Public Consultation 2015v4 - British Transport Police (BTP) … Consultation 2015v4.pdfThe 2015 Public Consultation follows the findings from 2014 by examining public perceptions of

Research and Development | February 2016

What matters to you?2015 | Public consultation findings

Railway Policing

Not Protectively Marked

Content

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 3

2. Methodology 4

2.1 Survey Methodology and Distribution 4

2.2 Questionnaire Design 4

3. Demographics 6

3.1 Division and Sub‐division 6

3.2 Sample Characteristics 7

4. 2014 Policing Priorities 9

4.1 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall 9

4.2 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions 10

5. 2015 Policing Priorities 11

5.1 2015 Policing Priorities: Overall 11

5.2 2015 Policing Priorities: Divisions 12

5.3 2015 Policing Priorities: Sub‐divisions 14

5.4 2015 Policing Priorities: Demographic groups 16

6. Personal Security and Fear of Crime 17

6.1 Personal Security 17

6.2 Fear of Crime 21

7. BTP Awareness and Performance 23

7.1 Public Awareness 23

7.2 BTP Performance 24

8. Thematic Analysis: Making passengers feel safer 25

8.1 Knowing Someone is There 26

8.2 Concerns about Disorder and Crime 27

8.3 Station Environment and Facilities 30

8.4 Police Communication and Response 32

8.5 Collaboration between Agencies 34

8.6 Satisfaction with BTP’s Service 35

9. Recommendations and Conclusion 36

9.1 Recommendations 36

9.2 Conclusion 38

Appendix 41


Acknowledgements

BTP’s Research and Development Team would like to say a big thank you to all of those who

contributed to the 2015 Public Consultation Survey. We are especially grateful to those who

provided feedback and to those that helped distribute the survey out. The feedback received has

provided BTP with a deeper understanding of what matters to the public whilst travelling on the

railway and offers us invaluable insight into how to make our public and rail staff feel safer and more

confident.


Page 1 of 66

Executive summary

British Transport Police (BTP) conducted its 2015 Public Consultation in the autumn of 2015, with the

aim of identifying what matters to people while travelling or working on the railway. The

consultation survey examined what the public consider to be their top policing priorities; their

feelings of personal safety and fear of crime; and their awareness and perceptions of BTP. It also

provided the public with an opportunity to tell us how we can make them feel safer on the railway.

The 2015 Public Consultation was carried out between 19 October and 23 November 2015, during

which time freepost survey cards were distributed to the public by BTP employees including police

officers, police community support officers (PCSOs), police staff and volunteers at rail stations across

England, Scotland and Wales. The survey was also made available to complete online and advertised

via a variety of social media platforms and other media channels. A total of 6,099 valid responses

were collected and analysed. The survey received a good response across a number of demographic

groups.

A key summary of findings from the survey can be found below:

Overall the majority of respondents stated that antisocial behaviour had decreased and the

general visibility of uniformed officers had improved at their local stations over the last year.

However less than half of respondents felt that there had been a greater uniformed

presence on evening or late‐night trains with a large proportion stating that this priority had

not been fully addressed.

Antisocial behaviour, Greater police presence in the evening and late night, and Increased

general visibility of uniformed officers were the top three policing priorities identified by

respondents. These priorities were followed by Terrorism, Violent Crime and Sexual

Offences.

Variation exists in policing priorities chosen by respondents across BTP Divisions and Sub‐

divisions. For example, Terrorism is the top priority for respondents in D Division (Scotland),

while Crime‐related disruption is a higher priority for respondents in C Division (Midland,

Pennine, Wales and Western) than those in other Divisions. Sexual Offences appear to be of

particular concern for respondents in the Transport for London (TfL) Sub‐division within B

Division (East, South and TfL).


Page 2 of 66

The majority of respondents rated their personal security at their local station positively

and reported no cause to worry about their personal security. However, certain

demographic groups reported a lower level of satisfaction with their personal security.

The majority of respondents reported that they were unlikely to become a victim of crime at

their local station. In particular, respondents in C and D Divisions appeared to experience

less fear of crime than those in B Division. However, transgender respondents, those who

are of non‐White ethnicity and those who consider themselves to have a disability were

more likely to think that they may be victimised in comparison to respondents from other

demographic groups.

Most respondents stated they were aware of BTP and its role in policing the railway.

However, fewer were aware of our 61016 text service.

A thematic analysis conducted on respondents’ free‐text comments identified six

overarching themes: ‘Knowing someone is there’; ‘Concerns about disorder and crime’;

‘Station environment and facilities’; ‘Police communication and response’; ‘Collaboration

with other agencies’; and ‘Satisfaction with BTP’s service’.


Page 3 of 66

1. Introduction

BTP’s Research and Development team conducted a public consultation titled ‘Railway Policing:

What matters to you?’ in October and November 2015. The consultation was a short survey which

aimed to identify the policing priorities that matter most to people when using or working on the

railway. The consultation also examined awareness and perceptions of BTP. Findings from the survey

will be used to inform decisions regarding BTP’s policing plans for 2016/17.

The 2015 Public Consultation was an opportunity for BTP to engage with the public; and helped to

raise public awareness of, and confidence in BTP. It also provided the travelling public and railway

staff with an opportunity to inform BTP about ‘what matter’ to them and to help identify areas of

improvement and action.

This report presents the findings from the 2015 Public Consultation. The analysis is based on the

responses of 6,099.


Page 4 of 66

2. Methodology

2.1 Survey Methodology and Distribution

The 2015 Public Consultation was launched on Monday 19th October 2015 and concluded on

Monday 23rd November 2015. Over the five‐week period, the survey was made available to the

public via freepost survey cards and an online survey.

Freepost survey cards were produced and distributed to all BTP posts and Neighbourhood Policing

Teams (NPTs) across England, Scotland and Wales. A total of 64,500 survey cards1 were handed out

to the public by BTP employees including police officers, police community support officers (PCSOs),

police staff and volunteers at railway stations.

The survey was also made available online. The survey link was advertised on the survey cards, the

BTP website and our Twitter and Facebook accounts. It was also promoted on the online forum

RailUK and advertised in the monthly RailNews e‐newsletter– a leading newspaper for the rail

industry.

2.2 Questionnaire Design

The consultation survey included a range of quantitative and qualitative questions. The survey asked

respondents to identify three policing priorities that they thought should be the main focus for BTP

over the next year. It also examined public perceptions of BTP and the extent to which the policing

priorities identified in the 2014 Public Consultation had been addressed.

The survey further measured respondents’ feelings about personal security and sought to identify

any cause for concern. Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide further feedback on

what BTP can do to make them feel safer at their local stations.

Respondent demographic information, including age, gender, ethnicity, disability and purpose of

journey was collected for analysis purposes.

1 62,700 cards for England and Scotland and 1,800 cards for Wales


Page 5 of 66

A copy of the freepost survey is included below:


Page 6 of 66

3. Demographics

The 2015 Public Consultation received a total of 6,206 responses: 2,337 online and 3,869 on printed

survey cards. The results presented in this report reflect the findings from the 6,099 valid responses2

available for analysis.

Respondents were not required to provide an answer to every question and therefore the number

of responses for each question varies. The total response for each question is noted throughout the

report where appropriate.

3.1 Division and Subdivision

More than half of respondents (57.8%) listed a B Division station as their local station; 35.1% and

6.6% of respondents listed local stations in C and D Division respectively.

2 100 survey responses were collected but unfortunately were not available for analysis due to technical issues. An additional seven responses were noted to be ‘testing’ entries.

South 1,574 (25.8%)

Midland689

(11.3%)

Pennine 921

(15.1%)

Wales 169

(2.8%)

Western

363 (6%)

East 1,052 (17.2%)

TfL897 (14.7%)

C Division: 2,142 (35.1%)

B Division: 3,523 (57.8%)

D Division: 401 (6.6%)


Page 7 of 66

3.2 Sample Characteristics

3.2.1 Gender

Of the 5,675 respondents who provided information in response to the demographic questions,

53.8% identify as male, 41.2% identify as female and 0.6% identify as transgender. The remainder

choose Other (0.2%) or Prefer not to say (4.4%).

3.2.2 Age

The majority of respondents (59.6%) were aged between 25 and 54. Overall, there was also a good

representation of other age groups: 12.7% were aged between 17 and 24; 14.2% were aged

between 55 and 64; and 8.9% were 65 or above. Three per cent declined to provide their age.

Age group Respondents Percentages

Under 17 87 1.5%

17‐24 723 12.7%

25‐34 1235 21.8%

35‐44 1059 18.7%

45‐54 1086 19.1%

55‐64 804 14.2%

65‐74 410 7.2%

75 and over 99 1.7%

Prefer not to say 172 3.0%

Total responses 5675

2,336 (41.2%)

3,051 (53.8%)

32 (0.6%)


Page 8 of 66

3.2.3 Ethnicity

While a considerable number of respondents identified themselves as White (78.1%), other ethnic

groups were also represented, including Asian (6.6%), Black (4.4%) and Mixed (3.5%). One per cent

chose Other and 6.6% declined to provide their ethnicity.

3.2.4 Disability

433 (7.6%) respondents stated that they consider themselves to have a disability, while the majority

– 4,926 (86.8%) – do not consider themselves to have a disability. A further 316 respondents (5.6%)

declined to provide this information.

3.2.5 Purpose of journey

Approximately a third of respondents identified the journey for which they completed the survey as

a regular commute (34.8%). 17.4% were travelling for business and 27.9% were travelling for leisure

purposes. The results also included representation from rail staff (9.5%).

Purpose of journey Respondents Percentages

Regular commute 2120 34.8%

Business 1064 17.4%

Leisure 1700 27.9%

Rail staff 582 9.5%

Other 209 3.4%



Page 9 of 66

4. 2014 Policing Priorities

BTP’s first public consultation was conducted in 2014. The top three policing priorities identified by

respondents were: Antisocial behaviour; Increasing general visibility of uniformed officers, and

Providing a greater uniformed presence on evening or late‐night trains.

The 2015 Public Consultation follows the findings from 2014 by examining public perceptions of the

extent to which respondents felt that these three policing priorities had been addressed at their

local station.

4.1 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall

Overall the majority of respondents stated that Antisocial behaviour (65.9%) and Increasing general

visibility of uniformed officers (64.4%) had been fully/partly addressed at their local stations in the

last year. In contrast, fewer than half of respondents (40.9%) reported that Greater uniformed

presence on evening or late‐night trains had been fully / partly addressed, and a number of

respondents (31.1%) stating that it has not been addressed at all.

Antisocial behaviour

(Number of responses: 5,770)

Increase general visibility of

uniformed officers


Greater uniformed presence on

evening or late‐night trains



Page 10 of 66

4.2 Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions

To better understand how well the 2014 policing priorities were addressed in different areas, further

analysis was conducted to examine respondents’ perceptions by BTP Divisions. Respondents from D

Division were consistently more likely than respondents from either B or C Division to report that

that a priority had been addressed at their local station. This was true for all three policing priorities

identified. In particular, a considerably larger proportion of D Division respondents (55.7%) stated

that the priority to have a Greater uniformed presence on evening or late‐night trains had been

fully/partly addressed at their local station, compared with B (40.5%) and C (39.4%) Division

respondents.


Increase general visibility of uniformed officers

Greater uniformed presence on evening or late‐night trains


Page 11 of 66

5. 2015 Policing Priorities

This year respondents were again asked to select up to three policing priorities, from a list of 17

priority options3, on which they feel BTP should focus on over the next year. All 6,099 respondents

identified at least one policing priority. This section presents the policing priorities identified by

respondents in the 2015 Public Consultation.

As respondents were able to select up to three priorities, the percentage in the charts in this section

represents the proportion of respondents– overall and by BTP Division – who have selected each

priority. For example, 2,178 respondents identify Antisocial behaviour as one of their priorities,

which is equivalent to 35.7% of the 6,099 respondents. Therefore the sum of all percentages does

not equal 100 per cent.

5.1 2015 Policing Priorities: Overall

As with the findings of the 2014 Public Consultation, Antisocial behaviour, Greater police presence in

the evening and late night, and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers were again the top

three policing priorities identified by respondents; representing the most frequently selected

priorities. 35.7% of respondents report that Antisocial behaviour is one of the top three policing

priorities on which BTP should focus on. This is closely followed by the priority to have a Greater

police presence in the evening and late night (34.8%) and to Increase general visibility of uniformed

officers (29.9%).

About a quarter of respondents (25.9%) considered Terrorism as one of their three most important

policing priorities. The prevalence of public concerns about terrorism understandably reflects the

international events that happened during the survey period. The survey was live between 19

October and 23 November 2015, during in which time several terrorist attacks were instigated

around the world, including a series of coordinated attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015.

Violent crime and Sexual offences were also of noticeable concern to respondents; 23.2% and 22.4%

of respondents respectively report that BTP should focus on these two priorities. This is followed by

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (16.9%), Staff abuse/assault (13.7%), Ticket fraud (12.3%),

Theft of personal property (10.2%) and Hate crime (10%).

The following chart presents the policing priorities in descending order according to the proportion

of respondents who identified each priority.

3 Please see Appendix 9 for the list of priorities.


Page 12 of 66

Priorities Number of respondents

Proportion of total respondents*

1. Antisocial behaviour 2,178 35.7%

2. Greater police presence in the evening and late night 2,123 34.8%

3. Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 1,826 29.9%

4. Terrorism 1,577 25.9%

5. Violent crime 1,416 23.2%

6. Sexual offences 1,366 22.4%

7. Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft)

1,030 16.9%

8. Staff abuse/assault 837 13.7%

9. Ticket fraud 751 12.3%

10. Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) 624 10.2%

11. Hate crime 609 10.0%

12. Drug dealing and using 542 8.9%

13. Football‐related disorder 535 8.8%

14. Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti 499 8.2%

15. Robbery 386 6.3%

16. Cycle theft 296 4.9%

17. Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) 90 1.5%

18. Other (please specify) 173 2.8%

*A total of 6,099 respondents

5.2 2015 Policing Priorities: Divisions

The top three policing priorities identified by respondents were similar when considered according

to BTP Divisions. Anti‐social behaviour and Greater police presence in the evening and late night

were consistently considered to be two of the three most important priorities selected by

respondents across all Divisions. However, respondents in D Division were distinct from respondents

in B and C Divisions, with 42.1% identifying Terrorism as their top policing priority. For respondents

in B and C Divisions, Increased general visibility of uniformed officers appears in place of Terrorism.

Sexual offences were considered a higher policing priority by respondents in B Division than by

respondents in C and D Divisions, whereas Crime‐related disruption on the railway ranks higher on

the priority table for respondents in C Division compared to those in other Divisions. Football‐related

disorder, on the other hand, is more often chosen as a policing priority by respondents in D Division

than by those in B and C Divisions.

The following tables display the top ten policing priorities in each Division and the percentage of

respondents who selected each of these priorities.


Page 13 of 66

D Division Top 10 Policing PrioritiesPercentage of respondents*

1. Terrorism 42.1%

2. Antisocial behaviour 34.7%

3. Greater police presence in the evening and late night

31.7%

4. Increased general visibility of uniformed officers

30.7%

5. Violent crime 23.4%

6. Sexual offences 20.2%

7. Football‐related disorder 20.2%

8. Staff abuse/assault 19.2%

9. Crime‐related disruption on the railway

14.5%

10. Hate crime 9% *Total number of respondents: 401

B Division Top 10 Policing PrioritiesPercentage of respondents***

1. Antisocial behaviour 35.3% 2. Greater police presence in

the evening and late night 34.3%


30.1%

4. Sexual offences 25.8% 5. Violent crime 25.7% 6. Terrorism 24.9% 7. Crime‐related disruption on

the railway 14.7%

8. Ticket fraud 12.6% 9. Staff abuse/assault 12.4% 10. Hate crime 11.3%

***Total number of respondents: 3,523

C Division Top 10 Policing Priorities Percentage of respondents**

1. Antisocial behaviour 36.7%


36.4%


29.6%

4. Terrorism 24.4%

5. Crime‐related disruption on the railway

21.1%

6. Violent crime 19.2%

7. Sexual offences 17.3%

8. Staff abuse/assault 15%

9. Ticket fraud 12.7%

10. Football‐related disorder 11.4% **Total number of respondents: 2,142


Page 14 of 66

5.3 2015 Policing Priorities: Sub‐divisions

5.3.1 B Division Sub‐divisions

Within B Division, Sexual offences were ranked as a higher priority in TfL Sub‐

division than in other B Division Sub‐divisions. Hate crime was also considered

to be a higher priority by respondents in the TfL Sub‐division than those in the East and South Sub‐

divisions. Crime‐related disruption on the railway and Staff abuse/assault were considered to be

higher policing priorities by respondents in the East and South Sub‐divisions, compared to those in

the TfL Sub‐division.

The table below displays the top ten policing priorities in each B Division Sub‐division in descending

order according to the percentage of respondents within each Sub‐division who selected each of the

priorities. Detailed statistical information for this table can be found in the Appendix.

Ranking East South TfL

1. Antisocial behaviour Antisocial behaviour Sexual offences


Greater police presence in the evening and late night

Greater police presence in the evening and late night

3. Increased general visibility

of uniformed officers Increased general visibility

of uniformed officers Antisocial behaviour

4. Terrorism Violent crime Violent crime

5. Sexual offences Terrorism Terrorism

6. Violent crime Sexual offences Increased general visibility

of uniformed officers

7. Crime‐related disruption

on the railway Crime‐related disruption

on the railway Hate crime

8. Staff abuse / assault Staff abuse / assault Theft of personal property

9. Ticket fraud Ticket fraud Robbery

10. Theft of personal property Theft of personal property Ticket fraud


Page 15 of 66

5.3.2 C Division Sub‐divisions

Within C Division, the top three policing priorities across all Sub‐divisions were

consistent with the findings from the overall sample, with the exception of the

Midland Sub‐division. Terrorism was identified as one of the top three priorities

by respondents in the Midland Sub‐division in place of Increased general

visibility of uniformed officers which features in other C Division Sub‐divisions.

Similarly, Staff abuse/assault was reported as a higher priority by respondents in

the Wales Sub‐division than by respondents in other C Division Sub‐divisions. Football‐related

disorder was a higher ranked priority for respondents in the Midland and Pennine Sub‐divisions than

in Wales and Western Sub‐divisions. Drug dealing and using was another priority for respondents in

the Midland Sub‐division.

The following table displays the top ten policing priorities in each C Sub‐division in descending order

according to the percentage of respondents who selected each of the priorities. Detailed statistical

information for this table can be found in the Appendix.

Ranking Midland Pennine Wales Western

1. Antisocial behaviour

Greater police presence in the evening and late

night



night

2.


night



night


3. Terrorism

Increased general visibility of uniformed

officers


officers


officers

4. Increased general

visibility of uniformed officers

Terrorism Staff abuse/assault Terrorism

5.

Crime‐related disruption on the

railway Violent crime


railway


railway

6. Sexual offences


railway (e.g. trespassing or cable

theft)

Violent crime Violent crime

7. Violent crime Sexual offences Terrorism Staff abuse/assault

8. Ticket Fraud Staff abuse/assault Drug dealing and

using Sexual offences

9.

Football‐related disorder


Sexual offences Ticket fraud

10.

Drug dealing and using

Ticket fraud Ticket fraud Criminal damage, vandalism and / or

graffiti


Page 16 of 66

5.4 2015 Policing Priorities: Demographic groups

Further analysis was conducted to better understand what matters to different demographic groups

when using the railway. This sub‐section highlights key findings from the analysis. Full statistical

information on the analysis can be found in the Appendix.

5.4.1 Gender

Female and male respondents identified the same three top policing priorities, albeit in different

orders. Greater police presence in the evening and late night is the most frequently cited policing

priority by female respondents (41.4%), followed by Anti‐social behaviour (36.2%) and Increased

general visibility of uniformed officers (30.5%); while Anti‐social behaviour is the most cited policing

priorities by male respondents (39.9%), followed by Greater police presence in the evening and late

night (33.5%) and Increased general visibility of uniformed officers (32.6%). The ranking of policing

priorities is similar for female and male respondents for the remaining priorities, with the exception

of Sexual offences which feature as a greater concern for female respondents than male

respondents.

Notably, Violent crime is a higher policing priority for transgender respondents compared to female

and male respondents. Violent crime is the third most commonly cited policing priority within this

demographic group – nearly a third of them considered this to be a top three policing priority.

5.4.2 Ethnicity

The top three policing priorities were consistent across both White and Black respondents: Antisocial

behaviour, Greater police presence in the evening and late night and Increased general visibility of

uniformed officers. Sexual offences were a greater concern for both Asian and Mixed respondent

groups; 31.2% and 31% respectively considered Sexual offences to be a top three policing priority.

Non‐White respondents – Asian, Black and Mixed – all considered Hate Crime to be a higher policing

priority when compared to White respondents.

5.4.3 Disability

Respondents who reported that they have a disability share the same top three priorities with those

who reported that they do not have a disability. However, Crime‐related disruption on the railway is

a higher priority for respondents who report that they have a disability compared to those who do

not – 22.9% and 17.6% respectively identify this as one of their top three policing priorities.


Page 17 of 66

6. Personal Security and Fear of Crime

The 2015 Public Consultation examined public feelings of safety and fear of crime on the railway.

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the level of personal security and their

perceived likelihood of victimisation at their local station.

6.1 Personal Security

6.1.1 Personal Security: Overall

Across the whole sample the majority of respondents (71.1%) rated their personal security at their

local stations as very good/fairly good. 12.4% reported that their personal security is fairly poor/very

poor at their local station.

Similarly, around three quarters of respondents (76.3%) reported that they do not have any cause to

worry about their personal security at their local station. 23.7% of respondents (23.7%) expressed

some worry about their personal security.

How would you rate your personal security at your local station?

Do you have any cause to worry about your personal security at your local station?

Yes 1,338 (23.7%)

No 4,312 (76.3%)

Total number of respondents: 5,650

Total number of respondents: 5,702


Page 18 of 66

6.1.2 Personal Security: Divisions and Sub‐divisions

In comparison to respondents in B and D Divisions, respondents in C Division reported that they felt

safer at their local station. A slightly higher proportion of C Division respondents rated their personal

security at their local station positively compared to respondents in B and D Divisions. 72.9% of C

Division respondents compared to 70.2% and 71% of B and D Division respondents respectively rate

their personal security as very good/fairly good. A noticeably larger percentage of respondents in B

and C Divisions also reported having no cause to worry about their personal security than those in

other Divisions. 76.9% and 78.5% of B and C Division respondents respectively compared to 59.7% of

D Division respondents do not think they have any cause to worry about their personal security.

Although the majority of D Division respondents are satisfied with their personal security at their

local station, these respondents were more likely to report that they had some cause to worry about

their personal security (40.3%) than those in B (23.1%) and C (21.5%) Divisions.



Yes

No

B (Respondents:3,291) 759 (23.1%) 2,543 (76.9%)

C (Respondents:1,961) 421 (21.5%) 1,540 (78.5%)

D (Respondents:372) 150 (40.3%) 222 (59.7%)


Page 19 of 66

Within B Division, a considerably higher percentage of respondents in the TfL Sub‐division (75.8%)

reported that their personal security at their local station was very good/fairly good compared to

those in other B Division Sub‐divisions – 67.2% and 68.8% in the East and South Sub‐divisions

respectively. Respondents in TfL Sub‐division were also less likely to state that they had any cause to

worry about their personal security at their local station (18.2%) than those in the East (24.7%) and

South (24.8%) Sub‐divisions.

For C Division, respondents in the Western Sub‐division more frequently reported a positive rating

to their personal security (79.4%) at their local station than those in other C Division Sub‐divisions –

71.6%, 72.2% and 66.4% in Midland, Pennine and Wales Sub‐divisions respectively. A larger

proportion of respondents in Wales (29.9%) stated they had some cause to worry about their

personal security than those in Midland (20.8%), Pennine (23.2%) and Western (15%) Sub‐divisions.



Yes

No

East (Respondents:964) 238 (24.7%) 726 (75.3%)

South (Respondents:1,471) 365 (24.8%) 1,106 (75.2%) TfL (Respondents:856) 156 (18.2%) 700 (81.8%) Midland (Respondents:645) 134 (20.8%) 511 (79.2%)

Pennine (Respondents:829) 192 (23.2%) 637 (76.8%)

Wales (Respondents:147) 44 (29.9%) 103 (70.1%)

Western (Respondents:340) 51 (15%) 289 (85%)


Page 20 of 66

6.1.3 Personal Security: Demographic groups

Further analysis was undertaken to ascertain to what extent some demographic groups feel less safe

than others when using or working on the railway. Findings are intended to draw attention to

specific demographic groups with lower satisfaction regarding their personal security, which may

enable BTP to tailor policing plans to address concerns from these groups. The key findings from the

analysis are described in this section, while detailed statistics can be found in the Appendix.

A similar proportion of female and male respondents rated their personal security at their local

station as very good/fairly good – 71.5% and 72.3% respectively. In contrast, 56.3% of transgender

respondents reported feeling positive about their personal security at their local station; with 31.3%

rating their personal security as fairly poor/very poor4.

Respondents aged between 17 and 54 reported similar levels of satisfaction with their personal

security; the proportion of respondents who rated their personal security positively ranged from

69.3% to 71.5% across this age range. Respondents aged 55 or above more frequently considered

their personal security to be good than those within younger age groups; on average 78.6% of the

former rate their personal security positively. This is further reflected in their cause to worry about

personal security; respondents within older age groups – 65 and above – in particular, less

frequently report any cause to worry about their personal security than respondents in younger age

groups.

The proportion of respondents who reported that they felt positive about their personal security at

their local station was similar across different ethnic groups, with the exception of respondents of

Mixed ethnicity; the Mixed ethnic group had the least proportion of respondents rating their

personal security positively (68.5%) compared to other ethnic groups (70.4%, 72.4% and 72.5% of

Asian, Black and White respondents respectively). A higher percentage of Mixed respondents also

reported having cause to worry about their personal security than respondents within other ethnic

groups.

Respondents who reported that they had a disability were considerably less satisfied with their

personal security than those who reported that they did not have a disability; only 63.7% of those

who report that they have a disability rate their personal security as very good/ fairly good,

compared to 72.8% of those do not. 36.3% of respondents also stated that they had cause to worry

about their personal security, compared to 21.4% of respondents who report that they did not have

4 It is important to note that the number of responses received from individuals identifying as transgender was small and therefore analysis should be treated with caution.


Page 21 of 66

a disability. In addition Rail staff respondents rated their personal security less positively than other

travelling groups. Only 61.9% rate their personal security positively and 40.1% report having cause to

worry.

6.2 Fear of Crime

6.2.1 Fear of Crime: Overall

The majority of respondents (70.3%) reported that they were not very likely/not at all likely to be a

victim of crime at their local stations. Only 8.9% of respondents stated that they were extremely

likely/very likely to be victimised at their local stations, while 20.7% of respondents reported they

were quite likely to be victimised.

How likely do you think it is that you could be a victim of crime at your local station?

6.2.2 Fear of Crime: Divisions and Sub‐divisions

Respondents located in C and D Divisions reported to experience a lower level of fear of crime than

those in B Division. A smaller proportion of respondents in B Division (68.6%) stated that they were

not very likely/ not at all likely to be a victim of crime at their local station, in comparison to C

(72.7%) and D (73.9%) Divisions. D Division in particular has a noticeably lower percentage of

respondents (5.93%) who stated that they were extremely likely/very likely to be victimised than B

(9.52%) and C (8.38%) Divisions.



Page 22 of 66

Respondents’ levels of fear of crime were similar across all B Division Sub‐divisions. In C Division,

respondents in the Western Sub‐division perceived a slightly lower likelihood of victimisation at their

local station than other C Division Sub‐divisions; 76.4% of respondents in Western Sub‐division

stated that they were not very likely/not at all likely to be a victim of crime, compared with 72.6% in

Midland, 71.8% in Pennine and 69.2% in Wales Sub‐divisions. A slightly larger proportion of

respondents in Wales (13%) reported that they felt extremely likely/very likely to be victimised at

their local station than those in other C Division Sub‐divisions – 10.1% in Midland, 7.7% in Pennine

and 5% in Western.


6.2.3 Fear of Crime: Demographic groups

Fear of crime varied between different demographic groups. With regard to gender, a notably higher

percentage of transgender respondents stated they were extremely likely/very likely to be victimised

(21.9%) at their local station, compared with female (9%) and male (8.2%) respondents.

Respondents who identified themselves as White reported a lower level of fear of crime than other

ethnic groups; 72.9% of White respondents reported that they were not very/not at all likely to be a

victim of crime, compared with 63% of non‐White respondents. In addition, a considerably larger

proportion of respondents who reported having a disability reported feeling they were extremely

likely/very likely/quite likely to be victimised (41.5%) than respondents who reported not having a

disability (27.7%).

Consistent with findings on personal security, Rail staff respondents also reported a higher level of

fear of crime – 52.8% said that they were extremely likely/very likely/quite likely to be victimised –

compared with other groups: 23% for Business traveller, 24.6% for Leisure traveller and 30.2% for

Regular commuter.


Page 23 of 66

7. BTP Awareness and Performance

The 2015 Public Consultation explored public awareness of BTP and its role and perceptions of BTP’s

performance. Specifically, the survey asked respondents if they were aware, prior to the survey, that

BTP polices the railway and if they were aware of the 61016 text service for reporting non‐

emergency incidents. It also asked respondents to indicate How good a job they think BTP is doing at

their local station.

7.1 Public Awareness

The majority of respondents (86.5%) were aware, prior to completing the 2015 Public Consultation,

that the railway is policed by BTP. However, fewer respondents – approximately a third – reported

that they were aware of the 61016 text service.

Prior to this survey…

Were you aware that the railway network is policed by British Transport Police?

Were you aware that you can text British Transport Police on 61016 to report non‐

emergency incidents?

Responses: 5,658

Responses: 5,646


Page 24 of 66

7.2 BTP Performance

How good a job do you think British Transport Police is doing at your local station?

Overall, just over half of respondents (53.5%) stated that BTP is doing an excellent/good job at their

local station. A substantial proportion felt that BTP is doing a neither good nor poor job, while 9.9%

felt that BTP is doing a poor/very poor job at their local station. When considering only respondents

who reported that they were aware of BTP’s role in policing the railway prior to the survey – 4,893

respondents – similar results were found: 53.9%, 36.3% and 9.8% respectively.

Excellent/ Good

Neither good nor poor

Poor/ Very poor

Number of responses: 5,617

A larger proportion of respondents in D Division (64.1%) felt that BTP is doing an excellent/good job

at their local station than those in B (50.8%) and C (55.9%) Divisions. Within B Division, respondents

in the TfL Sub‐division more frequently agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job (61.6%)

compared with those in the East (46.7%) and South (47.1%) Sub‐divisions. Meanwhile, the

proportion of respondents who agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job at their local station

is similar across C Division Sub‐divisions, with the exception of Western Sub‐division where a higher

percentage of respondents (60.9%) agreed that BTP is doing an excellent/good job compared with

other C Division Sub‐divisions.

Excellent/ Good

Neither good nor poor

Poor/ Very poor

B 1,666 (50.8%) 1,289 (39.3%) 325 (9.9%)

East 450 (46.7%) 392 (40.7%) 122 (12.7%)

South 685 (47.1%) 624 (42.9%) 145 (10%)

TfL 531 (61.6%) 273 (31.7%) 58 (6.7%)

C 1,089 (55.9%) 654 (33.6%) 204 (10.5%)

Midland 345 (54%) 227 (35.5%) 67 (10.5%)

Pennine 458 (55.5%) 271 (32.8%) 96 (11.6%)

Wales 80 (55.2%) 46 (31.7%) 19 (13.1%)

Western 206 (60.9%) 110 (32.5%) 22 (6.5%)

D 234 (64.1%) 107 (29.3%) 24 (6.6%)


Page 25 of 66

8. Thematic analysis: Making passengers feel safer

A thematic analysis was conducted to extrapolate themes from the free‐text comments respondents

provided to the question How can we make you feel safer? Thematic analysis is regarded as one of

the most effective research methods to examine and capture meaningful themes within qualitative

data.

