Community Surveys and Community Surveys and Preferences for PolicingPreferences for Policing

Dr. Paul NorrisDr. Paul Norris(University of Edinburgh)(University of Edinburgh)

P.Norris@ed.ac.ukP.Norris@ed.ac.uk

Rationale for ProjectRationale for ProjectPolicing interest in which tasks the public saw as important and how preferences varied between respondents and neighbourhoodsPolicing interest in which tasks the public saw as important and how preferences varied between respondents and neighbourhoods

Knowledge of public preferences could provide a basis for communication and interactionKnowledge of public preferences could provide a basis for communication and interaction

Two issues relevant to the use of community surveys more generally:-Two issues relevant to the use of community surveys more generally:-

Question DesignQuestion Design

Application of Data Reduction TechniquesApplication of Data Reduction Techniques

Asking Questions About PreferencesAsking Questions About PreferencesThe 2003/04 Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey contained two banks of questions which could provide an insight into The 2003/04 Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey contained two banks of questions which could provide an insight into preferences for policing preferences for policing

With reference to policing for London as a whole, respondents are asked, With reference to policing for London as a whole, respondents are asked,

“I’d like you to tell me how important it is that the Metropolitan Police do each of the following...please read out a number between 1 and 7, where 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Very important.”

And given a list of 13 tasks to consider,And given a list of 13 tasks to consider,Deal Effectively With Offenders Prevents Terrorism

Support Victims And Witnesses Respond To Emergencies Promptly

Consult With The Public Provide A Visible Patrolling Presence

Police Major Events In London Investigate Crimes Committed Against Members Of Minority Groups

Tackle Drug Dealing And Drug Use Reduce Crime And Disorder Through Consultation With Local Authorities

Investigate Child Abuse Deal With Vehicle Crime

Deal With Gun Crime Issues

Asking Questions About PreferencesAsking Questions About Preferences

For the same 13 policing tasks respondents were also asked, For the same 13 policing tasks respondents were also asked,

“ …for each one, I would like you to tell me....how well the Metropolitan Police actually carry out each one, Please answer by reading out a number between 1 and 7, where 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Very important.”

Subtracting perceived achievement from importance could provide an estimate of the “performance gap” for each task perceived Subtracting perceived achievement from importance could provide an estimate of the “performance gap” for each task perceived by each respondentby each respondent

However, questions about perceived achievement have substantial levels of missing data limiting applicability to respondent level However, questions about perceived achievement have substantial levels of missing data limiting applicability to respondent level datadata

Policing TaskPolicing Task Importance Importance ScoreScore

Achievement Achievement ScoreScore

Performance Performance GapGap

Prevent TerrorismPrevent Terrorism 6.76.7 5.45.4 -1.3-1.3

Deal with Gun CrimeDeal with Gun Crime 6.76.7 5.25.2 -1.5-1.5

Deal with Vehicle CrimeDeal with Vehicle Crime 5.95.9 4.04.0 -1.9-1.9

Consult with the PublicConsult with the Public 5.95.9 3.93.9 -2.0-2.0

Examples of Aggregate Level Performance Gap

Basic Analysis of Responses – City Basic Analysis of Responses – City Wide PolicingWide Policing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mean Imporatnce

Perc

en

tag

e o

f S

am

ple

Mean Importance for Each Respondent in METPAS 2003/04 Across All City Wide Policing Tasks

Basic Analysis of Responses – City Basic Analysis of Responses – City Wide PolicingWide Policing

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

7.00

Task

Mean

Im

po

rtan

ce

Mean Importance Attached to Different City Wide Policing Tasks in METPAS 2003/04

Problems with Measuring Preferences Problems with Measuring Preferences for Policingfor Policing

Do responses have the knowledge needed to answer the question Do responses have the knowledge needed to answer the question

More of everything is good – what about the budget? More of everything is good – what about the budget?

Context of the question matters Context of the question matters

The wording of the question, and the range of possible answers, can have a big impact on results The wording of the question, and the range of possible answers, can have a big impact on results

Ask about problems rather than solutions?Ask about problems rather than solutions?

Identify the problem not the solutionIdentify the problem not the solutionSupport for “iconic” functionsSupport for “iconic” functions

Constraints or relative importanceConstraints or relative importance

Asking Questions About PreferencesAsking Questions About Preferences

A second bank of questions can be identified which concerned preferences for local policing A second bank of questions can be identified which concerned preferences for local policing

Possible that attitudes towards city wide and local policing may be influenced by different factors Possible that attitudes towards city wide and local policing may be influenced by different factors

Respondents were asked, Respondents were asked,

“In order to improve life in this area, which of the following would you most like to see the police do?”

And given a list of 12 tasks to consider,And given a list of 12 tasks to consider,Police to be Made More Visible in General

Provide Education about Drugs

Respond More Quickly to Callouts Consult with the Public

Deal with Youths Hanging Around on the Streets

Provide Information about Crime Prevention

Remove Tramps/ Vagrants Support Neighbourhood Watch Schemes

Crack Down on Noise Visit Schools to Increase Children’s Awareness on Crimes

Control Public Disorder Patrol in the Evenings More

Basic Analysis of Responses – Local Basic Analysis of Responses – Local PolicingPolicing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Task

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

tsPercentage of Respondents Wanting to See More of Particular Policing Tasks in Their Local Area in METPAS 2003/04

Basic Analysis of Responses – Local Basic Analysis of Responses – Local PolicingPolicing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Tasks Identified

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Res

po

nd

en

ts

Number of Local Policing Tasks Respondents Would Like to See More of in Their Local Area in METPAS 2003/04

Preferences for Particular Functions Preferences for Particular Functions Reflect Underlying ExpectationsReflect Underlying Expectations

Given a lack of detailed knowledge, support for particular functions may reflect: Given a lack of detailed knowledge, support for particular functions may reflect:

Identification with particular functionsIdentification with particular functionsGeneral expectations of the policeGeneral expectations of the policeSupport for general approaches to policingSupport for general approaches to policing

If individual questions reflect more general attitudes, data could be best represented through data reduction methods If individual questions reflect more general attitudes, data could be best represented through data reduction methods

Factor Analysis – group together answers which were answered in similar ways (identify broad forms of policing) Factor Analysis – group together answers which were answered in similar ways (identify broad forms of policing)

[Latent Class] Cluster Analysis - group together respondent who answer questions in similar ways (find people who hold similar [Latent Class] Cluster Analysis - group together respondent who answer questions in similar ways (find people who hold similar attitudes) attitudes)

Factor Analysis – City Wide Factor Analysis – City Wide PolicingPolicing

Promax Rotated Four Factor Solution (City Wide Policing - Relative Importance)

TaskProtective Policing

Community Policing

Criminal Justice System

Visible Community Policing

Investigate Child Abuse 0.865 -0.163 0.083 0.096

Tackle Drug Dealing and Drug Use 0.773 -0.109 -0.071 0.146

Respond Promptly to Emergencies Promptly 0.704 0.090 0.142 -0.101

Deal with Gun Crime 0.581 0.062 0.059 -0.175

Prevent Terrorism 0.493 0.298 -0.160 -0.027

Reduce Crime and Disorder Through Consultation with Public Authorities -0.066 0.851 0.013 -0.043

Investigate Crimes Against Minority Groups -0.048 0.612 0.077 -0.121

Deal with Vehicle Crime -0.197 0.395 0.037 0.347

Deal Effectively with Offenders 0.102 0.029 0.902 -0.086

Support Victims and Witnesses 0.050 -0.003 0.476 0.230

Consult with the Public 0.045 -0.062 -0.040 0.958

Police Major Events in London 0.260 0.297 -0.110 0.335

Provide a Visible Patrolling Presence -0.215 0.019 0.077 0.296

Latent Class Analysis – City Wide Latent Class Analysis – City Wide PolicingPolicing

Task

Rela

tive I

mp

ort

an

ce

Terrorism Above All Else (14.2%) Protective Policing - Large Discrimination (8.3%)

Protective Policing - Domestic Issues (14.0%) Everything Equal (35.5%)

Protective Policing - Less Discrimination (9.7%) Traditional Policing (20.3%)

Six Group LCA Solution Summarising Relative Preferences for City Wide Policing in METPAS 2003/04

Latent Class Analysis – Local PolicingLatent Class Analysis – Local Policing

0

0.5

1

Task

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Visible Policing (36.9%) Nothing Really (37.9%) Visible Policing and Threatening Issues (6.2%)

Visible Policing and Education (5.7%) Visible Policing and Education Plus (9.4%) Do Everything (3.9%)

Six Group LCA Solution Summarising Relative Preferences for Local Policing in METPAS 2003/04

Preferences concern both activities and the level of policingPreferences concern both activities and the level of policing

Respondents in both the “Visible Policing and Education” and “Visible Policing and Threatening Respondents in both the “Visible Policing and Education” and “Visible Policing and Threatening Issues” groups selected, on average, 4.81 policing tasks but with different priorities Issues” groups selected, on average, 4.81 policing tasks but with different priorities

Linking Preferences for City Wide and Linking Preferences for City Wide and Local PolicingLocal Policing

Preferences for City Wide PolicingPreference Grouping

Everything Equal

Terrorism Above All Else

Protective Policing – Large Discrimination

Protective Policing – Less Discrimination

Protective Policing – Domestic Issues

Traditional Policing

Pref.for Local Policing

Nothing Really 31.9% 64 .5% 12.6% 40.9% 53.7% 27.0%

Visible Policing 35.3% 31.3% 66.8% 44.5% 32.3% 35.2%

Visible Policing and Threatening Issues

7.3% 0.5% 0.7% 2.8% 2.9% 10.4%

Visible Policing and Education

6.3% 0.6% 18.5% 5.4% 1.6% 6.5%

Visible Policing and Education Plus

13.2% 2.5% 1.3% 5.0% 7.1% 14.1%

Do Everything 6.0% 0.7% 0.2% 1.5% 2.5% 6.9%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Measure of Association Value Significance

Chi-square 1318.614 (25 df) <0.001

Cramer’s V 0.192 <0.001

n=7112.

Variations in Preferences Across the Variations in Preferences Across the PopulationPopulation

The likelihood of favouring a particular level/mix of policing varies depending on the characteristics of the respondent and the The likelihood of favouring a particular level/mix of policing varies depending on the characteristics of the respondent and the nature of their neighbourhood nature of their neighbourhood

Despite concerns over the questions used, these variations reflect theoretical expectationsDespite concerns over the questions used, these variations reflect theoretical expectations

For instance, when considering local policing those who supported greater visible patrolling (compared to no real wish for more For instance, when considering local policing those who supported greater visible patrolling (compared to no real wish for more local policing) were more likely to be: local policing) were more likely to be:

FemaleFemaleOlder (aged 45+)Older (aged 45+)Perceive a high level of ASB in their neighbourhood Perceive a high level of ASB in their neighbourhood Live in areas with a high level of population turn-over Live in areas with a high level of population turn-over

Those reporting conflict with the police favoured less policingThose reporting conflict with the police favoured less policing

Summing-UpSumming-UpCommunity surveys can provide a useful sources of data about “demand” for different types of policingCommunity surveys can provide a useful sources of data about “demand” for different types of policing

Such information may be useful for starting discussions about policing prioritiesSuch information may be useful for starting discussions about policing priorities

Responses to preference questions likely to be based on imperfect information and detached from the policing situationResponses to preference questions likely to be based on imperfect information and detached from the policing situation

Attitudes to specific types of policing may reflect for general expectations and beliefsAttitudes to specific types of policing may reflect for general expectations and beliefs

Therefore, data reduction techniques could help reveal key patternsTherefore, data reduction techniques could help reveal key patterns

Question design very important – influences responsesQuestion design very important – influences responses