Update on consultation on the 2003/04 policing priorities

Report: 10
Date: 31 October 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Consultation Committee approved the consultation process for the 2003/04 policing priorities. This report updates Members on implementation of the process and the consultation results. The Consultation Committee is asked to approve a way forward to evaluate and improve the process.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members note the contents of the report; and
2. approve an outcome based debrief and evaluation of this consultation process.

B. Supporting information

1. The consultation process for the 2003/4 policing priorities had six distinct strands:

• online public consultation;
• paper based public consultation;
• online internal consultation;
• analysis of Crime and Disorder Strategies;
• the Commissioner’s seminar with senior managers and the MPA;
• focus group consultation with pan-London organisations.

2. The online public consultation was based on the MPS website with a link from the MPA site as well. It ran from mid July until the end of August. A media campaign accompanied it, with adverts in the Evening Standard, Metro, The Voice, Caribbean Times, The Gleaner, Asian Times, Eastern Eye, New Nation, African Times and The Pink Paper. There was a radio interview on Choice FM. Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs) also publicised the consultation event and website with community groups and local media. There were 582 responses compared to 106 last year. These responses automatically fed into a database allowing rapid analysis. The executive summary of results is at Appendix 1.

3. One online respondent was selected from the draw and is scheduled to discuss the policing of London with the Commissioner and the Chair of the MPA on 31 October at 3pm (as this committee is sitting).

4. The MPA sent out paper questionnaires to all CPCGs and other community groups. BOCUs were asked to use the questionnaires to target specific priority groups who had not been consulted during their crime and disorder consultation. To simplify analysis the responses were inputted onto a similar database as the online one. By the time the results were analysed 298 responses had been received. A further 200 arrived after the deadline (a sizeable number arrived in early October). These late submissions did not significantly alter the results or demographic spread. The executive summary of results is at Appendix 2.

5. Staff were consulted during August by means of an online questionnaire on the MPS internal website. This elicited 428 responses. The executive summary of results is at Appendix 3.

6. The Consultation Committee devoted a lot of time and energy to the questionnaire consultation process and therefore the executive summary for the combined public/staff consultation (online and paper) is included below:

Crime focused objectives

7. The following were identified:

• three quarters of respondents (75%) feel that efforts should be made in reducing violent crime;
• approximately half of respondents feel that targeting prolific young offenders and reducing drug-related crime are areas where efforts should be made (52% and 51% respectively);
• a third of respondents (33%) indicate that effort should be made into reducing graffiti, vandalism and other nuisance to the community.

Victim focused objectives

8. The following were identified:

• over four in ten respondents (41%) feel that protecting children requires effort. Over three in ten respondents (31%) feel effort into improving care for victims of crime is required;
• almost a fifth of respondents (17%) indicate that effort is required into better investigation of rape;
• approximately one in ten respondents believe better investigation of racist crime (15%), better investigation of domestic violence (13%) and better investigation of homophobic crime (7%) are required.

Objectives based on our values

9. The following were identified:

• almost four in ten respondents (36%) believe that effort into involving communities, parents and organisations in addressing crime is required;
• just over a fifth of respondents (21%) cited treating everyone fairly, particularly tackling disproportionality in service delivery (20%) as an area in need of effort;
• over one in ten respondents indicated substantial effort should be made into improving access to information and front of counter services, and recruiting more officers from ethnic minority groups (15% and 13% respectively);
• unfortunately, those respondents that answered ‘other’ (21%) were too varied to code.

Public demographics

10. The following were identified:

• nearly seven in ten respondents (68%) state they do work in London;
• almost a quarter of respondents (23%) are in the between 26-35 years old. Approximately a fifth of respondents are either between 16-25 years, 36-45 years or over 55 (17%, 18% and 19% respectively);
• almost six in ten respondents (59%) are male. Just over a third (34%) are female;
• over three-quarters of respondents (77%) are white.

11. The demographic results for the public consultation using online and paper-based questionnaires show that more work needs to be done to achieve fully representative views.

12. Feedback to participants – the results of the surveys have been posted on the internet, intranet and is being sent to those respondents to the website who gave an email address indicating that they wished to receive feedback.

13. Crime and Disorder Strategies are composed after extensive consultation at BOCU level. BOCU Commanders were asked to ensure that the consultation included the GLA priority groups, however a method for assessing the extent of community engagement and consultation is proving elusive. The strategies were analysed by putting their objectives onto a grid and this was fed into the priority setting process (Appendix 4).

14. The Public Attitude Survey is another form of consultation that was planned for use but results for the first quarter could not be mapped across to this year’s planning process. Members should note the review of the Public Attitude Survey seeks to address these issues. This is the subject of another report to this committee.

15. The Commissioner’s seminar was held on 17 September and attended by 140 senior managers, MPA Members and officers. Syndicate groups discussed results of the earlier consultation in full and at length. The product was a set of proposed priorities. The proposed priorities as agreed at the MPA planning panel is at Appendix 5. (These are still to be agreed by the full Authority)

16. Because of the London Underground strikes, the focus group consultation with pan London groups was postponed until 14 October. Fifteen pan London groups attended. They supported the proposed priorities and added detail to the preliminary thoughts on objectives to support them. The consolidated output from these sessions is at Appendix 6. Three groups fed back to the MPA that:

• they felt they couldn’t properly represent their group’s views because of timescales; or
• influence the decisions.

As a result, two of these groups did not attend.

Arising issues

17. The following issues have arisen out of the consultation exercise and require more investigation and resolution if necessary:

• how to be satisfied that we are getting a representative view from Londoners;
• how to ensure that communities feel that they are engaged so that they contribute;
• how to ensure that all our consultation activity adds value to the priority setting process;

Next steps

18. It is proposed that the MPS carries out a debrief and evaluation of the consultation process that is focussed on the outcomes and how they relate to the issues listed above. The outcome will be reported back to this committee.

C. Equal opportunities and diversity implications

The demographic results for the public consultation using online and paper-based questionnaires show that more work needs to be done to Achieve fully representative views. 

D. Financial implications

There are no extra financial implications. The advertising cost £8000 and creation of the website cost £1200. One BOCU has asked for contributions towards the administration of consultation e.g. postage.

E. Background papers

Consultation Committee report 9 of 4 July 2002 - MPA Consultation plan for policing priorities

F. Contact details

Report author: Chas Bailey, Superintendent MPS Consultation Unit, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Executive summary of the online Internet survey results

Background

The MPA and MPS carried out public consultation on the 2003/2004 policing priorities using questionnaires accessed via the MPS website in July and August 2002.

Key findings

Crime focused objectives

• With regard to crime focused objectives, the majority of respondents (80%) feel that efforts should be made in reducing violent crime.
• Approximately half of respondents feel that targeting prolific young offenders and reducing drug-related crime are areas where effort should be made (51% and 49% respectively).
• A third of respondents (33%) indicate that efforts should be made into reducing graffiti, vandalism and other nuisance to the community.

Victim focused objectives

• To consider victim-focused objectives, just over four in ten respondents (42%) feel that protecting children requires effort. A quarter of respondents (25%) feel that improving care for victims of crime is required.
• Almost a fifth of respondents (19%) indicate effort is required in better investigation of rape.

Objectives based on our values

• With regard to objectives based on our values, over a third of respondents (36%) believe that effort into involving communities, parents and organisations in addressing crime are required.
• Approximately a fifth of respondents cited treating everyone fairly, particularly tackling disproportionality in service delivery (20%) and improving access to information and front of counter services (17%) as areas in need of effort.
• One in ten respondents indicate that effort into recruiting more officers from ethnic minority groups (12%) should be made.

Demographics

• Approximately one in ten respondents indicate they have a particular interest in the Westminster (15%), Lambeth (11%) and Wandsworth (10%).
• Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) state they do live in London. Over two thirds of respondents (69%) state they do work in London.
• Nearly three in ten respondents (29%) are in the age range 26-35. Approximately a fifth of respondents are either between 16-25 years or 36-45 years (23% and 19% respectively). A fifth of respondents (20%) are 46 or over (46-55 11%, Over 55 8%).
• Six in ten respondents are male (62%). Approaching a third (31%) are female.
• The clear majority of respondents (80%) are white.

Appendix 2: Executive summary of the paper based public survey

Background

The MPA and MPS carried out public consultation on the 2003/2004 policing priorities using questionnaires sent to targeted members of the community in July and August 2002. The MPA and local BOCUs chose recipients. The results from this survey have been submitted to PIB3, the Research and Survey Unit, and the provisional findings are presented below.

Key findings

Crime focused objectives

• Just over three-quarters of respondents (78%) felt that reducing violent crime was an objective into which substantial effort should be made.
• Over half of respondents felt that substantial effort is required in reducing drug-related crime and targeting prolific young offenders (54% and 53% respectively).
• Equal numbers of respondents (30%) indicated that substantial effort needs to be made in reducing burglary, reducing graffiti, vandalism and other nuisance to the community.

Victim focused objectives

• Almost four in ten respondents (39%) reported substantial effort into protecting children is required.
• Just over a third of respondents (34%) believed that substantial effort into improving care for victims of crime should be made.
• Almost a fifth of respondents (17%) felt that substantial effort should be made into better investigation of domestic crimes.

Objectives based on our values

• Over four in ten respondents (43%) indicated that involving communities, parents and organisations in addressing crimes requires substantial effort.
• Approximately a fifth of respondents indicated that treating everyone fairly, particularly tackling disproportionality in service delivery and recruiting more officers from ethnic minority groups (22% and 17% respectively) requires substantial effort.

Demographics

• Almost a fifth of respondents (17%) indicated that they have a particular interest in the Westminster. At least one in ten respondents confirmed they have a particular interest in Newham (12%), Ealing (10%) and Kensington and Chelsea (10%).
• The majority of respondents (87%) confirmed that they live in London. Almost a third of respondents (63%) revealed that they work in London.
• Over four in ten respondents (45%) reported that they were over 55. Just over a fifth of respondents (21%) indicated that they were between 46 and 55 years old.
• Responses regarding gender were fairly evenly matched. Just over half (51%) stated they were male and just over four in ten (41%) indicated they were female.
• Seven in ten respondents (70%) indicated that they were of white origin, over one in ten (15%) confirmed they were Asian and less than one in ten (8%) indicated they were black.

Appendix 3: Executive summary of the online staff survey

Background

The MPA and MPS carried out internal staff consultation on the 2003/2004 policing priorities using questionnaires accessed via the MPS internal website in August 2002.

Key findings

Crime focused objectives

• Over seven in ten respondents (78%) felt that reducing violent crime was an area requiring substantial effort.
• Over half of respondents indicated that targeting prolific young offenders (54%) and reducing drug-related crime (52%) were in need of substantial effort.
• Approximately three in ten respondents reported that reducing burglary (37%) and reducing graffiti, vandalism and other nuisance to the community (35%) required substantial effort.

Victim focused objectives

• Just over half of respondents (53%) indicated that improving care for victims of crime required substantial effort.
• Just over a third of respondents (34%) felt that protecting children required substantial effort.
• Over one in ten respondents (16%) considered better investigation of rape was in need of substantial effort.

Objectives based on our values

• Over four in ten respondents (43%) indicated that involving communities, parents and organisations in addressing crimes required substantial effort.
• A fifth of respondents (20%) stipulated that treating everyone fairly, particularly tackling disproportionality in service delivery was in need of substantial effort.
• Whilst almost a fifth (18%) asserted that effort was required improving access to information and front of counter services.

Appendix 4

See Supporting material

Appendix 5: Priorities for Londoners

Priority 1: In partnership, to promote safer communities for Londoners

This could include;

• Violent Crime (e.g. gun crime, homicide, use of weapons, domestic violence, rape, serious assault)
  [1]
• Street Crime
• Public Reassurance (to include Transport Safety)
• Diversion and prevention of youth offending
• Local Crime and Disorder issues (differential targets from C&D Strategies)
• Disrupt Class A drug supply

Priority 2: Securing the capital against terrorism

This could include;

• Prevention and disruption (to include Level 2)
• Preparedness and Contingency (e.g. Command & control contingency
• MPS business continuity, Partnership, Community confidence)
• Improving our response to terrorist incidents

Priority 3: To improve the quality of service to vulnerable victim groups

This could include;
[2]

• Improving child protection procedures
• Improving victim satisfaction and investigation of racist incidents and racist crimes
• Improving the investigation of homophobic crimes
• Improving the investigation of domestic violence
• Improving victim care and investigation in cases of rape
• Encouraging young people to report crime

Priority 4: In partnership, to revitalise the criminal justice system

This could include;

• Partnership focus (e.g. data sharing with other agencies)
• The engagement and protection of witnesses
• Process issues (e.g. quality of case papers, Prisoner Processing Teams)

Appendix 6: MPA pan-London stakeholders consultation on policing priorities

Consultation about MPA/MPS proposals for priorities for 2002-03 took place at a seminar on 14th October 2002. At the seminar, representatives of Pan-London Groups were split into two syndicates to review the current list of proposed priorities and potential improvement areas. A number of issues were raised relating to priorities and to the process of planning, consultation and implementation of plans. These are summarised below.

General issues

Education issues

One group had a discussion about the role and contribution of education throughout the policing priorities. It was felt that education had an important contribution to make to priority areas 1 (safer communities), 3 (vulnerable victims) and 4 (criminal justice). It was suggested that this may not be an area that the police should devote resources to, but that the existing partnerships should be used to determine the contribution that education could make to achieving the priorities.

Partnership

Both groups stressed the importance of partnership to deliver the priorities. One group discussed the effectiveness of partnership across London. It was felt that this was variable and this was an area where the police needed to put more emphasis. In particular, there is a need for the police to be more effective at enabling and facilitating partnerships (as opposed to leading and driving partnerships forward which is a role that tends to be assumed by the police). It was suggested that the MPS needs to invest more in partnerships, in some instances a small up front investment could yield significant benefits further down the line. An observation was made that there was a risk that the police or other agencies could 'hide behind' the data protection act to stall partnerships. Although one member of the group expressed concern that the police needed to strike the right balance in terms of the amount of time that is spent on partnership activity. Another group raised this as a particular issue for the priority on Safer Communities (see below).

