Accountability UK

Public perceptions of police accountability and decisionmaking

Maria Docking

Home Office Online Report 38/03
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).

Public perceptions of police accountability and decisionmaking

Maria Docking

Home Office Online Report 38/03

Contents
Acknowledgements List of Tables List of Boxes Summary 1. Introduction Police authorities Previous research Recent developments Aims of the research Methodology Structure of this report Perceptions of policing and crime Policing Crime How the findings differ between the subgroups Summary Information about policing Knowledge of policing Information needs and ways in which they can be delivered How the findings differ between the subgroups Summary Public participation in decision-making Police accountability Police authorities How the findings differ between the subgroups Summary Conclusions and recommendations Perceptions of crime and policing Information about policing Public participation in decision-making, police accountability and police authorities Recommendations

2.

3.

4.

5.

References

List of Tables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sample structure Perceptions of policing and crime broken down by subgroups Participants’ information and knowledge of policing broken down by subgroups Information given to participants on police authorities Perceptions of police accountability and police authorities broken down by subgroups

List of Boxes
1. Police authorities’ key roles and responsibilities

Summary
Background and aims
The Home Office is keen to promote the involvement of citizens in decisions about how they are policed and seeks to increase the citizen focus of policing. The role of police authorities is central to community engagement and feeding back the public’s views in order to hold the police force to account for the delivery of services. The purpose of the study was to examine how police authorities engage with the public in dialogue, identify the benefits to the police service and suggest ways in which police authorities could enhance this role. This report concentrates on one aspect of the study – the focus groups. The specific aim of the focus group was to examine public awareness about, and views on, police authorities and public accountability in policing. Other aims were to gather public views on who they hold responsible for crime prevention and their general perceptions of crime and policing.

Methods
Fourteen focus groups were carried out between November and December 2002 with participants from a broad cross section of the general public. The groups consisted of five to eight participants (with one group having ten). The composition of the sample was structured in terms of: • • • • • • age; ethnic group; gender; socio-economic group, urban/ rural environment; and one group consisted of participants for whom English was not their first language.

The study was carried out in co-operation with the Association of Police Authorities (APA). We are grateful for the APA’s help and encouragement.

Findings
Perceptions of policing and crime
• There was a consensus amongst participants that police visibility and accessibility were issues of key importance. They felt that they did not see officers patrolling on foot often enough and that local police stations were inaccessible. There was a perception that police priorities were inappropriate, response times too slow, and that a police officer’s attitude and communication skills were key to whether the public considered them to be doing a good job. However, there was some recognition that there are restraints on the police, such as the perceived high crime levels, which makes it more difficult for them to be effective. Minority ethnic groups felt that the police discriminated against them. The participants believed that crime levels are high and many of them did not feel safe. However, this may be due to a lack of appropriate and accurate information. There was a strong view that the community has a role to play in crime prevention.

•

• •

Information about policing
• The focus groups suggested that the public was, in general, poorly informed about policing and tended to see policing only in terms of preventing and dealing with crime. However, most seemed aware of the limits of their knowledge and wanted more communication, information and involvement. The non-English-speaking group in particular did not have even basic information about services and language was perceived as a real barrier to accessing information and services. The highest priority was given to information of practical use such as their rights when stopped and searched. Feelings were mixed about whether information was wanted about how well the police are performing (many expressed no interest, those that were interested expressed concern over how performance would be measured and about the usefulness of statistics). What interest there was related to performance information at a very local level and it was felt that this should be linked to policing priorities. Television was thought to be a good way of communicating information as were public meetings, and information in other languages. There was a consensus that information should not only be available on the Internet, as some people would not have access.

•

•

•

Public participation in decision-making, police accountability and police authorities
• There was a general consensus in the focus groups that the public does not participate in decisions about policing and that they should have an opportunity to state their opinions. However, there was some cynicism about whether it would make a difference. Awareness of police-public consultation was low. The vast majority had not previously heard of police authorities. The few who had heard of them generally did not know what they were or what their role was. The name 'police authority' did not signal an identity separate from ‘the police’ more generally. When participants learned more about the role of police authorities, they thought that they were necessary and useful, if they were effective. However, many people were sceptical as to whether they were effective, largely because of their low public profile. There was a strong view that police authorities should publicise themselves more effectively. Most people saw police authorities' independence from police forces as crucial and the way members are selected was seen as the key to independence. There was some scepticism about the role of members nominated by local authorities, with more approval of the concept of independent members. There was concern that there might be 'a closed shop' or 'old boys' network' and that members might have too close a relationship with the police. Reasons suggested for why public consultation might not work included public apathy, public disagreement over priorities, and a lack of expertise and confidence. A lack of response from the police authority would also make people lose interest.

•

•

•

•

Conclusions
Police authorities, forces and other organisations should improve the provision of information to the public about policing and crime, according to the needs of local communities. Police authorities should seek to improve public engagement and participation by using more innovative methods which are appropriate for their local communities, and by giving greater emphasis to marketing themselves. A wider debate is needed to discuss the role of authorities in community engagement.

1.
Background

Introduction

The Home Office has led the development of a comprehensive reform agenda for policing in England and Wales. One of the central elements of this agenda is to increase the citizen focus of policing so that there is improved communication and engagement between the police and their communities. Policing should also reflect citizens’ perspectives in policymaking, decision-making and service delivery. It is therefore important to conduct research to ascertain what the public currently thinks of policing and issues such as accountability and governance, in order to inform the reform agenda. The Home Office carried out a research project which examines how police authorities, which are charged with public consultation and holding police forces to account for delivery of services, currently engage with the public. It also assesses how the current system could be made more effective. The research project methodology consisted of three separate elements. Firstly, a telephone survey was conducted of all police authorities in England and Wales. Secondly, case studies were carried out in six police authorities, including interviews with police authority members and staff, representatives of police forces, local authorities, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and voluntary organisations. Greater details of these elements of the project can be found in a separate report (‘The Role of Police Authorities in Public Engagement’, also available as an RDS Online Report). This report analyses the third element of the study: focus groups that were carried out with members of the public. It concentrates on the views, opinions and knowledge of the general public on policing and police authorities which were gained from the focus groups. It was seen as important to provide a separate report illustrating the focus group findings in more depth in light of the importance of citizen views in the policing reform agenda. This report enables police authorities and forces, other practitioners and policy makers to see what various sectors of the public want and expect in terms of policing and accountability. It provides information to help understand the barriers towards involving people in decision-making, and how to overcome them. It may also suggest ways that the public’s expectations can be managed, and community trust and confidence in the police and accountability mechanisms can be improved. This is particularly relevant and timely considering that confidence in the police, while still relatively high compared with other criminal justice agencies, has been declining (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). Confidence and satisfaction with the police may increase if the public feel that the police are in tune with their views and priorities. Policing in England and Wales is accountable to, and managed by, a tripartite structure consisting of the Home Office, chief constables and police authorities. It is their responsibility, at differing levels, to ensure that the police are performing adequately and to take action if they are not. Policing priorities are set centrally by the Home Office in the form of the National Policing Plan, and locally by the force and police authority in their policing plans.

Police authorities
There is a police authority for every police force in England and Wales. Most authorities consist of 17 members – nine councillors, three magistrates and five independent – though some have more. Councillor members are chosen by local authorities (or joint committees of local authorities) and local magistrates are chosen by Magistrates' Courts Selection Panels. Applications to become independent members are advertised. A selection panel consisting of a councillor or magistrate member of the police authority, a person appointed by the Home Secretary, and a third person chosen by the other two panel members produces a list of suitable independent applicants. The Home Secretary chooses a shortlist, which is sent back to the councillor and magistrate members, who make the final selection.

Police authorities were established by the Police Act (1964)1 with the exception of the Metropolitan Police Authority which was established by the Greater London Authority Act (1999). Police authorities have a variety of roles and responsibilities (set out in Box 1). These include consulting the local community about the policing of their area and their priorities, and monitoring the performance of the force in delivering the policing plan. The public can only give police authorities their views on the police if they know that such channels exist and know how to use them. Authorities need to be transparent and visible in order to account to the public for their own performance and that of the local force. Police authorities, therefore, have a crucial role to play in fulfilling their statutory responsibility to consult the public in an efficient and effective manner.

Box 1 Police authorities’ key roles and responsibilities
There are 43 police authorities, one for each force area. They must: • • • • • • • make sure arrangements are in place to consult the local community about the policing of their area and their priorities; publish an annual local policing plan and a best value performance plan, setting out the policing priorities, performance targets and the allocation of resources; monitor the performance of the force in delivering the policing plan; report to the community on performance during the previous year; appoint the chief constable and other very senior officers and deal with some complaints and discipline issues; under the Best Value initiative, scrutinise police activity for possible improvements; and publish a three-year strategy plan, which must be approved by the Home Secretary.

Previous research
There has been very little previous research on public views on participation in police decision-making or accountability. Relevant studies include ‘Public expectations and perceptions of policing’ (Bradley, 1998), which found that all of the different social groups had little knowledge of police activities or the rationale for them, but that different socio-economic groups were predisposed to different styles of policing and engagement. In the context of Northern Ireland, ‘Policing, accountability and young people’ (Hamilton, Radford and Jarman, 2003) found that young people believed that the police lacked sympathy and understanding towards them and any successful engagement would have to overcome these factors. The British Crime Survey (BCS) covers issues such as policing priorities, trust and confidence, and fear of crime. The BCS has highlighted a fall in public confidence in the police over the last few years, although they still receive the highest ratings of all the criminal justice agencies (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). The BCS has also found that the public tends to overestimate the level of crime in England and Wales and are often pessimistic about the chances of crime happening to them (Simmons and Dodd, eds., 2003) and have varying views on what police priorities should be (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). Research was carried out by the National Consumer Council (2002a, 2002b) on consumer attitudes towards involvement and representation, and views of consumer and representative organisations. They found that people are fairly ambivalent about getting involved, that they would be more likely to do so if an issue has direct personal impact, and that they tend to see involvement in terms of making an individual complaint. They also found that people were most concerned about issues with a relatively direct, localised and immediate impact on their
1

Established in their current form by the Police Act (1996).

lives and some were sceptical about whether giving their views would actually make a difference (ibid.). The Audit Commission (2003a, 2003b) carried out some research covering the accountability of, and public trust and confidence in public services. They found that people trust individuals more than organisations as trust is based on relationships and familiarity, along with their own experience and that of friends and family (Audit Commission, 2003b). Public trust in the accountability structures of public organisations is driven by various factors including useful and credible information, the existence of external watchdogs, personal contact, and whether they are seen to be honest and trustworthy (ibid.). The police were rated the worst out of three services on providing information although they were the most likely to be thought to be controlled by an independent watchdog (ibid.). Public trust in local authorities is low (and lower than in the police). The public did not think that public services would listen to their views, and public awareness of regulators is also low (Audit Commission, 2003a). Where appropriate this report refers to the previous research evidence.

Recent developments
The Home Secretary has indicated that he is interested in exploring changes, in the short and longer terms, to clarify and strengthen accountability arrangements for policing in England and Wales (Home Office, 2003). He has set out four principles for any changes: • • • • the need to protect the political independence of the police; the need for clear accountability mechanisms to support more effective services; transparency about who is responsible for tackling crime and holding the police accountable; and improved public understanding of policing and its effectiveness.

In the short term, the Home Office has already established a programme of work to develop citizen focus in policing. A joint Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) project has been established to develop national standards for the quality of contact between the police and the public. The Home Office is developing a new Police Performance Assessment Framework, which emphasises public satisfaction and confidence as a measurement of performance. The Home Office and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) have worked together to ensure that inspection protocols also support the drive for increased citizen focus. Increasing involvement of the voluntary and community sectors in crime reduction is also being considered. The Home Office and the Association of Police Authorities (APA) have set up a National Practitioner Panel to generate a knowledge base in the area of consultation and citizen focus and to devise a strategy for disseminating good practice. This project also involves three pilots in police authorities to test more innovative ways of building dialogue with the public and it will build on the findings of this research.

Aims of the research
The broad aims of the study were to examine how police authorities engage the public in dialogue and identify the benefits to the police service. It also aimed to suggest ways in which police authorities could enhance this role. The specific aim of the focus groups was to examine public awareness about, and views on, police authorities and public accountability in policing. Other aims were to gather public views on who they hold responsible for crime prevention and their general perceptions of crime and policing. The project was carried out with the co-operation of the APA and we are grateful for their encouragement of the study.

Methodology
Fourteen focus groups were carried out between November and December 2002 with participants from a broad cross section of the general public. The composition of the sample was structured in terms of:

• • • • •

age; ethnic group; gender; socio-economic group; and urban/rural environment.

The groups consisted of five to eight participants (with one group having ten) and were structured as follows:

Table 1 Sample Structure
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Group 10 11 12 13 14 Socio–economic group ABC1 ABC1 C2DE ABC1 C2DE C2DE ABC1 C2DE C2DE Minority ethnic groups African Caribbean Pakistani Indian African Caribbean Pakistani (nonEnglish language) Age 18-29 18-29 18-29 30-59 30-59 30-59 60+ 60+ 60+ Age 18-29 18-29 30-59 60+ 25-70 Gender Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Gender Mixed Male Female Mixed Female Location North Midlands South Wales Midlands South South North Wales Location South North South South North Rural/Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural town Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural town Rural/Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban

An external recruitment agency recruited the groups. Home Office researchers facilitated each group, one researcher leading the discussion with the other taking notes and ensuring that it was tape-recorded. The tape recordings were transcribed and the full transcripts were then analysed by Home Office researchers using a thematic matrix mapping technique. Individuals for whom English is not their first language may have different needs and have experienced different problems and barriers to gaining information than others. A focus group was therefore carried out with a group of Pakistani women in the North of England2. This group was recruited by a specialist agency, which also facilitated the group in the Pushtu language and transcribed the recording into English. We asked participants in the groups about a range of topics concerning policing, crime reduction, their sources of information, their view on police authorities and consultation, and suggestions for improvement in all of these issues. It was assumed correctly that participants’ knowledge of police authorities would be low. The groups were, therefore, designed to give basic knowledge about authorities before attempting to stimulate discussion. The facilitators used posters with key facts in plain language about police authorities and their roles, membership and functions. They also used flash cards for ranking exercises on police service and police authority priorities. Focus groups provide an in-depth understanding of individuals’ views that could not be gained from quantitative surveys. Focus groups should be conducted in a permissive environment where participants feel free to discuss the topic and their views are not judged and a consensus is not sought. If this environment is successfully created the ‘group dynamic’ that
2

The women came from the Pathan Community, one of the most socially excluded groups from Pakistan. None of the women spoke English fluently.

evolves may elicit richer data from participants who may be less confident in speaking out than would be gained in a one-to-one interview. Focus groups allow greater exploration of the issues and may also elicit issues that were not apparent when the study was designed. They are particularly well suited to the complex topics which were the subject of this study. However, the results cannot be used to draw statistically based conclusions about the larger population3.

Structure of this report
Chapter 2 will cover participants’ general perceptions and views on policing and crime in their area. Chapter 3 will look at participants’ knowledge of policing activities, their sources of information, the information they would like, and ways in which this information can be delivered. Chapter 4 discusses police accountability and public participation in decisionmaking; it summarises participants’ views on the current structure of police accountability and governance, including police authorities, and looks at ways this may be improved. The final chapter brings the findings together and highlights the conclusions, policy implications and recommendations. All of the chapters will summarise the differences in opinions and perceptions between the different sub-groups of participants.

3

A good basic text on focus group research is Kruger, R.A. (2000) Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

2.

Perceptions of crime and policing

Participants were asked about their general perceptions of crime and policing in their area to get them thinking about the issues more broadly. This chapter will cover participants’ views on these issues, including differences in perceptions and opinions between the different subgroups. Their views provide a context to help an understanding of their opinions on police accountability and participation in decision-making.

Policing
The BCS has highlighted a fall in public confidence in the police since 1996 with only just under half (47%) of people in the 2001/2 sweep of the BCS believing they do a good or excellent job, compared with 64 per cent in 1996 (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). Nonetheless, they still receive the highest ratings out of all of the criminal justice agencies. The recent Home Office citizenship survey found that people trusted the police and courts more than political institutions, such as local authorities, and that they trusted local institutions more than national ones (Attwood et al., 2003). To some extent, a lack of confidence in the police was reflected in the focus groups.

