Railway Policing What matters to you? 2017 Public consultation findings

Transcription

1 Railway Policing What matters to you? 2017 Public consultation findings Research and Development April 2017

2 Content Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 4 3. Responses Geography 3.2. Purpose of Journey 3.3. Gender 3.4. Age 3.5. Disability 3.6. Ethnicity 3.7. Religion 3.8. Sexual Orientation Policing Priorities Force-wide 4.2. Divisions 4.3. Sub-divisions 4.4. Demographic Groups Police Presence Satisfaction with Police Presence 5.2. Seeing Uniformed Police Presence and Feelings of Safety Personal Security Force-wide 6.2. Divisions & Sub-divisions 6.3. Demographic Groups Awareness of and Contact with BTP Awareness of BTP 7.2. Contact with BTP BTP Performance Performance 8.2. Confidence Further Analysis Safety and Police Presence 9.2. Differences in Responses from Different Demographic Groups What can BTP Do? A Thematic Analysis of Free-text Comments Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusion Recommendations 32

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY British Transport Police (BTP) conducted a Public Consultation in autumn 2017, to identify what matters most to people while travelling or working on the rail network. The consultation examined what the travelling public consider to be their top policing priorities for us in 2018/19; their feelings of personal safety; their awareness and perceptions of BTP and perception of police presence on the rail network. It also provided the public with an opportunity to tell us how we can make them feel safer on the railway. Our 2017 Public Consultation was carried out from 26 September to 10 November. Freepost survey cards were distributed by BTP employees at rail stations across England, Scotland and Wales. The survey was also made available online. A total of 5,562 valid responses were collected and analysed. A summary of findings from the survey are as follows: The highest number of responses relate to B-division (47.3%), followed by 46.5% for C- division with the remaining 6.2% responses from D-division (See map on page 5 for Divisions). Terrorism is identified as the top policing priority, followed by Anti-social behaviour, Violent Crime and Sexual Offences. Protecting vulnerable children and adults and Suicide prevention appear as the fifth and sixth priorities respectively. There is some variation to this order at divisional and sub-divisional levels. Almost half of responses (44.2%) referred to being satisfied with the level of police presence on the train at either one or both rail stations on the respondent s rail journey, compared to 25% of responses referring to being dissatisfied with the level of police presence. The majority of respondents (83.1%) said that seeing a police officer while using the rail network makes them feel safer, while a minority (1.9%) said they would feel less safe when they see a police officer. Seven percent respondents said they haven t seen any police presence. The majority of responses (76.3%) had a positive rating in response to the personal security question relating to one or both rail stations of the passenger s rail journey, either as very good (30.1%) or fairly good (46.2%). This is an encouraging finding, as it is an increase from 2016 and 2015 findings. Less than half of the responses (43.0%) to the question have you worried about personal security while using the rail network indicated that respondents had worries about their personal security while on train and/or at one or both rail stations during their rail journeys. Most respondents (89.2%) were aware, prior to this consultation, that BTP police Britain s rail network. More than half (52.5%) were also aware of our text number. Page 1 of 36

4 63.4% of respondents thought that BTP is doing an excellent/good job. This is a notable improvement from previous years 53.5% in 2015 and 55.4% in A further 27.2% thought that BTP is doing a fair job compared to a minority of 9.4% who thought we are doing a poor/ very poor job. In response to the question to what extent do you agree that you have confidence in us to police the rail network, the vast majority of respondents (72.8%) agree that they have confidence in BTP to police Britain s rail network, compared to 9.2% who disagree. Further analysis suggests that improving satisfaction with police presence might also increase people s feeling of personal security. Analysis also suggests that improving people s satisfaction with police presence during their journey might make them think BTP is doing a better job. In addition, the more people were satisfied with police presence the more they agreed to having confidence in BTP to police the rail network. Results showed that female respondents - compared to males were more likely to say they have had worries about their personal security while using the rail network in the past 12 months. However, females were less likely to have reported a crime to BTP in the past year than male respondents. Thematic analysis of free-text responses revealed the following overarching themes: visible police presence at stations and on trains; armed policing to deal with terrorism; improving the station and train environment; quicker response from BTP; improved communication and better engagement with passengers; and more collaboration with other agencies. Recommendations have been made in this report on how we can improve on issues identified by people to make them feel safer while using the rail network. Page 2 of 36

5 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the detailed findings from our 2017 Public Consultation Survey Railway Policing: What Matters to You. The purpose of the consultation exercise was to identify policing priorities that matter most to the travelling public when using or working on the rail network. The consultation also examined public awareness and perceptions of BTP and their perception of our police presence. It further provided people with an opportunity to tell us how we can help them feel safer while on the rail network. It was a great opportunity for us to improve engagement with the rail passengers and rail staff, which may further raise public awareness and confidence in BTP. The 2017 Public Consultation was conducted between 26 September and 10 November, during which BTP employees, including police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers, distributed freepost survey cards to the public at rail stations across England, Scotland and Wales. The survey was also made available to complete online and was advertised at major stations on social media and other media channels. A total of 5,562 valid responses were collected and findings from analysis are presented in this report. Page 3 of 36

6 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Questionnaire Design The 2017 Public Consultation was to gather passenger and rail staff perceptions of BTP in order to inform decisions regarding future policing plans. The survey aimed to identify the policing priorities for 2018/19 that matter the most to the people when using or working on the railway. Respondents in previous BTP Public Consultations (2014, 2015, and 2016) had consistently chosen Increase general visibility and Greater police presence in the evening and at night as their top two priorities. This year s consultation included separate questions in relation to passenger personal security and their perception of police presence, in order to understand further the public s concerns in these areas. Meanwhile, priorities in relation to police visibility and presence were removed from the list of policing priorities. The three new questions in relation to personal security and police presence included are: Thinking about the past 12 months, have you worried about your personal security while using the rail network? How satisfied are you with the level of police presence on your rail journey? 1 How does seeing a uniformed police presence when using the rail network make you feel? Furthermore, a fourth new question was included to ask about public confidence in us to police the rail network; this question is intended to help us explore how the public s feelings of safety and perception and experience of police presence might impact on overall public confidence in BTP and perceptions of our performance. The travelling public were also asked about their reporting behaviour as well as their awareness of the text service. See Appendix 1 for the questions used in the survey Survey Distribution During the survey period, BTP employees (such as police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers) distributed approximately 70,000 freepost survey cards at rail stations across England, Scotland and Wales. Welsh language versions and easy read versions of the survey were also made available to ensure inclusiveness of the survey. The survey could also be completed online. It was advertised via a variety of social media platforms and other media channels such as Rail News. It was also circulated by Safer Travel Group and our Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs). 1 Research suggests that while police patrol has the function of citizen reassurance, the assumption that more and more visible officers are always better would need to be questioned, especially at a time of fiscal restraint Page 4 of 36

7 3. RESPONSES A total of 5,581 responses were received from 2017 Public Consultation, of which 5,562 were valid responses 2. Thus, this report is based on the analysis of those 5,562 valid responses. Where appropriate, e.g. demographic and questions on perception of BTP performance, analysis was conducted at respondent-level. This section presents the number of responses in relation to each geographical areas and demographic information of respondents Geography Consistent with previous surveys, nearly half of the responses (47.3%) relate to rail stations within B- division, with C-division following closely behind at 46.4% and the remaining 6.2% of responses refer to D-division. Within B-division, the number of responses is similar for North and South sub-divisions. For C-division, most responses are in relation to Midland sub-division, followed equally by both Pennine and Western subdivisions, and with the remaining responses referring to Wales sub-division. : 344 (6.2%) : 2,585 (46.4%) : 746 (13.4%) : 919 (16.5%) : 190 (3.4%) : 730 (13.1%) : 2,633 (47.4%) : 1,377 (24.8%) : 1,256 (22.6%) 3.2. Purpose of Journey 2 Nineteen respondents were excluded due to lack of information on their local rail stations. Page 5 of 36

8 Since the 2016 public consultation we have been asking the travelling public what the main purpose of using their local rail station is, in order to explore whether there are any differences in policing priorities for rail passenger with different journey purposes. A breakdown of respondents purpose of journey is presented below: Commuting 49% Leisure 34% Rail Staff 7% Other 1% Company Business 6% Personal Business 3% (Based on 4,254 respondents) Other purpose includes; photography, train spotter, voluntary work, rail enthusiast, and Heritage Rail staff Gender Just under half of respondents (47.3%) are males and 41.6% are females, this is followed by 0.5% of respondents who identify as transgender and 0.3% who identify as other (non-binary gender). 10% of respondents did not provide an answer to this question. 47.3% 41.6% 0.5% 0.3% 10.3% (Based on 4,254 respondents) Page 6 of 36

9 3.4. Age As the following diagram shows there was an almost symmetrical age-distribution with the maximum number of respondents in the two middle age-groups (35-54). Nearly 10% of respondents did not provide information on their age. 18.9% 16% 15.2% 14.9% 11.1% 9.4% 2.4% 2.4% Under (Based on 4,254 respondents) 3.5. Disability 79% of respondents to this survey did not consider themselves to have a disability compared to 9% who did. 12% of respondents did not provide an answer to this question Ethnicity The majority of the respondents were White (75%), followed by Asian (4%), Black (3%), Mixed (2%) and Other (1%). 15% did not provide information on their ethnicity. Prefer not to say 15% Asian 4% Black 3% White 75% Mixed 2% Other 1% (Based on 4,254 respondents) Page 7 of 36

10 3.7. Religion 42% of respondents were Christian followed by no religion (35%). 1.9% of respondents wee Muslim, followed by Other (1.5%), Hindu (1.2%), Buddhist (0.7%), Jewish (0.6%) and Sikh (0.5%). The remaining 17% skipped this question Sexual Orientation 20% of respondents did not provide information on their sexual orientation. For those who did, the majority were Heterosexual (68%), followed by Gay/Lesbian (5%), Bisexual (4%), and Other (2%). Page 8 of 36

11 4. POLICING PRIORITIES To help us understand what matters when using or working on the rail network, respondents were asked to select what they thought should be the top three policing priorities from a list of 19 (see Appendix 1 for questionnaire). The findings from this will help to inform our policing plans for 2018/19 by highlighting the areas on which people think we should focus our resources. As each response to the survey could include up to three priorities, the percentages in the charts within this section represents the proportion of total valid responses that have included each priority. For example, 1,417 responses identified sexual offences as one of the top three priorities, which is equivalent to 25.5% of total valid responses of 5,562. Therefore, the sum of all percentages does not equal 100% Force-wide 58.8% of respondents selected terrorism as one of their top three policing priorities. The next three areas respondents want us to prioritise for are: anti-social behaviour, violent crime and sexual offences. Respondents prioritised shoplifting as the lowest this year; this is consistent for across all divisions (58.8%) 2270 (40.8%) (27.1%) (25.5%) (16.8%) (15.6%) (14.4%)(13.6%) (13.6%) 549 (11.7%) (9.9%) 528 (9.5%) 488 (8.8%) 417 (7.5%) 297 (5.3%) 170 (3.1%) 78 (1.4%) 38 (0.7%) 156 (2.8%) Respondents were allowed to specify what they think BTP s policing priorities should be under the Other option. Some of the responses include: robbery, dangerous parking outside stations, rapid Page 9 of 36

12 response to incidents on trains and gang-related crimes. In addition, a large number of respondents also mentioned that it was difficult to select only three priorities, in their opinion all of these should be priorities for BTP Divisions The top three policing priorities selected by respondents are similar across England, Scotland and Wales. These are listed in priority for each division below. D Priority D-division 1 Terrorism 2 Antisocial behaviour 3 Violent Crime 4 Disorder related to football or other sporting events 5 Staff assaults 6 Crime-related disruption 7 Sexual Offences 8 Suicide prevention 9 Protecting vulnerable children and adults 10 Hate crime C Priority C-division 1 Terrorism 2 Antisocial behaviour 3 Violent Crime 4 Sexual Offences 5 Protecting vulnerable children and adults 6 Suicide prevention 7 Crime-related disruption 8 Hate crime 9 Staff assaults 10 Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti B Priority B-division 1 Terrorism 2 Antisocial behaviour 3 Violent Crime 4 Sexual Offences 5 Protecting vulnerable children and adults 6 Suicide prevention 7 Hate crime 8 Staff assaults 9 Crime-related disruption 10 Theft of personal property Page 10 of 36

13 4.3. Sub-Divisions When analysed further at sub-division level, differences emerge in the top policing priorities as illustrated below B Sub-divisions Priority B-North B-South 1 Terrorism Terrorism 2 Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour 3 Violent Crime Violent Crime 4 Sexual Offences Sexual Offences 5 Protecting vulnerable children and adults Protecting vulnerable children and adults 6 Suicide prevention Suicide prevention 7 Hate crime Hate crime 8 Staff assaults Staff assaults 9 Crime-related disruption Crime-related disruption 10 Theft of personal property Theft of personal property C Sub-divisions The four sub-divisions in C-division have slightly different priorities when compared to force-wide priorities (see the table below). Priority C-Midlands C-Pennine C-Western C-Wales 1 Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism 2 Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour 3 Sexual Offences Violent Crime Violent Crime Sexual Offences 4 Violent Crime Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Crime-related disruption 5 Crime-related disruption Protecting vulnerable children and adults Suicide prevention 6 Suicide prevention Hate crime Protecting vulnerable children and adults Violent Crime Protecting vulnerable children and adults 7 Hate crime Staff assaults Staff assaults Suicide prevention 8 Protecting vulnerable children and adults 9 Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti Suicide prevention 10 Staff assaults Disorder related to football or other sporting events Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti Crime-related disruption Hate crime Drug dealing and using Staff assaults Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti Page 11 of 36

14 4.4. Demographic groups We conducted further analysis to understand better what mattered to different demographic groups when using the rail network. This sub-section highlights key findings in regards to policing priorities. Full statistical information is available on request Purpose of Journey There are notable differences in policing priorities as identified by respondents based on their purpose of journey. Consistent with the previous findings, rail staff respondents identify staff assaults as their top priority and ticket fraud as one of their top five policing priorities (see below table). Terrorism, antisocial behaviour, violent crime and sexual offences are the top four priorities for three groups: Commuting, Leisure and Personal Business, albeit in slightly different orders. Respondents making their journey for company business identify disorder related to football or other sporting events as their fourth priority. Priority Commuting Leisure Personal Business Company Business Rail Staff 1 Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism Staff assaults 2 Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Violent Crime 3 Violent Crime Violent Crime Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Violent Crime 4 Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Disorder related to football or other sporting events 5 Suicide prevention Protecting vulnerable children and adults Protecting vulnerable children and adults Staff assaults Terrorism Antisocial behaviour Violent Crime Ticket fraud Gender Both female and male respondents identified the same top four policing priorities (Terrorism, antisocial behaviour, violent crime and sexual offences), though in slightly different orders. Females considered sexual offences a higher policing priority than violent crime when compared to males. Dealing with staff assaults and crime-related disruption was of higher priority for males than females. Although the number of respondents who identified themselves as Other (non-binary gender) or Transgender were much smaller than male and female respondents, their difference in policing priorities were notable: Sexual offence was the top priority for Other (non-binary gender), while hate Page 12 of 36

15 crime appears in the top five priorities for both Transgender and Other (non-binary gender) respondents. However, the small sample size of these group warrants caution in interpreting results Ethnic Group There were some interesting findings in relation to policing priorities of different ethnic groups. Terrorism was the top priority for all ethnic groups, except Other for whom antisocial behaviour is the first priority. The most notable difference was the inclusion of hate crime in the top five priorities by black and minority ethnic (BME) groups (see table below). Priority Asian Black Mixed White Other 1 Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism Antisocial behaviour 2 Antisocial behaviour Hate crime 3 Hate crime Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Violent Crime Terrorism 4 Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Violent Crime Sexual Offences Violent Crime 5 Violent Crime Violent Crime Hate crime Protecting vulnerable children and adults Hate crime Disability There were no differences in the top five priorities between respondents who consider themselves to have a disability and respondents who do not. For those who considered themselves to have a disability, disorder related to football or other sporting events was of a higher priority than those who did not consider themselves to have a disability. Page 13 of 36

16 5. POLICE PRESENCE This year s consultation included new questions to explore police presence and passengers feelings of safety. Respondents were asked How satisfied you are with the level of police presence on your rail journey? and How does seeing a uniformed police presence when using the rail network make you feel? 5.1. Satisfaction with Police Presence Almost half of the responses revealed satisfaction (14.5% very satisfied and 29.7% fairly satisfied) with the level of police presence on train journeys, while a quarter (25.3%) was dissatisfied. As shown in the chart below, a large number of responses (30%) are neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied. Further analysis into the relationship between satisfaction with police presence and other variables in the survey has been carried out in Section 9. How satisfied are you with the level of police presence on your rail journey? 14.5% 29.7% 30.4% 14.4% 10.9% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied (Based on 5,068 responses) Analysis has also been done to breakdown satisfaction with police presence by divisions and subdivisions. Table below summarises the results. Very/ Fairly Satisfied Neither Satisfied/Dissatisfied Fairly/ Very Dissatisfied Total number of responses B-North 44.1% 30.1% 25.8% 1271 B-South 36.8% 32.8% 30.4% 1130 B-Total 40.7% 31.4% 27.9% 2401 C-Midland 50.6% 27.6% 21.8% 848 C-Pennine 44.2% 29.0% 26.8% 683 C-Western 48.7% 32.4% 18.9% 661 C-Wales 35.7% 36.9% 27.4% 168 C-Total 47.2% 30.0% 22.8% 2360 D-Scotland 50.2% 26.4% 23.4% 307 Total 44.3% 30.4% 25.3% 5068 As noted in the table, the largest percentage of responses referring to being satisfied with the level of police presence experienced is in D-division (50.2%), in comparison to the two other divisions (47.2% for C and for 40.7% for B). At the sub-division level, the highest proportion of satisfied responses was noted in C-Midland and C-Western rail stations. Page 14 of 36

