Railway Policing What matters to you? 2015 Public consultation findings

Transcription

1 Railway Policing What matters to you? 2015 Public consultation findings Research and Development February 2016

2 Content Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology Survey Methodology and Distribution Questionnaire Design 4 3. Demographics Division and Sub division Sample Characteristics Policing Priorities Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions Policing Priorities Policing Priorities: Overall Policing Priorities: Divisions Policing Priorities: Sub divisions Policing Priorities: Demographic groups Personal Security and Fear of Crime Personal Security Fear of Crime BTP Awareness and Performance Public Awareness BTP Performance Thematic Analysis: Making passengers feel safer Knowing Someone is There Concerns about Disorder and Crime Station Environment and Facilities Police Communication and Response Collaboration between Agencies Satisfaction with BTP s Service Recommendations and Conclusion Recommendations Conclusion 38 Appendix 41

3 Acknowledgements BTP s Research and Development Team would like to say a big thank you to all of those who contributed to the 2015 Public Consultation Survey. We are especially grateful to those who provided feedback and to those that helped distribute the survey out. The feedback received has provided BTP with a deeper understanding of what matters to the public whilst travelling on the railway and offers us invaluable insight into how to make our public and rail staff feel safer and more confident.

4 Executive summary British Transport Police (BTP) conducted its 2015 Public Consultation in the autumn of 2015, with the aim of identifying what matters to people while travelling or working on the railway. The consultation survey examined what the public consider to be their top policing priorities; their feelings of personal safety and fear of crime; and their awareness and perceptions of BTP. It also provided the public with an opportunity to tell us how we can make them feel safer on the railway. The 2015 Public Consultation was carried out between 19 October and 23 November 2015, during which time freepost survey cards were distributed to the public by BTP employees including police officers, police community support officers (PCSOs), police staff and volunteers at rail stations across England, Scotland and Wales. The survey was also made available to complete online and advertised via a variety of social media platforms and other media channels. A total of 6,099 valid responses were collected and analysed. The survey received a good response across a number of demographic groups. A key summary of findings from the survey can be found below: Overall the majority of respondents stated that antisocial behaviour had decreased and the general visibility of uniformed officers had improved at their local stations over the last year. However less than half of respondents felt that there had been a greater uniformed presence on evening or late night trains with a large proportion stating that this priority had not been fully addressed. Antisocial behaviour, Greater police presence in the evening and late night, and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers were the top three policing priorities identified by respondents. These priorities were followed by Terrorism, Violent Crime and Sexual Offences. Variation exists in policing priorities chosen by respondents across BTP Divisions and Subdivisions. For example, Terrorism is the top priority for respondents in D Division (Scotland), while Crime related disruption is a higher priority for respondents in C Division (Midland, Pennine, Wales and Western) than those in other Divisions. Sexual Offences appear to be of particular concern for respondents in the Transport for London (TfL) Sub division within B Division (East, South and TfL). Page 1 of 66

5 The majority of respondents rated their personal security at their local station positively and reported no cause to worry about their personal security. However, certain demographic groups reported a lower level of satisfaction with their personal security. The majority of respondents reported that they were unlikely to become a victim of crime at their local station. In particular, respondents in C and D Divisions appeared to experience less fear of crime than those in B Division. However, transgender respondents, those who are of non White ethnicity and those who consider themselves to have a disability were more likely to think that they may be victimised in comparison to respondents from other demographic groups. Most respondents stated they were aware of BTP and its role in policing the railway. However, fewer were aware of our text service. A thematic analysis conducted on respondents free text comments identified six overarching themes: Knowing someone is there ; Concerns about disorder and crime ; Station environment and facilities ; Police communication and response ; Collaboration with other agencies ; and Satisfaction with BTP s service. Page 2 of 66

6 1. Introduction BTP s Research and Development team conducted a public consultation titled Railway Policing: What matters to you? in October and November The consultation was a short survey which aimed to identify the policing priorities that matter most to people when using or working on the railway. The consultation also examined awareness and perceptions of BTP. Findings from the survey will be used to inform decisions regarding BTP s policing plans for 2016/17. The 2015 Public Consultation was an opportunity for BTP to engage with the public; and helped to raise public awareness of, and confidence in BTP. It also provided the travelling public and railway staff with an opportunity to inform BTP about what matter to them and to help identify areas of improvement and action. This report presents the findings from the 2015 Public Consultation. The analysis is based on the responses of 6,099. Page 3 of 66

