Victim Satisfaction Review of Greater Manchester Police

SCRUTINY REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTION

CONTENTS

Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 3

Themes ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Approach and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 5

The Vision for Customer Service in GMP ..................................................................................... 6

Barriers to Improving Victim Satisfaction .................................................................................... 7

Performance relating to Victim Satisfaction ................................................................................ 9

Victim Satisfaction Improvement Plans and the Customer Service Strategy ........................... 11

Use of Information to Improve Service Delivery to Victims ....................................................... 14

The Development and Implementation of Customer Service Desks ......................................... 18

Other Work designed to Improve Victim Satisfaction ................................................................ 25

The Feasibility and Desirability of Streamlining Survey Work around Victim Satisfaction ....... 31

Recommendations for Improvement............................................................................................ 32

Contributors to the Review ........................................................................................................... 34

Appendix – Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 35

FOREWORD

Providing a quality service to the public of Greater Manchester is of paramount importance to the Force and the Authority and at the forefront of this are victims of crime. Nowhere is it more vital to get it right first time, than when the customer is a victim. They are often the most vulnerable and need reassurance and confidence that the police will investigate the crime to the best of their ability and, importantly, keep them updated as to the progress of the case. This all contributes to victim satisfaction.

However, victim satisfaction is an area where Greater Manchester Police (GMP) was not performing as well as it should be, although there have been some improvements in recent months. The review undertaken by Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) clearly demonstrates that GMP has undertaken some considerable work to further understand victim satisfaction and has introduced measures that will enhance the service provided to victims, including the establishment of a Customer Service Desk on each division.

There is, however, still room for improvement and this report highlights a number of recommendations which the Force should look to implement. The Police Authority will be monitoring the progress of these recommendations very closely to ensure victims of crime receive a high quality and ever improving service from their police force.

Finally, I would like to thank everybody involved in this review including Police Authority Members, officers and, above all, victims of crime. Without their vital input we wouldn’t have been able to undertake such a comprehensive scrutiny review.

Cathy Conchie, Chair of the Quality of Service Committee

As Chair of the Quality of Service Committee, it’s my pleasure to present this report which outlines the findings from Greater Manchester Police Authority’s scrutiny review of victim satisfaction.

with 83.4% satisfaction for the rolling 12 months ending June 2011. Northumbria, the best performing force in GMP’s most similar forces group (MSG) and nationally, recorded 92.5% satisfaction for the rolling 12 months ending in June 2011.

GMP has developed action plans to manage satisfaction and confidence which include key actions for Chief Officers, Divisions and Branches. All divisions have been charged with developing local action plans to improve performance.

In order to better understand the reasons for the Force’s comparatively poor performance, GMP has done a considerable amount of work to analyse data from the victim satisfaction surveys.

The victim ‘experience’ is divided into four distinct areas:

Ease of contact

Action taken

Follow-up

Treatment

Greater Manchester Police Authority’s scrutiny review examining victim satisfaction stemmed from a recognition that this aspect of force business was a key threat to GMP’s performance.

The study used a combination of desktop research, interviews and the divisional scrutiny process to examine relevant issues, identify good practice and make a number of recommendations for improvement.

All police forces are required by law to conduct victim satisfaction surveys and adhere to specific Home Office guidelines which govern a number of aspects relating to the way the surveys are conducted (e.g. sample selection, timing of interviews, mandatory questions etc.). The surveys are carried out by way of telephone interviews with randomly selected victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, racist incidents, vehicle crime and, until April 2011, those involved in a road traffic collision.

At the commencement of this study, victim satisfaction was identified as a key threat for the Force. The most recently available data from the Home Office’s iQuanta system indicates that GMP is lying 32nd out of 43 forces in terms of measured perceptions of ‘whole experience’. GMP’s victim satisfaction performance was assessed as “poor” and “deteriorating” within the last Banding Analysis produced by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in June 2010. However, recent performance monitoring has shown gradual improvement over time from 79.3% in April 2010, compared

ExECUTIVE SUmmaRY

BaCkgROUND aND CONTExT

Victims taking part in the survey are also asked to rate what they thought of the ‘whole experience’.

Analysis by GMP established that it is the second area ‘action taken’ and third area ‘follow-up’ that are consistently the weakest.

The Authority recognises that the Force is developing and implementing a number of initiatives in an attempt to increase victim satisfaction, including the introduction of Customer Service Desks, and has been keen to assess the difference that these initiatives have made. GMP has also identified relevant good practice from both internal and external sources (e.g. Cheshire Constabulary, Merseyside Police and the Metropolitan Police Service).

As a part of the work of this scrutiny review, the Authority has examined how this good practice is being promulgated within the organisation.

The main issues covered within the review were:

The vision for customer service in GMP

Barriers to improving victim satisfaction

Performance relating to victim satisfaction

Victim satisfaction improvement plans and the customer service strategy

Use of information to improve service delivery to victims

The development and implementation of customer service desks

Other work designed to improve victim satisfaction

The feasibility and desirability of streamlining survey work around victim satisfaction

3

THEmES

This project has looked at the work undertaken by GMP to better understand and address the levels of victim satisfaction which, when compared to the most similar forces group, are not acceptable. The scrutiny work that the Authority has carried out has included the following:

1. An examination of how work undertaken within the Force to map the ‘customer journey’ has been used to improve service delivery.

2. Oversight of implementation of relevant elements of the GMP Confidence and Satisfaction Action Plans and assessment of the development of a Customer Service Strategy.

3. Examining how divisions are making use of victim satisfaction results and other relevant ‘customer insight’ findings.

4. Looking at how identified good practice from within GMP divisions and other forces has been promulgated and used within the Force.

5. An assessment of the development and implementation of Customer Service Desks within the Force.

6. Using data analysis undertaken by the Force which identifies differing victim priorities depending on crime type, assessment has been made to establish the whether GMP has adapted its responses to victims accordingly.

7. Through the work to develop a Joint Involvement Strategy for public sector partner agencies within the Greater Manchester city region, the feasibility and desirability of streamlining survey work around victim satisfaction has been explored.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

appROaCH aND mETHODOlOgY

The approach used in undertaking this project has involved a variety of methods, including:

•WithinGreaterManchester,liaisingwithdivisional commanders and other relevant staff working in selected divisions and branches to:

- examine how the work to map the customer journey has been used to improve service delivery, looking at how responses to victims are tailored to meet needs and expectations;

- determine how divisions are making use of user satisfaction results and other relevant ‘customer insight’ findings;

- assess the development and implementation of customer service desks;

- identify how transferable good practice in customer service is being used; and,

- highlight any areas for improvement.

n.b. Some areas described on the left have been explored by Members of GMPA through the Divisional Scrutiny process.

•Liaisingwithpublicsectorpartner agencies within the Greater Manchester city region to explore the feasibility and desirability of streamlining survey work around victim satisfaction.

• InterviewingtheAssistant Chief Constable who is leading the work in the Force relating to victim satisfaction.

5

The personnel we spoke to expressed their vision for customer service in the following ways:

“Customer service principles and understanding how customer service is delivered are intrinsic to, and should reinforce, everything we do.”

“Until recently, the Force and Authority have not really invested in the quality of interaction with the public. This lack of investment has shown in the relations between ourselves and the public, and is reflected in the way we deal with people. We need to see people as people. If we take steps to improve the quality of interaction, this will increase confidence and trust – this is the first step to reducing crime.”

“The focus within the Force has been on ‘the numbers’, but in some ways this has been a necessary journey. Now is the time to focus on quality.”

They were also keen to emphasise that any work on customer service needs be undertaken in such a way that staff understand what it means for them and exactly what is expected of them.

“There is quite a lot about quality of service in the organisation’s vision but do staff really understand what this means? Do they have the confidence to use their judgement about the best course of action to take?”

THE VISION FOR CUSTOmER SERVICE IN gmp

The Authority would encourage and support the Force’s efforts to ensure that any work to improve victim satisfaction and customer service is clear and specific in terms of the expectations regarding staff behaviour. The work the Force is undertaking in relation to establishing clear principles for customer service is key in this regard.

The Authority understands that such expectations will be specified within the change programme which supports the Customer Service Strategy. We also recognise that expectations regarding staff behaviour will be made explicit through the customer service training to be piloted plus the weeks of action which are taking place and planned for the coming months. The measure of success will be through improvements in victim satisfaction.

The Authority was keen to establish what the Force vision is for customer service within GMP and spoke to the relevant Assistant Chief Constable (Garry Shewan) and the Head of Profession for neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality. GMPA is impressed with the clarity with which this vision was described and the clear commitment to ensuring that the work around customer service and victim satisfaction does not get treated as ‘just another initiative’.

Recommendation

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Views were gathered through interviews with:

•theAssistantChiefConstableresponsible for Neighbourhood Policing and Confidence (Garry Shewan) and the Head of Profession for Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality.

• representativesfromtheSouthManchester, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside divisions, as part of the work to examine the introduction of Customer Service Desks.

