Results from the ‘Have your Say on Policing in London’ public consultation to inform the Policing London Business Plan 2012/13

Report: 6
Date: 7 April 2011
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 2012/13. 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 ten 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 on the MPA website.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members are asked to note the report and consider the results of the consultation when deciding the policing priorities for the 2012/13 Policing London Business Plan.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) ‘Have Your Say on Policing in London’ consultation to inform the 2012/13 Policing London Business Plan ran between June and November 2010. [1]

2. 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, mobile police stations in youth clubs in Southwark, the Time of Your Life older people event in Hammersmith and Fulham and summer fetes (or similar events) in various boroughs.
• A question around priorities included in the MPS Public Attitude Survey (PAS). [3]
• Policing Planning and Performance Improvement (PPPI) Unit staff also considered the findings of other related surveys across London (e.g. GLA Annual London Survey and British Crime Survey (BCS)) and policing priorities of bordering police force areas. [4]
• Consultation questions were included in the MPS online youth survey last year, however the MPS did not run the youth survey in 2010 so this consultation method was not available.

3. This year the consultation was also promoted to businesses across the capital with a slightly amended questionnaire, asking respondents for policing priorities for their business and for details of the size of their business. Details of the business consultation were sent to all MPS town centre policing teams to promote to businesses in their area and was supported by the London Chamber of Commerce and Federation of Small Businesses who appealed to their members to take part.

4. In total, 893 full qualitative questionnaires were completed either online, hard copy or via telephone, 1,017 shorter postcard style questionnaires were completed at various community events across London and 20,480 people were interviewed for the PAS (rolling 12 months to September 2010). In addition, 72 completed business consultation questionnaires were submitted.

5. 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

6. It is important to note that methods varied between different parts of the consultation. The full consultation questionnaire asked people to state their top three priorities in freetext fields, the shorter postcard style questionnaire 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:

• Accessibility and visibility of the police and ASB were prioritised by respondents in all consultation methods.
• Traffic and road related issues, policing and criminal justice related issues, drugs and drug related crime and gun and knife crime were also prioritised by respondents to two consultation methods.

7. Similarities 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 2012/13 and future years.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equalities 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. An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Have Your Say on Policing in London public consultation identified that businesses were underrepresented. To address this, a specific questionnaire was designed and promoted to businesses in the capital to capture views. Full demographic information is collected from respondents in order to monitor responses and conduct analysis by demographic of respondent.

2. Though not demographically representative, use of the shorter postcard style questionnaires has resulted in a more varied age profile of respondent’s (compared to using the full qualitative questionnaire alone), with almost a fifth of all respondents to the shorter postcard style questionnaire aged between 10 and 15 years.

3. The inclusion of a question in the PAS provides a statistically robust return of information. [7]

4. Promoting the consultation to businesses has assisted in understanding the concerns of this often under-consulted group. The MPA are constantly reviewing the consultation process and exploring new and innovative ways to encourage more people to take part.

Met Forward

5. Communicating with and listening to the concerns of Londoners is a key strand of Met Forward (particularly Met Connect) and the MPA/MPS Community Engagement Commitment 2010-13.

Financial implications

6. The total cost of conducting the consultation was £1,728. This included £1,494 for printing costs and incentives and £234 to subscribe to Smart Survey. [8] All consultation design, administration and analysis was conducted in-house and absorbed within current staffing costs.

7. The PPPI team promote the consultation through existing MPA communication methods (e.g. Local Policing Summaries) and MPA and MPS events (in particular Safer Neighbourhoods events). As well as promoting the consultation in a cost effective way, this also raises the profile of the Authority (with both Safer Neighbourhoods Teams and the public) and builds relationships with MPA and MPS colleagues. Additional resources may be needed to improve the range of participation in the qualitative aspects of future consultations.

Legal implications

8. No legal implications

Environmental implications

9. No environmental implications

Risk implications

10. No risk implications

D. Background papers

None

D. Contact details

Report author: Melissa Pepper

Consultation analysis conducted by Melissa Pepper and Gemma Deadman

MPA Policing Planning and Performance Improvement Unit

For information contact:

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

Appendix one: Analysis of why respondents prioritised top ten issues in the full general public qualitative questionnaire and what they want the MPS to do to tackle them

Traffic and road related issues

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised traffic and road related issues: [9]

• Public and pedestrian safety: respondents often felt that road traffic accidents claimed more lives than violent crime and were concerned for the safety of vulnerable pedestrians, particularly children and elderly people. Some respondents referred to the ‘rights’ of vulnerable road users, including cyclists.
• Ignoring the law and road markings: cyclists often highlighted drivers not observing anti stop lines (ASLs) and motor cyclists using bicycle lanes. A few respondents were also concerned that police officers ignored road markings and drove carelessly.
• Safety of cyclists
• Dangerous, careless or anti social driving or parking: a few respondents mentioned this in relation to alcohol or drug use, however most highlighted general poor driving issues. This issue was further aggravated by the increase in cars on the road.
• Insufficient police presence, enforcement or penalties for driving offenders: A number of respondents felt that the police rarely enforced laws around driving and road use. One respondent felt that people who commit driving offences are also likely to commit more serious crimes. Another stated that they would feel more confident in the ability of the police to deal with serious issues, if they routinely tackled lower level driving matters such as a broken headlight etc. Some respondents felt that the police unfairly targeted cyclists rather than motorists. Conversely, others argued that the police rarely dealt with dangerous or anti social cycling and were concerned that cycling offenders could rarely be tracked as cycles are not licensed or taxed.

Respondents who felt that there was an insufficient police presence to deal with traffic offences highlighted an over reliance on cameras, speed humps and other traffic calming measures.

• Mobile phone use: a number of respondents were concerned that the police still did not fully enforce the law around mobile phone use and driving which encouraged people to continue to use their phones as they know they can ‘get away with it’. Some respondents felt that using a mobile phone while driving was as dangerous as drink driving.
• Speeding
• Affect on health, quality of life or environment: a number of respondents felt that dangerous driving and unpleasant conditions on the road deterred people from opting for healthier and greener modes of transport such as walking and cycling. Respondents also mentioned dangerous driving and cycling making people (particularly children and the elderly) scared of going out and noise pollution from vehicles and car stereos.
• Dangerous, careless or anti social cycling: particularly cycling on the pavement. A few respondents were concerned that this was a method of snatch theft.
• Uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed or unfit vehicles: a number of respondents felt that this increased their own insurance costs.
• Road and traffic issues are serious offences and are sometimes not prioritised
• Dangerous lorries, large or commercial vehicles
• Safety of drivers
• Illegal motor bike riding e.g. ‘mini motos’, particularly by young people

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle traffic and road related issues:

• Stricter enforcement of road and traffic laws: many respondents felt that the police should consistently enforce laws around observing traffic signals and road markings (anti stop lines (ASLs) were frequently mentioned) for both drivers and cyclists, speeding, mobile phone use while driving and cycling on the pavement. Many thought that offenders should receive instant fines or fixed penalty notices. A number of respondents called for more police presence to make this possible. Some mentioned the police ‘not turning a blind eye’ to these offences.
• Increase in policing methods or activity: this included high visible random policing operations (some respondents referred to this as ‘blitzing’ an area), more vehicle, driver or cyclist stops and checks, more use of mobile cameras, handheld speed guns and number plate recognition equipment and more speed checks. Some respondents felt there should be increased ‘plain clothes/vehicle’ or covert policing of roads.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: many respondents felt the police should patrol busy junctions where traffic and road offences often take place and use intelligence to direct this. One respondent felt that the police should consult with local people about the location of traffic offence hotspots.
• More use of CCTV and traffic or speed cameras
• Community engagement and work with the community: some respondents mentioned the use of MPS volunteers and the general public to monitor and report traffic offences.
• Harsher penalties for traffic and road offenders: this included fines, licence infringements and seizing or destroying offenders’ vehicles. Some respondents thought that cyclists should be registered.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: respondents mentioned Transport for London (TfL) and local councils to ensure road layout and road signal design and operation facilitated safe driving and cycling. One respondent felt that the police should work with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to introduce a cyclist awareness and safety element to the driving test.
• More education: some respondents felt that driving, cycling and road safety should be taught in schools. A few respondents felt that drivers and cyclists should be reminded that road offences are a crime.
• Police accountability: a few respondents felt that the police themselves sometimes did not adhere to the rules of the road and should ‘lead by example’ by displaying safe and considerate driving behaviour at all times.
• Increase police resources: mainly to make more resources available so police officers are able to tackle and follow up traffic and road related offences.
• Increase number of police officers
• Make issue higher priority for the police: some respondents felt that the police should take traffic and road related incidents ‘more seriously’.
• Tackle causes of crime: one respondent felt that the police should address poor or aggressive driving before it leads to offending.
• Improve police training: this was mentioned in relation to the training of officers to recognise and deal with traffic and road offenders, however one respondent felt that training and behaviour of police drivers should also be carefully monitored.
• Faster police response times
• Increase powers: this was mentioned in relation to both PCSOs and police officers. One respondent felt there should be a new offence of ‘anti social driving’.
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork for police officers
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts

Anti social behaviour (ASB)

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised ASB:

• Impact on fear of crime, feelings of intimidation and personal safety: some people stated that they were scared to intervene when they witnessed ASB as they feared for their personal safety. Others stated that ASB led to people being scared to leave their homes.
• Impact on quality of life
• ASB can lead to more serious offending
• The negative impact on neighbourhoods, the area, communities and social cohesion: some respondents highlighted how ASB can force people to leave areas and make them scared to go out of their home or use public spaces.
• ASB is not being prioritised or tackled (either by the police or other organisations) and tougher measures are needed: respondents often felt that ASB incidents are tolerated or accepted and this means that people commit ASB without fear that they will be caught or punished. Some mentioned that ASB often occurred at night when there were fewer police officers in the area to deal with the issue. The way that the police addresses ASB influences people’s views of the police and, if they see it is being dealt with, can make people feel safer and improve confidence.
• ASB is often committed by young people: some respondents felt that young people often have little respect for others or the area and thought they should be shown that it is not acceptable to behave anti socially.
• ASB is widespread and affects a large number of people
• ASB is widespread, frequent and increasing in volume
• ASB is often linked to alcohol or drug use
• ASB has a particularly negative impact on the elderly or vulnerable
• A lack of respect amongst people leads to ASB
• ASB is sometimes linked to gang activity
• ASB is sometimes committed on public transport: respondents often stated that they were too scared to challenge those behaving anti socially on public transport.

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle ASB:

• Stricter enforcement of laws and a zero tolerance approach: Most respondents wanted to see a zero tolerance approach adopted for ASB with the police taking the issue seriously and responding appropriately.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility: this was thought to be a significant factor in tackling ASB. Many respondents thought there should be increased police patrols at night.
• Community engagement and work with the community: this includes keeping residents informed of police actions to tackle ASB; working with the community to identify areas of concern; educating young people about the consequences of ASB; and officers being part of the community so they are recognised and trusted.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: some respondents wanted to see more work with local organisations including mentoring schemes for young people, working with the local authority to set up activities for young people, and ensuring a joined up approach to dealing with those people subject to anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs). Increasing awareness of the harm ASB causes was also mentioned by respondents.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders
• Harsher penalties and sentences: respondents felt that the penalty for committing ASB was not harsh enough and not a strong enough deterrent for offenders.
• Faster police response times: some respondents felt that the police do not act quickly enough to calls relating to ASB. A faster response and giving ASB greater priority would assist in catching perpetrators.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: this included more stop and search, taking ASB seriously and acting on all incidents, more pro-activity in dealing with ASB before it escalates, and proper investigation of ASB cases.
• Increase SNT hours and areas patrolled: some respondents felt that the hours SNT officers work do not fit the times that ASB occurs.
• Increase number of police officers: respondents felt that increasing the number of police officers on the streets would instil confidence in communities that the area is safe. It was felt by some respondents that, although PCSOs are patrolling the streets, they do not have sufficient powers to deal with ASB effectively.
• Increase police powers: the police need more powers to tackle ASB effectively.
• Make ASB a higher priority for the police and government: ASB should be taken more seriously by the police. Some respondents felt that ASB offenders should have their benefits cut, while others felt there should be an increase in sentencing powers to deal with ASB offenders.
• Tackle causes and drivers of crime
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork
• More education around ASB (e.g. what constitutes ASB, consequences of ASB)
• Police accountability issues
• Better or more police training
• More CCTV
• Increase resources and funding (for the police and other organisations)

Accessibility and visibility of the police

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised accessibility and visibility of the police:

• Increase the number of visible officers on the beat: the majority of respondents highlighted this area, particularly noting that more officers should be on foot or bicycles, rather than in cars. Respondents felt that officers should patrol at all hours (particularly after dark), on public transport and around estates, parks and schools, not just on main streets. Some respondents mentioned single patrolling and stated that officers should not patrol in pairs or groups.
• Increased accessibility and visibility of officers would deter, reduce or prevent crime or ASB: many respondents felt that the visible presence of officers would serve this function and make offenders realise they cannot ‘get away’ with committing offences.
• Increased accessibility and visibility of officers would reduce crime, improve reassurance and feelings of safety
• Improve response times: respondents mentioned the police not arriving quickly enough when called or, in some cases, not arriving at all meaning that offenders may evade arrest.
• Improve engagement and relationships with the community: respondents felt that increased officers ‘on the beat’ would result in more opportunities for community engagement and people would be more likely to take a greater interest in policing.
• Issues with reporting: some respondents wanted easier and faster ways of speaking to the police, mentioning a memorable non emergency number, help points on high streets to report crimes (similar to at rail stations) and a more efficient email system where the police respond to people’s queries. A few respondents felt that people would be more confident reporting offences if they knew the police would respond quickly and if they saw more officers in the area.
• Increased accessibility and visibility of officers would increase confidence in the police
• Accessibility of police stations and front counters: some respondents were concerned about limited opening hours of some police stations.
• PCSOs: some respondents stated that they would rather have fully warranted officers ‘on the beat’, than PCSOs. However other respondents were supportive of PCSOs.
• Less bureaucracy for officers: one respondent felt that paperwork should be completed by PCSOs.
• Increased accessibility and visibility of officers would ensure that officers are enforcing the law and tackling crime: one respondent felt there should be more support from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the police catch offenders.

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to address accessibility and visibility issues:

• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility: most respondents wanted to see more police officers patrolling the streets. This included more officers on foot or bicycle, single patrolling, more visibility on buses and patrols later into the night.
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork: the clear message from respondents was that too much officer time is spent on paperwork that could be undertaken by civilian staff, enabling officers to spend more time ‘on the street’.
• Increase number of police officers
• Community engagement and work with the community: respondents felt that officers should get to know the area and the people within the community.
• Faster police response times: turning up to incidents in good time, better coordination of appointments and answering Safer Neighbourhoods phones were some of the areas mentioned by respondents.
• Increase resources and funding: most respondents wanted more money spent on recruitment, civilian staff to be responsible for paperwork (rather than officers) or felt that resources in general should be more effectively deployed.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: some respondents felt that identifying hot spot areas and directing resources appropriately would help reduce crime.
• Stricter enforcement of laws and a zero tolerance approach
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts: respondents felt that community policing was working well and should be continued.
• Make accessibility and visibility of officers a higher priority for police and government: this included redeploying more officers to patrolling, increasing the number of police officers (some respondents stated that they would prefer to see more warranted officers rather than PCSOs) and generally making accessibility and visibility of the police a higher priority.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: this included better problem solving and investigation and responding to all crimes.
• Work with other agencies or organisations
• Police accountability
• More education
• Improved police training
• More CCTV
• Increase SNT hours and areas patrolled
• Increase PCSO powers
• Tackle the drivers of crime

Policing and criminal justice related issues

Policing and criminal justice related issues included areas such as policing methods, sentencing, the courts, police powers and officer behaviour. Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised policing and criminal justice related issues:

• Change or amend policing methods: this included more intelligence led work, a more proportionate response to crime (i.e. focusing on serious, rather than minor offences. A number of respondents felt that police should spend less time dealing with motoring offences) and ensuring officers patrol alone, rather than in pairs. Respondents differed in their concerns around some issues e.g. while one respondent praised the use of CCTV, another felt that there should be fewer surveillance measures. Similarly, while some respondents felt there should be more stop and search and use of metal detectors to identify weapons, another felt there should be less use of stop and search tactics. Other issues raised in this area included boroughs working together more (rather than pushing problems from one to the other) and less use of police sirens and helicopters which disturbed residents.
• Police behaviour: this included police officers abusing their position of power, heavy handed policing of protests (which can result in loss of public trust), intimidation of photographers and generally aggressive and rude behaviour. Some respondents commented on the ‘scruffy’ appearance of some officers and poor driving in marked police vehicles. References were made to poor police behaviour thought by respondents to have contributed to the death of members of the public (Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles De Menezes were mentioned).
• Increase in investigations, detections and convictions: the police should take seriously and work hard to investigate all crimes, even lower level offences. A number of respondents were concerned that the police sometimes did not fully investigate sexual offences (the high profile cases of John Worboys and Kirk Reid were specifically mentioned) and persecuted victims.
• Issues related to the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and sentencing: it was felt that sentences were not ‘tough’ enough to deter offenders, and there should be more provision to deal with persistent re-offenders, more restorative justice and reintegration of offenders back into the community.
• Police and PCSO powers to deal with issues: PCSOs should have more powers so they can better deal with issues, often relieving the work load of police officers. Furthermore, one respondent felt that PCSOs were more likely to remain in the role if their powers increased. Some respondents felt that the police should have more capacity to use common sense and discretion in their role.
• Recruitment and Human Resources (HR) issues: respondents raised a number of issues in this area including the need for a more diverse police service, that more (high quality) officers should be recruited and that they should be drawn from a wide range of ‘talent pools’. Some respondents mentioned the long hours that officers and staff often work and felt they should be appreciated more and receive better pay. One respondent felt that good PCSOs should be given the opportunity to go on to become PCs while another argued that shift patterns should be reviewed to ensure best use of the workforce.
• Transparency, accountability and political interference in policing: a number of respondents felt that there should be no political control over the police and that the police should be politically neutral. One respondent also mentioned the media and the inappropriate influence they sometimes had on policing.
• Improve efficiency and ensure better service provision: particularly the service for victims of crime.
• Respect between police and the public: this was often mentioned in relation to police behaviour and their attitude and manner when dealing with the public.
• Issues related to actual or perceived racism or discrimination by police
• Reduce bureaucracy for police officers
• Community engagement: one respondent felt that the public should have more input into policing.
• Issues around reporting crime: one respondent felt that people may not always report crime as they feel the police won’t act on it.

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to address policing and criminal justice related issues:

• Police accountability: most respondents felt that the police should be held to account for their actions and disciplined if they do not perform their duties correctly. The need for some officers to ‘change their attitude’ was also highlighted.
• Community engagement and work with the community: this included more community work as part of sentences, better support post sentence, improved victim care and communication, police officers being more approachable and increased work with young people.
• Make policing and criminal justice issues higher priority for the police and government: most respondents suggested lobbying parliament and the courts for a more effective judicial system.
• Improved police training: strengthening knowledge in specific areas of work and better training for officers around dealing with the public were mentioned by respondents.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: some respondents felt that the MPS should work with councils around issues affecting the local area and liaise with other forces.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: it was generally thought that the police should be more proactive and conduct more investigations.
• Stricter enforcement of laws, a zero tolerance approach
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork: some respondents thought the MPS should explore more efficient ways of working to get officers out from behind desks and back on streets.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility
• Increase police powers
• Increase number of police officers
• Harsher penalties and sentences
• Increase resources and funding
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders
• More education
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• More CCTV
• Tackle drivers of crime
• Faster police response times
• Increase PCSO powers

Drugs and drug related crime

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised drugs and drug related crime:

• Drug selling and use is linked to other crimes and ASB
• Impact of drugs on young people: in particular being drawn in to taking or selling drugs by drug dealers
• Impact on fear of crime and quality of life: including drug taking paraphernalia in public areas.
• Drug use destroys and damages lives of users and those around them
• Prevalence and increase of drugs and drug related crime
• Impact on the area and community
• Police should crack down on drugs sellers and users (mainly sellers)
• Police should decriminalise drugs and not dedicate as many resources to tackling the problem: some respondents felt that the police should focus on more serious crimes rather than drug offences.
• Link to gangs
• Impact on families of users
• Cost and resources to deal with drugs: a few respondents highlighted the cost of dealing with drug related issues to a variety of agencies including the police and National Health Service (NHS).
• Impact on health

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle drugs and drug related crime:

• Stricter enforcement of laws, a zero tolerance approach: most respondents wanted to see stricter enforcement of laws to identify and arrest those who smuggle, supply and use drugs. It was suggested that publicising the arrests of dealers may act as a deterrent.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: most respondents thought that the police should be targeting known dealers and disrupting activity. Those who buy drugs should be educated around the effects, and known hotspots patrolled.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: including border security, cross border drug agencies, drug treatment partners, councils, housing associations and benefits departments.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: most respondents thought that more proactive initiatives were needed to identify offenders, with increased surveillance and crack house closures. More stop and search was also raised by some respondents.
• Community engagement and work with the community: including listening to public concerns, using local intelligence and generally having more contact with the community who are best placed to know where the real problems are.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility
• Harsher penalties and sentences: most respondents wanted to see harsher penalties for drug dealers.
• More education: particularly in schools, around the dangers of drug use.
• Make drugs and drugs related crimes a higher priority for the police and government: lobbying government to decriminalise drugs, making drug classes all the same and treating the issue with higher priority were all areas mentioned by respondents.
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• Faster police response times: respondents generally felt that a quicker response to calls regarding drugs was needed.
• Tackle drivers of crime: including breaking down supply networks, specifically targeting suppliers, working with border agencies and developing prevention strategies.
• Increase resources and funding
• Increase number of police officers
• More CCTV
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork

Residential burglary

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised residential burglary:

• Impact on fear of crime and quality of life: particularly for elderly or vulnerable people. Respondents often referred to burglary as an invasion of private property which makes people feel violated and unsafe, that people have a ‘right’ to feel safe in their homes, the emotional impact of somebody being in your home and that being a victim is more traumatic than just financial loss.
• Burglary is widespread, frequent and increasing: some respondents felt that more people may turn to burglary in the current financial climate.
• Police and courts don’t take the matter seriously: respondents felt that the police often do not consider the emotional impact of being a victim of burglary. Some felt that the burglary detection rate was low and punishments too lenient.
• Financial impact on victims
• Link to other crime types: particularly drugs
• Burglary is widespread across London
• Residents need more crime prevention advice and support

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle residential burglary:

Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility: most respondents wanted to see more police officers patrolling, particularly at times when burglaries are most likely to occur.

• Increase in policing methods and activity: this included maximising forensic opportunities, being more proactive and fully investigating all burglaries, increasing intelligence and raising public awareness of home security.
• Community engagement and work with the community: most respondents thought the police should be more proactive around prevention with public awareness schemes to promote home security. They also wanted to see greater support given to Neighbourhood Watch schemes and Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, as these are effective mechanisms to both give prevention advice and gather and share useful intelligence.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: most respondents wanted the MPS to target known offenders and patrol hotspot areas at identified priority times. Some respondents thought that patrols by volunteers could also help. Another suggestion included working with the CPS to object to known burglars being given bail.
• Stricter enforcement of laws, zero tolerance approach: including increasing the arrest rate, convicting repeat offenders, pro-active tracking of stolen goods and known areas for selling stolen property, using local intelligence to prevent burglaries and creating more powers of arrest to enforce immediate punishments.
• Harsher penalties and sentences: most respondents thought that sentences should be longer and offenders kept in custody wherever possible.
• Faster police response times
• Work with other agencies and organisations: this included working with the courts, schools, parents and using the media to send out crime prevention messages.
• Increase SNT hours and areas patrolled
• More education: including police involvement in schemes with young people, and home owner education.
• Tackle drivers of crime
• Make burglary a higher priority for the police and government
• Reduce bureaucracy and paperwork
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• Increase number of police officers
• More CCTV
• Increase police powers

Gun and knife crime

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised gun and knife crime:

• Prevalence or increase in gun and knife crime: some respondents linked this to poverty and poor social cohesion.
• Loss of life: in particular young people dying, sometimes as a result of issues around ‘respect’ and revenge killings.
• Young people as victims
• Impact on fear of crime: some people felt that they were unable to challenge poor behaviour for fear of being stabbed.
• Impact on families and communities
• Young people as perpetrators
• Influence of gangs
• Public safety
• Sale and availability of weapons
• Becoming the ‘norm’: some respondents were concerned that people were becoming de-sensitised to gun and knife crime and that it was starting to be seen as acceptable.
• Influence of media: particularly in driving fear of crime.
• Policing and other measures are currently not tackling the problem: some felt there should be tougher measures to deal with gun and knife crime offenders.
• Increase in weapons being carried for protection or status
• Link to drugs

