COMMUNITY VOICE
Community Safety Survey 2010
Report
Craigforth
July 2010
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3
Background and Objectives 3
Survey Methodology and Response 3
Analysis and Reporting 3
2. Crime and Your Local Area 3
Being a Victim of Crime 3
Feeling Safe 3
Neighbourhood Watch 3
3. Policing 3
Police Community Support Officers 3
Confidence in Police and Local Council 3
Value for Money of Police 3
Effectiveness of Punishment 3
Tackling Serious Crime 3
Information Sharing 3
Contacting the Police 3
Police Website 3
4. CCTV and Anti-Social Behaviour 3
CCTV 3
Anti-Social Behaviour 3
Views on Local Area 3
5. Hate Crime and Domestic Violence 3
Hate Crime 3
Domestic Violence 3
6. Doorstep Crime 3
Awareness of Doorstep Crime 3
Personal Experience of Doorstep Crime 3
7. Fire Safety 3
8. Emergency Planning 3
9. Road Safety 3
Safer Roads for Cumbria Campaign 3
Driver Safety 3
Pass Plus+ Programme 3
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Survey confidence intervals 3
Table 2: Profile of survey respondents (unweighted) 3
Table 3: % have been or aware of victim of crime in past 12 months - by District 3
Table 4: % Feel Very/Fairly safe - by District 3
Table 5: Whether have Neighbourhood Watch Scheme - by District 3
Table 6: Factors having greatest influence on confidence in Cumbria Police and local Councils 3
Table 7: % Very/Fairly effective at preventing re-offending - by District 3
Table 8: How prefer to receive information from the Police 3
Table 9: Best way for Police to find out about issues affecting community 3
Table 10: Information would like to see in future Local Annual Summaries 3
Table 11: % anti-social behaviour is very/fairly big problem - by District 3
Table 12: Experience of doorstep crime 3
Table 13: Considered becoming full or part time firefighter 3
Table 14: Household planning for large-scale emergencies 3
Table 15: Aware of “Safer Roads for Cumbria” campaign 3
Table 16: Groups most likely to be involved in road traffic accident 3
Table 17: Aware of Pass Plus+ driver programme 3
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: How worried are you that you will be a victim of crime in the next 12 months? 3
Figure 2: Been a victim of crime in the past 12 months? 3
Figure 3: How safe or unsafe do you feel in the following situations? 3
Figure 4: Do you have a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme in your area, and would you like one? 3
Figure 5: View on the introduction of PCSOs 3
Figure 6: Police and local Councils are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in the area 3
Figure 7: Cumbria Police Value for Money 3
Figure 8: Effectiveness of punishment in preventing re-offending 3
Figure 9: Awareness of how Cumbria Police tackle serious crime 3
Figure 10: Confidence in how Cumbria Police tackle serious crime 3
Figure 11: Like to know more about what Police doing to tackle serious crimes 3
Figure 12: Views on Cumbria Constabulary Local Annual Summary 3
Figure 13: Do you know how to contact the Police? 3
Figure 14: Awareness of Crimestoppers 3
Figure 15: Awareness of Crimemapper 3
Figure 16: Views on CCTV 3
Figure 17: How much of a problem is anti-social behaviour 3
Figure 18: Confident that someone reporting crime taken seriously 3
Figure 19: Heard of doorstep crime in local area - by District 3
Figure 20: Yourself or someone in household been a victim of doorstep crime 3
Figure 21: Have smoke alarm fixed/ aware of free home safety checks 3
Figure 22: Informed about what to do in event of large-scale emergency 3
Figure 23: Views on preparations for large-scale emergencies 3
Figure 24: % agree/disagree with large-scale emergency statements - by District 3
Figure 25: More/ less likely than other drivers to have road traffic accident 3
INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
Background and Objectives
1.1. Community Voice - the Citizens’ Panel for Cumbria - has been in operation since 1999 on behalf of the Citizens’ Panel Partnership. The Partnership includes Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Constabulary, Cumbria NHS and each of the six District Councils - Allerdale, Barrow, Carlisle, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland. A number of consultation exercises have been conducted with the Panel over this period, varying in both topic area and method although postal and online surveys have been the primary approach.
1.2. Craigforth was appointed in 2009 to manage the Panel on behalf of the Partnership. The first task was to refresh the Panel membership to maximise representativeness, boost survey response and address natural loss of Panel members over time. The Panel currently has 3,000 members, consisting primarily of new members recruited in autumn 2009 but also a number of existing Panel members recruited during 2007 and 2008.
Survey Methodology and Response
1.3. Craigforth undertook the present survey on behalf of the Partnership, with fieldwork carried out during May and June 2010. The survey sought Panel members’ views on a range of community safety related topics, with results expected to inform future policy and service development. The specific topics covered by the survey were:
· Local crime;
· Policing;
· Anti-social behaviour;
· Fire safety; and
· Emergency planning.
1.4. A postal self-completion survey form was issued to all 3,000 Panel members at the end of April 2010, with a reminder issued in the second half of May 2010. By survey close in June 2010 a total of 1,501 responses had been received, representing an overall response rate of 50%.[1] This is a similar level of response to that achieved for recent Panel surveys, although there has been a slight drop in response of -3% since the most recent Panel survey in spring 2010. This suggests that survey fatigue may have been an issue for some Panel members in the current survey, given the relatively high number of surveys issued in recent months - however a longer break between surveys is expected over the summer months and this is likely to restore engagement amongst Panel members.
1.5. The level of survey response achieved is sufficient to support robust analysis. Confidence intervals are the standard means of expressing the extent to which we can be sure that survey results are representative, and we present these in the Table below.
Table 1: Survey confidence intervals
CUMBRIA / 1472 / +/- 2.6
Allerdale / 265 / +/- 6.0
Barrow / 237 / +/- 6.4
Carlisle / 233 / +/- 6.4
Copeland / 225 / +/- 6.5
Eden / 238 / +/- 6.4
South Lakeland / 260 / +/- 6.1
Unknown / 14 / +/- 26.2
1.6. A detailed profile of survey respondents is provided at Table 2 below.
Table 2: Profile of survey respondents (unweighted)
/ Number / % /LOCATION
Allerdale / 265 / 18%
Barrow / 237 / 16%
Carlisle / 233 / 16%
Copeland / 225 / 15%
Eden / 238 / 16%
South Lakeland / 260 / 18%
Unknown / 14 / 1%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
GENDER
Female / 654 / 44%
Male / 791 / 54%
Unknown / 27 / 2%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
AGE
Under 25 / 29 / 2%
25 – 49 / 412 / 28%
50 – 59 / 303 / 21%
60 – 74 / 573 / 39%
75+ / 144 / 10%
Unknown / 11 / 1%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
/ Number / % /
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Full-time paid employment / 422 / 29%
Part-time paid employment / 166 / 11%
Self employed / 81 / 6%
Unemployed / 31 / 2%
Retired / 607 / 41%
Student / 14 / 1%
Not working due to ill health or disability / 64 / 4%
Looking after home and family / 37 / 3%
Voluntary unpaid work / 20 / 1%
Unknown / 30 / 2%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
DISABILITY
1+ disabilities / 322 / 22%
No disabilities / 1076 / 73%
Unknown / 74 / 5%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
ETHNICITY
White – British / 1413 / 96%
White - Other white / 21 / 1%
Mixed ethnic group / 2 / 0%
Asian or Asian British / 4 / 0%
Black or Black British / 1 / 0%
Chinese or other ethnic group / 3 / 0%
Unknown / 28 / 2%
BASE / 1472 / 100%
Analysis and Reporting
1.7. Survey responses were verified and weighted against the wider Cumbria population prior to analysis, to address any response error and to minimise imbalance in the profile of responses. Weighting was undertaken on the basis of age, housing tenure and geographical location to ensure that results are as representative as possible of the wider Cumbria population.
1.8. In this report we have focused on frequency results for each of the questions asked in the survey. More detailed crosstab analysis was conducted for each of the six District Council areas and for key respondent groups such as age and gender. We highlight significant variations between these groups in this report, and also provide under separate cover a series of technical reports providing full survey results for each District Council area.
1.9. We round percentages up or down to the nearest whole number; for some questions this means that percentages may not sum to 100%. It should also be noted that respondents may not have answered all parts of the survey and the “base” for each question varies as a result of non-response.
Community Voice: Community Safety Survey 42
Draft Report: Craigforth July 2010
CRIME AND YOUR LOCAL AREA
2. Crime and Your Local Area
2.1. The survey began by asking Panel members about crime and safety in their local area.
Being a Victim of Crime
2.2. Respondents were first asked how worried they were about becoming a victim of crime in the next 12 months. The majority of respondents indicated that they were not worried about being a victim of crime (79%). However only around 1 in 4 were “not at all worried” (24%), and there remained 1 in 5 respondents who were “fairly worried” or “very worried” about becoming a victim of crime in the next 12 months.
2.3. Some significant variations were evident across key demographical groups:
· Copeland respondents were most likely to worry about becoming a victim of crime - indeed 1 in 10 respondents in this area were “very worried” about being victims of crime, compared to just 4% overall;
· Respondents in South Lakeland were least likely to worry about being a victim of crime, with fewer than 1% “very worried”; and
· Younger respondents (aged under 25) were least likely to worry about becoming victims of crime (13% very or fairly worried compared to 20% overall), although there was very little variation between other age bands for this question.
Figure 1: How worried are you that you will be a victim of crime in the next 12 months?
2.4. Panel members were also asked if they, a member of their family or anyone in their community had been a victim of crime in the last 12 months.
2.5. As Figure 2 indicates, most respondents had not been a victim of crime in the past 12 months and did not know anyone who had been a victim of crime. Nevertheless there remained 1 in 10 respondents who had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months (10%), while 13% reported that a family member had been a victim of crime, and nearly 1 in 3 was aware of a member of their community who had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months (31%).
2.6. There were no significant variations across demographic groups in the proportion of respondents who had been victims of crime themselves. However there were some significant variations across the six district areas in terms of respondents being aware of members of their community who had been victims of crime:
· Eden area respondents were most likely to be aware of a member of their community who had been a victim of crime (45% indicating this), although few of these respondents had been victims of crime themselves (3%);
· South Lakeland and Allerdale respondents were least likely to be aware of people in their community who had been victims of crime, although even here there remained around 1 in 4 who were aware of victims of crime locally.
2.7. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who were aware of local people who had been victims of crime were significantly more likely to be worried about becoming victims of crime themselves; 1 in 3 of these respondents were worried about becoming a victim of crime themselves. Moreover, this rose to more than half of respondents who had been victims indicating that they were worried about becoming victims of crime again in the next 12 months.
Figure 2: Been a victim of crime in the past 12 months?
Table 3: % have been or aware of victim of crime in past 12 months - by District
Yourself / 11% / 11% / 14% / 11% / 3% / 7%
A member of your family / 16% / 12% / 14% / 18% / 10% / 8%
Anyone in your community / 28% / 35% / 30% / 34% / 45% / 26%
Feeling Safe
2.8. The survey next looked at how safe or unsafe Panel members felt in a number of different situations - both during the day and at night (Figure 3 and Table 4).