Community Surveys and Preferences for Policing Dr. Paul Norris (University of Edinburgh)...
-
Upload
alison-townsend -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of Community Surveys and Preferences for Policing Dr. Paul Norris (University of Edinburgh)...
Community Surveys and Community Surveys and Preferences for PolicingPreferences for Policing
Dr. Paul NorrisDr. Paul Norris(University of Edinburgh)(University of Edinburgh)
[email protected]@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