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle gun and knife crime:

• Increase in policing methods and activity: respondents overwhelmingly wanted to see more stop and search activity to tackle gun and knife crime. In addition respondents thought that more knife arches or metal detectors at schools, transport hubs, pubs and clubs would assist in tackling this issue.
• Harsher penalties and sentences: respondents felt that sentencing needs to be a bigger deterrent than it currently is. They felt that the government should ensure longer, automatic custodial sentences for carrying a knife.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility
• Stricter enforcement of laws, a zero tolerance approach: most respondents felt there was ‘no excuse’ for carrying a weapon and a zero tolerance approach was appropriate.
• Community engagement and work with the community: including engaging young people in youth activities and community initiatives, educating young people about the consequences of using a weapon, acting on community intelligence and raising awareness of police work in this area.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: Respondents felt that the police cannot work alone and that all public cervices should work on a shared duty to tackle gun and knife crime. Other ideas included working with organisations to identify offenders, the CPS and courts to ensure sentencing ‘fits the crime’ and schools to increase education around the issue.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders
• More education: for young people about the consequences of carrying a weapon.
• Tackle drivers of crime: respondents mentioned working to stop the supply of weapons, more knife and gun amnesties and exploring the motives of this crime type.
• Increase police powers: around stop and search and working with other agencies.
• Make gun and knife crime a higher priority for the police and government
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• Increase number of police officers
• Increase police training
• More CCTV
• Increase SNT hours and areas patrolled

Violent crime

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised violent crime:

• Impact on fear of crime, feelings of intimidation and personal safety
• Impact on the victim, their families and others around them
• Impact on quality of life: some respondents highlighted how fear of violence can restrict people from going out and enjoying themselves.
• Loss of life or injury
• Impact on communities and social cohesion
• Violent crime and offenders aren’t being tackled: some respondents felt that sentences were often too lenient.
• Violent crime is widespread, frequent and increasing in volume: one respondent was concerned that violent crime was becoming normalised.
• Young people as victims
• Young people as perpetrators
• Public safety
• Link to gangs
• Violent crime is widespread and affects a large number of people
• Link to alcohol and drugs
• Costs to the CJS and NHS
• Link to gun and knife crime

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle violent crime:

• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility: especially at night and in identified high crime areas.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: respondents felt that the police should be using intelligence to target locations and suspects.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: including more preventative work to tackle youth violence, being proactive, carrying out more stops and searches and investigating and detecting more violent crimes.
• Community engagement and work with the community: some of the areas suggested by respondents included working with parents and young people, supporting community Neighbourhood Watch schemes, education and awareness campaigns, providing more youth diversionary activities and for SNTs to gather local intelligence with the community.
• Stricter enforcement of laws, a zero tolerance approach: including targeting licensed premises that allow people to drink excessively, taking threats of violence seriously and giving a strong message that violence will not be tolerated.
• Increase number of police officers: respondents highlighted the importance of protecting frontline services and ensuring a dedicated resource to tackle violent crime.
• Harsher penalties and sentences
• Work with other agencies and organisations: respondents felt the police should work with the CPS and other relevant agencies to ensure that violent crime is dealt with appropriately.
• Faster police response times
• Increase resources and funding
• Make violent crime a higher priority for the police and government: to do this, respondents felt that the police and government should take incidents of violence and ASB more seriously, and ensure there are enough officers to deal with incidents.
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• More education: respondents suggested working in schools to influence children at a young age.
• Tackle drivers of crime
• Improve police training
• More CCTV
• Police accountability
• Increase SNT hours and areas patrolled
• Increase police powers

Alcohol use and alcohol related crime

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised alcohol use and alcohol related crime:

• Alcohol use causes or is linked to other crimes and ASB: this included litter, noise (often keeping people awake at night), people urinating in public places and damage to property or vehicles.
• Impact on fear of crime and quality of life: some respondents felt that there were ‘no go areas’ where people felt unsafe due to alcohol use and alcohol related crimes.
• Alcohol and alcohol related crime not being dealt with: some respondents felt that the police need to be more visible at pub closing time in areas with a large night time economy, that Local Authorities should tackle irresponsible alcohol premises and that measures to deal with alcohol related offenders should be ‘tougher’.
• Impact on services e.g. police and NHS: respondents were concerned about the ‘drain’ on resources caused by alcohol use and alcohol related crime.
• Problems associated with drinking alcohol in public places (e.g. streets, parks, town centres): this contributed to fear of crime.
• Alcohol use and related crime is a serious and/or increasing problem
• Problems associated with young people drinking
• Availability of alcohol
• Drink driving

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to address alcohol use and alcohol related crime issues:

• Stricter enforcement of laws, a zero tolerance approach: most respondents wanted to see stricter enforcement of laws around alcohol sales to underage people, and also of licensed premises selling to drunk people. They also wanted to see the police giving out a strong message that abusing laws will not be tolerated.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility: most respondents wanted to see more police patrolling at night in areas prone to alcohol related problems. They also wanted more police enforcement around dispersal and ‘no drinking’ zones.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: respondents felt that the police should work closely with the Home Office and Local Authorities to influence licensing laws, restrict pub closing times, ban drinking in all public places and set a minimum price for alcohol.
• Target hotspot areas and known offenders
• Harsher penalties and sentences
• Community engagement and work with the community: including working with schools and young people to explain the consequences of alcohol abuse.
• Increase police powers: some respondents thought that the legal age for drinking should be raises to 21 and that greater powers should be given to the police in dealing with offenders, specifically around confiscation of alcohol from young people.
• Make alcohol and alcohol related crime a higher priority for the police and government
• Tackle drivers of crime
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts: respondents acknowledged the work of the police around lobbying government for a minimum price for alcohol, but also felt that they needed the support from local pubs and clubs to provide resources for additional policing.
• Faster police response times
• More education
• Increase in policing methods and activity
• More CCTV

Vehicle crime

The majority of respondents who prioritised vehicle crime highlighted theft of bicycles as a significant issue. Theft of and from motor vehicles was also raised.

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked why they prioritised vehicle crime:

• Bicycle theft deters people from cycling: respondents felt that, despite campaigns to promote this greener mode of transport, Londoners were often discouraged from cycling for fear of having their bicycle stolen.
• Frequency and increase of vehicle crime, particularly bicycle theft
• Vehicle crime, particularly bicycle theft, not prioritised or taken seriously by police: one respondent felt that stolen bicycles were almost treated as ‘lost property’ by the police.
• Impact on victims: this included the financial and emotional impact of being a victim, inconvenience and loss of mobility and increasing fear of crime.
• Link to other crimes: this included use of stolen vehicles to commit crimes (e.g. ‘pavement’ robbery using a bicycle) and stealing bicycles and vehicles leading to more serious offending.
• Impact on insurance costs

Respondents highlighted the following areas when asked what the MPS should do to tackle vehicle crime:

• Target hotspot areas and known offenders: some respondents felt that targeted police work in areas that are either known for bicycle theft or known to be selling stolen bicycles would help in reducing the problem.
• Increase in policing methods and activity: including more proactive work to identify those selling stolen bicycles, more surveillance in areas known for bicycle thefts and following up on cases.
• Community engagement and work with the community: looking at crime prevention techniques.
• Stricter enforcement of laws and zero tolerance: some respondents felt that more enforcement was needed towards those people known to be selling stolen bicycles.
• Work with other agencies and organisations: respondents specifically highlighted online market place sites that sell used goods.
• Make vehicle crime a higher priority for the police and government: some respondents wanted cycle theft to be treated with the same priority as car theft.
• Increased police presence, visibility and accessibility
• Harsher penalties and sentences for offenders
• Increase police resources
• Tackle causes of crime
• Acknowledgement of existing police efforts
• More CCTV

Appendix two: All priority areas identified in various consultation methods

Full public qualitative questionnaires

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

Shorter public postcard style questionnaires

Full business qualitative questionnaire

Public Attitudes Survey (PAS) (rolling 12 months to September 2010)

Appendix three: 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 2010 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
• People dealing drugs
• People using drugs
• Knife crime

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