2011 CMPD Citizen Survey
Final Report
5500 Executive Center Drive, Suite 126
Charlotte, North Carolina 28212
704-332-8433
MW #4-11-01-1 (468)
1
Table of Contents
Objectives
Methodology
Rating Scales & Analysis
Summary at a Glance
Summary & Conclusions
Results for Total Sample
Perceptions of the CMPD
Need for Police
Perceptions of Crime and Safety in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall
Perceptions of Crime and Safety in Neighborhoods
Awareness of CMPD Patrol Divisions
Victims
Perceptions of 911 Emergency Call Center
Perceptions of the Non-Emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Use and Perceptions of the CMPD Website
Citizen Recommendations
Respondent Profile
2
3
4
6
7
12
25
26
34
39
47
61
63
69
74
80
83
86
Objectives
• The 2011 CMPD Citizen Survey was conducted by MarketWise, Inc.
• The research objectives of the study were the following:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Measure perceptions of the CMPD
Determine where citizens get information about crime trends and crime in
Charlotte Mecklenburg
Explore perceptions of crime and safety, and the effectiveness of the
CMPD in making neighborhoods and Charlotte Mecklenburg safer
Quantify awareness of CMPD Patrol Divisions
Explore crime victim perceptions of CMPD follow-up
Among users, measure perceptions of 911 Emergency Call Center and the
non-emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Examine use and perceptions of the CMPD Website
Compare changes in perceptions from 2010 to 2011 on key measures
3
Methodology
•
A total of 650 interviews were completed by phone between May 16
and June 13, 2011, with adults living within the CMPD service area.
•
A random digit dial (RDD) sample of landline telephone numbers
and a RRD cell phone sample were purchased from Survey
Sampling, Inc. Respondents in the cell phone sample were not
interviewed while driving.
•
To qualify for the survey, respondents . . .
– Had to live in Charlotte or Mecklenburg County
– Could not live inside the town limits of
Cornelius, Davidson, Huntersville, Matthews, Mint Hill or
Pineville.
4
Methodology
•
The questionnaire was translated into Spanish and a bilingual
interviewer conducted the interview in Spanish for residents who did
not speak English. A total of 71 Hispanic respondents (11% of the
total sample) were interviewed.
•
The margin of error for the total sample of 650 is +3.8 percentage
points at the 95% confidence level.
•
Interviews lasted 16 minutes on average.
5
Rating Scales & Analysis
•
To measure perceptions, respondents used rating scales from 1 to 10.
•
To simplify interpretation, the data have been collapsed into
categories and labeled. For example:
9,10=Very positive 7,8=Positive 5,6=Mid-scale/Average 1-4=Poor
•
NOTE:
– With a 10-point scale there is no exact mid-point. Ratings of 5 and
6 are equally in the middle of the scale.
– Responses may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding or
multiple responses.
– Mean (or average) ratings are calculated among respondents able
to rate (i.e., “don’t know” responses dropped from the base).
6
Summary at a Glance
7
Summary at a Glance
Questions Using a 10-Point Scale
Total
NE
NW
SW
SE
Sample n=105 n=149 n=106 n=290
Mean Ratings of Total Respondents
(Don’t know response dropped from base)
n=650
Q6. Overall impression
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.9
7.8
Q7. Are courteous
7.9
8.1
7.4
8.1
8.1
Q8. Are professional
8.0
8.1
7.6
8.3
8.1
Q9. Perform job with integrity & honesty
7.7
7.4
7.3
8.0
7.9
Q10. Use good judgment in use of force
7.3
7.1
6.5
7.4
7.7
Q11. Charlotte-Mecklenburg has an adequate number of police.
6.4
6.9
6.1
6.5
6.4
Q12. The need for police has increased in the past year.
8.1
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.0
Q17. In general, Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a safe place to live.
How effective do you believe the CMPD have been in
Q18. making Charlotte-Mecklenburg safer?
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
8.2
7.5
8.1
8.5
8.3
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
6.0
6.9
6.2
5.5
5.7
Q21. I am safe in the neighborhood where I live.
How effective have the CMPD crime fighting and prevention
Q22. strategies been in your neighborhood?
The visibility of police in my neighborhood has increased
Q30. since last year.
8
Summary at a Glance
Questions Using a 10-Point Scale
(Bases are too small for examination by Service Areas)
Seriousness of condition as a safety problem among respondents who have
condition in their neighborhood
Q26a Vacant and/or boarded up buildings (n=139)
Mean
4.2
Q26b Overgrown paths (n=123)
Q26c Cut through paths (n=187)
4.0
Q26d Poor street lighting (n=217)
Q26e Accumulation of garbage and/or bulky items (n=41)
6.6
Q26f
5.3
Clubs and bars in or near your neighborhood (n=129)
Q26g Concentration of rental property in or near your neighborhood (n=271)
9
4.9
3.4
4.5
Summary at a Glance
Questions Using a 10-Point Scale
(Bases are too small for examination by Service Areas)
Perceptions of 911 among respondents who have ever called 911
Q45b. Overall impression of 911 (n=309)
Mean
8.2
Perceptions of 911 among respondents who have called 911 in past year
Mean
Q48 Length of time it took to answer your call (n=194)
8.6
Q49 Asking appropriate questions (n=195)
8.9
Q50 Treating you courteously and respectfully (n=196)
9.0
Q51 Informing you when officers will be dispatched (n=185)
8.1
Q52 Overall satisfaction with 911 operator who took your call (n=196)
8.8
10
Summary at a Glance
Questions Using a 10-Point Scale
(Bases are too small for examination by Service Areas)
Perceptions of CRU among respondents who have ever been connected to CRU
Q54a. Overall impression of CRU 911 (n=172)
Perceptions of CRU among respondents who have been connected to CRU
in the past year
Q56 Length of time it took to answer your call (n=79)
Q57 Asking appropriate questions (n=78)
Q58 Treating you courteously and respectfully (n=79)
Q59 Setting correct expectations for what would happen next (n=77)
Q60 Overall satisfaction with the service provided by the CRU (n=79)
11
Mean
8.2
Mean
7.8
8.4
8.5
7.7
7.8
Summary and Conclusions
12
Summary
•
Impressions of the CMPD remain positive.
– A strong majority (80%) of respondents within the CMPD service area
indicate their overall impression of the CMPD is positive (rating of 7 to
10). The majority (at least 68%) of respondents give positive
ratings, regardless of race/ethnicity or service area.
– The majority of respondents (70% or more) have a positive impression of
the CMPD on being courteous, professional, performing job with
integrity/honesty, and using good judgment in the use of force.
• Since last year, ratings among the total sample of respondents have
improved on integrity/honesty and use of force.
• African Americans give lower ratings than Whites and Hispanics on
all these measures. However, use of force is the only measure with a
substantial percentage of low ratings (i.e., 23% rate 1 to 4 on the 10point scale).
13
Summary
•
The majority of respondent (more than 60%) believe the CMPD should
reflect the community in terms of race/ethnicity and gender. About
half of the respondents believe the CMPD actually does reflect the
community on these demographics.
– Hispanics and African Americans are more likely than Whites to believe
both gender and race/ethnicity should reflect the community.
– Hispanics are the least likely to say the CMPD reflects the community on
gender or race/ethnicity.
•
The only source of information that is used by the majority of
respondents to get information about crime and crime trends in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall is TV. Newspapers and Internet are
the other top sources, but neither are used by a majority of
respondents.
14
Summary
•
No single source of information is used by a majority of respondents
to get information about crime and crime trends in neighborhoods.
The top sources are TV, newspapers, neighbors, and neighborhood
meeting/home owner association meetings.
•
A strong majority of respondents believe Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a
safe place to live (75%) and that the CMPD has been effective in
making it safer (78%). Only 19% of residents believe CharlotteMecklenburg is less safe than a year ago.
– Ratings on police effectiveness increased significantly from 2008 to 2011
(means: 7.2 to 7.6). (This question was not asked in 2010.)
•
The most frequently mentioned concerns about crime and safety for
Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall are burglary/break-ins and violent
crimes.
15
Summary
•
A strong majority of respondents believe they are safe in the
neighborhood where they live (86%) and that crime fighting and
crime prevention strategies have been effective in their
neighborhood (77%). Only 14% of residents believe their
neighborhood is less safe than a year ago.
– Ratings on being safe in the neighborhood where they live increased
significantly from 2010 to 2011 (means: 7.6 vs. 8.2), although ratings
were high both years.
– Ratings on effectiveness of crime fighting and crime prevention in
neighborhoods also increased from 2010 to 2011 (means: 6.9 vs. 7.7).
•
The most frequently mentioned concern about crime and safety for
neighborhoods is burglaries/break-ins.
16
Summary
•
Almost half of the respondents indicate visibility of police in their
neighborhood has increased in the past year (no change from
2010). 76% of respondents indicate they have seen police patrolling
in their neighborhood.
•
Poor street lighting is the condition that concerns more respondents
than any other conditions.
– 34% of total respondents indicate their neighborhood has poor street
lighting and 56% or these respondents (19% of total respondents)
consider the condition to be a safety problem.
– 42% of total respondents indicate there is a concentration of rental
property in or near their neighborhood and 30% of these respondents
(13% of the total sample) consider the condition to be a safety problem.
17
Summary
•
The majority of residents (61%) indicate their neighborhood has a
Neighborhood Association/Crime Watch, or holds meetings related to
crime prevention. This finding has not changed from previous years.
•
Only 20% of respondents attend neighborhood meetings about crime
prevention. Another 41% of respondent say meetings are available but
they don’t attend.
– Attendance of neighborhood meetings dropped from 2010 to 2011 (25% to
20%).
•
Less than half of the respondents (40%) know where their police
division office is located. Relatively few have visited an office in the past
year (14%), or know the names of any officers in their division (12%).
22% of respondents are aware that their police division publishes an
electronic Response Area Newsletter and 8% of total respondents say
they subscribe to the newsletter.
18
Summary
•
Only 4% of respondents indicate they have been a victim of a crime
such as assault or armed robbery that was reported to the CMPD.
Most of these victims indicate the police did follow-up with them after
the initial report was made. The majority of respondents with followup contact were satisfied with it.
•
11% of respondents indicate they have been a victim of a nonviolent crime such as theft, burglary or a home break-in the past
year. Only slightly more than half of these respondents had followup contact after the initial report. Most of the time the follow-up was
made by phone. The majority of respondents who had follow-up
contact were satisfied with it.
19
Summary
•
Almost half of the respondents (48%) have ever called CharlotteMecklenburg 911. Most of those who have called (82%) have a
positive impression of 911.
•
In the past year, 18% of respondents have called CharlotteMecklenburg 911 to report a crime or suspected crime, and 20%
have called for an emergency not related to a crime.
•
Most respondents who called 911 in the past year give very high
ratings (80% or more rate 7 to 10) on: overall satisfaction, treating
you courteously and respectfully, asking appropriate
questions, length of time to answer your call, and informing you of
when officers will be dispatched.
20
Summary
•
Most people would try to contact the CMPD by telephone for a nonemergency. Only 1% would go in person and 4% would use the
Internet. However, only 39% of respondents would call 311.
Another 26% would call 911 for a non-emergency. Others would
call but don’t know the number (14%) and some don’t know how
they would make the contact (10%).
•
26% of respondents have ever used the non-emergency Crime
Reporting Unit. The majority of those who have used the service
have a positive impression.
21
Summary
•
12% of respondents have used the non-emergency Crime Reporting
Unit in the past year. The majority of those who have used it (74%)
are satisfied with: the overall service, being asked appropriate
questions, being treated courteously and respectfully, the length of
time it took to answer your call, and setting correct expectations for
what would happen next.
•
86% of respondents have access to the Internet and 40% of those
with access have visited the CMPD Website. The majority of those
who have visited the site rate it good.
•
Almost half of the respondents (48%) did not know how the CMPD
could improve. The other most frequent response was to be more
visible by patrolling more frequently (25%).
22
Conclusions
•
The survey results for 2011 are positive. A strong majority of
residents have a positive impression of the CMPD and believe the
police have been effective in making Charlotte-Mecklenburg and
their neighborhood safer. Several perception ratings
improved, including:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Performing job with integrity/honesty.
Using good judgment in the use of force.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a safe place to live.
I am safe in the neighborhood where I live.
CMPD has been effective in making Charlotte-Mecklenburg safer.
The CMPD’s crime fighting and crime prevention strategies in
neighborhoods are effective.
•
Overall satisfaction with the non-emergency CRU also improved
since last year.
•
Overall satisfaction with 911 remains very high and has improved.
23
Conclusions
•
Many residents say they would call 911 for a police, non-emergency.
Residents need to be made aware that 311, not 911 should be called.
•
Attendance at neighborhood meetings about crime prevention dropped
this year. The police and neighborhood leaders need to encourage
attendance at these meetings as they are a source of information about
crime/crime trends and crime prevention in neighborhoods.
•
Some neighborhoods have poor street lighting. Improvement of street
lighting in those neighborhoods would make residents feel safer.
•
Although ratings of police visibility have not increased since last
year, most residents have seen police patrolling in their neighborhood.
•
Maintaining and increasing police visibility is what residents believe is
the most important thing the police can do to keep them safe.
24
Results for
Total Sample
25
Perceptions of the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Police Department
26
Overall Impression of the CMPD
Total Sample (Q6)
Respondents Able to Rate, n=634
Mean
2011
34%
0%
20%
9,10=Very Positive
46%
40%
60%
7,8=Positive
14%
80%
5,6=Mid-scale
27
7%
100%
1-4=Negative
7.6
Overall Impression of the CMPD – By Year
Total Sample (Q6)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
2011
2010
43%
32%
2008
29%
2007
30%
0%
20%
9,10=Very Positive
14%
46%
34%
17%
44%
47%
40%
60%
7,8=Positive
5,6=Mid-scale
28
16%
15%
80%
7%
7.6
9%
7.5
10%
7.4
8%
7.5
100%
1-4=Negative
Perceptions of the CMPD
Total Sample (Q7-10)
Respondents Able to Rate
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police . . .
Mean
Q7. Are courteous (n=618)
48%
Q8. Are professional (n=629)
49%
Q9. Perform job w/ integrity &
honesty (n=616)
35%
40%
Q10. Use good judgement in use of
force (n=579)
40%
34%
0%
9,10=Strongly agree
33%
20%
7,8=Agree
29
37%
40%
60%
5,6=Mid-scale
12% 7%
7.9
9% 7%
8.0
12% 8%
7.7
17% 11%
80%
100%
1-4=Disagree
7.3
Perceptions of CMPD -- By Year
Total Sample (Q6-Q10)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
2007 2008 2010 2011
Q6. Overall impression
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.6
Q7. Are courteous
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.9
Q8. Are professional
7.9
7.9
7.8
8.0
Q9. Perform job with integrity & honesty
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.7
Q10. Use good judgment in use of force
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.3
.
Means highlighted in red indicate a
significant change from 2010 to 2011.
30
Importance/Performance of CMPD in Reflecting
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community in Regard to Gender
Total Sample, n=650 (Q13a, Q14a)
Percent Responding “Yes”
Q13a. Is it important that the CMPD
reflect the community in terms of
gender?
62%
Q14a. Does the CMPD reflect the
community in terms of gender?
48%
0%
31
100%
Importance/Performance of CMPD in Reflecting CharlotteMecklenburg Community in Regard to Race/Ethnicity
Total Sample, n=650 (Q13b, Q14b)
Percent Responding “Yes”
Q13b. Is it important that the CMPD
reflect the community in terms of
race/ethnicity?
67%
Q14b. Does the CMPD reflect the
community in terms of race/ethnicity?
51%
0%
32
100%
Importance/Performance of CMPD in Reflecting CharlotteMecklenburg Community – By Year
Total Sample (Q13a - Q14b)
% Responding Yes
2010
2011
Q13a. Is it important that the CMPD reflect the community in
terms of gender?
61%
62%
Q14a. Does the CMPD reflect the community in terms of
gender?
46%
48%
Q13b. Is it important that the CMPD reflect the community in
terms of race or ethnicity?
68%
67%
50%
51%
Q14b. Does the CMPD reflect the community in terms of race
or ethnicity?
33
Need for Police
34
Perceptions of Need for Police
Total Sample (Q11-12)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q11. CharlotteMecklenburg has an
adequate number of
police. (n=580)
23%
Q12. The need for police
has increased in past
year. (n=607)
28%
54%
0%
20%
27%
26%
40%
9,10=Strongly Agree
5,6=Mid-scale
35
60%
6.4
21%
13% 7%
80%
7,8=Agree
1-4=Disagree
100%
8.1
Perceptions of Need for Police -- By Year (Q11-12)
Total Sample
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Strongly Disagree, 10=Strongly Agree
2007
2008
2010
2011
Q11. Charlotte-Mecklenburg has an adequate
number of police.
5.7
5.5
6.1
6.4
Q12. The need for police has increased in the past
year.
8.5
8.6
8.2
8.1
36
Sources for Information for Crime
and Crime Trends in CharlotteMecklenburg and Neighborhoods
37
Sources for Information About Crime Trends and Crime
Occurring in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Neighborhoods
Unaided, Multiple Answers Allowed. Total Sample, n=650 (Q15, Q16)
Question not asked prior to 2011.
TV
Newspaper
26%
Neighborhood meetings
39%
44%
73%
21%
24%
Internet
11%
12%
Friends/ neighbors
10%
Radio
3%
3%
Directly from CMPD
3%
3%
CMPD Website
3%
2%
CMPD Newsletter
3%
2%
Experience 1%
Neighborhood /Community… 1%
3%
0%
24%
In Charlotte-Mecklenburg (Q15)
In your neighborhood (Q16)
100%
38
Perceptions of Crime and Safety
in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall
39
Perceptions of Charlotte-Mecklenburg as a Safe Place
to Live
Total Sample (Q17) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q17. In
general, CharlotteMecklenburg is a
safe place to live.
(n=646)
28%
0%
20%
47%
40%
9,10=Strongly agree
5,6=Mid-scale
40
19%
60%
80%
6%
100%
7,8=Somewhat agree
1-4=Disagree
7.5
Perceptions of Charlotte-Mecklenburg as a Safe Place
to Live – By Year
Total Sample (Q17) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Strongly Disagree, 10=Strongly Agree
Q17. In general, Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a safe place
to live.
Question not asked in 2010.
Means highlighted in red indicate a
significant change from 2008 to 2011.
41
2007
2008
2011
6.9
6.9
7.5
Effectiveness of CMPD in Making CharlotteMecklenburg Safer
Total Sample (Q18) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q18. How
effective do you
believe the
CMPD have been
in making
CharlotteMecklenburg
safer? (n=636)
31%
0%
20%
47%
40%
9,10=Very effective
5,6=Mid-scale
60%
17% 5%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat effective
1-4=Not effective
42
7.6
Effectiveness of CMPD in Making CharlotteMecklenburg Safer – By Year
Total Sample (Q18) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Not at all effective, 10=Very effective
Q18. How effective do you believe the CMPD have
been in making Charlotte-Mecklenburg safer?
Question not asked in 2010.
Means highlighted in red indicate a
significant change from 2008 to 2011.
43
2007
2008
2011
7.4
7.2
7.6
Perceptions of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Safety
Total Sample, n=650 (Q19)
24%
21%
Safer than a
year ago
15%
53%
As safe as a
year ago
42%
47%
2011
2008
2007
19%
Less safe than a
year ago
35%
36%
4%
2%
2%
Don't know
0%
70%
Question not asked in 2010
44
Top Concerns about Crime and Safety for Charlotte
Mecklenburg Overall
Unaided, Multiple Answers Allowed. Total Sample, n=650 (Q20)
Break-ins, burglary
38%
Assault, rape, robbery
37%
Gangs, gang activety
16%
Auto theft, break-ins
13%
Drug crimes
13%
Murder, homicide
11%
Crimes against children
9%
Home invasions
9%
Traffic violations, drunk drivers
8%
Need more police
8%
Don't feel safe walking around alone
Mentions by fewer
than 6% are not
6%
0%
45
50%
Top Concerns about Crime and Safety for Charlotte
Mecklenburg Overall–By Year
Unaided, Multiple Answers Allowed. Total Sample, n=650 (Q20)
Break-ins, burglary
17%
Assault, rape, robbery
7%
7%
6%
Drug crimes
Murder, homicide
3%
Crimes against children
16%
21%
18%
13%
13%
15%
11%
8%
24%
2011
2008
2007
9%
9%
9%
8%
5%
Home invasions
2%
8%
7%
Traffic violations, drunk drivers
14%
8%
12%
9%
Need more police
* Question not asked in 2010
38%
37%
12%
Gangs, gang activety
Auto theft, break-ins
25%
0%
50%
46
Perceptions of Crime and Safety
in Neighborhoods
47
Neighborhood Safety
Total Sample (Q21)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q21. I am safe in
the neighborhood
where I live.
(n=645)
51%
0%
20%
35%
40%
9,10=Strongly agree
5,6=Mid-scale
48
60%
10%4%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat agree
1-4=Disagree
8.2
Neighborhood Safety– By Year
Total Sample (Q21)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Strongly Disagree, 10=Strongly Agree
Q21. I am safe in the neighborhood where I live.
Means highlighted in red indicate a
significant change from 2010 to 2011.
49
2007
2008
2010
2011
7.6
7.4
7.6
8.2
Effectiveness of Crime Fighting and Crime Prevention
Strategies in Neighborhoods
Total Sample (Q22) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q22. How
effective have the
CMPD crime
fighting and
prevention
strategies been in
your
neighborhood?
(n=596)
44%
0%
20%
33%
40%
9,10=Very effective
5,6=Mid-scale
60%
15%
80%
8%
100%
7,8=Somewhat effective
1-4=Not effective
50
7.7
Effectiveness of Crime Fighting and Crime Prevention
Strategies in Neighborhoods– By Year
Total Sample (Q22) Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Not at all effective, 10=Very effective
Q22. How effective have the CMPD crime fighting and
prevention strategies been in your neighborhood?*
Means highlighted in red indicate a
significant change from 2010 to 2011.
2010
2011
6.9
7.7
* Wording changed prior to 2010.
51
Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety
Total Sample, n=650 (Q23)
21%
21%
24%
17%
Safer now than a
year ago
62%
57%
As safe as a
year ago
50%
54%
14%
18%
Less safe than a
year ago
2011
2010
2008
2007
24%
27%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Don't know
0%
70%
52
Top Concerns about Neighborhood Crime and Safety
Unaided, Multiple Answers Allowed. Total Sample, n=650 (Q24)
Break-ins, burglary
46%
Assault, rape, robbery
17%
Auto theft, break-in
15%
None, no concerns
15%
Vandalism/ property crimes
11%
Drug crimes
7%
Home invasions
7%
Traffic violations, drunk drivers
7%
Vagrants, homeless
6%
Need enforced curfew laws
5%
Crimes against children
5%
0%
50%
53
Top Concerns about Neighborhood Crime & Safety –
By Year
Total Sample, n=650 (Q24)
32%
37%
30%
Break-ins, burglary
Assault, rape, robbery
7%
7%
Auto theft, break ins
Vandalism/ property crimes
Drug crimes
Home invasions
2%
46%
17%
18%
15%
12%
9%
8%
11%
11%
10%
7%
7%
11%
14%
9%
7%
19%
7%
2011
2010
2008
2007
7%
10%
9%
13%
Traffic violations, drunk drivers
0%
50%
54
Neighborhood Safety Problems
Total Sample, n=650 (Q25a-Q26g)
Q26. % Rating
Serious or Very
Q25.
% Saying Yes Serious Safety
Problem
to Condition
New questions for 2011
g. Concentration of rental property in or near your
neighborhood
d. Poor street lighting
42%
13%
34%
19%
c. Cut through paths
29%
11%
a. Vacant and/or boarded up buildings
22%
6%
f. Clubs and bars in or near your neighborhood
20%
3%
b. Overgrown paths
19%
4%
e. Accumulation of garbage and/or bulky items
6%
2%
55
Police Visibility
Total Sample (Q30)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean
Q30. Visibility of
police in my
neighborhood has
increased since
last year. (n=599)
27%
0%
20%
20%
27%
40%
9,10=Strongly agree
5,6=Mid-scale
60%
6.0
27%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat agree
1-4=Disagree
56
Police Visibility – By Year
Total Sample (Q30)
Respondents Able to Rate
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Strongly Disagree, 10=Strongly Agree
Q30. The visibility of police in my neighborhood
has increased since last year.
Question not asked in 2007
57
2008
2010
2011
6.4
6.0
6.0
Over the past year, have you seen police patrolling in your
neighborhood?
Total Sample, n=650 (Q31)
2011
Yes
76%
No
23%
Don't know
1%
New question for 2011.
58
Does Your Neighborhood Have a Neighborhood
Assoc., Crime Watch, or Hold Meetings related to Crime
Prevention? Total Sample, n=650 (Q27)
2011
Yes
61%
No
28%
Don't know
11%
% Saying Yes
2007
2008
2010
2011
63%
61%
61%
61%
59
Attendance of Neighborhood Meetings
Total Sample, n=650 (Q28 & Q29 combined)
2011
9%
2010
16%
18%
11%
20%
15% 9%
41%
25%
No meetings but
definitely would attend
No meetings but
probably would attend
35%
No meetings but would
not attend
2008
14%
16%
9%
29%
33%
Currently attend
meetings
2007
16%
0%
16% 5%
20%
40%
29%
Available but do not
attend
34%
60%
80%
60
100%
Awareness of CMPD Patrol
Divisions
61
Awareness of Police Divisions
Total Sample, n=650 (Q32-36)
Percent Responding “Yes”
40%
45%
Q32. Do you know where your police division
office is located?
Q33. Within the past year, have you visited your
current police division office?
14%
8%
Q34. Do you know the names of any officers in
your current police division?
12%
15%
Q35. Are you aware that your police division
publishes an electronic Response Area
Newsletter that has crime info. related to the area
in which you live?
22%
Wording change from 2010
8%
Q36. Do you subscribe to your police division's
electronic Response Area Newsletter?
New question for 2011
0%
62
2011
2010
100%
Victims
63
Victims of Crimes Reported to CMPD in Past 12 Months
Total Sample, n=650 (Q37-38)
Percent Responding “Yes”
Q37. In the past 12 months, have you or
anyone else in your household been a
victim of a violent crime such as assault or
armed robbery that was reported to the
CMPD?
Victims who reported
violent crimes:
2007: 5%
2008: 7%
2010: 4%
4%
Q38. In the past 12 months, have you or
anyone one else in your household been
a victim of a non-violent crime such as
theft, burglary or a break-in that you
reported to the CMPD?
11%
0%
64
Wording change in 2011.
50%
Violent Crime Follow-Up
Respondents who reported a violent crime (Q39-40)
Q39. After the initial report was
made, did the police follow-up and
contact you about the case in any
way? (n=27)
Q40. How was the follow-up contact
made? (n=19)
In person
58%
No
30%
By telephone
37%
Yes
70%
Don't know
Note: Very small base.
New questions for 2011.
5%
0%
65
100%
Satisfaction with Violent Crime Follow-Up
Respondents who reported a violent crime and had follow-up contact
with police (Q41)
Mean
Q41. Overall, how
satisfied were you with the
police follow-up? (n=19)
53%
0%
Note: Very small base.
New questions for 2011.
20%
40%
9,10=Very Satisfied
5,6=Midpoints
66
16%
21%
60%
80%
11%
100%
7,8=Somewhat Satisfied
1-4=Not satisfied
7.9
Non-Violent Crime Follow-Up
Respondents who reported a non-violent crime(Q42-43)
Q42. After the initial report was
made, did the police follow-up and
contact you about the case in any
way? (n=69)
Q43. How was the follow-up contact
made? (n=37)
By telephone
Yes
54%
No
42%
70%
In person
19%
Note: Small base.
By email or some
other type of
electronic
communication
4%
Don't
know%
11%
0%
New questions for 2011.
67
100%
Satisfaction with Non-Violent Crime Follow-Up
Respondents who reported a non-violent crime and had follow-up
contact with police (Q44)
Mean
Q44. Overall, how
satisfied were you with the
police follow-up? (n=36)
47%
0%
Note: Small base.
New question for 2011.
22%
20%
40%
9,10=Very Satisfied
5,6=Midpoints
68
60%
8%
22%
80%
7.3
100%
7,8=Somewhat Satisfied
1-4=Not satisfied
Perceptions of 911
Emergency Call Center
69
Impression of 911 Emergency Call Center
Respondents who have ever called Charlotte Mecklenburg 911 and
are able to rate (Q45b)
Q45. 48% of total respondents have ever
called Charlotte-Mecklenburg 911.
Mean
Q45b. 911 Call Center (n=309)
54%
0%
20%
28%
40%
9,10=Very Positive
5,6=Mid-scale
70
60%
10%7%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat Positive
1-4=Negative
8.2
Calls to 911 in Past 12 Months
Total Sample, n=650 (Q46-47)
Percent Responding “Yes”
Q46. Within the past 12 months, have you
called the 911 Emergency Call Center to
report a crime or suspected crime?
18%
Q47. Within the past 12 months, have
you called the 911 Emergency Call
Center for an emergency not related to a
crime?
20%
0%
71
100%
Satisfaction with 911 Service
Respondents who called 911 in past 12 months to report a crime or suspected
crime, or for an emergency not related to a crime (Q48-Q52)
Mean
Q50. Treating you courteously and
respectfully (n=196)
73%
19% 4% 4%
9.0
Q52. Overall satisfaction with 911
operator who took your call (n=196)
69%
22% 6% 3%
8.8
Q49. Asking appropriate questions
(n=195)
68%
25% 4%4%
8.9
Q48. Length of time it took to answer
your call (n=194)
62%
Q51. Informing you when officers will
be dispatched (n=185)
20%
9,10=Very satisfied
5,6=Midpoints
72
6% 6%
24% 10%11%
56%
0%
26%
40%
60%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat satisfied
1-4=Not satisfied
8.6
8.1
Satisfaction with 911 Service – By Year
Respondents Who Called 911 in Past 12 Months (Q48-Q52)
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Not Satisfied, 10=Very Satisfied
Q48. Length of time it took to answer your call
Q49. Asking appropriate questions
Q50. Treating you courteously and respectfully
Q51. Informing you when officers will be dispatched
Q52. Overall satisfaction with 911 operator who took your call
73
2010
8.2
8.5
8.7
n/a
8.4
2011
8.6
8.9
9.0
8.1
8.8
Perceptions of the Non-Emergency
Crime Reporting Unit
74
How Would You Contact The CMPD
For A Non-Emergency
Total Sample, n=650 (Q53)
39%
37%
Call 311
26%
22%
Call 911
14%
By phone, but don't know number
26%
Internet/Website
4%
4%
Direct call to Division
3%
3%
Call 411
2%
2%
Other
2%
1%
2011
2010
10%
6%
Don't know
0%
100%
75
Impression of Non-Emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Respondents who have ever been connected to the CRU and are able
to rate (Q54a)
Q54. 26% of total respondents have
ever used the CRU.
Mean
Q54a. Non-Emergency CRU
(n=172))
44%
0%
30%
20%
40%
9,10=Very Positive
5,6=Mid-scale
76
60%
16% 10%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat Positive
1-4=Negative
7.7
Calls to Non-Emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Total Sample, n=650 (Q55)
Percent Responding “Yes”
12%
Q55. Within the past year, have you
called 911, 311 or the CMPD and
been connected to the nonemergency Crime Reporting Unit?
2011
2010
18%
0%
77
100%
Satisfaction with Non-Emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Respondents Who Used CRU in Past 12 Months (Q56-Q60)
Mean
Q57. Asking appropriate questions
(n=78)
65%
21%
8%6%
8.4
Q58. Treating you courteously and
respectfully (n=79)
63%
22%
9%6%
8.5
Q56. Length of time it took to answer
your call (n=79)
58%
16% 10% 15%
7.8
Q60. Overall satisfaction with the
service provided by the CRU (n=79)
56%
22%
10% 13%
7.8
Q59. Setting correct expectations for
what would happen next (n=77)
55%
21%
10% 14%
7.7
0%
20%
9,10=Very satisfied
5,6=Midpoints
78
40%
60%
80%
100%
7,8=Somewhat satisfied
1-4=Not satisfied
Satisfaction with Non-Emergency Crime Reporting Unit
Respondents Who Used CRU in Past 12 Months (Q56-Q60)
Mean Ratings on a 10-Point Scale
1= Strongly Disagree, 10=Strongly Agree
Q56. Length of time it took to answer your call
Q57. Asking appropriate questions
Q58. Treating you courteously and respectfully
Q59. Setting correct expectations for what would happen next
Q60. Overall satisfaction with the service provided by the CRU
79
2010
7.5
7.5
8.0
7.5
7.4
2011
7.8
8.4
8.5
7.7
7.8
Use and Perceptions of the
CMPD Website
80
CMPD Website (Q61 & Q62)
Percent Responding “Yes”
Q61. Have access to the internet
Total Sample (n=650)
Q62. Visited CMPD Website for Any
Reason
Respondents with internet access
(n=561)
86%
40%
82%
28%
77%
29%
72%
0%
2011
23%
100%
2010
2008
0%
2007
2011
81
100%
2010
2008
2007
Perception of CMPD Website
Among Respondents Who Have Been to Site & Are Able to Rate It (Q63)
Mean
2011
42%
35%
2010
32%
2008
31%
2007
37%
29%
17%
22%
8%
7.4
20%
6%
7.5
46%
19%
6%
7.5
100%
7,8=Good
7.7
43%
0%
9,10=Very Good
6%
5,6=Midpoints
82
1-4=Poor
Citizen Recommendations
83
Recommendations for Ways to Improve CMPD
Total Sample (Q64)
No recommendations
48%
More patrols, Be more visible
25%
Interact, work more with the community
5%
Improve response time
5%
Some officers have a bad attitude
4%
Do a great job
4%
Reduce crime
3%
Pay officers more money
3%
0%
84
Responses mentioned
by fewer than 3% are
not shown.
100%
Recommendations for Ways to Improve CMPD
– By Year
Total Sample (Q64)
48%
46%
No recommendations
25%
24%
More patrols, Be more visible
5%
11%
Interact, work more with the community
5%
3%
Improve response time
4%
8%
Some officers have a bad attitude
Do a great job
4%
1%
Reduce crime
3%
Pay officers more money
3%
2%
0%
2011
2010
100%
85
Respondent Profile
86
Service Area
Total Sample (B & D)
(D) Service Area
(B) Do you…?
16%
Northeast
Reside in Meck.
County, but not in
city or town
6%
23%
Northwest
Live inside city limits
of Charlotte
0%
16%
Southwest
94%
45%
Southeast
100%
0%
87
100%
Race/Ethnicity
Total Sample (Q1 & Q2)
(Q2) Age
(Q1) Race/Ethnicity
White
Black or African
American
29%
Hispanic or Latino of
any race
Some other race
Multi-racial
18-24
54%
12%
25-34
22%
35-44
19%
45-54
19%
11%
2%
3%
0%
100%
88
55-64
14%
65+
14%
0%
100%
Gender
Total Sample (Q3)
(Q3) Gender
Male
49%
Female
51%
89
Years in Mecklenburg County and Years at Current
Address
Total Sample (Q4 & Q5)
(Q4) Years Lived in Charlotte or
Mecklenburg County
7%
Less than 3
(Q5) Years at Current Address
Less than 1 year
11%
3 to 5
1 to 3
14%
6 to10
0%
14%
5 to 10
42%
20+
18%
3 to 5
25%
11 to 20
12%
22%
10+
100%
34%
0%
90
100%
Education & Employment
Total Sample (Q65 & Q66)
(Q65) Education
Grad school
(Q66) Employment
Employed full time
13%
50%
Employed part time
College grad
12%
31%
Retired
Some college or
vocational
29%
HS grad
16%
Homemaker
4%
Disabled
4%
Student
5%
Not employed
8%
22%
Less than HS
4%
0%
100%
0%
91
100%
Marital Status and Children in Household
Total Sample (Q67 & Q68)
(Q67) Marital Status
Married
(Q68) Children in Household
46%
Yes
Separated/
Divorced
35%
12%
Widowed
6%
No
Single
66%
35%
0%
100%
0%
92
100%
Type of Home
Total Sample (Q69)
Detached, single
family
72%
Townhome or condo
11%
Apartment
Other
15%
1%
0%
100%
93
Income
Total Sample (Q70)
Refusals dropped from base (n=564)
< $20K
15%
$20K to < $40K
24%
$40K to < $60K
20%
$60K to < $80K
13%
$80K to < $100K
9%
$100K+
20%
0%
100%
94