7 2. Methodology 2.1 Survey Methodology and Distribution The 2015 Public Consultation was launched on Monday 19 th October 2015 and concluded on Monday 23 rd November Over the five week period, the survey was made available to the public via freepost survey cards and an online survey. Freepost survey cards were produced and distributed to all BTP posts and Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) across England, Scotland and Wales. A total of 64,500 survey cards 1 were handed out to the public by BTP employees including police officers, police community support officers (PCSOs), police staff and volunteers at railway stations. The survey was also made available online. The survey link was advertised on the survey cards, the BTP website and our Twitter and Facebook accounts. It was also promoted on the online forum RailUK and advertised in the monthly RailNews e newsletter a leading newspaper for the rail industry. 2.2 Questionnaire Design The consultation survey included a range of quantitative and qualitative questions. The survey asked respondents to identify three policing priorities that they thought should be the main focus for BTP over the next year. It also examined public perceptions of BTP and the extent to which the policing priorities identified in the 2014 Public Consultation had been addressed. The survey further measured respondents feelings about personal security and sought to identify any cause for concern. Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide further feedback on what BTP can do to make them feel safer at their local stations. Respondent demographic information, including age, gender, ethnicity, disability and purpose of journey was collected for analysis purposes. 1 62,700 cards for England and Scotland and 1,800 cards for Wales Page 4 of 66

8 A copy of the freepost survey is included below: Page 5 of 66

9 3. Demographics The 2015 Public Consultation received a total of 6,206 responses: 2,337 online and 3,869 on printed survey cards. The results presented in this report reflect the findings from the 6,099 valid responses 2 available for analysis. Respondents were not required to provide an answer to every question and therefore the number of responses for each question varies. The total response for each question is noted throughout the report where appropriate. 3.1 Division and Subdivision More than half of respondents (57.8%) listed a B Division station as their local station; 35.1% and 6.6% of respondents listed local stations in C and D Division respectively. D Division: 401 (6.6%) C Division: 2,142 (35.1%) Pennine 921 (15.1%) Wales 169 (2.8%) Western 363 (6%) Midland 689 (11.3%) South 1,574 (25.8%) East 1,052 (17.2%) TfL 897 (14.7%) B Division: 3,523 (57.8%) survey responses were collected but unfortunately were not available for analysis due to technical issues. An additional seven responses were noted to be testing entries. Page 6 of 66

10 3.2 Sample Characteristics Gender Of the 5,675 respondents who provided information in response to the demographic questions, 53.8% identify as male, 41.2% identify as female and 0.6% identify as transgender. The remainder choose Other (0.2%) or Prefer not to say (4.4%). 2,336 (41.2%) 3,051 (53.8%) 32 (0.6%) Age The majority of respondents (59.6%) were aged between 25 and 54. Overall, there was also a good representation of other age groups: 12.7% were aged between 17 and 24; 14.2% were aged between 55 and 64; and 8.9% were 65 or above. Three per cent declined to provide their age. Age group Respondents Percentages Under % % % % % % % 75 and over % Prefer not to say % Total responses 5675 Page 7 of 66

11 3.2.3 Ethnicity While a considerable number of respondents identified themselves as White (78.1%), other ethnic groups were also represented, including Asian (6.6%), Black (4.4%) and Mixed (3.5%). One per cent chose Other and 6.6% declined to provide their ethnicity Disability 433 (7.6%) respondents stated that they consider themselves to have a disability, while the majority 4,926 (86.8%) do not consider themselves to have a disability. A further 316 respondents (5.6%) declined to provide this information Purpose of journey Approximately a third of respondents identified the journey for which they completed the survey as a regular commute (34.8%). 17.4% were travelling for business and 27.9% were travelling for leisure purposes. The results also included representation from rail staff (9.5%). Purpose of journey Respondents Percentages Regular commute % Business % Leisure % Rail staff % Other % Total responses 5675 Page 8 of 66

12 Policing Priorities BTP s first public consultation was conducted in The top three policing priorities identified by respondents were: Antisocial behaviour; Increasing general visibility of uniformed officers, and Providing a greater uniformed presence on evening or late night trains. The 2015 Public Consultation follows the findings from 2014 by examining public perceptions of the extent to which respondents felt that these three policing priorities had been addressed at their local station. 4.1 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall Overall the majority of respondents stated that Antisocial behaviour (65.9%) and Increasing general visibility of uniformed officers (64.4%) had been fully/partly addressed at their local stations in the last year. In contrast, fewer than half of respondents (40.9%) reported that Greater uniformed presence on evening or late night trains had been fully / partly addressed, and a number of respondents (31.1%) stating that it has not been addressed at all. Antisocial behaviour (Number of responses: 5,770) Increase general visibility of uniformed officers (Number of responses: 5,768) Greater uniformed presence on evening or latenight trains (Number of responses: 5,762) Page 9 of 66

13 4.2 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions To better understand how well the 2014 policing priorities were addressed in different areas, further analysis was conducted to examine respondents perceptions by BTP Divisions. Respondents from D Division were consistently more likely than respondents from either B or C Division to report that that a priority had been addressed at their local station. This was true for all three policing priorities identified. In particular, a considerably larger proportion of D Division respondents (55.7%) stated that the priority to have a Greater uniformed presence on evening or late night trains had been fully/partly addressed at their local station, compared with B (40.5%) and C (39.4%) Division respondents. Antisocial behaviour Increase general visibility of uniformed officers Greater uniformed presence on evening or late night trains Page 10 of 66

14 Policing Priorities This year respondents were again asked to select up to three policing priorities, from a list of 17 priority options 3, on which they feel BTP should focus on over the next year. All 6,099 respondents identified at least one policing priority. This section presents the policing priorities identified by respondents in the 2015 Public Consultation. As respondents were able to select up to three priorities, the percentage in the charts in this section represents the proportion of respondents overall and by BTP Division who have selected each priority. For example, 2,178 respondents identify Antisocial behaviour as one of their priorities, which is equivalent to 35.7% of the 6,099 respondents. Therefore the sum of all percentages does not equal 100 per cent Policing Priorities: Overall As with the findings of the 2014 Public Consultation, Antisocial behaviour, Greater police presence in the evening and late night, and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers were again the top three policing priorities identified by respondents; representing the most frequently selected priorities. 35.7% of respondents report that Antisocial behaviour is one of the top three policing priorities on which BTP should focus on. This is closely followed by the priority to have a Greater police presence in the evening and late night (34.8%) and to Increase general visibility of uniformed officers (29.9%). About a quarter of respondents (25.9%) considered Terrorism as one of their three most important policing priorities. The prevalence of public concerns about terrorism understandably reflects the international events that happened during the survey period. The survey was live between 19 October and 23 November 2015, during in which time several terrorist attacks were instigated around the world, including a series of coordinated attacks in Paris on 13 November Violent crime and Sexual offences were also of noticeable concern to respondents; 23.2% and 22.4% of respondents respectively report that BTP should focus on these two priorities. This is followed by Crime related disruption on the railway (16.9%), Staff abuse/assault (13.7%), Ticket fraud (12.3%), Theft of personal property (10.2%) and Hate crime (10%). The following chart presents the policing priorities in descending order according to the proportion of respondents who identified each priority. 3 Please see Appendix 9 for the list of priorities. Page 11 of 66

15 Priorities Number of respondents Proportion of total respondents* 1. Antisocial behaviour 2, % 2. Greater police presence in the evening and late night 2, % 3. Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 1, % 4. Terrorism 1, % 5. Violent crime 1, % 6. Sexual offences 1, % 7. Crime related disruption on the railway 1, % (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) 8. Staff abuse/assault % 9. Ticket fraud % 10. Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) % 11. Hate crime % 12. Drug dealing and using % 13. Football related disorder % 14. Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti % 15. Robbery % 16. Cycle theft % 17. Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) % 18. Other (please specify) % Policing Priorities: Divisions *A total of 6,099 respondents The top three policing priorities identified by respondents were similar when considered according to BTP Divisions. Anti social behaviour and Greater police presence in the evening and late night were consistently considered to be two of the three most important priorities selected by respondents across all Divisions. However, respondents in D Division were distinct from respondents in B and C Divisions, with 42.1% identifying Terrorism as their top policing priority. For respondents in B and C Divisions, Increased general visibility of uniformed officers appears in place of Terrorism. Sexual offences were considered a higher policing priority by respondents in B Division than by respondents in C and D Divisions, whereas Crime related disruption on the railway ranks higher on the priority table for respondents in C Division compared to those in other Divisions. Football related disorder, on the other hand, is more often chosen as a policing priority by respondents in D Division than by those in B and C Divisions. The following tables display the top ten policing priorities in each Division and the percentage of respondents who selected each of these priorities. Page 12 of 66

16 D Division Top 10 Policing Priorities Percentage of respondents* 1. Terrorism 42.1% 2. Antisocial behaviour 34.7% 3. Greater police presence in 31.7% the evening and late night 4. Increased general visibility 30.7% of uniformed officers 5. Violent crime 23.4% 6. Sexual offences 20.2% 7. Football related disorder 20.2% 8. Staff abuse/assault 19.2% 9. Crime related disruption on 14.5% the railway 10. Hate crime 9% *Total number of respondents: 401 C Division Top 10 Policing Priorities Percentage of respondents** 1. Antisocial behaviour 36.7% 2. Greater police presence in 36.4% the evening and late night 3. Increased general visibility 29.6% of uniformed officers 4. Terrorism 24.4% 5. Crime related disruption on 21.1% the railway 6. Violent crime 19.2% 7. Sexual offences 17.3% 8. Staff abuse/assault 15% 9. Ticket fraud 12.7% 10. Football related disorder 11.4% **Total number of respondents: 2,142 B Division Top 10 Policing Priorities Percentage of respondents*** 1. Antisocial behaviour 35.3% 2. Greater police presence in 34.3% the evening and late night 3. Increased general visibility 30.1% of uniformed officers 4. Sexual offences 25.8% 5. Violent crime 25.7% 6. Terrorism 24.9% 7. Crime related disruption on 14.7% the railway 8. Ticket fraud 12.6% 9. Staff abuse/assault 12.4% 10. Hate crime 11.3% ***Total number of respondents: 3,523 Page 13 of 66

