green bay police department executive summary

7/29/2019 Green Bay Police Department Executive Summary

1/31

1

Green Bay Police Department

Citizen Confidence Survey

Executive Summary

Matthew D. Machnik

December 5, 2011


2/31

2

Green Bay Police Department Citizen Confidence Survey

Executive Summary

In 2011, the Green Bay Police Department distributed surveys throughout the Green Bay area.

The intent of these surveys was to determine citizens perceptions of safety, as well as their

beliefs about perceived problems. In total, 1,238 responses were collected using a variety of

methods. This report serves as a summary of the information that was collected.

Table of Contents Page Number

Data Sets 3

Demographic Data 4

Communications 6

Contact Ratings by Ethnicity 7

Additional Items Related to Prior Contact 8

Demographics Regarding Not Reporting Crime (Combined Data Set) 9Demographics Regarding Not Reporting Crime (Mailed Surveys) 12

Demographics Regarding Prior Victimization 15

Demographics Regarding Perceptions of Safety 16

Additional Items Regarding Perceptions of Safety 20

Cooperation between the Police and the Public 21

Citizen Satisfaction Regarding Performance 22

Citizen Satisfaction Related to Geography 24

Overall Perceptions of Problems 31


3/31

3

Data Sets

A number of different methods were undertaken to obtain the data used in the summary. Because

of this, four different data sets were compiled. These are detailed below. The majority of the

information provided in this report was determined using the combined data set. While this did

yield a number of significant results, a number of analyses were performed solely on the data

derived from the mailed surveys only. It will be noted which data set was used in each of the

sections of this report.

Mailed Surveys

Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households throughout the Green Bay area. These

surveys represent the most scientific method of data collection, and yielded 341 responses.

Online Collection

A digital version of the survey was made accessible to be filled out online. This method yielded

141 responses.

Spanish Language

In addition, a Spanish language version of the survey was made available for individuals whose

primary language was Spanish. This method yielded 33 responses.

High School Students

A cohort of high school students was asked to complete the online version of the survey. This

method yielded 723 responses.

Combined Data Set

For the purposes of completing the executive summary, a combined data set was obtained by

aggregating the aforementioned responses. Much of the information provided in this summary

reflects an analysis of the combined 1,238 responses.


4/31

4

Demographic DataCombined Data Set

Age

Gender

Income

Age Group NumberCompleted Survey

14-17 61818-24 47

25-34 72

35-44 79

45-54 89

55-64 108

65+ 99

Gender NumberCompleted Survey

Male 516

Female 585

Other 8

Household Income NumberCompleted Survey

Under $20,000 172$20,000-$39,999 240

$40,000-$59,999 208

$60,000-$79,999 138

$80,000-$99,999 88

Over $100,000 123


5/31

5

Ethnicity

Ethnicity NumberCompleted Survey

American Indian/Alaskan Native 45

Black/African American (Not of Hispanicorigin)

41

White/Caucasian/European/NorthAfrican/Middle Eastern or IndianSubcontinent

873

Hispanic/Chicano/PuertoRican/Mexican/Cuban/Central or SouthAmerican

106

Asian American/Pacific Islander/Far Easternor Southeastern Asian (i.e., China, Japan,

Korea, Philippine Islands, Samoa

81


6/31

6

CommunicationsCombined Data Set

Respondents were given a variety of choices regarding effective methods for the Police

Department to communicate information to them. From those choices, respondents were asked to

select their top three favored methods. The following information reflects the top three selected

methods of communicating information by age group and gender.

Effective Ways to Communicate Information by Age

14-17: 1. Television 2. In-Person 3. Radio

18-24: 1. Television 2. In-Person 3. Radio

25-34: 1. Television 2. Radio 3. Newspapers

45-54: 1. Television 2. Radio 3. Newspapers

55-64: 1. Television 2. Newspapers 3. Radio

65+: 1. Television 2. Newspapers 3. Radio

Effective Ways to Communicate Information by Gender

Male: 1. Television 2. Radio 3. Newspapers

Female: 1. Television 2. Radio 3. In-Person


7/31

7

Contact Ratings by EthnicityCombined Data Set

Respondents were asked to rate their most recent contact with the Green Bay Police Department.

The 10 items assessed regarding contact are listed below.

1. Professional2. Respectful3. Polite/Courteous4. Helpful5. Gave Advice6. Concerned with Situation7. Answered My Questions8. Appearance9. Impartial Treatment10.Timeliness

The ten ratings were summed together for each respondent. The summed ratings were then

averaged by ethnicity to form an overall contact-rating index, with a score of 1 representing very

poor, and a score of 5 representing very good. The scores were then compared, with mean

rankings by ethnicity as follows:

1. Caucasian/White4.12. Hispanic/Puerto Rican3.863. Asian American/Pacific Islander3.764. American Indian3.575. Black/African American3.51

1 = Very Poor; 5 = Very Good

4.13.86 3.76

3.57 3.51

1

2

3

4

5

White/Caucasian Hispanic/Puerto

Rican

Asian

American/Pacific

Islander

American I ndian Black/African

American

Contact Rating by Ethnicity


8/31

8

Additional Items Regarding Prior ContactCombined Data Set

In addition to comparing ratings of police contact across the different ethnic groups, the

influence of prior contact on willingness to report a crime, as well as perceptions of safety, was

examined.

Willingness to Report a Crime

A correlation analysis was run to determine the relationship between respondents ratings of

prior contact with the Police Department and their willingness to report a crime. Overall, a strong

relationship was found between the two. Specifically, more positive ratings of police contact

were associated with increased willingness to report a crime.

Perception of Safety

A correlation analysis was run to determine the relationship between respondents ratings of

prior contact with the Police Department and their perceptions of safety. Upon analysis, it was

found that several different facets of the contact ratings were related to increased perceptions ofsafety. These items are listed below.

1. Professionalism*2. Helpfulness3. Giving Advice4. Showing concern with the situation*5. Providing adequate answers to citizens questions6. Impartial treatment7. Timeliness**Indicates an exceptionally strong relationship with safety

The relationship between the aforementioned items and perceptions of safety is such that, as

higher ratings of performance were achieved, overall perceptions of safety increased.


9/31

9

Demographics Regarding Not Reporting CrimesCombined Data Set

Respondents were asked to rate their willingness to report being the victim of a crime, with a

rating of 1 being not willing, and a rating of 5 being very willing. These ratings were then

compared with demographic data, such as age, gender, ethnicity, and income.

Age

The data suggest that an individual is more likely to report a crime as they get older, with a slight

decrease in willingness following the 45-54 age range. In addition, the lowest mean score of

willingness was 4.12, suggesting that the majority of people who took the survey are willing to

report being the victim of a crime to the police.

1 = Not Willing; 5 = Very Willing

4.12

4.33

4.74.77

4.854.8

4.75

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

14-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Age Group

Willingness to Report a Crime by Age


10/31

10

Gender

While the difference between gender ratings of willingness was significant, it was relatively

miniscule, suggesting that men and women are similarly likely to report a crime if victimized.


Ethnicity

Among the different ethnic groups represented in the survey, White/Caucasian individuals

responded as being most willing to report a crime if victimized. Hispanic individuals reported a

near similar level of willingness, with American Indian and Asian-American/Pacific Islander

individuals not far behind. Black/African-American individuals reported the lowest willingness

to report a crime, which was almost one point lower than the mean rating by White/Caucasian

individuals.


4.34

4.46

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Male Female

Willingness to Report a Crime by Gender

4.54.3

4.07 4.03

3.68

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

White/Caucasian Hispanic American Indian Asian

American/Pacific

Islander

Black/African

American

Willingness to Report a Crime by Ethnicity


11/31

11

Income

Willingness to report a crime generally increased along with income, yet appears to drop off

relatively significantly into the $100,000 income range.


Additional Considerations

A regression analysis was performed to determine which, if any, of the preceding factors

emerged as a significant predictor of reporting a crime. The results suggest that age alone is a

predictor of ones willingness to report a crime. The relationship between age and willingness

was found to be slightly correlated, suggesting that as age increases ones willing to report a

crime also increases.

4.284.37

4.42

4.57

4.74

4.25

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

Willingness to Report a Crime by Income


12/31

12

Demographics Regarding Not Reporting CrimeMailed Survey Data Set

In order to gain a better understanding of willingness to report a crime, an analysis was

conducted using the mailed surveys only. This analysis involved similar comparisons of

willingness across demographic groups that were used in the combined data set.

Age

While the differences in willingness to report a crime across age groups were not found to be

statistically significant, the mean rating of willingness for each age group is provided below. Yet,

similar to the overall data set, respondents reported an overall high willingness to report a crime.

1=Not Willing; 5=Very Willing

Gender

Though statistical significance was not achieved between ratings by each gender, males and

females reported similar levels of willingness.


5

4.85 4.84 4.814.78

4.85

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Willingness to Report a Crime by Age

4.82 4.83

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.54

4.5

5

Male Female

Willingness to Report a Crime by Gender


13/31

13

Ethnicity

The different ratings across ethnic groups were not found to be statistically significant. In

addition, the representation of each ethnic group was found to be largely disproportionate. Thus,

the mean ratings provided should be interpreted cautiously. The overall number of respondents,

as well as the mean rating for each group, is provided below.

1. American Indian92. Black/African American23. White/Caucasian2814. Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Mexican65. Asian-American/Pacific Islander1


4.785

4.854.67

4

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

American Indian Black/African

American

White/Caucasian Hispanic/Puerto

Rican

Asian

American/Pacific

Islander

Willingness to Report a Crime by Ethnicity


14/31

14

Income

Contrary to the results obtained in the combined data set, willingness to report a crime

consistently increased as income increased. Yet, the differences between the reported income

groups were not found to be significant.


Additional Considerations

Using the data obtained from the mailed surveys, a regression analysis was performed to

determine if any of the preceding factors was a significant predictor of willingness to report a

crime. Among this particular data set, only income emerged as a significant predictor of

willingness. The relationship between income and willingness was found to be strongly

correlated, such that respondents willingness to report crime increased as their income

increased.

4.674.73

4.84 4.854.88

4.91

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

Willingness to Report a Crime by Income


15/31

15

Demographics Regarding Prior VictimizationCombined Data Set

Insight into victimization was obtained through an item that asked respondents whether or not

they had previously been the victim of a crime and not reported it. A chi-square analysis was run

to determine which demographic factors were related to this item.

Ethnicity

Ethnicity was found to be significantly related to having been a victim of a crime and not

reporting it. The list below indicates the percentage rate of not reporting victimization when

compared to the number of respondents from that category (N).

1. American Indian38.71% (N=43)2. Black/African American54.17% (N=37)3. White/Caucasian13.61% (N=818)4. Hispanic/Puerto Rican16.47% (N=99)5. Asian American/Pacific Islander8.88% (N=79)

Gender

Gender was also found to be significantly related to reporting victimization. Specifically, a

strong difference was found between the percentages of males and females who had not reported

their incidents of victimization.

1. Males12.61% (N=500)2. Females17.92% (N=566)

Age & Income

Upon analysis, it was found that neither income nor age was significantly related to reporting

prior victimization.


16/31

16

Demographics Regarding Perceptions of SafetyCombined Data Set

Safety was rated across three different levels, including home, neighborhood, and Green Bay.

Comparisons of safety ratings were made across a number of demographic categories.

Age

A consistent decreasing trend was found when comparing safety ratings within each age group,

such that perceptions of safety decreased over the home, neighborhood, and Green Bay levels of

assessment.

1 = Very Unsafe; 5 = Very Safe

Gender

A similar decreasing trend regarding safety was noted when comparing safety ratings by gender.Furthermore, a statistically significant difference was found between gender groups, such that

males consistently felt more safe at all three levels of assessment when compared with females.


1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.54

4.5

5

14-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Perceptions of Safety by Age

Home

Neighborhood

Green Bay

4.57

4.2

3.88

4.4

43.47

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Home Neighborhood Green Bay

Perceptions of Safety by Gender

Male

Female


17/31

17

Ethnicity

Mean safety ratings also decreased across levels of assessment when compared within ethnic

groups.

1= Very Unsafe; 5 = Very Safe

In order to better understand the ratings of safety given by each ethnic group, the mean ratings of

safety were averaged across all three levels to form a perceived-safety index. As is noted in the

graph below, overall ratings of safety were lowest among the American Indian ethnic group,

while perceived safety was highest in the Asian-American/Pacific Islander group.


11.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

American Indian Black/African

American

White/Caucasian Hispanic Asian

American/Pacific

Islander

Perceptions of Safety by Ethnicity

Home

Neighborhood

Green Bay

3.814.03 4.14 4.15

4.18

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

American I ndian Black/African

American

White/Caucasian Hispanic Asian

American/Pacific

Islander

Overall Perceived Safety by Ethnicity


18/31

18

Income

Consistent with prior findings, ratings of safety within income groups consistently decreased

across all three levels of assessment.


Further insight into perceived safety in regards to income level was found by determining the

correlation between them. Upon further analysis, income and perceived safety were found to be

strongly correlated, such that respondents perceived level of safety increased as respondents

income increased. In addition, a regression analysis confirmed that income serves as a significant

predictor of safety among the surveyed population.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Perceptions of Safety by Income

Home

Neighborhood

Green Bay


19/31

19

Prior Victimization

Although prior victimization was not included in the demographics assessment, a regression

analysis revealed that having been the victim of a crime serves as a significant predictor of

safety. To better understand this relationship, an overall rating of safety was determined using

the same method described in the section regarding ethnicity and safety. Individuals reporting

prior victimization perceived a lower overall level of safety when compared with non-victimized

individuals.


3.8

4.19

1

1.5

2

2.5

33.5

4

4.5

5

Yes No

Victim of Crime?

Victimization and Safety


20/31

20

Additional Items Regarding Perceptions of SafetyCombined Data Set

Another set of items in the survey assessed how individuals perceive certain problems. Using the

combined data sets, a chi square analysis was performed to compare how respondents perceived

certain problems with their perceived level of safety. The following items were found to be

significantly related to ratings of safety across all three levels of assessment (e.g., Home,

Neighborhood, and Green Bay).

1. Armed Hold-Ups2. Assaults3. Business Break-Ins4. Disorderly Behavior*5. Gangs*6. Graffiti*7. Littering8. Loitering9. Noisy Parties10.Poorly Maintained Properties11.School Violence12.Sexual Assault13.Thefts of Cars14.Thefts from Cars15.Traffic Offenses*16.Vandalism*17.Weapons Offenses**Indicates an exceptionally strong relationship with safety

A correlation analysis was used to determine the nature of the relationship between these items

and perceived safety. All items listed were found to be significantly correlated with ratings of

safety, such that overall ratings of safety decreased as the aforementioned items were

increasingly viewed as problematic.


21/31

21

Cooperation between the Police and the PublicMailed Survey Data Set

One of the items in the survey asked respondents whether or not they believed that the Police and

the public have a shared responsibility in creating a safe community. Respondents were able to

rate how much they believed this responsibility was shared using a five-point scale, such that 1 =

Strongly Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. Overall, it was found that 94% (N=333) of

respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the Police and the public share responsibility in

maintaining public safety. The specific breakdown of ratings is provided below.

1. Strongly Disagreen/a (N=0)*2. Disagree1% (N=2)*3. Neutral5% (N=18)*4. Agree38% (N=128)*5. Strongly Agree56% (N=185)**The total number of respondents for this item was 333.

185

128

18

2

Shared Responsibility in Maintaining Safety

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


22/31

22

Citizen Satisfaction Regarding PerformanceCombined Data Set

Performance Ratings

Respondents were asked to disclose whether or not they had any prior contact with the Police

Department, as well as whom the contact was with. Furthermore, assessments of performance

were rated using the ten criteria listed.

1. Professional2. Respectful3. Polite/Courteous4. Helpful5. Gave Advice6. Concerned with Situation7. Answered My Questions8. Appearance9. Impartial Treatment10.Timeliness

In order to form an individual performance assessment, performance ratings were compared with

the type of individual respondents reported contact with. An overall performance score was

determined by averaging all of the performance ratings given to a particular contact. The average

performance ratings are provided in the graph below.


3.953.67 3.67 3.76

4.03 4.01 3.94

3.51

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Mean Performance Ratings


23/31

23

Performance as it Relates to Reporting Crime

Results suggest that ratings of performance are a major determinant of willingness to report a

crime. This was determined by performing a correlation analysis comparing respondents

willingness to report a crime with perceptions of police performance. An exceptionally strong

relationship was found between the two, such that the more positively a respondent rated police

performance, the more willing he or she was to report a crime. This relationship was found to be

consistent across all dimensions of performance.

Performance and Problem Perception

A comparison was made between how individuals perceive police performance and how

individuals perceive specific problems in their area. Upon analysis, a number of significant

correlations were found. For the purposes of this report, only the significant relationships will be

listed.

Effective enforcement of general traffic laws was associated with a decreased perceptionof traffic offenses and littering. Positive performance regarding neighborhood problems and quality of life issues was

associated with decreased perception of littering.

Positive performance regarding foot and bicycle patrol was associated with decreasedperceptions of littering.

Providing effective protection of personal property was associated with decreasedperceptions of littering.

Effectively reducing gang activity and graffiti was associated with decreased perceptionsof disorderly conduct and littering.

Effective reduction of minor crimes was strongly associated with decreased perceptionsof littering.

Effective reduction of serious crimes was strongly associated with decreased perceptionsof disorderly conduct, drunk driving, and littering.

Effective reduction of violence in and around local bars was strongly associated withdecreased perceptions of disorderly behavior, drug abuse, family violence, littering, and

sexual assault.

Finally, effective reduction of public intoxication was strongly associated with decreasedperceptions of alcohol abuse, disorderly behavior, drunk driving, and littering.


24/31

24

Citizen Satisfaction Relating to GeographyMailed Survey Data Set

Respondents from the population of mailed surveys were subsequently matched with their

Community Policing [CP] area. Specifically, eight different CP areas were recorded. A

comparison of the perceived problems within each CP area was conducted, and a number of

significant results were found. It should be noted, however, that the representation of each CP

area was disproportionate overall. Thus, despite achieving statistical significance, the results of

the comparisons should be interpreted cautiously. For reference, the CP areas, as well as their

corresponding number of respondents, are listed.

CP Areas & Number of Respondents

1. Far East792. Far West813. Fort Howard434. Imperial315. Lombardi656. Navarino207. Olde North168. Tank3

Perceived Problems across CP Areas

In regards to perceptions of problems, the rating scenario used described a rating of 1 as no

problem, 2 as a minor problem, and 3 as a serious problem. Upon analysis, a number of

significant differences in ratings emerged across CP areas. Specifically, citizen perceptions of

armed hold-ups, gang activity, graffiti, business break-ins, and drug abuse varied significantly.

Furthermore, a general trend emerged in which all of the aforementioned concerns were

consistently higher in the Imperial, Olde North, and Tank CP areas. Yet, attention must be paid

to the relatively small number of respondents representing the perceptions of each of these areas.

Nevertheless, perceptions of each problem across CP areas are represented graphically on the

following pages.


25/31

25

1 = No Problem; 3 = Serious Problem



1.691.51 1.36

2.03

1.42 1.37

2.22.33

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Far East Far West Fort Howard Imperial Lombardi Navarino Olde North Tank

CP Area

Perception of Armed Hold-Ups

1.73 1.72 1.63

2.04

1.66 1.74

2.27

3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


CP Area

Perception of Gang Activity

1.621.43 1.29

1.681.59 1.63

2

3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


CP Area

Perception of Graffiti


26/31

26



1.671.51 1.47

1.76

1.521.26

2

2.67

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


CP Area

Perception of Business Break-Ins

1.811.68 1.61

1.93

1.591.84

2.33 2.33

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


CP Area

Perception of Drug Abuse


27/31

27

Perceived Performance across CP Areas

Ratings of performance regarding various activities were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale,

with a score of 1 representing very poor performance, and a score of 5 representing very good

performance. When comparing these ratings across the different CP areas, a number of

significant relationships were found regarding perceptions of police effectiveness. Specifically,

differences were noted among the perceived effectiveness of enforcing general traffic laws,

resolving neighborhood and quality of life issues, and reducing gang activity, violence in and

around bars, and public intoxication.

Perceptions of police performance were consistently high within the Far West and Tank CP

areas. Overall perception of police performance across CP areas was generally positive, with the

majority of the scores being in the good to very good range. The relationship between

performance ratings and CP area is represented graphically on the following pages.


28/31

28



3.89 4.04 3.813.62

3.97 4

3.21

4

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.55


CP Area

Performance - Enforcement of General Traffic

Laws

3.613.86

3.613.41

3.883.58

3.4

4.67

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


CP Area

Performance - Reduction of Neighborhood

Problems


29/31

29



3.35

3.743.46 3.34

3.67 3.6

3

3.67

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


CP Area

Performance - Reducing Gang Activity

3.463.78 3.68

3.483.76 3.85

3.13

4

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


CP Area

Performance - Reducing Violence in and Around

Bars


30/31

30


3.463.8

3.54 3.553.71

3.95

3.333.67

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


CP Area

Performance - Reducing Public Intoxication


31/31

Overall Perceptions of ProblemsCombined Data Set

In order to form a better understanding of the perception of problems as a whole, the overall

mean perceptions of problems across Green Bay were determined. The top five problems, as well

as a graph depicting the overall perception of all problems, are located below.

Top Five Perceived Problems

1. Drunk Driving2. Alcohol Abuse3. Home Break-Ins4. Gangs5. Drug Abuse

1=No Problem; 2=Minor Problem; 3=Serious Problem

2.18

2.03

2.03

2.022.01

1.96

1.96

1.95

1.95

1.92

1.89

1.88

1.88

1.88

1.87

1.83

1.82

1.8

1.79

1.77

1.76

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.68

1.63

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Drunk Driving

Alcohol Abuse

Home Break-Ins

GangsDrug Abuse

Loitering

Youth Crime

Family Violence

Thefts from Cars

Assaults

Vandalism

Traffic Offenses

Business Break-Ins

Disorderly Behavior

Sexual Assault

School Violence

Armed Hold-Ups

Weapons Offenses

Graffiti

Poorly Maintained Properties

Thefts of Cars

Fraud

Homicide

Kidnapping

Littering

Noisy Parties

Overall Perceptions of Problems

green bay police department executive summary

Documents