Contents
Report 9 of the 4 November 2004 meeting of the Planning, Performance & Review Committee and recommends targets for MPA objectives 'improving neighbourhood safety' and 'improving MPS contribution to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system'.
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
Targets for improving neighbourhood safety and the efficiency of the Criminal Justice System
Report: 9
Date: 4 November 2004
By: Commissioner
Summary
This report recommends targets for MPA objectives ‘improving neighbourhood safety’ and ‘improving MPS contribution to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system’. The targets are measured by the MPS Public Attitude Survey for ‘improving neighbourhood safety’ and the Crime Victims Survey for victim’s satisfaction with contact with police. We recommend that we set performance against the benchmark established in 2004/5 Quarter 1 of each of the new surveys, and work toward continuous improvement against these benchmarked findings.
A. Recommendations
That members:
- adopt the approach to setting a target that measures achievement of ‘year on year’ improvement as measured by MPS corporate surveys in:
- public assessment of police ‘doing a good job’ in their local area,
- proportion of the public that feels that crime and anti social behaviour has decreased in their local area, and
- victims’ satisfaction with their experience of contact with police; and
- agree the performance targets for the 2004/5 Policing Plan for Objective 7 ‘improving neighbourhood safety’, (paragraph 7) and Objective 9, (paragraph 12) ‘improving MPS contribution to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system’.
B. Supporting information
Approach
1. The Policing Plan 2004/5 includes objectives for improving neighbourhood safety and improving MPS contribution to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Both objectives are measured through MPS corporate surveys, the Public Attitude Survey and the Crime Victim Survey.
2. The surveys examine the public attitudes and perceptions of crime, safety and policing in London and in particular in the local area. Two key questions are carefully tracked by the Home Office: people’s satisfaction with ‘how good a job do you think the police are doing in your local area’, and whether people feel there is a difference in the level of crime or anti-social behaviour in their local area.
3. These questions are the same word for word with those of the British Crime Survey, giving the MPS the capacity to compare outcomes with the national and regional picture across England and Wales. These corporate surveys enable us to monitor the evolution of ‘citizen focus’ across the MPS. The results of the Crime Victim Survey, for instance, are critical to the measures for the Home Office Police Performance Assessment Framework, and will be reflected in the performance monitors published by the Home Office.
4. It was agreed by the MPA that targets for Objectives 7 and 9 could be set in year because the survey designs of both corporate surveys are new.
5. All current wisdom around the use of public satisfaction measures suggests that we should aim to set a target that facilitates improvement ‘year on year’. Change in public perception often lags behind change in practice, so it makes sense to aspire to improvement over time without setting targets that might be unachievable.
6. As a public service, we wish to increase the number of people who think policing is ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ in London.
Objective 7
7. We recommend the following wording for Objective 7. ‘To improve year on year satisfaction levels for’
- How satisfied are you with the way this neighbourhood is policed?
- Taking everything into account, how good a job do you think the police IN THIS AREA are doing?
Confidence Intervals at Metwide level – Public Attitude Survey Quarter 1 2004/5
| Value | Confidence limits +/- | The population value lies between | |
|---|---|---|---|
| How satisfied are you with the way this neighbourhood is policed? | |||
| Satisfied | 43% | 1.5% | 41.5% and 44.5% |
| Mixed views | 18% | 1.2% | 16.8% and 19.2% |
| Dissatisfied | 28% | 1.4% | 26.6% and 29.4% |
| Don't know | 11% | 0.9% | 10.1% and 11.9% |
| Borough base | 75 | ||
| Metwide base | 4202 | ||
| Taking everything into account, how good a job do you think the police IN THIS AREA are doing? | |||
| Excellent | 3% | 0.7% | 2.3% and 3.7% |
| Good | 53% | 2.1% | 50.9% and 55.1% |
| Fair | 34% | 2.0% | 32.0% and 36.0% |
| Poor | 8% | 1.2% | 6.8% and 9.2% |
| Very poor | 2% | 0.6% | 1.4% and 2.6% |
| Borough base | 75 | ||
| Metwide base | 2138 | ||
8. In the delivery of crime reduction in London, we wish to track whether people notice a difference in the level of crime in their area. Improvement will be shown by the number of people who notice a decrease in crime or anti-social behaviour in their area.
9. As a way of monitoring whether people take note of crime reduction, we suggest tracking the questions that assess ‘the percentage of people who state that crime [or anti-social behaviour] is getting better or a little better over the past two years’.
Public attitude survey Quarter 1
| Value | Confidence limits +/- | The population value lies between | |
|---|---|---|---|
| How much would you say the crime rate here has changed since two years ago? In this area, would you say there is more crime or less crime? | |||
| A lot more | 14% | 1.5% | 12.5% and 15.5% |
| A little more | 24% | 1.8% | 22.2% and 25.8% |
| About the same | 58% | 2.1% | 55.9% and 60.1% |
| A little less | 5% | 0.9% | 4.1% and 5.9% |
| A lot less | 0% | 0% | 0.0% and 0.0% |
| Borough base | 75 | ||
| Metwide base | 2094 | ||
| Would you say that anti-social behaviour has got worse, got better or stayed the same in your local area over the past 2 years? | |||
| Got a lot worse | 19% | 1.7% | 17.3% and 20.7% |
| Got a little worse | 25% | 1.8% | 23.2% and 26.8% |
| Stayed the same | 53% | 2.1% | 50.9% and 55.1% |
| Got a little better | 4% | 0.8% | 3.2% and 4.8% |
| Got a lot better | 0% | 0.0% | 0.0% and 0.0% |
| Borough base | 75 | ||
| Metwide base | 2151 | ||
10. As a citizen focused police service, we expect victims’ satisfaction to increase year on year. The PPAF mandates the survey framework for all force victim satisfaction surveys. Professional advice recommends that we monitor positive movement within each of the categories listed.
11. Improvement in performance can be monitored by examining changes in each of the categories (satisfaction is measured on a seven point scale). While we have a small percentage of victims that are ‘completely’ satisfied with the policing service, we can monitor whether we are able to decrease the number of ‘mixed views’ into the categories of ‘satisfied’, as well as the movement of those who feel dissatisfied with the police services they received as a victim of crime.
Objective 9
12. We recommend using the PPAF surveys in our measurement of the outcome for Objective 9, improvement in the criminal justice system. We suggest that the target should be year on year improvement in the satisfaction of the victims (racially motivated incidents, burglary, violent crime, road traffic collisions and vehicle crime) using the following questions:
- Satisfaction of victims with respect to making contact with the police
- Satisfaction of victims with respect to actions taken by the police
- Satisfaction of victims with respect to being kept informed of the progress
- Satisfaction of victims with respect to their treatment by staff
- Satisfaction of victims with respect to the overall service provided
- Satisfaction of victims of racist incidents with respect to the overall service provided
- Comparison of satisfaction for white users and users from VEM groups with respect to the overall service provided
Crime Victims Survey Quarter 1 2004/5 (Confidence Intervals at Metwide level: Quarter 1 2004/5)
| Value | Confidence limits +/- | The population value lies between | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI 1a: Satisfaction of victims with respect to making contact with the police | |||
| Completely satisfied | 17% | 1.3% | 15.7% and 18.3% |
| Very satisfied | 27% | 1.5% | 25.5% and 28.5% |
| Fairly satisfied | 38% | 1.7% | 36.3% and 39.7% |
| Mixed Views | 5% | 0.7% | 4.3% and 5.7% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 7% | 0.9% | 6.1% and 7.9% |
| Very dissatisfied | 3% | 0.6% | 2.4% and 3.6% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 3% | 0.6% | 2.4% and 3.6% |
| Metwide Base | 3282 | ||
| SPI 1b: Satisfaction of victims with respect to actions taken by the police | |||
| Completely satisfied | 14% | 1.1% | 12.9% and 15.1% |
| Very satisfied | 20% | 1.2% | 18.8% and 21.2% |
| Fairly satisfied | 28% | 1.4% | 26.6% and 29.4% |
| Mixed Views | 15% | 1.1% | 13.9% and 16.1% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 10% | 0.9% | 9.1% and 10.9% |
| Very dissatisfied | 6% | 0.7% | 5.3% and 6.7% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 8% | 0.8% | 7.2% and 8.8% |
| Metwide Base | 4179 | ||
| SPI 1c: Satisfaction of victims with respect to being kept informed of the progress | |||
| Completely satisfied | 7% | 0.8% | 6.2% and 7.8% |
| Very satisfied | 14% | 1.1% | 12.9% and 15.1% |
| Fairly satisfied | 26% | 1.3% | 24.7% and 27.3% |
| Mixed Views | 21% | 1.2% | 19.8% and 22.2% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 15% | 1.1% | 13.9% and 16.1% |
| Very dissatisfied | 8% | 0.8% | 7.2% and 8.8% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 10% | 0.9% | 9.1% and 10.9% |
| Metwide Base | 4180 | ||
| SPI 1d: Satisfaction of victims with respect to their treatment by staff | |||
| Completely satisfied | 21% | 1.2% | 19.8% and 22.2% |
| Very satisfied | 35% | 1.4% | 33.6% and 36.4% |
| Fairly satisfied | 31% | 1.4% | 29.6% and 32.4% |
| Mixed Views | 6% | 0.7% | 5.3% and 6.7% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 3% | 0.5% | 2.5% and 3.5% |
| Very dissatisfied | 2% | 0.4% | 1.6% and 2.4% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 2% | 0.4% | 1.6% and 2.4% |
| Metwide Base | 4261 | ||
| SPI 1e: Satisfaction of victims with respect to the overall service provided | |||
| Completely satisfied | 13% | 1.0% | 12.0% and 14.0% |
| Very satisfied | 23% | 1.3% | 21.7% and 24.3% |
| Fairly satisfied | 32% | 1.4% | 30.6% and 33.4% |
| Mixed Views | 13% | 1.0% | 12.0% and 14.0% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 9% | 0.9% | 8.1% and 9.9% |
| Very dissatisfied | 5% | 0.7% | 4.3% and 5.7% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 6% | 0.7% | 5.3% and 6.7% |
| Metwide Base | 4265 | ||
| SPI 3a: Satisfaction of victims of racist incidents with respect to the overall service provided | |||
| Completely Satisfied | 11% | 8.2% | 2.8% and 19.2% |
| Very satisfied | 19% | 10.2% | 8.8% and 29.2% |
| Fairly satisfied | 30% | 11.9% | 18.1% and 41.9% |
| Mixed views | 7% | 6.7% | 0.3% and 13.7% |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 14% | 9.0% | 5.0% and 23.0% |
| Very dissatisfied | 9% | 7.5% | 1.5% and 16.5% |
| Completely dissatisfied | 11% | 8.2% | 2.8% and 19.2% |
| Metwide Base | 57 | ||
| SPI 3b: Comparison of satisfaction for white users and users from VEM groups with respect to the overall service provided. | |||
| Completely Satisfied - WHITE | 15% | 1.3% | 13.7% and 16.3% |
| Very satisfied - WHITE | 24% | 1.5% | 22.5% and 25.5% |
| Fairly satisfied - WHITE | 31% | 1.6% | 29.4% and 32.6% |
| Mixed views - WHITE | 12% | 1.2% | 10.8% and 13.2% |
| Fairly dissatisfied - WHITE | 8% | 1.0% | 7.0% and 9.0% |
| Very dissatisfied - WHITE | 5% | 0.8% | 4.2% and 5.8% |
| Completely Dissatisfied - WHITE | 5% | 0.8% | 4.2% and 5.8% |
| Metwide Base - WHITE | 3066 | ||
| Completely Satisfied - VEM | 9% | 1.6% | 7.4% and 10.6% |
| Very satisfied - VEM | 19% | 2.2% | 16.8% and 21.2% |
| Fairly satisfied - VEM | 33% | 2.7% | 30.3% and 35.7% |
| Mixed views - VEM | 15% | 2.0% | 13.0% and 17.0% |
| Fairly dissatisfied -VEM | 11% | 1.8% | 9.2% and 12.8% |
| Very dissatisfied - VEM | 7% | 1.4% | 5.6% and 8.4% |
| Completely dissatisfied - VEM | 6% | 1.3% | 4.7% and 7.3% |
| Metwide Base - VEM | 1214 | ||
C. Race and equality impact
The Home Office PPAF statutory performance indicators for 2005/6 are likely to require the MPS to report on the following:
- The satisfaction of victims of racist incidents with respect to the overall service provided;
- The comparison of satisfaction for white users and users from VEM groups with respect to the overall service provided.
D. Financial implications
The costs of undertaking the surveys can be contained within existing budgets and estimates.
E. Background papers
None
F. Contact details
Report authors: Professor Betsy Stanko, DCC2(10)
For more information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Send an e-mail linking to this page
Feedback