Visibility
One of the main issues was a perceived lack of police visibility, in particular foot patrol, as noted in numerous other studies of public views (see for example Bradley, 1998). There was a consensus across all the groups that they rarely saw the police patrolling on foot and that when they did see the police they were generally in a car. Some of the urban participants said they only saw police officers on foot for specific events such as football matches. The majority wanted to see more ‘Bobbies on the beat’. They believed that having police officers patrolling on foot acted as a deterrent to potential criminals. The BCS found that 16 per cent of respondents felt that patrolling on foot should be the most important police priority above actually targeting particular crimes such as burglary or drugs offences (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). The groups also indicated that seeing officers on foot made them feel safe from harm when they were out on the streets: “…and there’s just plenty of police around. You thought ‘well there’s someone around who can sort something out if anything goes down’.” (male, 18-29, urban, north) Police officers were often seen in cars but the participants equated this with responding to crime, 'trouble', catching speeding motorists or just driving around. This contrasted with their views of foot patrol, as they did not see car patrols as providing a deterrent or making them feel safe. One group made a direct link between what they saw as a fall in foot patrol and the rise in crime. One person in London, who thought that the number of officers on foot was increasing, saw this as a positive thing. Many associated officer visibility with the concept of the police doing a good job, believing that if you did not see the police you assumed that they were not doing anything, and lack of visibility contributed towards feelings of insecurity.

Accessibility
There was a strong feeling across the groups felt that the police are only concerned with serious incidents and wanted to be reassured that they were also available for the less serious incidents and problems. Again this was a reason why having a ‘local Bobby’ seemed to be attractive idea. They believed that such a figure would be available to talk to about community issues and smaller problems. Across all of the groups there was a perception that their local police stations were inaccessible – being either closed or open part-time. When individuals had phoned their local station they found that the phones were not manned or were permanently on answerphone. It was very rare for the participants to know their local station phone number and many said

they would simply call 999. There was a shared desire to be able to speak to someone directly over the phone.

Inappropriate priorities and a lack of response
There seemed to be a consensus that the police had inappropriate priorities and that they were not concentrating their energies in the right places. An example of this is the perception that the police target motorists because they are an easy group to focus their efforts on. There was a feeling in several groups that there was little point in reporting minor crimes because the police would not respond. Where individuals from different groups had reported crimes a few of them felt that there was a lack of communication or feedback from the police, and that ultimately no action was taken. It was a common perception that police response times were too slow when they did attend crimes.

Police officers’ attitudes, discrimination and integrity
A police officer’s attitude and communication skills were considered, primarily by the urban groups, to be an important factor in whether they believed the police were doing a good job or not. There were several instances across all the groups of police officers being rude and abrupt or asking what were perceived to be unnecessary questions. This is supported by the BCS finding that just under one fifth of adults interviewed could recall being really annoyed with a police officer during the previous five years, of whom 43 per cent said this was due to the police officer’s manner (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). The minority ethnic focus groups were also more likely to think that the police were heavy handed and sometimes violent towards suspects: “They give me a beating for no reason whatsoever….They’re not doing their jobs properly out there.” (male,18-29, Pakistani, urban, north) Whilst only participants in one group from the general population felt that the police discriminated against or stereotyped people from minority ethnic groups, all of the minority ethnic groups shared this perception. There was a feeling amongst some participants in the 18-29 year old (minority ethnic) groups that someone from a minority ethnic group is more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person in a similar situation. Some of the participants in the older minority ethnic groups felt that the police didn’t take them seriously when they reported crimes, and that the police did not trust them. Other participants from minority ethnic groups thought that the police were still ‘institutionally racist’, had negative attitudes towards minority communities and were slow in responding to them (this was felt most strongly by the non-English-speaking group). Some of the minority ethnic groups mentioned police recruitment of minority ethnic officers as a possible means of increasing trust and confidence (as did one other group of mixed ethnicity) and felt that they were underrepresented at present. There was a feeling amongst participants in a few of the groups that some police officers thought that they were ‘above the law’ because they broke the law and got away with it, for example by retiring on a full pension without being disciplined. A few individuals within various groups also mentioned the issue of police corruption more specifically, for example, the police dealing in drugs and abuses of power such as not reading suspects their rights when arresting them. These were generally examples that they had heard about through the press or other media, or through friends and relatives. As stated above, only the minority ethnic groups mentioned examples of physical violence from police officers.

Whether the police are doing a good job
Amongst people aged 30 or more there was a feeling that crime levels were higher now than in the past. Many participants in these groups also felt that policing was better in the past when there was a ‘beat bobby’. There was a consensus amongst these groups that the young people today did not respect the police and that they were often abusive towards the police. Participants from the 18-29 year old groups on the other hand, stated that young people were

intimidated by the police and felt that the police did not respect them. The BCS found that three-quarters of respondents said that they personally view the police with respect, however only 26 per cent said that the police are viewed with respect by society today (Flood-Page and Taylor, eds., 2003). Overall the younger participants thought that young people viewed the police in a negative way. Across the groups there was some feeling that there was a lack of trust and confidence in the police, and that the police did not communicate or liaise with the community. There was a perception amongst many of the groups that if the police were performing well there would be less crime and individuals would feel safe. However, in contrast to this there was some recognition of the difficulties that the police face and of the constraints placed on them. There was a strong feeling that crime levels were too high for the police to manage and that they therefore had to prioritise crimes by their seriousness. People over 30 were more likely than younger people to believe that there are not enough police officers and that they do not receive enough funding. Several participants in different groups mentioned what they considered to be the excessive paperwork or red tape as a factor that hinders the police in doing their job. There was a fairly strong perception that the press tended to report negative police stories and that the public was less likely to hear about the positive things that the police do. When asked about any positive experiences of the police there were individuals across the groups who had received a positive and effective response from the police. The most commonly cited example of good police-community work was police officers going into schools to talk to children. This seemed to have left a positive impression of police work across the groups. Another shared positive impression of the police seemed to stem from individual police officers that participants had met and remembered because they thought that they were ‘doing a good job’. This was defined by the participants as being friendly and approachable, reliable and providing a quick and effective response. However, with one or two exceptions, this was the view of the participants aged 30 or more and the police officers were generally people they had known in the past. Participants in the same age group (including minority ethnic groups) were also more likely to think that the police did not have enough power or authority and that they had more in the past. Participants in some of these groups thought that the law actually prevents the police from doing their job. This was particularly expressed in relation to young people, who some participants believed could not be arrested or punished due to a lack of police power. However, some young participants also felt that this was true: “There’s so many laws that when the police are there they can’t do anything like with teaching, it’s completely changed now, you have to be so careful…” (male, 18-29, Pakistani, urban, north) There was a perception amongst several groups that the courts share the blame as they do not support the police enough and fail to punish offenders adequately.

Crime
Perceptions of crime and disorder
Successive sweeps of the BCS have shown that the public tends to overestimate the crime problem in England Wales (Hough and Roberts, 1998; Mattinson and Mirrlees-Black, 2000). In the 2002 BCS respondents seemed pessimistic about the crime rate, with 38 per cent of respondents believing that the national crime rate had risen ‘a lot’ and a further 35 per cent feeling that it had risen ‘a little’ over the previous two years (Simmons and Dodd, eds., 2003). This is despite the total number of crimes reported to the BCS falling by seventeen per cent since 1999 (ibid.). The BCS also asks respondents how likely they think it is that various crimes will happen to them in the following year. Very few people thought that these crimes were ‘very likely’ to happen to them, but about a quarter thought it was ‘fairly likely’ that their car would be stolen or items stolen form it, and a fifth thought it was ‘fairly likely’ that their home would be burgled (ibid.). This perception of crime was reflected in the groups with

participants of varying age, gender, location and ethnicity expressing the view that they did not feel safe and thought that levels of crime were high. Their perceptions were gained from a variety of sources including their own experiences, their friends’ views and things that they had seen or heard. The most common problems mentioned across the groups were drugs, alcohol, street crime, burglary and car crime. Several of the participants aged 30 or more perceived young people as a particular problem in relation to alcohol and drugs, and to be 'trouble’ more generally.

Responsibility for reducing crime
When asked who they considered to be responsible for reducing crime in addition to the police, the responses varied enormously. The participants from the higher socio-economic groups were more likely to mention the role of the local authority and some were aware that they worked in partnership with the police to bring the community together to reduce crime and disorder. A small minority were aware of wardens that they believed the local authority had provided to patrol the area. There was a very strong feeling that parents were responsible for preventing their children from committing crimes and anti-social behaviour. There was also a perception amongst most groups that schools had a role in preventing crime and that provision of education in general should be improved as this might help to reduce crime. Participants from the non-Englishspeaking group and a group of women aged 60 or more felt that schools should have more power to discipline their pupils, and believed that this lack of discipline was to blame for some young people offending. A few people mentioned the importance of community leaders in bringing the community together against crime. There was a general consensus that the community as a whole was responsible for reducing crime. The majority of groups had participants who also mentioned neighbourhood watches (or similar schemes such as ‘pub watch’) as sharing this responsibility. However, whilst most knew of the schemes, only a couple of individuals were actually involved or knew who their local representative was. Some thought that their local scheme had ended due to lack of interest or participation. Individuals mentioned customs and excise, surveillance cameras and multi-agency approaches (police with local authority and community) as also helping to prevent crime but these were less commonly mentioned. Only participants in one group thought that central government had this responsibility (although it subsequently emerged that some participants thought that the police were accountable to central government so, by implication, they may have appreciated that it had a remit for crime reduction).

How the findings differ between the subgroups
Table 2 summarises the similarities and differences in the findings between the different subgroups, including age, location and ethnic group. Where it is clear that there is a consensus of opinion across the groups this opinion appears across all of the columns to illustrate this. Where there are no consistencies between or within groups the findings have not been listed. A similar table will appear towards the end of the following two chapters. Some of these findings reinforce past research on public expectations of policing. For example Bradley (1998) found that groups who favoured visible patrol do so because they see patrol as an indicator of the police taking action and also believe that it will have a deterrence effect. He found that young people feel that they are ‘stereotyped’ by the police and that people aged 60 or more thought that ‘young people don’t respect the police’ (ibid.). Hamilton, Radford and Jarman (2003), in their study in Northern Ireland, also found that young people thought the police lacked sympathy and understanding towards them. Bradley found that people aged 60 or more mentioned station closures and slow response time, but in our study these issues were mentioned across the groups. Bradley found, as did our study, that people aged 25 or more (30 or more in our study) were more inclined to sympathise with the police and the pressures placed on them. However, he found that this was not the case for individuals from lower socio-economic groups who were more critical of the police.

Bradley's study also found a shared perception amongst minority ethnic groups that the police stereotype them and discriminate against them (op.cit.).

Table 2: Perceptions of policing and crime broken down by subgroups4
Young people (1829) People over 30 (30-59) Older people (60 +) Rural/urban groups Minority ethnic groups Lower/ higher socioeconomic groups

Police rarely seen on foot patrol, generally in cars Local police stations inaccessible Police have inappropriate priorities Police only concerned with ‘serious’ incidents Urban groups more likely to consider police officer’s attitude and communication skills as showing that doing a good job More likely to think police heavy handed and sometimes violent Shared views

Shared perception that police discriminate against minority ethnic groups Belief that crime levels higher now than in the past Belief that young people intimidated and disrespected by police Belief that young people disrespectful to the police More likely to think not enough police and funding More likely to think police do not have enough power or authority Belief that crime levels higher now than in the past Belief that young people disrespectful to the police More likely to think not enough police and funding More likely to think police do not have enough power or authority Higher socioeconomic groups more likely to mention role of local authority in preventing crime

4

Note gender is not included in this table as there were no discernible differences between the perceptions of men and women.

Summary
In terms of perceptions of policing, one of the main issues for the groups was the lack of police visibility and the desire for more ‘Bobbies on the beat’. There was a strong feeling that this would provide a deterrent to potential criminals and make the public feel safer. Many participants wanted the police to be available for less serious incidents and problems as well as the more serious. There was a general consensus that local police stations were inaccessible, and a shared desire to be able to speak to someone directly over the phone. There was a shared perception that the police had inappropriate priorities, and that police response times were too slow when they did attend crimes. A police officer's attitude and communication skills were considered to be an important factor in determining whether the participants believed the police were doing a good job or not. All of the minority ethnic groups thought that the police discriminated against or stereotyped people from minority ethnic groups. There was some recognition amongst the groups that the police faced difficulties and restraints in carrying out their duties, such as high crime levels meaning that the police have to give priority to more serious crimes. Participants of varying age, gender, location and ethnicity expressed the view that they thought crime levels were high. When asked who they considered to be responsible for reducing crime in addition to the police, the responses varied enormously. However, there was a strong feeling that parents, schools and the community as a whole had a responsibility for reducing crime. Only one group spontaneously mentioned central government in this context.

3.

Information about policing

This chapter concentrates on participants’ knowledge and understanding of policing and the police, and of the different roles and responsibilities the police have. It explores participants’ views on the information they would like and how they would like to receive it, again summarising the differences in opinion between the various subgroups.

Knowledge of policing
For the police to be accountable to and work with their local communities, the public need to have an adequate understanding and knowledge of policing in its various forms. If the public are not kept informed about policing, then they cannot make adequate judgements about how the police are performing. To improve trust and confidence in the police it is vital that the public are provided with information and knowledge about policing. Police authorities are responsible for informing the public about the priorities of the local police force and how the police are performing against objectives. However, they are not the only body responsible for providing information about policing or crime prevention so gaps in knowledge should not be attributed to them alone.

Sources of information
As mentioned previously, participants’ perceptions were frequently based on information from friends and family, and personal experiences. A few people had read things in local newspapers about police activities such as tackling domestic violence, but some were also quite negative about this source of information, stating that they saw local newspapers as junk mail. The groups were more likely to have gained their information from the television news than from local newspapers. Many different groups cited television as a source of information and gave specific examples such as ‘Crimewatch’ and reports of crime statistics. Other methods of communicating information that were mentioned less often included posters and ‘yellow boards’, which are placed in public places detailing a crime that has taken place there and appealing for witnesses. These were only mentioned in two groups, both of whom were based in London where they are perhaps used most often. A few participants referred to the local authority and library as being sources of information but again these were urban groups, so these sources may be less accessible in rural locations. Most participants were aware of the information provided with council tax bills but did not generally read it or, if they did read it, they said that they ‘didn’t take much notice of it’. This apathy seemed to stem from the belief that they had to pay the money regardless and it therefore did not matter what the information said it was spent on. The non-English-speaking group expressed a strong view that they did not have any information or knowledge on the police or the role of other agencies, and were not aware of where they could get this information. They were worried that they did not know how to use the emergency services and would not be able to communicate with them should they need to. They felt that no one had given them any information and that language was a barrier to gaining greater knowledge. They wanted information to be available in other languages. “We hardly find out anything because people just don’t bother telling us” – when asked if they had enough information on the police. (Female, Pakistani, non-Englishspeaking, urban, north)

Knowledge of police activities
Most participants were not very well informed about local activities and roles. They tended to see the police only in terms of crime prevention. They seemed to realise they were not particularly well informed and wanted more information. The one exception to this was the 1829 year old Pakistani male group who had a better understanding of the police, saying that

their role consisted of everything from traffic policing to domestic incidents. It could be that this group had increased their knowledge of the police force because of past civil disorder and police-community relations issues in the city. When asked about local police operations, most participants had some awareness of specific operations that had taken place or were occurring. However, the types of activities named varied between the groups; the rural groups were more likely to identify very specific operations such as pub watch, whereas the urban groups tended to name groups of people or types of crimes that were being targeted such as ‘gangs’ and ‘drugs’. Most groups did not have any awareness of police consultation activity. Only two individuals mentioned that such a meeting took place regularly. Two people from the minority ethnic groups also mentioned consultation meetings taking place but these were in response to specific community problems – riots and shootings – and were not a regular occurrence and even at these groups one participant still felt that the community was under-represented. A participant from an urban group explained the problem of consultation meetings from her perspective: “It’s always very difficult in town areas because I mean you get country areas, you have small villages and towns that have meetings and local sort of things whereas we don’t…have that sort of community spirit.” (female, 60+, urban, south) Other police activities of which there was some awareness were educational work in schools, community work in deprived areas, multi-agency work, recruitment campaigns, and encouraging reporting of domestic violence and racial harassment.

