Mt. Hagen Community Crime Survey, 2006

Published (with different layout and pagination) as: Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2007). “Mt. Hagen Community Crime Survey, 2006”, Special Publication No. 44, National Research Institute, Port Moresby. LAW & JUSTICE SECTOR MT HAGEN COMMUNITY CRIME SURVEY, 2006 PNG Justice Advisory Group 25 September 2006 ENDORSEMENTS Certified as meeting a requirement of the Project Rowan Downing QC Project Director This report has been prepared through extensive consultation with GoPNG Law and Justice Sector agencies and relevant stakeholders.  CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ACRONYMS iv EXTENDED SUMMARY 1 Survey Background 2 Individual Perceptions of Crime in Mt Hagen 2 Actual Household Crime Victimisation 4 Household and Community Responses to Crime 5 Community Views about Government Agencies 7 Policy Implications 8 CHAPTER 1 THE HOUSEHOLD CRIME SURVEY IN MT HAGEN 10 Mt Hagen 10 Survey Background 11 Objectives 12 Methodology 12 CHAPTER 2 INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME IN MT HAGEN 14 Key Perception Indicators 14 Are Crime and Corruption Perceived to be Increasing Nationally? 15 Is Crime Perceived to be Decreasing in the Local Area? 17 Who Was Contributing Most to Crime Prevention? 17 What Crimes Are Perceived to Occur Most? 19 What Types of Victimisation Trouble People Most in Practice? 20 Do People Feel Safe? 23 Who Thinks Crime Has Changed Most? 23 Do People Change their Behaviour Because of Fear of Crime? 24 CHAPTER 3 ACTUAL HOUSEHOLD CRIME VICTIMISATION 25 Key Indicators of Household Victimisation 25 How Often Does Crime Occur? 27 CHAPTER 4 HOUSEHOLD AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO CRIME 31 Key Household and Community Indicators 31 What Levels of Security? 32 What Are Living Conditions Like? 33 What Type of Employment? 34 Who Are the Victims? 34 In What Setting Does Crime Occur? 36 Who Are the Perpetrators? 37 Are the Real Levels of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Known? 38 What Types of Community Action? 39 What Can Be Done for Youth? 40 CHAPTER 5 COMMUNITY VIEWS ABOUT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 43 Key Law & Justice Agency Indicators 43 What Do People Know of the Law and Justice Agencies? 44 Are the Law and Justice Agencies Doing a Good Job over Corruption? 46 What Are Attitudes to the Policing Services? 47 Do the Police Participate in the Community? 48 What About Other Types of Policing? 49 Is Crime Reported to the Police? 49 Are the Police a Deterrent? 50 Are the Police Thought to be Criminals? 51 Are the Police Thought to Respect the Community? 52 APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE 53 APPENDIX B PERSONNEL 54 APPENDIX C METHODOLOGY Consultation 55 Objectives 55 Instrumentation 56 Survey Design 56 Sample Reliability 57 Gender Issues 59 Fieldwork, Quality Control and Safety 60 Data Analysis 61 Timing 63 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE 64 TABLES Table ES1: Summary Individual Perception Indicators 3 Table ES2: Summary Household Victimisation Indicators 4 Table ES3: Summary Household and Community Indicators 6 Table ES4: Summary Law & Justice Agency Indicators 7 Table 1: Summary Individual Perception Indicators 14 Table 2: Perceived Size of the Crime Problem in PNG 16 Table 3: Perceived Changes to Corruption Levels in PNG 16 Table 4: Perceived Changes in the Level of Crime in Your Area in the Past 12 Months 17 Table 5: Perceived Contributions by Groups to Changing Crime Levels 18 Table 6: Crime Most Frequently Perceived in the Local Area 19 Table 7: Most Troubling Household Victimisation to Self or Other Household Members over Previous Year 21 Table 8: Feelings of Safety and Security from Crime 23 Table 9: Perceived Changes in the Level of Crime, by Age and Gender 23 Table 10: Summary Household Victimisation Indicators 26 Table 11: Multiple Household Crime in the Past Year 27 Table 12: Property and Violent Crime Victimisation for Households in the Past Year 28 Table 13: Frequency and Repeat of Household Victimisation 30 Table 14: Summary Household and Community Indicators 31 Table 15: House Security 33 Table 16: Housing Utilities 33 Table 17: Household Occupancy 34 Table 18: Occupational Status 35 Table 19: Individual Crime Victimisation by Age and Gender 35 Table 20: Location of the Most Troubling Crimes 37 Table 21: The Perpetrators 38 Table 22: Group Responsibility for Crime Prevention/Community Safety 39 Table 23: Preferred Government Initiatives on Crime 41 Table 24: Preferred Community Initiatives on Crime 42 Table 25: Summary Law & Justice Agency Indicators 43 Table 26: Contact with the Law & Justice Agencies 45 Table 27: Satisfaction with Law & Justice Agencies Handling of Own Matter 45 Table 28: Satisfaction with the Law & Justice Agencies over Action on Corruption 46 Table 29: Opinion on Whether Police Do a Good Job 47 Table 30: Improvement in Opinion from Contact with the Police 48 Table 31: Improvement in Police Discipline 48 Table 32: Police Participation in Community Consultations about Crime 49 Table 33: Reporting of Most Troublesome Incident to the Police 50 Table 34: The Most Important Things Police Can Do in the Community 51 Table 35: Reasons Why Police Were Doing a Good Job 52 Table C1: Mt Hagen Urban Population by Gender, 2000 Census 56 Table C2: Sample Age Mean and Standard Deviation, Age 15 Plus 58 Table C3. Western Highlands Urban Adult Population Proportions, by Age and Gender, 2000 58 Table C4: Mt Hagen Sample Quotas, by Age and Gender 59 Table C5: Interviews by Marital Status, Age 15 Plus 59 Table C6: Interviews by Tertiary Education Qualifications, Age 15 Plus Location 59 Table C7: Survey Timetable 63 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The researchers, the Justice Advisory Group and the National Research Institute would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the people and organisations involved in the research: the Governments of Papua New Guinea and Australia, which sought out the information and made the research possible, the various people in Papua New Guinea and Australia who contributed to peer review, and the data collectors and field workers who participated in the field work in Mt Hagen. We also thank the especially the 328 people who gave their time to answer our questions. ACRONYMS AusAID Australian Agency for International Development GoPNG Government of Papua New Guinea JAG Justice Advisory Group L&J Law and Justice LJSP Law & Justice Sector Program LJSWG Law & Justice Sector Working Group NCM Law & Justice Sector National Coordinating Mechanism NRI PNG National Research Institute RPNGC Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary  EXTENDED SUMMARY Since 2004, extensive surveys of crime victimisation in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka have given the first full pictures of the crime victimisation affecting households in those towns. The surveys quantified crime from the perspective of the victims in the community. They were about crime victimisation as reported by household members, rather than crime for which convictions have been reached through the legal system. In 2005, a second round of surveys included the collection of baseline data in Lae and Mt Hagen. The community survey in Mt Hagen in March 2006 interviewed 328 people aged 15 years and over in 124 households. The sample was statistically sound and permits generalisations to the adult populations of Mt Hagen. Mt Hagen is the largest of the five Highlands province capitals. It has a reputation as somewhat of a frontier town. As well as large areas of modern housing, Mt Hagen has many distinct ethnic settlements. A very distinctive feature is that traditional social controls dominate urban life. Migrants generally concentrate with their wantoks Wantok (literally ‘one language’ in Tok Pisin) is a term expressing the idea that people who speak a language in common are members of the same social group and have mutual social obligations. in settlements within the town, which are ‘adopted’ by traditional clans living adjacent to the city. The migrants must follow the clans’ systems of obligations, rights, and responsibilities. Strong traditional methods for resolution of disputes provide a structure for urban crime control, but the clans also can be very competitive and lively elements in the conflicts and allegiances that are part of the collective daily life. Highlands cultures have also long been recognised as conservative and authoritarian. Mt Hagen residents reported higher victimisation levels than found in seven previous surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa, Buka and Lae in 2004 and 2005. Household crime victimisation levels in Mt Hagen were 0% to 7% higher than Lae and 7% to 25% higher than Port Moresby in 2005. 