This section presents the findings from the thematic analysis. A total of 3,187 free‐text responses

were collected from which the following themes were identified:

Police presence

Staff presence

Lower level disorder

Crime

Lighting

CCTV

Other station facilities

Promotion of BTP

Provision of information

Public relations

BTP’s response

Collaboration with other agencies

Satisfaction with the service BTP provides

These themes have been grouped and are presented in terms of six overarching areas:

1. Knowing someone is there

2. Concerns about disorder and crime

3. Station environment and facilities

4. Police communication and response

5. Collaboration with other agencies

6. Satisfaction with BTP’s service


Page 26 of 66

8.1 Knowing Someone is There

It is clear from respondents’ comments that the presence of a uniformed figure – be it a police

officer, PCSO, a member of the Special Constabulary or a member of rail staff – has a huge impact on

feelings of personal safety. Respondents stressed the reassurance they gain simply from the

knowledge that someone is there.

“As simple as more presence, that will be enough.”

8.1.1 Police Presence

The desire to see more uniformed police officers on their train journey featured heavily in many of

the respondents’ comments. While respondents expressed understanding of the financial and

resource limitations the policing service is experiencing, many emphasised the impact of seeing and

knowing there is a police officer nearby on their feelings of safety.

“Feeling safe is knowing there’s an officer not too far away.”

“Increased high visibility patrols, I know this is hard given funding and manpower etc., but, in my opinion, it is the most effective crime deterrent and public reassurance tool.”

“Although I appreciate that it is a resource issue I personally believe that more visible uniformed officers would make passengers feel safer.”

Some respondents reported that they wanted more of a police presence during late‐night and

quieter hours, on Friday and Saturday nights, not only at stations but also on trains, as well as more

of a presence outside of main London stations.

“Having someone in a uniform there in the late evenings, and eventually

overnights when night tube comes into force, will make me feel safer.”

“It would be lovely to see uniformed officers on trains at night. It would make me

feel much, much safer.”

“Have regular patrols, especially during the evenings where there are longer times

between trains. Even a patrol every 30 minutes and ensuring passengers feel safe

whilst waiting would go a long way to reassuring them that help is on‐hand

should they need it.”

“I feel that the BTP has a strong, visible presence at the major London stations

but are thin on the ground outside of these stations. I do realise this comes down

to a lack of funding, but it would be nice to see more officers on the ground.”


Page 27 of 66

8.1.2 Staff Presence

It is not only a police presence that respondents said would make them feel safer on the railway.

Many commented that the presence of a uniformed figure – any relevant uniform – would make

them feel safer as they can relax knowing that someone with authority is available if anything were

to happen. Some respondents suggested that BTP should liaise with Train Operating Companies

(TOCs) to ensure an appropriate level of staffing at stations.

“Local stations don't have a police presence and can be quite frightening when the station isn't manned and you are waiting alone. Not totally police needed but stations need to be manned and not just one member of staff for the staff’s safety.”

“Insist Train Operating Companies and Network Rail staff their stations from before the start of service till after the close of service, locking up the station after close of service. Just the presence of railway staff adds to station security.”

8.2 Concerns about Disorder and Crime

Respondents cited lower level disorderly behaviour and certain types of criminality as having a

negative effect on how safe they feel while using the railway. Many stated that disorder and crimes

could be more adequately and effectively dealt with by BTP; this would make them feel safer and

have more confidence in BTP.

8.2.1 Lower Level Disorder

A range of lower level disorderly behaviour was highlighted as having a negative effect on

respondents’ experience of train travel. It is evident from their comments that lower level disorder

causes passengers and rail staff upset and can make them feel unsafe on the railway.

One type of lower level disorder is antisocial behaviour, particularly from groups of people who

loiter around stations. Respondents stated that these groups can often be seen as intimidating

making them feel unsafe, especially late at night when stations are often quieter.

“The youths who congregate in the station car park are often a threatening

presence. Those on bikes deliberately ride at drivers and shine laser pens into the

eyes of drivers.”

“Addressing the groups or gangs of youths that loiter around the stations with no

intention of travelling. These groups are very intimidating for other travellers.”


Page 28 of 66

Alcohol was another concern for respondents. Intoxicated passengers can behave in a loud and

aggressive manner on trains, causing upset to other passengers and rail staff. Some respondents

advocated a ban on alcohol consumption on all trains and at train stations, whilst some stated that

BTP should adopt a zero‐tolerance approach to drunkenness – and its related behaviour – on the

railway, coupled with clear communication to the public.

“The police team has done remarkable work to secure the public safety. As a daily

user of the railway, I am very against passengers drinking any alcoholic beverage

in the train. Just like the smoking ban, I think we should ban alcoholic drinking in

the train too.”

“The overwhelming bulk of post‐pub travellers are entirely well meaning, but

things can get pretty boisterous at times and whilst this doesn't overly concern me

(a big bloke in his early 40s), it can upset others who're a bit more potentially

physically vulnerable.”

“We, as frontline train staff, feel that the very presence of BTP on trains helps to

deter anti‐social behaviour can diffuse situations should they arise and ultimately

makes passengers feel safer and less likely to be intimidated by individuals or

groups of abusive, intoxicated people.”

It was noted that many concerns about alcohol were also related to undesirable behaviour from

drunken passengers using the train to travel to and from sporting events. These supporters

consume alcohol before travelling, and may continue drinking and display intoxicated behaviour

while on the train, causing other passengers to feel uncomfortable. These individuals tend to travel

in large groups and behave rowdily, which makes other passengers – especially those travelling with

children – feel threatened. Some respondents stated that when sports supporters travel on long

distance trains with fewer station stops, it makes them feel even more uneasy. Although football

supporters are frequently cited as a cause for concern, respondents reported that other sports

supporters – for instance rugby fans and those attending horse‐racing events – also behave

inappropriately. As in relation to alcohol consumption, respondents stated that they want to see BTP

adopt a zero‐tolerance approach to sports‐related lower level disorder on the railway.

“Large groups going to football or horse racing, often drunk, shouting abuse and basically intimidating fare paying passengers who expect a peaceful journey.”

“It's not the station that's the problem, it's trains full of drunken (passengers), especially those travelling to/from football matches, who make the network a "no go" zone for families“


Page 29 of 66

“Personally I travel by train a lot, mainly to football matches and often late at night, but I only see BTP on intercity trains when there are football fans there. Football fans are clamped down on hard, but rugby … seem to be tolerated... The same rules should apply to all …”

“It seems football fans are doing what they like whilst on trains these days, they have no regard for normal passengers and think and behave like the carriage they're in is their private carriage. I’d like to see the transport police … taking a no‐nonsense approach… hopefully the message will spread that the BTP … will not let them get away with everything.”

Begging was another emerging concern from respondents’ comments. Respondents perceived an

increase in the level of begging activity on trains. Many respondents stated that they often feel

harassed and trapped by beggars, which has a detrimental effect on their feelings of personal

security. Some respondents expressed concerns about other crime – such as theft – happening while

they were being ‘distracted’ by beggars. Others stated that they worry that begging activity appears

organised in nature and highlighted a need for BTP to address this issue.

“My concern … is the begging … (The beggars) have the means to get onto a tube

station; they carry laminated cards stating they are poor etc. There are many of

them and noticeable on the Jubilee line towards Stratford. They go from carriage

to carriage every stop but get off before the train arrives at Stratford to avoid

being stopped as the terminus. This is a well‐trained group; they are of course not

just using the jubilee line and will target office workers and whom they believe to

be visitors…”

“I have noticed a lot of beggars in the last few months actually on the tubes,

usually putting packets of tissues down asking people to buy them ... I always

worry about distraction theft or pickpocketing when this is happening.”

8.2.2 Crime

Certain types of crime appear to have a particularly negative impact on passengers’ feelings of

safety. Respondents expressed their frustration with fare evasion. Some respondents suggested that

more needs to be done to tackle ticketless travel with the perception that these offenders may also

be responsible for other crimes on the railway.

“Visible presence and tackling … crimes like fare evasion as this leads to more

crimes eventually. Criminals keep pushing the boundaries of acceptability.”

“I would feel safer if the staff at this station stopped letting the ticket fraudsters

through the barrier”


Page 30 of 66

As noted in the previous section, several terrorist attacks occurred around the world during the

period in which the 2015 Public Consultation was taking place. Understandably, respondents raised

concerns about terrorism. Some stated that they want BTP to be readily prepared to respond to

potential threats, specifically by increasing the number of armed BTP officers at stations and on

trains. Conversely, a number of respondents stated that they did not want to see armed officers

regularly, citing them as threatening and causing undue worry.

“Due to recent terror attacks in Europe, me and my family are genuinely

frightened to go into busy places such as the station. Mostly due to the knowledge

that police are completely unarmed and would be useless against any attack

here… I'd certainly feel safer knowing they (armed officers) were there.”

“In the wake of the recent Paris terrorist attacks, it might be good to see armed

officers on patrol.”

8.3 Station Environment and Facilities

The station environment appears to have a considerable impact on respondents’ feelings of safety.

This is consistent with findings from other analysis5 BTP has previously undertaken. Two main

categories within station environment and station facilities were frequently identified by

respondents as areas which, if improved, would make them feel safer – lighting and CCTV.

8.3.1 Lighting

The presence and effectiveness of lighting contributes to respondents’ feelings of safety; adequate

(or better) lighting at the station generally makes respondents feel safer. However, the need for a

brighter environment is not limited to areas within the station itself – such as platforms, footbridges

and waiting areas. Many respondents requested improved lighting in areas around their station. In

particular, respondents would like to have adequate (or better) lighting in car parks, cycle storage

areas, station entrances and exits and for passages or underpasses that link stations to other means

of transport, such as bus stops, taxi ranks, car parks and cycle storage areas.

“The road leading to and from the station needs much better lighting”

“Get some lights on approach road… Have a motion detect light on car park area so you can see bike sheds are empty.”

“Better lit platforms and increased lighting outside the front of the station.”

5 Internal analysis on data from the National Rail Passenger Survey, Autumn 2014 wave, identified a correlation between passengers’ satisfaction with their personal security at the station and their satisfaction with the station environment and facilities.


Page 31 of 66

“Better lighting and a presence late at night in the immediate area around the station. The journey does not end at the station.”

“Clapham South is pretty dark outside the station heading down Nightingale Lane and in winter especially makes me feel uncomfortable… feel have to really keep my wits about me… I will take a bus toward home rather than walk...”

8.3.2 CCTV

Not only did respondents want more active, functioning CCTV at their station and on their train, they

also stressed the important part CCTV plays by being present and visible. Respondents suggested

that active CCTV should be overtly placed and supported by prominent signage indicating that CCTV

is in operation. In addition, adequate monitoring and live‐streaming of CCTV footage may help some

respondents feel safer. Some respondents also wanted improved CCTV coverage in and around

stations, including specific areas such as cycle storage facilities and car parks.

“Lack of visible CCTV, if it’s obvious you feel more “watched”/protected. Statistics show CCTV that is streamed live onto a screen is more of a deterrent than the presence of a camera, which could be a dummy model. Signage to show that there is CCTV in operation, this would do two things: One, deter criminal behaviour and two; give the public/passengers peace of mind. Often it's the fear of crime that is the biggest challenge to police.”

“Proper CCTV covering the whole station and car park, e.g. CCTV at northern car park is pointing in one direction, but not the other.”

8.3.3 Other facilities

Other areas of improvement to the station facilities were also mentioned. This included the need to

improve access to stations by introducing safer pedestrian crossings; installing ticket barriers;

introducing security checks, such as X‐rays or other body and luggage scanning machines; general

refurbishment of stations; designating a help/emergency point at the station; ensuring working

panic buttons are installed in noticeable places; clearly displaying train numbers; and wider

installation of platform edge doors.

“Installation of help points in a more prominent and visible position, for

emergencies as well as information.”

“Call points for emergency contact … might give better peace of mind.”

“I would like each train's 'set' number displayed on the dot‐matrix boards within

carriages… This will allow people to report either by phone or text message

exactly what train they are on in the event of requiring BTP's attendance.”


Page 32 of 66

8.4 Police Communication and Response

The desire to see an increase in communication from BTP and an improvement in the quality of

BTP’s response was common amongst respondents. Some respondents stated that improvements in

this area would help them feel safer while travelling on the railway.

8.4.1 Promote BTP

Publicity and promotion of BTP, our work and services was another theme that emerged from the

survey responses. Respondents expressed support for the 61016 text service and said they hope to

see the service, and other ways to contact BTP, more widely publicised. Although some respondents

showed awareness of BTP’s role and past campaigns, many said they want to hear more from BTP,

including success stories, information about policing operations and informative media campaigns.

“More signage with your text and phone numbers clearly visible on both platforms and in the booking hall”

“Keep up the good work. Let passengers know that they can make you aware of non‐emergency incidents.”

“Telling us what you have done/number of arrests which would be reassuring”

“Wider publicity of the non‐emergency (and emergency) contact details on display throughout the station… It may act as an indirect deterrent if someone with nefarious intent sees their potential victim… taking down a BTP number.”

“Have a display board of successes like 'you said we did' or pictures of offenders brought to justice.”

8.4.2 Provision of Information

Provision of information was also important to respondents. Many expressed an interest in receiving

more information from BTP on personal safety, crime statistics, news and local area updates and

safety alerts.

“More information about what's happening from BTP will help me feel that the station is being policed and is a priority and not forgotten by the police ‐ e.g. announcement (audio or visual) on what policing activity is/will be happening at the station may help.”

“BTP Twitter feed displayed on television screen at station, posters with information how to request help or report an incident, stats on recent incidents, information on times to avoid travel (e.g. if likely to have football fans), information to discourage harassment, drunkenness etc.”


Page 33 of 66

“Community officer to feedback initiatives and how things are going in my area not just national figures.”

“…more signage to the BTP Police station and how to get hold of BTP and in what circumstances…. Posters displaying the local crime statistics and what offences there are on the railway would be interesting and I think a lot of people would read them.”

“Posters showing that plain clothes officers operate on this line. Photographs of suspects and criminals at large should be displayed on screens in the majority of stations (this may also deter some criminals). There should be more posters discouraging sexual harassment in trains.”

8.4.3 Public Relations

In addition to the need to improve communication with passengers, noted above, improving

interactions with the public was also mentioned. Respondents expressed a desire to see an

increased level of engagement from BTP officers. A considerable number of respondents noted the

reassurance they believe could be provided through positive interaction with officers. Some also

highlighted the potential benefits of having surgery sessions with BTP officers at their local station,

where they could obtain information and raise any concerns to BTP.

“Engagement of police to public in a general greeting and conversation on platform levels/entrances. Clearer more basic signs to inform public of text police campaign.”

“Surgeries to give passengers advice/tips on crime prevention.”

“… there could also be better signage as well about behaviour and about contacting BTP. ... BTP should liaise with and support station staff to be positive role models, positive about encouraging good behaviour.... BTP should be chatting to the public when they get on trains.”

8.4.4 BTP’s Response

Many respondents stated that if they know that BTP will respond to reported incidents in a timely,

efficient and professional manner, this would make them feel safer as they would feel more able to

approach and rely on BTP if anything were to happen on their journey. Some wanted to see an

improvement in responses to reports via the 61016 text service.

“Respond to reported incidents so that we know they have been taken seriously.”

“Knowing that the police will arrive if called for assistance in a reasonable time‐frame.”


Page 34 of 66

8.5 Collaboration Between Agencies

Many of the themes identified require partnership working with TOCs, including: an increase in

staffing at stations; improved facilities and overall environment at stations – including the

installation of (improved) cycle storage facilities, ticket barriers, panic buttons/help points and

functioning CCTV; and advertising information on personal safety. Some respondents noted that

they hope to see more collaborative efforts between BTP and other security authorities and

personnel to improve their personal security while using the railway; in particular, the potential

benefits of joint operations with local police forces. This included liaising with local forces to ensure

stations and surrounding areas have visible police patrols that could help deter crime and antisocial

behaviour.

“Working in conjunction with the local civilian force, increase patrols at the station and in the surrounding area. In conjunction with the train operating company and Network Rail, install CCTV with clear warnings that the area is monitored as a deterrent against crime.”

“Work with the TOC to install working help points so you can be contacted in an emergency and get them to improve CCTV coverage at the station.”

“Liaise with rail operating companies to ensure that the station is staffed until the last service. TFL can do it so should the rail companies.”

“Generally the experience is really positive as a commuter who often works late or meets colleagues/friends in London after work and I feel safe whatever time I come back to (my local station)… there's a role for the transport police to work in conjunction with the TOC about what is an acceptable presentation of the station to get us all to respect the service provided and help to make the journeys we make as pleasant and safe as possible.”

In addition to increased partnership working with TOCs, respondents advocated more joint working

between BTP, TOCs and local authorities, such as councils, civil engineering advisors and health and

safety officials, to design out crime, antisocial behaviour and pedestrian hazards through

environmental planning.

“Work with railway operator & TfL & … Council to … provide more … stands for pedal cycle parking and … secure cycle parking.”

“Work with Health and Safety Executive, the train companies, and local authorities to get wide gaps between trains and stations sorted”


Page 35 of 66

8.6 Satisfaction with BTP’s Service

Despite concerns raised by respondents, many felt that BTP is providing an effective service and

keeping them safe. A number of respondents expressed their appreciation for the professional and

satisfactory service they have received from BTP and also reference the success of past and current

BTP operations and campaigns.

“BTP came when my car was vandalised and they were awesome! You do a great job; especially feel safe when I travel at night or when the sport is on. Thank you.”

“Project Guardian was excellent, and makes me feel happier that if something was to happen I would be listened to.”

“… this is something I don't and shouldn't be fully aware of, but there is always your involvement in managing bigger threats such as terrorism. I feel safe partly, I suspect, through ignorance of the bigger threats around us. You have to deal with this and managing us the public on a daily basis and I can only say how grateful I am for the professional way in which this is carried out.”

“I was mugged at (station name) 3 years ago. In shock I told a cleaner, of all people. He took me to British Transport Police and they were wonderful and I was safe again.”

“To be fair, I think BTP do an excellent job and I once used the 61016 service and was amazed at the quick professional response.”


Page 36 of 66

9. Recommendations and Conclusion

9.1 Recommendations

Based on the findings from the 2015 Public Consultation, the following actions are recommended as

ways in which BTP could work to improve the public’s feelings of safety and security while using the

railway. The recommendations broadly cover five categories:

1. Strategic and operational considerations

2. Public engagement

3. Publicity

4. Partnership working with TOCs

5. Collaboration with local authorities

9.1.1 Strategic and Operational Considerations

Overall the majority of respondents reported that the general visibility of uniformed officers has

improved at their local station over the past year. Nonetheless, this priority was again one of the

respondents’ most important policing priorities this year, indicating that the public want to see more

police present at their station. This is particularly important for them during the evening and late at

night; a greater police presence during these hours was cited as one of the top three policing

priorities this year. Respondents further expressed their wish to have more police visible on trains

instead of at stations only. Strategic and operational plans should consider the practical allocation

of resources that will ensure officer visibility to the public is maximised, specifically enabling an

increase of police presence on trains as well as during the evening and late at night.

Another consideration for operational planning is the resource allocated to tackling antisocial

behaviour, fare evasion and lower level disorder such as drinking, sports‐related disorder and

begging. These are issues that were reflected not only in the policing priorities but also in

respondents’ free‐text comments.

9.1.2 Public Engagement

Police officers are encouraged to initiate positive interactions with the public which can improve

public awareness and perceptions of BTP. The positive impact of officer engagement with the public

was also highlighted in previous evaluations of BTP operational activity6. This can be achieved

6 Survey evaluation of BTP’s Project Servator – a deployment strategy which involves unannounced and highly visible patrols by uniformed and plain clothed officers at stations – concluded that there is a notable impact of officers’ engagement with the public on their confidence in BTP.


Page 37 of 66

through public engagement exercises such as running local surgery session at stations, during which

officers can provide the public with crime prevention information and address any concerns. The

public may feel more able to contact BTP in the future if they have had a positive interaction with

BTP previously and can therefore feel more confident that they will be treated professionally.

9.1.3 Publicity

The need to increase the promotion of the 61016 text service further featured prominently in

respondents’ free‐text comments. Many respondents showed support for the service and said they

hope to see it more widely publicised. Knowledge of the 61016 text service can also help increase

the public’s feelings of safety on the railway by making them feel more able to report undesirable

behaviours and lower level disorderly behaviour, such as negative alcohol‐related and sports‐related

behaviours and incidents of begging, which were raised in the free‐text comments as issues that

impact respondents’ feelings of safety while travelling on the railway.

More communication about BTP’s approach and operations, such as our zero‐tolerance approach

to football‐related disorder and the Report It To Stop It7 campaign relating to sex offences, can also

make the public feel safer on the railway. This can be achieved by publicising success stories relating

to previous investigations and campaigns, which can further encourage the public to report any

undesirable behaviour or incidents, as they know their concerns will be taken seriously.

Respondents’ concern about terrorism was reflected both through their policing priorities and in

their free‐text comments. Many said they want to see BTP appear readily prepared to respond to

potential threats. It may help the public feel safer if BTP is able to provide them with information

about crime prevention, specifically advice on terrorism, and insight into operational work. For

example, the widely‐publicised Project Servator has generated positive feedback from passengers8.

9.1.4 Partnership Working with TOCs

It was noted in respondents’ comments that the presence of a uniformed figure – be it a police

officer, PCSO, a member of the Special Constabulary, a member of rail staff or other security

personnel – can make them feel safer. BTP should continue to liaise with TOCs when planning

staffing levels to ensure a good level of presence of uniformed officers and rail staff at stations

and on trains, particularly during the evening and late at night. Such joint planning may also help

BTP to maximise impact with limited resource.

7 http://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/how_we_tackle_crime/report_it_to_stop_it.aspx 8 Survey evaluation of Project Servator reported that respondents found knowledge of the project to be reassuring and it has also increased their likelihood of reporting unattended items and/or suspicious behaviour.


Page 38 of 66

BTP should also continue to ensure that TOCs are aware of issues regarding station environment

and that there are plans in place to improve areas where problems have been identified,

specifically regarding the level of lighting and the number of active CCTV cameras.

9.1.5 Work with Local Authorities

BTP may consider further engaging in joint operations with local police forces to ensure there is a

visible police presence in and around stations. It was reflected in respondents’ comments that

knowledge of such joint working between BTP and local police forces may make them feel safer.

Collaboration with local authorities, such as local councils and planning authorities, to improve

stations and the surrounding areas through environmental design should also be considered. For

example, improving accessibility to a rail station could improve overall feelings of safety amongst the

travelling public.

9.2 Conclusion

The 2015 Public Consultation collected more than 6,000 responses from members of the public and

rail staff about what matters to them when using or working on the railway. There was a good level

of representation from respondents across different demographic groups. The findings provide

insight into public concerns and gather suggestions regarding what BTP can do to improve feelings of

safety amongst these groups.

Overall, the majority of respondents felt that Antisocial behaviour has decreased and the General

visibility of uniformed officers has improved at their local station in the last year. Nonetheless these

two priorities again form two of the three policing priorities. This indicates that there is still room for

improvement, especially in B Division where, in comparison with respondents from C and D

Divisions, respondents less frequently reported that these two policing priorities have been

addressed.

Many respondents reported that there was still room for improvement in regards to seeing a

Greater police presence on evening or late‐night trains, however 40.9% still stated that this priority

has been addressed at their local station in the last year. The priority to have a Greater police

presence in the evening and late at night again features as one of the top three policing priorities

this year.


Page 39 of 66

Other policing priorities chosen this year include: Terrorism, Violent crime and Sexual offences.

Terrorism is of particular concern for respondents in D Division where it was chosen most frequently

by respondents as one of their top three policing priorities. Respondents’ concerns about terrorism

were echoed in their free‐text comments. Meanwhile, Sexual offences were considered to be a

higher policing priority by respondents in B Division than by respondents in C and D Divisions.

Specifically, respondents in the TfL Sub‐division within B Division most frequently select Sexual

offences to be one of their three top priorities. Sexual offences were also a higher priority for female

respondents, and respondents who identified as Asian or Mixed ethnicity. Crime‐related disruption

was another policing priority concerning a substantial proportion of respondents, particularly

respondents in C Division and those who report having a disability.

The majority of respondents rated their personal security at their local station positively and did not

feel that they have any cause to worry about their personal security. A slightly higher proportion of C

Division respondents reported that their personal security at their local station is very good/fairly

good compared with respondents in B and D Divisions. Meanwhile, a larger percentage of

respondents in B and C Divisions reported having no cause to worry about their personal security

when compared with those in D Division. A large majority of D Division respondents rated their

personal security positively; however 40.3% stated that they have some cause to worry.

Respondents in the TfL and Western Sub‐divisions rated their personal security positively more

frequently than those in other Sub‐divisions.

Respondents from particular demographic groups appeared to feel less safe on the railway. A

smaller proportion of transgender respondents said they feel positive about their personal security

at their local station in comparison to female and male respondents. Respondents who identified

themselves to be of Mixed ethnicity and those who report having a disability also reported a lower

level of satisfaction with their personal security. Similarly, rail staff respondents rated their personal

security more negatively than other groups.

The majority of respondents did not think they are likely to be a victim of crime at their local station.

Respondents in C and D Divisions appeared to have less fear of crime than those in B Division. Fear

of crime also varied between different demographic groups. Respondents who identify as

transgender, those who are of non‐White ethnicities and those who report having a disability were

considerably more likely to think that they may be victimised than respondents from other

demographic groups.


Page 40 of 66

While most respondents were aware of BTP and the role the organisation plays in policing the

railway, fewer were aware of the 61016 text service.

A thematic analysis of respondents’ free‐text comments was conducted and identified the following

themes:

Police presence

Staff presence

Lower level disorders

Crime

Lighting

CCTV

Other station facilities

Promotion of BTP

Provision of information

Public relations

BTP’s Response

Collaboration with other agencies

Satisfaction with the service BTP provides

These themes were grouped into six overarching areas:

1. Knowing someone is there

2. Concerns about disorder and crime

3. Station environment and facilities

4. Police communication and response

5. Collaboration with other agencies

6. Satisfaction with BTP’s service

Based on the above findings, a number of actions are recommended as ways in which BTP could

work to improve the public’s feelings of safety while using the railway. The recommendations cover

five categories:

1. Strategic and operational consideration

2. Public engagement

3. Publicity

4. Partnership working with TOCs

5. Collaboration with local authorities

Overall the findings reported are encouraging and helpful. The feedback gathered from this

consultation provide BTP with a good understanding of ‘what matters’ to the public whilst travelling

on the railway and offers some useful insights into how to make people feel safer and more

confident. This engagement work is critical in helping to ensure that BTP have a good oversight on

what the travelling public want to see from BTP and helps to shape more meaningful policing plan

targets.


Page 41 of 66

Appendix

Appendix 1. Number of responses: Divisions and Subdivisions

Appendix 2. Number of responses: Gender

Appendix 3. Number of responses: Age groups

Appendix 4. Number of responses: Ethnicity

Appendix 5. Number of responses: Disability

Appendix 6. Number of responses: Purpose of Journey

Appendix 7. Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall

Appendix 8. Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions

Appendix 9. 2015 Policing Priorities: List of Priorities

Appendix 10. 2015 Policing Priorities: Overall

Appendix 11. 2015 Policing Priorities: Divisions

Appendix 12. 2015 Policing Priorities: Sub‐divisions

Appendix 13. 2015 Policing Priorities: Demographic groups

Appendix 14. Personal Security: Overall

Appendix 15. Personal Security: Divisions and Sub‐divisions

Appendix 16. Personal Security: Demographic groups

Appendix 17. Fear of crime: Overall

Appendix 18. Fear of crime: Divisions and Sub‐divisions

Appendix 19. Fear of crime: Demographic groups

Appendix 20. Public Awareness

Appendix 21. BTP Performance: Overall

Appendix 22. BTP Performance: Divisions and Subdivisions


Page 42 of 66

Appendix 1. Number of responses: Divisions and Subdivisions

Division Subdivision Number of respondents Percentage

B 3523 57.76%

East 1052 17.25%

South 1574 25.81%

TfL 897 14.71%

C 2142 35.12%

Midlands 689 11.30%

Pennine 921 15.10%

Wales 169 2.77%

Western 363 5.95%

D Scotland 401 6.57%

Unknown 33 0.54%

Total 6099

Appendix 2. Number of responses: Gender

Gender Number of respondents Percentage

Female 2336 41.16%

Male 3051 53.76%

Transgender 32 0.56%

Other 9 0.16%



Missing 424

Total 6099

Appendix 3. Number of responses: Age groups

Age group Number of respondents Percentage

Under 17 87 1.53%

17‐24 723 12.74%

25‐34 1235 21.76%

35‐44 1059 18.66%

45‐54 1086 19.14%

55‐64 804 14.17%

65‐74 410 7.22%

75 and over 99 1.74%



Missing 424

Total 6099


Page 43 of 66

Appendix 4. Number of responses: Ethnicity

Ethnicity Number of respondents Percentage

Asian 372 6.56%

Black 248 4.37%

Mixed 197 3.47%

White 4431 78.08%

Other 54 0.95%



Missing 424

Total 6099

Appendix 5. Number of responses: Disability

Disability Number of respondents Percentage

Yes 433 7.63%

No 4926 86.80%



Missing 424

Total 6099

Appendix 6. Number of responses: Purpose of Journey

Purpose of journey Number of respondents Percentage

Business 1064 17.45%

Leisure 1700 27.87%

Other (please specify) 209 3.43%

Rail staff 582 9.54%

Regular commute 2120 34.76%


Missing 424

Total 6099


Page 44 of 66

Appendix 7. Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Overall

To what extent do you feel that the following has been addressed?

Antisocial Behaviour Increased general visibility of uniformed

officers Greater uniformed presence on evening

or late‐night trains

Responses Percentage Responses Percentage Responses Percentage

Fully addressed 1317 22.82% 1318 22.85% 721 12.51%

Partly address 2483 43.03% 2399 41.59% 1637 28.41%

Not addressed at all 889 15.41% 1408 24.41% 1793 31.12%

Don't know 1081 18.73% 643 11.15% 1611 27.96%

Total Responses 5770 5768 5762

Missing 329 331 337

Total 6099 6099 6099


Page 45 of 66

Appendix 8. Addressing 2014 Policing Priorities: Divisions

To what extent do you feel that the following has been addressed? (Antisocial Behaviour)

Fully addressed Partly address Not addressed at all Don’t know Division

Responses Percentage Responses Percentage Responses Percentage Responses Percentage

Total Responses

B 678 20.21% 1526 45.50% 567 16.91% 583 17.38% 3354

C 493 24.59% 810 40.40% 284 14.16% 418 20.85% 2005

D 144 37.89% 144 37.89% 37 9.74% 55 14.47% 380

Unknown 2 6.45% 3 9.68% 1 3.23% 25 80.65% 31


(Increased general visibility of uniformed officers)



Total Responses

B 696 20.74% 1437 42.82% 892 26.58% 331 9.86% 3356

C 487 24.31% 828 41.34% 434 21.67% 254 12.68% 2003

D 131 34.66% 134 35.45% 79 20.90% 34 8.99% 378

Unknown 4 12.90% 0.00% 3 9.68% 24 77.42% 31


(Greater uniformed presence on evening or late‐night trains)



Total Responses

B 386 11.53% 968 28.92% 1138 34.00% 855 25.55% 3347

C 221 11.02% 568 28.33% 564 28.13% 652 32.52% 2005

D 111 29.29% 100 26.39% 88 23.22% 80 21.11% 379

Unknown 3 9.68% 1 3.23% 3 9.68% 24 77.42% 31


Page 46 of 66

Appendix 9. 2015 Policing Priorities: List of Priorities

Which three of the following should be the priorities for British Transport Police over the next year?

(Please select three only)

Ticket fraud

Greater police presence in the evening and at night

Hate crime

Sexual offences


Violent crime

Antisocial behaviour (e.g. begging, drunkenness)

Drug dealing and using

Increased general visibility of uniformed officers

Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing)

Cycle theft

Other sporting events (e.g. rugby, horse racing)

Terrorism

Robbery

Staff abuse/assault

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft)

Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti

Other (please specify)


Page 47 of 66

Appendix 10. 2015 Policing Priorities: Overall

Priorities Count Proportion of

total respondents

Antisocial behaviour 2178 35.7%

Greater police presence in the evening and late night 2123 34.8%

Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 1826 29.9%

Terrorism 1577 25.9%

Violent crime 1416 23.2%

Sexual offences 1366 22.4%

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) 1030 16.9%

Staff abuse/assault 837 13.7%

Ticket fraud 751 12.3%

Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) 624 10.2%

Hate crime 609 10.0%

Drug dealing and using 542 8.9%

Football‐related disorder 535 8.8%

Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti 499 8.2%

Robbery 386 6.3%

Cycle theft 296 4.9%

Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) 90 1.5%

Other (please specify) 173 2.8%

Total respondents 6099


Page 48 of 66

Appendix 11. 2015 Policing Priorities: Divisions

B C D

Priorities Count

Proportion of respondents

CountProportion of respondents


Antisocial behaviour 1242 35.25% 787 36.74% 139 34.66%

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) 518 14.70% 451 21.06% 58 14.46%

Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti 279 7.92% 192 8.96% 27 6.73%

Cycle theft 191 5.42% 101 4.72% 3 0.75%

Drug dealing and using 311 8.83% 211 9.85% 19 4.74%

Football‐related disorder 209 5.93% 244 11.39% 81 20.20%

Greater police presence in the evening and late night 1210 34.35% 779 36.37% 127 31.67%

Hate crime 399 11.33% 172 8.03% 36 8.98%

Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 1060 30.09% 635 29.65% 123 30.67%

Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) 46 1.31% 42 1.96% 2 0.50%

Robbery 267 7.58% 110 5.14% 7 1.75%

Sexual offences 908 25.77% 371 17.32% 81 20.20%

Staff abuse/assault 436 12.38% 322 15.03% 77 19.20%

Terrorism 878 24.92% 523 24.42% 169 42.14%

Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) 395 11.21% 203 9.48% 25 6.23%

Ticket fraud 443 12.57% 273 12.75% 31 7.73%

Violent crime 904 25.66% 411 19.19% 94 23.44%

Other (please specify) 84 2.38% 58 2.71% 26 6.48%

Number of respondents 3523 2142 401


Page 49 of 66

Appendix 12. 2015 Policing Priorities: Sub‐divisions

B Division Subdivisions

East South TfL Priorities







Cycle theft 80 7.60% 80 5.08% 31 3.46%




Hate crime 98 9.32% 130 8.26% 171 19.06%



Robbery 63 5.99% 101 6.42% 103 11.48%

Sexual offences 256 24.33% 348 22.11% 304 33.89%


Terrorism 279 26.52% 367 23.32% 232 25.86%


Ticket fraud 129 12.26% 216 13.72% 98 10.93%

Violent crime 255 24.24% 379 24.08% 270 30.10%




Page 50 of 66

C Division Subdivisions

Midland Pennine Wales Western Priorities

Count Proportion of respondents




Antisocial behaviour 254 36.87% 323 35.07% 78 46.15% 132 36.36%

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) 163 23.66% 171 18.57% 37 21.89% 80 22.04%

Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti 65 9.43% 79 8.58% 10 5.92% 38 10.47%

Cycle theft 34 4.93% 28 3.04% 7 4.14% 32 8.82%

Drug dealing and using 81 11.76% 78 8.47% 22 13.02% 30 8.26%

Football‐related disorder 91 13.21% 104 11.29% 12 7.10% 37 10.19%

Greater police presence in the evening and late night 225 32.66% 363 39.41% 57 33.73% 134 36.91%

Hate crime 47 6.82% 93 10.10% 12 7.10% 20 5.51%

Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 196 28.45% 277 30.08% 55 32.54% 107 29.48%

Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) 9 1.31% 14 1.52% 7 4.14% 12 3.31%

Robbery 41 5.95% 46 4.99% 4 2.37% 19 5.23%

Sexual offences 133 19.30% 156 16.94% 20 11.83% 62 17.08%

Staff abuse/assault 73 10.60% 149 16.18% 37 21.89% 63 17.36%

Terrorism 199 28.88% 217 23.56% 25 14.79% 82 22.59%

Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) 66 9.58% 87 9.45% 13 7.69% 37 10.19%

Ticket fraud 102 14.80% 102 11.07% 14 8.28% 55 15.15%

Violent crime 126 18.29% 193 20.96% 26 15.38% 66 18.18%

Other (please specify) 19 2.76% 30 3.26% 3 1.78% 6 1.65%

Number of respondents 689 921 169 363


Page 51 of 66

Appendix 13. 2015 Policing Priorities: Demographic groups

Gender

Female Male Transgender Priorities

Count Proportion Count Proportion Count Proportion




Cycle theft 91 3.90% 182 5.97% 7 21.88%




Hate crime 263 11.26% 310 10.16% 3 9.38%



Robbery 139 5.95% 220 7.21% 4 12.50%

Sexual offences 691 29.58% 610 19.99% 8 25.00%


Terrorism 653 27.95% 803 26.32% 4 12.50%


Ticket fraud 272 11.64% 437 14.32% 5 15.63%

Violent crime 588 25.17% 730 23.93% 10 31.25%




Page 52 of 66

Age groups

Under 17 17‐24 25‐34 35‐44 Priorities

Count Proportion Count Proportion Count Proportion Count Proportion




Cycle theft 3 3.45% 37 5.12% 84 6.80% 68 6.42%




Hate crime 9 10.34% 120 16.60% 169 13.68% 116 10.95%



Robbery 16 18.39% 66 9.13% 64 5.18% 69 6.52%

Sexual offences 22 25.29% 236 32.64% 364 29.47% 263 24.83%


Terrorism 25 28.74% 197 27.25% 322 26.07% 288 27.20%


Ticket fraud 19 21.84% 103 14.25% 132 10.69% 123 11.61%

Violent crime 26 29.89% 166 22.96% 278 22.51% 271 25.59%




Page 53 of 66

Age groups

45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 75 and over Priorities





Cycle theft 42 3.87% 41 5.10% 7 1.71% 2 2.02%




Hate crime 87 8.01% 51 6.34% 23 5.61% 12 12.12%



Robbery 71 6.54% 61 7.59% 15 3.66% 8 8.08%

Sexual offences 230 21.18% 140 17.41% 57 13.90% 14 14.14%


Terrorism 295 27.16% 207 25.75% 123 30.00% 18 18.18%


Ticket fraud 138 12.71% 123 15.30% 73 17.80% 20 20.20%

Violent crime 283 26.06% 206 25.62% 100 24.39% 18 18.18%




Page 54 of 66

Ethnicity

Asian Black Mixed White Priorities





Cycle theft 18 4.84% 10 4.03% 4 2.03% 236 5.33%




Hate crime 87 23.39% 56 22.58% 30 15.23% 386 8.71%



Robbery 38 10.22% 31 12.50% 19 9.64% 261 5.89%

Sexual offences 116 31.18% 58 23.39% 61 30.96% 1038 23.43%


Terrorism 93 25.00% 65 26.21% 48 24.37% 1215 27.42%


Ticket fraud 43 11.56% 33 13.31% 17 8.63% 605 13.65%

Violent crime 107 28.76% 58 23.39% 60 30.46% 1064 24.01%




Page 55 of 66

Disability

Yes No Priorities

Count Proportion Count Proportion

Antisocial behaviour 160 36.95% 1886 38.29%

Crime‐related disruption on the railway (e.g. trespassing or cable theft) 99 22.86% 867 17.60%

Criminal damage, vandalism and/or graffiti 31 7.16% 438 8.89%

Cycle theft 16 3.70% 256 5.20%

Drug dealing and using 40 9.24% 452 9.18%

Football‐related disorder 37 8.55% 452 9.18%

Greater police presence in the evening and late night 160 36.95% 1824 37.03%

Hate crime 51 11.78% 520 10.56%

Increased general visibility of uniformed officers 147 33.95% 1544 31.34%

Other sporting events (rugby, horse racing) 4 0.92% 79 1.60%

Robbery 24 5.54% 335 6.80%

Sexual offences 89 20.55% 1205 24.46%

Staff abuse/assault 74 17.09% 709 14.39%

Terrorism 107 24.71% 1352 27.45%

Theft of personal property (e.g. pickpocketing) 52 12.01% 548 11.12%

Ticket fraud 64 14.78% 642 13.03%

Violent crime 97 22.40% 1221 24.79%

Other (please specify) 20 4.62% 101 2.05%

Number of respondents 433 4926


Page 56 of 66

Purpose of journey

Business Leisure Rail Staff Regular Commute Priorities





Cycle theft 44 4.14% 79 4.65% 26 4.47% 135 6.37%




Hate crime 141 13.25% 173 10.18% 35 6.01% 230 10.85%



Robbery 78 7.33% 129 7.59% 17 2.92% 140 6.60%

Sexual offences 247 23.21% 418 24.59% 82 14.09% 553 26.08%


Terrorism 313 29.42% 492 28.94% 153 26.29% 539 25.42%


Ticket fraud 126 11.84% 221 13.00% 91 15.64% 287 13.54%

Violent crime 286 26.88% 432 25.41% 121 20.79% 498 23.49%




Page 57 of 66

Appendix 14. Personal Security: Overall


Count Percentage

Very good 1515 26.57%

Fairly good 2540 44.55%

Neither good nor poor 938 16.45%

Fairly poor 421 7.38%

Very poor 288 5.05%


Missing 397

Total 6099


Count Percentage

Yes 1338 23.68%

No 4312 76.32%


Missing 449

Total 6099


Page 58 of 66

Appendix 15. Personal Security: Divisions and Sub‐divisions


Very good Fairly good Neither good nor poor Fairly poor Very poor Division

Sub‐division Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage

Total Response

B 835 25.11% 1499 45.07% 587 17.65% 244 7.34% 161 4.84% 3326

East 233 23.97% 420 43.21% 190 19.55% 82 8.44% 47 4.84% 972

South 376 25.30% 647 43.54% 269 18.10% 112 7.54% 82 5.52% 1486

Transport for London

226 26.04% 432 49.77% 128 14.75% 50 5.76% 32 3.69% 868

C 551 27.86% 890 44.99% 291 14.71% 141 7.13% 105 5.31% 1978

Midland 171 26.39% 293 45.22% 99 15.28% 44 6.79% 41 6.33% 648

Pennine 236 28.13% 370 44.10% 123 14.66% 68 8.10% 42 5.01% 839

Wales 41 28.08% 56 38.36% 20 13.70% 17 11.64% 12 8.22% 146

Western 103 29.86% 171 49.57% 49 14.20% 12 3.48% 10 2.90% 345

D Scotland 120 32.26% 144 38.71% 54 14.52% 33 8.87% 21 5.65% 372


Yes No Division Sub‐division

Count Percentage Count Percentage Total Response

B 759 23.06% 2532 76.94% 3291

East 238 24.69% 726 75.31% 964

South 365 24.81% 1106 75.19% 1471

Transport for London 156 18.22% 700 81.78% 856

C 421 21.47% 1540 78.53% 1961

Midland 134 20.78% 511 79.22% 645

Pennine 192 23.16% 637 76.84% 829

Wales 44 29.93% 103 70.07% 147

Western 51 15.00% 289 85.00% 340

D Scotland 150 40.32% 222 59.68% 372


Page 59 of 66

Appendix 16. Personal Security: Demographic groups


Very good Fairly good Neither good nor

poor Fairly poor Very poor

Gender

Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage

Total Response

Female 586 25.14% 1080 46.33% 384 16.47% 163 6.99% 118 5.06% 2331

Male 851 27.97% 1350 44.36% 489 16.07% 220 7.23% 133 4.37% 3043

Transgender 9 28.13% 9 28.13% 4 12.50% 4 12.50% 6 18.75% 32



Age


Total Response

Under 17 23 26.44% 34 39.08% 18 20.69% 11 12.64% 1 1.15% 87

17‐24 171 23.68% 345 47.78% 117 16.20% 49 6.79% 40 5.54% 722

25‐34 318 25.81% 546 44.32% 199 16.15% 99 8.04% 70 5.68% 1232

35‐44 258 24.43% 498 47.16% 168 15.91% 79 7.48% 53 5.02% 1056

45‐54 273 25.25% 476 44.03% 197 18.22% 80 7.40% 55 5.09% 1081

55‐64 238 29.64% 356 44.33% 126 15.69% 54 6.72% 29 3.61% 803

65‐74 146 35.70% 178 43.52% 52 12.71% 21 5.13% 12 2.93% 409

75 and over 50 51.55% 30 30.93% 11 11.34% 2 2.06% 4 4.12% 97



Ethnicity


Total Response

Asian 91 24.46% 171 45.97% 69 18.55% 26 6.99% 15 4.03% 372

Black 67 27.24% 111 45.12% 37 15.04% 13 5.28% 18 7.32% 246

Mixed 50 25.38% 85 43.15% 31 15.74% 17 8.63% 14 7.11% 197

White 1211 27.41% 1994 45.13% 709 16.05% 316 7.15% 188 4.26% 4418


Page 60 of 66



Disability


Total Response

Yes 97 22.45% 178 41.20% 83 19.21% 43 9.95% 31 7.18% 432

No 1343 27.33% 2236 45.50% 782 15.91% 340 6.92% 213 4.33% 4914


poor Fairly poor Very poor Purpose of

journey Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage

Total Response

Business 323 30.39% 509 47.88% 125 11.76% 66 6.21% 40 3.76% 1063

Leisure 501 29.66% 740 43.81% 268 15.87% 112 6.63% 68 4.03% 1689

Rail staff 114 19.66% 245 42.24% 107 18.45% 66 11.38% 48 8.28% 580

Regular commute

514 24.27% 942 44.48% 389 18.37% 157 7.41% 116 5.48% 2118


Page 61 of 66


Yes No Gender


Female 565 24.49% 1742 75.51% 2307

Male 642 21.26% 2378 78.74% 3020

Prefer not to say 103 47.69% 113 52.31% 216

Yes No Age


Under 17 15 17.44% 71 82.56% 86

17‐24 122 17.06% 593 82.94% 715

25‐34 306 25.06% 915 74.94% 1221

35‐44 267 25.53% 779 74.47% 1046

45‐54 280 26.02% 796 73.98% 1076

55‐64 185 23.30% 609 76.70% 794

65‐74 55 13.68% 347 86.32% 402

75 and over 10 10.31% 87 89.69% 97

Yes No Ethnicity


Asian 78 21.43% 286 78.57% 364

Black 50 20.66% 192 79.34% 242

Mixed 51 26.42% 142 73.58% 193

White 968 22.08% 3417 77.92% 4385

Yes No Disability


Yes 155 36.30% 272 63.70% 427

No 1045 21.44% 3829 78.56% 4874

Yes No Purpose of journey


Business 223 21.10% 834 78.90% 1057

Leisure 295 17.55% 1386 82.45% 1681

Rail staff 231 40.10% 345 59.90% 576

Regular commute 527 25.23% 1562 74.77% 2089


Page 62 of 66

Appendix 17. Fear of crime: Overall


Count Percentage

Extremely likely 180 3.18%

Very likely 326 5.76%

Quite likely 1173 20.72%

Not very likely 3345 59.08%

Not at all likely 638 11.27%


Missing 437

Total 6099


Page 63 of 66

Appendix 18. Fear of crime: Divisions and Sub‐divisions


Extremely likely Not at all likely Not very likely Quite likely Very likely Division


Total Response

B 105 3.18% 331 10.04% 1933 58.61% 720 21.83% 209 6.34% 3298

East 37 3.84% 99 10.28% 558 57.94% 211 21.91% 58 6.02% 963

South 38 2.57% 157 10.60% 870 58.74% 319 21.54% 97 6.55% 1481

Transport for London 30 3.51% 75 8.78% 505 59.13% 190 22.25% 54 6.32% 854

C 65 3.30% 247 12.55% 1183 60.11% 373 18.95% 100 5.08% 1968

Midland 31 4.80% 71 10.99% 398 61.61% 112 17.34% 34 5.26% 646

Pennine 19 2.28% 108 12.97% 490 58.82% 171 20.53% 45 5.40% 833

Wales 7 4.79% 19 13.01% 82 56.16% 26 17.81% 12 8.22% 146

Western 8 2.33% 49 14.29% 213 62.10% 64 18.66% 9 2.62% 343

D Scotland 8 2.16% 56 15.09% 218 58.76% 75 20.22% 14 3.77% 371


Page 64 of 66

Appendix 19. Fear of crime: Demographic groups


Extremely likely Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not at all likely Gender


Total Response

Female 67 2.90% 140 6.06% 501 21.70% 1392 60.29% 209 9.05% 2309

Male 87 2.87% 162 5.34% 573 18.90% 1826 60.22% 384 12.66% 3032

Transgender 5 15.63% 2 6.25% 7 21.88% 15 46.88% 3 9.38% 32

Extremely likely Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not at all likely Age


Total Response

Under 17 4 4.65% 4 4.65% 11 12.79% 48 55.81% 19 22.09% 86

17‐24 25 3.49% 44 6.15% 135 18.85% 423 59.08% 89 12.43% 716

25‐34 55 4.49% 78 6.37% 272 22.22% 693 56.62% 126 10.29% 1224

35‐44 35 3.34% 76 7.24% 228 21.73% 623 59.39% 87 8.29% 1049

45‐54 26 2.40% 67 6.19% 225 20.79% 646 59.70% 118 10.91% 1082

55‐64 15 1.88% 34 4.26% 155 19.42% 498 62.41% 96 12.03% 798

65‐74 7 1.75% 11 2.74% 62 15.46% 259 64.59% 62 15.46% 401

75 and over 4 4.17% 2 2.08% 7 7.29% 63 65.63% 20 20.83% 96

Extremely likely Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not at all likely Ethnicity


Total Response

Asian 14 3.80% 37 10.05% 86 23.37% 201 54.62% 30 8.15% 368

Black 11 4.53% 29 11.93% 47 19.34% 119 48.97% 37 15.23% 243

Mixed 13 6.88% 17 8.99% 42 22.22% 92 48.68% 25 13.23% 189

White 108 2.45% 218 4.95% 866 19.67% 2709 61.54% 501 11.38% 4402


Page 65 of 66

Extremely likely Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not at all likely Disability


Total Response

Yes 24 5.59% 31 7.23% 123 28.67% 206 48.02% 45 10.49% 429

No 128 2.62% 275 5.63% 949 19.43% 2986 61.15% 545 11.16% 4883

Extremely likely Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not at all likely Purpose of journey


Total Response

Business 22 2.09% 46 4.36% 175 16.59% 691 65.50% 121 11.47% 1055

Leisure 38 2.26% 77 4.58% 298 17.73% 1051 62.52% 217 12.91% 1681

Rail staff 35 6.06% 66 11.42% 204 35.29% 226 39.10% 47 8.13% 578

Regular commute 74 3.52% 123 5.85% 439 20.87% 1236 58.75% 232 11.03% 2104

Other (please specify) 10 5.65% 10 5.65% 35 19.77% 105 59.32% 17 9.60% 177

Missing 1 1.49% 4 5.97% 22 32.84% 36 53.73% 4 5.97% 67

Appendix 20. Public Awareness

Prior to this survey…

Were you aware that the railway network is policed by British Transport Police?

Were you aware that you can text British Transport Police on 61016 to report non‐emergency incidents?

Count Percentage Count Percentage

Yes 4893 86.48% 1905 33.74%

No 765 13.52% 3741 66.26%

Total responses 5658 5646

Missing 441 453

Total 6099 6099


Page 66 of 66

Appendix 21. BTP Performance: Overall


Count Percentage

Excellent 763 13.58%

Good 2242 39.91%

Neither good nor poor 2057 36.62%

Poor 316 5.63%

Very poor 239 4.25%


Missing 482

Total 6099

Appendix 22. BTP Performance: Divisions and Subdivisions


Excellent Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor Division


Total Response

B 392 11.95% 1274 38.84% 1289 39.30% 195 5.95% 130 3.96% 3280

East 130 13.49% 320 33.20% 392 40.66% 73 7.57% 49 5.08% 964

South 152 10.45% 533 36.66% 624 42.92% 87 5.98% 58 3.99% 1454

Transport for London 110 12.76% 421 48.84% 273 31.67% 35 4.06% 23 2.67% 862

C 281 14.43% 808 41.50% 654 33.59% 108 5.55% 96 4.93% 1947

Midland 86 13.46% 259 40.53% 227 35.52% 34 5.32% 33 5.16% 639

Pennine 115 13.94% 343 41.58% 271 32.85% 51 6.18% 45 5.45% 825

Wales 29 20.00% 51 35.17% 46 31.72% 10 6.90% 9 6.21% 145

Western 51 15.09% 155 45.86% 110 32.54% 13 3.85% 9 2.66% 338

D Scotland 83 22.74% 151 41.37% 107 29.32% 12 3.29% 12 3.29% 365

Public Consultation 2015v4 - British Transport Police (BTP) … Consultation 2015v4.pdfThe 2015 Public Consultation follows the findings from 2014 by examining public perceptions of

Documents