17 5.2. Seeing Uniformed Police Presence and Feelings of Safety Respondents were asked whether seeing a uniformed police presence when using the rail network made them feel safer or less safe. The majority of respondents (83%) said they felt safer seeing a uniformed police officer. 74 (1.9%) of the 3,964 respondents who answered this question, however, felt less safe when seeing a uniformed officer on their rail journeys. Despite the small number, further analysis was conducted, using the free-text comments to see whether this feeling was related to police presence in general or a specific type of police presence, such as armed police. While a few of these 74 respondents said their feeling related to only armed police officers, many said that more police presence would make them feel safer. Therefore, there appears to be a degree of inconsistency in the response of this 1.9%. How does seeing a uniformed police presence when using the rail network make you feel? 83.0% 8.2% 6.9% 1.9% Safer No difference in how I feel Less safe Haven't seen any police presence (Based on 3,964 respondents) The geographical distribution of this response is further explored in the following table, showing divisional and sub-division analysis on this question. Safer No difference in how I feel Less safe Haven't seen any police presence B-North 81.8% 10.4% 1.3% 6.5% 845 B-South 84.2% 6.1% 2.2% 7.5% 871 B-Total 83.1% 8.3% 1.7% 6.9% 1,716 C-Midland 84.4% 8.6% 1.5% 5.5% 713 C-Pennine 84.5% 7.7% 1.8% 6.0% 561 C-Western 78.5% 9.7% 3.5% 8.3% 577 C-Wales 84.4% 3.4% 0.6% 11.6% 147 C-Total 82.7% 8.3% 2.1% 6.9% 1,998 D-Scotland 85.6% 7.6% 0.8% 6.0% 250 Total 83.0% 8.2% 1.9% 6.9% 3,964 Total Page 15 of 36

18 6. PERSONAL SECURITY Since 2015, our annual consultation has been asking the travelling public to rate their personal security while using the railway network; the same question was also included this year to allow for year-on-year comparison. Respondents were further asked if they had worried about their personal security while using the rail network and if they did, then what the reason for concern was Personal Security: Force wide 76.3% of the travelling public have a positive rating in response to the personal security question relating to one or both rail stations of their journey, as either very good (30.1%) or fairly good (46.2%). This is a very encouraging finding, as it is an increase from 2016 and 2015, as noted in the adjoining diagram. While 15.7% of responses had a neutral rating of neither good nor poor, 8% of responses had a negative rating of either very poor (2.6%) or fairly poor (5.4%). 71% Trend: Personal Security Rating (Very / Fairly good) 66% 76% How would you rate your personal security while using the rail network? 30.1% 46.2% 15.7% 5.4% 2.6% Very good Fairly good Neither good nor poor Fairly poor Very poor (Based on 5,319 responses) Less than half of responses (43%) to the question have you worried about personal security while using the rail network indicated that respondents had worries about their personal security while on board and/or at rail stations during their rail journeys. Have you worried about personal security using the rail network in the past 12 months No 57% Yes 43% Some of the reasons for concern included drunks, antisocial behaviour, overcrowding, risk of terror attack, sexual offences and harassment, lack of police presence, football fans, aggressive passengers, lone travelling at night and poor lighting. It is interesting to note that many of these concerns reflect the list of policing priorities in Section 4. (Based on 5,319 responses) Page 16 of 36

19 6.2. Personal Security: Divisions & Sub-divisions Divisions There was a slightly higher percentage of positive personal security from responses where either one or both rail stations of the passenger s rail journey is in D-division, compared to other divisions. This is Positive personal security rating: Divisional Trend B 70.2% 63.9% 74.4% C 72.9% 67.6% 77.7% D 71.0% 71.8% 79.2% an encouraging finding, as positive ratings for D-division locations have increased notably since Increase is also evidenced at B- and C-divisions, as shown in the table above. The diagram below shows the divisional breakdowns on personal security in Personal security while using rail network (2017): Divisions B 74.4% 16.5% 9.0% (Based on 2,497 responses) C 77.7% 15.0% 7.3% D 79.2% (Based on 2,495 responses) 14.7% 6.1% (Based on 327 responses) Very good/ Fairly good Neither Good/Poor Fairly Poor / Very Poor B C D If worried about personal security: Divisions 47.2% 52.8% (Based on 2,497 responses) 39.2% 60.8% (Based on 2,495 responses) 39.4% 60.6% (Based on 327 responses) Yes No In response to the question whether respondents had become worried about personal security in the past 12 months, more respondents from C and D divisions have said no than those from B-division. Thematic analysis of free-text responses was conducted to find out reasons for concern for respondents. The top five reasons for concern for the three divisions are listed in the table below. It is interesting to note that these are reflective of the policing priorities in Section B Drunk and disorderly Fear of terrorist attack No police/staff around Anti-social behaviour Travelling alone at night C Drunk and disorderly Fear of terrorist attack No police/staff around Anti-social behaviour Abusive/aggressive passengers D Drunk and disorderly Abusive/aggressive passengers Anti-social behaviour Fear of terrorist attack No police/staff around Page 17 of 36

