1. Community Surveys and Preferences for Policing Dr. Paul Norris (University of Edinburgh) P.Norris@ed.ac.uk

2. Rationale for Project Policing 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 interaction Two issues relevant to the use of community surveys more generally:- Question Design Application of Data Reduction Techniques

3. Asking Questions About Preferences The 2003/04 Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey contained two banks of questions which could provide an insight into preferences for policing 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, Deal Effectively With OffendersPrevents Terrorism Support Victims And WitnessesRespond To Emergencies Promptly Consult With The PublicProvide A Visible Patrolling Presence Police Major Events In LondonInvestigate Crimes Committed Against Members Of Minority Groups Tackle Drug Dealing And Drug UseReduce Crime And Disorder Through Consultation With Local Authorities Investigate Child AbuseDeal With Vehicle Crime Deal With Gun Crime Issues

4. Asking Questions About Preferences 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 by each respondent However, questions about perceived achievement have substantial levels of missing data limiting applicability to respondent level data Policing Task Importance Score Achievement Score Performance Gap Prevent Terrorism 6.75.4-1.3 Deal with Gun Crime 6.75.2-1.5 Deal with Vehicle Crime 5.94.0-1.9 Consult with the Public 5.93.9-2.0 Examples of Aggregate Level Performance Gap

5. Basic Analysis of Responses – City Wide Policing Mean Importance for Each Respondent in METPAS 2003/04 Across All City Wide Policing Tasks

6. Basic Analysis of Responses – City Wide Policing Mean Importance Attached to Different City Wide Policing Tasks in METPAS 2003/04

7. Problems with Measuring Preferences for Policing Do responses have the knowledge needed to answer the question More of everything is good – what about the budget? Context of the question matters The wording of the question, and the range of possible answers, can have a big impact on results Ask about problems rather than solutions? Identify the problem not the solution Support for “iconic” functions Constraints or relative importance

8. Asking Questions About Preferences 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 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, Police to be Made More Visible in General Provide Education about Drugs Respond More Quickly to CalloutsConsult with the Public Deal with Youths Hanging Around on the Streets Provide Information about Crime Prevention Remove Tramps/ VagrantsSupport Neighbourhood Watch Schemes Crack Down on NoiseVisit Schools to Increase Children’s Awareness on Crimes Control Public DisorderPatrol in the Evenings More

9. Basic Analysis of Responses – Local Policing Percentage of Respondents Wanting to See More of Particular Policing Tasks in Their Local Area in METPAS 2003/04

10. Basic Analysis of Responses – Local Policing Number of Local Policing Tasks Respondents Would Like to See More of in Their Local Area in METPAS 2003/04

11. Preferences for Particular Functions Reflect Underlying Expectations Given a lack of detailed knowledge, support for particular functions may reflect: Identification with particular functions General expectations of the police Support for general approaches to policing 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) [Latent Class] Cluster Analysis - group together respondent who answer questions in similar ways (find people who hold similar attitudes)

12. Factor Analysis – City Wide Policing Promax Rotated Four Factor Solution (City Wide Policing - Relative Importance) Task Protective Policing Community Policing Criminal Justice System Visible Community Policing Investigate Child Abuse 0.865 -0.1630.0830.096 Tackle Drug Dealing and Drug Use 0.773 -0.109-0.0710.146 Respond Promptly to Emergencies Promptly 0.704 0.0900.142-0.101 Deal with Gun Crime 0.581 0.0620.059-0.175 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 0.0370.347 Deal Effectively with Offenders0.1020.029 0.902 -0.086 Support Victims and Witnesses0.050-0.003 0.476 0.230 Consult with the Public0.045-0.062-0.040 0.958 Police Major Events in London0.2600.297-0.110 0.335 Provide a Visible Patrolling Presence-0.2150.0190.077 0.296

13. Latent Class Analysis – City Wide Policing Six Group LCA Solution Summarising Relative Preferences for City Wide Policing in METPAS 2003/04

14. Latent Class Analysis – Local Policing Six Group LCA Solution Summarising Relative Preferences for Local Policing in METPAS 2003/04 Preferences concern both activities and the level of policing 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

15. Linking Preferences for City Wide and Local Policing Preferences for City Wide Policing Preference 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 Really31.9%64.5%12.6%40.9%53.7%27.0% Visible Policing35.3%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 Everything6.0%0.7%0.2%1.5%2.5%6.9% Total100% Measure of AssociationValueSignificance Chi-square1318.614 (25 df)<0.001 Cramer’s V0.192<0.001 n=7112.

16. Variations in Preferences Across the Population The likelihood of favouring a particular level/mix of policing varies depending on the characteristics of the respondent and the nature of their neighbourhood Despite 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 local policing) were more likely to be: Female Older (aged 45+) Perceive a high level of ASB in their neighbourhood Live in areas with a high level of population turn-over Those reporting conflict with the police favoured less policing

17. Summing-Up Community 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 priorities Responses 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 beliefs Therefore, data reduction techniques could help reveal key patterns Question design very important – influences responses