Information needs and ways in which they can be delivered5
Information needs
Participants were shown cards with different types of information about the police and asked to prioritise them. Several people wanted to know practical information such as how to contact the police for non-emergency situations or how to let them know what they thought the police priorities ought to be. There was a strong feeling across all of the groups that they should know what their rights were, with the most common reason given that they would like to know this information in case the police stopped them. The participants in groups aged 60 or more did not mention being stopped as a reason but still expressed an interest in learning their rights. People from minority ethnic groups thought that they were more likely to need this information as they were more likely to be stopped. “I think personally as a black man what my rights are when I’m stopped, that’s gonna happen to me a lot more than most people so that for me is a priority.” (male, 18-29, African-Caribbean, urban, south) Most groups’ participants wanted to know what the police priorities were for their local area. A few individuals stated that they would only be interested in what the police spent their time doing and why, and not in the results of specific operations. Some participants were cynical about information on police priorities, as they thought that the police should be targeting everything, and stated that they would not necessarily believe the information given to them by the police anyway. Several participants also felt that they would not want any information on policing if crime rates were low, as they would then assume that the police were doing a good job. However, in contrast a few participants felt that all of the categories of information should be publicised more proactively and made more accessible to the general public. There were mixed views between and within the groups over the importance of crime figures and statistics. As with information regarding priorities, those that were interested in crime figures wanted information about their local area. They wanted to know where the local crime
5

The non-English-speaking group were not asked about the types of information they might want because they did not have enough basic information to be able to contribute towards this.

hotspots were and what types of crimes were being committed. Some were also interested in a comparison with other areas but again preferred this information to be at a local level. Many participants were uninterested in these figures or thought that they could be manipulated to show what the police or government wanted. Views on whether information about crime prevention was useful were also mixed. Compared with other forms of information, there was relatively little interest in police performance. However, where there was an interest in this information, participants were concerned (as before) about their local area and thought that this information should be linked to police priorities. This information might be more meaningful to individuals if they were convinced that it was accurate and that knowing about the figures would actually make a difference. This is illustrated by the fact that some individuals seemed slightly cynical about how useful or valid this information would be and asked how success was measured. The participants stated that these were factors which would affect their interest in this information. Only a few participants wanted to know how to give their views on how the police force are run; participants aged 30 or more were more likely to feel that this was important. However, as will be seen in the next section, there were other indications of support for consultation within the groups. The main reason participants gave for not wanting to give their views was that they felt no one would listen to them. This was a particularly prevalent attitude amongst the lower socio-economic groups. This sense of apathy and resignation needs to be addressed. There was a general consensus amongst participants that they knew where funding for the police came from, and therefore did not want any further information on this. However, many participants said that they would like to know what the money was spent on, but this was generally seen as less important than their other information needs.

Delivery of information
We then asked participants to identify their preferred method of receiving the information they had highlighted. A few individuals thought local newspapers would be a good means of communicating information, these participants were more likely to be female. There was a fairly strong feeling that television would be a good way of communicating information, either through a show such as ‘Crimewatch’ but with more regional/local information, or through a general advertisement. Many participants were keen on the idea of having public meetings between the police and the community. Enthusiasm for such meetings was more marked among women, and those who were 30 or more. Other participants suggested a community day or event rather than a meeting. A relatively small minority of participants thought that posters would be useful. Participants in several groups thought that the local authority should be responsible for informing the public about policing. Only a few participants thought that leaflets providing information on the police would be a good idea. However, the non-English-speaking group felt that leaflets in different languages would be a very good idea, and also stated the importance of translator and interpreter services. Other (unpublished) research recently undertaken also suggests that police newsletters may be more popular than these findings suggest. About half the participants had access to the Internet. Participants who were under 60 years old and from the higher socio-economic groups were more likely to have Internet access. However, most participants, whether or not they had Internet access, thought that many people would not and that, therefore, information should not appear only on the Internet. Only one participant from all of the groups had been on a police website, and thought that it was very good, another knew that there was such a website. After the participants were made aware of the existence of police websites, only a small minority of participants said they would use them to look for information. A few individuals suggested that advertising the website and making it more ‘eye-catching’ might increase use. There were several reasons given for participants’ unwillingness to gather information from police websites. Most participants said that cost was the main factor, others said that they did not have time, or that they only used the Internet for specific things. Some thought that they would receive as poor a response from sending an e-mail to the police as they had when they had telephoned.

How the findings differ between the subgroups
Table 3: Participants’ information and knowledge of policing broken down by subgroups
Young people (1829) People over 30 (30-59) Older people (60 +) Rural/ urban groups Minority ethnic groups Lower/ higher socioeconomic groups Female/ Male

Not very well informed about police activities and roles Little awareness of police consultation Would like to know their rights Would like to know police priorities for local area Thought that information should not be Internet only, whether they had access personally or not Non- Englishspeaking group had no information and not aware of where they could obtain it More likely to believe that they would be stopped by the police and need to know rights More likely to want to know how to give their opinions to the police More likely to want to know how to give their opinions to the police Lower socioeconomic groups more likely to believe that no one will listen to their views Females more likely to think local newspapers a good way of communicating information More enthusiastic about consultation meetings More enthusiastic about consultation meetings Non- Englishspeaking group thought leaflets in their language were a good idea More likely to have Internet access More likely to have Internet access Higher socioeconomic groups more likely to have Internet access Females more enthusiastic about consultation meetings Shared views

Summary
The majority of participants were not very well informed about the full range of roles carried out by the police and tended to see policing only in terms of crime prevention (most groups did not have any awareness of police consultation activity). However, they seemed aware of the limits of their knowledge and wanted more information. This is in line with previous research (Bradley, 1998) which found a ‘lack of knowledge of police activities and the rationale for them across all groups’. Participants’ perceptions were frequently based on information from friends and family, and personal experience. Where knowledge was gained from the media, this was more likely to have come from television than local newspapers. The non-English-speaking group expressed a strong view that they did not have any information or knowledge about the police or other agencies and were not aware of where they could obtain this information. In terms of the information that participants desired, many people wanted to know practical information such as how to contact the police for non-emergency information. There was a strong feeling across all of the groups that they should know their rights, generally in case the police stopped them. Cynicism and apathy are barriers to interesting people in information about police performance, priorities and crime statistics. Individuals may be more interested if they were sure that the figures were accurate and the information that was given was at a more local level. Several participants stated that they would not require any information on policing if the crime rates were low, as they would then assume that the police were doing a good job. Only a few participants wanted to give their views on how the police were run but, as will be seen in the next chapter, there were other indications of support for consultation. Television was thought to be a good way of communicating information as were public meetings, and information in other languages (mentioned by the non-English-speaking group). About half of participants had access to the Internet. Whether they did or not, most thought that many people would not have access and that information should not be available only on the Internet. Reasons given for participants’ unwillingness to use the Internet to access this type of information were the cost, lack of time, only using the Internet to do specific tasks or look for certain items (as opposed to ‘surfing’), and the possibility of a poor response.

4.

Public participation in decision-making

This chapter summarises the participants’ perceptions of police accountability and governance and their thoughts on whether they should be involved in the decision-making process. The participants were given information on police authorities. Their opinions on these bodies, and how their role could be strengthened and communication with the public improved, are also covered here. As with previous chapters, differences in opinion between the different subgroups will be stated.

Police accountability
As stated in Chapter 1, policing in England and Wales is accountable to, and managed by, a tripartite structure consisting of the Home Office, chief constables and police authorities. Police authorities have a variety of responsibilities, one of which is to consult the local community about the policing of their area. However, the public can only give their views if they know that such channels exist and how to use them. It was assumed that awareness of police authorities in the focus groups would be low. Before the facilitators introduced groups to the concept of the police authority, they asked the participants a variety of questions about their awareness of and views on police accountability and governance, and how, if at all, they thought this could be improved. There was a general consensus that the public do not participate in the decision-making process and that they should have the opportunity to state their opinions. All of the participants felt that they had not been asked for their opinions. “You’re paying, it’s the community you live in, it’s your community you live there so you should have a say in how it’s policed.” (Mixed gender group, 18-29, AfricanCaribbean, urban, south) A few participants were cynical about the benefits of being able to participate, as they did not think that the police would listen to their opinions. The Home Office citizenship survey found that only about four-out-of-ten people felt that they could influence decisions affecting their local area (Attwood et al., 2003). Only one participant in all the groups thought that decisions should be left to the government, without public involvement. The participants were asked about three aspects of the current system of police governance and accountability (without any details of police authorities being mentioned to them) 6: • When asked about police funding and who decided how it was spent, the majority of participants thought that central government (and in Wales, the Welsh Assembly) made this decision. Other participants thought that local government had this responsibility; a couple of individuals spontaneously mentioned that it was the police authority; and one participant thought that the police decided themselves7. The majority of the groups thought that central government, the Home Office or the local authority decided what the police did and what their priorities ought to be. Only two participants thought that the police authority or an independent body of some kind made this decision. Two people thought that the police decided this for themselves. A few participants from lower socio-economic groups said that they did not know who made these decisions. Most of the groups thought that it was the Home Office’s job to ensure that the police did a good job and to take remedial action where necessary. Participants in lower socioeconomic groups were again more likely to state that the police are responsible for themselves. Other groups thought to have this responsibility included the local authority, the Public Accounts Committee, the electorate, and the chief constable. One participant

•

•

6

7

The non-English-speaking group expressed their belief that they were not informed about this matter and therefore felt unable to engage with the issues around police accountability and governance. The funding for policing comes from four main sources – grants from central government (mainly the Home Office) and two other taxes – National NonDomestic Rates and local council tax. Police authorities hold and agree the budget; but (to varying degrees) delegate the day-to-day management of the budget to their chief constable – Association of Police Authorities (1999) Pounding the Beat: A guide to police finance in England and Wales.

thought that no one had this responsibility. No one specifically mentioned the police authority. Overall, when talking about police governance and accountability, there was very low awareness of police authorities. There was agreement across the groups that action should be taken if the police were not doing a good job, though it was common to frame notions of poor performance in terms of wrongdoing. Several participants thought that an independent body or inquiry should be able to investigate the police in these circumstances. Several others thought that where there had been wrongdoing the police should be prosecuted, or punished in other ways, such as being fined or disciplined. People felt that the police, either as an organisation or as individual officers, were not punished strongly enough. “…people in the finance sector have to answer to the FSA [Financial Services Authority] don’t they, why should [the police] be any different.” (mixed gender group, 18-29, African-Caribbean, urban, south) One participant took this further stating that they thought ‘nothing’ would happen if the police were not doing a good job. Some participants thought that police should be answerable to the public, whist others thought they should be questioned and tackled within the organisation instead.

Police authorities
Knowledge
In view of the anticipated low awareness about authorities, we gave participants the basic information in Table 4 before attempting to stimulate discussion. Facilitators used posters with the key facts written in plain language to explain police authorities’ main roles and responsibilities. There was widespread consensus in the discussion across groups from different ethnic backgrounds, ages, gender and location.

Table 4: Information given to participants on police authorities
Poster 1: What police authorities are Public bodies (not a private company) Poster 2: What police authorities do Represent the local community Poster 3: What police authorities do Tell the public how well the police force has performed in the last year Monitor complaints about the police

Authority members are local councillors, magistrates and independent members Police force is responsible for the day-to-day running of the local police; police authority oversees what the police force does One police authority in each police force area

Find out what the public thinks about local policing and what the police’s priority should be Together with the police force, sets out the most important tasks and what the police should achieve

Approve how the money is spent locally and make sure the public gets value for money from the police

Keep tabs on how good a job the police force is doing and how it could do better

Appoint the most senior officers in the force

There were a few individuals across the groups that had heard of police authorities but they generally did not know who they are or what they do. A couple of people who had heard of

them saw police authorities as being the body that ‘slapped the police on the wrist’. Those that had heard of police authorities generally gained their information from friends or relatives. The vast majority of participants had not heard of police authorities before and thought that the name police authority sounded like ‘the police’. Most said that they would have assumed they were the same organisation as the police. Two groups had positive views about the name. An Indian women’s group thought that the word ‘authority’ sounded like action would be taken and denoted independence. The non-English-speaking women’s group thought the name made authorities sound important and powerful. Some participants believed that the name was irrelevant as long as they were doing their job effectively. Suggestions for other names included the Independent Police Commission, Independent (Police) Authority, Authority for the Police, Police Inquiry Council, Police Authorities Commission, Police Watchdog and Police Control.

Roles and powers
On hearing the role and functions of police authorities, most participants thought that they were useful and necessary bodies, as long as they were effective. They believed that police authorities could represent the community and get public views and priorities across to the police, increase public confidence, and generally ‘police the police’. Some participants thought that the police have a lot of power and therefore they need to be monitored by a separate body. “By monitoring the police you see what is good, what needs improving and I think ultimately the community would feel…involved and their voice would be heard more often.” (mixed gender group, African-Caribbean, 60+, urban, south) Police authorities monitor police complaints and investigations but do not undertake them. This role is left to the police force involved in the complaint which may be supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) where the complaint is serious enough (this is only the case in relation to complaints about the conduct of officers; the PCA have no involvement in complaints relating to ‘quality of service’ provision). A few people spontaneously mentioned the role of the PCA but there was some confusion in the discussion between police authorities and the PCA. This may have been because some saw police oversight in terms of dealing with misconduct but the similar names may also contribute to confusion8. Public confidence in the police complaints system is low (Warburton et al., forthcoming) so an association with the system may not be to police authorities’ advantage. In terms of police complaints, participants’ opinions varied. Several participants in one group were sympathetic towards the police because they believed that the public complained unfairly, and some participants from other groups thought that the police could monitor their own complaints if they had a dedicated officer in each station. Participants in one group (male, 60+, rural, north) went even further as they felt strongly that the police should be monitoring their own complaints and that it was unnecessary to have a police authority, as it was ‘interfering’ in police work. Participants from two other groups thought that police authorities should not have the power to appoint senior police officers either, as they would not know enough about the job. However, many participants also thought that it was good to have the police authority monitoring complaints because of their independence. Several participants remained cynical of the complaints procedure and thought it was ineffective and possibly biased towards the police. The participants’ enthusiasm about police authority roles and responsibilities was dependent on them being effective, and many were sceptical as to whether this was the case. There was a strong feeling that they would have known about police authorities if they were doing a good job. A few participants thought that red tape and bureaucracy was a potential problem and some thought that authorities needed stronger powers so that they could do more, such as sack police officers. Others believed that little action was taken with respect to complaints and
8

The PCA is to be replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in 2004, which should eventually remove this source of confusion. The creation of the IPCC is part of a reform programme aimed at improving public confidence in the police complaints system.

were therefore cynical of the police authorities’ role in monitoring them. Participants from the Indian women’s group thought that if the police authority were effective there would not be any problems with the police.

Independence and membership
Police authorities’ independence from the police was seen to be very important by most participants, because of the risk of corruption or abuse of power. Some individuals thought that it was good to have a body which was able to apply pressure to the police force to ensure that they are working effectively. Others thought that it was good to have someone who they could voice their complaints to. In light of the importance attached to the independence of the police authority, the appointment and selection of police authority members was deemed to be a key issue. Most authorities consist of 17 members – nine councillors, three magistrates and five independent members. There was a fair amount of scepticism about councillors being included as police authority members. Some believed that the councillors might be corrupt. Participants thought that councillors have their own priorities and agendas, and might become a police authority member for their own ends. This cynicism and concern was expressed across the rural and urban groups, but was less prevalent amongst the London groups. The rural groups tended to be the most negative in their attitude towards councillors. One group thought that having some councillor representatives was positive because they liase with both the police and the public. Another group also thought that councillors represented the public and could therefore make a positive contribution to the police authority. Recent research by the Audit Commission (2003a) also found that public trust in local authorities is low, and lower than in the police (see also Attwood et al., 2003). There was a feeling in many of the groups that the police authority did not appear to be independent enough and that the number of independent members should be increased. Some participants took this further to suggest that police authorities should be made up completely of independent members. There were worries that the independent members might not have a fair say if councillors and magistrates have a majority. There was a feeling that even the independent members would not represent the ‘grass roots’ and that ‘ordinary people’ would not get appointed. Others thought that after training was given to police authority members they might not be ‘independent’ in the truest sense. Many saw the present system as an ‘old boys’ network’ or a ‘closed shop’, despite the fact that facilitators explained that ordinary members of the public can become independent members. This is very important in terms of gaining community confidence in police authorities because many of the participants believed that the members would all know each other and the police, and were therefore less likely to take action against the police force. “If it was 100% fully independent, then I think that would make a lot of difference to people, and I think they would feel a lot happier knowing that [the force] was being…kept an eye on.” (female, 18-29, rural, north) Suggestions for alternative members of police authorities include MPs, academics, ‘local people’ or general members of the public, and a representative of education or social services. Another suggestion was (despite generally strong support for independence), expolice officers; in this case, it was felt that they would bring a level of expertise about policing. Ex-police officers are currently eligible to become authority members should they wish.

Publicity and image
There was a general consensus across the groups that police authorities need to publicise themselves more widely and effectively. There was a strong view that if police authorities are supposed to represent the public then the public need to be aware of their existence and at present most people are not. Participants thought that publicity should concentrate on the authority’s role, independence and opportunities for consultation. Most participants believed that the authority needed to involve the public more and listen to their opinions in order to

improve services, and generally become more visible to the public. There were a variety of suggestions about how the police authority could publicise themselves. This included television or local newspaper adverts, public meetings, street surveys, public surgeries, reports and posters in public places or delivered to each house, libraries, public events, youth clubs, bullet points on the sides of carrier bags, representatives at parent evenings, ballot boxes, Internet and e-mail and roadshows. Above all, the participants were keen for the police authority to make the effort to get the public’s attention and contact them. “…It’s always the best thing to come face-to-face, an officer or a member of…the police authority coming out here and listening to our views…and [us] listening to his views and his voice is a lot better than us writing him a letter.” (male, 18-29, Pakistani, urban, north) Different age groups preferred different methods of publicity and consultation. The 18-29 year old groups were particularly keen on the use of television, newspapers, the Internet and email. The 30-59 age range, and some of those aged 60 or more, were enthusiastic about having public meetings, although some of the 18-29 year old Pakistani males also expressed a strong interest in this and wanted to be able to give their opinions on a regular basis. The main reasons why participants thought that consultation might not work were public apathy and disagreement between different sections of the public. They also thought that if it appeared that the police authority were not responding or that your view or complaint was being passed around then people would lose interest. There was also lack of confidence about participation. Some participants thought that the public may not be qualified to suggest changes or decisions. It was also thought that people might be put off speaking in public, either due to lack of confidence or worry about repercussions from the police or others who might be listening. Studies have shown that public awareness of other organisations with a representational, public participation and regulatory function are limited (National Consumer Council, 2002a, 2002b; Audit Commission, 2003a, 2003b). Participants in the groups did have a fairly good grasp of the role of local authorities. This might be expected as they directly provide services. The higher socio-economic groups used bodies such as OFSTED, the Financial Services Authority and school governing bodies as a point of reference in order to understand police authorities as they were more familiar with such bodies.

Communication
The groups highlighted the need for better communication between the police authority and the public; participants wanted basic improvements in services such as making it easier for them to contact the police authority. Many participants also thought that the police authority should provide the public with information on how successful their local police force is, and about crime in their area. The non-English-speaking group also pointed out that they required the most basic communication tools and information to be available to them in their own language. They would like to know how to report a crime and how to complain if necessary. Other suggestions of issues the police authority should concentrate on included monitoring complaints, involving young people, and advertising for minority ethnic staff in the police force. Findings from the case studies and survey of authorities, carried out as part of the overall study (see separate report, referenced in the introduction), confirm many of the focus group findings and help to put the views of members of the public into perspective.

How the findings differ between the subgroups
Table 5: Perceptions of police accountability and police authorities broken down by subgroups
Young people (18-29) People over 30 (30-59) Older people (60 +) Rural/urban groups Minority ethnic groups Lower/higher socioeconomic groups

Majority think that public do not have a say in the decision-making process and should have an opportunity to state their opinions Majority believe that central government provide funding for police and decide how it’s spent Majority think that central government/Home Office/local authority decide police priorities Most thought that Home Office’s job to ensure police did a good job and take necessary action General low awareness of police authorities, who they are or what they do Most thought name made authorities sound like the police On hearing authorities’ roles and functions majority thought were useful as long as effective Would have known about police authorities if they were doing a good job Cynicism and concern about councillor members of authorities because believe might be self-seeking Need for police authorities to publicise themselves more widely and effectively, should concentrate on role, independence and opportunities for consultation Need for better communication between the authority and the public, wanted basic improvements such as being able to contact authority and knowing how to do so Independence of authorities seen to be very important because of risk of corruption, therefore selection of members also seen as very important Lower socio-economic groups more likely not to know who makes decisions about police priorities and state that the police are responsible for themselves One such group thought authorities were ‘interfering in police work’ Cynicism of councillors expressed across rural and urban but most negative in rural groups and least prevalent in London groups Particularly keen on use of television, newspapers, Internet and e-mail for consultation purposes Keen on public meetings for consultation purposes Some were keen on public meetings for consultation purposes One group (18-29, Pakistani male) keen on public meetings for consultation purposes Non-English-speaking group wanted basic communication tools and information available in different languages

Shared views

Summary
When asked for their views on police accountability and governance there was a general consensus that the public does not participate in the decision-making process and that they should have an opportunity to state their opinions. None of the participants thought that they had been asked for their views. Some participants were cynical about giving their opinions, as they did not think that the police would listen to them. The majority of participants thought that the police were funded by central government, and that either central government or the local authority decided what the police did and what their priorities were. Most of the groups thought that it was the Home Office’s job to ensure that the police did a good job and to take action where necessary. There was generally very little awareness of police authorities and their roles throughout the groups. There was agreement that action should be taken if the police were not doing a good job and some thought that an independent body should be able to investigate the police. It was common for participants to frame notions of poor performance in terms of wrongdoing which should be prosecuted or punished. There was also some cynicism expressed towards the complaints system which was thought to be ineffective, and some confusion between the PCA and police authorities. Few people had heard of police authorities. Once participants had been introduced to their roles and responsibilities, there was agreement that they were useful and necessary as long as they were effective. Many were sceptical as to whether they were though, as they felt that they would have heard of authorities if they were doing a good job. Most participants thought that the name ‘police authority’ did not differentiate authorities from ‘the police’, although two groups were more positive about the name. Police authorities’ independence from the police was seen to be very important by most participants because of the risk of corruption and abuse of power. Therefore the selection and appointment of police authority members were also felt to be very important. There was a fair amount of scepticism about councillors, as some believed that they might be self-serving. There was a feeling in many groups that authorities were not independent enough because of the composition of the membership. There was a general consensus that authorities need to publicise themselves more widely and effectively and involve the public more. It was recognised in our groups that apathy, disagreement and a lack of confidence to speak publicly might represent barriers to consultation. However, these might be overcome if the police authority was seen to be listening to the public and taking action, and if alternative methods were provided to allow the public to give their views, or if people were provided with training in expressing their views in public.

5.

Conclusions and recommendations

It can be argued that increasing citizen involvement in policing and the strengthening of local accountability are important strategies for building trust and confidence in the police. They form part of the Home Office’s reform agenda for policing. The aim of the focus groups with members of the public was to examine public awareness about, and views on, police authorities and public accountability in policing. This included trying to identify barriers to participation and ways of overcoming them, thereby increasing confidence in police authorities. We also sought to gather the public’s views on who they hold responsible for crime prevention, and to explore their general perceptions of crime and policing.