• twovictimsofcrimewhohadexperienced similar types of incidents. Their views on the service they received are included in the Appendix and provide a useful insight into the variation in the nature and quality of service received.

The view of the Assistant Chief Constable was that no barriers exist that cannot be overcome and that a greater awareness of real and perceived barriers could be gained through further work examining customer insight. That being said, the nature of external performance

management mechanisms and regimes, was seen as having been something of a ‘noisy’ barrier.

“Satisfaction was very much seen as an ‘add on’. Reduction and detection of burglary and vehicle crime took precedence when really we should be looking at performance in the round – reduction, detection and satisfaction – as they are all interlinked.”

The development work which is currently taking place with the Force’s PULSE performance system will mean that data relating to satisfaction will be much more accessible to officers and staff, and can be looked at alongside reduction and detection information.

The interviews with Force representatives highlighted a number of perceived barriers.

•Alackofproactivity/understanding on the part of someofficers/staff

“Bobbies could be more proactive. Some just don’t contact their victims. We’re having to educate some staff about

keeping in contact with their victims when it’s really just common sense.”

“Staff need to understand properly the small things they can do which will make a difference. There are about four or five simple things we need to do every time and these aren’t difficult things. Staff should think, “What if this was a member of my family?” Follow-up is the weakest area, there’s always an excuse not to do it.”

“Staff at each stage of the process such as communications, enquiry counters etc. need to understand the whole victim journey before sending officers to deal with a victim. This is about consistent training.”

“We need to move the way we relate to victims from being a ‘transaction’ and make it ‘personal’. We should treat people how we would like to be treated ourselves.”

“People still work in silos and don’t think about the wider team. Staff have got to want to provide a good service and there are some examples within the Force where this is turning around.”

Whilst the Authority recognises that the commitment to improving customer service and victim satisfaction on the part of the Force is unmistakable, as a part of the review, GMPA wanted to sample perceptions about whether there are any barriers to improving aspects of the service provided to victims.

BaRRIERS TO ImpROVINg VICTIm SaTISFaCTION

7

• Lackofinformation/knowing who to contact to provide victims with updates

“The crime updates which are entered on the action board on the Opus system are not as detailed as the Customer Service Desk would like but we acknowledge that officers are busy.”

“Providing updates on the progress of the investigation can be problematic as it very much depends on the quality and timeliness of information entered onto the Opus action board. If this isn’t up to date, Customer Service Desk staff won’t know if some things have happened or not and the victim might actually know more than them.”

“Not having a specific person working on the case to contact for a definitive update can make things difficult for the Customer Service Desk staff and they have to chase round looking for the right person who will have the information they need.”

The importance of providing sufficient detailed information on the Opus action board to allow Customer Service Desk staff to give victims full and accurate updates should be emphasised to officers and staff. Each entry on the action board should be assigned to the officer or staff member who is providing the information (i.e. through provision of their Personal Identification Number and contact telephone number).

• IssueswithInformation Technology systems

“IT is a huge problem. Even the systems within GMP don’t talk to each other.”

“IT systems could be better. They could link in better with those of our partners and other public services. This would aid identification of ‘repeat’ and

‘multiple’ service users.”

The Authority would stress that any training or briefing that GMP provides to officers and staff about customer service should emphasise the key things that need to be done to provide a good service and the significance of maintaining contact with victims.

We understand that the Force has developed a range of briefing documents which will cover these key elements and that these have been delivered as part of the first ‘week of action’. The customer service training to be piloted also picks up the importance of providing a good service and maintaining contact with victims.

• Officerworkload

“There’s not enough officers to deal with the work. The days and weeks of action that take place on the division can impact on our capability to deal with the day to day work.”

• Notkeepingpromisesandmanaging public expectations

“Lots of people are miffed because of promises made to them by staff in the Operational Communications Rooms which are then not kept. These create false expectations regarding response times and attendance. Operational Communications Room staff then don’t keep the victim updated on what’s happening…Expectations need to be managed at all stages of the process.”

“Some people are not happy whatever you say, though we admit in some cases we have made mistakes…The vast majority of negative feedback stems from not updating people. People’s expectations need to be managed carefully through feedback and providing information about

‘how the system works’. For example, people blame the police for delays in receiving court results. That being said, people’s expectations re service delivery are higher than ever.”

“People want and expect more.”

“Timeliness is a big driver of satisfaction. The graded response policy is not always understood by victims. Call handlers should tell the caller every time what this grading means. We then need to make sure we deliver what we say we will!”

GMPA would stress that any training or briefing that GMP provides to officers and staff about customer service should include the importance of providing realistic information to manage public expectations and specify how officers and staff should do this.

As outlined earlier, we recognise that the Force has developed a range of briefing documents which will cover these key elements.

Recommendation

Recommendation

Recommendation

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

pERFORmaNCE RElaTINg TO VICTIm SaTISFaCTION

A concern for the Police Authority and Force and a factor which influenced the selection of this area of performance for further scrutiny, was the relatively poor performance of GMP compared with other police forces, both within its most similar forces group (MSG) and nationally. The table on the left shows the most up to date positions of the Force available in relation to each of the different elements of victim satisfaction (n.b. data covers the 12 month period up to the end of June 2011). In all cases, the data shows that GMP is performing significantly worse than its MSG peers.

Table A clearly shows that, with the exception of ‘treatment’ where the force is bottom, the Force is in fifth position in its most similar forces group (MSG). Looking at the national picture shows that, bar ‘ease of contact’, GMP is within the bottom 14 forces in the country.

Nevertheless, as highlighted earlier, GMP’s performance has been improving slowly. Table B below shows the most up to date figures for each of the elements of victim satisfaction (n.b. data covers the twelve month period up to the end of August 2011) and, with minor fluctuations, evidences steady improvement across all five elements.

*Most similar forces group

The satisfaction of victims with their ‘overall experience’ is a key performance measure for GMP and, within the Policing Plan, the Police Authority has set a target of 85% for the 2011-12 year. Other priority areas for improvement are satisfaction with ‘action taken’ (target - 76%) and ‘follow-up’ (target - 69%).

Table A: Comparative Performance

Victim Satisfaction Element

GMP Performance

MSG* Position(out of 6)

national Position(out of 43)

Overall 83.4% 5th 32nd

Ease of contact 95.0% 5th 26th

Action taken 77.6% 5th 38th

Follow-up 72.9% 5th 30th

Treatment 92.8% 6th 34th

Table B: GMP’s Current Performance

Victim Satisfaction Element GMP Performance

Overall 83.2%

Ease of contact 94.9%

Action taken 78.0%

Follow-up 74.4%

Treatment 93.0%

9

•KeyperformancerisksfocusonGMP’s position in its most similar forces group (MSG), low levels of satisfaction on the part of victims of violent crime and ‘action taken’.

•SinceJune2010,‘wholeexperience’satisfaction has improved significantly on three divisions – Metropolitan, Salford and South Manchester.

• InFebruary2011,NorthManchester,Tameside and Rochdale divisions had the lowest measured satisfaction levels.

• Intermsofthestrengthoftheirinfluence on satisfaction with the ‘whole experience’, the top five drivers of satisfaction were:

The victim feeling reassured.

The police taking the matter seriously.

The police appearing interested in what the victim told them.

The police being fair in the way they dealt with the victim.

Any information needed by the victim being provided quickly.

In response to these findings, the nPIA made a number of recommendations aimed at assisting GMP to address the areas of identified risk and make further improvements:

1. Conduct further benchmarking with the top performing and most improved force in the MSG to identify satisfaction strategies and specific tactical options which could be applied to GMP.

2. Through the Customer Service Strategy, develop a proposal to source divisional and individual level diagnostic data through the current survey or the Customer Service Databooks. External Relations and Performance Branch to monitor the positive responses to the ‘follow-up’ and ‘action taken’ diagnostic questions in order to identify improvements or a lack of.

In conjunction with the Force, the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) undertook a comprehensive baseline review to inform the Force Leadership Team about the performance picture. The review identified key improvements and the main risks going forward. A summary of the main findings and recommendations was presented to the Force Leadership Team Performance Meeting in April 2011.

3. Commission an in-depth analysis of follow-up to fully understand the improvements already made and how we can further these to close the MSG gap.

4. Commission analysis of the changes in vehicle crime satisfaction to see what has caused the improvements, with a view to applying these successes to violent crime. Conduct benchmarking with top performing forces to ascertain their vehicle crime policies.

5. Create a specific strategy to deal with violent crime victims. Attention needs to be given to action taken when in contact with these victims. Conduct focus groups with victims to get a clearer understanding of the issues faced.

6. The Metropolitan and Salford divisions to ascertain and promote the reasons for their satisfaction successes. This should be shared as good practice with all divisions.

7. The North Manchester division to develop a satisfaction strategy to enable them to contribute positively to overall GMP satisfaction. This is particularly pertinent given the effect of the removal of the road traffic collision victims.

8. Through the Customer Service Strategy and training programme due to be presented to the Chief Officer Group on 19th April 2011, promote the top five drivers of satisfaction and the treatment diagnostic indicators in general. Utilise the Good Ideas Satisfaction Day on 20th May 2011 to share good practice.

The Police Authority fully supports the findings from the review and endorses the recommendations for improvement that were outlined.

Key findings from the review included the following:

•Victimsatisfactionwiththe‘whole experience’ has increased significantly since June 2010, indicating a sustained improvement.

•Althoughitremainsthelowestaspect of satisfaction, ‘follow-up’ has significantly improved for the longest period of time. The other main improvements identified are in the areas of vehicle crime, victims being ‘kept informed of progress without asking’ and the Force ‘providing information about what the police would do’.

•‘Actiontaken’istheelementofsatisfaction having contributed the least to improvements in overall satisfaction.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

In recognition of the performance risk posed by the level of victim satisfaction and the importance of effecting speedy improvement in this key area of Force business, GMP put in place a number of specific actions as part of a Confidence and Satisfaction Improvement Plan.

VICTIm SaTISFaCTION ImpROVEmENT plaNS aND THE CUSTOmER SERVICE STRaTEgY

The actions were short term in nature and concentrated on ‘performance managing’ satisfaction. The plan included improvement activities for divisions, chief officers and branches plus the Force’s Neighbourhoods Project and its Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality Team. For example:

•UseinformationfromDivisionalQuarterly Performance Reviews to create local actions (Divisions).

•Undertakeanalysisandresearchon the other forces within

GMP’s most similar forces group (MSG) to determine what improves performance (Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality Team).

• Identifylocalinitiativesandpractices that are having an impact on satisfaction and confidence and share best practice through Superintendents’ meetings and other forums (Divisions).

• Implementseniorleadershipteam dip-sampling and communications to understand and target satisfaction (Divisions).

11

•ProfessionalStandardsBranchtouseincivility data to promote awareness amongst staff.

•DevelopandtrialtheCAREconfidenceand satisfaction improvement package with Bolton (training, dip-sampling, communications) and create Force proposal for culture change (Bolton Division; Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality Team).

This initial plan was followed by a further, more detailed Customer Satisfaction Improvement Plan in mid-2010 focused solely on satisfaction and which was aimed at taking the work to the next level. Key actions included the following:

• Identifyandassessnationalgoodpractice.

•Undertakeresearchexaminingsurveycontent and methodology used by other forces.

•Assessmentofcontentandlevelsofcontact with GMP throughout the victim journey to assess benefits and customer contact saturation point.

•Carryoutanalysisofathree-monthsample of service recovery data obtained from GMP’s survey service supplier.

The Force has clearly worked hard to implement these and other actions aimed at improving victim satisfaction, as some of the further examples outlined in the sections which follow will demonstrate.

Work to develop a Customer Service Strategy for the Force has progressed steadily and, at the time of writing, the latest iteration of the strategy had been considered and approved by the Chief Officer Group. The Strategy encompasses five fundamental principles.

1. Force-wide commitment to customer service principles.

2. Investment in measuring satisfaction performance at a Force, Divisional and Individual level.

3. Review of current change programme in terms of its emphasis on customer service, including the second phase of the Policing Model (PMIT 2).

4. Commissioning a programme of change to deliver customer focused leadership, promotion, professional standards and performance appraisal.

5. A force-wide training programme for all customer-facing staff.

At their April 2011 meeting, the Chief Officer Group approved principles 1-3

of the strategy and requested that the People and Development Branch devise the programme of change relating to customer focus (principle 4). In relation to the fifth principle, Chief Officers requested that further work be undertaken, focusing on options to either (a) develop and deliver the training in-house or (b) to source an appropriate ‘off the shelf’ training package.

At the meeting of the Chief Officer Group in June 2011, the final version of the Customer Service Strategy was approved in full and a decision made with regard to Victim and Customer Satisfaction Training for officers and staff who have contact with the public. Further information about the training is given later in this report.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

INC

REASE C

USTO

MER SA

TISFAC

TION

Process driven interactions

Close the enquiry at first opportunity

Deliver interactions that comply with force policy

Staff rushing from job to job

Staff passing on their negativity

Staff making quick decisions on initial impressions

Making promises we cannot keep

Staff seeing customers as the problem

Staff labelling customers based on appearance and past history

Interactions based on customer need

Solve the customer’s problem at first opportunity

Deliver interactions using officers’ discretion

Staff capable of providing a positive experience

Staff having time for quality conversations

Staff doing what is fair for the customer

Making promises we can keep

Staff seeing all customers asindividuals who need help

Staff capable of providing empathy and support

CURRENT STaTE END STaTE

A key element of the Strategy describes GMP’s ‘current state’ with regard to the service provided to victims (i.e. where the Force is now) and its ‘aspirational future’ or ‘end state’ (i.e. where the Force wants to be). This ‘end state’ was developed based on information gathered at a consultation event with representatives carrying out front-line roles from across the Force. These included officers and staff working in neighbourhood policing, response, criminal investigation, volume crime investigation and specialist operations. The key elements of the current and end states are summarised in the diagram above.

Good Practice – The Police Authority supports the nature of GMP’s aspirations as described within the ‘end state’ and welcomes the development of a comprehensive change programme to deliver these express intentions. The Force needs to ensure these aspirations are realistic in terms of expectations for the organisation and the timescales in which change is to be effected.

The Police Authority understands that key short and medium term actions linked to achieving the ‘end state’ will be complete by the end of March 2012. Customer service training will be piloted with a view to being rolled out across the force from April 2012. Longer term actions linked to human resources issues (e.g. appraisals, professional development) will be developed for implementation over the next two years.

13

“Sometimes it’s clear that we’re making too many calls to victims – not just the police but other agencies too. If we joined services together better we could provide a good service and proper updates to victims in one or two calls rather than five or six like we’re doing now.”

Through this Scrutiny Review, the Police Authority has been made aware that the number of call backs to victims from various sources is being examined to ensure that this is appropriate and not excessive.

We would encourage the Force to continue work to rationalise the number of calls made to victims and try to join up with other agencies where feasible and appropriate (e.g. victim support). This should ensure that any contact with victims is focused, coordinated and informed by the outcomes of contact that has taken place previously.

The North Manchester division outlined that they had received further mapping information relating to the ‘journey’ experienced by victims of domestic abuse and other crime victims. The aim of this information is to assist the division to identify potential areas of dissatisfaction and to put measures in place to address any such issues.

USE OF INFORmaTION TO ImpROVE SERVICE DElIVERY TO VICTImS

Recommendation

A key focus of the scrutiny review involved examining how the Force is making use of relevant information to make improvements to the service delivered to victims. Such information includes:

• the‘customerjourney’;

• customerinsightfindings;

• usersatisfactionsurveyresults(including drivers of satisfaction and how this information is used to tailor services to meet specific needs); and

• identifiedgoodpractice(fromwithin GMP, other forces, other organisations).

Through interviews with relevant staff involved in generating and analysing relevant data and interviews with commanders on a number of divisions (i.e. Bolton, Bury, Metropolitan and North Manchester), the review assessed how such information is being used.

The Customer Journey and Customer Insight

The work undertaken by the Force to examine the customer journey and gain detailed insight into the customer experience was influential in shaping elements of the first phase of the new Policing Model within GMP which focused on ‘first responders’ (e.g. response teams, neighbourhood teams). This work will also feed into the second phase of the Model which concentrates on investigation.

In addition, at the time the review took place, a key element of the work on the customer journey and

into customer insight took the form of a ‘customer touchpoint map’, highlighting specific points within the customer journey where the Force has contact with victims. The touchpoints identified include:

• callbacksfromtheOperationalCommunications Branch;

• updatesprovidedtovictimsasapartof the Victims’ Code of Practice;

• auditsconductedtoassesscompliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) and the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR);

• updatesprovidedbystaffworking on the Customer Service Desks;

• victimsatisfactionsurveys;and,

• otherdip-samplingactivity(includingcall backs from members of divisional senior leadership teams).

The customer touchpoint map was discussed briefly at a Satisfaction Summit for territorial commanders in October 2010. The main observation about the map was that the various interactions do not appear to be ‘joined up’, meaning there is the potential for duplication and the service appearing to be uncoordinated. Commanders suggested rationalising the collection of information from victims through various means (i.e. through the ‘touchpoints’ described above). Our work examining Customer Service Desks reinforced this, with a feeling expressed that there is the potential to make too many calls to victims.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Victim Satisfaction Survey Results

At the Satisfaction Summit in October 2010, examples of the various ways in which the victim satisfaction data was presented were on display. These examples included presentation slides used

in Force Leadership Team Performance meetings, victim satisfaction survey reports, the monthly performance bulletin and some of the ad hoc analysis that has been undertaken.

Divisional commanders were asked to feed back following the summit on what sorts of analysis, reporting and presentation they would find useful. Feedback received indicated that information on ‘broken promises’ (i.e. where a victim is led to expect to receive a particular element or level of service which is then not subsequently delivered) would be useful, as would some analysis of any correlation between victim satisfaction and crime detection (i.e. Is the level of victim satisfaction influenced by whether their crime has been detected by primary means, secondary means or not at all? What bearing does the length of time taken to detect the crime have on victim satisfaction?).

The members of divisional senior leadership teams taking part in the GMPA Scrutiny Review were asked to outline how they make use of the results they receive from the Victim Satisfaction Surveys. The responses received indicated that commanders are using the findings in intelligent ways focused on service improvement.

For example:

“To drive improvements in our weakest areas.”

“To inform further work to identify specifically what it is that makes people dissatisfied.”

When asked if there was anything that would make the data provided through the Victim Satisfaction Surveys more useful, there was a clear desire on the part of divisional senior leadership teams for more qualitative information to shape and aid targeted service improvement.

Through evidence gathered via attendance at the monthly Force Leadership Team Performance meetings, the Police Authority is encouraged by the efforts that GMP is making to increase the prominence and credence given to victim satisfaction information within the scrutiny of force and divisional performance. Our experience would indicate that victim satisfaction has moved from being an issue that was seldom looked at within the Force Leadership Team Performance Meeting, and one that was sometimes skipped if other agenda items overran, to being a key priority for the Authority and Force which is examined in detail at almost every meeting.

In addition, with guidance from the NPIA, over the past year or so the Force has taken significant steps to improve the presentation of victim satisfaction data within the Force Leadership Team Performance Meetings. The presentation of relevant satisfaction information has become more sophisticated, less focused on divisional ‘league tables’ and is increasingly geared around the use of standard deviation and the relative contributions of different divisions to the overall Force picture. The NPIA maintain that over the past six months GMP has developed a far greater understanding of the ‘satisfaction picture’ and the key factors that influence victim satisfaction. The graphs overleaf provide examples of this change in emphasis.

15

2011/12 police forces no longer required to interview those involved in road traffic collisions

Burglary, Vehicle Crime and Violent Crime data will have an equal weighting of 33.3%

Potential Impacts on Performance

A B C F G J K L M N P Q

POTENTIAL KEY THREATS• North Manchester Division • Action Taken • No change in MSG Position

RECOMMENDATION:The Metropolitan and Salford divisions to ascertain and promote the reasons for their satisfaction successes. This should be shared as good practice with all divisions.

Metropolitan and Salford are achieving

the 85% target

North Manchester, Tameside and Rochdale have the lowest

satisfaction levelsMetropolitan, South

Manchester and Salford have shown significant

improvements

Despite Tameside having

a low satisfaction level and displaying deteriorations, the

removal of road traffic collisions will benefit this division the most

RECOMMENDATION:The North Manchester

division to develop a satisfaction strategy to enable them to contribute positively to overall GMP satisfaction. This is particularly pertinent

given the affect of the removal of the road traffic

collision victims.

ImpaCT OF DIVISIONal OVERall SaTISFaCTION ON FORCE OVERall SaTISFaCTION

mEaSURINg SaTISFaCTION 2011/12 LOSS OF rOAd TrAFFIC COLLISIONS

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Proposals within the Customer Service Strategy commit the Force to further improving this area. The Statements of Requirement articulate this desire:

• Delivercustomerserviceprinciplesthatdelivercontinuousimprovement for customers, reflective of changing needs and best practice.

• Developaperformanceframeworkeffectiveinmeasuringand improving customer service.

• Driveoperationaldevelopmentsthatpermitandencourage staff to have quality conversations and use discretion-based decision making.

• Directleadershipincustomerserviceusingaframeworkeffective in changing workforce culture.

• Deliverworkforcedevelopmentregardingability,skills,training and knowledge, equipping staff in delivering excellent customer service at every interaction.

• Ensurethecustomerservicestrategydeliversvalueformoney.

Good Practice – The Police Authority believes the Force has made significant progress in terms of developing its understanding of information around victim satisfaction and the way this is presented. This is to be applauded and we would support fully GMP’s efforts to continue to improve in this area.

Following approval of the Customer Service Strategy at the Chief Officer Group in June 2011, a version for front-line officers and staff was being prepared containing straightforward messages about what the Strategy means to officers and staff on the ground.

KeytotheimplementationoftheStrategyarefourcustomer service focused weeks of action. The first in July 2011 concentrated on customer service principles and was a week of briefings, information sharing and internal communication to raise awareness of the Strategy and its key principles. The second in September was ‘back to the floor’ supervision week and involved getting all ranks of supervision, including command, out with GMP’s front-line staff who deal with the Force’s customers on a daily basis. In October 2011, there was a week of activity around the Customer Service Desks, giving staff a chance to find out about the key role that they play in customer service and satisfaction performance. The fourth week in November concentrates on running focus groups and consultation forums with victims. This will be in addition to a publicly nominated awards process for the 2011 Customer Service Excellence Award.

Internal Communication about Victim Satisfaction

Commanders interviewed on the Bolton, Bury, Metropolitan and North Manchester divisions were asked to outline how they make use of ‘satisfaction messages’ within internal communication on the division. The Police Authority was impressed with how such information is being used as positive messages and to reinforce the actions of staff. For example:

“Actual feedback is utilised in performance posters to give a positive feel to the results for the division.”

“Letters of appreciation are included on divisional orders and in newsletters. Posters with feedback are displayed around police stations.”

“We use it within pace-setter meetings, generic emails to staff and as a feature within our excellence awards. We look at satisfaction within performance meetings and team meetings as well as having posters displayed. I still think we could do more.”

During visits to divisions as a part of the study, Police Authority staff became aware of the use of “Every Contact Leaves a Trace” messages, aimed at reinforcing to staff the importance of creating a positive impression with every contact they have with victims and other customers.

The Police Authority would urge divisions and branches to continue to publicise positive messages around customer satisfaction and to examine innovative ways of communicating such messages to staff effectively.

Recommendation

17

THE DEVElOpmENT aND ImplEmENTaTION OF CUSTOmER SERVICE DESkSCustomer Service Desks were introduced as a key element of the first phase of the Force’s new policing model and specifically in response to the recognition that GMP’s performance in relation to ‘action taken’ and ‘follow-up’ was particularly weak. This section of the scrutiny review examines the introduction and development of Customer Service Desks and makes a number of recommendations for improvement.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

The staff involved in the work of the Customer Service Desks that we spoke to during the Scrutiny Review emphasised that the call backs are very much a conversation and not designed to be a structured survey. There was a suggestion that this has been a source of confusion for some divisional commanders who see the work involved in conducting the statutory surveys with victims as duplicating that undertaken by the Customer Service Desks, however, these statutory surveys take place at a much later stage than the Customer Service Desk call backs (i.e. during a specified six to twelve week timeframe following the report of the crime).

“Couldn’t the Customer Service Desks do the Victim Satisfaction Survey? Is there a need for it to be completed independently? At present the questions are being asked disconnected from the issue and we’re missing an opportunity to improve confidence.”

The Force should continue to undertake work to reinforce to divisional commanders and other key postholders, the different purposes of the statutory victim satisfaction surveys and the work carried out by the Customer Service Desks.

Most incident types receive the ‘bronze’ (n.b. the highest) standard of call back service which means victims get at least two call backs and a letter. The ‘silver’ service, depending on the incident type, involves one or two call backs and, in some cases, a letter. Finally, the ‘gold’ service again depends on the nature of the incident and involves one or two call backs but no letter. The classification of the different levels of service in this way has been somewhat confusing as it is the opposite to the way other aspects of police work are classed (e.g. in terms of policing operations, ‘gold’ commanders deal with strategy, ‘silver’ with tactics and ‘bronze’ with operational delivery), however, as this is now familiar to those working on the Customer Service Desks there seems little point in changing it.

Recommendation

Information for this aspect of the scrutiny review has been obtained through interviews with personnel from the Bolton, Bury, Metropolitan, North Manchester, Rochdale, Salford, South Manchester and Tameside divisions and also through the Police Authority’s Divisional Scrutiny process.

During the GMPA scrutiny project, the Force was undertaking its own review of Customer Service Desks, the outcomes from which will be picked up and examined through the next round of GMP Divisional Performance Reviews.

The purpose of Customer Service Desks

Customer Service Desks were trialled on the Salford and Tameside Divisions as a part of the pilot work relating to the implementation of the new policing model. Two slightly different approaches were tested and at the culmination of the pilot, the decision was made to run with the Tameside model.

Essentially, Customer Service Desks have two main functions. The first focuses on providing updates to victims at specific intervals following the report of a crime (i.e. days 1, 14, 28 and 56) until the investigation of that crime is closed. Day one calls can be delayed until four days after the incident if further information may be available at that stage. Customer Service Desk staff use information downloaded daily into a databook to assess the suitability of each case for a call back, to guide the conversation with the victim, asking questions to determine satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service received to date and whether there is anything further that the victim needs. The calls also provide, where appropriate, an opportunity to give the victim an update on the progress with the investigation of their crime using information logged on the Opus action board. Crimes and incidents of a more sensitive or serious nature (e.g. sexual offences, domestic abuse, serious and organised crime where there should be an in-built victim care package) or any incidents which, by virtue of their nature mean that updates are not required, are ‘screened out’ from the call back process.

19

“Bronze, silver and gold are the wrong way around! This Force is forever complicating things and calling things by different names, just because they are new!”

The other aspect of the service provided by the Customer Service Desk revolves around grade four incidents (i.e. those which are referred to neighbourhood policing teams) and can involve resolution over the phone or scheduling an appointment for someone from the local neighbourhood policing team to attend.

When we asked the divisions selected to take part in the Scrutiny Review to describe what problems or issues the Customer Service Desks are designed to address, the messages coming through were encouragingly consistent.

“..to help us identify what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. It gives us an opportunity to raise community awareness of some of the good work the division is doing, particularly that focused on neighbourhood priorities. Every contact is an opportunity to gather more intelligence and tell local people what we’re doing in terms of operations and positive impacts on crime and anti-social behaviour statistics. This can help to change perceptions. We can also look for trends and patterns in dissatisfaction.”

“To improve follow-up with victims. This was an area we failed on.”

“Keeping people updated. Gathering information about what the Force needs to do to improve satisfaction and confidence.”

“The biggest thing is follow-up. We forget to tell people what we’ve done. The Customer Service Desk acts as a failsafe in some ways. Staff can get an early indication of negative feedback. This can be communicated to supervisors.”

It became clear from talking to staff on a number of divisions during the review period that a key area of difficulty can be getting officers to actually provide the requisite information on the Opus action board to allow Customer Service Desk staff to give victims an update on the progress with their crime or incident. The importance of officers doing this has been highlighted earlier in this report.

An interesting observation from one officer we spoke to was that, although a key purpose of the Customer Service Desks is to improve follow-up, the first call backs made by staff (i.e. on day one or day four) may actually not be perceived as ‘follow-up’ activity by the victim but actually part of ‘initial contact’. It is difficult to suggest how this perception might be altered save the caller using language which emphasises that their contact is ‘following up’ the victim’s report of a crime.

How are the Customer Service Desks working and how might they be improved?

The personnel we spoke to were asked if they had experienced any ‘teething problems’ when the Customer Service Desk was introduced on their division. A number mentioned having problems with the Customer Service Desk ‘databook’ (i.e. the computer package used to guide the call backs and record information gathered from the victims spoken to) with a general feeling that it is not very user-friendly.

“There were lots of issues with the databook at first. Some of these have been sorted out but we’re still not altogether happy with it. The daily download still includes some crime and incident codes that aren’t for Customer Service Desk attention and have to be ‘screened out’.”

“There are still some technical problems with the databook in that inappropriate crimes and incidents are being downloaded.”

“In terms of identifying the reasons why victims are satisfied or dissatisfied, it’s not that easy to look back within the databook at completed calls.”

“The Customer Service Desk databook isn’t good enough. It doesn’t provide sufficient breakdown of information. The previous system we had was better.”

“It takes ages to get useful information out of the databook. For example, we can’t easily get positive and negative feedback aligned to officers within a relief. The databook is essentially a diary with a very basic search facility.”

“The databook is rubbish. If we didn’t put information in the comments boxes, the data wouldn’t be of any use whatsoever. The comments are more informative and helpful than anything else on the databook in terms of knowing what to do to put things right.”

“The ‘outcomes update’ aspect of the databook wasn’t covered in the eight day training course and more boxes have appeared without explanation. I’m not sure what some of the boxes are actually for or what they mean so I’m ticking things when I’m not sure I should be. There’s also some spelling and wording mistakes in the databook which makes it look unprofessional.”

“Need to start from scratch with the computer system. It does work but it’s not ideal.”

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Although it is evident from the comments above that some opinions about the databook are fairly negative, discussing these issues with staff involved in implementing Customer Service Desks across the Force and providing masterclasses on the work of the Customer Service Desk provided a different perspective. Their view suggests that some of the problems described may be due to a lack of knowledge and training on the part of officers and staff using the databook, issues which, if they attended the Masterclass, would be resolved. There is also a perception that frequent turnover of staff and supervision has exacerbated this issue. That being said, there are clearly some issues with the databook that merit prompt attention and the Authority is encouraged that, at the time of writing, the Force is undertaking a review of the databook.

The Police Authority would emphasise that the Customer Service Desks databook’s functionality and capacity to generate useful local management information is examined as a matter of urgency. Any review of the databook should take in the views of staff using the package and managers on divisions who need to extract information from it.

Recommendation

Other initial problems experienced focused on divisions ‘screening out’ too many calls, issues with training and collecting the information regarding satisfaction/dissatisfaction incorrectly.

“Our results at first showed that no-one was dissatisfied but just 70% of people were satisfied, so there was clearly something not right about the way the information was being collected and it turned out that staff weren’t ticking the boxes correctly. This was down to poor training.”

“There were some issues with training and with police staff in particular not having the requisite knowledge in some areas to be able to advise victims.”

“There is some suggestion that if police officers were doing the Customer Service Desk role they’d be more able to provide suitable crime prevention advice than police staff.”

“It would be good if both sets of staff in the Customer Service Desk – police officers and police staff – could do each other’s jobs.”

21

Again, contact with staff involved in implementing Customer Service Desks would indicate that, if divisions were following the recommended operating model for the Customer Service Desks, the points regarding police officers and staff having knowledge of each other’s roles would be less of an issue. The model outlines that officers should be working with police staff undertaking call backs. Such joint working would help police staff to gain more knowledge and be able to provide appropriate advice.

The Police Authority urges the Force to review the training received by officers and staff working in Customer Service Desks to ensure that this is appropriate and covers all relevant aspects of the work they will need to undertake. Any redesign of the training should take into account the views of postholders currently working in Customer Service Desks about aspects of the training they feel would benefit from improvement.

The views expressed about how the Customer Service Desks are now working were generally positive, but with an acknowledgement that there is still room for improvement.

“There’s still lots we can do, once we get more data.”

“I don’t think the 14 day call back is quite right in terms of time lag – 28 days is better.”

“We’ve been encouraging staff to put more information in the comments boxes as this really helps in terms of understanding the reasons why people are satisfied or dissatisfied.”

“There is some suggestion that there may be a lack of clarity re the provision of updates – is this the primary function of the officer in the case and/or the Customer Service Desk?”

“We’re going to try and introduce more support for the neighbourhoods in terms of using the Customer Service Desk call backs to promote initiatives and events. So far, getting the information from the neighbourhoods has not proved to be that easy.”

“We need to develop better relationships with the neighbourhood teams in order to get ‘good news’ from them.”

“We could use the call backs to get more intelligence and promote the initiatives going on in the neighbourhoods and on the division as a whole.”

Recommendation

Though the Police Authority acknowledges that the operating model outlines the promotion of ‘good news’ and initiatives from the neighbourhood teams and gathering intelligence as part of the work of Customer Service Desks, we would emphasise that the primary focus for divisions should be to get the core business correct before expanding the Desk’s remit.

However, that being said we recognise that conversations with victims, as well as having an element of reassurance about their personal circumstances, should also include the wider context of what the division is doing to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in local communities.

Any work examining the further development of Customer Service Desks should take in the views of staff on divisions working on the Customer Service Desks on specific aspects that could be improved.

Recommendation

Recommendation

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Raising staff awareness about the role of Customer Service Desks

Another area the Police Authority was eager to look at was how divisions are raising awareness amongst relevant officers and staff about the role of the Customer Service Desks. We found that this was something divisions had considered in some depth and our analysis showed that there were a number of similarities in the approaches being taken.

“We have planned attachments to the Customer Service Desk and also, staff receive the emails containing the feedback.”

“One idea I’m going to introduce is for response officers to spend some time in the Customer Service Desk asking the questions themselves. This will help them to know what’s being asked and how they are being monitored.”

“Everyone knows about it because they get the feedback! They know there is constant monitoring.”

“I will be going around the different teams and units on the division and speaking to them about the work of the Customer Service Desk.”

The Police Authority would emphasise that divisions should continue to increase the knowledge and awareness of the role of the Customer Service Desk amongst relevant officers and staff. This may be through briefings or short term attachments to the Customer Service Desk. Any such briefings or attachments should include an input on the most common reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Information collected through the Customer Service Desks

Within our Scrutiny Review we were keen to find out about what kind of information is being gathered through the Customer Service Desks and, more importantly, what use is being made of the information. The staff we spoke to were clear that the key elements to collect from victims should focus on their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service received, the reasons for this and whether there was anything else they required in terms of service from GMP.

Despite the perceived limitations with the functionality of the databook, the Police Authority was impressed with the enthusiasm with which divisions were making use of the information gathered by the Customer Service Desks. The information is clearly being used to drive up performance in relation to service delivery and is examined at a number of different levels. For example:

“There is information about positive and negative experiences. This is used in neighbourhood policing reviews and is broken down to individual level. It can be used to identify areas where training might be needed. It is also used within divisional performance reviews.”

“Any negative feedback is provided to supervisors. Positive feedback goes to the officer themselves with supervision copied in. The information from the Customer Service Desk is also used in our management meetings and in one-to-one meetings between officers and their supervisors.”

“Customer Service Desk information is brought to the performance meetings on the division and the themes coming up are discussed. We also go through positive performance.”

“Negative feedback is looked at by the Senior Leadership Team and is also communicated to supervision. We have spreadsheets of positive and negative feedback which both go to the Senior Leadership Team.”

“It’s used at daily performance management meetings – any negative feedback is given to officers and managers.”

The efforts on divisions to make best use of the information gathered through Customer Service Desks are to be commended. The Police Authority would stress that the Force should identify any good practice with regard to the use of such information and take steps to promulgate this across all divisions.

Recommendation

Recommendation

23

“We have a book in which the ‘priority’ call backs are logged. These relate to the crimes which are a priority for the division and are the victims that staff must physically speak to.”

“There is a big gap between the 28 and 56 day call backs so we have started to do 42 day call backs. As the computer system isn’t geared up for these we have to diary them in.”

“With anti-social behaviour, we make a point of calling the victim whilst we are in the area responding. This is about letting people know we’ve actually attended. We also provide the contact details for the neighbourhood inspector.”

• HowtheCustomerServiceDesk is used

“At the moment we are looking specifically at those victims who have experienced restorative justice and logging information about what happened and how it was received by victims.”

“We’ve started providing an extra level of service to victims of our priority crimes – platinum.”

“We’ve also started using the Customer Service Desk calls as means to determine the priorities in different neighbourhoods. This is proving interesting as people don’t necessarily highlight the crime they’ve been a victim of.”

“Customer Service Desk staff have identified that victims of crime often don’t understand the policing terminology used by officers who attend the scene. The Customer Service Desk staff will take the time to explain what the officer meant.”

“We want to develop recruitment in relation to Key Individual Networks and Homewatch but we’re not quite there with it yet.”

The Police Authority would emphasise that any good practice identified from the Customer Service Desk ‘tailoring’ being undertaken on different divisions should be harnessed and promulgated across the Force.

One thing that became clear during the Scrutiny Review was that on most divisions, there is work being undertaken which is effectively tailoring some of the approach being used by the Customer Service Desks. These modifications focus on:

• Callbacks

“Leaving a voicemail message is actually classed as a call. I instruct my staff to not to leave a message the first time they call and get an answerphone, instead they try to re-contact the person in the evening.”

“We have changed what we do in relation to crimes with no lines of enquiry. The policy states that call backs to victims of these crimes should be delayed for four days. Here we do the ‘day one’ call backs but don’t tell the aggrieved person that the incident has been finalised. We go through the databook questions at this point and then wait 14 days to do a second call back and determine whether there is anything else the victim needs.”

Impact of the Customer Service Desks on victim satisfaction

Perhaps the key measure of the success of Customer Service Desks is whether the work their staff are undertaking is having a positive impact on victim satisfaction. Our interviews clearly showed that the perception is that this impact is indeed positive, though staff in a couple of areas where the Customer Service Desks were relatively new, felt it was a little too soon to gauge such an effect.

“Though it’s a bit early to tell, satisfaction with follow-up has risen.”

“Yes, satisfaction has increased.”

“Yes, there is a direct link between the introduction of the Customer Service Desk and satisfaction as victims are getting the follow-up now.”

“I think so, but I could be biased. The Customer Service Desk don’t fob people off and we have had some positive feedback. The Customer Service Desk provides a useful service and has a positive impact on follow-up.”

Recommendation

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

As well introducing a Customer Service Desk on each division within GMP, the Force has taken a number of other steps to further understand and improve victim satisfaction. Brief details of key activities that have been brought to the attention of the Police Authority during the Scrutiny Review are provided below.

nPIA Support

GMP has received assistance from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) with regard to satisfaction on two fronts. The first, relating to the presentation of satisfaction performance data, has been covered earlier in this report. The second element has involved examining the possibility of GMP making use of training around the quality of interaction between the police and victims and focuses on the development of scenarios (n.b. based on the ‘Chicago Model’). Participants’ attitudes are tested both before and after they have received training to gauge if there has been any change. Also involved is a pilot group which does not receive any training. Training of this nature is one of the options which has been considered by the Force.

Satisfaction Summit

As mentioned earlier in this report, the Force hosted a Satisfaction Summit in October 2010 which involved divisional commanders getting together to discuss methods for performance improvement in relation to satisfaction. This session was also attended by a number of Police Authority staff and Members. The message conveyed at the beginning of the summit was very clear.

“Today is about identifying how we can do things better, not how we can make things look better.”

OTHER WORk DESIgNED TO ImpROVE VICTIm SaTISFaCTION

25

The issues examined and discussed during the day were:

User satisfaction survey methodology, reports and analysis

After listening to a recording of an interview with a victim, divisional commanders expressed universal disquiet about the way in which the interviews were conducted, particularly the nature and volume of questions, believing that if victims were fairly satisfied at the beginning of the interview they would likely be dissatisfied by the end! Commanders discussed the questions asked within the survey and identified those which they believed did not generate useful information in terms of customer insight. Following this discussion, the key action was for the survey questionnaires to be further examined and redesigned, taking into account any good practice identified from other forces.

Customer service desks – training, performance monitoring and capturing customer feedback

An area of contention identified through this discussion was how updates to victims provided in line with the Victims’ Code of Practice fit with the updates provided through the Customer Service Desks. The feeling at the summit was that such updates should be integrated ideally but coordinated at the very least.

Service recovery

Divisional commanders had been given three months of ‘service recovery’ information (i.e. where victims had expressed dissatisfaction with one or more aspects of the service they had received). It was agreed that it had been useful for commanders to scrutinise this information, however, all service recoveries should be routed through Customer Service Desks in the future.

Victim dip-sampling

Members of senior leadership teams on divisions had been tasked with making five calls a month to victims as a check on the service received. It was agreed that this practice could now cease but that commanders should ensure that they are kept informed of the work of the Customer Service Desks and the main issues emerging.

Customer journey touchpoints

Commanders provided initial feedback on the customer touchpoint map that was circulated showing specific points within the customer journey where the Force has contact with victims.

Training

A number of divisions had started to develop their own training packages around victim and customer care. Further information about such training is provided later in this section.

Good practice

A number of examples of good practice from other forces were discussed. Further information is provided later in this section.

A key recommendation to emerge from the summit was the need to develop a coherent and comprehensive Customer Service Strategy.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Customer Service Strategy Workshop

Representatives from four divisions, along with Police Authority staff and Members attended this workshop which aimed to develop a baseline for the Customer Service Strategy. The workshop included presentations and discussions around a number of large organisations known for their excellent customer service, good practice and training developed by national bodies and from other police forces. This provoked lively and informed discussion around learning which could be usefully transferred into customer focused policing within GMP.

Good Ideas Day

GMP hosted a ‘Good Ideas Day’ in May 2011 focusing on victim and customer satisfaction. This day was attended by a range of officers and staff, mainly in front-line, customer-facing roles plus GMPA Members and staff. The day was designed to engage attendees and elicit ideas about how satisfaction might be improved. Amongst the topics covered were:

• Barrierstoimprovingsatisfaction

• Victimsatisfactionperformance

• Currentworkbeingundertakentoimprovevictimandcustomer satisfaction

• LinkstotheworkoftheProfessionalStandardsBranch

• Victimandwitnesscare

• Communicationsworkandpositivenewsstories

• Goodworkgoingoninotherforcesandorganisations

• GoodpracticewithinGMP(e.g.empathytraining,Forensic Services Branch work to improve the customer experience)

• ThesecondphaseofthePolicingModelimplementationand embedding satisfaction

A great deal of useful feedback and ideas were gathered during the day, as well as further examples of good practice. The force is committed to ensuring that the analysis of the feedback influences service delivery and taking steps to effectively publicise all the good practice identified. A number of examples of good and innovative practice highlighted to the Police Authority during the Scrutiny Review are described in the next section.

Good Practice in Improving Victim Satisfaction

One of the most encouraging findings to emerge from this Scrutiny Review was the willingness and zest with which the force has sought out instances of innovation and good practice from both within the organisation and elsewhere and looked to see how GMP can make best use of various initiatives. This work to identify good practice will be consolidated and marketed to the wider organisation through a comprehensive intranet site which is currently under development. A number of key examples of such good practice are described below.

Training - Internal

• MetropolitanDivisionhasdelivered‘empathy’trainingtostaff working on enquiry counters, response officers and some of their neighbourhood teams. This is classroom based with discussion and video clips. This training is being looked at by the Oldham Division.

• BoltonDivisionhasprovidedCARE(Communication,Accountability, Reassurance and Empathy) training to response and neighbourhood staff. Again, this is based in the classroom with video clips to provoke discussion.

• SuperintendentsandChiefInspectorsontheNorthManchester Division will be receiving training from an external provider which focuses on customer-facing skills and which they will then cascade down to their staff.

• Thethree-dayprofessionalisingResponseOfficers’courseincludes a half-day input on ‘victim and witness care’.

27

Training – External

• CheshireConstabularyhasconductedworkshops with all operational police officers and forensic teams. The workshops have involved introducing officers to the concept of satisfaction, how it is measured and why it is important. A key element involved officers taking part in activities where they identified what they felt was an ‘excellent’ service.

• MerseysidePolicehasundertakentraining with all operational staff to ensure they understand the stages of service and critical inputs which can make a difference to a victim of crime. New recruits on a division are provided with an overview of satisfaction when they join the division.

Understanding victims

• TheMetropolitanPoliceServicehasrunan interactive session with the Victim and Witness Support Service and a number of victims. This examined the practical and emotional aspects of the customer journey and has encompassed a more qualitative assessment of victim insight, looking beyond the service provided by the police.

• GMP’sMetropolitanDivisionhascarried out focused discussion groups with victims of crime to gauge their experiences. During these groups both positive and negative discussions were encouraged. The Division is also making use of customer contact cards to gather feedback from victims. The information provided is logged on a database and analysed to identify emerging trends. Feedback is given to supervisors and discussed at team briefings.

Other initiatives

• TheMetropolitanDivisionhasundertakenstaffexchange visits with personnel from Walmart to gain a better understanding of how they ‘do’ customer service and achieve high levels of customer satisfaction.

• Anumberofforcesundertakedip-samplingwithvictims to monitor the service provided by officers (e.g. sergeants from West Yorkshire Police undertake regular dip-sampling with victims of crime soon after the crime has been reported. Their Chief Constable also undertakes dip-sampling every month and provides feedback to officers; area performance units in Merseyside dip sample ten crimes each week to ensure compliance with the Victims’ Code of Practice).

• MerseysidePolice’sHELPOUTmodelofserviceinvolvestraining officers about the key actions they need to take to provide a good service to victims. Each letter of the HELP OUT acronym stands for an action which should be undertaken by an officer attending a crime scene (e.g. U stands for ‘update the victim’, clearly explaining what will happen during the investigation and when they will receive further contact).

• InFebruaryandMarch2011,theSouthManchesterDivision piloted the use of a Satisfaction Response Vehicle which involved two officers working two days a week visiting victims whose crime had been finalised four weeks previously. The crime types encompassed were serious violent crime, vehicle crime and burglary. Wherever possible, specific appointments for the visits were made. Officers arrived equipped with a pack of information about the crime plus relevant crime prevention literature. The focus of the visits was to conduct an informal discussion with the victim, following the conversational lines of a standard Customer Service Desk call back. During the pilot, different times of the day and days of the week were trialled to gauge what did and did not work. The cost of the operation was funded through overtime (approximately £8,000).

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

The evaluation of the pilot initiative was largely very positive. 149 appointments were made and 85% were kept (n.b. on 23 occasions the victim was not at home when officers called at the allotted time). The vast majority of victims expressed satisfaction with the service received (16% were very satisfied and 71% were satisfied). Amongst the reasons given for victims feeling ‘very satisfied’ were:

• Efficientandhelpfulcalltaker

• Quickresponsefromofficers

• Officersthatattendedwereveryhelpful,efficientandgave good advice

• Receivedregularupdates/follow-upcalls

‘Dissatisfied’ victims gave a variety of reasons to explain why they felt like this. Two cited the length of time it took a Crime Scene Investigator to arrive and another was unhappy that no one had attended at all. Two victims felt that the officer attending was rushed and was just ‘going through the motions’. This reinforces the need for officers to be attentive and interested in what the victim has to say.

Interestingly, a number of the victims visited voiced the opinion that they had ‘too much contact’ (e.g. initial visit/call, crime recording letter, Customer Service Desk letter, Customer Service Desk call, satisfaction visit), believing that police time could be better spent undertaking high visibility patrols.

Training

As mentioned earlier, a key element of the force’s Customer Service Strategy revolves around sourcing and developing appropriate training for GMP officers and staff. The Assistant Chief Constable with responsibility for Neighbourhood Policing and Confidence emphasised the importance of this.

“I’m absolutely determined to find something that works for GMP – something that hits the right triggers.”

Two options were considered by GMP’s Chief Officer Group at its June 2011 meeting:

• Purchaseanexternallydesignedtrainingproductthatcan be developed to a bespoke GMP training specification.

• Developanddeliverthetrainingin-house.

The first option was selected and three different versions of the ‘Citizen – Confidence, Trust and Reassurance’ training programme designed by Future Vision Training will be piloted. The pilot work will involve 400 officers and determine which version is the most appropriate for GMP, produces the best results in terms of improved customer satisfaction and officer communication skills, whilst at the same time strikes the right balance with regard to the level of abstraction and value for money. The preferred training product will be analysed, evaluated and validated by the National Police Improvement Agency. The pilot takes place in October and November 2011 with validation to be complete in March 2012 and force roll-out ready to commence from April 2012.

The total cost of running the pilot has been calculated at £307,575 and breaks down as follows:

Element Cost

Cost of purchasing the training model for pilot and roll-out

£46,750

Cost to write the Quality Interaction Training element and train the trainers to deliver

£19,000

Cost for abstraction of officers to receive training and assessment

£155,465

Cost for trainers to deliver the pilot training programme

£86,360

The outline of the training programme includes goals which are aimed at having an impact on participants in the following ways.

• Gaininganawarenessofthenegativesignalsthatcanbesent.

• Learninghowtobalance‘process’with‘empathy’.

• Buildingandusingrapport.

• Managingexpectationsandkeepingcustomersinformed.

• Learning how to positively influence customers’ behaviour and reactions.

The Police Authority is encouraged by the care with which the Force has taken to source suitable training in victim and customer satisfaction and will undertake close monitoring of the progress of the pilots.

29

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Improving Public Confidence Theme Group

The Improving Public Confidence Theme Group sits under the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities’ Public Protection Commission. A key element of the work of the group has focused on exploring the possibility and feasibility of rationalising the survey

work undertaken by different public sector organisations across the city region. The rationale behind this was a clear desire to avoid duplication and make best use of the resources available. Members of the Group undertook an assessment of the consultation landscape examining consultation undertaken at Greater Manchester level and that carried out within three districts – Manchester, Salford and Stockport. This assessment revealed a number of key findings:

•The“consultationlandscapeintermsofformal,regularsurveys of the Greater Manchester population is probably less crowded and complex” than had been assumed.

•GreaterManchesterlevelcorporateconsultationandengagement tend to be concentrated on service users. This work is inclined to be “bespoke and tailored”. Cyclical and scheduled Greater Manchester level survey work is primarily undertaken by GMP.

•Somekeyserviceusersurveys,suchastheWAVESsurvey(Witness And Victim Experience Survey) undertaken for the Ministry of Justice have been ceased by the government and others are limited in scope (e.g. that undertaken by Victim Support).

•Comparingthesurveyquestionnairesatdistrictlevelshowed less overlap than had been suspected.

THE FEaSIBIlITY aND DESIRaBIlITY OF STREamlININg SURVEY WORk aROUND VICTIm SaTISFaCTION

The review concluded that, due to the changes occurring with national service user surveys and degree of overlap, a key way forward in terms of streamlining survey work should focus on making sure the different bodies share their data effectively.

The Police Authority supports and will continue to contribute to the efforts of the Improving Public Confidence Theme Group to ensure that survey data is shared effectively amongst partner agencies.

Streamlining Victim Satisfaction Surveys

As outlined earlier, at the Satisfaction Summit held in October 2010, divisional commanders expressed concern with the sheer length of the victim survey questionnaires and the nature of some of the questions asked (i.e. suggesting that some questions may raise expectations about service delivery and their asking might in fact lead to dissatisfaction). The Force made a commitment to examine the questionnaires in detail and look to cut down the number of questions, focusing in on key areas which will generate information to aid improvements in service delivery. It was not possible for this rationalisation to take place immediately as the Force was committed to gather a standard set of data over a period of time as a part of the work being undertaken by the NPIA. Once this work is complete, GMP is committed to ensuring that the streamlining work is carried out as a priority.

The Police Authority emphasises that GMP should undertake work to streamline the victim satisfaction survey questionnaires as soon as possible.

Recommendation

Recommendation

31

Staff behaviour

The Authority would encourage and support the Force’s efforts to ensure that any work to improve victim satisfaction and customer service is clear and specific in terms of the expectations regarding staff behaviour. The work the Force is undertaking in relation to establishing clear principles for customer service is key in this regard.

Customer service and managing public expectations

The Authority would stress that any training or briefing that GMP provides to officers and staff about customer service should emphasise the key things that need to be done to provide a good service and the significance of maintaining contact with victims.

GMPA would stress that any training or briefing that GMP provides to officers and staff about customer service should include the importance

of providing realistic information to manage public expectations and specify how officers and staff should do this.

We understand that the Force has developed a range of briefing documents which will cover these key elements.

Improving the service provided to victims

The importance of providing sufficient detailed information on the Opus action board to allow Customer Service Desk staff to give victims full and accurate updates should be emphasised to officers and staff. Each entry on the action board should be assigned to the officer or staff member who is providing the information (i.e. through provision of their Personal Identification Number and contact telephone number).

We would encourage the Force to continue work to rationalise the

RECOmmENDaTIONS FOR ImpROVEmENTThe recommendations identified through this Scrutiny Review are summarised below and fall under a number of headings.

number of calls made to victims and try to join up with other agencies where feasible and appropriate (e.g. victim support). This should ensure that any contact with victims is focused, coordinated and informed by the outcomes of contact that has taken place previously.

Publicising positive messages around satisfaction

The Police Authority would urge divisions and branches to continue to publicise positive messages around customer satisfaction and to examine innovative ways of communicating such messages to staff effectively.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

Customer Service Desks

The Force should continue to undertake work to reinforce to divisional commanders and other key postholders, the different purposes of the statutory victim satisfaction surveys and the work carried out by the Customer Service Desks.

The Police Authority would emphasise that the Customer Service Desks databook’s functionality and capacity to generate useful local management information is examined as a matter of urgency. Any review of the databook should take in the views of staff using the package and managers on divisions who need to extract information from it.

The Police Authority urges the Force to review the training received by officers and staff working in Customer Service Desks to ensure that this is appropriate and covers all relevant aspects of the work they will need to undertake. Any redesign of the training should take into account the views of postholders currently working in Customer Service Desks about aspects of the training they feel would benefit from improvement.

Any work examining the further development of Customer Service Desks should take in the views of staff on divisions working on the Customer Service Desks on specific aspects of that could be improved.

Though the Police Authority acknowledges that the operating model outlines the promotion of ‘good news’ and initiatives from the neighbourhood teams and gathering intelligence as part of the work of Customer Service Desks, we would emphasise that the primary focus for divisions should be to get the core business correct before expanding the Desks’ remit.

The efforts on divisions to make best use of the information gathered through Customer Service Desks are to be commended. The Police Authority would stress that the Force should identify any good practice with regard to the use of such information and take steps to promulgate this across all divisions.

The Police Authority would emphasise that divisions should continue to increase the knowledge and awareness of the

role of the Customer Service Desk amongst relevant officers and staff. This may be through briefings or short-term attachments to the Customer Service Desk. Any such briefings or attachments should include an input on the most common reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

The Police Authority would emphasise that any good practice identified from the Customer Service Desk ‘tailoring’ being undertaken on different divisions should be harnessed and promulgated across the Force.

Streamlining surveys

The Police Authority supports and will continue to contribute to the efforts of the Improving Public Confidence Theme Group to ensure that survey data is shared effectively amongst partner agencies.

The Police Authority emphasises that GMP should undertake work to streamline the victim satisfaction survey questionnaires as soon as possible.

33

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVIEW

GMPA Members

Councillor Paul Murphy

Christine McGawley, JP

Elaine Belton

Councillor Sam Cohen

Councillor Pat Colclough

Cathy Conchie

Barry Dixon

Ian Hargreaves

Councillor Charles Rigby

Lee Rowbotham

Councillor Bernard Sharp

Councillor Noel Spencer

Pamela Taylor

GMP Officers and Staff

ACC Garry Shewan

ACC Dawn Copley

ACC Ian Hopkins

Claire Brown-Allan, Head of Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality

ChiefInspectorAlanKelly,PolicingModelImplementationTeam

Amy Ramsden, Victim and Customer Satisfaction Project

Chief Superintendent Steve Heywood, North Manchester Division

Chief Superintendent Russ Jackson, Metropolitan Division

Chief Superintendent Rob Potts, South Manchester Division

ChiefSuperintendentKevinMulligan,SalfordDivision

Chief Superintendent Steve Hartley, Bolton Division

Chief Superintendent Shaun Donnellan, Wigan Division

Chief Superintendent Mark Roberts, Trafford Division

Chief Superintendent Jon Rush, Bury Division

Chief Superintendent John O’Hare, Rochdale Division

SuperintendentSerenaKennedy,MetropolitanDivision

Chief Inspector Derek Hewitt, South Manchester Division

Chief Inspector Michelle Hughes, Rochdale Division

ChiefInspectorMarkKenny,SalfordDivision

Sergeant Scott Cunliffe, Salford Division

Chief Inspector Ged O’Connor, Tameside Division

Sergeant Tina Bottomley, Tameside Division

Customer Service Desk, South Manchester Division

Customer Service Desk, Tameside Division

Customer Service Desk, Rochdale Division

Customer Service Desk, Salford Division

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn

1. Please describe briefly the circumstances which led up to you contacting the police.

Case Study A I had been experiencing harassment from my ex-partner for about a year which involved him coming round to my house, phoning me, emailing me and sending me unwanted gifts.

Case Study B After my partner and I split up, I put up with nine months of unwanted contact. This took the form of phone calls, emails and text messages.

2. Before you contacted the police, did you take any other action to try to address the situation?

Case Study A As well as asking him to stop I changed my email address and phone number. I also got a friend to write to him saying that if he contacted me again, I would be calling the police. This stopped him for about nine months but then he started coming round again.

Case Study B After nine months I emailed him and asked him to stop contacting me. This made it worse and on the day I actually got in touch with the police I received around 25 phone calls, some of which were threatening, 10 emails and 30 texts.

3. What was it that made you contact the police?

Case Study A I told him that if he came round again I would call the police and so when he did, I felt I had to carry this through and do what I said I was going to do, otherwise it would have been an empty threat. It was a last resort really.

Case Study B I felt that I had no other option.

4. From your experience of contact with the police because of this set of circumstances, what would you say was positive about it? What did they get right?

Case Study A They always responded quickly when I phoned them and, on the whole when they came round, they were nice, helpful and understanding. With one or two exceptions, most officers treated me with respect and understanding. They didn’t trivialise what was going on which I had been afraid might happen.

Case Study B I was treated like a person and not like a case. They told me what was going to happen, exactly what they were going to do and explained why. They didn’t patronise me. They provided me with a direct contact number for the officer who was dealing with my case plus the victim support number. The officer rang me three weeks later to see if I was ok.

5. From your experience of contact with the police because of this set of circumstances, what would you say was negative about it? What did they get wrong?

Case Study A Even though they were pleasant when they came round, I got the impression that the minute they left they forgot all about me. They took numerous statements and then lost them on more than one occasion so I kept having to redo them. They also lost evidence. I never saw or spoke to the same person twice. When I did phone up whoever I spoke to didn’t know anything about my case. Although they said they’d phone me, they didn’t and when I called and left messages, no one rang me back. When you’re going through something like this and waiting for a phone call, it’s a really big thing in your life. I realise that it’s not such a big thing for the police.

appENDIx – CaSE STUDIES

35

On one occasion a young officer attended on a Friday evening when there was clearly something else far more exciting going on in my neighbourhood. He saw there was an open bottle of wine on the table and refused to take a statement because he said I’d been drinking. I’d had a couple of drinks but wasn’t in any way drunk. He couldn’t wait to get out of there. My ex-partner came round again later the same evening so I called the police again. The two officers who attended that time couldn’t have been nicer and were happy to take a statement. The way I was treated was really inconsistent.

All in all, the police didn’t do what they were supposed to do in a timely way. Because of their delay in applying for a Harassment Order, this gave him more opportunity to come round. I felt this kind of made them complicit in my harassment because their inaction allowed him to keep doing it. I felt like the very people who were supposed to help me let me down.

Case Study B To be honest, the response I got was better then I hoped. They saved themselves a lot of time by getting things right first time. If there was one negative thing it was the fact that they referred me to Victim Support when I’d asked them not to, but that’s the only thing.

Both interviewees felt that the risk assessment form the police had used wasn’t appropriate. The form was clearly designed for people who live with a violent partner and the questions didn’t fit their situation. They recommended that there should be a specific risk assessment for people who are being harassed by an ex-partner and the fact that they were both women living on their own should have been taken into consideration. They felt that this meant they were more at risk.

6. If you could name one thing the police could have done to improve the service you received, what would this be?

Case Study A Communicatewithme.Keepmeinformed.Explainthings.If things had been explained to me then I might have understood.

Case Study B Nothing. The service was brilliant though I have to say my expectations weren’t very high. They took me seriously and acted quickly. Job done.

7. Are there any other comments you would like to make?

Case Study A Why do you have to complain to get the police to do what they should have done in the first place? To be fair, however, the CPS and Victim Support also let me down.

Case Study B What they did worked and was effective from start to finish. I felt lucky. If the police handled other things like this then they would save time and money.

SCRUTIny REVIEW OF VICTIM SATISFACTIOn