I was reading an interesting blog post on the problem of perception, which discusses how, while crime is down 5% in England and Wales, the surveyed public thinks it is worsening and out of control.
This morning, before I read this particular post, I was thinking about this topic. If doctors surveyed the public to see what infections to treat - and how to treat them - would that make sense? If patients came into the hospital and said, "I want you to treat me for this disease because I am afraid of it," would hospitals agree?
I am all for serving the public, but I want it to be served based on reality, not perception fueled by media's tendency to highlight the shocking and bizarre. Crime and intelligence analysis can objectively measure reality using some fairly sophisticated tools along with common sense. Analysts are the think tank of policing. Their goal should be to make a real impact on crime by producing the best information and intelligence for decision-makers, who need to understand that serving the public best usually means thinking strategically rather than reactively.
This "perception" issue is one I have been pondering for a while. Not so much as it relates to crime analysis/policing, but rather to counterinsurgency (COIN) and stability operations. Despite some disagreement about the best approach to COIN, virtually all who have studied the problem or been in the trenches of it seem to concur that "securing the population" is a key foundation for effective operations. One component of this, of course, involves separating insurgents from the larger HN population. But the populations "perceived security" is an equally important dimension. Although references to Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" is often overplayed in IW discussions, there is some fundamental truth to the notion that feeling physically safe and secure is a tier-1 human priority. As it relates to COIN/IW strategy, increasing the population's sense of safety and security will potentiate the counterinsurgent's legitimacy and trustworthiness, which are key moral levers in winning hearts and minds and in overall COIN success.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with Deborah's original insightful observation? I agree that analysts (and operators) should want to focus their efforts on changing outcomes, not just perceptions. To help reduce crime, threat, and disorder, not just make people "feel safer." Having said that, I also believe that perceived safety/security (related tot he criminological notion of "fear of crime") is an important and laudable operational outcome in itself.
Let me be clear about my intent. I am not suggesting we should simply seek to create an illusion of safety. That does not serve the population's (or community's) interests. The situation in the UK - and in the US for that matter - is that despite dramatic declines in violent crimes over the past decade or so (implying that people are actually safer), many in the general public believe that crime and violence are increasing, not decreasing (implying they believe they are less safe). Many people are absolutely incredulous when presented with data showing that murder rates are lower than they have been for more than 20 years.
Arguably, what we have is a problem where we are reducing "real" crime and making people safer, but they perceive the opposite to be true. it is the "flip side" of the "false sense of security" problem. If this line of reasoning hold up, it might support the following notions:
(1) that reducing real crime does not necessarily make people feel safer or more secure.
(2) that designing operations and interventions focused on increasing a population/community's perceived safety/security is a legitimate and worthwhile adjunctive effort.
In that regard, I have been contemplating how COIN strategy might benefit or what its practitioners might learn from criminological research on "fear of crime." Any merit to this idea?
Thanks for the great comment! It reminds me of when I worked in the field of developmental disabilities, providing behavioral analysis and designing intervention plans. The people who appreciated me most had little change in their situations - but they wanted to be heard and helped. I listened and tried my best to assist them. They perceived this as real help. This doesn't answer your question, but I do want to clarify that I think police agencies should care about public perception. I think increased transparency will help in that regard. We also must always keep in mind that humans are not data machines - that emotions fuel all our decision making. Understanding the emotional side of our issues would really help when we are trying to institute real and lasting change. Policing doesn't think much in those terms.
ReplyDelete