Perceptions of crime and policing
Police visibility and accessibility were key issues for the groups. There was a strong desire for more visible foot patrol because it was felt that this would make the public feel safer and would act as a deterrent to potential criminals. This has also been found in other research (see Bradley, 1998). The need for a local ‘Bobby’ was also related to the view that the police should be available for less serious incidents and problems that the public may be experiencing. There was a consensus that local police stations were inaccessible and a desire to be able to speak to someone directly over the phone. There was a perception that police priorities were inappropriate, response times too slow, and that a police officer’s attitude and communication skills were key to whether the public considered them to be doing a good job. Minority ethnic groups felt that the police discriminated against them. There was some recognition that restraints such as perceived high crime levels meant that it was more difficult for the police to be effective. These issues are already being addressed by the Home Office. A programme of research is under way to improve understanding of the nature of public confidence in the police, and its relationship to public satisfaction and to perceptions of crime and safety. A study is being carried out of police Community and Race Relations training, which will examine if improvements should be introduced to ensure that police officers communicate with the public in a professional manner. The research programme is informing the development of strategies to promote a more citizen-focused police service and greater public confidence in the police. A joint Home Office and ACPO project has been established to develop national standards for the quality of contact between the police and the public. The public believes that crime levels are high and many do not feel safe. This may partly be because they are not given appropriate information (see below). There was a strong view that the community had a role to play in crime prevention, this included parents and schools. The Home Office has established a project to develop community participation in crime reduction.

Information about policing
The groups suggested that the public was, in general, poorly informed about policing and tended to see policing only in terms of preventing and dealing with crime. However, most seemed to be aware of their limited knowledge and wanted more information. Hamilton, Radford and Jarman (2003) also found that their participants had limited information on policing. The non-English-speaking group in particular did not have even basic information about services and did not have access to this information or many services because of language barriers. People’s highest priority was for information of practical use such as their rights when they are stopped and searched. Cynicism and apathy are barriers to the public’s interest in information about police performance, priorities and crime statistics. They might be more interested in this information if it was provided at a very local level, if statistics were perceived as accurate and if people felt that the information made a difference to their lives. The need to make performance data more robust and meaningful has been recognised and the Home Office is developing a new framework for assessing police performance which puts

greater emphasis on public satisfaction and confidence as measures of success. The participants thought that television, public meetings and leaflets in different languages were good ways of communicating information. From research detailed in a separate report (referenced in the introduction), it was found that most police authorities have a website or web page and almost all plan to have one within a year. About half the participants had access to the Internet. However, there was agreement across the groups that information should not be available only on the Internet, as some people would not have access.

Public participation in decision-making, police accountability and police authorities
The public felt that they do not participate in the decision-making process and that they should have an opportunity to state their opinions. None of the participants thought that they had been asked for their views on police accountability and governance. Some expressed cynicism about giving their views as they thought that the police force (and police authority once the organisation had been introduced to them) would not listen to them. The majority of participants thought that the police were funded and controlled by central government, some thought that the local authority controlled the police. There was very little awareness of police authorities and their roles and responsibilities. There was a consensus that if the police were not performing well, action should be taken and some suggested that an independent body should do this. The Home Office and APA have set up three pilots in police authorities to test more innovative ways of building dialogue with the public. A National Practitioner Panel is being set up to spread learning in the area of consultation and customer feedback and to devise a strategy for disseminating good practice, building on the findings of this and other research. In the longer term, other options such as making police authorities partly or entirely elected are also being considered. Once the focus groups had been introduced to the roles and responsibilities of police authorities most thought that they were useful and necessary as long as they were effective. However, many thought that they would have heard of police authorities if they were effective, and were therefore sceptical of their performance. Many participants also thought that the name ‘police authority’ meant that they would not be differentiated from the police force. There was a general consensus that authorities needed to publicise themselves more widely and effectively and involve the public more. It was recognised that apathy, disagreement and a lack of confidence might represent barriers to consultation, but these might be overcome if the police authority was seen to be listening to the public and taking action. Police authorities’ independence from the police was seen to be very important because of the potential risk of corruption or abuse of power. This might be helped in part by a change of name, but the key issue was the selection and appointment of police authority members. There was a fair amount of scepticism about councillors being members. There was also a feeling that authorities might not be independent enough. As stated already, the Home Secretary has expressed a wish to explore possible changes to the accountability mechanisms for policing, which will encompass police authorities. Any future arrangements should reflect the results of this and other relevant research on how to encourage participation and confidence in accountability mechanisms. More detailed recommendations for police authorities can be found in a separate report (referenced in the introduction).

Recommendations
• The non-emergency/local police station number should be publicised more widely, and where resources allow the phone lines should be manned during working hours rather than having an automated system.

•

Police authorities, forces and other agencies should improve the provision of information to the public about policing and crime, according to the needs of local communities. When possible, information should be available in other languages and the provision of translator and interpreter services should be improved. Authorities and others should continue to develop their use of the Internet to engage people, by, for example, using them to feed back on the outcome of consultation events and by the use of attractive links from non-policing websites. However, authorities should not over-rely on the Internet due to limited public access and ensure its use is appropriate to the aims of the consultation and target audience. Police authorities should seek to improve public engagement and participation by using more innovative methods which are appropriate for their local communities. Where possible, authorities should learn from good practice and develop their consultation strategy around the lessons that have been learned. The National Practitioner Panel and pilots will assist authorities in doing this. Police authorities need to pay particular attention to involving the members of the public who are least likely to participate in consultation exercises, so-called ‘hard-to-hear’ groups such as young people and those from lower socio-economic groups. Again the dissemination of good practice may assist authorities in engaging these groups. Police authorities should give greater emphasis to marketing themselves and might consider whether a change of name could avoid confusion with police forces. Police authorities should also concentrate on publicising opportunities for public participation. Police authorities should build systematic feedback into consultation. This should include not only feedback to the people who participated, but to the general public. If the public perceive that consultation is worthwhile, the pool of potential consultees will increase. In particular, authorities should attempt to get positive messages/stories across, as there is a tendency for only ‘bad news’ stories to get reported. Authorities should make clear if consultation is designed to inform strategic plans and will not have short-term impact. They should seek to manage expectations and to avoid the public becoming disillusioned if action is not taken on their views While the current system applies, police authorities should continue to seek wider opportunities to encourage people to apply to become independent members. They should also ensure that the public is aware of the make-up of authorities and should emphasise that the criteria for independent members means that it is open to all.

•

•

•

•

•

•

References
Association of Police Authorities (1999) Pounding the beat: A guide to police finance in England and Wales. London: Association of Police Authorities. Attwood, C. et al. (2003) 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey: people, families and communities. London: Home Office Research Study 270. Audit Commission (2003a) Trust in the Public Sector. London: Audit Commission Public Sector Briefing. Audit Commission (2003b) Trust in Public Institutions. London: Audit Commission/MORI. Bradley, R. (1998): Public expectations and perceptions of policing. London: Home Office Police Research Series Paper 96. Elliott, R. and Nicholls, J. (1996) It’s Good to Talk: Lessons in public consultation and feedback. London: Home Office Police Research Series Paper 22. Flood-Page, C. and Mattinson, J. (eds.) (2003) Crime in England and Wales 2001/2: Supplementary Volume. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 01/03. Hamilton, J., Radford, K. and Jarman, N. (2003) Policing, Accountability and Young People. Belfast: Institute for Conflict Research. Home Office (2003) Civil Renewal: A New Agenda. London: Home Office, The CSV Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture, 11th June. Hough, M. and Roberts, J. (1998) Attitudes to punishment: Findings from the 1998 BCS. London: Home Office Research Study No. 179. Mattinson, J. and Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000) Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: Findings from the 1998 BCS. London: Home Office Research Study 200. National Consumer Council (2002a) Putting Up With Second Best: Summary of research into consumer attitudes towards involvement and representation. London: National Consumer Council NCC Findings. National Consumer Council (2002b) Visible, accountable and achieving? Views of consumer representation and representative organisations. London: National Consumer Council NCC Findings. Simmons, J. and Dodd, T. (eds.) (2003) Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03. Warburton, H., May, T., Sharma, J. and Hough, M. (Forthcoming) A Research Summary: Police Complainants and their Motivations. London: South Bank University.

Produced by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office This document is available only in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) through the RDS website Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Communication Development Unit Room 264 50 Queen Anne’s Gate London SW1H 9AT Tel: 020 7273 2084 (answerphone outside of office hours) Fax: 020 7222 0211 Email: [email protected] ISBN 1 84473 126 X  Crown copyright 2003