Presentation on theme: "User surveys in policing: data collection, analysis and impact Emma Fossey, HMICS."— Presentation transcript:
User surveys in policing: data collection, analysis and impact Emma Fossey, HMICS
Policing by consent Legislation Information and intelligence Performance indicators and the Scottish policing performance framework Forces self-assessment process Why consult the public?
Everyday interaction Public meetings Community policing Advisory groups and networks Complaints, letters of appreciation Formal surveys Capturing the views of the public
Well-established formal process for recording details of complaints of misconduct. Letters of appreciation also recorded for some time. Emphasis on the individual member of staff. More recent process for formally recording complaints about quality of service. Emphasis on policies, procedures, service delivery and outcomes. Complaints, letters of appreciation
Persistent demand for quantitative performance indicators –proxy measures of performance versus data to inform improvement Pragmatism –available resources User surveys
Based on historical Accounts Commission / Audit Scotland statutory performance indicator for satisfaction: Random sample that is representative of the geographical area covered by each force. Mix of those who have reported a crime, a disturbance/ nuisance, a road accident, a missing person or other (excluding those reporting a sudden death, fatal road accident or serious sexual assault. Typically those who have contacted the force in the last three months. Postal surveys. Frequency from triennial surveys to monthly rolling waves. Methodology
What was your level of satisfaction with the initial police contact?* What was your level of satisfaction with the actions taken by the police to resolve your enquiry? What was your overall level of satisfaction with the way you were treated by police officers and staff who dealt with you - i) at initial contact, and ii) with officers who attended? What was your level of satisfaction with the overall way the police dealt with the matter?* Were you kept adequately informed about the progress made with your incident?* Indicators
Satisfaction levels for: staff interest, helpfulness, sympathy, appearance; extent to which treated fairly and sensitively, and to which the user was reassured and informed about subsequent police action. If only one aspect of your contact with the force could be improved, what would it be?: speed of police response to users phone call or appearance at a police station; speed at which officers attended the scene; the way in which user was treated by police officers/staff; the follow-up information received; nothing could be improved. One force asked about what users expected from the police in terms of feedback. Additional force questions
Satisfaction levels are typically high –at least when very and fairly satisfied users are combined –consistent pattern and little year-on-year change –evidence suggests that over a longer period they are falling. Response rates are typically low –how representative are they? –who is not responding and why? Top-line measures of something called satisfaction –what do satisfaction levels reflect? –how can areas for improvement be identified? What analyses show
Frequencies - by force and division –usually only one overall indicator; rarely if ever disaggregated, e.g. by reason for contact, type of crime, method of contact or nature of police response, victim or witness, other respondent traits. Often unable to examine possible contributory factors –not all forces ask further questions on these. Little attempt to understand link or otherwise between satisfaction levels and possible contributory factors –to what extent does lack of feedback, outcome of investigation, timing of incident, police efficiency and so on, affect overall satisfaction? –what are the hygiene / enhancing / neutral / critical or dual threshold factors? No way of taking other, indirect factors into account –e.g. users general perceptions of the police, of crime rates, and so on. What forces get right –Do not include open questions about why users were satisfied. What analyses do not show
Dissatisfaction more likely towards the end of police contact –Complaints tempered by perception that police doing their best with limited resourcestheir hands are tied and that other agencies are to blame – the court lets them walk. Variation in response times from very quick to hours or days later –Victims generally positive and appreciated police need to prioritise calls. Variation in user experience and satisfaction –Differences between men and women, and by type of crime. Expectations of feedback –Know that police have other things to do but failing to keep their word dissatisfaction. –Sometimes unwelcome, e.g. crime prevention advice viewed as victim-blaming. Empathy and professionalism are extremely important –If the agencies had treated them more sensitively, then it is likely that [lack of] information would not have been such an issue. –Concern, sympathy and interest led to feelings of satisfaction; conversely, where those were missing, dissatisfaction ensued.... It is respect and concern that victims desire. Why is this important?
Qualitative approach –Understanding user expectations and what is important to them; examining the interplay between factors that might be influencing satisfaction and/or defining a high quality service. Enhancing quantitative surveys –Going beyond performance indicators and asking questions that can inform practice; disaggregating the data to understand the experiences of different types of users. Additional evidence –Internal, e.g. complaints, and external, e.g. experiences of other services. Producing external and internal standards of service –Working with the public to establish mutually agreed standards of service so that everyone knows what they can and cannot expect to happen. Possible ways ahead?
National approach to user surveys. External standards of service and internal guidance on these. Appraisal and recruitment systems, and training emphasise customer focus Greater use of IT to enhance communication with users. HMICS recommendations