Outcomes of The MPA And MPS Consultation For The 2005/06 Policing Plan and Priorities

Report: 13
Date: 09 September 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report draws on a review of several major studies of citizen and business thoughts and concerns relating to police operational priorities and service delivery. It covers operational priorities, citizen focus, partnership and preventative policing. It presents some of the recent findings arising from the public consultations on policing priorities undertaken directly by the MPA and MPS, as well as from other survey sources, on what Londoners feel about the delivery of policing, about crime and safety issues and what they think the police should do about it.

The conclusions reinforce the results of last years’ consultation processes and the initiatives already being undertaken towards less prescriptive and few corporate ‘high level’ priorities and greater emphasis on a more ‘diversified’ and localised planning process. The results also highlight Londoners desire for a citizen –focused approach to policing that entails a customer service culture, neighbourhood policing and increased community involvement and local accountability.

A. Recommendations

1. That this report be forwarded to the Commissioner’s Conference to inform the preparation of the policing plan for 2005/06.

2. That the MPS, in consultation with officers of the MPA, report to the next meeting of the Community Engagement Committee on the action taken too embed a citizen focused approach to policing and the role of the Citizen Focus Champion.

3. That the MPS undertake further analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data from the consultation processes that relate to specific operational areas and report back to the Community Engagement Committee on the processes and results of tracking the consequent required actions.

B. Supporting information

1. In complementing the community intelligence gathered by the MPS this report presents some of the recent findings arising from public consultations undertaken directly by the MPA. It also draws on the results of consultation undertaken, employing a variety of methodologies, by other agencies and institutions such as the GLA, ALG, local authorities and Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs). In addition, it also draws on the findings of other relevant recent studies and reports. (See Appendix).

2. In determining the policing priorities for 2005/06 the MPA needs to be informed by as many different sources as possible. An important component in informing its decision-making process is its statutory duty to ‘obtain the views of the public about policing.’

3. In terms of their impact on policing priorities, this report draws to the attention of members recent findings on what Londoners feel about the delivery of policing, about crime and safety issues and what they think the police should do about them.

4. To complement the work undertaken by CPCGs in local police priority setting and their input, along with many other community stakeholder groups to the Pan London On-Line Consultation process, the MPA, through its Community Engagement Unit, has identified the results of a number of surveys and a range of consultations with a number of communities regarding policing priorities for 2005/06.

Operational Priorities

5. It would be impossible to attempt to summarise, in order of priority, the crime priorities from these very different discussions. In some cases there were inevitably competing and conflicting crime priorities of different groups. Participants were generally disinclined to participate in a process of merely identifying discrete areas of criminal activity and attempting to put them into some kind of priority list.

6. Londoners have a complex attitude towards the operational priorities they feel the MPS should adopt. They want priority given to specific public behaviour such as anti-social behaviour but they also want to give higher priority to service delivery, such as higher visibility for police officers on the streets or improved response times. They are interested not only in what the police do, but also how they do it. They are looking for a safety outcome as well as quality of life.

7. People also make a distinction between offences that are serious but comparatively infrequent in any one locality, and those that may objectively be less serious but have a greater impact on the quality of life of local people. For example, they regard the investigation of child abuse as the most important function of the police, but put tackling anti social behaviour and low-level crime top of their wish list for action in their local area with no mention of child abuse in this context.

8. At the same time they have a ‘bi-focal’ view of the capital, with one set of priorities for their local area and a slightly different one for the capital as a whole. For example, increased policing (especially foot patrols) is a higher priority for the local area than it is for London – which may reflect a natural desire to secure adequate police resources for one’s own local area.

9. Similarly, across London as a whole burglary and mugging are higher priorities locally than gun crime, other serious crime or terrorism, but this is not to say that Londoners regard the latter as being less important than burglaries or muggings (or anti social behaviour). This is a clear indication that some of these serious issues have a geographic specificity within London.

10. There are also complications caused by loose language particularly of anti social behaviour. While this is generally the highest operational priority in terms of specific offences, one survey (MPS PAS 2002/3) rated it lower than environmental issues as a serious problem in the local area. The same survey rated abandoned vehicles as slightly more of a problem than vandalism and ‘gatherings of young people’, all three of which could be described as anti-social behaviour.

11. These caveats are mentioned to indicate that it can be misleading to single out one aspect of operational policing and declare it the top priority. Instead, it would be more truthful to citizen focus to think of citizens’ priorities as being defined by two dimensions: local versus London wide; and offence types versus service delivery.

12. On this basis there are four broad categories (local offence types; local service delivery; London offence types and London service delivery), within which it is possible to distinguish between high and low priorities. It is not however accurate to say that Londoners consistently rate one category higher than the others – a citizen focused policing strategy needs to balance all four, though not necessarily equally.

13. The results of the on-line consultation for the policing plan 2005/06, and also of the London First survey on crime affecting business in London 2004 bear out the public’s desire for a balanced strategy.

14. Broadly speaking, Londoners’ priorities for local offence types are anti social behaviour in all its forms, drug related crime, street crime and burglary. Service delivery priorities locally include more visible policing and greater commitment to partnership working with the community (including the business community) and with other local agencies.

15. The initial top twelve results of the prioritisation process from the on-line consultation for example was as follows:-

1. Anti social behaviour and low-level crime.
2. Visibility, numbers of police and reassurance.
3. Drugs and drug related crime.
4. Partnership with communities and key partners.
5. Alcohol and alcohol related crime.
6. Crime reduction and prevention schemes.
7. Racial, homophobic and other hate crime.
8. Reporting and response times.
9. Youth crime and other youth issues.
10. Street crime.
11. Violent and gun crime.
12. Terrorism.

The two areas which have either not appeared in previous years or were of a lower priority are terrorism and alcohol related crime.

16. Security and Safety type priorities for the capital as a whole include gun crime, terrorism, hate crime and serious crimes, while service delivery issues seen as more appropriately dealt with at the London (or even national) level include preventative measures such as drug rehabilitation, control of alcohol and crime reduction schemes.

Citizen Focus:

17. There appears to be a strong public desire for ongoing, direct, active engagement with the police in the identification and tackling of crime and disorder issues.

18. Rather than distinguishing between the relative importance of different forms of criminal activity, the concern was more with the process and manner by which the police interact with Londoners in addressing crime and maintaining the peace. This appeared to be the more urgent and underlying priority. The measure suggested for the development of safer communities was for the police to focus on the processes and methods of re-establishing and strengthening their interactions with Londoners. This was seen as essential to ensure and secure Londoners’ trust and confidence in the police.

19. The recurrent theme that emerged from the findings was the demand for greater local police-community interaction and accountability. The police’s reassurance and peacekeeping role was given primacy. A constant refrain in the survey results and consultation was the desire for the police to re-engage with local people and to do this in a variety of ways – rather than meeting them only in the context of incidents of crime and disorder or in police-initiated consultation.

20. Londoners want a more citizen focused police service that will:

• provide more visible policing. However, this does not simply mean putting more uniformed officers out on the streets randomly. A citizen focused police force will be more responsive than is currently the case to local problems and local needs, and will deploy its resources accordingly;
• demonstrate much higher standards of interpersonal skills towards the public – in whatever capacity the latter may be.
• organise itself around the citizen’s needs rather than its own convenience.
• consult with the public more and more effectively. Although the public think both that the police do not consult well and also that consultation should not be a high priority, there is evidence from other public services that consultation is in fact an important driver of overall satisfaction;
• the views of businesses on these matters, although not directly comparable, are consistent with the citizens’ focus.

21. A shift to greater citizen focus will require some fundamental changes in the way the police service is delivered in London. This will not be achieved overnight, and it would be more feasible to adopt a strategy of incremental changes, tackling discrete aspects of the overall strategy one by one.