The planning and consultation process

One group made several suggestions about how to improve the planning and consultation process. These included suggestions for providing more information to help those being consulted understand why priorities have been proposed and would help ensure that priority setting was evidence-led:

• A pan-London crime audit to pick up on pan-London issues, as well as borough-level crime audits and surveys;
• Proposed or past resource allocation against priority areas;
• Information on how the priorities of former years have been taken forward, how successful this has been and why;
• What contribution to the priorities is funded by central government (e.g. for priorities with national implications such as counter-terrorism)?

Implementation of priorities

One group discussed implementation of priorities. There was a feeling that the MPS needed to do more to communicate and implement the priorities internally. More emphasis could be placed on emphasising the 'spirit' of the priorities rather than the mechanics of what individual objectives involve. It was suggested that greater emphasis should be placed on determining how the priorities should impact the behaviour of officers and staff.

Gaps in the current priorities and suggested areas for improvement

The groups discussed the current list of priorities and considered whether they felt there were any gaps that needed to be addressed. There was general contentment with the overall thrust of the priorities but a number of specific areas were identified that the group felt could be considered for inclusion, as part of the objectives or targets. These are listed below:

Safer communities priority

Partnership: Under this priority, a question was raised about what "working in partnership" means in practice:

• How does this fit with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, Local Strategic Partnerships and other existing local partnerships and consultation fora?
• It was suggested that there needs to be an explicit statement about how partnership will be used to achieve the priorities and how this is used to ensure that local borough plans genuinely reflect local concerns. A statement such as the following could be included: " working in partnership through existing consultation mechanisms and establishing new methods where required".

Drugs: It was felt that this objective could be extended to focus on arrest referral schemes. It was argued that the voluntary nature of the current scheme reduced its effectiveness and more research is required to establish whether a compulsory scheme would be more effective. The police should have a firm lobbying position in this area.

Road Safety and Traffic Policing: Both groups suggested that the definition of street crime could be extended to encompass traffic-related deaths and injuries. It was noted that around 80,000 people are injured in London on the roads each year, and that child casualties have risen by 15%. It was felt that road safety needed to be raised as a corporate priority because addressing this requires a response from all levels of the MPS. The role of traffic police in combating crime through their road safety activities also needed to be acknowledged. There were also concerns that the issue of road safety had not been explicitly included in questionnaires and other material sent out across London to consult on priorities. This may have led to under-representation of this issue in responses from the public.

Detection: The current list of priorities and objectives was felt not to include sufficient objectives related to investigating crime and dealing with offenders, although there was recognition that this could be addressed through the targets that are set for individual objectives.

Property Crime: It was also questioned whether there was sufficient emphasis on property crime.

Visible Reassurance: It was suggested that an objective relating to visible police presence should be included. Whilst the group felt that the police should use every tool available to them in combating crime, including partnership working, it was felt that a visible police presence provided a valuable deterrent. It was also suggested that promoting safer communities should take account of the needs of vulnerable groups, for example targeting messages of safety and reassurance to the elderly.

Terrorism priority

It was suggested that the importance of having contingency arrangements in place in the event of a terrorist incident should be given more importance. As an example it was pointed out that an incident in central London could prevent large numbers of people returning home and have significant knock on effects in terms of looking after children and pets and securing premises. There is a need to establish which agency should take responsibility for this type of contingency planning.

Vulnerable victims priority

Both groups discussed whether this priority should be targeted at all victims or vulnerable victim groups. There was general support for the MPA/MPS to target this priority at vulnerable victim groups, rather than all victims. However, one group felt that the spirit of this priority should be applicable to all victims even if the objectives relate to specific groups. There were several suggestions about what should be included under the term 'vulnerable groups':

• The bereaved and injured are also vulnerable victims - whether due to a violent crime, road collision or other event.
• Although included under the term "hate crime", the wording of the priority does not explicitly address crimes against those of different faiths, e.g. Muslims.
• The statement about rape should be extended to "rape and sexual assault".
• It was suggested that the trafficking of women and especially minors could be included as part of this priority. It was felt that this was an important area as the police and other agencies do not understand the full extent of the problem.
• Should the priority explicitly make reference to implementing the recommendations from the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence (some actions are still outstanding)?

Criminal justice system

Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: One group said that although this was a more internally facing priority, it was important to ensure that the public has confidence in the Criminal Justice System. It was suggested that this priority could make reference to the national plan for improvement, "Justice For All", to set this priority in context for the public.

Dealing with vulnerable offenders: This was highlighted as an issue for inclusion under this Criminal Justice priority. This would include dealing with offenders with mental health problems, learning disabilities, drug or alcohol addiction, and recognising that these offenders are often victims of crime too. The work required to address this issue would include training of police staff to recognise the special requirements of these groups, and there would be opportunities to work with voluntary organisations.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback