User surveys in policing: data collection, analysis and impact Emma Fossey, HMICS

1. User surveys in policing: data collection, analysis and impactEmma Fossey, HMICS

2. Why consult the public? • Policing by consent • Legislation • Information and intelligence • Performance indicators and the Scottish policing performance framework • Forces’ self-assessment process

3. Capturing the views of the public • Everyday interaction • Public meetings • Community policing • Advisory groups and networks • Complaints, letters of appreciation • Formal surveys

4. Complaints, letters of appreciation • Well-established formal process for recording details of complaints of misconduct. • Letters of appreciation also recorded for some time. • Emphasis on the individual member of staff. • More recent process for formally recording complaints about quality of service. • Emphasis on policies, procedures, service delivery and outcomes.

5. User surveys • Persistent demand for quantitative performance indicators • proxy measures of performance versus data to inform improvement • Pragmatism • available resources

6. Methodology Based on historical Accounts Commission / Audit Scotland statutory performance indicator for satisfaction: • Random sample that is representative of the geographical area covered by each force. • Mix of those who have reported a crime, a disturbance/ nuisance, a road accident, a missing person or other (excluding those reporting a sudden death, fatal road accident or serious sexual assault. • Typically those who have contacted the force in the last three months. • Postal surveys. • Frequency from triennial surveys to monthly rolling waves.

7. Indicators • What was your level of satisfaction with the initial police contact?* • What was your level of satisfaction with the actions taken by the police to resolve your enquiry? • What was your overall level of satisfaction with the way you were treated by police officers and staff who dealt with you - i) at initial contact, and ii) with officers who attended? • What was your level of satisfaction with the overall way the police dealt with the matter?* • Were you kept adequately informed about the progress made with your incident?*

8. Additional force questions • Satisfaction levels for:staff interest, helpfulness, sympathy, appearance; extent to which treated fairly and sensitively, and to which the user was reassured and informed about subsequent police action. • If only one aspect of your contact with the force could be improved, what would it be?:speed of police response to user’s ‘phone call or appearance at a police station; speed at which officers attended the scene; the way in which user was treated by police officers/staff; the follow-up information received; nothing could be improved. • One force asked about what users expected from the police in terms of feedback.

9. What analyses show • Satisfaction levels are typically high • at least when ‘very’ and ‘fairly’ satisfied users are combined • consistent pattern and little year-on-year change • evidence suggests that over a longer period they are falling. • Response rates are typically low • how representative are they? • who is not responding and why? • Top-line measures of something called satisfaction • what do satisfaction levels reflect? • how can areas for improvement be identified?

10. What analyses do not show • Frequencies - by force and division • usually only one overall indicator; rarely if ever disaggregated, e.g. by reason for contact, type of crime, method of contact or nature of police response, victim or witness, other respondent traits. • Often unable to examine possible contributory factors • not all forces ask further questions on these. • Little attempt to understand link or otherwise betweensatisfaction levels and possible contributory factors • to what extent does lack of feedback, outcome of investigation, timing of incident, police efficiency and so on, affect overall satisfaction? • what are the hygiene / enhancing / neutral / critical or dual threshold factors? • No way of taking other, indirect factors into account • e.g. users’ general perceptions of the police, of crime rates, and so on. • What forces get right • Do not include open questions about why users were satisfied.

11. Why is this important? • Dissatisfaction more likely towards the end of police contact • Complaints tempered by perception that police doing their best with limited resources ‘their hands are tied’ and that other agencies are to blame – ‘the court lets them walk’. • Variation in response times from very quick to hours or days later • Victims generally positive and appreciated police need to prioritise calls. • Variation in user experience and satisfaction • Differences between men and women, and by type of crime. • Expectations of feedback • Know that police have other things to do but failing to keep their word  dissatisfaction. • Sometimes unwelcome, e.g. crime prevention advice viewed as victim-blaming. • Empathy and professionalism are extremely important • “If the agencies had treated them more sensitively, then it is likely that [lack of] information would not have been such an issue.” • “Concern, sympathy and interest led to feelings of satisfaction; conversely, where those were missing, dissatisfaction ensued. . . . It is respect and concern that victims desire.”

12. Possible ways ahead? • Qualitative approach • Understanding user expectations and what is important to them; examining the interplay between factors that might be influencing satisfaction and/or defining a high ‘quality’ service. • Enhancing quantitative surveys • Going beyond performance indicators and asking questions that can inform practice; disaggregating the data to understand the experiences of different types of users. • Additional evidence • Internal, e.g. complaints, and external, e.g. experiences of other services. • Producing external and internal standards of service • Working with the public to establish mutually agreed standards of service so that everyone knows what they can and cannot expect to happen.

13. HMICS recommendations • National approach to user surveys. • External standards of service and internal guidance on these. • Appraisal and recruitment systems, and training emphasise customer focus • Greater use of IT to enhance communication with users.