(Wilcoxon W = 4778.5, p<.008). According to Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel,
Public Law 280 police priorities are too high for low-frequency crimes such as robbery, rape, and
homicide when compared to non-Public Law 280 criminal justice rankings of non-Public Law
280 police crime priorities. Criminal justice personnel believe that Public Law 280 police tend
to underemphasize the more frequent crime of domestic violence, while at the same time
overemphasize attention to violent, but relatively infrequent crimes, such as robbery, rape, and
homicide. Reservation residents, analyzed above, make similar observations that Public Law
280 police tend to give more attention to less frequent crimes, while underemphasizing the
crimes that tribal community members believe are more frequently occurring in their reservation
communities.
In sum, law enforcement personnel in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280
jurisdictions generally agree about the pattern and distribution of police crime priorities, but
reservation residents and criminal justice personnel suggest Public Law 280 police tend to give
too little attention to high-frequency domestic abuse crimes, while concentrating too much time
and too many resources on violent crimes that occur relatively infrequently within Public Law
288
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
280 reservation communities
. Public Law 280 police tend to focus on violent crimes, such as
homicide, rape, and robbery. However, the more frequently occurring crimes of domestic
violence, and related property-theft and abuse crimes or incidents, are under-served by Public
Law 280 police, according to reservation residents and criminal justice personnel. Tribal
communities and criminal justice personnel indicate that Public Law 280 police should give
more focus and attention, and develop more user-friendly tactics to address the high-crime issues
that confront Public Law 280 reservation communities. Domestic violence, and related issues of
domestic- and child abuse and property crimes, need more attention. Public Law 280 police
appear less interested in addressing the more social, economic, and psychological issues
associated with high rates of domestic and child abuse, as well as property crimes, in favor of
concentrating on arrests and investigations for violent, but relatively infrequent, crimes.
Public
Law 280 police may be giving less attention to the crimes that reservation residents and criminal
justice personnel view as most frequent because the police have greater difficulty in detecting
these particular higher-frequency crimes, achieving cooperation in investigations, and managing
the criminal conduct that is involved. Such difficulties may be particularly acute where police
are perceived as alien to or outside the community, and particularly acute for crimes for which
proof is difficult absent community cooperation
. Our sample of reservation residents and
criminal justice workers suggests that Public Law 280 police should give more focus to higher
frequency domestic and child-abuse crimes on Public Law 280 reservations.
Jurisdiction and Group Effects on Crime Frequency and Police Crime Priority
We now turn to analysis by two 2X3 ANOVAs that will help us sort out group and
jurisdiction effects for crime frequencies and police crime priorities. The 2X3 ANOVAs are
performed for all 12 crimes compared by Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdiction,
and all three groups — reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice
personnel.
We start with an analysis of jurisdiction and group effects with respect to ranking of
crime frequencies. Do crime-frequency rankings differ according to jurisdiction and group, or
are there interaction effects? By investigating jurisdiction and group effects, we seek
explanations for differences between groups, between jurisdictions for crime frequency,
and
police crime priorities. The analysis should provide better understanding of respondent rankings
insofar as jurisdiction and police crime priorities are determined or explained by differences in
group, jurisdiction, or interaction effects. We investigate whether there are significant
differences between jurisdiction and groups for crime-frequency rankings. Do crime-frequency
rankings vary by Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions?
Do crime frequencies
vary according to how different groups experience and understand crime? A significant
jurisdiction result provides some insight into the differences in crime-frequency perceptions
between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 respondents. Differences in crime frequency
perceptions among reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice
personnel suggest crime-frequency rankings are a reflection of group perceptions. The 2X3
ANOVA detects interaction effects between jurisdiction and groups, so that if respondent
289
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
perceptions of crime frequency are dependent on specific combinations of jurisdiction and
specific groups, we can detect and analyze those relations.
Figure 10.7 presents the results of 12 nonparametric 2X3 ANOVAs with transformed
scale data for crime-frequency rankings. There are five statistically significant jurisdiction
effects, two significant group effects, and no interaction effects for respondent rankings of crime
frequency. The crime-frequency rankings for DUI, drug offenses, burglary, rape, arson, and
domestic violence not significant by group or jurisdiction, suggesting respondent agreement
among all three groups and for both jurisdictions. Reservation residents, law enforcement
personnel, and criminal justice personnel in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280
jurisdictions agree on similar crime-frequency rankings for DUI, drug offenses, burglary, rape,
arson, and homicide. There is respondent agreement for the rankings of the high-frequency
crimes of DUI and drug offenses, and agreement about the low-frequency crimes of burglary,
rape, arson, and homicide.
