research & development november 2017 staff survey 2017 vf.pdf · research & development...

Rail Staff Survey 2017

Report on findings

Research & Development November 2017

OFFICIAL

1

OFFICIAL

Contents

1. Executive summary p.2

2. Introduction p.3

3. Methodology p.4

4. Response p.6

5. Demographics p.8

6. Personal security p.13

Personal security p.13

Thematic analysis p.19

7. Rail staff relationships with BTP p.26

8. Communication with BTP p.29

9. Crime-related issues p.35

10. Freight Operating Company (FOC) analysis p.38

11. Comparison with 2016 Rail Staff survey p.41

12. Further analysis p.42

13. Conclusion p.43

Appendix p.45

OFFICIAL

2

OFFICIAL

1. Executive summary

The Rail Staff Survey is an annual survey of rail staff employees who provide British

Transport Police (BTP) and Train and Freight Operating Companies (TOCs and

FOCs) and Network Rail (NWR) with an understanding of the issues affecting the rail

staff community, and what the organisations can do to help improve their personal

security whilst working on the railway. The Rail Staff Survey 2017 ran for just over 11

weeks, from 24 March to 12 June 2017. Respondents could complete the survey

online or by completing a paper copy of the questionnaire and returning it by

Freepost. We received 6,186 valid responses1 from 30 organisations. The largest

number of responses came from rail staff members employed by Transport for

London (TfL), accounting for 13.1 per cent of the total sample (864 responses).

Employees of Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Abellio Greater Anglia returned

857 (13%) and 346 (5.2%) responses respectively. These percentages account for

the percent of responses against the total number of responses received from the

survey, as opposed to the total number of employees working for each TOC.

1 These have been categorised as those who have completed the personal security question. A

further 441 responses were received and have been included in some analysis below.

OFFICIAL

3

OFFICIAL

2. Introduction

Our Research and Development team conducts an annual social research survey2 to

understand the issues affecting the rail staff community and what we can do to help

improve their personal security whilst working on the railway. The survey is produced

in consultation with the British Transport Police Authority (BTPA), participating TOCs

and FOCs3, Network Rail and departments within BTP.

The survey provides an avenue for the rail staff community to provide us and their

employers with feedback about issues that affect their personal security. This helps

those organisations to target efforts to improve day-to-day working experiences for

rail staff. The survey results are used to inform future policing plans and measure our

progress against a strategic objective to increase the confidence rail staff have in

BTP and their personal security whilst working on the railway. The results also help

us to tailor specific action plans to stations and TOCs and FOCs to improve how rail

staff feel about their personal security. Our findings and recommendations are

shared with TOCs and FOCs, Network Rail and other industry partners/4.

This report presents the findings from the Rail Staff Survey 2017.

2 Adjustments are made to the survey each year to facilitate the capture of a range of influential

factors 3 Facilitated through the Rail Delivery Group

4 This group also includes Network Rail respondents

OFFICIAL

4

OFFICIAL

3. Methodology

Our Rail Staff Survey 2017 ran for just over 11 weeks, from 24 March to 12 June

20175. This 11-week period ensured adequate time was allowed for rail staff to take

part. The survey was available to complete online and on paper to be returned via

Freepost. During the survey period, we circulated regular updates within BTP and to

participating TOCs and FOCs.

Rail staff were informed that their answers would be treated anonymously and used

only for the purpose of improving the services we provide. As an incentive, they were

offered the chance to win a high street voucher, worth either £250 or £50, for taking

part. One £250 voucher and five £50 vouchers were available.

Dissemination

As in 2016, the survey was made available to complete and return on paper as well

as online. 20,000 paper questionnaires and accompanying Freepost envelopes, and

3,000 posters were distributed across TOCs and FOCs on request. An additional

20,000 questionnaires and accompanying Freepost envelopes were ordered midway

through the survey period to meet high demand6.

The survey was promoted through a variety of channels, including our website; an

advertisement in Rail Staff magazine; through internal TOC and FOC

communications – including emails, newsletters, briefings, posters in staff rooms and

on notice boards; and visits from our local policing teams.

Survey materials

An image of the survey is on the following page. A copy of the poster can be found in

the appendix.

5 The survey remained open for a further two weeks to allow time for paper surveys to be returned

and input before closing on 26 June 2017 6 In 2016, 15,000 questionnaires and accompanying Freepost envelopes, 15,000 leaflets and 3,000

posters were ordered and distributed throughout the survey period

OFFICIAL

5

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

6

OFFICIAL

4. Response

We received 6,186 valid responses7 to our Rail Staff Survey 2017. This is an

increase of 6.1 per cent compared with 2016 and the highest number of responses

we have received since the survey began in 2014.

Train and Freight Operating Companies

The survey was distributed across TOCs and FOCs and Network Rail. We received

responses from employees of 30 companies. The total number of responses from

each organisation is presented in the table below. We received the largest number of

responses from rail staff employed by Transport for London (TfL) - 13.1 per cent of

the total responses. Employees of South West Trains and Govia Thameslink Railway

(GTR) returned 617 (9.3%) and 857 (13%) responses respectively. In some of the

responses, the respondent didn’t declare which TOC or FOC they are employed by,

or the response couldn’t be matched to a TOC or FOC. Again, this percentage is

calculated on the number of responses per TOC/FOC against the total number of

responses, as opposed to percent against TOC/FOC workforce.

7 An additional 441 responses were submitted but only completed up to question 4 and therefore are

not included.

OFFICIAL

7

OFFICIAL

Table 1 The number of responses received by each organisation

Train or Freight Operating Company Number of respondents Percentage

Abellio Greater Anglia 346 5.2% Arriva Rail London 121 1.8% Arriva Train Wales 260 3.9% C2C 108 1.6% Chiltern 97 1.5% Cross Country 291 4.4% DB Cargo 167 2.5% Deutsche Bahn 64 1.0% East Midlands Trains 152 2.3% Eurostar 25 0.4% First Group 8 0.1% First Transpennine Express 158 2.4% Freightliner 69 1.0% GB Railfreight 175 2.6% Govia Thameslink Railway 857 13.0% Grand Central Trains 23 0.3% Great Western Railway 296 4.5% Hull Trains 34 0.5% London Midland 73 1.1% Merseyrail 54 0.8% MTR Crossrail 293 4.4% Network Rail 413 6.2% Northern 186 2.8% ScotRail 262 4.0% South West Trains 617 9.3% Southeastern 192 2.9% Transport for London 864 13.1% Tyne and Wear Metro 4 0.1% Virgin Trains 136 2.1% Virgin Trains East Coast 266 4.0% Total 6,6118 100%

8 6,611 responses could be attributed to their relevant TOC/FOC

OFFICIAL

8

OFFICIAL

5. Demographics

Gender

Of the 5,8259 respondents who provided demographic information, 4,139 identified

as male, 1,488 as female and 12 as transgender. A further seven identified as Other

(non-binary) and 180 selected Prefer not to say.

Age

The majority of respondents are aged between 41 and 50, although responses were

fairly evenly distributed across those aged 26 to 60. Fewer responses were received

from those in the lower and higher age categories.

Table 3 Responses by age10

Age Number of respondents Percentage

Under 17 1 0.01% 17-24 305 5.2% 25-34 1,237 21.2% 35-44 1,320 22.7% 45-54 1,771 30.4% 55-64 907 15.6% 65-74 58 1.0% 75+ 3 0.05% Prefer not to say 223 3.8% Total 5,825 100%

9 5,825 respondents completed the demographic section of the questionnaire

10 Based on a total of 5,825 responses

OFFICIAL

9

OFFICIAL

Ethnicity

The majority of respondents described their ethnicity as White (79.9%). The

remaining 20.1 per cent described their ethnicity as Black (5.3%), Asian (5.1%) and

Mixed (2.3%) or selected Prefer not to say11 (7.4%).

Disability

200 (3.5%) individuals reported that they considered themselves to have a disability.

The majority of respondents – 5,292 (91.3%) – did not consider themselves to have

a disability. A further 304 respondents (5.2%) selected Prefer not to say12.

Sexual orientation

The majority of respondents described their sexual orientation as Heterosexual

(79%). The remaining respondents describe their sexual orientation as Gay/Lesbian

(5.6%), Bisexual (2.1%) and Other (1.5%). 11.8% selected Prefer not to say.13

11

Based on a total of 5,801 responses; 826 individuals did not respond to this question 12

Based on a total of 5,796 responses; 831 individuals did not respond to this question 13

Based on a total of 5,761 responses; 866 individuals did not respond to this question

5.1 5.3 2.3

79.9

7.4

Asian Black Mixed White Prefer not to say

OFFICIAL

10

OFFICIAL

Religion

The majority of respondents described their religion as Christian (42.9%) or not

having a religion (39.5%). 8.4% of respondents selected the Prefer not to say option.

Table 4 Responses by religion

Religion Number of respondents Percentage

Buddhist 31 0.6% Christian 2,491 42.9% Hindu 55 0.9% Jewish 12 0.2% Muslim 211 3.6% No religion 2,296 39.5% Other 208 3.6% Sikh 17 0.3% Prefer not to say

485 8.4%

Total 5,806 100%

Job role

Respondents were asked to select or provide a description of their job role. The

majority of respondents selected Train Guard/Manager (15.5%), followed by

Platform/Train Dispatch (13.2%) and Driver/Driver Manager (8.8%). These are all

frontline roles and so help to highlight the experiences of rail staff who have regular

contact with the public and police.

2.1% 5.6% 1.5%

79.0%

11.8%

Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Other Heterosexual Prefer not to say

OFFICIAL

11

OFFICIAL

Table 5 Responses by job role

Job role Number of respondents Percentage

Train Guard/Manager 911 13.7% Administration/Office Staff 757 11.4% Driver/Driver Manager 720 10.9% Platform/Train Dispatch 548 8.3% Other (please specify) 539 8.1% Gateline 510 7.7% Ticket Office/Travel Advisor 380 5.7% Revenue Protection 333 5.0% Station Manager (including Assistant Manager)

320 4.8%

Operations 223 3.4% Retail Staff 214 3.2% Catering 196 3.0% Network Rail - Network Operations 186 2.8% Engineer/Mechanic 169 2.6% Control Room Staff 141 2.1% Maintenance 140 2.1% Security 89 1.3% Train Presentation 70 1.1% RSAS Accredited Personnel 62 0.9% Shunter 44 0.7% Facilities 31 0.5% Community Ambassador 23 0.3% Network Rail - Network Rail Telecoms 11 0.2% Sub-Contractors 10 0.2% Total 6,627 100%

Other responses

When analysing those who selected the Other option, the majority said they are in a

customer services role (72). A number of respondents said they are involved in

project management and project-based roles or are safety managers.

Length of employment

Approximately a quarter of respondents (23.6%) reported to have worked for their

TOC or FOC for 11 to 20 years. A good response was received from respondents

across all other employment brackets.

OFFICIAL

12

OFFICIAL

Table 6 Responses by length of employment

Length of employment Number of respondents Percentage

Less than one year 797 12% 1-2 years 1,270 19.2% 3-6 years 1,384 20.9% 7-10 years 870 13.1% 11-20 years 1,562 23.6%

21 years or more 744 11.2%

Location

Using the information provided by respondents to the question “In which station,

depot or area of the country are you based?” responses were categorised by

location into our three divisions – B, C and D Division14.

Responses received by BTP division

14

The relevant division was indeterminable or no response was given to the question in 207 cases, therefore percentages are based on a total of 6,420 responses

580 (9%)

2,123 (33.1%)

3,717 (57.9%)

OFFICIAL

13

OFFICIAL

Good Neither Poor Don't know

6. Personal security

Overall, how would you rate your personal security while at work?

Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale how they would rate their personal

security while at work. For the purpose of analysis, positive responses and negative

responses were combined. The majority of respondents – 61.8 per cent – rated their

personal security positively as either Very good or Good. 21.1 per cent rated their

personal security as Neither good or poor and 16.4 per cent rated their personal

security as Very poor or Poor. A further 48 respondents (0.8%) selected Don’t know.

This question has been asked each year since 2014 in order to provide a

comparable rating. In the Rail Staff Survey 2016, 64.9 per cent of respondents rated

their personal security positively as either Very good or Good based on a sample of

5,833 respondents. In 2015, 64.8 per cent of respondents gave a positive rating,

based on a sample of 3,742 respondents. The percentage of respondents rating their

personal security positively has decreased by 3.1 percent since 2016, however the

number of responses has increased every year since the inception of the survey.

3,819 (61.8%)

1,304 (21.1%)

1,015 (16.4%)

48 (0.8%)

OFFICIAL

14

OFFICIAL

Table 7 Personal security percentages for 2015, 2016 and 2017 Rail Staff Surveys

Personal security 2015 2016 2017

Good 64.8% 64.9% 61.8%

Neither good nor poor 21.6% 20.5% 21.1%

Poor 13.3% 14% 16.4%

Don’t know 0.3% 0.6% 0.8%

Personal security by TOC and FOC

Looking at responses to the Personal Security question by TOC/FOC/NWR allows

for a comparative analysis of the ratings, and helps to identify any organisations who

report their personal security particularly positively or negatively. This can assist with

identifying best practice, and any areas for improvement.

Tables 8 and 9 provide a breakdown of responses to the Personal Security question

by TOC/FOC/NWR15 in the 2017 and 2016 surveys. Several organisations are not

included in this analysis due to a low response rate16. Responses from rail staff who

gave Other as a response to the question that asked which company they work for

were also omitted.

More than 70 per cent of respondents from GB Railfreight, MTR Crossrail,

Freightliner, Network Rail and Deutsche Bahn responded positively to the Personal

Security question. DB Cargo, C2C, GWR, London Midland, Virgin Trains East Coast

and Abellio Greater Anglia also achieved above the average positive response of

61.8 per cent. This is broadly similar to findings from the Rail Staff Survey 2015

where many of the FOCs achieved high percentages of employees responding

positively. C2C has seen the biggest increase in respondents rating their personal

security positively – 68.4% in 2017, compared with 60.7% in 2016. Great Western

Railway, Abellio Greater Anglia and Network Rail staff all rated their personal

security above the average position in 2016 and 2017. It may be worth investigating

the practices of TOCs/FOCs whose employees responded particularly positively over

both years to identify examples of best practice.

15

The blue line in the table represents the average, positive response – 61.8% 16

For the purpose of this analysis, low response was defined as fewer than 50 respondents

OFFICIAL

15

OFFICIAL

Table 8 Personal security by TOC/FOC/NWR in 2017

Train and Freight Operating Company

Good Neither Poor Don’t know

Total responses

GB Railfreight 83.9% 13.7% 2.5% - 161 MTR Crossrail 78.7% 10.6% 8.3% 2.3% 216 Freightliner 76.9% 16.9% 6.2% - 65 Network Rail 76.8% 16.0% 7.0% 0.2% 357 Deutsche Bahn 72.2% 16.7% 11.1% - 54 DB Cargo 68.7% 20.4% 10.9% - 147 C2C 68.4% 25.5% 6.1% - 98

Great Western Railway 66.4% 18.5% 13.7% 1.4% 292 London Midland 62.9% 24.3% 12.9% - 70 Virgin Trains East Coast 62.5% 21.7% 15.8% - 240 Abellio Greater Anglia 62.0% 21.8% 16.2% - 321

Arriva Trains Wales 60.6% 22.8% 15.8% 0.8% 241 First Transpennine Express 60.3% 17.9% 21.2% 0.7% 151 Govia Thameslink Railway 60.1% 21.8% 17.2% 0.9% 780 South West Trains 58.8% 23.4% 17.7% 0.2% 560 Arriva Rail London 57.3% 20.9% 21.8% - 110 Chiltern 57.3% 27.1% 10.4% 5.2% 96 Transport for London 56.5% 22.6% 20.5% 0.4% 727

Cross Country 56.2% 21.9% 19.7% 2.2% 274 Virgin Trains 54.7% 25.0% 18.8% 1.6% 128 ScotRail 53.8% 21.1% 24.3% 0.8% 247

Northern 50.0% 27.6% 22.4% 170 East Midlands Trains 49.7% 21.0% 26.6% 2.8% 143 Southeastern 48.6% 28.6% 22.3% 0.6% 175

Table 9 Personal security by TOC/FOC/NWR in 2016

Train and Freight Operating Company

Good Neither Poor Don’t know

Total responses

Freightliner 84.9% 11.3% 3.8% - 106 Chiltern Railways 76.1% 17.9% 6% - 117 London Overground 76% 12% 12% - 50 Network Rail 76% 17.4% 5.8% 0.8% 242 GB Railfreight 71.6% 21.6% 6% 0.9% 116 TfL Rail 70.7% 12% 17.3% - 75

CrossCountry 70.4% 20.4% 8.3% 0.9% 108 South West Trains 70.2% 19.7% 9.9% 0.2% 878 Abellio Greater Anglia (including Stansted Express)

68.8% 14.7% 16.1% 0.4% 224

Great Western Railway 67.3% 19.2% 12.3% 1.2% 407

Southern 63.3% 19.2% 17% 0.5% 973 Great Northern 63.1% 23.8% 11.9% 1.2% 84

OFFICIAL

16

OFFICIAL

ScotRail 62.6% 20.3% 16.8% 0.3% 286 First TransPennine Express 62.4% 20.2% 16.5% 0.9% 109 Thameslink 62% 26% 9% 3% 100 London Midland 61.6% 26.7% 11.6% - 86 c2c 60.7% 23.1% 14.5% 1.7% 117

East Midlands Trains 60.2% 21.4% 17.5% 1% 103 Virgin Trains East Coast 60.2% 22.2% 16.5% 1.1% 369 Northern 58.8% 24.9% 15.7% 0.6% 357

Merseyrail 58.6% 17.20 22.4% 1.7% 58 Virgin Trains 58.5% 27.1% 14.4% - 118 Transport for London 58.1% 24.6% 16.7% 0.6% 341 Arriva Trains Wales 55.1% 23.2% 20.3% 1.4% 69 Southeastern 46.5% 27.3% 26.2% - 172

Personal security by job role

Identifying job roles in which personal security is reported particularly positively or

negatively helps to target interventions, communication activities and resources. Rail

staff whose roles are public facing tend to report their personal security less

positively. Many of the roles for which the personal security percentage is below the

overall positive response of 61.8 per cent involve a high level of interaction with the

public (for example, train guard/managers, gateline and retail staff). There are,

however, some exceptions. Rail staff in security roles or those who have been

through the Railway Safety Accreditation Scheme (RSAS) reported higher levels of

personal security (73.5% and 71.0% respectively). This suggests that frontline staff

who have received additional training feel more secure at work. Those working in

Operations and Catering show the biggest differences compared with the previous

year’s survey – 67.5% of respondents from Operations rated their personal security

positively this year compared with 78.6% last year, whilst 56.1% of respondents

working in catering rated their personal security positively compared with 66.2% in

last year’s survey.

OFFICIAL

17

OFFICIAL

Table 10 Responses to the personal security question by job role

Job role Good Neither Poor Don’t

know

Total

Administration/Office Staff 89.5% 8.3% 2.1% 0.1% 676 Control Room Staff 87.0% 11.5% 1.5% - 131 Facilities 86.2% 10.3% 3.4% - 29 Network Rail - Network Rail Telecoms 80.0% 20.0% - - 10 Network Rail - Network Operations 76.8% 14.3% 8.3% 0.6% 168 Engineer/Mechanic 76.4% 18.1% 4.9% 0.7% 144 Security 73.5% 12.0% 13.3% 1.2% 83 Shunter 72.5% 20.0% 7.5% - 40 RSAS Accredited Personnel 71.0% 12.9% 16.1% - 62 Community Ambassador 70.0% 10.0% 20.0% - 20 Train Presentation 69.2% 15.4% 15.4% - 65 Operations 67.5% 16.3% 15.3% 1.0% 209 Maintenance 66.4% 20.8% 12.0% 0.8% 125

Station Manager (including Assistant Manager)

60.5% 21.6% 18.0% - 306

Ticket Office/Travel Advisor 59.7% 21.9% 17.5% 0.8% 365 Retail Staff 58.0% 27.0% 14.5% 0.5% 200 Driver/Driver Manager 57.8% 26.1% 14.6% 1.5% 678 Catering 56.1% 24.4% 18.9% 0.6% 180 Platform/Train Dispatch 51.0% 27.2% 21.1% 0.8% 522 Revenue Protection 50.9% 24.1% 24.7% 0.3% 320 Sub-Contractors 50.0% 50.0% - - 10 Gateline 46.5% 25.6% 26.6% 1.4% 493 Train Guard/Manager 43.6% 27.3% 28.4% 0.7% 864

Personal security by demographic characteristics

We analysed whether perceptions of personal security varied by demographic

characteristics. With regard to gender, some differences were found in how

respondents rated their personal security as either Very good or Good; with 66.3% of

female respondents rating their personal security positively, compared with 61.3% of

men.

Overall, respondents in lower age brackets responded most positively and – with the

exception of respondents aged 65 to 74 - 67.2% responded positively (in last year’s

survey 81.3% of those aged 66 and over responded positively). The highest

OFFICIAL

18

OFFICIAL

percentage of respondents rating their personal security positively was seen in those

aged between 17 and 24.

When looking further into respondents’ ethnicity and religion and their perceptions of

their personal security, the percentage of respondents rating their personal security

as either Very good or Good is broadly the same.

In terms of respondents’ sexual orientation and their perceptions of their personal

security, there are some differences between those identifying as Bisexual (63.9%),

Gay/Lesbian (59.7%) and Heterosexual (63.8%).

58 per cent of respondents who reported having a disability rated their personal

security positively compared to 63.1 per cent of respondents who didn’t report having

a disability.

Personal security by location

We analysed whether rail staff perceptions of personal security varied across

locations when categorised against our divisions. We found very little difference

between the percentage of positive responses received from respondents in B, C

and D Divisions; 60.8, 63.2 and 62.2 per cent respectively.

OFFICIAL

19

OFFICIAL

What, if anything, could be done to improve your personal security

at work?

Respondents were asked if anything could be done to improve their personal

security. We conducted a thematic analysis on the 3,292 responses we received to

this question to deepen our understanding of the factors that affect perceptions of

personal security.

From the 3,292 responses received, these themes emerged

Policing activity

Crime

Communication

Technology

Environment

Partnership working

Conflict management training

Transport-specific feedback

Policing activity

Respondents identified policing activity and how we deploy our officers as areas for

improvement that would increase their perceptions of their personal security. They

said faster response times, more officers patrolling stations and trains, higher

visibility and presence of BTP police officers, and reducing the practice of lone

working whilst on duty (for rail staff and BTP officers) would lead to improvements in

how they feel about their personal security at work. The issue of lone working for rail

staff is a more TOC focused concern, and necessitates relevant actions from TOC to

alleviate the practice of lone working to increase staff feelings of personal security.

Respondents said there should be more BTP police officers on duty at night and

OFFICIAL

20

OFFICIAL

weekends and when crimes are known to happen more often. They also said that

increased police visibility at smaller stations would improve their perception of their

personal security and act as a deterrent against crime. Alongside police presence

and visibility, respondents said it would improve how they feel about their personal

security if they see BTP police officers travelling on trains and between stations so

as to deter crime whilst travelling as opposed to solely at and around stations.

Respondents said that more BTP police officers available and out patrolling the

stations and trains would have the biggest impact on their perceptions of their

personal security at work. Respondents felt there needed to be more officers on

duty, particularly late at night and weekends.

A number of respondents said that increasing the use of stop and search would help

to improve their perceptions of their personal security at work. This included drugs

and weapons searches, alongside more police patrols.

Increase visibility at outer stations in London area with later patrols

Have a bigger BTP presence on Friday/Saturday evenings and

nights

More officers at stations and more officers available to respond

quicker when incidents occur. Too few officers trying to cover too huge

an area in my opinion

More BTP mobile on trains

More police patrols and drug and weapon searchers

OFFICIAL

21

OFFICIAL

Crime

How we manage criminal behaviour, with particular reference to antisocial behaviour

and fare evasion, was highlighted by respondents as something that affects how

they feel about their personal security at work. They identified concerns about less

serious criminal behaviour, including alcohol use, fare evasion and antisocial

behaviour, and suggested that we should proactively challenge this behaviour and

take tougher action. Respondents also expressed a desire for BTP officers to be on

patrol during events such as football matches and rugby tournaments, as these can

be times when rail staff are less confident about their personal security. Patrolling on

board trains was also discussed as important in providing a visible presence against

criminality during events. A number of respondents suggested enforcing railway

byelaws more stringently as a way of reducing antisocial behaviour.

Communication

Another theme that emerged was the desire for respondents to see more effective

communication from BTP. In particular, they said they want easier ways to contact

us if needed, more engagement activities with staff and visits from local officers, and

better advertisement of BTP and information aimed at deterring people from

criminality. Respondents felt that posters and other material explaining that those

who abuse rail staff will be prosecuted, notices about alcohol not being allowed on

Stop ticketless passengers traveling on the railway who just

want to cause trouble and loiter on railway property

More BTP on risk trains such as football, Fri/Sat nights, rugby etc.

Non-paying youths who cause disruption dealt with properly instead

of being allowed to continue their antisocial behaviour repeatedly

BTP at barriers refusing entry to those too intoxicated

OFFICIAL

22

OFFICIAL

Night Tubes and CCTV being in operation, would reduce instances where criminality

happens.

Respondents said we should provide them with more information about what we are

doing and this could be used in briefings and for internal briefings. They said this

would increase their awareness of BTP and understanding of how we are tackling

crime. They also said it should be easier to contact BTP if needed, through better

checkpoints, having mobile phone numbers for those on duty at their station, and

simpler ways of communicating with and reaching us. This links into section 8 of this

report, which details respondents’ views on their preferred methods of

communication. Email and newsletters were identified as the ideal methods of

communication, and therefore using these to communicate with rail staff may provide

a more efficient and effective way of communicating.

Direct mobile number to officers on duty, to get simple advice about

security issues that do not need a 999 answer

Posters informing abuse will not be tolerated and prosecution sought

Ongoing engagement with staff to ensure awareness More presence of officers, greater

input from BTP for staff briefing/training materials

OFFICIAL

23

OFFICIAL

Technology

An increase in BTP-specific and TOC-controlled technology emerged as a theme

from the free text responses we received. Respondents identified more CCTV and

body-worn video cameras as a means of improving their personal security whilst at

work, and suggested installing knife arches in some locations to reduce knife crime.

Respondents felt that more CCTV on trains and platforms, with better coverage and

improved quality, would act as a deterrent to those committing crime.

Environment

Another emerging theme concerns the environment rail staff work in and

adjustments that could be made to make it feel safer and improve personal security.

For instance, respondents suggested employing more security guards, implementing

greater identification checks on staff working at the stations, enforcing locked doors

and secure areas, and providing staff with personal protection devices, such as

personal attack alarms. An improvement in the fencing and perimeters around some

stations was also discussed.

Knife arches and drug dogs

Body worn cameras are being tested by REOs and we would benefit from wearing them as

well

More CCTV cameras should be installed, there is limited CCTV footage available on the platform areas, and they are not

often patrolled by BTP either

More random ID checks on railway and retail staff at the

station

Could be more security officers

Security at site perimeters is poor and regular trespassing takes place with criminal damage

happening on occasions

All staff to have personal alarms

OFFICIAL

24

OFFICIAL

Partnership working

Respondents said that more collaborative working between us and the industry could

lead to rail staff safety and their working environment being improved. They said

further support and visits from local BTP police officers would be beneficial. They

also said that listening to staff suggestions more and providing further support to

staff would also be beneficial. Respondents felt this could be achieved in a number

of ways: increased police presence to deter crime and provide reassurance; support

when staff are assaulted or verbally abused by passengers; and support during

events and on trains.

Conflict management training

Respondents highlighted the benefits of implementing conflict management training

and personal safety training, which could improve their perceptions of their personal

security at work. They suggested self-defence classes would help, as well as advice

on how they can diffuse situations in the most effective way. They said they would

like to have this training delivered by BTP officers. Alongside this, respondents said

clearer and more concise guidance on legalities and how and when to support our

officers would be helpful.

More BTP train patrols and joint working

Better relationship with BTP neighbourhood team

More support from senior management and BTP

I would like to see some more training on how to deal with security issues. How to react, how can we feed into

helping as best we can the police and emergency services and the public

Guidance on can and can’t do's and understand self defence

OFFICIAL

25

OFFICIAL

Transport-specific feedback

Respondents said they perceived the police presence during Night Tube hours in

London to be low. They said BTP should implement more dry trains on the rail

network, limiting the consumption of alcohol. They suggested that this would reduce

instances of antisocial behaviour, particularly during football matches and other

events.

There was minimal feedback from respondents who work for FOCs, however when

responses could be related to FOCs, respondents said there wasn’t much more that

could be done to improve their personal security at work. Some respondents

suggested they would like more CCTV and lighting in freight yards, and a higher

visible police presence at freight locations.

Better policing on Night Tube Dry trains at certain routes

Hard to say, maybe more lighting and CCTV in the freight yards. More

visible police presence at freight locations

OFFICIAL

26

OFFICIAL

7. Rail staff relationships with BTP

Statements

Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed17 with a series of

statements exploring their relationship with and perceptions of BTP. The majority of

respondents felt we would treat them with respect and would treat staff fairly

regardless of who they are – 84.8 and 82.1 per cent respectively. This suggests that

respondents have a good relationship us and perceive our police officers to be

respectful. However, respondents are less confident that we would be available

when needed whatever the time of day; 34.2 per cent agreed and 38.2 per cent

disagreed with this statement. Respondents are also less certain that we could be

relied on to respond quickly to emergencies on the railway (45.5 per cent agreed

with this statement). This suggests that respondents’ overall perceptions of us are as

a protective organisation that will act in a positive manner when engaging, yet they

are not as confident that we are available to respond when they need us.

17

Options provided: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree or disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Not applicable/ Don’t know. These have been combined to produce the results.

84.8 9.2 2.9 3.1

3. If I had contact with a BTP officer they would treat me with respect

45.5 23.3 27.1 4.2

Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Not applicable/ Don't know

1. I can rely on BTP to respond quickly to emergencies on the railway

34.2 23.9 38.2 3.7


2. I feel that BTP are available when needed whatever the time of day

OFFICIAL

27

OFFICIAL

60.8 per cent of respondents agreed that BTP understand the issues that affect staff

at my station/ on my route. A lower percentage agreed that BTP is doing enough to

prevent crime on the railways (39.7%) and that BTP is dealing with the issues that

affect staff at my station/ on my route (40.3%). In response to the statement BTP can

be relied upon to be there when you need them, 39.7 per cent agreed, 24.7 per cent

neither agreed or disagreed, and 32.3 per cent disagreed.

84.8 9.2 2.9 3.1


3. If I had contact with a BTP officer they would treat me with respect

60.8 21.2 13.1 4.8


5. I feel that BTP understand the issues that affect staff at my station/ on my route

82.1 11.3 4.1 2.5


4. I feel that BTP would treat staff fairly regardless of who they are

OFFICIAL

28

OFFICIAL

40.3 31.2 21.1 7.4

7. BTP is dealing with the issues that affect staff at my station/ on my route

40.3 31.2 21.1 7.4


7. BTP is dealing with the issues that affect staff at my station/ on my route

39.7 31.4 24.9 3.9


6. I feel that BTP is doing enough to prevent crime on the railways

39.7 24.7 32.3 3.3


8. I feel that BTP can be relied upon to be there when you need them

OFFICIAL

29

OFFICIAL

8. Communication with BTP

Communications

How do you currently get news and updates from BTP?

Respondents were presented with a list of communication channels, and asked to

identify how they currently receive news and updates from us. Around a third of

respondents (32.7%) suggested they don’t get updates from BTP but would like to.

For those who do receive communications from BTP, my company newsletter (22%)

and my company intranet (23.3%) were the most common communication channels

identified. 15.3% of respondents receive news and updates from BTP via BTP

officers/staff. A further 7.6% suggested they were not interested in updates from

BTP.

Communication channels are a new theme in the

survey this year. Often, the Rail Staff Survey

identifies how we communicate with rail staff and

make stakeholders aware of our priorities,

operations and services, as an area for

improvement. In previous years, rail staff have

highlighted increased communication as a means

of improving personal security, and the majority of

respondents have suggested they are unaware of

our priorities in relation to rail staff. Analysing how

rail staff currently receive updates from BTP, and

whether there are any alternative forms of

communication that could be more efficient, help

stakeholder engagement, personal security and

collaborative work, between BTP and rail staff.

OFFICIAL

30

OFFICIAL

Of the 5.8% of respondents who selected the Other (please specify) option, the

majority suggested email from their management was how they receive

communication from us. A number of respondents also suggested they get their

news and updates about BTP from social media, including Facebook and Twitter.

How would you like to hear news and updates from BTP?

Respondents were asked how they would like to hear news and updates from BTP

and given the option to share free text comments about this. This allowed us to

gather evidence about how we could communicate with and relay information to rail

staff. The top five channels identified by respondents are listed below (a full list of all

channels can be provided on request).

22.0%

5.4%

4.0%

7.6%

23.3%

11.4%

7.0%

15.3%

8.7%

32.7%

5.8%

My companynewsletter

Meetings withBTP

BTP's website I am notinterested inupdates from

BTP

My companyintranet

Police officerson patrol

TV, radio,newspapers,

online

From BTPofficers/staff

BTP's socialmedia

I don't getupdates from

BTP but Iwould like to

Other (pleasespecify)

OFFICIAL

31

OFFICIAL

Newsletter

A number of respondents felt the best way of receiving news and updates from us is

by newsletter. Respondents identified online and paper versions as a valuable

source of information. Respondents suggested information about BTP could be

included in existing company newsletters left in messrooms and on noticeboards

fortnightly or monthly or a BTP-specific one provided with local information and

updates.

Posters

Posters were identified by respondents as a good way of providing news and

updates about BTP. Respondents said they could be distributed through depots,

trains, mess rooms, staff noticeboards and staff pigeon holes. They suggested

existing posters are outdated and should be reviewed and replaced.

Email

Communicating updates and news via email is the channel most identified by

respondents as the preferred method of engagement. Emails can be easily shared

across teams through management and senior staff. Respondents suggested the

frequency of our updates is low and using email as a method of communication

could alleviate this and help provide timely updates. Respondents said localised

updates would be useful and identified email as a good means of distributing an

online newsletter.

‘Newsletter to station with local BTP information’

‘Newsletters are really good, our internal comms team could send an update out,

they do this with GWR’.

‘Posters in mess rooms that are kept up to date could be a good idea. The one at Lancaster is over a year out of date’.

‘Company briefs posters in depot and on train showing success and convictions’

OFFICIAL

32

OFFICIAL

Meetings with BTP

Respondents said regular meetings with us would be positive in helping to

communicate key messages and updates, whilst also building relationships between

rail staff and our police officers. They said this would enable our local police officers

to update staff on local news, and then further more generic newsletters or emails

could be distributed to supplement these updates. Within these meetings,

respondents said it would be useful to hear about crime data, crime reduction

initiatives and how rail staff and BTP can work collaboratively to tackle mutually

agreed ‘topics of concern’.

Social media

Social media was suggested by respondents as a useful means of communicating

updates and news about BTP to a wide-ranging audience. Facebook and Twitter

were the two most commonly suggested social media platforms; however some

respondents also suggested making use of Yammer where it is used by TOCs and

FOCs.

‘An email newsletter from BTP would be good, detailing events, past operations and

staff interviews’.

‘Flash Headlines, brief pointed emails that are relevant to my route’.

‘Meetings to deal with crime locally and have plans in place to deal with them’

‘At regular meetings with at least two staff members present from each role within

the station. Then a monthly newsletter handed out to staff’

OFFICIAL

33

OFFICIAL

Priorities

Are you aware of the current BTP priorities in relation to rail staff?

The majority of respondents – 80.5 per cent – said they are not aware of our

priorities in relation to rail staff. 706 respondents did not respond to this question.

This strongly suggests that better communication between BTP and rail staff should

be considered, especially in relation to communication about our priorities. Joint

communication strategies between BTP and TOCs/FOCs will allow media materials

and online publications to be disseminated appropriately. Local BTP teams need to

continue to liaise with their local TOCs/FOCs, with this being complemented by

supplementary communication materials. The majority of respondents in the 2016

survey (73.1%) also suggested they weren’t aware of BTP priorities.

1,154 (19.5%) 4,767 (80.5%)

57%

80.3%

No Yes

When comparing ratings of personal security

for respondents who are aware of our priorities

and those who are unaware, there is a marked

difference in the number of respondents rating

their personal security positively. For those not

aware of BTP priorities, 57% said their

personal security is either Very good or Good.

For those aware of our priorities, 80.3% said

their personal security is either Very good or

Good. This suggests increasing awareness of

our priorities to rail staff may help to improve

their perceptions of their personal security at

work.

OFFICIAL

34

OFFICIAL

Performance

How good a job do you think British Transport Police is doing at

your station or on your route?

46.7 per cent of respondents said we are doing an Excellent or Good job at their

station or on their route. Just over a third of respondents – 35 per cent – said we are

doing a Fair job. 18.3 per cent said we are doing a Poor or Very poor job at their

station or on their route. Percentages are displayed in the chart below. Compared

with last year’s figures, 50.6% of respondents said BTP were doing an Excellent or

Good job, 34.1% a Fair job and 15.3% a Poor or a Very poor job.

5.5%

12.8%

35%

38.1%

8.6% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

OFFICIAL

35

OFFICIAL

7.4

29.4

3.9 4 5 2.6 6.7

11.5

40.2

5.5 14.9

25.1

5.2 13.5

28.8

9. Crime-related issues

Crime-related issues

In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following where

you work?

Respondents were presented with a list of possible crime, disorder and security-

related concerns and asked how much of a problem they considered these to be at

their place of work. The concern that the largest proportion of respondents reported

to be a ‘serious problem’ was fare evasion (40.2%). More than a quarter of

respondents reported alcohol-related disorder, antisocial behaviour and staff

abuse/assault to be serious problems – 28.8, 29.4 and 25.1% respectively.

A proportion of respondents reported these concerns to be a ‘moderate problem’:

antisocial behaviour (39.9%); alcohol-related disorder (35.1%); and fare evasion

(32%). Staff abuse/assault and crime-related disruption were also considered to be a

‘moderate problem’ by 35.2 and 32.3 per cent of respondents respectively. The

graphs below show the percentage of respondents who reported the concerns to be

either a ‘serious’ or ‘moderate’ problem at their place of work.

Serious problem

OFFICIAL

36

OFFICIAL

25.1 25.2

39.9

14.6 15 17.1 9.4

22.1 24.3 32 32.3 35.2

15.8 23.2

35.1

Moderate problem

Serious crime-related issues by division

We analysed responses to identify differences in how rail staff rate serious problems

in crime, disorder and security issues in each of our divisions. Fare evasion was the

issue that saw the highest percentage of respondents from B and C Divisions saying

it is a serious problem (44.9% and 34.1% respectively). In D Division, the issue most

identified by respondents as a serious problem is alcohol-related disorder (34.9%). A

larger proportion of respondents in C (15.6%) and D Divisions (16.1%) said football-

related disorder is a serious problem compared with those in B Division (8.5%). Theft

of personal property and drug dealing and using were identified by a higher

percentage of respondents in B Division than in either C or D Divisions. 7.8% of

respondents in B Division said theft of personal property is a serious issue compared

with 5.2% in C Division and 3.4% in D Division.

The lowest percentage of respondents said sexual offences are a serious problem in

all divisions. 3.3% of respondents in B Division, 1.5% of respondents in C Division

and 1.6% of respondents in D Division said it is a serious problem.

OFFICIAL

37

OFFICIAL

Ratings of crime-related issues by division

1. Fare evasion

2. Alcohol-related disorder

3. Antisocial behaviour

4. Staff abuse/assault

5. Crime-related disruption on

the railway

6. Football-related disorder

7. Drug dealing or using

8. Graffiti

9. Theft of personal property

10. Theft of rail property

11. Criminal damage

12. Robbery

13. Violent crime

14. Hate crime

15. Sexual offences



3. Fare evasion



6. Crime-related disruption on the

railway



9. Violent crime

10. Graffiti

11. Criminal damage


13. Hate crime

14. Robbery

15. Sexual offences

1. Fare evasion





6. Crime-related disruption on

the railway


8. Graffiti


10. Criminal damage

11. Violent crime

12. Hate crime


14. Robbery

15. Sexual offences

OFFICIAL

38

OFFICIAL

10. Freight Operating Company (FOC) analysis

We analysed responses from FOC staff to identify differences in how they feel about

their personal security and priorities for us to focus on.

Personal security

The majority of FOC respondents rate their personal security positively as either

Very good or Good – 76.1%. 16.9% of FOC staff rate their personal security as

Neither good nor poor and 7% as Very poor or Poor. Compared with how

respondents rate their personal security overall (61.8% responded positively), a

higher percentage of FOC respondents are positive about their personal security.

The table below shows a breakdown of FOC respondent’s personal security

responses.

Table 11 FOC staff perceptions of personal security

FOC Good Neither good nor poor Poor Total

DB Cargo 68.7% 20.4% 10.9% 147

Deutsche Bahn 72.2% 16.7% 11.1% 54

Freightliner 76.9% 16.9% 6.2% 65

GB Railfreight 83.9% 13.7% 2.5% 161

Total 76.1% 16.9% 7% 427

Priorities

The majority of respondents from FOCs said they are unaware of our priorities in

relation to rail staff – 86.8%. 90.9% of respondents from DC Cargo said they are

unaware of our priorities. A higher proportion of FOC respondents are unaware of

our priorities compared with the overall response rate, where 80.5% said they are

unaware of our current priorities in relation to rail staff.

Table 12 FOC staff awareness of BTP priorities

FOC Yes No Total

DB Cargo 9.1% 90.9%% 132

Deutsche Bahn 2.1% 97.9% 48

Freightliner 19.7% 80.3% 61

GB Railfreight 17.5% 82.5% 154

Total 13.2% 86.8% 395

OFFICIAL

39

OFFICIAL

13.4 8.8

0.5 5.2 1.6 0.8 2.1 1.6

9.1 10.3 13.8

3.1 7.5 4.1 7

The majority of respondents suggested their company newsletter or company

intranet would be a good way of receiving news and updates from BTP.

Crime-related issues

We analysed FOC staff responses to the question ‘In your opinion, how much of a

problem are the following where you work?’ to identify differences in what they

perceive as a problem compared with the overall responses. A higher percentage of

FOC respondents said Graffiti (13.4%) and Criminal damage (10.3%) are a serious

problem compared with the respondents overall. The graph below shows the

breakdown of the crime–related issues that FOC staff perceive to be a serious

problem.

OFFICIAL

40

OFFICIAL

Performance

How good a job do you think British Transport Police is doing at

your station or on your route?

50.6 per cent of FOC respondents said we are doing an Excellent or Good job at

their station or on their route and 40.8 per cent said we are doing a Fair job. 8.6 per

cent said we are doing a Poor or Very poor job at their station or on their route.

Percentages are displayed in the chart below.

1.3%

7.3%

40.8%

41.5%

9.1% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

OFFICIAL

41

OFFICIAL

11. Comparison with 2016 Rail Staff Survey

2017 Rail Staff Survey

2016 Rail Staff Survey

The percentage of respondents rating their

personal security positively is 61.8%

The most responses were received from TfL,

Govia Thameslink Railway and South West

Trains.

The job roles with the most respondents are Train

guard/manager and Administration/office staff

The top three crime-related concerns are; fare

evasion, antisocial behaviour and alcohol-

related disorder

19.5% of respondents are aware of our priorities

The main themes emerging from the free text

comments are policing activity, crime,

communication, technology, environment,

partnership working, conflict management

training, stop and search and rail.

46.7% of respondents said we are doing either an

excellent or good job at their station/on route.

The percentage of respondents rating their

personal security positively was 64.9%

The most responses were received from Govia

Thameslink Railway, South West Trains and

Great Western Railway.

The job roles with the most respondents were Train guard/manager and Platform/Train Dispatch

Top three crime related concerns were; fare

evasion, alcohol-related disorder and

antisocial behaviour

26.9% of respondents were aware of our priorities

The main themes emerging from the question, ‘What, if anything, could be done to improve your personal security at work?’ were presence, tools, environment and actions.

50.6% of respondents said we were doing either

an excellent or good job at their station/on route.

OFFICIAL

42

OFFICIAL

12. Further analysis

Further analysis of the Rail Staff Survey data reveals weak positive correlations with

a number of the rail staff statements, crime issues and ‘how good a job do you think

BTP is doing at your station or on your route’. The test used was Kendall’s tau-b; a

statistic used to measure the ordinal association between two measured quantities.

A correlation coefficient between 0 and 0.2 indicates weak relationship; correlation

coefficient between 0.3 and 0.5 indicates a moderate relationship; and a correlation

coefficient between 0.5 and 1 indicates a strong relationship. Correlations are used

to show a measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between

two variables. All the variables tested with respondent’s feelings of personal security

showed weak positive relationships suggesting there are small correlations between

the variables. A high score on each variable represents ‘strongly agree’ and a high

score on the respondents overall satisfaction represents ‘very good’. Therefore a

positive correlation between overall satisfaction and, for example, ‘I feel that BTP are

available when needed whatever the time of day’, (.268; third cell in table 13) can be

interpreted as meaning that many of those who felt that BTP were available when

needed whatever the time of day, also felt ‘very good’ with their overall satisfaction

with BTP. The table below shows the variables tested and their correlations

coefficient with overall feelings of personal security.

Table 13 Variables and their correlation with personal security

Variable Correlation with overall satisfaction

How good a job do you think BTP is doing at your station or on your route?

.275

I can rely on BTP to respond quickly to emergencies on the railway

.231

I feel that BTP are available when needed whatever the time of day

.268

I feel that BTP is doing enough to prevent crime on the railways

.225

BTP is dealing with the issues that affect staff at my station/on my route

.200

I feel that BTP can be relied upon to be there when you need them

.255

ASB .226

Staff abuse/assault .225

OFFICIAL

43

OFFICIAL

13. Conclusions

The Rail Staff Survey 2017 received a total of 6,186 valid responses across 30

Train/Freight Operating Companies and Network Rail. This is an increase of 6.1 per

cent on 2016.

61.8 per cent of respondents rated their personal security as either Very good or

Good. It has been considered that the decrease in rail staff personal security could

be attributable to some of the events happening whilst the survey was live – the

terrorist attacks in Manchester and at London Bridge. These events can create

tension and worry, especially to those working on the rail network. There is little

variation in personal security across BTP divisions.

Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of nine

statements pertaining to the activities of, and their relationship with BTP. The

majority of respondents felt that BTP would treat them with respect and would treat

staff fairly regardless of who they are – 84.8 and 82.1 per cent respectively.

However, respondents were less confident that BTP would be available when

needed whatever the time of day; 34.2 per cent agreed and 38.2 per cent disagreed

with this statement. Respondents were also less certain that BTP could be relied

upon to respond quickly to emergencies on the railway (45.5 per cent agreed with

this statement). 60.8 per cent of respondents agreed that BTP understand the issues

that affect staff at my station/ on my route. However, a much lower percentage of

respondents agreed that BTP is doing enough to prevent crime on the railways and

that BTP is dealing with the issues that affect staff at my station/ on my route

(39.7%). In response to the statements BTP can be relied upon to be there when you

need them, 39.7 per cent again agreed, 24.7 per cent neither agreed or disagreed,

and 32.3 per cent disagreed.

Respondents were presented with a list of possible crime, disorder and security

related concerns and were asked how much of a problem they considered these

activities to be at their place of work. The issues that the largest proportion of

OFFICIAL

44

OFFICIAL

respondents felt were a ‘serious problem’ at their workplace were fare evasion,

alcohol-related disorder and antisocial behaviour. These were also the issues most

often rated as a ‘moderate problem’, followed by staff assault and crime-related

disruption.

Rail staff employees play a vital role in maintaining the safe operation of the

railways. Many of the findings from the Rail Staff Survey 2017 broadly reflect the

findings from previous years’ surveys, suggesting these are consistently the high

priority areas for rail staff. The thematic analysis conducted on respondents’ freetext

comments to the question regarding their personal security, generated themes which

have surfaced on previous surveys. However in the Rail Staff Survey 2017, several

further themes emerged which may influence our policing plans in future. These

themes were categorised under the following areas: policing activity, crime,

communication, technology, environment, partnership working, conflict management

training and rail.

The feedback gathered through the Rail Staff Survey provides an invaluable insight

into the experiences of rail staff members across the country and helps to identify

where improvements can and should be made. Engaging through this medium helps

to ensure that BTP and TOCs and FOCs have a good understanding of the issues

rail staff members face and the effect these issues have on personal security and

confidence. The findings presented are encouraging and helpful and will be used to

inform policing plans and can be used by TOCs and FOCs to review the feedback

provided and target initiatives.

In order to build on the findings in this report, recommendations need to be driven at

a local and TOC/FOC level using the information to tailor specific actions plans with

the aim of increasing rail staff feelings of security.

Further information or data at a local or organisation-specific level can be provided

on request.

OFFICIAL

45

OFFICIAL

Appendix

Appendix 1 Copy of survey materials: poster

Appendix 2 Full data output (Available on request)

Appendix 1 – Copy of survey materials: poster

research & development november 2017 staff survey 2017 vf.pdf · research & development...

Documents