84% of households reported that they had been the victim of crime at least once in the last year (compared to 78% in Lae and 61% in Port Moresby). Mt Hagen residents were the least likely of people in any of the surveys so far to think that their crime situation was improving. Many respondents reported that youth gangs, alcohol and drugs were serious problems. Respondents tended to want strong law enforcement and had more punitive attitudes to lawbreakers than found in the coastal centres surveyed. Additionally: As elsewhere, very high numbers thought that crime and corruption in Papua New Guinea were very high. Very low levels of public awareness existed about the actions of Law & Justice Sector agencies in dealing with crime and corruption. Survey Background Strategy 1.3.1 of the Government of Papua New Guinea’s Law & Justice Sector is “improve urban safety”. To be able to monitor and measure whether an improvement is in fact occurring, it was necessary to develop and implement periodic community crime surveys in urban areas. The studies are an integral part of law and justice sector performance monitoring. The primary objectives of the community crime surveys are to provide information on the levels, extent and types of crime in Papua New Guinea, and to capture community perceptions of the police and other agencies and monitor changes in perceptions over time. The methodology was primarily quantitative, based on a survey using random grid sampling. The sample size was 328 people aged 15 and over in 124 households, an average of 2.6 persons per household. The sample fraction was 1.84% of the estimated urban population of 17 841 over 14 in the 2000 Census. The sample was acceptable statistically for the purposes of generalisation to the total adult population of Mt Hagen compared to 2000 Census data on all the available demographic variables of age, gender, marital status and education. Individual Perceptions of Crime in Mt Hagen All the victimisation surveys have found that fear of crime is high in urban areas. Even though the levels of crime are very high, people appear to be more afraid because crime occurs in the home and is often violent and conducted by groups. Table ES1 summarises the key perception indicators for the 328 respondents interviewed in Mt Hagen and provides comparative data for Lae and Port Moresby: Tables ES1-ES4 summarise key data from tables within the corresponding chapters in the report, where the statistical details are provided. The numbers who thought that crime was a large or very large problem in Papua New Guinea: At a very high 91% in Mt Hagen, was the same as Lae and 12% higher than Port Moresby. Those who thought that the level of corruption in Papua New Guinea was the same or more than a year previously: At 92% in Mt Hagen, was 4% higher than Lae and 9% higher than Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that level of crime in the local area was the same or less over the previous 12 months: At 55% in Mt Hagen, was 3% lower than Lae and 20% lower than Port Moresby. The Mt Hagen figure is the lowest recorded in all the surveys: its residents were the least likely to think their crime situation was improving. Table ES1: Summary Individual Perception Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Size of the crime problem in PNG (large, very large) 91 91 79 Level of corruption in PNG (same, increasing) 92 88 83 Level of crime in the local area (same, less) 55 58 78 Most frequently perceived crimes: Alcohol or drug related crime 46 31 39 Stealing 30 30 31 Domestic violence 3 4 6 Sexual assault 5 5 2 Perceptions of key crimes in Mt Hagen were that: Alcohol and drug-related crime was the most common: The 46% in Mt Hagen was 15% higher than Lae and 7% higher than Port Moresby. Like Lae, drugs received much comment. Stealing was very common: The 30% in Mt Hagen was virtually the same as Lae and Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that domestic violence was the most common crime: At 3% in Mt Hagen was the same as Lae and half Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that sexual assault was the most common crime: At 5% in Mt Hagen was the same as Lae and twice Port Moresby. Overall, people in Mt Hagen generally perceived their crime situation to be worse than residents in Lae perceived their situation; and they in turn perceived theirs’ to be worse than people did in Port Moresby. Like in Lae, Hagens considered raskols to be a major problem. The Mt Hagen and Lae surveys are the first in which drug use has appeared to be a community concern, although mainly about drug use outside the home rather than inside it. The indication is that drug use is mainly a problem in places connected by road to marijuana growing areas in the Highlands. Actual Household Crime Victimisation The research found that crime victimisation levels in Mt Hagen were very high, higher even than Lae or Port Moresby. Table ES2 summarises eight key indicators based on the 124 households in Mt Hagen, showing that its victimisation levels were 0% to 7% higher than Lae and 7% to 25% higher than Port Moresby. Mt Hagen’s levels were the highest so far recorded in these surveys. Table ES2: Summary Household Victimisation Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Victim of at least one crime 84 78 61 Victim of multiple crimes 69 67 46 Victim of repeat crime 56 50 31 Property crime 32 25 15 Violent crime 15 13 7 Firearm use 16 12 9 Sexual assault 11 11 3 Stealing property 59 54 32 The percentage of households that were the victim of at least one crime was: 84% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 7% than Lae and 23% than Port Moresby. The percentage of households that were the victim of multiple crime was: 69% in Mt Hagen. Higher than Lae by a small 2%, and 23% higher than Port Moresby. The percentage of households that were the victim of repeat crime was: 56% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 6% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. The average percentage of households affected by each of five forms of property crime was: 32% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 7% than Lae and double Port Moresby. The average percentage of households affected by each of seven forms of violent crime was: 15% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 2% than Lae and double Port Moresby. The percentage of households affected by firearm use was: 16% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 4% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. Despite under-reporting, the percentage of households affected by sexual assault was the same as the previous highest recorded in any of the urban surveys at: 11% in Mt Hagen. The same as Lae and nearly four times higher than Port Moresby. The percentage of households affected by stealing property was: 59% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 5% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. Overall, this is clear indication that Mt Hagen residents were more often victimised than in any other city or town surveyed so far. Compared to Lae and Port Moresby, in Mt Hagen: Higher percentages of households were subject to single, repeat and multiple victimisation. All but one type of victimisation had the same level or higher. Remarkably, every type of victimisation except killing and other crime was some two or three times greater than Port Moresby. Sexual assault at 11% was the same level as Lae, but both cities were well above the 0% to 5% recorded in the six previous surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka. There were only two positive signs: Killing was lower than in both Lae and Port Moresby. In two-thirds of cases, repeat victimisation of particular crime types was lower than Lae and Port Moresby. Household and Community Responses to Crime The research found a variety of living conditions that could be a factor in crime victimisation in the household, as summarised in Table ES3. The percentage of respondents living in houses that were walled and/or fenced was: 75% in Mt Hagen. Higher than the 48% in Lae and the 67% in Port Moresby. Respondents’ participation in crime prevention was: 23% in Mt Hagen. In between the 18% in Port Moresby and the 35% in Lae. Overcrowding was high, but: The percentage of respondents living in households with four or more adults was 47% in Mt Hagen, which was much lower than the 77% in Lae and the 78% in Port Moresby. The percentage living with four or more children was 71%, much higher than the 30% in Lae and the 40% in Port Moresby. This may be attributed in part to cultural practices, especially when fathers lived separately from children and mothers, which is traditional in some parts of the Highlands. The percentage of people reporting that the most troublesome crime occurred in the home was: 66% in Mt Hagen. Similar to the 75% in Lae and the 64% in Port Moresby. Victims who knew the perpetrator of the most troublesome cases were: 36% of 80 cases in Mt Hagen. Lower than the 48% in Lae and the 44% in Port Moresby. In such cases, those where the perpetrators were in a group were: 52% in Mt Hagen. Lower than the 56% in Lae and the 61% in Port Moresby. The level of reported unemployment among respondents was: 15% in Mt Hagen. Much the same as the 16% in Lae and lower than the 21% in Port Moresby. Respondents’ most preferred government initiative for reduction of crime in Mt Hagen was to have a greater police presence, compared to more jobs in Lae and Port Moresby. Table ES3: Summary Household and Community Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Houses walled and/or fenced 75 48 67 Participate in community crime protection group 23 35 18 Four or more adults per household 47 77 78 Four or more children per household 71 30 40 Most troubling crime occurred in the home 66 75 64 Victim knew the perpetrator in the most troubling crime 36 48 44 More than one offender in the most troubling crime 52 56 61 Unemployed 15 16 21 Most preferred government initiative on crime More police (25%) More jobs (24%) More jobs (25%) Like other centres, respondents believed that crime would reduce if there were more employment and recreation for youth. People clearly saw prevention through change in social and economic conditions as a long-term solution to crime, but there was a narrow majority that wanted law and order solutions. This is the first time such a finding has appeared in these surveys. Mt Hagen residents tended to want strong law enforcement and had a more punitive attitude to law breakers. This seemed to reflect the greater level of victimisation in Mt Hagen and more authoritarian attitudes to law and order in the Highlands. Community Views about Government Agencies The survey found moderate levels of public awareness about L&J agencies and low levels of satisfaction with police performance, which Table ES4 summarises. The results revealed that the public had minimal contact with the formal sector agencies. Only 12% of the public had contact with the agencies on average. In these few cases, satisfaction with how their matter had been handled was moderate, with a mean level of satisfaction of 50% (less than Lae’s 62% and Port Moresby’s 61%). Where the public had contact with the police in Mt Hagen, the satisfaction level was 42%. This was also lower than both Lae (54%) and Port Moresby (57%). Awareness of agency action over corruption was low at 12%. The people who were aware had a moderate average level of satisfaction of 50% in Mt Hagen (very similar to Lae’s 54% and Port Moresby’s 51%). Satisfaction with police action over corruption was lower than other agencies, with a satisfaction level of 27% in Mt Hagen (lower than to 31% in Lae and 37% in Port Moresby). Table ES4: Summary Law & Justice Agency Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Satisfaction with all agencies over handling of own matter 50 62 61 Satisfaction with police over handling of own matter 42 54 57 Satisfaction with all agencies over handling of corruption 50 51 54 Satisfaction with police over handling of corruption 27 31 37 Police do a good job 17 27 27 Reported most troubling crime to police 38 32 33 Improvement in opinion from contact with the police 47 49 44 Police discipline improved (yes, sometimes) 30 27 33 Police participate in community consultations (yes, sometimes) 31 42 31 Satisfaction with other aspects of the performance of the police varied: 17% of people in Mt Hagen thought that police were doing a good job overall: Somewhat lower than the 27% in both Lae and Port Moresby. The percentage who reported their most troubling crime to the police was 38% in Mt Hagen: Higher than the 32% in Lae and the 33% in Port Moresby. The percentage who improved their opinion of the police as a result of official contact with them was 47% in Mt Hagen: Similar to the 49% in Lae and the 44% in Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that police discipline had improved at least sometimes over the last year was 20% in Mt Hagen: Lower than the 27% in Lae and the 33% in Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that the police participated in community consultations at least sometimes was 18% in Mt Hagen: Much lower than the 42% in Lae and the 31% in Port Moresby. Public satisfaction with agency action was somewhat lower than in Lae and Port Moresby, and this was generally true of satisfaction with the police too. Corruption was not an abstract notion for Hagens: there was a widespread belief that the police and magistrates courts were open to bribery. There was also low satisfaction with agencies in the Attorney General Department. Policy Implications The findings of the Mt Hagen survey add to the wealth of information from the other surveys on crime victimisation, community perceptions of crime, and the credibility of government agencies. Urban priorities: The most important implication of the survey is that crime victimisation in both Mt Hagen and Lae is considerably higher than in Port Moresby. Port Moresby is the highest priority in the L&J Sector’s strategy to reduce urban crime, but this survey provides evidence that consideration could be given to increasing the priority afforded Mt Hagen and Lae. All the surveys have the following broad policy implications for crime prevention: Income generation: As in the other surveys, employment was nominated as an important way of reducing criminal activity. Employment, especially for the young males who are both perpetrators and victims of crime, is widely believed to be a key measure for reducing crime. Alcohol: Alcohol again presented as an important factor in a large number of crimes, particularly violent ones and ones in the domestic setting. While alcohol use is a very complicated issue, it seems to be one of the few preventative areas that could make a rapid impact on crime victimisation. The surveys in Mt Hagen and Lae indicate that drug use is a problem in places connected by road to marijuana growing areas in the Highlands. Policy implications for crime control are: Community mechanisms: The findings in the survey inform and support the directions in the Government’s National Law and Justice Policy, with its emphasis on developing community-based approaches to crime prevention and control. While people in Mt Hagen clearly saw prevention through change in social and economic conditions as a long-term solution to crime, a narrow majority wanted law and order solutions. This is the first time such a finding has appeared in these surveys, however the budgetary reality is that Papua New Guinea cannot afford the level of policing that would be required in Mt Hagen and elsewhere. The survey provides evidence for the formal and informal law and justice sector agencies to cooperate with local government to strengthen community mechanisms and integrate them into broader efforts to prevent and control crime. Police reform: The survey findings indicate that the public in Mt Hagen wants strong policing services free of bribery. The findings continue to reinforce the desirability of implementing the 2004 Review of Police Services. CHAPTER 1 THE HOUSEHOLD CRIME SURVEY IN MT HAGEN In 2004, extensive surveys of crime victimisation were conducted in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka to give the first full pictures of the nature, frequency and location of crime affecting households in those towns. The surveys quantified crime from the perspective of the victims in the community. They were about crime victimisation as reported by household members, rather than crime for which convictions have been reached through the legal system. The questionnaire asked for information about the nature and extent of crime affecting households and individuals as reported by residents. In 2005, a second round of surveys extended to include the collection of baseline data in Lae and Mt Hagen. The community survey in Mt Hagen interviewed 328 people aged 15 years and over in 124 households. The sample was statistically sound and permits generalisations to the adult populations of Mt Hagen. This report presents the findings, which are presented at length in the Extended Summary. So that the report is self-contained, it repeats elements of the other studies. Mt Hagen The Highlands Region contained 38% of Papua New Guinea’s population in the 2000 Census. The largest of the five Highlands province capitals is Mt Hagen. In 2000, it had a population of 27 877, placing it close behind Madang as the fourth largest city in the country. National Statistical Office (2002). Papua New Guinea 2000 Census: Final Figures. Port Moresby: NSO. Mt Hagen is a service hub for the agriculturally rich Western Highlands Province. The city is also at a strategic point on the Highlands Highway, the most important road in the country, soon after the joining of the roads from the minerals-rich Enga and Southern Highlands Provinces. The city contains many retailing, commercial, agricultural and transport businesses, as well as government offices. Mt Hagen has retained a reputation as somewhat of a frontier town. The Highlands were not systematically controlled by the Australian administration until after the Second World War and Mt Hagen started to develop only from the late 1950s. It provided a focus for governmental administration, but came mainly to service plantation and village agriculture in rural areas. Since Independence in 1975, the informal agricultural sector has come to dominate the rural economy of the Western Highlands. Mt Hagen too has a very active informal economy revolving around its market places. As well as substantial areas of modern housing, Mt Hagen contains many distinct ethnic settlements from within the province and outside it. A very distinctive feature is that traditional social controls dominate the city’s life. In-migrants generally concentrate with their wantoks in settlements within the town, which are ‘adopted’ by traditional clans living adjacent to the city. The migrants must follow the clans’ systems of obligations, rights, and responsibilities. This situation may also be affected by rural tribal disputes over land, payback and compensation, and the fluctuating alliances that they generate for both urban and rural dwellers. While there are strong traditional methods for resolution of disputes, the clans can be very competitive and lively elements in the conflicts and allegiances that are part of the collective daily life. Highlands cultures have also long been recognised as conservative and authoritarian. This was reflected in survey findings that Hagens tended to want strong law enforcement and had more punitive attitude to law breakers than found in the coastal centres surveyed. Comparisons with crime victimisation in other urban centres in Papua New Guinea are possible from identical surveys conducted in Port Moresby (in both 2004 and 2005), Arawa and Buka (also in 2004 and 2005), and Lae (2005). These surveys also complement one of crime affecting business in Port Moresby and a study of crime on the Highlands Highway, both conducted in 2005. Findlay, M., Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2005). “Port Moresby Community Crime Survey 2004”, Special Publication No.36. Port Moresby: National Research Institute. Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2006 in press). “Port Moresby Community Crime Survey 2005”, Special Publication. Port Moresby: NRI. Findlay, M., Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2005). “Bougainville Community Crime Trends 2004”. Special Publication No.37. Port Moresby: NRI. Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2006 in press). “Bougainville Community Crime Trends 2005”, Special Publication. Port Moresby: NRI. Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2006 in press). “Lae Community Crime Survey 2006”, Special Publication. Port Moresby: NRI. Findlay, M., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2006 in press). “PNG Business Crime Victimisation Survey 2005”. Special Publication. Port Moresby: NRI. Guthrie, G. (2006 in press). “Highlands Highway Crime Study 2005”. Special Publication. Port Moresby, NRI. While they do not provide a full national picture of crime, the studies are giving an increasingly wide coverage. This report makes comparisons with Port Moresby (as the national capital, the benchmark for urban crime victimisation in other cities) and Lae (which presents contrasts to Mt Hagen by having a greater intermixing of ethnic groups in many settlements and fewer village-type social controls). Mt Hagen had much higher victimisation levels than the previous surveys found in Lae and Port Moresby as well as those in Arawa and Buka. Comparisons with Lae and Port Moresby in this report use the best available data for each location, which was unweighted in the case of Mt Hagen and Lae and weighted for Port Moresby (see Appendix C). The Mt Hagen survey was conducted six months after Port Moresby and four months after Lae. While comparisons in questions that ask about changes in victimisation over the previous 12 months refer to overlapping but not identical periods, there is no indication so far in the surveys that crime levels fluctuate according to national trends, ie. crime patterns appear to be local. Survey Background Strategy 1.3.1 of the Government of Papua New Guinea’s Law & Justice Sector is “improve urban safety”. To be able to monitor and measure whether an improvement is in fact occurring, it was necessary to develop and implement periodic community crime surveys in urban areas. The studies are an integral part of law and justice sector (LJS) performance monitoring. They supplement official statistics used for monitoring performance under the Sector Performance Monitoring Framework, and provide a fuller and more reliable picture of crime levels and responses to them in the community. The information is intended to assist planning and monitoring of the effectiveness of agencies in the sector. It is also intended to inform the AusAID-funded Law & Justice Sector Program, which is working with all sector agencies. This report presents the first such survey in Mt Hagen. Extension and repeat of the survey will occur if required by sector performance monitoring. In 2004, extensive consultation on the nature and design of the surveys had occurred. With minor adjustments from 2004, the second round was approved on 25 August 2005 by the Papua New Guinea LJS National Coordination Mechanism, a committee comprised of the heads of all sectoral agencies, on the advice of the LJS Working Group, which comprises senior departmental managers, and by AusAID. The main difference from 2004 was wider coverage to include information on agencies other than the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, which was the main agency focus in the 2004 surveys. Responsibility for technical advice on monitoring and evaluation of sector performance is held by the Australian-funded Justice Advisory Group (JAG), working in partnership with the National Research Institute (NRI) on the surveys. NRI conducted the fieldwork completing data collection by 25 March 2006 (contributors are listed in Appendix B). Objectives The primary objectives of the Community Crime Surveys are (Appendix A): To provide information on the levels, extent and types of crime in Papua New Guinea, in order to provide a balance to reported crime data, enable the sector to ascertain trends in crime levels and provide a measure of the actual environment in Papua New Guinea that can inform programs and strategies to counter crime. To capture community perceptions of the police and other agencies and to monitor changes in perceptions over time. This should extend more broadly than the perceptions held by victims of crime, in recognition of the many other forms of experience everyday people have with the police. Methodology The methodology was primarily quantitative, based on a survey using random grid sampling (full survey design, sampling and fieldwork details are in Appendix C). The sample size was 328 people aged 15 and over in 124 households, an average of 2.6 persons per household. The sample fraction was 1.84% of the estimated urban population of 17 841 aged 15 and above in the 2000 Census. To compensate for bias in non-response, quotas were filled by data collectors based on age and gender. A structured questionnaire was used with interviews conducted in English and Tok Pisin (the English questionnaire is at Appendix D). The sample was acceptable statistically for the purposes of generalisation to the total adult population of Mt Hagen. It was statistically representative of the adult population compared to 2000 Census data on all the available demographic variables of age, gender, marital status and education. The sample size does limit the potential for cross-analysis of households and demographic variables in instances where cell sizes are low and standard errors of the mean are high. This is less of a concern for sociological generalisations to the population of Mt Hagen as a whole, but restricts detailed criminological analysis at the household level. CD-ROMs with the full survey data are available to bona fide professionals and researchers free of charge from the JAG and NRI. Educo Pty Ltd, 1 Throsby Place, Griffith, ACT 2603, Australia; email anastasia@educo.net. PNG National Research Institute, PO Box 5854, Boroko, NCD; email jrobins@nri.org.pg. CHAPTER 2 INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME IN MT HAGEN Fear of crime arises from perceptions as much as it does from actual experience. Perceptions are a very important influence over fear of crime and beliefs about crime, whether or not they are objectively true. One influence on fear levels is that Papua New Guinea has a strong oral culture. Stories and gossip about crime spread fast though informal networks. Media coverage about crime spreads information quickly among those who access the media. Whether or not the stories are true, repetition soon makes them social facts. This chapter addresses the 328 respondents’ subjective perceptions of crime, mainly using data from Section 2 of the Questionnaire. This and other chapters start by comparing findings on key summary measures with the findings from the 2005 surveys in Port Moresby and Lae, which were conducted six and four months earlier respectively, in September-November 2005. Key Perception Indicators All the victimisation surveys have found that fear of crime was high in urban areas. Even though the levels of crime were very high, people were seemingly more afraid because crime occurs in the home and is often violent and conducted by groups. Table 1 summarises the key perception indicators for the 328 respondents interviewed in Mt Hagen and provides comparative data for Lae and Port Moresby. The Summary Tables at the start of Chapters 2-5 summarise key data from tables within each chapter, where the statistical details are provided. Table 1: Summary Individual Perception Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Size of the crime problem in PNG (large, very large) 91 91 79 Level of corruption in PNG (same, increasing) 92 88 83 Level of crime in the local area (same, less) 55 58 78 Most frequently perceived crimes: Alcohol or drug related crime 46 31 39 Stealing 30 30 31 Domestic violence 3 4 6 Sexual assault 5 5 2 The numbers who thought that crime was a large or very large problem in Papua New Guinea: At 91% in Mt Hagen, was the same as Lae and 12% higher than Port Moresby. Those who thought that the level of corruption in Papua New Guinea was the same or more: At 92% in Mt Hagen, was 4% higher than Lae and 9% higher than Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that level of crime in the local area was the same or less over the previous 12 months: At 55% in Mt Hagen, was 3% lower than Lae and 23% lower than Port Moresby. The Mt Hagen figure is the lowest recorded in all the surveys, which means that its residents were the least likely to think that their crime situation was improving. Perceptions of key crimes in Mt Hagen were that: Alcohol and drug-related crime was the most common: The 46% in Mt Hagen was 15% higher than Lae and 7% higher than Port Moresby. Like Lae, drugs received much comment. Stealing was very common: The 30% in Mt Hagen was virtually the same as Lae and Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that domestic violence was the most common crime: At 3% in Mt Hagen was virtually the same as Lae and half Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that sexual assault was the most common crime: At 5% in Mt Hagen was the same as Lae and twice Port Moresby. Overall, people in Mt Hagen generally perceived their crime situation to be worse than residents in Lae perceived their situation, who in turn perceived theirs’ to be worse than people in Port Moresby. Like in Lae, respondents considered raskols to be a major problem. The Mt Hagen and Lae surveys are the first in which drug use has appeared to be a community concern, although mainly about drug use outside the home rather than inside it. The indication is that drug use is mainly a problem in places connected by road to marijuana growing areas in the Highlands. Are Crime and Corruption Perceived to be Increasing Nationally? Crime was thought to be a large or very large problem nationally (Table 2): A very high 91% of respondents in Mt Hagen thought that the crime problem in Papua New Guinea was large or very large. This was the same as Lae (although with a larger percentage in the very large category) and higher than the 79% in Port Moresby. Column totals in this and subsequent tables may not appear to total 100%. This is due to error in rounding item totals up to the nearest whole number, not to error in the total. Non-response percentages in table notes are also subject to rounding error. Table 2: Perceived Size of the Crime Problem in PNG Size of Crime Problem Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Very large 75 64 53 Large 16 27 26 Average 5 6 14 Not large 1 1 4 Don't know 4 3 3 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.5.11. Mt Hagen N=327, non-response=0%. Lae N=400, non-response=1%. NCD weighted, N=165 318, non-response=0%. Similarly high percentages of respondents thought that corruption nationally was increasing (Table 3): A very high 92% of respondents in Mt Hagen thought that corruption nationally was the same or increasing. This figure was even higher than the 88% in Lae and the 83% in Port Moresby. Table 3: Perceived Changes to Corruption Levels in PNG Level of Corruption Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Increasing 89 78 70 Same 3 10 13 Decreasing 2 5 7 Don’t know 6 7 10 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.2.5. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=404, non-response=0%. NCD weighted, N=165 930, non-response=0%. Is Crime Perceived to be Decreasing in the Local Area? In 2006, 55% of respondents in Mt Hagen believed that there was less or the same amount of crime as 12 months previously, but opinion weighed towards there being more crime than less (Table 4). The percentage of people in Mt Hagen who believed that crime had increased was well over twice that of Port Moresby. On more specific types of crime, opinion in Mt Hagen was that violent crime had increased but it was evenly divided about property crime: 48% thought that violent crime against people had increased and 33% thought that it had decreased (Q.2.3). 40% thought that crime against property had increased, but another 40% thought it had decreased (Q.2.4). Table 4: Perceived Changes in the Level of Crime in Your Area in the Past 12 Months Frequency of Crime Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Less 27 34 38 Same 28 24 40 More 43 35 17 Don't know 2 7 6 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.2.1. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted N=165 706, non-response=0%. Who Was Contributing Most to Crime Prevention? Why was change thought to be occurring over the previous 12 months? Table 5 indicates that: A large 22% of responses were that raskols were getting worse. Many more people than not thought that the police were doing a bad job and that the community was doing good job. Compared to Lae and Port Moresby: More respondents thought that the police were doing a bad job. Fewer thought that the community was doing a good job. In both Mt Hagen and Lae, double the percentage of Port Moresby thought that raskols were getting worse. Table 5: Perceived Contributions by Groups to Changing Crime Levels Groups Mt Hagen 2006 Lae 2005 Port Moresby 2005 Good % Bad % Good % Bad % Good % Bad % Police 6 27 6 13 13 9 Community 14 7 18 6 32 6 Raskols (getting Better/Worse) 8 22 11 21 13 11 Other 16 27 16 Note: Q.2.2, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen N=227, non-response=31%, responses=319. Lae N=276 respondents, non-response=32%, responses=397. NCD weighted N=90 928, non-response=45%, responses=104 841. “Other’ refers to the response categories ‘Other’, ‘The courts’, and ‘The prisons’ in Q.2.2. Perceptions about changes in crime levels were found in open-ended responses to Q.2.2, which mainly expanded the reasons respondents considered crime was worsening in Mt Hagen. Comments fell into several groups. Italicised comments following here and elsewhere are the notes on questionnaires where interviewers recorded comments by respondents to open-ended questions. One group of 10 related increased crime to economic and social conditions, lack of employment and drug use, for example: Unemployment and low income. Rural-urban migration and not enough jobs. Money is becoming hard to find and there are not enough job opportunities for school leavers, therefore people are engaging themselves in crimes. The youths have nothing to keep them busy so crimes are getting worse. Too many boys taking drugs. Young men are getting involved heavily in drugs and alcohol thus increasing crime in the community. Lack of leadership by those in authority was a contributing factor for 6 commentators, for example: Community leaders are not performing their duties as leaders to talk to the people and the police. They let the criminals just walk out of the court room. Now police respond to bribes. The police are involved with the rascals. Improvements were mainly seen by 12 respondents to come from church activities, for example: Christians among the community fast and pray to bring peace. The raskols have now repented and gone into religious activities. The street boys have changed and gone to church. Youths are starting to join the churches and get involved in church activities. Another 7 who saw crime decreasing, on the positive side from good leadership and on the negative side from violent action: The Lord Mayor is doing a good job. The leaders from the community stop the crime. The criminals are scared because of recent killings by the police. Home owners have been killing the rascals. Because they are landowners, they fear them. What Crimes Are Perceived to Occur Most? Interviewees were asked what crime they thought happened most in their area. Table 6 shows the most common types of crime that were perceived in Mt Hagen in 2006. Table 6: Crime Most Frequently Perceived in the Local Area Type of Crime Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Alcohol or drug related crime 46 31 39 Stealing 30 30 31 Robbery (stealing with violence) 9 11 8 Sexual assault 5 5 2 Violence outside the home 3 7 4 Domestic violence 3 4 6 Assault 2 5 4 Don't know 2 5 5 Trespassing 0 3 1 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.2.9, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%, responses=389. Lae N=403, non-response=0%, responses=597. NCD weighted N=163 946, non-response=1%, responses=188 866. Alcohol and drug-related crime was the type most commonly perceived to occur (46% of total responses). Stealing was perceived to be very common, at 30% of responses. Robbery (stealing with violence) received 9% of responses. Together, the average occurrence of the five crimes that involved violence was 4% each (robbery, sexual assault, violence outside the home, domestic violence, and assault). These figures were similar to Lae and Port Moresby, although with higher perceived levels of alcohol and drug-related crime. This was taken to include both illegal use of alcohol or drugs and crimes in which their usage was a factor. The latter interpretation is the one that respondents usually took. Open-ended questions revealed alcohol and drugs were of equal concern. Comments across the whole questionnaire mentioned alcohol (mainly home brewed beer, known as steam) 48 times and drugs (only marijuana) 47 times. This and Lae are the only two surveys in which drug use has appeared to be a community concern. The indication is that drug use is mainly a problem in areas connected by road to marijuana growing areas in the Highlands, which is consistent with the 2005 Highlands Highway Crime Study, in which police data showed that drugs were an issue in Highway incidents reported to them. The concern was mainly about use in the community rather than the home, for example: Young men are getting involved heavily in drugs and alcohol thus increasing crime in the community. Stop the young from consuming alcohol (steam) and drugs. Most of our young people are taking drugs and causing a lot of problems. Young men are getting involved heavily in drugs and alcohol thus increasing crime in the community. Boys who are under the influence of drugs usually come around and destroy our market. Most young policemen involve with criminal activities by supplying live ammunition to criminals: they even trade bullets for drugs and at times are seen under the influence of liquor during working days. I have personally seen policemen taking drugs in the settlement and drinking beer during working hours. What Types of Victimisation Trouble People Most in Practice? The crimes that trouble people most in practice were investigated in more detail. Interviewees who reported that they or their household had been victimised in the last year were asked to identify the crime that concerned them most. This did not necessarily mean that this particular crime was the most feared, but that the respondent considered that it was the most troubling one that had actually happened. Table 7 shows: Stealing and breaking and stealing were identified by 46% of respondents in Mt Hagen as the actual crimes that troubled them most (between the 51% in Lae and 37% in Port Moresby). Crimes of violence (assault, unprovoked violence, stealing with force, domestic violence, provoked violence, sexual assault, firearm use, and killing) accounted for 38% of responses in Mt Hagen (compared to 35% in Lae and 46% in Port Moresby). Domestic violence and sexual assault were 5% of reports in Mt Hagen (compared to 7% in Lae and 11% in Port Moresby), despite under-reporting. The rank order of the three most common victimisations was the same in all three cities, ie. stealing, stealing with violence (robbery) and firearm use were the three most commonly reported problems in Mt Hagen, Lae and Port Moresby. Table 7: Most Troubling Household Victimisation to Self or Other Household Members over Previous Year Type of Victimisation Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Stealing your property from you 32 34 27 Breaking into your house and stealing (household) 14 17 10 Stealing your property from you with some force or threat 11 8 10 Using a firearm against you or your household 9 8 5 Unprovoked violence (eg. an attack by a stranger) 7 3 4 Car, truck or bike stolen 7 2 7 Assault 3 3 7 Sexual assault 3 3 5 Domestic Violence 2 4 6 Destruction or damage to your property (household) 2 2 5 Provoked violence (eg. pay back) 2 2 4 Killing (household member) 1 4 5 Other 6 11 3 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.4.1. Mt Hagen N=88, non-response=73%. Lae N=109, non-response=73%. NCD unweighted, N=153, non-response=75%. Section 4 answers were conditional upon respondents having identified in S.3 crimes experienced by them or other household members in the previous year. The high non-response rate derived mainly from respondents who gave nil responses to S.3, in part from respondents who did not regard crimes such as petty theft as being troubling, and occasionally from respondents unwilling to discuss traumatic events. Different household members may have considered different crimes to be the most troubling. In Mt Hagen, the main focus was on the crimes themselves. Assault and violence were the major concern (Q.4.2, open-ended responses): He was trying to rape my sister. Because you never know, sooner or later that same person might attack again thus leaving your life at risk. This happens most with ladies in the house who can't defend themselves and this is hurting. In his family he has many sisters so he is scared it might happen to any of them again. I was being assaulted by a land owner because he wanted me to leave this place. I fear for the safety of the young women. Because the victims were young ladies I need to escort them anywhere to protect them from same crime or rape etc. The offender was a stranger to us, thus causing our lives to be at risk The offender was a stranger to him: being attacked by a stranger is very dangerous because of our lives. We would lose more lives when we as victims don’t offer anything to the criminals. I don’t feel at home and secure. They nearly killed me. Weapons were used to threaten our lives including the little ones. Attack by strangers means a life and death situation. My husband used dangerous weapons like a bush-knife and kitchen knives when assaulting me. The fight might continue, which may lead to a big problem. Because the criminals used dangerous weapons, I thought they will rape me. Our lives were in danger. I saw the firearm pointing to me. Like in the other surveys, many people also focused on theft, the irritations and costs that it incurs and, in some cases, the impact on family income: Sick and tired of buying new clothes. Because we live next to the main road, this stealing happens most times and we are already fed up. All our property like TV, blanket, radio, gas cooker and some of our good clothes were stolen. I’m angry because I cannot buy what has been stolen from me. It is expensive to buy new items these days. Costly to replace the bicycle. Costly to replace the car and our life was at risk. Because it’s a company vehicle that only my husband was supposed to drive, I was afraid that company might lay off my husband. The only pair of shoes I had was taken with my favourite clothes. My text books were stolen and never recovered. It is expensive for me as a school boy to buy new shoes. Expensive to buy what’s stolen because living in a settlement, hard to find money. Do People Feel Safe? Surprisingly perhaps given the high levels of victimisation, a moderate 44% of respondents in Mt Hagen said they felt safe, although this was 6% fewer than Lae and 19% fewer than Port Moresby (Table 8): Table 8: Feelings of Safety and Security from Crime Safe and Secure Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 44 50 63 No 25 23 18 Sometimes 31 27 19 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.5.1. Mt Hagen N=325, non-response=1%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted, N=165 542, non-response=0%. Bad driving made 95% of respondents feel unsafe in both Mt Hagen and Lae, compared to 86% in Port Moresby (Q.2.12). Who Thinks Crime Has Changed Most? Gender and age continued to influence people’s perceptions about crime and safety. In 2005, only 27% of people in Mt Hagen thought that crime had decreased in the last year. Table 9 further analyses the data in Table 4 to see who thought crime was changing in the local area. Table 9: Perceived Changes in the Level of Crime, by Age and Gender Demographic Variable Less (%) Same (%) More (%) Don’t Know (%) Total (%) Gender Male 29 23 47 2 100 Female 25 35 37 3 100 Total 27 28 43 2 100 Age 15-24 23 34 39 3 100 25-34 28 28 43 1 100 35+ 29 22 46 3 100 Total 27 28 43 2 100 Note: Q.2.1 x Q.9.1 & 9.2. N=328, non-response=0%. Gender: Mt Hagen males and females both tended to think that local crime had increased. Age: Young people were less likely to perceive a decrease, while the oldest ones were slightly more likely to perceive an increase. Do People Change their Behaviour Because of Fear of Crime? The surveys in all towns have found that restrictions on freedom of movement were the main change in behaviour that resulted from fear of crime. This was also true of Mt Hagen (Q.2.11): 78% of all responses related to restrictions on movement, especially among women. Only 5% said that there was nothing in particular that crime stopped them from doing in their area. A high 41% said crime stopped them walking around at night. CHAPTER 3 ACTUAL HOUSEHOLD CRIME VICTIMISATION One purpose of the crime victimisation surveys is to supplement official crime statistics. Quite apparent in all the household surveys conducted by the JAG and NRI are very high levels of reported victimisation compared to official statistics, which relate to reports to police, police arrests and cases prosecuted in the courts. The 2005 Lae survey estimated that only about 2% of total victimisation was reported to the police and total arrests were equivalent to only about 1% of total victimisation. In this report, responses on victimisation are treated as factually based reports related about events that have actually occurred to respondents and/or their household members. With appropriate procedures, such victim reports might provide the basis of courtroom evidence about alleged crimes. The reports are thus not necessarily subjective perceptions, which in the previous chapter related to peoples’ beliefs about what happened generally in Mt Hagen. The answers reported in this chapter have direct reference to events experienced by the respondents or members of their households and, with appropriate procedures, could provide the basis of evidence in courts about events that actually occurred. The answers are therefore less subjective than perceptions reported in Ch.2, which are more in the nature of hearsay and more prone to a range of perceptual biases. This chapter presents data on the level and type of crime victimisation found in Mt Hagen in the March 2006 survey. Some comparisons are made with the September-November 2005 surveys in Lae and Port Moresby. On this evidence, Mt Hagen had higher victimisation levels than the previous highest levels recorded in Lae in 2005, and much higher than the six other surveys found in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka in 2004 and 2005. Key Indicators of Household Victimisation The research found that crime victimisation levels in Mt Hagen were very high, higher even than Lae or Port Moresby. Table 10 summarises eight key indicators based on the 124 households in Mt Hagen, showing that its victimisation levels were 0% to 7% higher than Lae and 7% to 25% higher than Port Moresby. Mt Hagen’s levels were the highest so far recorded in these surveys. The percentage of households that were the victim of at least one crime was: 84% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 7% than Lae and 23% than Port Moresby. The percentage of households that were the victim of multiple crime was: 69% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 2% than Lae and 23% than Port Moresby. The percentage of households that were the victim of repeat crime was: 56% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 6% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. The average percentage of households affected by each of five forms of property crime was: 32% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 7% than Lae and double Port Moresby. The average percentage of households affected by each of seven forms of violent crime was: 15% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 2% than Lae and double Port Moresby. The percentage of households affected by firearm use was: 16% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 4% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. Despite under-reporting, the percentage of households affected by sexual assault was the same as the previous highest recorded in any of the urban surveys. It was: 11% in Mt Hagen. The same as Lae and nearly four times higher than Port Moresby. The percentage of households affected by stealing property was: 59% in Mt Hagen. Higher by 5% than Lae and nearly double Port Moresby. Table 10: Summary Household Victimisation Indicators In Section 3 of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to identify separately whether they or members of their households had been the victim of 12 different types of crime in the previous 12 months. Household crime victimisation reports were aggregated at two levels. Individual households victimisation figure is the mean of the number of any particular type of crime reported by individuals within that household for that household. Towns means (averages) were calculated by adding all crime reports in the households affected in the town and dividing by the number of individuals reporting them. Where tables report by respondent (eg. Table 6), double counting of the same crime could occur when individuals in the same household reported on the same victimisation, but double-counting does not occur where mean household totals are reported (eg. Table 13). Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Victim of at least one crime 84 78 61 Victim of multiple crimes 69 67 46 Victim of repeat crime 56 50 31 Property crime 32 25 15 Violent crime 15 13 7 Firearm use 16 12 9 Sexual assault 11 11 3 Stealing property 59 54 32 Overall, this is clear indication that Mt Hagen residents were more often victimised than in any other city or town surveyed so far. Compared to Lae and Port Moresby, in Mt Hagen: A higher percentage of households were subject to repeat victimisation. Every type of victimisation had the same level or higher, except for killing. Remarkably, every type of victimisation except killing and other crime was some two or three times greater than Port Moresby. Sexual assault at 11% was the same level as Lae, but both cities were well above the 0% to 5% recorded in the six previous surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka. There were only two positive signs: Killing was lower than in both Lae and Port Moresby (see Table 13). In two-thirds of crime types, repeat victimisation was lower than Lae and Port Moresby. How Often Does Crime Occur? How often were people victims? Table 11 shows how often respondents reported that they or their fellow household members had actually been victims of any of 12 types of crime in the previous 12 months. Of the 124 households surveyed in Mt Hagen: Only 16% had not been the victims of crime: Lower by 6% than Lae and 23% than Port Moresby. A very high 69% of households were victims of multiple crimes, ie. two or more crimes of any sort: Higher by 2% than Lae and 23% than Port Moresby. Table 11: Multiple Household Crime in the Past Year Frequency of Crime Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) None 16 22 39 Once 15 11 15 2-4 times 30 35 31 5-9 times 23 23 11 10 or more times 16 9 4 Total % 100 100 100 Note: Data from S.3, households. Mt Hagen N=124, Lae N=145, Port Moresby N=284. The two major crime groupings affecting households are property crimes and violent crimes. Table 12 combines different types of crime to cancel out the effect of different categorisation of the crimes that might have occurred among respondents: The average percentage of households affected by each of five different types of property crime in Mt Hagen was a very high 32%. The average percentage of households affected by each of seven different types of violence was also a high 15%. Property crime victimisation was twice as common as violent crime. Both were higher in Mt Hagen than in Lae, and twice as high as Port Moresby. Table 12: Property and Violent Crime Victimisation for Households in the Past Year Type of Crime Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Property crime 32 25 15 Violent crime 15 13 7 Note: S.3 household data from Table 13. Mt Hagen N=124, Lae N=145, Port Moresby N=284. Property crime is the average (mean) percentage of households affected by each of five different types of property crime that were combined to cancel out any effects from different categorisation of the crimes in the different locations: stealing property, breaking and stealing, destruction or damage to property, vehicle stolen, and stealing property with force. Violent crime is the mean percentage of each of seven types of violence combined: assault, unprovoked violence, stealing with force, provoked violence, sexual assault, firearm use, and killing. Stealing with force combines both property crime and violence and is included in both categories. Detailed data on actual victimisation is in Table 13, which has frequency of the separate types of crime victimisation