17 Policing Priorities: Sub divisions B Division Sub divisions Within B Division, Sexual offences were ranked as a higher priority in TfL Subdivision than in other B Division Sub divisions. Hate crime was also considered to be a higher priority by respondents in the TfL Sub division than those in the East and South Subdivisions. Crime related disruption on the railway and Staff abuse/assault were considered to be higher policing priorities by respondents in the East and South Sub divisions, compared to those in the TfL Sub division. The table below displays the top ten policing priorities in each B Division Sub division in descending order according to the percentage of respondents within each Sub division who selected each of the priorities. Detailed statistical information for this table can be found in the Appendix. Ranking East South TfL 1. Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Sexual offences Greater police presence in Greater police presence in Greater police presence in 2. the evening and late night the evening and late night the evening and late night Increased general visibility Increased general visibility 3. Antisocial behaviour of uniformed officers of uniformed officers 4. Terrorism Violent crime Violent crime 5. Sexual offences Terrorism Terrorism 6. Violent crime Sexual offences Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 7. Crime related disruption Crime related disruption on the railway on the railway Hate crime 8. Staff abuse / assault Staff abuse / assault Theft of personal property 9. Ticket fraud Ticket fraud Robbery 10. Theft of personal property Theft of personal property Ticket fraud Page 14 of 66

18 5.3.2 C Division Sub divisions Within C Division, the top three policing priorities across all Sub divisions were consistent with the findings from the overall sample, with the exception of the Midland Sub division. Terrorism was identified as one of the top three priorities by respondents in the Midland Sub division in place of Increased general visibility of uniformed officers which features in other C Division Sub divisions. Similarly, Staff abuse/assault was reported as a higher priority by respondents in the Wales Sub division than by respondents in other C Division Sub divisions. Football related disorder was a higher ranked priority for respondents in the Midland and Pennine Sub divisions than in Wales and Western Sub divisions. Drug dealing and using was another priority for respondents in the Midland Sub division. The following table displays the top ten policing priorities in each C Sub division in descending order according to the percentage of respondents who selected each of the priorities. Detailed statistical information for this table can be found in the Appendix. Ranking Midland Pennine Wales Western 1. Antisocial behaviour Greater police presence in the evening and late night Antisocial behaviour 2. Greater police presence in the evening and late night 3. Terrorism Increased general visibility of uniformed officers Crime related disruption on the railway 6. Sexual offences Antisocial behaviour Increased general visibility of uniformed officers Greater police presence in the evening and late night Increased general visibility of uniformed officers Greater police presence in the evening and late night Antisocial behaviour Increased general visibility of uniformed officers Terrorism Staff abuse/assault Terrorism Violent crime Crime related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) Crime related disruption on the railway Violent crime Crime related disruption on the railway Violent crime 7. Violent crime Sexual offences Terrorism Staff abuse/assault 8. Ticket Fraud Staff abuse/assault Drug dealing and using Sexual offences Football related disorder Drug dealing and using Football related disorder Ticket fraud Sexual offences Ticket fraud Ticket fraud Criminal damage, vandalism and / or graffiti Page 15 of 66

19 Policing Priorities: Demographic groups Further analysis was conducted to better understand what matters to different demographic groups when using the railway. This sub section highlights key findings from the analysis. Full statistical information on the analysis can be found in the Appendix Gender Female and male respondents identified the same three top policing priorities, albeit in different orders. Greater police presence in the evening and late night is the most frequently cited policing priority by female respondents (41.4%), followed by Anti social behaviour (36.2%) and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers (30.5%); while Anti social behaviour is the most cited policing priorities by male respondents (39.9%), followed by Greater police presence in the evening and late night (33.5%) and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers (32.6%). The ranking of policing priorities is similar for female and male respondents for the remaining priorities, with the exception of Sexual offences which feature as a greater concern for female respondents than male respondents. Notably, Violent crime is a higher policing priority for transgender respondents compared to female and male respondents. Violent crime is the third most commonly cited policing priority within this demographic group nearly a third of them considered this to be a top three policing priority Ethnicity The top three policing priorities were consistent across both White and Black respondents: Antisocial behaviour, Greater police presence in the evening and late night and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers. Sexual offences were a greater concern for both Asian and Mixed respondent groups; 31.2% and 31% respectively considered Sexual offences to be a top three policing priority. Non White respondents Asian, Black and Mixed all considered Hate Crime to be a higher policing priority when compared to White respondents Disability Respondents who reported that they have a disability share the same top three priorities with those who reported that they do not have a disability. However, Crime related disruption on the railway is a higher priority for respondents who report that they have a disability compared to those who do not 22.9% and 17.6% respectively identify this as one of their top three policing priorities. Page 16 of 66

20 6. Personal Security and Fear of Crime The 2015 Public Consultation examined public feelings of safety and fear of crime on the railway. Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the level of personal security and their perceived likelihood of victimisation at their local station. 6.1 Personal Security Personal Security: Overall Across the whole sample the majority of respondents (71.1%) rated their personal security at their local stations as very good/fairly good. 12.4% reported that their personal security is fairly poor/very poor at their local station. Similarly, around three quarters of respondents (76.3%) reported that they do not have any cause to worry about their personal security at their local station. 23.7% of respondents (23.7%) expressed some worry about their personal security. How would you rate your personal security at your local station? Total number of respondents: 5,702 Do you have any cause to worry about your personal security at your local station? Yes 1,338 (23.7%) No 4,312 (76.3%) Total number of respondents: 5,650 Page 17 of 66

21 6.1.2 Personal Security: Divisions and Sub divisions In comparison to respondents in B and D Divisions, respondents in C Division reported that they felt safer at their local station. A slightly higher proportion of C Division respondents rated their personal security at their local station positively compared to respondents in B and D Divisions. 72.9% of C Division respondents compared to 70.2% and 71% of B and D Division respondents respectively rate their personal security as very good/fairly good. A noticeably larger percentage of respondents in B and C Divisions also reported having no cause to worry about their personal security than those in other Divisions. 76.9% and 78.5% of B and C Division respondents respectively compared to 59.7% of D Division respondents do not think they have any cause to worry about their personal security. Although the majority of D Division respondents are satisfied with their personal security at their local station, these respondents were more likely to report that they had some cause to worry about their personal security (40.3%) than those in B (23.1%) and C (21.5%) Divisions. How would you rate your personal security at your local station? Do you have any cause to worry about your personal security at your local station? Yes No B (Respondents:3,291) 759 (23.1%) 2,543 (76.9%) C (Respondents:1,961) 421 (21.5%) 1,540 (78.5%) D (Respondents:372) 150 (40.3%) 222 (59.7%) Page 18 of 66

22 Within B Division, a considerably higher percentage of respondents in the TfL Sub division (75.8%) reported that their personal security at their local station was very good/fairly good compared to those in other B Division Sub divisions 67.2% and 68.8% in the East and South Sub divisions respectively. Respondents in TfL Sub division were also less likely to state that they had any cause to worry about their personal security at their local station (18.2%) than those in the East (24.7%) and South (24.8%) Sub divisions. For C Division, respondents in the Western Sub division more frequently reported a positive rating to their personal security (79.4%) at their local station than those in other C Division Sub divisions 71.6%, 72.2% and 66.4% in Midland, Pennine and Wales Sub divisions respectively. A larger proportion of respondents in Wales (29.9%) stated they had some cause to worry about their personal security than those in Midland (20.8%), Pennine (23.2%) and Western (15%) Sub divisions. How would you rate your personal security at your local station? Do you have any cause to worry about your personal security at your local station? Yes No East (Respondents:964) 238 (24.7%) 726 (75.3%) South (Respondents:1,471) 365 (24.8%) 1,106 (75.2%) TfL (Respondents:856) 156 (18.2%) 700 (81.8%) Midland (Respondents:645) 134 (20.8%) 511 (79.2%) Pennine (Respondents:829) 192 (23.2%) 637 (76.8%) Wales (Respondents:147) 44 (29.9%) 103 (70.1%) Western (Respondents:340) 51 (15%) 289 (85%) Page 19 of 66

23 6.1.3 Personal Security: Demographic groups Further analysis was undertaken to ascertain to what extent some demographic groups feel less safe than others when using or working on the railway. Findings are intended to draw attention to specific demographic groups with lower satisfaction regarding their personal security, which may enable BTP to tailor policing plans to address concerns from these groups. The key findings from the analysis are described in this section, while detailed statistics can be found in the Appendix. A similar proportion of female and male respondents rated their personal security at their local station as very good/fairly good 71.5% and 72.3% respectively. In contrast, 56.3% of transgender respondents reported feeling positive about their personal security at their local station; with 31.3% rating their personal security as fairly poor/very poor 4. Respondents aged between 17 and 54 reported similar levels of satisfaction with their personal security; the proportion of respondents who rated their personal security positively ranged from 69.3% to 71.5% across this age range. Respondents aged 55 or above more frequently considered their personal security to be good than those within younger age groups; on average 78.6% of the former rate their personal security positively. This is further reflected in their cause to worry about personal security; respondents within older age groups 65 and above in particular, less frequently report any cause to worry about their personal security than respondents in younger age groups. The proportion of respondents who reported that they felt positive about their personal security at their local station was similar across different ethnic groups, with the exception of respondents of Mixed ethnicity; the Mixed ethnic group had the least proportion of respondents rating their personal security positively (68.5%) compared to other ethnic groups (70.4%, 72.4% and 72.5% of Asian, Black and White respondents respectively). A higher percentage of Mixed respondents also reported having cause to worry about their personal security than respondents within other ethnic groups. Respondents who reported that they had a disability were considerably less satisfied with their personal security than those who reported that they did not have a disability; only 63.7% of those who report that they have a disability rate their personal security as very good/ fairly good, compared to 72.8% of those do not. 36.3% of respondents also stated that they had cause to worry about their personal security, compared to 21.4% of respondents who report that they did not have 4 It is important to note that the number of responses received from individuals identifying as transgender was small and therefore analysis should be treated with caution. Page 20 of 66

24 a disability. In addition Rail staff respondents rated their personal security less positively than other travelling groups. Only 61.9% rate their personal security positively and 40.1% report having cause to worry. 6.2 Fear of Crime Fear of Crime: Overall The majority of respondents (70.3%) reported that they were not very likely/not at all likely to be a victim of crime at their local stations. Only 8.9% of respondents stated that they were extremely likely/very likely to be victimised at their local stations, while 20.7% of respondents reported they were quite likely to be victimised. How likely do you think it is that you could be a victim of crime at your local station? Fear of Crime: Divisions and Sub divisions Respondents located in C and D Divisions reported to experience a lower level of fear of crime than those in B Division. A smaller proportion of respondents in B Division (68.6%) stated that they were not very likely/ not at all likely to be a victim of crime at their local station, in comparison to C (72.7%) and D (73.9%) Divisions. D Division in particular has a noticeably lower percentage of respondents (5.93%) who stated that they were extremely likely/very likely to be victimised than B (9.52%) and C (8.38%) Divisions. How likely do you think it is that you could be a victim of crime at your local station? Page 21 of 66

25 Respondents levels of fear of crime were similar across all B Division Sub divisions. In C Division, respondents in the Western Sub division perceived a slightly lower likelihood of victimisation at their local station than other C Division Sub divisions; 76.4% of respondents in Western Sub division stated that they were not very likely/not at all likely to be a victim of crime, compared with 72.6% in Midland, 71.8% in Pennine and 69.2% in Wales Sub divisions. A slightly larger proportion of respondents in Wales (13%) reported that they felt extremely likely/very likely to be victimised at their local station than those in other C Division Sub divisions 10.1% in Midland, 7.7% in Pennine and 5% in Western. How likely do you think it is that you could be a victim of crime at your local station? Fear of Crime: Demographic groups Fear of crime varied between different demographic groups. With regard to gender, a notably higher percentage of transgender respondents stated they were extremely likely/very likely to be victimised (21.9%) at their local station, compared with female (9%) and male (8.2%) respondents. Respondents who identified themselves as White reported a lower level of fear of crime than other ethnic groups; 72.9% of White respondents reported that they were not very/not at all likely to be a victim of crime, compared with 63% of non White respondents. In addition, a considerably larger proportion of respondents who reported having a disability reported feeling they were extremely likely/very likely/quite likely to be victimised (41.5%) than respondents who reported not having a disability (27.7%). Consistent with findings on personal security, Rail staff respondents also reported a higher level of fear of crime 52.8% said that they were extremely likely/very likely/quite likely to be victimised compared with other groups: 23% for Business traveller, 24.6% for Leisure traveller and 30.2% for Regular commuter. Page 22 of 66

26 7. BTP Awareness and Performance The 2015 Public Consultation explored public awareness of BTP and its role and perceptions of BTP s performance. Specifically, the survey asked respondents if they were aware, prior to the survey, that BTP polices the railway and if they were aware of the text service for reporting nonemergency incidents. It also asked respondents to indicate How good a job they think BTP is doing at their local station. 7.1 Public Awareness The majority of respondents (86.5%) were aware, prior to completing the 2015 Public Consultation, that the railway is policed by BTP. However, fewer respondents approximately a third reported that they were aware of the text service. Prior to this survey Were you aware that the railway network is policed by British Transport Police? Were you aware that you can text British Transport Police on to report nonemergency incidents? Responses: 5,658 Responses: 5,646 Page 23 of 66

27 7.2 BTP Performance How good a job do you think British Transport Police is doing at your local station? Overall, just over half of respondents (53.5%) stated that BTP is doing an excellent/good job at their local station. A substantial proportion felt that BTP is doing a neither good nor poor job, while 9.9% felt that BTP is doing a poor/very poor job at their local station. When considering only respondents who reported that they were aware of BTP s role in policing the railway prior to the survey 4,893 respondents similar results were found: 53.9%, 36.3% and 9.8% respectively. Excellent/ Good Neither good nor poor Poor/ Very poor Number of responses: 5,617 A larger proportion of respondents in D Division (64.1%) felt that BTP is doing an excellent/good job at their local station than those in B (50.8%) and C (55.9%) Divisions. Within B Division, respondents in the TfL Sub division more frequently agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job (61.6%) compared with those in the East (46.7%) and South (47.1%) Sub divisions. Meanwhile, the proportion of respondents who agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job at their local station is similar across C Division Sub divisions, with the exception of Western Sub division where a higher percentage of respondents (60.9%) agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job compared with other C Division Sub divisions. Excellent/ Good Neither good nor poor Poor/ Very poor B 1,666 (50.8%) 1,289 (39.3%) 325 (9.9%) East 450 (46.7%) 392 (40.7%) 122 (12.7%) South 685 (47.1%) 624 (42.9%) 145 (10%) TfL 531 (61.6%) 273 (31.7%) 58 (6.7%) C 1,089 (55.9%) 654 (33.6%) 204 (10.5%) Midland 345 (54%) 227 (35.5%) 67 (10.5%) Pennine 458 (55.5%) 271 (32.8%) 96 (11.6%) Wales 80 (55.2%) 46 (31.7%) 19 (13.1%) Western 206 (60.9%) 110 (32.5%) 22 (6.5%) D 234 (64.1%) 107 (29.3%) 24 (6.6%) Page 24 of 66

28 8. Thematic analysis: Making passengers feel safer A thematic analysis was conducted to extrapolate themes from the free text comments respondents provided to the question How can we make you feel safer? Thematic analysis is regarded as one of the most effective research methods to examine and capture meaningful themes within qualitative data. This section presents the findings from the thematic analysis. A total of 3,187 free text responses were collected from which the following themes were identified: Police presence Staff presence Lower level disorder Crime Lighting CCTV Other station facilities Promotion of BTP Provision of information Public relations BTP s response Collaboration with other agencies Satisfaction with the service BTP provides These themes have been grouped and are presented in terms of six overarching areas: 1. Knowing someone is there 2. Concerns about disorder and crime 3. Station environment and facilities 4. Police communication and response 5. Collaboration with other agencies 6. Satisfaction with BTP s service Page 25 of 66

29 8.1 Knowing Someone is There It is clear from respondents comments that the presence of a uniformed figure be it a police officer, PCSO, a member of the Special Constabulary or a member of rail staff has a huge impact on feelings of personal safety. Respondents stressed the reassurance they gain simply from the knowledge that someone is there. As simple as more presence, that will be enough Police Presence The desire to see more uniformed police officers on their train journey featured heavily in many of the respondents comments. While respondents expressed understanding of the financial and resource limitations the policing service is experiencing, many emphasised the impact of seeing and knowing there is a police officer nearby on their feelings of safety. Feeling safe is knowing there s an officer not too far away. Increased high visibility patrols, I know this is hard given funding and manpower etc., but, in my opinion, it is the most effective crime deterrent and public reassurance tool. Although I appreciate that it is a resource issue I personally believe that more visible uniformed officers would make passengers feel safer. Some respondents reported that they wanted more of a police presence during late night and quieter hours, on Friday and Saturday nights, not only at stations but also on trains, as well as more of a presence outside of main London stations. Having someone in a uniform there in the late evenings, and eventually overnights when night tube comes into force, will make me feel safer. It would be lovely to see uniformed officers on trains at night. It would make me feel much, much safer. Have regular patrols, especially during the evenings where there are longer times between trains. Even a patrol every 30 minutes and ensuring passengers feel safe whilst waiting would go a long way to reassuring them that help is on hand should they need it. I feel that the BTP has a strong, visible presence at the major London stations but are thin on the ground outside of these stations. I do realise this comes down to a lack of funding, but it would be nice to see more officers on the ground. Page 26 of 66

30 8.1.2 Staff Presence It is not only a police presence that respondents said would make them feel safer on the railway. Many commented that the presence of a uniformed figure any relevant uniform would make them feel safer as they can relax knowing that someone with authority is available if anything were to happen. Some respondents suggested that BTP should liaise with Train Operating Companies (TOCs) to ensure an appropriate level of staffing at stations. Local stations don't have a police presence and can be quite frightening when the station isn't manned and you are waiting alone. Not totally police needed but stations need to be manned and not just one member of staff for the staff s safety. Insist Train Operating Companies and Network Rail staff their stations from before the start of service till after the close of service, locking up the station after close of service. Just the presence of railway staff adds to station security. 8.2 Concerns about Disorder and Crime Respondents cited lower level disorderly behaviour and certain types of criminality as having a negative effect on how safe they feel while using the railway. Many stated that disorder and crimes could be more adequately and effectively dealt with by BTP; this would make them feel safer and have more confidence in BTP Lower Level Disorder A range of lower level disorderly behaviour was highlighted as having a negative effect on respondents experience of train travel. It is evident from their comments that lower level disorder causes passengers and rail staff upset and can make them feel unsafe on the railway. One type of lower level disorder is antisocial behaviour, particularly from groups of people who loiter around stations. Respondents stated that these groups can often be seen as intimidating making them feel unsafe, especially late at night when stations are often quieter. The youths who congregate in the station car park are often a threatening presence. Those on bikes deliberately ride at drivers and shine laser pens into the eyes of drivers. Addressing the groups or gangs of youths that loiter around the stations with no intention of travelling. These groups are very intimidating for other travellers. Page 27 of 66

31 Alcohol was another concern for respondents. Intoxicated passengers can behave in a loud and aggressive manner on trains, causing upset to other passengers and rail staff. Some respondents advocated a ban on alcohol consumption on all trains and at train stations, whilst some stated that BTP should adopt a zero tolerance approach to drunkenness and its related behaviour on the railway, coupled with clear communication to the public. The police team has done remarkable work to secure the public safety. As a daily user of the railway, I am very against passengers drinking any alcoholic beverage in the train. Just like the smoking ban, I think we should ban alcoholic drinking in the train too. The overwhelming bulk of post pub travellers are entirely well meaning, but things can get pretty boisterous at times and whilst this doesn't overly concern me (a big bloke in his early 40s), it can upset others who're a bit more potentially physically vulnerable. We, as frontline train staff, feel that the very presence of BTP on trains helps to deter anti social behaviour can diffuse situations should they arise and ultimately makes passengers feel safer and less likely to be intimidated by individuals or groups of abusive, intoxicated people. It was noted that many concerns about alcohol were also related to undesirable behaviour from drunken passengers using the train to travel to and from sporting events. These supporters consume alcohol before travelling, and may continue drinking and display intoxicated behaviour while on the train, causing other passengers to feel uncomfortable. These individuals tend to travel in large groups and behave rowdily, which makes other passengers especially those travelling with children feel threatened. Some respondents stated that when sports supporters travel on long distance trains with fewer station stops, it makes them feel even more uneasy. Although football supporters are frequently cited as a cause for concern, respondents reported that other sports supporters for instance rugby fans and those attending horse racing events also behave inappropriately. As in relation to alcohol consumption, respondents stated that they want to see BTP adopt a zero tolerance approach to sports related lower level disorder on the railway. Large groups going to football or horse racing, often drunk, shouting abuse and basically intimidating fare paying passengers who expect a peaceful journey. It's not the station that's the problem, it's trains full of drunken (passengers), especially those travelling to/from football matches, who make the network a "no go" zone for families Page 28 of 66

32 Personally I travel by train a lot, mainly to football matches and often late at night, but I only see BTP on intercity trains when there are football fans there. Football fans are clamped down on hard, but rugby seem to be tolerated... The same rules should apply to all It seems football fans are doing what they like whilst on trains these days, they have no regard for normal passengers and think and behave like the carriage they're in is their private carriage. I d like to see the transport police taking a no nonsense approach hopefully the message will spread that the BTP will not let them get away with everything. Begging was another emerging concern from respondents comments. Respondents perceived an increase in the level of begging activity on trains. Many respondents stated that they often feel harassed and trapped by beggars, which has a detrimental effect on their feelings of personal security. Some respondents expressed concerns about other crime such as theft happening while they were being distracted by beggars. Others stated that they worry that begging activity appears organised in nature and highlighted a need for BTP to address this issue. My concern is the begging (The beggars) have the means to get onto a tube station; they carry laminated cards stating they are poor etc. There are many of them and noticeable on the Jubilee line towards Stratford. They go from carriage to carriage every stop but get off before the train arrives at Stratford to avoid being stopped as the terminus. This is a well trained group; they are of course not just using the jubilee line and will target office workers and whom they believe to be visitors I have noticed a lot of beggars in the last few months actually on the tubes, usually putting packets of tissues down asking people to buy them... I always worry about distraction theft or pickpocketing when this is happening Crime Certain types of crime appear to have a particularly negative impact on passengers feelings of safety. Respondents expressed their frustration with fare evasion. Some respondents suggested that more needs to be done to tackle ticketless travel with the perception that these offenders may also be responsible for other crimes on the railway. Visible presence and tackling crimes like fare evasion as this leads to more crimes eventually. Criminals keep pushing the boundaries of acceptability. I would feel safer if the staff at this station stopped letting the ticket fraudsters through the barrier Page 29 of 66

33 As noted in the previous section, several terrorist attacks occurred around the world during the period in which the 2015 Public Consultation was taking place. Understandably, respondents raised concerns about terrorism. Some stated that they want BTP to be readily prepared to respond to potential threats, specifically by increasing the number of armed BTP officers at stations and on trains. Conversely, a number of respondents stated that they did not want to see armed officers regularly, citing them as threatening and causing undue worry. Due to recent terror attacks in Europe, me and my family are genuinely frightened to go into busy places such as the station. Mostly due to the knowledge that police are completely unarmed and would be useless against any attack here I'd certainly feel safer knowing they (armed officers) were there. In the wake of the recent Paris terrorist attacks, it might be good to see armed officers on patrol. 8.3 Station Environment and Facilities The station environment appears to have a considerable impact on respondents feelings of safety. This is consistent with findings from other analysis 5 BTP has previously undertaken. Two main categories within station environment and station facilities were frequently identified by respondents as areas which, if improved, would make them feel safer lighting and CCTV Lighting The presence and effectiveness of lighting contributes to respondents feelings of safety; adequate (or better) lighting at the station generally makes respondents feel safer. However, the need for a brighter environment is not limited to areas within the station itself such as platforms, footbridges and waiting areas. Many respondents requested improved lighting in areas around their station. In particular, respondents would like to have adequate (or better) lighting in car parks, cycle storage areas, station entrances and exits and for passages or underpasses that link stations to other means of transport, such as bus stops, taxi ranks, car parks and cycle storage areas. The road leading to and from the station needs much better lighting Get some lights on approach road Have a motion detect light on car park area so you can see bike sheds are empty. Better lit platforms and increased lighting outside the front of the station. 5 Internal analysis on data from the National Rail Passenger Survey, Autumn 2014 wave, identified a correlation between passengers satisfaction with their personal security at the station and their satisfaction with the station environment and facilities. Page 30 of 66