Partnership:

22. Partnership was seen as the fourth highest priority in both the most recent online survey into policing priorities and the London First survey. The prospective partners with whom citizens felt the police should be working include local communities and other key local agencies, but also private contractors and national agencies, including government. The national partnerships are seen as particularly relevant to issues such as extensions to anti-social behaviour orders, changes in legislation and improving anti-terrorism intelligence.

23. A good example of the public view of partnership occurred in the MPAs recent Safer London Panel workshop, when discussion of the success of preventative police work moved seamlessly into discussion on CCTV and identity cards – neither of them the direct responsibility of the police.

24. Businesses, while apparently less aware of partnerships than sections of the public, also express support for the partnership approach to tackling crime.

25. These findings reinforce existing commitments to partnership working. They also indicate a desire to see the range of local partners extended to include the commercial sector, both as stakeholders and also as prospective service providers.

Preventative Policing:

26. The public have a complex, even inconsistent, attitude towards preventative policing.

27. On the one hand they regard the MPS as being effective at preventative work already. The small amount of actual terrorist activity in London is cited as an example, while other examples include police presence at local community events and the improved policing of large public events. They regard a preventative approach to policing as being positive and making a difference at the local level, and cite police attendance at local events as examples.

28. On the other hand the connections between preventative measures and feelings of personal safety are less well established. The public do not consider that either CCTV or personal identify cards increase personal safety, whatever their advantages might be in other respects. Indeed, CCTV trailed a long way behind “more police around on foot” in a recent survey of Londoners which asked what would most improve safety in their locality (62% said more police would do most to improve safety, 29% said CCTV – which was still the second most cited measure).

29. On the one hand the public support preventative approaches to policing, especially when tackling petty crime, and want to see more time spent working with local schools, youth groups, ethnic minority communities, mosques and local churches. (Such measures are thought to have the added bonus of improving public perceptions of the police). Businesses tend to agree with the citizens’ emphasis on preventative approaches to policing.

30. On the other hand, while citizens regards preventative measures such as working with parents and schools as being important and yielding long-term results they do not think that these measures on their own will address the more immediate problems of anti social behaviour in public spaces.

31. Citizens, and especially businesses, have a positive attitude towards preventative work. They do however want to be more involved in designing and implementing such initiatives to ensure that they are citizen (and business) focused.

Conclusions:

32. This report provides a very brief overview of a huge body of information of what Londoners think about policing. Further detailed analysis of this data is required to fully benefit from this level of community input that relates to specific areas of police operations. It is recommended that the MPS further assess this material and direct the issues to the appropriate MPS business group or borough for follow-up and action, and feedback to the MPS Corporate Planning Group who in turn should report back to the participants and to the MPA on the results and impact of this community input.

33. Home Office research found that only a few members of the public wanted to know how to give their views on how the police force is run, mainly because they generally felt that no-one would listen to them. Listening is the most important dimension of communicating with residents, and the most critical criterion by which public services are rated as doing a good job. A customer service culture, neighbourhood policing and increased local accountability are at the heart of a citizen-focused approach to policing.

C. Race and equality impact

The consultation process undertaken by the MPA and MPS gave particular attention to many of London’s diverse communities and the conclusions of a more localised process of police planning and priority setting should ensure a greater capacity to address equality issues.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications of this report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report authors: John May, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix

References

The following sources have been used for this report on operational priorities and service delivery:

• ALG Survey of Londoners 2003
• Annual London survey for GLA 2003
• Online consultation (Dialogue by Design)
• MPS Youth Consultation
• MPS Public Attitude Survey (PAS) 2002/3
• Police Reform: Update 3 (MPA internal briefing paper)
• Policing for London Survey
• Telephone Investigations Bureaux (report to CE Committee)
• Safer London Panel (report to CE Committee)
• London First survey on crime affecting business in London 2004
• London Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s ‘London Against Crime
  Business Survey (2004)
• Report of the MPA survey on MPS Stop and Search Practice (2004)
• London Civic Forum: Report on Policing Priorities (2003)
• Home Office Research: Involving the Public
  The Role of Police Authorities (2003)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback