Research for Practice

Factors That Influence Public Opinion of the Police

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

JUNE 03
This and other publications and products

of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice can be found on the World

Wide Web at the following site:

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart

Director, National Institute of Justice
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of

the authors and do not reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

JUNE 03

Factors That Influence Public Opinion 

of the Police

Acknowledgments

This research was 

supported by National

Institute of Justice grant

number 96–IJ–CX–0069.

The authors would like

to acknowledge the aid

of Lois Mock, NIJ grant

monitor; Jack Greene,

who served as consultant

to the project; and Garrett Zimmon, Dan Koenig,

and many other members

of the Los Angeles

Police Department.

NCJ 197925
ii

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

Police can improve public opinion by increasing their informal

contacts with citizens. According to a survey of Los Angeles

residents’ opinions of police

job performance and officers’

demeanor, police can increase

residents’ approval of their job

performance by participating

in community meetings,

increasing officers’ visibility in

neighborhoods, and talking

with citizens. Such informal

contacts had a positive impact

on job approval ratings even

when other factors associated

with lower approval ratings—

such as residents’ perceptions

that their neighborhoods are

crime ridden, dangerous, and

disorderly—were present. 

Informal contacts with police

also lessened the negative

impact of residents’ formal

contacts with police (such as

being arrested or questioned

by police). Residents with

both types of contact reported higher approval ratings

than residents with only formal contact. Race and ethnicity were not found to be as

important as neighborhood

characteristics or personal

contacts in determining the

public’s satisfaction with

police, although race and ethnicity did seem to play a role

in residents’ assessment of

officers’ demeanor. The

media were also found to

ABOUT THIS STUDY

have little influence on public

opinion of the police.

What did the survey

reveal?

■ Residents’ perception of

the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood

was a significant factor

shaping their opinion of

the police.

■ Residents with informal

police contacts had more

positive perceptions than

residents with formal

contacts.

■ Residents’ opinion of police performance did not

vary by race or ethnicity in

disorderly neighborhoods.

■ Media did not affect residents’ approval of police

job performance or their

perception of officers’

demeanor.

What were the 

survey’s limitations?

Although care was taken to

survey residents from diverse

communities in Los Angeles,

the four areas covered by the

survey are not, nor were they

intended to be, representative

of the entire city.
1

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

Cheryl Maxson, Karen Hennigan, and David C. Sloane

About the Authors

Cheryl Maxson, Ph.D.,

is an assistant professor

in the Department of

Criminology, Law, and

Society at the University

of California at Irvine.

Karen Hennigan, Ph.D.,

is a research assistant

professor in psychology

at the University of

Southern California

(USC). Both authors are

research associates in the

Social Science Research

Institute at USC. David

C. Sloane, Ph.D., is an

associate professor in

the School of Policy,

Planning, and Development at USC.

A new study has found that

neighborhood characteristics

and interactions with police

are the factors that most influence public opinion of the

police. The study, conducted

in Los Angeles, found that

residents from neighborhoods

perceived to be crime ridden,

dangerous, and disorderly

were less likely to approve of

the police.1 In contrast, residents who had informal personal contact with police

were more likely to express

approval. Race and ethnicity,

factors cited as influential in

other studies, were not found

to be as important as community disorder in determining

the public’s satisfaction with

police. Race and ethnicity

did affect assessment of

police demeanor. The media

were found to have little

influence on public opinion

of the police.

Measuring opinions in

Los Angeles

Researchers mailed a survey

to residents in four diverse

areas of Los Angeles. (See

Factors That Influence Public

Opinion of the Police

“Study Background and

Methodology.”) Using a

series of questions, they

measured two aspects of

police performance: 

■ Job approval. The measure of job approval was

based on a six-question

scale modified from Skogan’s work in Chicago,

which asked residents

how well police in their

neighborhood prevent

crime, help victims, and

solve problems.2

■ Officer demeanor. The

measure of officer

demeanor was formed

from five questions

that asked respondents

whether police were respectful, trustworthy, fair,

or helpful and how concerned they acted.

The study focused on four

factors that were thought to

influence public opinion of

the police:

■ Residents’ perceptions of

the levels of disorder and
Previous research suggests

that an individual’s opinion

of the police is filtered

through these factors, but

relatively little is known about

how they work together to

influence perceptions

of police performance.

Perceptions of the

neighborhood

As might be expected,

residents expressed less 

2

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

crime in their neighborhood and the neighbors’

sense of mutual trust and

responsibility.

■ Residents’ formal and

informal contacts with

police and prior experience

as victims of violent and

property crime.

■ Residents’ demographic

characteristics.

■ The role of the media. 

STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

Area Description

The study sample was taken from four of the

Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD’s) 18

geographic areas. The areas were chosen to

reflect contrasting rates of reported property

and violent crimes and demographic profiles,

especially income and race/ethnicity. One

representative from each of the LAPD’s four

administrative bureaus was included. However,

the four areas are not, nor were they intended

to be, representative of the entire city.

■ Area A is in South Central. It has one of the

highest violent crime rates in the city, more

than three times higher than any of the other

areas surveyed. In the 1990 census, area A

had approximately 150,000 residents, who

were 55 percent black and 40 percent Latino.

Latinos have moved into this traditionally

black area in increasing numbers. Eighty-six

percent of residents reported household

incomes below $45,000 and 43 percent

below $15,000.

■ Area B is just north and east of downtown. It

has the second highest violent crime rate,

fueled by the largest gang population in the

city, with more than 7,000 gang members in

approximately 40 gangs. Area B, however,

has the lowest property crime rate among

the four areas sampled. Area B is primarily

Hispanic (84 percent) and low income, with

many residents living in multigenerational

households. In the 1990 census, 80 percent

of residents reported household incomes

below $45,000 and 32 percent below $15,000.

■ Area C is on the city’s west side. It has a relatively low violent crime rate but the highest

property crime rate among the surveyed

areas. Area C has approximately 200,000 residents and is ethnically diverse (61 percent

white, 22 percent Latino, 10 percent Asian,

and 6 percent black). In the 1990 census,

59 percent of residents reported household

incomes below $45,000 and 17 percent below $15,000.

■ Area D is in the San Fernando Valley. It has a

very low violent crime rate and the second

lowest reported property crime rate (higher

only than area B). Area D is primarily white
3

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

(73 percent) with growing Latino (17 percent)

and Asian (8 percent) populations. Residents

of area D have higher incomes than those in

other areas surveyed: 50 percent reported

household incomes above $45,000 and 26

percent above $75,000 in the 1990 census.

Survey Methods

Residential addresses were obtained from citywide utility service lists that were coded to permit selection of addresses within the four

geographic areas. A random sample of 375

addresses for each area composed the original

sample. Survey procedures were adopted from

Dillman’s Total Design Approach, including up

to six contacts with potential respondents: a

prenotification postcard, four survey mailings

(the last two with a $1 incentive), and a thank

you/reminder following the first survey mailing.a

All mailed materials included Spanish translations. Other languages were offered, but they

were requested only rarely.

Mailings to 14 percent of the selected addresses were returned by the post office, primarily

because of inaccurate address information.

Excluding these nondeliverable surveys, the

response rate varied from 44 percent to 65 percent across the four areas, with a combined

response rate of 57 percent. In all, 714 completed surveys were available for analysis. However, respondents sometimes skipped individual

questions, so the number of responses varies

in each analysis.b

Notes

a. Dillman, D.A., Mail and Telephone Survey: The Total

Design Method, New York: Wiley and Sons, 1978; “The

Design and Administration of Mail Surveys,” Annual Review

of Sociology 17 (1991): 225–249.

b. For more information about the study methods, see Hennigan, K., C. Maxson, D. Sloane, and M. Ranney, “Community

Views on Crime and Policing: Survey Mode Effects on Bias in

Community Surveys,” Justice Quarterly 19 (3), 2002, 565–587.

approval of officers and the

way they do their job when

residents perceived problems

with disorder or violent crime

in their neighborhood or

reported being fearful (see

exhibit 1). 

The level of social cohesion

and informal social control

present in a neighborhood

also influenced residents’

assessments of the police.

This characteristic describes

residents’ sense of mutual

trust and responsibility.3 To

determine the level of neighborhood cohesion and control, residents in this survey

were asked, among other

questions, whether people in

their neighborhood got along

with each other, shared the

same values, could be trusted, were willing to help their

neighbors, and could be

counted on to intervene in

neighborhood problems,

such as children skipping
Percentage

Neighborhood characteristic

Level of violence

High

(n = 252)

Low

(n = 372)

Level of fear

High

(n = 301)

Low

(n = 338)

Level of disorder

High

(n = 237)

Low

(n = 369)

Level of cohesion 

and control

High

(n = 327)

Low

(n = 304)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Officer demeanor

Job approval

4

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

Public opinion was associated with neighborhood

cohesion and control for two

reasons. First, residents who

reported living in neighborhoods where neighbors got

along, shared similar values,

and could rely on each other

were likelier to have informal

school or the potential closing of a fire station because

of budget cuts. As indicated

in exhibit 1, residents who

responded positively to these

and related questions were

much likelier to approve of

police performance and

demeanor.

Exhibit 1. Percentage of residents who approve of police, by neighborhood

characteristics
5

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

contacts with police officers

than those who reported living in neighborhoods where

these traits were less common. Second, these respondents are likelier to believe

that the community shares

responsibility with the police

for a safe and orderly neighborhood. They are therefore

less likely to judge police officers harshly when crime and

social disorder occur.

Contacts with the

police

The survey captured two

kinds of contact with officers:

formal and informal. Fortyeight percent of the respondents reported some type of

formal contact with local

police. These formal contacts

included residents’ calls to

police stations requesting

service and police questioning of residents regarding

possible crimes. These formal contacts also included

arrests of 1 percent of the

respondents.

Forty-seven percent of the

respondents reported informal contacts with police.

These informal contacts

included conversations with

police officers on patrol and

interactions with police at

community meetings, policesponsored youth activities,

and community safety fairs.

Although almost half the

respondents reported informal contacts with police, less

than one in five residents said

they knew or recognized

police officers who worked

in their community.

Exhibit 2 shows how residents rated police based on

the types of contact they had

(formal only, informal only,

both, neither). Those with

only informal contacts hold

the highest opinions of police

performance and officer

demeanor. Those with only

formal contacts hold the least

positive attitudes toward local

police on these two measures. Individuals with no contacts with police have high

opinions of job performance

and officer demeanor.

Informal contact with police

had a significant effect on

job approval ratings, even

when considering residents’

perceptions of the level of

disorder in their neighborhood. For residents who

reported low levels of disorder, job approval ratings

ranged from 71 percent for

residents with only formal

contact with police to almost

90 percent for those with
6

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

either no contact or only

informal contact. Residents

who reported high levels of

neighborhood disorder had a

wide range of opinion about

job performance—35 percent

who had only formal contact,

49 percent who had both formal and informal contact, and

85 percent who had only

informal contact approved of

police performance.

Prior crime 

victimization

Prior victimization, especially

violent crime victimization,

significantly lowered residents’ approval of the police.

As exhibit 3 shows, 57 percent of respondents who

were violent crime victims

and 70 percent who were

property (but not violent)

Exhibit 2. Percentage of residents who approve of police, by type of contact

they had with local officers

Percentage

Job approval

Officer demeanor

Type of contact

Formal only 

(n = 140)

Informal only 

(n = 134)

Both

(n = 166)

Neither

(n = 200)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
crime victims approved of

police performance. In comparison, 85 percent of residents who were not crime

victims approved of the job

their local police were doing.

This pattern held for respondents’ opinions of officer

demeanor, although the difference in perceptions between crime victims and

nonvictims was not as great.

The lower approval ratings

7

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

for crime victims are consistent with past research.4

Demographic 

characteristics

Much past literature focuses

on the association of race

and ethnicity with public

opinion of the police. Studies

have found that ethnic minorities, particularly blacks, 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of residents who approve of police, by type of 

victimization

Percentage

Job approval

Officer demeanor

Type of victimization

Violent crime

(n = 103)

Property crime only

(n = 300)

Not a victim

(n = 220)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
However, once respondents

are categorized further by

the level of perceived disorder

in their neighborhood, the

racial/ethnic-based differences

in approval of job performance

disappear (see exhibit 5). Although whites in low-disorder

neighborhoods appear to have

a higher opinion of police performance, disorder is clearly

the main influence. Conversely, residents’ opinions about

8

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

report less favorable attitudes

toward the police than whites,

possibly because of their perception that minorities are

mistreated more often by

police.5 At first glance, the

results of the current study

seem to confirm the findings

of these studies. As exhibit 4

shows, whites express higher opinions of police performance and demeanor than any

other race/ethnic group.

Exhibit 4. Percentage of residents who approve of police, by race/ethnicity

Percentage

Race/ethnicity

Asian and other

(n = 79)

Black

(n = 84)

Latino

(n = 198)

White

(n = 245)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Job approval

Officer demeanor
9

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

officer demeanor were more

affected by their race and ethnicity, even though disorder

remained important. Blacks

were less likely to think that

local police were trustworthy,

fair, helpful, concerned, and

respectful of others in both

orderly and disorderly

neighborhoods.

Exhibit 5. Percentage of residents who approve of police, by race/ethnicity

and neighborhood disorder

Role of the media

Police are particularly concerned about the media’s

influence on attitudes toward

them. Several Los Angeles

police supervisors who were

interviewed before the survey was conducted stated

that they believed that a few

highly publicized incidents

Percentage

Race/ethnicity and level of neighborhood disorder

Asian and other

(n = 79)

High Low

Black

(n = 84)

High Low

Latino

(n = 198)

High Low

White

(n = 245)

High Low

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Job approval

Officer demeanor
10

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

might have a widespread

negative influence on residents’ view of the police.

In this survey, 65 percent of

the respondents indicated

that personal experience

(including respondents’ experience with other police agencies and their secondhand

knowledge of the experience

of others) most shaped

their opinions of the LAPD.

Thirty-five percent were most

influenced by mass media

(including newspapers, radio,

and television). The study

found that residents who rely

most on the media did not

report less favorable opinions

regarding the overall job performance and demeanor

of the police than those

most influenced by personal

experience.

Implications for police

practice

According to this study, disorderly neighborhoods and

neighborhoods with poor

social cohesion and control

present a challenge for officercommunity relations. Local

community surveys can help

police to identify and address

residents’ situations and concerns (see “The Need for

More Surveys”). Communities also may benefit from

community policing strategies that increase informal

THE NEED FOR MORE SURVEYS

Surveying and understanding the public’s opinion of police

performance is important for several reasons: 

■ Public acceptance of police authority is essential to

maintain public order. 

■ Public confidence in police can lead to cooperation

that is needed for effective policing. 

■ Public support is crucial to maintaining and expanding

police funding.

■ Sensitive measurement of public opinion is an important

way to monitor local police activities.

■ Exchange of information fosters police-community

partnerships that can be tailored to specific community

concerns.

Perceptions of police activities, crime, and fear and the

identification of neighborhood problems and strengths

represent important aspects of the community context

of policing. 

Regular surveys are essential for understanding these

issues further. Such surveys should be conducted by independent organizations to avoid biased responses. Conducting the surveys over a number of years would allow

for greater comprehension of the public’s opinion. An

annual survey with standard samples and procedures

crafted to examine trends would be most meaningful.

Then, police officials and community representatives

would notice anomalies in the pattern of opinion as influenced by respondents’ experiences and the neighborhood

sense of community. Community stakeholders could track

indicators of issues that can be targets of intervention,

such as neighborhood conditions or people’s lack of informal contact with officers.

Surveying community residents can provide valuable

information about the public’s assessment of police activities. As this study demonstrates, such a survey can provide surprisingly rich information about the relationship

between communities and the police. This information can

direct police and community change and help monitor the

effectiveness of interventions.
11

F ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE POLICE

contact between local officers and residents.

The findings confirm and

expand on earlier studies that

suggested informal contact

raises public opinion of the

police. In this survey, speaking to officers on patrol or at

community events was associated with a positive opinion

of police performance,

whether or not the resident

lived in a disorderly neighborhood. It could be that those

predisposed to be more

favorable are likelier to initiate informal contact with officers. In any event, it seems

likely that promoting informal

social contact may favorably

influence public opinion.

Police departments may

want to evaluate the ways

that they encourage or discourage informal contact

with residents. Policecommunity partnerships are

more effective when they

incorporate greater informal

contact with residents. 

Although past literature relies

heavily on demographic characteristics to explain public

opinion, this study found that

the most important factors

influencing favorable opinion

of the police were greater

informal contact with police,

less victimization, less fear

of crime, lower perceived

level of violent crime, lower

perceived disorder in one’s

neighborhood, and higher

neighborhood cohesion and

control. Race and ethnicity

were not shown to significantly determine public opinion

of police performance once

other factors (such as perceived neighborhood disorder)

were considered. Residents’

trust in the police, however,

was influenced by race and

ethnicity.

Police and others often perceive the media as having a significant effect on the

public’s opinion of police

performance. According to

this study’s findings, the

media did not appear to be a

source of negative opinion of

the LAPD. Instead of relying

on the media for their opinions, respondents appeared

to react primarily to their own

experiences and expectations in forming opinions of

their local police.

Notes

1. For more information about this

report, see Hennigan, K., C. Maxson,

D. Sloane, and M. Ranney, “Community Views on Crime and Policing:

Survey Mode Effects on Bias in

Community Surveys,” Justice Quarterly 19 (3), 2002, 565–587.

2. Skogan, W., Disorder and Decline:

Crime and the Spiral of Decay in

American Neighborhoods, New York:

Free Press, 1990; Skogan, W., and

S. Harnett, Community Policing
12

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

Chicago Style, New York: Free Press,

1997.

3. Social scientists often refer to the

combination of neighborhood social

cohesion and informal social control

as “collective efficacy.” Sampson,

R.J., and S.W. Raudenbush, “Systematic Social Observation of Public

Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in

Urban Neighborhoods,” American

Journal of Sociology 105 (3) (November 1999): 603–651; Sampson, R.J.,

S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls,

“Neighborhoods and Violent Crime:

A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,” Science 277 (1077): 918–924;

Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush,

and F. Earls, Neighborhood Collective

Efficacy: Does It Help Reduce Violence? Research Preview, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

April 1998, NCJ 184377.

4. Kansas City Police Department,

1977, studies cited in S.G. Brandl and

F. Horvath, “Crime-Victim Evaluation

of Police Investigative Performance,”

Journal of Criminal Justice 19 (1991):

293–305; Brown, K., and P.B. Coulter,

“Subjective and Objective Measure of

Police Performance,” Public Administration Review 43 (1983): 50–58;

Carter, D.L., “Hispanic Perception of

Police Performance: An Empirical

Assessment,” Journal of Criminal

Justice 13 (1985): 487–500; Jesilow,

P., J. Meyer, and N. Namazzi, “Public

Attitudes Toward the Police,” American Journal of Police 14 (2) (1995):

67–88.

5. Flanagan, T.J., and M.S. Vaughn,

“Public Opinion and Police Abuse

and Force,” in W.A. Gelban and H.

Toch, eds., Police Violence, New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1996;

Huang, W.S., and M.S. Vaughn,

“Support and Confidence: Public

Attitudes Toward the Police,” in

W.A. Gleban and H. Toch, eds.,

Police Violence, New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1996; Sacco, V.,

“Evaluating Satisfaction,” in J.P.

Brodeur, ed., How to Recognize

Good Policing: Problems and Issues,

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Waddington, P.A.J., and

Q. Braddock, “Guardians or Bullies?

Perceptions of the Police Among

Adolescent Black, White, and Asian

Boys,” Policing and Society 2 (1991):

31–45.
The National Institute of Justice is the

research, development, and evaluation

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NIJ provides objective, independent,

nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge

and tools to enhance the administration

of justice and public safety.

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.