Agenda item

Report of the Commissioner of Police.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Commissioner summarising performance against measures set out in the Policing Plan 2016-19 for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

The Chairman noted that the sub descriptors/ qualifiers within the appendix werer inconsistent with those used in the summary page. The Chairman requested that these be made consistent throughout the documentation. (4)

Measure 2 - The percentage of those surveyed who are confident that the City of London is protected from terrorism

A Member asked, with reference to the poor response rate, what the best course of action would be to ensure surveys are effective.  The Commissioner explained that they had suffered from survey fatigue, and were looking for ways to improve targeting using bespoke surveys with Corporate Communications, and an update report would be shared with the sub-committee in due course once it had been submitted for Decision at the Police Committee.

A Member suggested that as the majority of the population of the City were only present between 9am-5pm, it is important to ensure that the correct audience were being targeted for these surveys.

Measure 3 – The education and enforcement activities delivered to support the City of London Corporation’s casualty reduction target

A Member posed a question relating to the statistics detailed within Measure 3 that stated a return of 15 offences logged from 17 vehicle checks.  The Member asked whether or not this would suggest it appropriate to carry out a higher number of vehicle checks, given the high rate of offences identified.  The Commissioner explained that this high rate of return was due to the checks being targeted.

Measure 4 – The number of disposals from manned enforcement activities

A Member questioned the accuracy of the data within this dataset, given that they were aware of disposals within the Community Road Watch category that took place in March 2017, though this was documented as “0” within the report. Members sought assurance that data quality was maintained. The Commissioner noted that data was linked with that of Transport for London; and assurance would be requested to ensure the data presented was correct. (5)

Measure 6 – The level of victim-based violent crime

The Commissioner explained that a visible rise in Victim-Based Violent Crimes statistics was attributable in part to the inclusion of incidents in which victims are involved in initial altercations, such as security guards, despite being no consequent injury. Such incidents have to be recorded within this assessment which plays a role in the rising numbers.

Measure 7 - The level of victim-based acquisitive crime

A Member noted that, in reference to the associated table within Appendix A - Performance Summary, the trend should be “Deteriorating” rather than “Stable” or “Stable/Negative”.  The Member declared that this data needed to be consistently aligned.  A Member suggested that it might be useful to include PMG ratings within the Appendices for these reports.  The Commissioner agreed to resolve the discrepancies within the report.

A Member noted that the most recent figure recorded, for March 2017, was the highest rate to date.  The Commissioner explained various issues with premises involved not having working CCTV in operation during incidents/CCTV installed in the right places, and emphasised the need to promote responsibility amongst property owners in this regard. A Member suggested that appropriate levels of CCTV should be included be taken into consideration when granting licences for new premises in the City. (6)

The Commissioner also explained that steps are being taken to develop offender profiling to address these incidents.

Measure 9 – The level of Anti-Social Behaviour Incidents

The Commissioner explained that ASB reporting had changed to comply with correct reporting standards, and this is reflected by increases since September 2016.  The Commissioner also explained that reporting was predominantly done by security guards and third parties, rather than City residents. The Commissioner noted that the collection of ASB data should improve when the new Crime and Intelligence reporting system goes live..

A Member questioned where the data was to support the assertion that ASB levels remain low in the City compared to surrounding Boroughs. The Commissioner commented that any comparison with the surrounding MPS boroughs would not be particularly useful owing to the very different demographic, but added from their own experience and perspective of working in the MPS, the volumes experienced in the City are low.

Measure 10 – The percentage of victims of fraud investigated by the Economic Crime Directorate who are satisfied with the service provided

A Member commented that this data looked to be positive.

Measure 13 – The attrition rate of crimes reported to Action Fraud

A Member requested the Commissioner to ensure the reporting data was correct due the discrepancies between the figures of complaints against reports, and crimes reported under measure 14. A note would be sent to the Member in order to clarify the figures presented.(7)

Measure 17 – The level of satisfaction of victims of crime with the service provided by the City of London Police

A Member asked for detail on the number of responses compared to the total number of victims. The Commissioner explained that the survey carried out into the level of satisfaction of victims was ineffective, and that they had seen negligible change in the results since last year.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.