20 Sub-divisions While the increase in the positive personal security rating evidenced at divisional level is also mostly reflected at sub-divisional level apart from Wales, some sub-divisions have seen a slightly larger increase than others, such as Pennine and Western. It should be noted that change in sub-divisional structure within B-division in 2017 means that direct comparison cannot be made with previous years. The diagram below breaks down sub-divisional results on personal security in Positive personal security rating: Sub-divisional Trend B-South 68.8% 59.5% 72.6% B-North/East 67.2% 65.9% 76.1% B-TfL 71.6% 66.0% N/A C-Midland 72.2% 68.2% 79.2% C-Pennine 66.4% 65.3% 74.1% C-Wales 79.4% 64.3% 77.2% C-Western 71.0% 78.9% 79.5% Personal security while using rail network (2017): Sub-divisions B-South 72.6% 18.3% 9.1% (Based on 1,182 responses) B-North 76.1% 15.0% 8.9% (Based on 1,315 responses) C-Midland 79.2% 14.5% 6.3% (Based on 891 responses) C-Pennine 74.1% 16.4% 9.5% (Based on 707 responses) C-Wales 77.2% 17.8% 5.0% (Based on 180 responses) C-Western 79.5% 13.7% 6.8% (Based on 717 responses) Very good/ Fairly good Neither Good/Poor Fairly Poor / Very Poor South North Midland Pennine Western If worried about personal security: Sub-divisions 49.4% 50.6% (Based on 1,182 responses) 45.2% 54.8% (Based on 1,315 responses) 36.7% 63.3% (Based on 891 responses) 42.4% 57.6% (Based on 707 responses) 37.1% 62.9% The adjoining diagram shows responses to the question if worried about personal security in the past 12 months broken down at sub-divisional level. The highest proportion of respondents saying yes were from B-South (49.4%), while the Wales 47.2% (Based on 180 responses) 52.8% Yes No (Based on 717 responses) Page 18 of 36

21 lowest are from C-Midland (36.7%) Demographic Groups Further analysis was carried out to understand whether feelings of personal security using the rail network varied due to demographic factors. Key findings are discussed below. Full statistical information can be provided on request Purpose of Journey There were notable differences in personal security of respondents based on their purpose of journey. However, consistent with the findings from 2016, a smaller proportion of rail staff respondents rated their personal security positively compared to other travel groups. About half of all rail staff respondents this year (51.3%) rated their personal security as positively, which is lower in proportion than the other travel groups: Commuting 77.1%, Leisure 78.7%, Personal Business 82.9%, and Company Business 85.2% Gender Larger proportions of female respondents (79%) rated their personal security positively than male respondents (75.9%), while 8.8% of male respondents rated their personal security negatively compared to 6% of female respondents. This is followed by 69.6% of transgender respondents and 50% of respondents who are other (non-binary gender). The small sample size of transgender and other respondents warrants caution in interpretation of results about these groups Age-groups A higher proportion of respondents in the older age groups rated their personal security more positively than respondents in the lower age groups. Respondents in the age group 75+ had the highest feeling of personal security (very good/ good: 87.5%), followed by those in the age group (82.3%). Approximately 9.0% of the respondents aged and rated their personal security as very poor/ poor compared to a lower proportion of negative ratings within other age groups Ethnic Group Page 19 of 36

22 In relation to the feeling of personal security by different ethnic groups, the highest rating of personal security was from White (78.9%), followed by Black (74.6%), Mixed (69.1%), Asian (67.8%) and Other (63%) groups. On the other hand, a higher proportion of white respondents rated their personal security negatively (very poor/ poor: 6.6%) than the BME respondents Disability Respondents with a disability reported less positive feelings (very good/ good: 68.6%) about their personal security than respondents who did not consider themselves as disabled (very good/ good: 77.9%). Further analysis was conducted to see if people with a disability had reasons to worry about their personal security in the past year. Some of the reasons for their concern included: drunk and aggressive passengers, travelling without assistance, overcrowding and antisocial behaviour. Page 20 of 36

23 7. AWARENESS OF AND CONTACT WITH BTP This survey was an opportunity for us to evaluate our service to the public by exploring public awareness of BTP. Prior to completing the survey, respondents were asked if they were aware, that BTP is the specialist national police force for the rail network and if they were aware of our text service for reporting non-emergency incidents. For the first time in this year s public consultation, we also wanted to explore people s contact with BTP by ways of reporting crime in the prior 12 months Awareness of BTP An overwhelming majority of respondents (89.2%) were aware prior to the survey - that BTP police Britain s rail network. This proportion is an increase from 2015 when 86.5% of respondents then had said they were aware of our role in policing the railway. Approximately 400 respondents (10.8%) did not know - before taking part in this year survey - that the rail network is policed by BTP. Aware of BTP prior to the survey Aware of text service (Based on 4,018 respondents) In terms of people s awareness of the text service to report non-emergency incidents to BTP, an encouraging picture emerges. As demonstrated in the above diagram, over half the respondents this year were aware of the text service; this is a notable improvement from previous years 33.7% in 2015 and 46.6% in Contact with BTP When asked about their contact with BTP in the prior 12 months by way of reporting crime, 12.5% respondents said they had reported a crime to BTP in that time period. The vast majority (87.5%) of respondents had not reported a crime to BTP in the past year. In order to understand the reporting behaviour of the travelling public, further analysis was conducted to examine the associations between reporting behaviour and a number of variables, including personal security rating, reported worries about personal security and demographics of respondents. This is reported in Section 9. Page 21 of 36

24 8. BTP PERFORMANCE Three questions in the consultation were used to understand the perception of the travelling public on BTP s performance in policing Britain s rail network. One of these focused on satisfaction with the level of BTP s presence as already discussed in Section 5. The second question asked respondents how good a job they think BTP is doing in policing the rail network. This year we also included a question to find out the level of confidence people had in BTP to police the rail network. The findings from these are discussed in this section Performance Analysis of this question revealed very encouraging findings 63.4% of respondents said that BTP is doing an excellent/good job; this is a notable improvement from previous years 53.5% in 2015 and 55.4% in A further 27.2% said that BTP is doing a fair job compared to a minority of 9.4% who think we are doing a poor/ very poor job. 53.5% Percentage of respondents who think BTP is doing an excellent/good Job 55.4% 63.4% How good a job do you think we are doing in policing the rail network? 18.6% 44.8% 27.2% 6.0% 3.4% Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor (Based on 3,926 respondents) 8.2. Confidence The vast majority of respondents (73%) agreed that they have confidence in BTP to police the rail network, compared to 9% who disagreed. Divisional comparison reveals that higher proportion of respondents in D-division (77.4%) agreed that they have confidence in BTP to police the rail network, compared to 70.7% in B-division and 74.1% in C-division. To what extent do you agree that you have confidence in BTP to police the rail network? 26% 47% 18% 5% 4% (Based on 3,926 respondents) Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Page 22 of 36

