Using Public Opinion for Evaluation of Police Performance. National Survey Report

Transcription

1 Using Public Opinion for Evaluation of Police Performance National Survey Report

2 Kharkiv Institute of Social Researches Evaluating Police Performance by Studying Public Opinion National Survey Report Support by The International Renaissance Foundation Kharkov Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

3 This research and publication were made with the financial support of the Rule of Law Program of the International Renaissance Foundation. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication belong to the group of authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the Renaissance Foundation Authors: Kobzin D. O., Chernousov A.M., Sheiko R.V., Shcherban S.V., Kolokolova M.O. Evaluating Police Performance by Studying Public Opinion National Survey Report/ Kobzin, et all - Kharkiv, KISR, p. This publication presents the first ever attempt in Ukraine to evaluate the work of police and assess crime rates in the country with the help of sociological survey. The reader is offered with a new assessment methodology and results of the study, namely evaluation of the number of crime victims and witnesses, the structure of crime, evaluation of police performance and the level of trust to law enforcement. The study is significant due is its national scale and opportunity to compare the situation in different regions. This publication presents interest and can be useful for law enforcement officials, journalists, lawyers, sociologists, criminologists, and everyone who is interested in evaluating performance of law enforcement agencies 3 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

4 Foreword by the authors This study was made possible due to our belief in the need for change in the work of law enforcement agencies, hard work and desire to see real police reform in Ukraine. The experience that inspired the research team was derived from the British Crime Survey (UK) and the National Victimization Crime Survey (U.S.), which have been used for many years to evaluate police performance in these countries. Also, the idea of the research has become a reality due to the pilot projects that were once carried out by the National University of Internal Affairs (led by Professor Vasiliy Sobolev V. and Rector Olexander Bandurka). This large scale evaluation of police performance has been a very interesting experience and allowed us to obtain a significant amount of information about how the citizens of Ukraine evaluate the current level of crime, the work of the police and how often people become victims or witnesses of crimes and how they perceive the work of the police. In our opinion, this information should be able to make the existing system of indicators more objective today if not replace it. It should be noted that the study took place with the financial support of the International Renaissance Foundation (Rule of Law Program) and the Open Society Institute (Budapest) on one hand and the attempts to change the existing system of performance evaluation by the current leadership of MIA of Ukraine on the other. The efforts of Yevhen Bystrytskyi, the Executive Director of the International Renaissance Foundation and Vitaliy Zakharchenko, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine were of great importance, they have signed a Memorandum of Undersatanding and comprehensively promoted the development and testing of new methods of evaluation of the police. One cannot overestimate the efforts taken by Roman Romanov, Director of the Rule of Law Program and Vasylyna Yavorska, the Manager of the Rule of Law Program in order to administer the survey fully and on the national scale. We sincerely thank Volodymyr Polishchuk and Ivan Babaev, the managers of the Public Affairs Directorate, MoI of Ukraine for organizational support and interest in the results of the study. The team of experts who helped us to manage a sizable chunk of work has become an important component of this survey. We want to thank the following people: Kseniya Koreneva - for organizing and coordinating fieldwork and oversight in all the regions of Ukraine Igor Danylenko - for establishing the samples for the survey in all regions of Ukraine Maksym Nikolaevskyi - for timely and high quality work on mathematical data processing; Also we express our sincere gratitude to Arkadiy Bushchenko, UHHRU Executive Director for significant moral support that has been provided in difficult times during the survey. The research team of Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches August, Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

5 5 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

6 ЗМІСТ CONTENTS 03 FOREWORD BY THE AUTHORS 07 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 08 Methodology 09 Key Findings of the Survey 11 Recommendations 13 INTRODUCTION 17 FEARS AND EVALUATION OF CRIME RATES 28 COMMUNICATION EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE CITIZENS AND THE POLICE 41 TRUST IN POLICE 57 VICTIMS OF CRIME 80 WITNESSES OF CRIME ANNEXES 88 Annex 1. Evaluation by the residents of different regions of changes in crime rates over the past 12 months 89 Annex 2. Evaluation by the residents of different regions of the effectiveness of Ukrainian police in general 90 Annex 3. Evaluation by the residents of different regions of the effectiveness of local police 91 Annex 4. How well the residents of different regions of Ukraine know their district police officers 92 Annex 5. How well the residents of different regions of Ukraine know the heads of regional police departments working in their area 93 Annex 6. How well the residents of different regions of Ukraine know the location of the local police base stations 94 Annex 7. How well the residents of different regions of Ukraine know the location of the regional police departments 95 Annex 8. How much the residents in different regions are satisfied with the level of communication with the police (within the last 12 months) 96 Annex 9. The number of residents in different regions, who faced situations when the police violated their rights during the last year, or the rights of their family members, or not doing their job well 97 Annex 10. Confidence in the police in different regions 98 Annex 11. Willingness of citizens to help the police in different regions 99 Annex 12. Residents evaluation of how well their local police do their job 100 Annex 13. Estimated number of victims of crime in different regions 101 Annex 14. The share of victims who reported and did not report crimes (in different regions) 102 Annex 15. Estimated number of witnesses in different regions 103 Annex 16. The share of witnesses who reported and did not report crimes (in different regions) 104 Annex 17. List of municipalities where the survey was conducted 110 Annex 18. Questionnaire that was used during the survey 129 Annex 19. The Order of MoI of Ukraine "On Approval of the Evaluation of System for law enforcement agencies using modern techniques of analysis and forecasting", #17 of Annex 20. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine, KISR and the Renaissance Foundation 6 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

7 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 7 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

8 Methodology: The study aimed at solving the following issues: Develop, approve and offer the MoI of Ukraine an extension to the current system of evaluation of crime rates and police performance and make it more objective; Provide the MoI with a clear idea about how the society perceives the police, what resources it has and what needs to be done to strengthen the cooperation between the police and the public. To achieve these objectives, we surveyed respondents in 25 regions (sample size respondents for each region). In the course of the survey we interviewed residents in 349 municipalities (villages, towns, cities in the oblasts, oblast centers, see. Annex 17) using a specially designed questionnaire (Annex 18). This sample size was chosen due to the need to obtain separate arrays of reliable data on all the regions without exception. Thus, the residents and the leadership of the MoI and of every region can receive a chunk of important information about the work of the police. In addition, separate data for each region (and not just for the country as a whole) will allow evaluating and benchmarking the situation in specific oblasts. The study was conducted by the method of personal (face-to-face) interviews. 8 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

9 Key findings: The level of public fear is moderately high and significantly increases when they leave their comfort zone (their homes, apartments, households). More than a third of respondents feel in danger when leaving outside their area of residence. It should be noted that the fear of becoming a victim of a crime in the society is significant, i.e. 64.6% of respondents are afraid of becoming a victim of any crime at all. Among the most common factors that cause fear and anxiety among people are the most apparent ones, connected with the situation in the streets, such as robbery, presence of drunk individuals, physical attacks on people, verbal abuse and soliciting; The majority of respondents believe that crime rates have been unchanged over the last year. This was pointed out by more than a half of the respondents. Another 17.0% indicated an increase in crime and only one in every ten mentioned about the decline. However, the responses to this question feature quite significant regional differences. The prevalence of fears and a wide range of things that concern the citizens and unchanged crime situation result in a rather low evaluation of police performance by the citizens. Thus, only a quarter of the respondents (25.2%) evaluate Ukrainian police as an effective service. More than half of them (51.3%) indicate its ineffectiveness. The study showed a significant secrecy and "invisibility" of police work for the local community. Thus, more than half of the respondents did not know anything about their district police officer, and three quarters of them did not know the chief of their regional police department. When evaluating the behavior of the police in the course of communicating with the public, a majority of respondents mentioned they were polite (64.5%). Meanwhile, one fifth of the respondents faced indifferent attitude (24.9%), and almost one in ten (9.3%) - brutality. The results show that the level of trust in public institutions is generally very low. Thus, only one in four respondents (25.9%) said they trust the police. However, despite the relatively low level of confidence, the police is among three social institutions that are relied on to a greater extent. The survey revealed a relatively large group of respondents who are willing to help the police in any situation (28.0%). It is an essential human resource who cares about the issues of public safety, but unfortunately, this resource has very little demand. Most respondents (34.7%) are willing to help, but only if they deem the situation safe in terms of their own interests and the interests of their relatives. However, it should be noted that 12.2% of the respondents openly declare their unwillingness to help the police regardless of the situation. Corruption (extortion and bribes) are among the biggest flows of the police according to the citizens. This has been pointed out by 42.4% of respondents. Also, about a third of respondents (32.8%) believe that unwillingness to protect regular people is another deficiency of the police. The next most important shortcomings are its failure to act (26.7%), impunity for police officers (25.2%) and their incompetence (23.9%). Research shows that 6% of the national population have become the victims of crime during the last year. Thus, the estimated number of the victims of crime within one year is about 2 million people. Meanwhile, only about 1 million 400 thousand people reported them to the police and only people have been recognized as victims of crime (according to the MoI statistics for 2011). Less than two-thirds of victims go to the police (61.8%). Accordingly, the victims did not report the police about a significant portion of crimes (38.2%). The largest amount of persons who have been the victims of crime over the past 12 months were found among the respondents in Volyn (11.7%), Poltava (13.0%), Sumy (15.6%) and 9 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

10 Kharkiv (12.7%) regions. According to the study, smaller numbers of crime victims were found among the residents of Kirovograd (1.5%), Ternopyl (2.2%), Chernivtsi (2.2%) and Chernigiv (2.0%) regions. With regard to the direct victims of crime, the survey shows that most of the respondents were the victims of theft. Thus, in the total number of victims, the share of theft victims is 38.8%. For example, the number of pocket theft victims is 60 to 10 thousand people. Most victims assess their property damage ranging from 107 to 999 UAH (35.2%). Another 27.0% assess their losses at the level of UAH. Those with the least damage (106 UAH) are 12.1%. The research shows that the most latent crimes are the ones in trade&service (83.7% did not report it), racketeering, extortion, both by the offenders (80.0%), and by the officials (72.7%). The respondents simply do not believe in the effectiveness of the police in this case. Most often the citizens report about burglary (81.9%), robbery (80%) and theft of motor vehicles (93.8%) due to significant losses and audacity of this type of crime. Obviously, the official statistics for these types of criminal acts can be regarded close to the real picture. Most victims who asked for help from the police were dissatisfied with the way they handled their case (65.0%). In the course of the survey we found a number of citizens who became witnesses of crimes - 7.6% over the past 12 months. 10 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

11 Recommendations: 1. Despite the fact that we cannot completely abandon quantitative indicators at the current stage of evaluating police performance, we should significantly reduce their importance in the evaluation. Already now, public opinion polls could be used to set off the quantitative indicators (although subject to compliance with the criteria of independence, objectivity and professionalism). It is expedient to hold regular polls (not less than once a year) in all the regions of Ukraine. In order for the results to be representative for each region, the sample shall be not less than 600 people in each region. In this case, the analysis of the situation separately in each region with acceptable bias becomes possible. 2. Among the new indicators, designed to provide data to address these problems, we may offer the following: Trends and tendencies of crimes, number of victims and witnesses of various crimes (assuming such surveys are conducted regularly in the course of 5 years or more - studying the dynamics of the crime rates and identifying trends, links between crime and different social, economic, political, demographic and other factors).the study allows conducting assessment of the number of victims and witnesses per capita. The level of reported crimes (both by victims and witnesses). This will allow seeing a picture of crime more objectively; assess its latent part and the real scale. In addition, it will help examine the factors that influence the decision of the individual whether to go to the police or not. Study what work has been done to the victims and witnesses of crimes, how they were satisfied after their contact with the police. This will help assess not only the results but the very activity of the law enforcement agencies. Study the behavior of people aimed at avoiding becoming a victim of a crime. This will allow for a planned preventive work, use available resources and learn about the expectations of the public towards law enforcement. Studying the perception of the police by the people, the degree of confidence in the police, the factors that determine trust / distrust. Study the sense of security of citizens (fear of becoming a victim of crime, fear of some social groups, places, specific crimes); Assessment of the extent of human rights violations (how many citizens believe that their rights have been violated by the police). Using all of the above and subsequently improved indicators will make the assessment system of police work and measuring the level of crime in the country more delicate and precise, which in turn would help to plan work, set goals, and expect better financing in the future. In addition, the proposed models will allow for depressurization of available indicators against the police and gradually refocus their activities towards the public. Reducing the pressure of the requirement to "meet the planned indicators" also would reduce the number of cases of illegal detentions, forgery and violence in police work. 3. Visibility of police work should become a component of a comprehensive indicator of police performance. This component should include the study of how well the population of the district or the city knows the location of the regional police department, police bases (in the cities). In the future, this information can significantly simplify the work to reduce the distance between the citizens and the police, which should begin with increasing awareness among the population about the chief of local police department and district police inspectors. This citizen awareness will help establish partnerships and create the atmosphere of mutual responsibility and make the districts safe and comfortable for living. 4. It is necessary to raise public awareness about the work of the police. Unfortunately, today the population does not have an objective view of the police, its problems and often estimates police performance based on the stereotypes. Despite the fact that now television is the key information channel police should use more direct contact with people to talk about everyday life of law 11 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

12 enforcement agencies. It is necessary to form an opinion based on the knowledge rather than on the stereotypes. However, one should realize that changing the image is impossible without changing the practices of law enforcement and streamlined cooperation between the police and the population. As a result, we note that the new model of evaluation of police performance has all the necessary resources in order to update and reform the current system of evaluation in law enforcement. Using such a strategy of evaluating the work of the police in Ukraine will make police performance clearer, more transparent and society controlled, which in turn will uncap new resources for cooperation between the police and the public, and for greater trust between them. 12 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

13 Introduction Numerous studies show a decline in public confidence in the police and low ranking of law enforcement agencies. Moreover, both the media and the sociologists record steady growth of the number of violations related to the work of the police (both procedural, service-related and human rights violations). The experts have long identified the causes of such phenomena pointing at the outdated system of indicators among other key features which do not reflect the real scale and structure of crime and ignore feedback. In addition, this system drives a police officer towards violations and falsifications by its binding nature and promotes the practice of physically knocking out the evidence from people which is now an integral part of day to day operations of the police. This, according to the research by KISR, has been mentioned by 43% of police officers and 30% of regular citizens 1. Thus, the purpose of the survey was to draft proposals for changes in the system of collection of data on the performance of the MoI system. Sociological surveys aiming at exploring the level and trends of crime have long been a traditional method of assessment of law enforcement work in many countries. Moreover, since early 1990s, national and international research teams have conducted regular sociological evaluations of the level of crime and success of police work around the world. Using sociological methods in the work of police analytical departments is quite common due to a number of reasons. These are the most fundamental ones: 1. The criminologists and the society constantly put forward and justify claims that using police statistics exclusively distorts the picture and the extent of crime in order to look better in the eyes of the public. 2. Each region has its own characteristics associated with the location, number of people, culture and terrain, ethnic composition of the population, the degree of industrialization, traditions and other factors, which makes it difficult to benchmark statistics data. 3. The picture of crime derived from the data provided exclusively by the official sources was distorted and blurred. This is indicated, including by A. Giddens, referring to the high level of unexplored latency as one of the key shortcomings of the current evaluation system of law enforcement. Such statistics included only the crimes recorded by the police. However, be aware that there is a long chain between the possible crime and its registration by the police which consists of both the victim and the police officer. As a result, most minor crimes are never reported to the police 2. One cannot argue that the current evaluation system of police performance in Ukraine is flawless and devoid of aforementioned drawbacks and needs no improvement. It features most of the shortcomings that were inherent in police systems of different countries at earlier stages of their development. Unfortunately, the effect of these factors often significantly reduces the effectiveness of law enforcement in general, reduces the credibility to the police among the public and does not allow for objective assessment of the situation. Therefore, further development of the police depends on how quickly the priorities of law enforcement activities are revised and the system of performance evaluation is changed, as well as the extent to which the gap between the police and the public is reduced. The last factor is the most important because it is the people s help i.e. timely notification of crimes, various types of support to law enforcement agencies and 1 Martynenko O.A., Kobzin D.O., Chernousov A.M., Sheiko R.V., Ignatov A.N., Batchayev V.K., Monitoring of the Acts of Violence in the Law Enforcement Agencies of Ukraine ( ) / Kharkiv: Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches. Human Rights, p Giddens Anthony, Sociology (Fifth Edition). Cambridge: Polity Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

14 general law-abiding behavior being the main resource of increasing efficiency of law enforcement in the country. Thus, our study aimed at solving the following tasks: Develop, approve and offer the MoI of Ukraine an extension to the current evaluation system of crime and police performance to make it more objective; Offer the MoI of Ukraine a clear idea about how the society perceives the police, which resources it owns and what needs to be done to strengthen cooperation between the police and the public. A survey has been conducted among respondents in all 25 oblasts to achieve the above objectives (sample size respondents for each region). This number of respondents was chosen due to the need to get some reliable data arrays for all the oblasts without exception. Surveying fewer respondents would not allow describing the situation in separate regions and offer the results to the regional leadership of the Ministry of Interior as the basis for making management decisions. Thus, the citizens and the leadership of the MoI and each region will be able to get a chunk of important information about the activities of the police. In addition, separate data for each region (and not only for the country as a whole) will allow evaluating and comparing the situation in specific areas. This is what makes the findings interesting to the MoI and to significantly supplement and in some cases even change the current system of evaluating police performance 3. Justification of the sample Sample size respondents, the residents of Ukraine, 16 years old and older. The sample proportionally stratified by 24 regions of Ukraine and the Crimea (sampling size respondents). The survey was conducted by the route location sampling based on respondent residence. In constructing the sample we implemented three step selection processes: probability-based - on the first two stages and quotabased - on the third one. At the first stage we conducted a stratified disproportionate selection of municipalities of various types. For the survey were selected oblast centers, towns, and villages. The second stage featured random selection of addresses that are the initial waypoints of the survey. The third stage of sampling (selection of respondents within households) used quota sampling of respondents, given specific socio-demographic characteristics (gender and age group) (Table 1 and 2). Statistical bias with 95% probability do not exceed: 0.80% for indicators close to 50%; 0.69% for indicators close to 25% or 75%; 0.48% for indicators close to 10% or 90%; 0.35% for indicators close to 5% or 95%; 0.16% for indicators close to 1% or 99% 4 The sample parameters as a whole reflect the pattern of the population and meet the representativeness requirements allowing applying research findings to all the residents of Ukraine of 16 years old and above. These studies were mathematically processed using the statistical software package SPSS (ver.19.0). 3 For comparison families (population 60 million) were surveyed to evaluate police performance in England and Wales, about (population 280 million) in the United States and (population 38 million) in Poland 4 Data on statistical bias without considering design-effect of the sample 14 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

15 The survey used a standard procedure: the study conducted by personal (face-to-face) interviews. The duration of the interview was minutes. Tab. 1 Distribution of respondents by gender and type of municipality (% of those who responded) Gender Place of Residence Oblast Center City in the Oblast Town Village Male Female Total Tab. 2 Distribution of respondents by age and type of municipality (% of those who responded) Age Place of Residence Oblast Center City in the Oblast Town Village and above Total Training of the interviewers: all interviewers who participated in the survey completed a special training. It was delivered by a lead person on the basis of detailed instructions, prepared by the project coordinator and focused on: explaining the objectives of the study; explaining the features of the research topic; explaining the features of selection of respondents for this survey; general recommendations for conducting interviews: working with those who refused to respond, working with emotional respondents; reviewing the questionnaire with detailed explanation of the specific individual issues. Each interviewer filled out the route sheets in the process of selecting and interviewing respondents and recorded data on the respondents, the survey addresses and other significant information about what was happening in the field. The quality of fieldwork was also monitored during the survey. It was carried out in the following areas: 100% control of the correctness of completion of questionnaires; 100% analysis of interviewers route sheets to ensure that the respondents were selected according to the rules; 10% random control over the status and completeness of the interview, compliance with the procedures of respondent selection through repeated visits to the respondent; 10% random control over the status of the interviews, compliance with the methodology of respondent selection using telephone survey of the respondents; 100% logical analysis of questionnaires. 15 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

16 PUBLIC FEARS AND EVALUATION OF CRIME RATES 16 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

17 Chapter 1 The first part of research was devoted to evaluating how safe the Ukrainians feel today. Survey results show that the more time the respondents spend in an unfamiliar place, the less chances they have to control the environment, the more often they perceive it as dangerous. Yet, the strongest feeling of insecurity occurs when people find themselves in a new, strange neighborhood or locality (i.e. those where they do not live or work). The fact that they feel in danger there was pointed out by more than a third of respondents (35.5%) (Figure 1). A quarter of respondents felt danger when they were in public transport or in their neighborhood or locality. It should be noted that 18.1% of respondents feel the fear even when going upstairs to their apartment or in the yard, and 13.9% while staying in their apartment (Table 3). Although their number is not very large, it is clear that the task of the police must include the priority to reduce the level of subjective fear of the citizens. Fig 1. How safe do the citizens feel, (%) ,7 Car ,6 69,5 61,6 45,9 35,5 25,3 25,39 18,1 13,9 Other neighborhood Public transport Own neigborhood Yard House, apartment Safe Unsafe It should be noted that the older are the respondents, the higher are their concerns. Thus, when for some year-old respondents, only 3.1% have the feeling of insecurity when staying in their apartment or house, for those who are over 60 - its 19.8% (which is higher than the national average). The same correlation is observed in the assessment of risk present in the stairwell of the apartment building, the yard of the neighborhood. The respondents believe that other neighborhoods are more dangerous for them, i.e. the ones where they do not live or work. In this case more than a third of respondents feel in danger, regardless of age. It should also be noted that many respondents do not feel safe in public transport - more than a third of them who are 20 to 60 years old and older and every other who is over 60 years old. Tab. 3. Feeling of insecurity by the people of different age groups, (%) Age In their apartment, house In the yard In their neighborhood In other neighborhoods In public transport and older Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

18 Tab. 4 Feeling unsafe among the residents of various types municipalities, (%) Oblast Center City in Oblast In their apartment, house In yard In their neighborhood In other neighborhoods In public transport 14.2* 22.8* 32.6* 42.2* 30.6* 15.8* 21.4* 30.5* 38.8* 22.4 Town Village * Items featuring higher level of insecurity than the national average These studies show that urban residents (both in oblast centers and cities in the oblast) feel less safe than the people in the villages and towns. Thus, the number of respondents from oblast centers who feel in danger in their neighborhood is almost 14% higher than in the villages. The same correlation is observed in terms of fears of another neighborhood. In general, the fears of urban residents are higher than the national average (Table 4). An increased feeling of fear among the residents in some regions is also notable (Table 5). Thus, 21.3% of the residents of Crimea and 22.3% of Kherson Oblast do not feel safe even while staying in their apartments or houses. More than a quarter of the residents of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Mykolaiv and Kherson oblasts feel unsafe in the stairwells of their apartment buildings and yards. More than 40% of Donetsk and Mykolaiv Oblast do not feel safe staying in their neighborhoods. More than a half of the respondents in Crimea and Kyiv Oblast feel unsafe when visiting another neighborhood. In addition, more than a half of the respondents do not feel safe in public transport in Kyiv Oblast. Tab. 5 Feeling of unsafe by the residents in different oblasts of Ukraine, (%) Number of people who feel unsafe Oblast In their apartment, house In the yard In their neighborhood In other neighborhoods In public transport Crimea 21.3* 26.5* 32.5* 53.5* 38.5* Vinnytsya Volyn Dnipropetrovsk 17.8* * 43.0* 24.5 Donetsk * 42.0* 43.2* 28.9 Zhytomyr Transcarpathian Zaporizhzhya * Ivano-Frankivsk Kyiv 17.4* * 30.3 Kirovograd 18.4* Lugansk 24.3* 29.2* * Lviv Mykolaiv * 40.7* 46.6* 34.0* Odesa 17.0* Poltava Rivne Sumy Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

19 Ternopil Kharkiv * Kherson 22.3* 28.8* 37.6* 42.5* 32.0* Khmelnytsky Cherkassy Chernivtsi Chernihiv * 27.3 * Items featuring the highest feeling of insecurity We should note that the list of crimes which are feared most by the population is rather large (Table 6). The greatest fear is caused by such types of criminal acts as fraud (60.1%), robbery or street theft (59.2%), physical abuse (55.6%) and theft (55.5%). It should be noted that the fear of becoming a victim of crime is significant in the society % of respondents are afraid of becoming a victim of any crime at all. Only a fear of a car theft and a theft from the car is significantly lower and not every resident of this country is a motorist after all. Tab. 6. The number of people who are afraid of becoming a victim of different types of criminal acts, (%) Crimes Fear Do not fear Difficult to respond... theft from your home? be cheated by swindlers? become a victim of robbery or theft in the street? theft of your car? any theft from your car? become a victim of rape? become a victim of physical violence by strangers?... become a victim of a verbal abuse in the street or in a public place?... become a victim of any crime in general? Interesting conclusions are offered by the analysis of the fear of becoming a victim of crime among the people of all ages. Despite the fact that regardless of age over 60% of respondents are afraid to become the victim of any crime, we can note some differences between the age groups. For example, among young people the fear of becoming a victim of fraud is much less (9.4%) while 66.7% of respondents among those over 60 are afraid of this type of crime. It should also be noted that persons over 50 years old have a higher level of fear of becoming a victim of robbery or theft in the street. One can also mention that the fear of becoming a victim of specific crimes is still quite high in different types of municipalities. In this regard, the opinion of citizens about how crime has changed in the area of their residence within the past 12 months is of special interest (Fig 2). Based on these studies we can confirm 19 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

20 that the above fear of becoming a victim of crime has been in place for a long time. Thus, more than a half (54.1%) of respondents reported that the crime rate their neighborhood remained unchanged. Another 17.0% indicated an increase in crime rates and only every tenth - a decrease. Fig 2. Residents evaluation of how the crime rates changed in their residence area over the past 12 months (%) 10 Decreased 17 Increased 54,1 Remains unchaged Interestingly, the older are the respondents, the less optimistic they evaluate change in crime situation. So, when only 12.7% of 19 year-olds and below believe that crime rates are increasing, a little more than 18% of the respondents over 40 years old have this belief. No significant differences have been identified in the assessment of the level of crime by the residents of various municipalities. It may be noted that only among the residents of towns every fifth (20.3%) believes that the crime rates have increased. However, the responses to this question show quite significant regional differences (Annex 1). For example 30.0% of the residents of Zaporizhzhya and 27.5% of Odessa oblasts feel that the crime rates are increasing. It is significantly higher than Ukraine s average in most oblasts. However, among the residents of Chernivtsi (16.1%) and Chernihiv (15.4%) oblasts the majority believes that the crime rates are falling. In general, the main trend is that the majority of respondents believe that crime rates have been unchanged for the last year. The survey showed that among the factors that cause fear and anxiety among citizens, the most common and the most visible ones are associated with the situation in the streets - street robbery (49.4%), drunk individuals (49.6%), physical attacks on people, verbal abuse and soliciting (44.8%). People have a little less concern about aggressive youngsters (34.5%) (Fig 3). It should be noted that young people below 19 years old are less concerned about noisy neighbors (16.0%), graffiti and vandalism (17.1%), while these same factors is a cause for concern for a third of senior citizen population. Fig 3. Factors of concern for the citizens (%) 20 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

21 ,4 Street robberies Illegally or dangerously parked vehicles 29,1 Physical attacks on people, verbal abuse, soliciting 44,8 49,6 36,4 Drunk individuals Drug dealers or addicts Graffiti or vandalism 28,2 Aggressive youngsters 34,5 Loud neighbors or groups outside 27 The survey data show that all the factors that concern the citizens are much more prevalent in urban areas (Table7). Drug addiction and drug trafficking are particularly noteworthy. 69.1% of respondents of oblast cities and 41.5% of residents of oblast centers indicated that these factors caused concern. However, this problem concerns not more than 12.9% of residents in towns and 26.1% in villages. Also the fact that robbing people in the street is of much larger concern in the cities is troubling. Tab. 7. Factors of concern for the residents in various types of municipalities (%) Oblast center City in oblast Town Village Total for Ukraine Loud neighbors or groups outside 34,4* 30,7* 22,8 18,9 26,8 Aggressive youngsters 41,7* 40,2* 32,7 24,5 34,4 Graffiti or vandalism 38,7* 33,5* 23,5 17,7 28,0 Drug dealers or addicts 41,5* 69,1* 12,9 26,1 26,0 Drunk individuals 54,5* 53,5* 45,6 42,9 49,2 Physical attacks on people, verbal abuse, soliciting Illegally or dangerously parked vehicles 53,0* 47,8* 41,0 37,8 44,7 39,2* 29,2* 26,1 21,0 28,8 Street robberies 60,5* 52,8* 33,8 39,6 49,3 21 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

22 * Items featuring higher prevalence than the national average The analysis of regional characteristics shows that the residents of Cherkasy Oblast are concerned with virtually every given factor (Table 8). Such factor as aggressive youth is the most troubling for the respondents in Vinnitsa, Odessa and Chernihiv oblasts and least troubling in Ternopil, Transcarpathian, Poltava and Sumy oblasts. Vandalism and graffiti have become a problem for Kyiv, Kirovograd and Kherson oblasts and virtually do not trouble the residents in Ternopil and Sumy oblasts. The problem of drug dealers and addicts is of particular note and causes concern for more than a half of respondents in Donetsk, Kyiv, Luhansk and Cherkasy oblasts. This problem almost does not trouble the residents of Ternopil region. Alcohol abuse is also a significant problem for the majority of regions of Ukraine. Mostly it troubles the residents of Luhansk, Kherson and Cherkasy oblasts (Table 8). Another significant common factor that concerns the residents is the threat of physical attack and rudeness in the street. Mostly it is of great concern for the residents of Mykolaiv and Cherkasy oblasts. Illegally or dangerously parked cars is not the most threatening crime factor for the citizens of Ukraine but it is of great concern to more than 40% of residents in Kyiv and Cherkasy oblasts. Such factor as street robberies is worrisome to over 60% of Kyiv and two thirds of Mykolaiv and Cherkasy oblasts. The prevalence of fears and a wide range of phenomena that concerns the citizens and unchanged crime situation resulted in rather low citizen rating of police performance (Table 9). Thus, only a quarter of the respondents (25.2%) rates police performance as effective. More than a half (51.3%) of respondents points to its ineffectiveness. Local police shows a slightly better score % of the respondents rate it as effective (45.4% - as ineffective). Unfortunately, we can observe that negative ratings prevail in the evaluation of police performance. However, a significant number of respondents (23.5%) found it difficult to evaluate the work of the police. It should be noted that no significant differences were found in the evaluation of police performance depending on the age of the respondents. Thus, almost half of the respondents below 19 years old and older than 60 believe the police is ineffective. There are minor differences in the answers of respondents from different types of municipalities which indicate a trend where the smaller the town is, the more positively it evaluates its police. So, among the residents of oblast centers of Ukraine 23.3% of respondents believe the police is effective. This figure is slightly bigger (28.2%) among village residents. Tab. 8. Factors that worry the residents of different oblasts of Ukraine (%) Region Loud neighbors or groups outside Factors that worry the residents most Aggressive youngsters Vandalism Drug dealers or addicts Drunk individuals Physical attacks, insults Illegally parked vehicle Street robberies Ukraine Crimea * 35.8* 35.5* * Vinnytsya 35.1** 38.4* 29.7* 41.2* 54.3* 49.5* 38.2* 59.8* Volyn 31.5* 35.8* * Dnipropetrovsk ** 36.2* 48.0* 52.0* 25.3* 30.2* 51.3* Donetsk 34.9* 45.2** 31.5* 54.0** 59.9* 50.7* * Zhytomyr * 44.9* * 22 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

23 Transcarpathian Zaporizhzhya * 37.6* 43.3* 55.3* 55.0* 30.6* 50.3* Ivano- Frankivsk 33.5* Kyiv 33.5* 36.0* 46.6** 50.1** 58.7* 57.5* 49.3** 67.3** Kirovograd 29.9* 38.9* 41.9** 46.2* 46.8* 55.1* 34.1* 56.9* Lugansk 30.0* 46.1** ** 60.2** 47.2* * Lviv * 55.4* * Mykolaiv 31.7* 36.6* * 56.8* 69.3** 34.0* 74.0** Odesa 37.2** 48.6** * 33.5* 42.1 Poltava Rivne Sumy Ternopil Kharkiv 31.0* Kherson 31.6* 43.7** 41.9** 41.2* 65.0** 58.0* 37.7* 61.6* Khmelnytsky 27.3* 39.9* * 56.3* 51.9* * Cherkassy 37.9** 47.3** 48.6** 64.9** 62.1** 69.6** 47.8** 74.5** Chernivtsi * * 44.2 Chernihiv 42.7** 47.2** 38.9* 48.7* 60.8* 54.8* * * Items featuring higher prevalence than the national average ** Items featuring higher factor prevalence Tab. 9. Evaluation of police performance by the citizens (%) Effective Not effective Hard to say Ukrainian police in general 25,2 51,3 23,5 Your local police 30,7 45,4 23,9 However, the study found significant regional differences in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the national and local police (Annexes 2.3). Despite the fact that the majority of respondents almost in every region rated the work of the police as ineffective, the residents in Ternopil Oblast have an opposite thought. So, among them 46.6% recognize the national police as effective and 45.2% favor local police. A more 23 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

24 positive assessment of the national police was offered by the residents of Chernihiv Oblast (43.5%), while for local police Chernihiv had 49.9%, Chernivtsi % and Zhytomyr oblast %. Considering the reversed trend, we can state that the lowest rating of effectiveness of the national police was expressed by the residents of Kirovograd (63.9% consider it ineffective) and Lviv oblasts (63.0%).The effectiveness of local police is rated lowest by the residents in Donetsk (53.9%), Kirovograd (66.6%), Luhansk (60.3%) Lviv (50.9%) and Kharkiv (52.3%) oblasts. Conclusions: The level of public fear is moderately high and increases significantly when they leave familiar surroundings (their house, apartment or yard). More than a third (35.5%) of the respondents feels in danger, when leaving their area of residence. These fears are growing with age. Most citizens fear of becoming victims of fraud (60.1%), robbery or theft in the street (59.2%), physical abuse (55.6%) and theft (55.5%). It should be noted that the fear of becoming a victim of crime is significant in the society where 64.6% of respondents are afraid of becoming a victim of any crime at all. However, the fear of becoming a victim of a fraud is much smaller (9.4%) among the youth while among those over 60 this kind of fear is reported by 66.7%. It should also be noted that those who are 50 and older, have a higher level of fear of becoming a victim of theft or robbery in the street. When evaluating the crime rate, more than half of the respondents (54.1%) said that it remained unchanged in their neighborhood. Another 17.0% indicated an increase in crime rates and only one in ten mentioned the decline. However, the responses to this question show quite significant regional differences. In general, the underlying trend is that most the respondents believe that crime rates didn t change for the last year. The survey showed that among the factors that cause fear and anxiety among citizens, the most common and the most visible ones are associated with the situation in the streets - street robbery (49.4%), drunk individuals (49.6%), physical attacks on people, insults and soliciting (44.8%). People have a little less concern about aggressive youngsters (34.5%) (Fig 3). It should be noted that young people below 19 years old are less concerned about noisy neighbors (16.0%), graffiti and vandalism (17.1%), while these same factors is a cause for concern for a third of senior citizen population. The prevalence of fears and a wide range of phenomena that concerns the citizens and unchanged crime situation result in rather low citizen rating of police performance (Table 9). Thus, only a quarter of the respondents (25.2%) rates police performance as effective. More than a half (51.3%) of respondents points to its ineffectiveness. Local police shows a slightly better score % of the respondents rate it as effective (45.4% - as ineffective). Unfortunately, we can observe that negative ratings prevail in the evaluation of police performance. However, a significant number of respondents (23.5%) found it difficult to evaluate the work of the police. 24 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

25 EXPERIENCE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE POLICE Chapter 2 25 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches

26 The number of people who can confidently say that they know their district police officer, local police chief and the location of the police department are traditionally considered one of the major signs of police performance visibility and its degree of interaction with the population. Performance visibility of police officers and their availability are the key factors that determine the willingness of the population to ask police for help, report a crime and after all - the level of credibility of the police in general. According to the results of the survey, more than a half of respondents did not know anything about their district police officer and three-quarters knew nothing about the chief of their local police department (Table 10). A little more than one-fifth of the respondents knew the district police officer by the face and by the name. The Ukrainians are much better aware of the location of the police departments (Table 11). So 48.7% of respondents knew the location of the local police base and 61% - location of the district police department. Tab. 10. How well the people of Ukraine know their district police officer and the chief of police department in their area (%). By the face and by the Only by the face Only by the name Do not know name District inspector 22,6 14,8 4,8 57,8 Chief of district police department 12,2 6,4 5,8 75,7 Tab. 11. How well the people of Ukraine are informed about the location of police in their area (%) Location of sub-district police unit (police station) Location of district police department Know exact location Know approximate location Do not know Hard to say 48,7 20,4 23,0 7,9 61,0 17,1 16,2 5,7 Tab. 12. Number of respondents who do not know anything about police stations in the area of residence (%) DO NOT KNOW Their precinct inspector Chief of district police in their residence area Location of the sub-district police unit, police station ,0 85,7 33,7 24, ,2 77,6 24,3 17, ,7 71,6 20,7 13, ,1 70,4 19,4 12, ,4 72,7 19,0 12,4 60 and above 61,0 80,3 26,0 20,1 Location of the district police department The results show that the age group of 40 to 59 year-olds is the most knowledgeable about the location of the police in their area (Table12). Almost 70% of the young people (16-19) did not know their district police inspector and 85.7% - the chief of district police department. Similar results demonstrate people above 60, where 60.1% do not know their district police inspector and 80.3% - the chief of district police department. Also, these two age groups have the least knowledge of the location of the local police station and district police department compared to the others. Although it should be noted that in general and regardless of age, people know best where the local police station is located and do not know the officers responsible for their district. Unfortunately, it indicates a poor level of preventive work with the population who, of course, must come into contact with the police more often. 26 Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches