Both domestic violence and child abuse have significant results for both jurisdiction and
group effects. When there are two significant effects in an ANOVA, then the results are
independent and additive. The differences in jurisdictional effects suggest that Public Law 280
respondents rank police priority for domestic violence significantly lower than non-Public Law
280 respondents rank non-Public Law 280 police priority for domestic violence. Public Law 280
respondents believe that police give significantly less attention to the high-frequency domestic
violence crimes than non-Public Law 280 respondents perceive about non-Public Law 280
police. For group effects, reservation residents believe police give significantly less priority to
domestic violence and child-abuse crimes than do law enforcement personnel and criminal
justice personnel.
Law enforcement personnel, in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280
jurisdictions, say police give their highest priority of all crimes ranked to domestic violence
292
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.
crimes. Reservation residents and Public Law 280 respondents say police give significantly less
attention to domestic violence and child-abuse crimes than reported by law enforcement
personnel, criminal justice personnel and non-Public Law 280 respondents.
Discrepancies Between Crime Frequency and Police Priority Rankings
We investigate the relations between crime frequency and police crime priority rankings
by subtracting crime-frequency rankings from police crime-priority rankings for each
respondent.
The resulting ranking gives a score for the discrepancy between crime-frequency
rankings and police priority rankings. The discrepancy rankings provide a measure of the
overemphasis, balanced emphasis, and under-emphasis of police crime priority relative to crime
frequency. A positive discrepancy ranking indicates that perceived police crime priority is
ranked higher than crime frequency. A negative discrepancy ranking indicates that crime
frequency is ranked higher than police crime priority. See Appendix I for descriptive statistics on
jurisdiction group interaction crimes
Two (PL280 vs. Non-PL280) by Three (Rez Residents vs. Law Enforcement
vs. Criminal Justice)
Comparisons of Discrepancies Between Crime Frequency
v. Law Enforcement Priority Ranking
Nonparametric 2X3 ANOVA
Results 8/3/07
NTS
L280) by Two (Rez Resident vs. Law Enforcement) ANOVA REPLACEMENTS
group type interaction
endent Variable F p F p F p
Kof difhom 5.50 0.020 1.84 0.161 1.44 0.240 homicide discrepancy
K of difrap 2.73 0.100 4.10 0.018 0.60 0.552 rape discrepancy
K of difrob 3.58 0.060 0.89 0.412 1.03 0.359 robbery discrepancy
Kof difagg 0.41 0.524 0.02 0.983 0.22 0.801
aggravated assault
discrepancy
Kof difdom 4.90 0.028 0.64 0.527 1.86 0.159
domestic violence
discrepancy
K of difbur 0.52 0.473 0.48 0.616 0.80 0.450 burglary discrepancy
Kof diflar 16.40 < .001 1.85 0.160 1.71 0.183 larceny, theft discrepancy
Kof difaut 0.04 0.849 5.93 0.003 1.03 0.359 auto theft discrepancy
Kof difars 0.75 0.387 0.60 0.549 0.29 0.750 arson discrepancy
Kof difdrv 0.07 0.794 5.21 0.006 0.88 0.415 DUI discrepancy
K of difdrg 0.53 0.466 0.02 0.976 1.06 0.348 drug offenses discrepancy
Kof difcab 0.00 0.958 2.46 0.088 0.71 0.491 child abuse discrepancy
45
Note: these are not in the same
order as listed in the report!!
Figure 10.9
discrepancy rankings. A score near zero suggests police priorities are in balance with crime
frequency. A large positive or negative score suggests police priorities are not in balance with
crime frequency.
Positive discrepancies indicate that police are over-serving a crime, or giving
293
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.
too much attention relative to crime frequency. Negative discrepancies suggest police are underserving a crime or giving too little attention compared to the frequency of the crime’s occurrence.
A discrepancy ranking near zero suggests that police have a balanced approach where crime
frequency and police crime priority are matched.
We investigate discrepancies between crime frequency and police crime priority by
analyzing for the effects of jurisdiction, group, and interaction effects in a nonparametric 2X3
ANOVA. As presented on Figure 10.9, for our sample, there are three significant jurisdiction
effects, and three significant group effects, but no significant interaction effects. Six crimes
show no significant results; respondents suggest police balanced attention and resources to
robbery, assault, burglary, arson, drug offenses, and child abuse. In Public Law 280 jurisdictions,
respondents say police are under-serving domestic violence and larceny-theft while giving too
much attention to homicides. See Appendix I for a display of means, standard deviations and
case numbers corresponding to the discussion of comparisons in Figure 10.9. Non-Public Law
280 respondents rank the discrepancies between crime frequencies and police priority for
domestic violence about balanced. Both Public Law 280 reservation residents and criminal
justice personnel suggest state/county police are significantly under-servicing communities for
domestic violence, but state/county police evaluate themselves as providing a higher and nearbalanced approach between frequency and police priority for domestic violence issues
.
Similarly, Public Law 280 respondents say police are under-serving larceny-theft issues on their
reservations, while non-Public 280 respondents indicate they experience only moderate underservice for larceny-theft cases. Respondents in both jurisdictions report tribal communities are
over-served by police when attending to homicides. However, Public Law 280 respondents
report significantly greater discrepancies toward police over-service of homicides. In non-PL
280 reservations, respondents say police are only moderately over-serving homicides; Public
Law 280 respondents, however, say police give too much attention to homicides in Public Law
280 communities. Public Law 280 respondents say their reservation communities are overserved by police for homicides but under-served for domestic violence and larceny-theft.
Group effects measure differences of viewpoint among reservation residents, law
enforcement and criminal justice personnel. Three discrepancy measures are significant: rape,
auto theft and DUIs. There are no significant group effects for homicide, robbery, assault,
domestic violence, burglary, larceny-theft, arson, drug offenses, and child abuse. All three
groups agree about the balance of crime frequency and police attention for the latter nine crimes.
DUI is a high frequency crime, and our sample of reservation residents rates DUI as moderately
under-served by police, but law enforcement and criminal justice personnel suggest police are
significantly under-serving DUI crimes. The three groups of respondents also disagree about
police attention to auto theft. Reservation residents believe police responsiveness to auto thefts
is about balanced between frequency and police priority. Law enforcement and criminal justice
personnel, however, say police are significantly under-serving auto-theft crimes. Rape is a low
frequency crime, and all three groups suggest that police are over-serving, or giving too much
attention, to rape cases. Reservation residents say police are moderately over-serving rape cases,
294
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.
while law enforcement and criminal justice personnel suggest that police are significantly overserving, or spending too much time and attention on, rape cases, given their crime frequency.
For our sample, the discrepancies between police priorities and crime frequency are
accounted for at least in part in differences by jurisdiction for homicide, domestic violence,
larceny-theft; and by group differences in rape, auto theft, and DUI. The high crime frequency
crimes of DUI and domestic violence are both significantly under-served, according to our
sample. The violent, but less frequent, crimes of homicide and rape are both over-served by
police. The main pattern of police over-service of low frequency but violent crimes and underservice to more frequent crimes is accounted for by differences in police attention to homicide,
rape, domestic violence and DUIs. We now recapitulate the discussion of police priorities
according to the emergent patterns of high, medium and low crime frequencies.
Domestic violence crimes are ranked significantly differently by jurisdiction.
Respondents in PL 280 jurisdictions say that police under-serve domestic violence cases, while
respondents within non-PL 280 jurisdictions say the police attention to domestic violence is
slightly negative, but relatively balanced. There are differences among the PL 280 respondents.
Both PL 280 reservation residents and criminal justice personnel say that PL 280 police give too
little attention to domestic violence, while PL 280 law enforcement personnel say that police
attention to domestic violence is balanced and appropriate. Respondents in both jurisdictions
and all groups say that police are under-serving domestic violence crimes, a result that fits the
overall pattern that high frequency domestic violence crimes are under-served. PL 280 police are
significantly under-serving domestic violence crimes relative to non-PL 280 police, according to
PL 280 reservation residents and criminal justice personnel, although PL 280 police say they
have a balanced approach to domestic crimes.
Reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice personnel do not
agree about police attention to DUIs. All respondent groups for both jurisdictions and all three
groups give negative discrepancy ratings for police responsiveness to DUI cases, which
corresponds to the overall pattern that high frequency DUI crimes are under-served by police.
Criminal justice personnel in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions and law
enforcement personnel in non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions give strong rankings of police underservice for DUI cases. Reservation residents in both jurisdictions say police do not give enough
attention to DUI cases but believe police are providing relatively more balanced responsiveness
than do law enforcement personnel and criminal justice personnel. Law enforcement personnel
and criminal justice personnel say that police need to give significantly more attention to DUI
cases.
The third high-frequency crimes are drug offenses, and there is no significant effect for
jurisdiction, groups, or interaction. All respondent groups in both jurisdictions agree that drug
offenses are under-served by police, a result which conforms to the pattern of police underservice for high-frequency crimes.
Public Law 280 reservation residents, non-Public Law 280
law enforcement personnel, and Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel give relatively high
under-service rankings to police for drug offenses. However, non-Public Law 280 reservation
295
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.
residents, Public Law 280 law enforcement personnel, and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice
personnel give relatively low police under-service rankings for drug offenses. Jurisdiction and
group differences do not help explain the patterns of police under-service for drug offenses.
Among the medium-frequency crimes of aggravated assault, larceny-theft, child abuse,
and burglary, there is considerable agreement about police service patterns, and one significant
result. The discrepancy rankings for aggravated assault are not significant, suggesting agreement
among groups and across jurisdictions. All respondent groups for both jurisdictions say police
provide similar patterns of attention to responding to aggravated assaults.
Larceny and theft are medium-frequency crimes with a statistically significant result for
jurisdiction. Respondents in Public Law 280 jurisdictions say that Public Law 280 police
significantly under-serve larceny and theft cases, while non-Public Law 280 respondents say
non-Public Law 280 police under-serve larceny and theft cases, but significantly less than Public
Law 280 jurisdictions. All respondent groups in both jurisdictions say that police under-serve
larceny and theft crimes. Respondents say that Public Law 280 police under-serve larceny and
theft crimes significantly more often than non-Public Law 280 police.
The respondent discrepancy rankings for child abuse are not significant for group,
jurisdiction, and interaction effects. Reservation residents in Public Law 280 jurisdictions say
Public Law 280 police slightly under-serve child abuse but provide close to balanced service.
Non-Public Law 280 reservation residents,
law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice
personnel say police over-serve child abuse, or provide too much attention to child-abuse cases.
Law enforcement personnel in both jurisdictions give the highest rankings for police over-service
to child-abuse cases. Police in both jurisdictions think that they give too much attention to childabuse cases beyond their frequency. Since there is no statistically significant result, police
service patterns for child abuse are not explained by jurisdiction, group, or their interaction
effects.
The rankings for burglary do not yield statistically significant results. All respondent
groups for both jurisdictions say police under-serve, or give too little attention to, burglary
crimes. The respondents agree that burglary crimes are under-served. The rankings are negative
but relatively low, indicating that police are moderately under-serving burglary crimes. Public
Law 280 law enforcement personnel give the highest ranking for under-service, and suggest that
police should give more attention to burglary.
The low-frequency crimes break into two patterns between the physically violent crimes
of homicide, rape, and robbery; and the property crimes of auto theft and arson. There are three
statistically significant effects out of five for the low-frequency crimes. Auto theft yields a
statistically significant group effect, suggesting differences in opinion over police service among
reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice personnel. Criminal
justice personnel and law enforcement personnel say that auto theft is under-served by police,
while reservation residents suggest that police are providing slightly too much attention, but
296
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.
close to balanced service for auto thefts. According to criminal justice personnel and criminal
justice, police should give more attention to auto thefts; reservation residents say, however, that
police are giving sufficient attention, and are leaning toward giving too much attention. Auto
theft, a low frequency and relatively non-violent crime, is ranked as under-served by law
enforcement and criminal justice, but reservation residents report balanced police attention and
slight police over-attention.
All respondents — reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and criminal justice
personnel for both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions — indicate that police
priority and frequency are balanced for arson cases. Arson, a low frequency crime, is ranked by
all respondents to attract balanced police attention relative to arson-case frequency.
The low frequency and more violent crimes of robbery, rape, and homicide yield two
statistically significant results, suggesting violent low-frequency crimes are significantly overserved by police in specific ways related to jurisdiction or group effects. Respondent
discrepancy rankings for robbery yield a marginally non-significant jurisdiction effect. All
respondent groups in both jurisdictions say police are giving balanced attention to robberies
given their frequency. This pattern conforms to overall results that suggest police give too much
attention to the low frequency, but violent, crime of robbery.
Respondent discrepancy rankings of the low frequency, violent, rape crime yields a
statistically significant group effect. Reservation residents, law enforcement personnel, and
criminal justice personnel disagree about police responsiveness to rape crimes. All three groups
give relatively high police over-service rankings to rape crimes. Reservation residents give the
lowest over-service rankings, law enforcement personnel give the next highest ranking, and
criminal justice personnel believe that police are giving the most over-attention to rape cases.
All respondent groups in both jurisdictions say that police give too much attention to rape cases
when compared to frequency of occurrence.
This overall pattern suggests that low frequency but
violent crimes attract too much police attention. Criminal justice personnel believe that police
give significantly more attention to robbery crimes than law enforcement and reservation
residents.
The low frequency, violent, crime of homicide yields a statistically significant effect for
jurisdiction. Public Law 280 respondents say Public Law 280 police give significantly more
over-service to homicide crimes than non-Public Law 280 respondents report for non-PL 280
police. In particular, Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel say Public Law 280 police give
too much attention to homicide cases in Public Law 280 jurisdictions. All respondent groups in
both jurisdictions say that police are providing too much attention to homicide cases. This result
reflects the overall pattern that all respondents say police focus too much on low frequency,
violent crimes. The present analysis suggests Public Law 280 police are over-focused on
homicides to a degree significantly higher than non-Public Law 280 police. Non-Public Law
280 police also overemphasize homicide, but give significantly less attention than Public Law
280 police.
297
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.
The pattern of police over-attention to violent but low-frequency crimes is partially
explained by both jurisdiction and group effects. Differences between Public Law 280 and nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions help explain police overemphasis on the low frequency,
but violent,
homicide crimes, while group effects, differences between criminal justice personnel, law
enforcement personnel, and reservation-resident rankings, help explain police overemphasis on
the violent but low frequency crime of rape.
There is an overall pattern of police under-emphasis on high-frequency crimes, such as
domestic violence, and DUI, and police overemphasis on low frequency violent crimes, such as
rape, and homicide. Both jurisdiction and group effects combined help explain the overall
pattern. Public Law 280 police significantly under-serve domestic violence and larceny-theft
crimes; and significantly overemphasize homicide cases.
Criminal justice personnel say police,
in both jurisdictions, significantly underemphasize DUIs, and auto thefts, giving too much
attention to rape. For medium-frequency crimes, criminal justice and law enforcement personnel
agree that police give too little attention to the low frequency auto-theft crime, while reservation
residents say police efforts are balanced. Public Law 280 police under-serve the medium
frequency larceny-theft crimes, while non-Public Law 280 police are under-serving but provide
more balanced attention to larceny-theft crimes. Jurisdiction and group effects do not provide
explanatory value for discrepancy rankings for drug offenses, child abuse, robbery, burglary, and
arson. In particular, the pattern of police service to high-frequency drug offenses does not
depend on jurisdiction or group effects, although drug offenses fit into the overall pattern of a
high frequency crime that is under-served by police. A combination of jurisdiction and group
effects helps explain the pattern of police under-serving high-frequency crimes, while giving too
much attention to violent, low-frequency crimes.