. The overwhelming majority of respondents prioritised this issue as they felt that drugs were the main driver of other crimes including acquisitive crime to fund drug purchases and other serious offences (e.g. violence and trafficking, purchase and use of weapons) linked to import and supply of drugs. As one respondent stated “The illegal drug trade is the root cause of many other crimes. Drug dealers often resort to violent tactics to protect their 'turf' and drug addicts commit numerous crimes to get the money to feed their habit”. Another felt “…if you remove the drug dealers from the community then other crimes that are related to the need to fund the buying of drugs is removed”.

37. Respondents also highlighted the impact of drugs and drug related crime on an area and the community. Some referred to areas being turned into ‘no-go zones’ after dark due to drug related activity while others spoke of the effect of drugs on housing estates on residents’ feelings of safety.

38. The damaging effect on the lives of drugs users and their families was raised by some respondents who prioritised this issue. Some respondents specifically highlighted the impact on young people who are often drawn into taking and selling drugs at a young age.

39. Other reasons given by respondents for prioritising drug and drug related issues were the perceived prevalence or increase in this type of crime, concern that the police, criminal justice system or council were not tackling the problem adequately and links to gang related activities.

40. Most respondents felt that stricter enforcement of laws or a zero tolerance approach was the method that the police should adopt to tackle drug and drug related offending. This included arresting any person in possession of drugs (regardless of how small the amount), conducting more stops and searches, more covert operations and more raids on suspected drug premises. Some respondents felt that rehabilitation and support services should be enforced on drug offenders. A couple of respondents mentioned the need to make it easier to contact the police about suspected drug activity. One respondent suggested displaying stickers in pubs and bars with a number to text the police if drugs are being taken or sold on the premises.

41. Stricter enforcement of laws was often linked to harsher penalties, another tactic often suggested by respondents to tackle this crime type. Respondents mainly focused on longer custodial sentences and proposed that all offenders are arrested and charged, rather than issued with cautions or warnings. One respondent stated “Unless sentences are more severe and prison becomes the deterrent that it should be, nothing will change”. Some respondents felt that the police were currently limited in what they could do to ensure that drug offenders received harsher penalties and called for the government and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to support the police in this. Some respondents felt that police efforts should be aimed at those supplying and dealing drugs. As one stated “Put the main weight of time, money, intelligence gathering, technology and people into stopping drugs from coming into the country in the first place. Do this and we'll have less need to deal with the dealing, crime, imprisonment and treatment”.

42. Respondents often mentioned increasing current policing methods such as confiscations of offenders’ assets, high profile drug sweeps in public places (e.g. tube stations), tackling supply routes and making more use of CCTV. One respondent felt that the police should work together more, particularly Safer Neighbourhoods policing teams sharing intelligence and working alongside specialist drug officers. Increasing accessibility and visibility of officers was also suggested by respondents, particularly in known drug ‘hotspot’ areas.

43. Multi-agency work was acknowledged as important in tackling drugs and drug related crime. Respondents mentioned a number of agencies including local authorities, government departments, the NHS, voluntary sector, social services, landlords and social housing providers and joint work with schools and colleges to educate young people about the dangers of drugs.

44. Other methods suggested to tackle drugs and drug related crime included more community engagement, making the issue a higher priority for the police and government, increasing the number of police officers, reducing police bureaucracy and paperwork and increasing resources of other non-police agencies.

Gun and knife crime

45. Loss of life and the perceived prevalence or increase of offending were the most common reasons given by respondents prioritising gun and knife crime. A number of respondents particularly highlighted the prevalence or increase in young people as victims of these crime types with a smaller number expressing concern over the prevalence or increase of young people as perpetrators of these crime types.

46. Respondents often mentioned the impact of gun and knife crimes in London on fear of crime in general. Some felt that this discouraged people from challenging anti social or criminal behaviour in the capital for fear that they may be attacked. One respondent stated “I don't feel confident approaching anyone about anti-social behaviour and I would never intervene in a mugging or attack. I also don't feel safe ringing up to complain about anti-social behaviour for fear of reprisals”. Another respondent felt this would have “…a knock on effect encouraging anti-social behaviour, because it makes people too scared to challenge it”. Increased fear of crime was also raised in relation to (mainly young) people carrying knives for protection or self defence. One respondent felt that “Needless deaths are occurring due the culture of 'having' to carry a knife to feel safe”.

47. It was felt by some respondents that current measures are not adequately tackling gun and knife offending and that tougher sentences for offenders are needed. One respondent felt that “…no-one is frightened or bothered about the consequences because the punishment is negligible and the criminals have no respect for the police or the law”. Another stated “We expect our police to have zero tolerance for these people and again it should be known on the street - carry a knife and you will be caught…and prosecuted with severe consequences”.

48. A number of respondents highlighted the damaging effect of gun and knife crime on the family of perpetrators and victims and the wider community in general. Some respondents also mentioned the link between gangs and gun and knife offences.

49. A small number of respondents raised concern that gun and knife offending was becoming ‘the norm’. One felt that this crime type was becoming “commonplace” while another commented “I think that we now have a generation of young people…who appear to believe that it is reasonable to settle disputes with either a knife or a gun”.

50. An increase in policing methods and activities, particularly stop and search, was the most suggested tactic to tackle gun and knife crime. It was acknowledged by some that this should be conducted in a professional way that does not alienate parts of the community. Some respondents mentioned knife arches and metal detectors used at transport hubs and in night clubs and felt that this type of activity should also be increased.

51. Stricter enforcement of laws, adopting a zero tolerance approach and harsher penalties for offenders was frequently mentioned by respondents as a way of tackling gun and knife crime. Many respondents felt that there should be mandatory custodial sentences for anyone carrying, using or supplying weapons and there should be minimum (as well as maximum) sentences. Some respondents stated that the consequences of carrying or using a weapon and the message that offenders will be prosecuted should be clearly publicised to deter potential offenders.

52. Some respondents felt that increased accessibility and visibility of police officers would assist in tackling gun and knife crimes, particularly more officers on the beat in high crime areas and where young people congregate (respondents often indicated that they felt that gun and knife crime offending was youth related). A small number of respondents felt that it should be easier to contact the police about this crime type. Two respondents suggested an anonymous reporting line or website facility.

53. Engagement and work with the community, education and working with other agencies were often highlighted by respondents who prioritised gun and knife crime. Respondents felt this should be mainly aimed at young people e.g. diversionary projects, promoting positive role models, working with schools and youth groups and generally encouraging the police to engage with and educate children and their parents about the consequences and dangers of carrying a weapon. One respondent felt the police should focus on “Getting into the communities and gaining trust, acting on local intelligence, getting into the schools and telling kids what happens to their lives once they kill someone”. Some respondents also mentioned working with local authorities and retailers to curb the sale of weapons.

54. Other methods to tackle gun and knife crime suggested by respondents included tackling the causes of this crime type, targeting known offenders or hotspot areas, reducing police officer paperwork, increasing the number of police officers and increasing police resources.

Appendix 2

All priority areas identified

All respondents’ priorities combined from full qualitative questionnaires [10]

Appendix 3

All priority areas identified in the shorter postcard style questionnaires

Appendix 4

All priority areas identified in the PAS

Gun/knife crime 1363
Drugs and drug related crime 707
Accessibility/visibility of police 579
Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) 408
Terrorism 377
Crime reduction/prevention 315
Violent crime 255

Appendix 5

All priority areas identified in the MPS online youth survey

Appendix 6

Others surveys conducted in and around London

As part of the overall analysis of the consultation, Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit staff considered the findings of other related surveys across London, as well as policing priorities of bordering police force areas [11]. For example, the Greater London Authority (GLA) Annual London Survey 2009 highlighted the top five issues that made respondents feel unsafe in their area of the capital:

• Fear of burglary
• Fear of being mugged or physically attacked
• Knife crime
• People using drugs
• People dealing drugs

When asked what would make them feel safer in their area, respondents most frequently highlighted:

• More police around on foot
• More security cameras (CCTV)
• Improved street lighting
• Providing young people with more things to do/ community centres
• Neighbourhood Watch schemes/ wardens

An analysis of other consultations and bordering force priorities are included in the full consultation analysis report.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback