What the New Zealand public want and expect from their police in the 21st century

A summary of research conducted in 2006 on behalf of New Zealand Police

March 2007

Introduction

In August 2006, New Zealand Police contracted UMR Research Limited to explore what the New Zealand public want and expect from their police in the 21st century. The research was one of several methods used to access the public's views on policing, as part of a review of the 1958 Police Act.

Scope

The research was designed as an exploratory study to provide a flavour of public feeling about the future of policing. Because of this, it was primarily qualitative research. The value of qualitative research is its ability to identify the range of issues involved, allow an assessment of the intensity with which views and attitudes are held, and give a feeling for language. As such, qualitative research is not intended to be statistically representative of the extent to which views and attitudes are held throughout the wider population. Where possible, however, quantitative elements were incorporated into the overall research.

This report

The research produced a wealth of information on what New Zealanders want and expect of their police. The full research findings, with detailed notes on methodology, runs to 200+ pages. While this fuller document is available on request, it was agreed a more accessible summary report should be developed.

This report thus highlights the key findings of the research. To provide context, additional resources have been attached as appendices. These include survey questionnaires, supplementary data tables, demographic information on the research participants, and copies of the discussion prompts used during focus groups. A description of the wider strategic environment which informed the research has also been included.

Main points

Key findings from the research are grouped by thematic topics. Some of the most significant findings to emerge include:

General perceptions and expectations

Principles of policing

Police functions

Police and the wider policing environment

Police staffing

Community engagement

Police powers

The future of policing


About the research

This section of the report provides a high-level description of the methodology used. Further insights are available in the appendices to this report. Full methodological notes are contained in the 200+ page document of record, which can be requested from the Police Act Review Team (see the contact details set out on the back cover of this document). In broad terms, the research was made up of three main phases.

Phase 1: Initial scoping

First, a search was undertaken of similar overseas studies, recent New Zealand Police strategy documents, socio-economic data and demographic projections. This gave additional direction to the research, highlighting perceptual differences which might be expected across demographic groups, as well as gaps between international and New Zealand research.

To provide further context and direction, some initial quantitative research was conducted in this scoping phase. A survey was undertaken among the general public and included questions on the following areas of policing:

The survey was included as part of UMR’s fortnightly omnibus survey and conducted from 10 to 14 August 2006. The omnibus is a nationally representative telephone survey of people aged 18 years and over. At the ‘95% confidence level’, the sample size (n=750) provides a margin of error for a 50% figure of ± 3.6%.

Phase 2: Exploratory phase

The second phase of the research began with one-on-one interviews of victims (n=10) and offenders (n=10). Interviewees were selected from Auckland, Hawke's Bay and Wellington from a range of ethnic backgrounds and both genders. Victims had been subject to a range of offences, including violent (e.g., assault and kidnapping) and non-violent crimes (e.g., car theft and fraud). All offenders interviewed had served or were serving a custodial sentence and had, by their own admission, committed at least two crimes (ranging from arson, to serious driving offences, to injuring with intent and various illicit drug offences). Victims were primarily recruited with the assistance of Victim Support, while interviews with offenders were facilitated by the Department of Corrections and Prisoners' Aid and Rehabilitation Society.

The intention of the in-depth interviews was to gain an early understanding of perceptions and expectations of Police from those who have most contact with Police. The interviews primarily focused on unprompted recall of Police, and experience on contact with Police - including the degree to which expectations were met, and things Police staff did which were considered important.

The findings from these in-depth interviews were then tested against perceptions of members of the general public (n=16), defined as those who had not had close contact with Police as victims of crime or offenders in the past five years. The views of these general public respondents were explored in two focus groups; one in Auckland, one in Hawke's Bay. Each focus group meeting lasted approximately two hours and involved eight participants.

This exploratory work in Phase 2 identified key drivers of perceptions and expectations of Police, which were subsequently tested across a much wider cross-section of respondents in the main qualitative phase of the research (Phase 3).

Phase 3: Main research phase

The information obtained in Phases 1 and 2 were used to inform Phase 3 of the research, which comprised:


Creativity groups

Creativity groups involve people with tested creative and lateral thinking skills. Unlike focus groups, they are not heavily moderated, with more extensive use of breakout sessions. Creativity groups are especially valuable in providing insight into complex topics, about which people are unlikely to have developed views or any views at all. In this research, creativity groups explored the issues of the principles by which Police should operate, policing powers, and ways the public could provide input into local policing. All four creativity groups were convened in Auckland from 9 to 11 October 2006. Two of the groups involved 18-25 year olds, with the other two groups involving 26-49 year olds.

Focus groups and mini groups

The findings from the creativity groups informed the design of the discussion guide for a subsequent large scale qualitative phase involving 16 focus groups and two mini groups. These groups reflected a set of demographic variables which the international literature had shown were most closely associated with differing expectations of police.

The 16 focus groups were conducted in Auckland, Gisborne, Wellington, Christchurch and Gore between 24 October and 2 November 2006. The two mini groups, held in Auckland, took place between 24 and 26 October. All groups included male and female participants. The respondents were selected to reflect New Zealand’s diverse population as far as possible, with urban, provincial and rural samples chosen to ensure a wide geographic spread of respondents.

The two mini groups (minimum n=4) were conducted among MĀori and Pacific people aged 18-25 years. The mini groups were included in the research to help ensure young MĀori and Pacific people were comfortable voicing their opinions.

The full discussion guide for all groups, along with detailed location and demographic specifications, is provided in the appendices. Briefly, however, each group discussed the following issues:

E-panel

Another component of this third phase of research involved emailing two questions to UMR’s nationally representative group of 116 e-panellists. The questions sought views on hoped for, as well as expected, changes to policing in New Zealand over the next 20 years. The e-panel approach allows more time for considered responses than is possible within a focus group, enabling deep reflection and high quality insights. The e-panel was conducted from 22 to 29 September 2006. Of the 116 e-panellists contacted, 94 provided written responses.

Second omnibus survey

The final component of Phase 3 involved secondary quantitative research using UMR’s omnibus survey. This was conducted between 30 November and 3 December 2006, and sought to provide confirmation of some of the key findings from the preceding qualitative phases. Again, this was a nationally representative telephone survey of people aged 18 years and over. The sample size (n=750) provides a ± 3.6% margin of error for a 50% figure at the ‘95% confidence level’.

Questions included in this second omnibus survey sought to gauge support for the following:

Literature review

To further set the scene for the main phases of the research, this section of the report summarises insights from UMR's review of earlier published studies, as well as demographic projections for New Zealand which may have a bearing on the implications of the research.

The starting point for the literature review was to identify broad changes in social attitudes in western countries since the late 1950s. Such shifts were thought to offer an important context for the review of New Zealand Police's legislation, which seeks to reflect changes to communities and policing practices since the present Police Act was passed in 1958.

Overseas literature

A key theme to emerge from the relevant literature was a long-term trend of declining trust in people and in institutions generally. For example, data showed 56% of the United Kingdom population in 1959 said most people could be trusted, a figure which declined to 43% in 1981 and to 37% by 1997 (Worcester 2005). In the United States, a study of long-term polling trends showed the percentage of adults who always or mostly trusted the Government declined steadily from 1964 to 1996 (Sherman 2002). Similarly, Ingelhardt (1997) has shown declining respect for authority in 17 countries surveyed in 1981 and 1990.

A trend was also detected over the past 50 years toward greater egalitarianism in expectations of government institutions, and a matching desire for increased accountability. The emergence of consumer rights organisations, oversight bodies for public agencies and ombudsmen-type roles is seen to reflect the need to address issues of trust and confidence in government institutions.

The literature review also canvassed recent research into aspects of policing from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa and the United States. This analysis provided some important insights into factors which influence expectations and satisfaction with police. A United Kingdom study (Page 2006) identified the accessibility of public services and the responsiveness of public sector agencies as the two aspects of service that are in most need of improvement. The study found that in the public service, trust was synonymous with confidence and satisfaction with services, and was based on the outcome of the service and how it is delivered. Trust can also affect levels of use and engagement with services. Some people avoid contact with services they do not trust unless it is absolutely essential.

A Canadian study (Erin Research Inc. 2003) identified three critical factors which contribute to public trust in government – service quality, perceptions that government services are of benefit, and perceptions that government services meet one’s needs. The underlying drivers of satisfaction with service were timeliness (responsiveness), staff knowledge and competence, staff courtesy/'going the extra mile', fairness and an outcome that met needs.

Public perceptions are influenced by whether they consider police actions to be reasonable. Studies have pointed to the fact citizens' opinions about the legitimacy of police authority vary widely from one situation to the next, meaning police legitimacy must be earned/renewed on a case-by-case basis (e.g., Reiss and Roth 1993). This situational dimension of public perceptions of police is reinforced in several studies. For example, United States researchers found those who contacted police to report a crime or suspicious circumstance were significantly less satisfied with police than respondents who reported a traffic accident or who otherwise received police assistance (Brown and Benedict 2002). There is also evidence to suggest negative service experiences with police can have a magnifying effect in people's minds. A recent review of studies conducted in England and Wales, the United States and Russia concluded that not only can police get little credit for delivering professional services, bad experiences can have a 4-14 times greater impact, deeply affecting individuals' views of both police performance and legitimacy (Skogan 2006).

Researchers have also theorised that, because most policing work occurs out of public view, some negative perceptions can arise because of an assumed lack of police action. A South African study by Pelser, Schnetler and Louw (2002) provides some support for this hypothesis, showing that 87% of people who had reported a crime to Police expected to be contacted by a detective afterwards, though only half (49%) said this had happened.

The literature review also found younger people to be significantly less satisfied with police than their older counterparts. Home Office research suggests expectations and perceptions of police not only differs by age, but also by socio-economic background and ethnicity. According to Bradley (1996), 25-45 year old adults in lower socio-economic positions tend to perceive police as treating their communities with indifference and prejudice. In contrast, mid-life adults from higher socio-economic backgrounds tend to support policing initiatives, and generally trust and respect police. Bradley (1996) reports that ethnic minorities across all age groups generally have negative perceptions of police organisations, with particular concerns about targeting, stereotyping and lack of cultural awareness.

The overseas literature also highlights the extent to which a gap exists between prioritisation decisions made by policing agencies and public expectations. A United States study by Beck, Boni and Packer (1999) asked respondents to rank policing functions by the level of priority they thought police attributed to them versus their own rankings. Disconnects were identified with the relative rankings of several functions. For instance, respondents perceived police to rank traffic enforcement as their third highest priority, when their own preference was for it to be the lowest-equal priority.

New Zealand demographics and related studies

As new policing legislation will need to anticipate future changes to New Zealand’s demographic profile, the literature review also provided high-level consideration of the country’s demography. The international literature identified policing expectations tend to be dependent on age, ethnicity and socio-economic background. Therefore, the principal focus of the analysis was on areas of New Zealand where significant demographic changes could be expected.

Overall, a somewhat ambiguous picture emerges from the projected demographic changes in New Zealand. On the one hand, a marked ageing of the population as the 'baby boomer' generation progressively retires may provide a positive influence on expectations of Police, if international experiences hold true and these older people have generally supportive views of police. On the other hand, New Zealand's future population profile may impact negatively on expectations of Police, if overseas studies are borne out and poorer perceptions of police are expressed by growing numbers of ethnic minorities and young people.

In the future New Zealand will see a dramatic change in the proportion of its MĀori, Pacific and Asian populations. Greater Auckland will experience this change more than any other part of the country, with cities like Manukau and Auckland City (the current home of large numbers of ethnic minorities) undergoing the most dramatic shift in population profile. In 20 years time, Auckland's population will approach 2 million, accounting for 67% of New Zealand’s population growth over that period (Statistics New Zealand 2005). Four of the country’s largest cities will be located in greater Auckland, and this growth, together with the increased ethnic diversity of the city and ageing population, is likely to place significant pressures on community services and physical infrastructure.

Other notable aspects of the future population profile are the relative youthfulness of MĀori and Pacific cohorts, and the fact these groups are proportionately over-represented among those on low incomes and amongst offenders. Further, under 18 year olds account for more than 20% of all recorded crime (New Zealand Police 2006). Figure 1 shows how some of these projected demographic changes might play out.


Figure 1: Projected age distribution of New Zealand by ethnicity, 2021



Source: Adapted from Statistics New Zealand (2005)

Implications

The literature review suggests New Zealand’s projected demographic changes carry major implications for future policing. These issues will be more pronounced in the greater Auckland region, where the dissonance between the older and younger populations’ expectations of police is likely to be greater. As those challenges are approached, Police faces a critical triangulation; society’s values and expectations of Police will be shaped and influenced by direct/indirect experiences of the conduct and practices of police, and indeed the wider justice system, but they will also be shaped and influenced by images of Police presented in the media (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The critical triangulation affecting perceptions and expectations of Police

Source: Adapted from Schmidt, Seydegart and Spears (2003)

In summary, the literature review indicates expectations and perceived performance determine levels of public trust and confidence in Police. Trust and confidence in turn seem to be driven by perceptions of effectiveness, professionalism, fairness, reasonableness, respectfulness and cultural sensitivity. Lower levels of trust and confidence are evident among young people, ethnic minorities, disaffected communities and people in lower socio-economic positions. Across the board, there seems to be fairly low knowledge of Police activities, with a need for more communication initiatives to address perceived gaps between public expectations and reality. Figure 3 expresses these key findings in diagrammatic form.

Figure 3: Overview of key findings from the literature review

Key findings

Phase 2 and 3: Research findings by theme

Perceptions

Current perceptions of Police were elicited in the creativity and focus groups using a variety of techniques. For example, in the focus groups, respondents were asked individually to recall anything they had seen, read or heard about New Zealand Police in recent months. They were also asked to rate how good a job they felt Police were doing on a 0-100 scale, where 0 meant “very poor” and 100 meant “very good”. After each individual had written down their rating, they were asked to explain their reasons. Discussion was also facilitated on topics such as trust in Police and Police integrity.

Victims and offenders’ perceptions of Police were explored through in-depth interviews. Although victims and offenders’ experiences are largely dealt with in the next section of the report, the factors influencing their perceptions are included here.

Key findings

Expectations

Public expectations regarding contact with Police were covered in the two exploratory focus groups held in Auckland and Hawke's Bay. The focus groups were held after the bulk of the in-depth interviews with victims and offenders had taken place. This was done to enable an exploration of any differences which might emerge between the expectations of those who had had close contact with Police and those who had not. In the end, expectations of Police held by victims, offenders and the general public appeared very similar (although the actual experiences of offenders were different from the other groups in a number of respects).

Key findings







Figure 4: Expectations of Police held by victims, offenders and the general public

Principles

Four creativity groups explored the type of principles which underpin policing. Participants were sent a copy of Issues Paper 1: Principles (Police Act Review Team 2006) a week prior to the groups, and were asked to highlight five areas they felt should guide New Zealand policing over the next 20 years. Some participants highlighted more than five areas.

Across all respondents, the following principles received the strongest support: impartiality; respect for human rights; efficiency and effectiveness; to have the respect of the public; using minimal force in the first instance; openness; accountability; and a clear understanding of Police's role.

Key findings

Functions

Views on what functions Police should carry out were explored in both the creativity groups and the main series of focus groups. In the creativity groups, functions were derived by participants in the groups without any prompting. In the focus groups, respondents were provided with a prompted list of functions which they rated for their importance (see the appendices for copies of the prompts used). If focus group participants thought a particular function was not appropriate for Police, they could choose not to provide a rating.

Additionally, two quantitative modules were run in UMR’s omnibus surveys in August and November-December 2006. Responses provided measures of the general public’s views on Police functions.

Key findings

Police and the wider policing environment

The topic of who is perceived as better placed to carry out some of the wide array of policing functions was asked in the two exploratory focus groups and the main qualitative phase. Discussions focused on support for, or opposition to, those other than New Zealand Police carrying out activities broadly connected with policing. This was supplemented by some quantitative measures derived from the two omnibus surveys.

Key findings

Figure 5: Public support for an ability to recover costs for 'over and above' policing

Staffing

Respondents were provided with a prompt sheet in both exploratory focus groups and the main research phase of focus and mini groups. This briefly described United Kingdom and Canadian use of police employees with limited powers and training tailored to specific functions. The prompt (see appendices) also briefly described the views of critics, some of whom claim such staff represent 'policing on the cheap'; that it could confuse the public; and controversy had arisen when uniformed people who were not police had been used to guard crimes scenes. Respondents were then asked whether they supported or opposed Police having more staffing options than currently exists. In addition, a question on staffing options was included in the November-December omnibus survey.

Key findings

Figure 6: Public support for limited-powers police in New Zealand

Community engagement

The issue of Police's engagement with the community was explored in both the exploratory qualitative research and in the main qualitative phase. In addition, the November-December omnibus survey carried some questions on how Police might better work with communities.

Only four respondents in the two exploratory focus groups held in Auckland and Hawke's Bay had actively served on community-type organisations. Their participation had revolved around involvement for the sake of their children, typically serving on a school board or sports team committee, or was driven by a personal conviction or special interest. While those people had a positive experience, and felt they had been in a position to influence outcomes, most respondents said either they did not have enough time, or did not have much to contribute. Some were sceptical about the effectiveness of local committees’ ability to influence wider community outcomes.

Key findings

Powers

Police powers and the role of constable were two topics discussed exclusively in the creativity groups held in Auckland. Due to time constraints, discussions on Police powers were only held with the two 26-49 year-old groups, and the role of constable with one of the 18-25 year-old groups and one of the 26-49 year-old groups. Both topics were introduced using the mind-map technique which involved participants working in sub-groups of three, and collectively answering questions/tasks to build a picture of the concept under discussion. The sub-groups then reported back to the group as a whole for wider discussion.

Key findings

The future of policing

The future of policing in New Zealand was explored primarily in the creativity groups. Participants were invited to bring an object symbolising how they thought New Zealand Police would be in 20 years time. Explanations offered for choosing objects were particularly revealing about current perceptions of Police, challenges Police face and how those challenges may be overcome.

UMR’s e-panel was also used to explore public hopes and expectations for policing over the next 20 years.

Key findings

Conclusion

The research conducted in 2006 sought to explore what New Zealanders want and expect from their police in the 21st century. It is a snapshot in time of public views on policing from people across the country and from many different walks of life. It offers valuable insights into perceptions and expectations of New Zealand Police.

This report summarises the broad elements of the research and its key findings. As noted earlier, a comprehensive document of record is also available. However, this report - which includes high-level descriptions of the methodology used, lessons drawn from the literature review, and background data - is designed to be as self-contained as possible.

Looking forward

The insights drawn from this research have a number of potential applications.

Most immediately, this research will help inform the preparation of a public discussion document, Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century, to be released in mid 2007. The discussion document will outline the government's proposals for new policing legislation, and will form the basis for the next phase of consultation on the Police Act Review. Submissions on the discussion document will be called for over a two month period, with opportunities for direct feedback at a number of consultation forums held around New Zealand. Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century will provide another chance for New Zealanders to have a say on the future legislative arrangements for policing.


References

Beck, K., Boni, N., and Packer, J. (1999). “The use of public attitude surveys: what can they tell police managers?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol 22(2): 191-213.

Bradley, R. (1996). Public expectations and perceptions of policing. Home Office Police Research Series. London: Home Office.

Brown, B., and Benedict, R. (2002). “Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol 25: 543-580.

Erin Research Inc. (2003). Citizens First 3. Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Inglehart, R.I. (1997). “Post materialist Values and the Erosion of Institutional Authority,” in J. S. Nye et al. (eds.), Why People Don’t Trust Government, pp 217-236. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

New Zealand Police (2006). New Zealand Crime Statistics 2005. Wellington: Office of the Police Commissioner. [Available online at http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/2005/calendar/stats-national-20051231.pdf]

Page, B. (2006). Issues to consider: Social, demographic and organisational trends. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute.

Pelser, E., Schnetler, J. and Louw, A. (2002). Not Everybody’s Business: Community Policing in the SAPS’ Priority Areas. ISS Monograph Series No. 71. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies.

Police Act Review Team (2006). Issues Paper 1: Principles. Wellington: New Zealand Police.

Reisig, M.D., and Parks, R.B. (2002). Satisfaction with police – what matters? Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Reiss, A. J., and Roth, J. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Schmidt, F., Seydegart, K., and Spears, G. (2003). Citizens First. Ottawa: Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Sherman, L. W. (2002). "Trust and confidence in criminal justice", National Institute of Justice Journal, vol 248: 23-31.

Skogan, W. G. (2006). "Asymmetry in the Impact of Encounters with Police", Policy and Society, vol 16(2): 99-126.

Statistics New Zealand (2005). Subnational population projections 2001 (base) – 2026: Update. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

Worcester, R. (2005). What happened to trust?, Presentation to plenary session on trust at 50th IPRA World Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 27 June. [Available online at: http://www.ipra.org/istanbul/IPRA%2050th%20What%20Happened%20to%20Trust%20(final).ppt]

Appendices

Wider context for the research

To help focus the research, UMR was provided with background material and briefings by the team co-ordinating the Police Act Review. UMR was advised of issues that could feature in a new Act, and other topics the government has signalled are out of scope for review (e.g., Police will continue to be a national, centrally funded organisation, rather than moving to a system where there are provincial police forces paid for by regional and/or local government).

When conducting the research, UMR also took into account the wider environment in which the Police Act Review is taking place. (Full details are available online at: http://www.policeact.govt.nz)

For example, private security firms have emerged as significant players in New Zealand's law and order landscape in recent decades. It is estimated the private security sector makes up 46% of the domestic law enforcement market; larger than New Zealand Police, which comprises some 40% of the market. This, together with increasing use of volunteer security personnel, raises fundamental questions about the kinds of functions the public support 'private security and policing' covering. It also begs the question whether the public/private distinction in relation to governance needs re-thinking, and how best to develop and support policies to reflect the modern reality of public/private policing networks.

The types of offences police can be called to respond to has also grown during the past 50 years. While there is clarity over the role police exercise with respect to serious crimes (e.g., violence, robbery and sexual offences), the role is somewhat blurred in other areas where different agencies may be active (e.g., fraud, animal cruelty, immigration and gaming offences). Knowing this, another important dimension of the research was to identify public support for non-Police agencies to take primary/sole/increased responsibility for policing certain offences, in situations where it is less clear that Police should take the lead, or indeed have any enforcement role at all.

These sorts of issues were debated at a day-long symposium held in Wellington in late 2006, which discussed the evolution of New Zealand's safety and security environment. Details about the symposium, including a record of its proceedings, are available online at: http://www.policeact.govt.nz/securing-the-future.html

Further key issues required exploration in the research. These included the level of understanding and support for principles of policing to feature in a new Act, and whether the lack of clarity around the role and function of Police needed to be clarified in legislation. In terms of governance, other issues included the extent to which Police's role could be integrated within a wider sector approach to policing, and whether support exists for greater community-driven input into policing policies. UMR was invited to keep these and other issues in mind when approaching the literature review and the subsequent phases of the research.

1. Phase 1: Initial scoping


1.1 August 2006 omnibus survey question guide
PF1 Which ONE is closest to your view? [READ LIST]
(a) Police resources should be focused only on preventing and solving crime OR

(b) Police resources should be spread widely to include activities like public relations, education, safety, as well as preventing and solving crime

[DO NOT READ] Unsure


PF2 Do you think more use should be made of private security firms instead of the New Zealand Police to undertake public safety or crime prevention? [DO NOT READ]

PF3 On a 0-10 scale, where 0 means "strongly oppose" and 10 means "strongly support", how much would you support or oppose organisations other than the New Zealand Police carrying out the following functions [RANDOMIZE]

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT ASKS 'WHAT TYPE OF ORGANISATION'?, YOU CAN REPLY 'ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS PRIVATE SECURITY FIRMS, PRIVATE INVESTIGATION AGENCIES AND LOCAL COUNCILS']

-1- Investigating car thefts

-2- Enforcing road safety

-3- Enforcing liquor offences

-4- Enforcing trespass orders

-5- Investigating financial fraud e.g. insurance investigations, Internet scams

-6- Investigating property damage

-7- Investigating street vandalism e.g. graffiti, littering

-8- Investigating burglary


1.2 Sample frame for omnibus survey


2. Phase 2: Exploratory phase


2.1 Exploratory focus and mini group discussion guide


Standard introduction and warm up


General topic introduction


• Individually write down organisations that you have trust in to do their job with integrity. Think of any organisations you want. [Discuss reasons for choice in each case, explore difference in perception between trust and confidence].


• Let’s take 5 of the organisations you have identified and for each give them a rating on a scale of 0-100 where 0 means “trust to do their job with integrity, but frequently disappointed” and 100 means “highest trust to do their job with integrity almost all the time”. [Include Police even if not mentioned. Explore reasons for different ratings and discuss, probe Police].


• OK I want you now to jot down anything that comes to mind that you have seen, heard or read about the New Zealand Police in say that last year or so. Write a few things down [Capture list on whiteboard, discuss views on what has been recalled.] Has what you have recalled influenced your view about the police at all? If so, how? [Discuss].


Integrity, Trust and Confidence


• Do you think your perception of the integrity of the NZP has changed at all in the past few years? If so, how? What has brought about those changes? [If reputation has fallen, explore how to address that issue].


• From what you’ve said, to what extent would you say there is a connection between how much trust and confidence you have in the Police and your perception of their integrity? Do the two go hand-in-hand or are there differences?


• Write down what you think are the critical values for the Police to have for you to have confidence in them. [Elicit answers and then ask] If the Police showed those values would you say they would display high integrity? If not, why not?


Police Performance and Expectations on Contact with Police


• What are your general impressions of police performance with respect to the way they deal with victims of crime? Can you rate their performance on a 0-10 scale where 0 means very poor and 10 means very good. What are your reasons for your ratings? If you were a victim of a crime, what would be the most important things for the Police to do? If it’s easier, jot your thoughts down.


• What are your general impressions of Police performance with respect to the way they deal with alleged offenders? Can you rate their performance on a 0-10 scale where 0 means very poor and 10 means very good. What are your reasons for your ratings? If you were being investigated by the Police in relation to a crime which you may or may not have committed, what would be the most important things for the Police to do? If it’s easier, jot your thoughts down.


Police activities


• What sorts of things do the Police typically do? Let’s make a list on the whiteboard. Do you think they should be doing all these things? Could others do some of these jobs? How happy would you be if others did some of these jobs? Would you get better policing elsewhere if others did do some of these jobs? Why? Why not?


• Distribute prompt list [Prompt 1] – This is a list of a number of activities that could be carried out by the Police or others, such as private security firms or local councils or specialist private investigators. On a 0-10, where 0 means “strongly oppose” and 10 means “strongly support”, how much would you support or oppose someone other than New Zealand Police carrying out the following functions. [Discuss reasons for ratings]



Police staffing options


• Distribute prompt [Prompt 2]. Please read this piece of paper and when you have read it please answer the question below by ticking the appropriate response. [Elicit reasons for support/opposition] OK, what sort of checks and balances would you like to see in place? What, if any powers, should such staff have? How much training should they have? Should they be readily identifiable and distinguishable from police officers? How helpful would that be/not be?


• [As a group on whiteboard] Write down what you think are the best arguments in favour of using people other than sworn Police officers for policing duties. And the arguments against? Which are the strongest arguments and why?


Community engagement


• Has anybody here been on the local school board, PPTA, local community board or something like that? What made you join? How did you find it? Did you feel you had some influence?


• How do you think would be the best way for you to have your say in local policing.


• How genuinely interested would you personally be in having a say on local policing in your community by attending meetings on a regular basis to discuss issues?


Future Issues (if time allows)


• Finally, looking to the future, what do you see as the major things that are going to influence the way policing is done in future. Jot a few things down and let’s discuss. [Explore each and reasons]


Wrap Up


• Well, we’re just finishing up now. The research we’re doing will provide an input to decisions that will be made about a New Police Act. Is there anything else anyone would like to say that might be helpful in that regard? Anything you wanted to say tonight, but didn’t get round to saying?


Prompt 1


On a 0-10 scale, where 0 means “strongly oppose” and 10 means “strongly support”, how much would you support or oppose someone other than the New Zealand Police carrying out the following functions. Tick the 2 you are most supportive of having someone other than the police doing:


Activity

Rating 0-10

Tick top 2

Investigating car thefts



Enforcing road safety



Monitoring liquor offences



Serving trespass orders



Investigating financial fraud e.g. insurance investigations, Internet scams



Investigating property damage



Investigating street vandalism e.g. graffiti, littering



Investigating burglary



Providing crime prevention advice



Walking the beat



Prompt 2

Apart from using private organisations to assist with policing, some countries use a mix of policing staff from those who are fully trained and have full powers of arrest and investigation to those with more limited powers and training.


For example, in the United Kingdom, Police Community Support Officers are trained, civilian staff who wear a uniform and provide a visible presence on the streets. They have limited powers, such as, they can detain someone for 30 minutes until a police officer arrives, they can issue minor infringement notices and can enter property to protect people or property at risk.


Another option is to use uniformed staff as only the “eyes and ears” of the Police, but they are not given any powers of arrest, detention or investigation.


However, some people have been concerned that this is policing on the cheap. They have said that the public could be confused as they might expect community support officers to have the full powers and training of a police officer. And in New Zealand, there has been some controversy over the use of uniformed people to guard crime scenes who are not full police officers.


Would you support Police having more staffing options available than currently exists?


Don’t Know



2.2 Depth interview guide – Victims


1. Jot down anything that comes to mind that you have seen, heard or read about New Zealand Police in say the last year or so. Has what you recalled influenced your view of the New Zealand Police at all? In what ways?


2. We understand you have been the victim of a crime and as a result have dealt with the Police? Was this the first time you had dealt with the Police as a result of experiencing a crime? [If not, determine other occasions and explore general nature of what happened]


3. What sort of crime did you experience? [Listen and note what is said, be alert to positive/negative points that emerge.]


4. How did you feel about the way the Police acted on this occasion? [Explore positive/negative feelings.]


5. Thinking back on what happened, when you contacted the Police, what was important that they did? [probe if not mentioned speed of response, type of response, ongoing contact] In what ways were your expectations met/unmet? Did anything unexpected happen?


6. What was important to you about who from the Police responded? [e.g. someone in uniform, whoever was closest, someone that could provide a specific function such as fingerprinting] Would it have made any difference to you if the person you dealt with was an agent of the Police, but not a sworn officer? What difference would it have made?


7. Thinking about your experience now, if you needed to call the Police again, what would be the most important things for the Police to do? [Also prompt on - take a written statement? Take a note of what happened? Provide an electronic option of reporting?]


8. Do you think justice was done in the end? If so why and who do you mainly hold responsible for justice being done? If not, why not and who do you mainly hold to account for justice not being done?


9. At the beginning, you recalled things about the Police you had seen or heard over the past 12 months. Would you say these have been more or less influential in shaping your views about the police than the actual experience you had with the Police? In what ways is one more important than the other in shaping your opinions of the Police?


10. Do you think the integrity of the NZP has changed at all in the past few years? If so, how? What has brought about those changes? [If reputation has fallen, explore how to address that issue].


11. Finally, looking to the future, which one is closest to your view:


A. Police resources should be focused only on preventing and solving crime, OR

B. Police resources should be spread widely to include activities like public relations, education, safety, as well as preventing and solving crime


What are your reasons for your choice?



2.3 Depth interview guide – Offenders


1. Tell me what comes to mind that you have seen, heard or read about New Zealand Police in say the last year or so. Has what you recalled influenced your view of the Police at all?


What has influenced how you feel about New Zealand Police? [Prompt: TV, radio, newspaper, friends, experience etc.] Are there particular stories that you have seen or heard? Can you tell me about those?


2. We understand that you have been convicted of a crime. Was this the first time you had dealings with the Police as a result of a crime? (If not determine other occasions/crimes and explore general nature of what happened)


3. What crime did you commit most recently? that came to the attention of Police?


4. Thinking back on your contact with the Police what experiences were really important to you? (e.g. informed friends/relatives, were fair and just/unfair/unjust, use of coercive force/powers, behaved with integrity, culturally sensitive) Prompt for positive and negative experiences.


5. Talk me through the contact you had with the Police. What were your main concerns/fears/thoughts? What things went well? What did you like? What things didn’t go well? What didn’t you like? What things would have made the contact better for you? What should have been done the same/differently?


6. Thinking about how the Police interacted with you, would you say they acted as you expected? If not, why not? Please explain what you expected and how it differed from what happened. Did they do anything that you didn't expect? What did they do? Did they act appropriately then? Be realistic bearing in mind they were investigating a crime for which you were convicted.


7. If the Police were investigating/arresting you again in relation to a crime (or a crime you were suspected of committing or one that they might have been a witness to), what would be the most important things for Police to do? Or - how would you expect them to behave/act?

3. Phase 3: Main research phase


3.1 November-December 2006 omnibus survey question guide


POL1 On a 0-10 scale where 0 means "a very low priority" and 10 means "a very high priority", how much of a priority should Police place on the following activities? [RANDOMIZE]

-1- Patrol of public places

-2- Investigating serious offences

-3- Ensuring road safety

-4- Tackling anti-social behaviour, such as drunkenness and graffiti

POL2 Do you support or oppose police being able to charge event organisers to recover costs for policing at large events, such as rock concerts? [DO NOT READ]

POL3 In some countries, to allow regular police to focus more on serious crime, other police staff with limited powers and less training patrol the streets and deal with minor crime. Would you support or oppose this happening in New Zealand? [DO NOT READ]

POL4 At the moment police report back to communities about their activities by presenting crime and safety results to local councils. In what other ways would you like to see police sharing information with communities? [PRE-CODES: DO NOT READ]

POL5 On a 0-10 scale where 0 means "not at all important" and 10 means "very important", in your view how important is it that there are some police officers who can speak a language other than English? [DO NOT READ]

POL6 How do you think police could improve their road safety role? [PRE-CODES: DO NOT READ]


POL7 There are several possible ways of reporting a non-urgent offence to Police. On a 1-5 scale where 1 means "a very weak preference" and 5 means "a very strong preference", how would you rate your preference for the following ways of reporting a non-urgent offence to the Police: [RANDOMIZE]

-1- Visiting a Police station
-2- E-mailing
-3- Texting-in
-4- Telephoning a Police station

POL7A Are there any other possible ways of reporting a non-urgent offence to the Police? [DO NOT READ]



IF POL7A = 'Yes', ASK POL7AI

POL7AI What other possible ways are there? [PROBE]

3.2 Sample frame for omnibus survey




3.3 Creativity group discussion guide

Introduction, confidentiality etc.

  1. PRINCIPLES

Issues Paper 1

- Discuss in their own groups the areas they have highlighted from their own reading of the Issues Paper, then as a group develop their own list of principles for the Police

- Maximum of 5 principles

- Why are these particular principles important?

- Identify examples of Police acting on these principles? Also where they have not.


Round up with group discussion of the sets of principles developed.

Would they support having a set of guiding principles as part of the new Police Act? Why, why not?

What would having the principles as part of legislation mean to New Zealanders?

  1. FUTURE OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE

As a group talk about the object they have brought along (Something that represents how you think the New Zealand Police will be in 20 years time.)


Develop a Story Board


Header cards (We will have these as initial starting points for the story board)

1. WHAT New Zealand Police should be like?

2. HOW should it be delivered?


- Write down on the cards how New Zealand Police should be in the next 20 years? All the characteristics, activities, etc and then how it should be delivered / working etc

- Sort the cards into groups that seem to fit together

- Put together on the boards

- Show any linkages etc


Round up with group discussion on the different storyboards on future of New Zealand Police

3a CORE POLICING FUNCTIONS

Develop all options etc. using the lotus blossom template


On this template we will get the groups to agree on their five core functions. The groups will then be asked to explore these core functions in terms of:

- How can they be provided?

- Who will be providing these core functions? What could be done by others?

- Style of policing

- Identify networks that Police work in

3b OFFICE OF CONSTABLE


Mind Map

Round up with group discussion on the group’s decision on what the core policing functions are? What are their reasons for these functions being core?


(There will hopefully be a naturally flow from the core functions to the office of constable Mind Map)


Then proceed onto the mind maps of the office of constable.


The groups will then present their mind maps and then we will introduce the images of the two uniforms and explore perceptions of image and brand of the police and how these may be affected by the style of uniform.

4 COERCIVE OPTIONS


Mind Map


3.4 Locations and specifications of Phase 3 focus and mini groups


Locations and Specifications

AUCKLAND

Focus groups:

  • mixed ethnicity, 26-49 years, 4 with dependent children, 4 without dependent children

  • new migrants (migrated to New Zealand within the past 3 years), mixed age

  • mixed ethnicity , 18-25 years

  • mixed ethnicity, 50 years plus

Mini-groups:

  • MĀori, 18-25 years

  • Pacific people, 18-25 years

WELLINGTON

Focus groups:

  • mixed ethnicity, 18-25 years

  • mixed ethnicity, 26-49 years, 4 with dependent children, 4 without dependent children

  • mixed ethnicity, 50 years plus

CHRISTCHURCH AND RURAL/PROVINCIAL ENVIRONS

Focus groups:

  • 18-25 years, including 2 Asian

  • 26-49 years, including 2 Asian

  • rural mixed ethnicity, 50 years plus

GISBORNE

Focus groups:

  • rural-provincial, mixed ethnicity including minimum 4 MĀori, 18-25 years

  • rural-provincial, mixed ethnicity including minimum 4 MĀori, 26-49 years

  • rural-provincial, including minimum 4 MĀori 50 years plus

GORE

Focus groups:

  • mixed ethnicity, 18-25 years

  • mixed ethnicity, 26-49 years, 4 with dependent children, 4 without dependent children

  • mixed ethnicity, 50 years plus


3.5 Focus group discussion guide


Standard introduction and warm up


General perceptions


• Individually, I want you to rate your view of the Police. So, using a scale of 0-100 where 0 means “the Police do a very poor job” and 100 means “the Police do an excellent job” can you rate how good or bad a job you think the Police do? [Discuss reasons for choice in each case].


Police activities


• What sorts of things do the Police typically do? Let’s make a list on the whiteboard. Do you think they should be doing all these things? Why? Why not? Could others do some of these jobs? Who?


How happy would you be if others did some of these jobs? Would you get better policing elsewhere if others did do some of these jobs? Why? Why not?


What are some of the positives about partnerships with the private sector?


What are some of the difficulties/concerns about partnerships with the private sector?


• Distribute prompt list [Prompt 1] – This is a list of a number of activities that could be carried out by the Police or others, such as private security firms or local councils or specialist private investigators. On a 0-10, where 0 means “strongly oppose” and 10 means “strongly support”, how much would you support or oppose someone other than the New Zealand Police carrying out the following functions. [Discuss reasons for ratings]


• Distribute prompt list [Prompt 2] – This is a list that others have identified as core functions of the Police. Have a look at that for a minute or two. Are there any you disagree with? Why? Is there anything missing? Which of the three categories would you rank each within? [Discuss category rankings].


Policing Principles


• Distribute prompt list [Prompt 3]. Here’s a list of principles that others have identified as key principles that the Police should abide by. Again have a look through them. Tick any you think you agree with and put a cross next to any you disagree with. If you think anything needs adding write that down too. OK – did anyone have any crosses? [Discuss reasons] What about adding to the list – did anyone have anything down for that? [Discuss]


Police staffing options


• Distribute prompt [Prompt 4]. Please read this piece of paper; when you've done so answer the question below by ticking the appropriate response. [Elicit reasons for support/opposition] OK, even if you don't support the Police having more staffing options, if steps down this path were eventually taken, what, if any powers, should such staff have? How much training should they have? Should they be readily identifiable and distinguishable from Police officers? How helpful would that be/not be?

• [As a group on whiteboard] Write down what you think are the best arguments in favour of using people other than fully-sworn Officers for policing duties. And the arguments against? Which are the strongest arguments and why?

• Technology can provide electronic opportunities to improve the way in which the public and the Police interact. For instance, people could provide information to Police over the Internet or report incidents or crimes that do not need immediate Police responses, such as property damage or thefts from vehicles. Or Police could keep the public informed about the progress of an investigation into a burglary of their home. What do you think of that? What might the advantages be? What might be some drawbacks? Should it be used?


Would you personally use electronic reporting, if it was available? Which crimes would you expect to be able to report to the Police electronically, if this ability were available?


Community engagement


• Do you think the community should have more of a say in how local policing is done? If so, what do you think would be the best way for people to make their views known?

• How genuinely interested would you personally be in having a say on policing in your local community - say, by attending meetings on a regular basis to discuss issues?


• How comfortable would you feel if you heard that others were part of some sort of reference group or citizens panel, which were feeding community views on policing back to local Police?


• Is it mainly about more connections with local communities, or is it about better-quality connections?


[Explore ways that communities could be more involved in policing at a local level (e.g., Neighbourhood Support, community patrols). See if the question of powers/protections for volunteer "eyes and ears" roles comes up. Perhaps give a prompt in this direction.]


General Perceptions 2

• OK I’d like you to rate the Police again on the same 0-1-00 scale you used at the beginning where 0 means “the Police do a very poor job” and 100 means “the Police do an excellent job” can you rate how good or bad a job you think the Police do? [Discuss reasons for and changes/stay the same to ratings].

Wrap Up


• Well, we’re just finishing up now. The research we’re doing will provide an input to decisions that will be made about a New Police Act. Is there anything else anyone would like to say that might be helpful in that regard? Anything you wanted to say tonight, but didn’t get round to saying?


Prompt 1


On a 0-10 scale, where 0 means “strongly oppose” and 10 means “strongly support”, how much would you support or oppose someone other than the New Zealand Police carrying out the following functions. Tick the 2 you are most supportive of having someone other than the police doing:


Activity

Rating 0-10

Tick top 2

Investigating car thefts



Road safety work (e.g. drink drive testing)



Monitoring liquor offences



Serving trespass orders



Investigating financial crimes (e.g. fraud, insurance scams)



Investigating property damage



Investigating street vandalism (e.g. graffiti)



Investigating burglary



Providing crime prevention advice



Walking the beat




Prompt 2


The functions listed below are ones some people consider to be important Police functions. Please indicate for each of the following functions the level of priority you think it should have by ticking in one of the columns.


Function

Most important

Pretty important

Least important

Helping manage civil emergencies




Contributing to road safety




Enforcing the law




Delivering public safety education




Maintaining order ('keeping the peace')




Policing overseas to prevent trans-national crime (eg drug smuggling)




Preventing crime




Providing a visible patrolling presence in communities




Solving crime




Contributing to overseas crises ('peacekeeping')




Prompt 3

Here’s a list of principles some people think Police should follow. If you agree with a principle applying to Police, place a tick beside it; if you disagree, place a cross beside it.

If there are any other principles you think should be added to the list, then add them to the list.

Principle

√ or X

Be open and transparent


Be efficient and effective


Apply the law impartially ('without fear or favour, malice or ill-will')


Be accountable to the public


Behave in way that respects people's human rights


Act ethically and with integrity at all times


Police by consent if possible, using the minimum force necessary


Work in a way that delivers the best value from policing


Operate in partnership with the community


Be representative, and reflect New Zealand’s multicultural nature



Prompt 4


Police in some countries use a wider mix of policing staff than we do here in New Zealand. This can include staff who are fully trained and have full police powers through to staff with limited powers who have undergone less training.


For example, in the United Kingdom, "Police Community Support Officers" are trained to provide a visible presence on the streets and deal with low-level crime and disorder. They wear a uniform similar to a constable, and have limited police powers; such as being able to detain someone for 30 minutes until a constable arrives, being able to issue infringement notices for certain offences, and being able to enter property to protect people or property at risk.


Another option is to use uniformed staff as “eyes and ears” of regular police, but they are not given any powers of detention or investigation. This model is used in Canada, for instance.


In New Zealand, such support roles might provide an alternative and/or extra staff resource for the Police. It could help the 'thin blue line' to stretch further, especially if it freed up police officers from tasks that don't require full training or extensive police powers (e.g., acting as scene guards at crime scenes).


However, some may be concerned that introducing such support roles would be 'policing on the cheap'. Others might be wary about potential confusion, where people might expect uniformed support staff to have the full powers and training of a regular police officer.


Would you support Police having more staffing options available than currently exists?


Yes
No
Don’t Know


3.6 Demographics of focus and mini group respondents


FOCUS GROUP AND MINI GROUP DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN


18-25 years

26-49 years

50 years plus

Total

Male

29

26

20

75

Female

28

29

23

85

Total

57

62

43

155

Note: Respondents were purposefully over-recruited for the focus and mini groups, thus some were paid and did not participate. The actual number that attended all 16 focus and mini groups was (n=143).

Participants by ethnicity

New Zealand European

87

Other European/British

20

NZ European/Other European-British

3

NZ MĀori

18

NZ European/NZ MĀori

9

Pacific Island

7

Asian

10

North American

1

TOTAL

155

The new migrants focus group, specified as those who had migrated to New Zealand within the past three years, included respondents who had originally come from Norway, France, South Africa, Canada, China, Britain, Fijian and an Indian who had lived in Congo for many years.



3.7 E-panel respondents demographic breakdown

E-PANEL DEMOGRAPHIC DATA



September 2006

n=

%

GENDER

Male

40

42

Female

55

58

AGE GROUP

16-19

6

6

20-29

13

14

30-39

22

23

40-49

21

22

50-59

13

14

60 Plus

20

21

OCCUPATION

Professionals, Managers

27

28

Technicians, Associate Professionals

11

12

Clerks

4

4

Sales & Service Workers

11

12

Blue Collar

7

7

Students

5

5

Retired

11

12

Homemaker

10

11

Not Employed

2

2

PERSONAL INCOME

Less than $15,000

23

24

$15,000-25,000

10

11

$25,001-30,000

8

8

$30,001-40,000

17

18

$40,001-50,000

14

15

$50,001-70,000

8

8

More than $70,000

8

8

Income was nil / or loss

2

2

Refused

5

5

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Less than $20,000

5

5

$20,000-30,000

8

8

$30,001-40,000

12

13

$40,001-50,000

19

20

$50,001-70,000

14

15

$70,001-100,000

15

16

More than $100,000

16

17

Refused

6

6

AREA

Auckland

28

29

Provincial

46

48

Christchurch

14

15

Wellington

7

7

Rural

18

19

ETHNICITY

Maori

5

5

Non-Maori

90

95