25 9. FURTHER ANALYSIS This section further explores the relationship between respondents perceptions and experiences of safety and police visibility and their confidence in, and perception of BTP. It also examines the significance in differences of responses to questions by different demographic groups. Tests of correlations and test of associations were conducted to answer these questions. The findings are presented in this section Safety and Police Presence Correlation analysis reveals a statistically significant 3, positive 4 and moderate 5 relationship between respondents satisfaction with police presence and their ratings of personal security while using the rail network. This suggests that improving satisfaction with police presence may also increase people s feeling of personal security, and vice versa. Satisfaction with police presence also has a statistically significant, positive and strong relationship with both respondents perception of BTP performance and their confidence in BTP. This indicates that improving travelling public s satisfaction with police presence on their journey might make them think that BTP is doing a better job and have more confidence in BTP to police the rail network, and vice versa. Similar, but slightly weaker relationship with respondents perception of BTP performance and their confidence in BTP was also found for respondents personal security rating. Identifying ways to improve travelling public s feelings of personal security might therefore have a positive influence on their perception of and confidence in BTP Differences in Responses from Different Demographic Groups A series of tests of associations were conducted to identify key differences in responses to the survey from different demographic groups. This analytical exercise intends to help BTP understand if and where differences in concerns between demographic groups lie, which could help inform and tailor our policing plans to target these concerns. Female respondents were more likely to say they had worries about their personal security while using the rail network in the past 12 months than male respondents. However, they are also less likely to have reported a crime to BTP in the past 12 months than male respondents. This finding warrants attention as it suggests more can be done to improve female reporting and their feelings of personal security. 3 At level, meaning this holds true for 99 out of 100 occurrences 4 One increases with the other, and vice versa 5 Strength of statistical correlation - value ranges from 0 to +/- 1, where is low, is moderate and is high Page 23 of 36

26 10. WHAT CAN BTP DO? A Thematic Analysis of Free-Text Comments In order to gain a deeper understanding of people s concerns about their personal security while using the rail network and how BTP could help, Q14 asked the travelling public what could we do to make you feel safer on your rail journey? A thematic analysis of the free-text responses to this question was conducted; thematic analysis is a qualitative research method used to identify and examine themes within data. Widely regarded to be the most useful technique to capture true meaning within a textual data set, it is a step beyond counting explicit words or phrases and looks to describe both implicit and explicit ideas that are being presented, developing codes and overarching themes to analyse patterns. Almost 3000 free-text responses were received and the following themes emerged: Visible Presence of Officers and Staff at Stations and on Trains More than 70% of the free-text comments are about enhanced presence of BTP officers and rail staff both at stations and on-board trains. Presence is the greatest deterrent More uniformed BTP officers on patrol, though I do recognise that this is not the only indicator that the BTP is at work keeping people safe Have a greater presence at train stations, especially evenings and nights While a majority of these comments are about police presence at stations, a large number of respondents this year have mentioned about BTP officers patrolling smaller or rural stations. A considerable number of respondents have said that officers both in uniform and plain clothes - travelling on board will make them feel safer. More of a presence on quieter journe often these seem less safe - when it' crowded at least there are people to loo for each other Be present on random journeys, as we for football & events Page 24 of 36

27 One of the key findings in this year s free-text comments are about increased visibility, however, many respondents have talked about their awareness of limited funding/resources available to BTP. I think you're doing your best with lim resources; if additional resources we available then it would be great to see even bigger police presence on all line Get trains operating companies to actually get 'guards' to walk through trains Some participants also have suggested that the train operating companies (TOCs) need to provide reassurance to passengers through visible presence of their staff, train guards and conductors. Overall, a vast majority of respondents suggested that a regular police presence does give them a sense of safety, particularly during late evenings and at night. However, many of them also appreciated that BTP is responsible for policing a massive network and that they can't be everywhere all the time Armed Police and Dogs Dealing with the Terrorist Threat As noted in Section 4, terrorism is identified as the biggest priority for BTP by respondents irrespective of their location and demographic characteristics. This has been reflected in the free-text comments about what would make them feel safer. Armed officers at all major stations and regular patrols on the train by armed officers. Sniffer dogs on trains much more frequently - there is little chance of a uniformed PC detecting a terrorist bomb but dogs can More security checks, bag searches etc. Make it clear why armed police are present to prevent worrying, either during or after the event. Some others, however, have mentioned that the presence of armed officers actually makes them feel less safe. Others suggested random security checks and bag searches. Page 25 of 36

28 10.3. Improved Station and Train Environment Previous research suggests that there is an association between improved physical environment, e.g. lighting and people s perception of safety. Respondents in this survey mentioned that better lighting, more CCTV and cleaner stations will make them feel safer. Improving local stations facilities such as better lighting and design Better CCTV coverage on trains accessible staff on trains in case of emergency More Enforcement Many respondents talked about the need for BTP officers taking stricter measures so as to deal with trouble-makers at stations and on trains. Do more to prevent/deter aggressive beggars and homeless at major stations Stop drunks, unruly youths and dirty people boarding the train Deal with drunks and antisocial conduct on trains Some of the suggested measures included dealing with drunks, enforcing an alcohol ban on trains and moving beggars and rough sleepers from the stations premises More Communication and Publicity Similar to previous consultations, many respondents in this survey pointed out their need for more communication and publicity from BTP, especially about our role in policing the railway and how we could help should people need it. Respondents have talked about encouraging people by way of posters and announcements to be more vigilant and provide intelligence to police. Publicise success stories so we are more aware of what you do and the powers you have A Poster with your text and phone numbers around each station An app to report concerns that allows hotspots / patterns to emerge Page 26 of 36

29 Remove premium message rate from Change the see it say it sorted message so it indicates that contacting the police out of kindness and concern for vulnerable people is just as important as contacting them out of fear People talked about making the text message number more obvious to the travelling public by way of displaying it more. A few expressed their discomfort with the See it, say it, sorted message. Some respondents have emphasised the need for a panic button or emergency phone on platforms to call directly to BTP Better Engagement with the Public In addition to the need to improve communication with passengers, noted above, improving interactions with the travelling public is mentioned. Respondents expressed a desire to see an increased level of engagement from BTP officers. A considerable number of respondents noted the reassurance they believe could be provided through positive interaction with officers. Some also have highlighted the potential benefits of just giving a smile to passers-by when officers are out on their patrol. Smile! Approach and make conversations with people, especially those standing or sitting alone - they might need help and be too scared to ask or might be lonely Be little more friendly; I think when the public see a BTP officer, they feel like something is about to happen or has happened. Officers being more approachable or proactive in saying "hello" might ease some fears Working in Partnership with TOCs and Others Many of the themes identified require partnership working with train operators, Network Rail and other stakeholders involved in the railway industry to keep people feeling safer. Many respondents in this year s public consultation highlighted that fixing some of the major issues faced by the travelling public are, in fact, not solely down to BTP, but a matter for Liaise with train companies to gain improved staffing levels. Also encourage ban on the sale of alcohol on trains Closer working with Revenue Protection teams Overcrowding on trains make me feel vulnerable; however don t think that s your problem! Page 27 of 36

30 a collaborative effort. Some of the suggestions from the public include more carriages, an increase in staffing at stations and improved facilities and overall environment at stations including the installation of (improved) cycle storage facilities, ticket barriers, panic buttons/help points and functioning CCTV. Work with other organisations such as 'Tell MAMA' and community groups to crack down on gangs and drug dealers. BTP cannot do this alone. It needs the train guards to patrol the carriages and a proper advertising campaign to raise public awareness Some respondents also noted that they hope to see more collaborative efforts between BTP and other security authorities and personnel to improve their personal security while using the rail network. In particular, the potential benefits of joint operations with local police forces, e.g. the Metropolitan Police in London are mentioned. This includes liaising with local forces to ensure stations and surrounding areas (e.g. car parks) are free from crime and antisocial behaviour. Page 28 of 36

31 10.8. Quicker Response and Improved Performance Some respondents in their free-text comments emphasised the need for an improved performance in certain aspects of BTP. They told us that if they felt BTP would respond to reported incidents in a timely, efficient and professional manner that would make them feel safer. Others, particularly rail staff respondents, have mentioned that BTP should be quicker in responding to an incident. Others discussed keeping victims of crime more updated in terms of the actions taken and giving feedback to people who have reported a crime. Quicker response to incidents Improve your response time and act more on fare dodgers The lost and found department should do better. There is no way of contacting train staff after getting down Improve my confidence after a crime has been committed Already Feeing Safe and Praise for BTP Consistent with the previous year s surveys, many respondents irrespective of their demographics have said that they already felt safe while using the rail network and, therefore do not have anything else to suggest. Nothing - already feel very safe Nothing to suggest; I don t often feel unsafe on trains; and there is not much you could feasibly do to improve things Have felt safe and protected for 50 years by transport police providing security I can't think of anything, you are ace! Crime is rife and there just aren t enough resources to fight it. So just keep doing your best because you already know what needs doing to keep us safe on the railway Keep doing all you can. You have finite resources but all is appreciated by the vast majority of the public. Keep safe! Thank you. Finally, as with the past three year s consultations, some respondents had praise for BTP officers for the good work in protecting Britain s rail network. Many appreciate the difficult nature of the job at hand. Page 29 of 36

32 11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The aim of this Public Consultation was to gather passenger and rail staff perceptions of BTP in order to inform decisions regarding our future policing plans. The feedback gathered from this consultation provided BTP with a good understanding of what matters to the public whilst travelling or working on the rail network and offers some useful insights into how to make people feel safer and more confident. More than 5,500 valid responses were collected and analysed. To recap, some of the key findings from this survey are: Terrorism identified by the public as the top policing priority, followed by Anti-social behaviour, Violent Crime and Sexual Offences. Protecting vulnerable children and adults and Suicide prevention appear as the fifth and sixth key priorities respectively. There were some variations to this order at divisional and sub-divisional levels. 44.2% of respondents were satisfied with the level of police presence on the train, or at either one or both rail stations on the respondent s journey, compared to 25% of responses referring to being dissatisfied with the level of police presence. 83% of respondents said that seeing an officer while using the rail network makes them feel safer. A minority of 2% said they would feel less safe when they see an officer. 7% say they haven t seen any police presence. 76.3% had a positive rating in response to the personal security question relating to one or both rail stations of the passenger s rail journey, either as very good (30.1%) or fairly good (46.2%). This is an increase from 2016 and 2015 findings. Less than half of the responses (43%) to the question Have you worried about personal security while using the rail network? indicated that respondents had worries about their personal security while on a train and/or at one or both rail stations during their journey. For those answering yes, some of the concerns for worrying about personal security included: drunk and disorderly, anti-social behaviour, overcrowding, risk of terror attack, sexual offences and harassment, lack of police presence, football fans, aggressive passengers and lone travelling at night. 89% were aware, prior to this consultation, that BTP police Britain s rail network. 53% were also aware of our text number. 63.4% of respondents in 2017 said that BTP is doing an excellent/good job; this is a notable improvement from previous years 53.5% in 2015 and 55.4% in A further 27.2% Page 30 of 36

33 thought that BTP is doing a fair job compared to a minority of 9.4% who thought we are doing a poor/ very poor job. In response to the question To what extent do you agree that you have confidence in us to police the rail network?, 73% of respondents agreed that they have confidence in BTP to police Britain s rail network, compared to 9% who disagreed. Analysis suggests that improving satisfaction thorough police presence may also increase people s feeling of personal security. Analysis also shows that female respondents were more likely to say they have had worries about their personal security while using the rail network in the past 12 months compared to male respondents. However, they were less likely to have had reported a crime to BTP in the past 12 months compared to male respondents. Thematic analysis of free-text responses revealed the following overarching themes: visible police presence at stations and on trains; armed policing to deal with terrorism; improving the station and train environment; quicker response from BTP; improved communication and better engagement with passengers; and more collaboration with other agencies. The Public Consultation survey provides a good opportunity for BTP to improve its engagement with the public. This engagement work is critical in helping to ensure that BTP have a good oversight on what the travelling public and rail staff want to see from BTP and helps to shape meaningful policing targets. Although the overall findings are encouraging and helpful, there is room for improvement in some areas. These are discussed in the following section Recommendations Based on the findings from 2017 the following actions are recommended as ways in which BTP could work to improve the public s feelings of safety and security while using the rail network. The recommendations broadly cover five categories: 1. Further research 2. Targeted allocation of resource 3. Improved communication and publicity 4. More engagement with the public 5. More collaborative work with partners Page 31 of 36

34 Further research This year s public consultation results in new insights around rail passenger s feelings of personal security, perception of police presence and their relationship with us. For example, rail passengers who consider they have a disability more often say they are worried about their personal security, compared to those who do not consider themselves to have a disability. Their perceived policing priorities for BTP were also different; disorder related to football or other sporting events is a higher priority for them than other respondents. Further investigations into disabled passengers perception of safety, either or both in the form of qualitative or quantitative research, can help to identify what factors influence their feelings of personal security. There is a need to follow up the findings on rail passenger s satisfaction with police presence. While some rail passengers were satisfied with the level of police presence and this satisfaction is correlated with their higher ratings of BTP in relation to performance and confidence, it is unclear what constitutes a satisfactory level of police presence; satisfactory level may also vary, depending on time or day or geographical location. Work is needed to further understand police presence and its requirement and impact, with the aim to inform our demand and resource planning. While results also revealed that seeing a uniformed police officer on the rail network makes rail passengers feel safer, some rail passengers say seeing an armed police officer would make them feel less safe; the latter is also purported frequently in the media and in academic research. Future research will need to look into the type of police presence that would increase passenger s feeling of safety and confidence in order to inform our demand and resource planning and Counter Terrorism strategy, whilst taking into consideration the terrorism threat level Allocation of resource and deployment Many rail passengers said that seeing police officers travelling on trains or patrolling a station, especially during sports events, make them feel safer. This is in line with our current deployment plan, where football and sports-related events are factored into resource planning. This finding serves as a reassurance that visible deployment at football or sports-related events not only prevent disorder, but also make rail passengers feel safer and increase their confidence in BTP. Consistent with the past years, respondents in this survey have expressed a desire to see an increased level of engagement from BTP officers. A considerable number of rail passengers noted the reassurance they believe could be provided through positive interaction of officers with the public. Such interactions could be initiated through proactive engagement from BTP officers with rail Page 32 of 36

35 passengers. A few passengers further noted the potential benefits of simply giving passengers a smile when officers are on their patrol. There might be scope to incorporate this approach, with the support of positive case studies and evidence, in officer training. These findings indicate that BTP might benefit from engaging in proactive, positive interactions with members of public while policing the railways. Making public feel safe is equally important as dealing with crime and this will help in increasing public confidence in BTP, as well as help to legitimise BTP as a police force Improved communications and publicity Findings from the survey point to the need for more promotion and publicity about BTP; many rail passengers say they would like to see more information about how to contact BTP as well as to know that BTP will respond to their reporting. It is therefore important to increase the level of public promotion of BTP s role and method of communication. Continuing the use of national days of actions to target specific issue, or use of local engagement day for area-specific concerns, would also help to reassure the travelling public of BTP s presence and our good work. Consideration to use volunteers, such as BTP cadets, in these engagement activities may also be beneficial and, at the same time, reduce demand on officers. Outcome and impact of engagement activities, such as campaigns and days of actions, should be evaluate to identity what works and learnings. Several issues around reporting have also been identified from the survey. Some rail passengers say that potential network charges discouraged them using the text service; they would receive a warning message when trying to text 61016, which then stopped them from communicating through this channel. While recognising the success of the implementation of and the significance of its usage, it is crucial that we continue to improve this service including lobbying and working with mobile networks regarding charges to ensure that it is an attractive channel for the public to communicate with BTP. Other communication channels, such as mobile application or mobilesensitive website, could also be developed to further enable travelling public to contact BTP. The findings that female rail passengers more often worry about their personal security while using the railway but less often report a crime BTP, in comparison to their male counterparts, reveal a need to understand what is stopping or has dissuaded them from reporting. In addition to further research in this area, targeted communication with this group in the form of further campaigns, advertisement or community engagement will also help to address this discrepancy. Further examination of contact data could also help to identify any other contacting issues that BTP needs to Page 33 of 36

36 address, in order to ensure that all demographic groups and communities are encouraged and comfortable to contact BTP when they need More collaborative work with partners A considerable number of respondents in this year s public consultation highlighted that fixing some of the major issues faced by the travelling public were, in fact, not solely down to BTP, but a matter for collaborative effort between BTP and its partners such as train operating companies (TOCs), Network Rail (NR) and authorities. Consistent with findings from previous consultations, station environment has a big impact on rail passengers feelings of safety. Many respondents have mentioned how having better lighting, more panic buttons/emergency phones and more CCTV at the station would help to make them feel safer. Some said that even just a cleaner station would make them feel safer. This is an area where although BTP has no direct involvement and control over, it contributes to people s feelings of safety and subsequently, indirectly influences policing issues; we should highlight this to other rail partners in order to get them to resolve or work on this issue. Respondents also expressed that reassurance can be provided through visible presence of rail staff (e.g. train guards and conductors) There is perhaps an opportunity to explore and achieve a balance in the staffing levels of TOCs and BTP officers both at stations and on trains. Collaborative working with local authorities and charities would also help with issues that affect rail passengers feelings of safety. This might include working closely with charities such as Shelter who help vulnerable people at risk of homelessness. BTP could also look at learning from other police forces, where funding is limited, to identify good practice/lessons learnt in relation to providing a sufficient visible police presence as wanted by the travelling public with limited resources. Page 34 of 36

37 APPENDIX: 1) QUESTIONNAIRE Page 35 of 36