and their average levels of repeat for households. The first row shows the percentage of households victimised in the last year (eg. the most common crime in Mt Hagen in 2006 was stealing property, which occurred to 59% of households). The second row shows the mean number of times affected households were victims (eg. stealing from the 59% of households affected by it occurred an average of 2.8 times). Table 13 shows that in Mt Hagen in 2006: 56% of households were victims of repeat victimisation. The highest incidence of victimisation was from stealing, with a very high 59% of households affected. Firearm use affected a high 16% of households, ie. about one household in six. Killings affected 2% of households. A very high 11% of households had victims of sexual assault. The overall mean for repeat of all crimes was 2.4 times. Repeat victimisation ranged from 3.5 times for ‘other’ crime to 1.0 for killings. Compared to Lae and Port Moresby, in Mt Hagen: A higher percentage of households was subject to repeat victimisation (56% v. 50% and 31%). Every type of victimisation had the same or a higher level, except for killing. Remarkably, every type of victimisation except killing and other crime was some two or three times greater than Port Moresby. Sexual assault at 11% was the same as Lae. Both cities were well above the 0% to 5% recorded in the six previous surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka in 2004 and 2005. There were only two positive signs: Killing was lower than both Lae and Port Moresby. In two-thirds of cases, repeat victimisation was lower than Lae and Port Moresby.  Location Stealing property Breaking and stealing Assault Destruc-tion or damage to property Using a firearm Car, truck or bike stolen Stealing property with some force or threat Unpro-voked violence Provoked violence Sexual assault Killing Other crime Repeat Victim-isation Mt Hagen 2006 % 59 37 19 27 16 12 23 21 14 11 2 6 56 M 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.0 3.5 2.4 Lae 2005 % 54 30 19 19 12 6 17 14 10 11 8 8 50 M 3.9 2.0 3.6 1.7 2.2 1.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.8 1.2 4.3 2.9 Port Moresby 2005 % 32 16 15 14 9 5 7 6 6 3 3 4 31 M 2.4 1.9 3.2 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 3.3 2.9 4.0 1.3 4.3 2.4 Table 13: Frequency and Repeat of Household Victimisation Note: S.3, households. Mt Hagen N=124, Lae N=145, Port Moresby N=284. The figures are unlikely to double-count the same crime where it might overlap two categories, eg. a vehicle stolen with use of a gun would be rated in the category that the respondent considered the main one. Key: %=Percentage of households reporting victimisation. The Repeat Victimisation column shows the percentage of all households affected by any repeat victimisation. M=Mean (average) number of times victimisation occurred in the affected households.  CHAPTER 4 HOUSEHOLD AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO CRIME The home was a far more likely place than public areas for the crime victimisation that troubled people most in Mt Hagen, as was the case in all the other surveys. One reason that the house can be a common setting for crime is its occupation by large extended families. Like in other parts of Papua New Guinea, overcrowding contributes to the likelihood of violence and sexual assault, especially. Like the other surveys, this one did not explore any comprehensive measures of wealth or poverty. It does not permit generalisations about the relationship between affluence, forms of property ownership, security levels, and crime. This chapter presents data from individual respondents on household and community responses to crime in Mt Hagen from the March 2006 survey. Some comparisons with Port Moresby and Lae are also made. Key Household and Community Indicators The research found a variety of living conditions that could be a factor in crime victimisation in the household, as summarised in Table 14. Table 14: Summary Household and Community Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Houses walled and/or fenced 75 48 67 Participate in community crime protection group 23 35 18 Four or more adults per household 47 77 78 Four or more children per household 71 30 40 Most troubling crime occurred in the home 66 75 64 Victim knew the perpetrator in the most troubling crime 36 48 44 More than one offender in the most troubling crime 52 56 61 Unemployed 15 16 21 Most preferred government initiative on crime More police (25%) More jobs (24%) More jobs (25%) The percentage of respondents said they lived in houses that were walled and/or fenced was: 75% in Mt Hagen. Higher than the 48% in Lae and the 67% in Port Moresby. Respondents’ participation in crime prevention was: 23% in Mt Hagen. In between the 18% in Port Moresby and the 35% in Lae. Overcrowding was high, but: The percentage of respondents living in households with four of more adults was 47% in Mt Hagen, which was much lower than the 77% in Lae and the 78% in Port Moresby. The percentage living with four or more children was 71%, much higher than the 30% in Lae and the 40% in Port Moresby. Lesser crowding may be attributed in part to cultural practices, especially when fathers live separately from children and mothers, which is a traditional cultural practice from some parts of the Highlands. The percentage of people reporting that the most troublesome crime occurred in the home was: 66% in Mt Hagen. Similar to the 75% in Lae and the 64% in Port Moresby. Victims who knew the perpetrator of the most troublesome cases were: 36% of 80 cases in Mt Hagen. Lower than the 48% in Lae and the 44% in Port Moresby. In such cases, those where the perpetrators were in a group were: 52% in Mt Hagen. Lower than the 56% in Lae and the 61% in Port Moresby. The level of reported unemployment among respondents was: 15% in Mt Hagen. Much the same as the 16% in Lae and lower than the 21% in Port Moresby. Respondents’ most preferred government initiative for reduction of crime in Mt Hagen was to have a greater police presence, compared to more jobs in Lae and Port Moresby. Like other centres, respondents believed that crime would reduce if there were more employment for youth, coupled with more activities for them. People clearly saw prevention through change in social and economic conditions as a long-term solution to crime, but there was a narrow majority that wanted law and order solutions. This is the first time such a finding has appeared in these surveys. Mt Hagen residents tended to want strong law enforcement and had a more punitive attitude to law breakers. This seemed to reflect the greater level of victimisation in Mt Hagen and more authoritarian attitudes to law and order in the Highlands. What Levels of Security? Perimeter security to keep out criminals was a common feature in all the surveys, but was higher in Mt Hagen (Table 15). Mt Hagen had higher numbers of respondents (75%) living in walled or fenced residences, compared to 48% in Lae and 67% in Port Moresby. When asked what one thing the household could do better to make itself safer (Q.5.2), the principal responses in Mt Hagen were: Make their houses more secure (28%). Pray to God for help (21%). Participate more in crime prevention activities (12%). Only 7% said help the police (Q.5.2). Table 15: House Security Location Walled (%) Fenced (%) Unfenced (%) Total (%) Mt Hagen 7 68 25 100 Lae 7 41 52 100 Port Moresby 5 62 32 100 Note: Q.1.11. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD unweighted, N=618, non-response=0%. Despite the high levels of crime and victimisation involving firearms, only 2% of respondents in Mt Hagen said they would carry weapons to make the household safer, which was almost identical to Lae and Port Moresby (Q.5.2). This low response was similar to other places because there is a general fear that the same weapons could be used against the household. What Are Living Conditions Like? The physical housing conditions in Mt Hagen were generally similar to Lae and Port Moresby. Table 16 shows that the levels of infrastructure varied somewhat: similar percentages of respondents lived in houses connected to water in all three cities, electricity and phone levels were higher in Mt Hagen, and it was closer to Port Moresby’s levels of sewage connection and vehicle ownership than to the lower levels in Lae. Table 16: Housing Utilities Utility Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Permanent water supply 88 88 91 Electricity 91 73 73 Sewage 58 36 65 Phone 54 38 49 Vehicle 34 18 38 Note: Q.1.5, 1.7-1.10. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted, N=165 930, non-response=0%. Unlike Port Moresby and Lae, in Mt Hagen there were more children resident in the household than adults (Table 17): Only 47% of respondents in Mt Hagen said they had four or more adults in their household, much lower than the 77% in Lae and 78% in Port Moresby. 71% said there were four or more children, much higher than the 30% in Lae and the 40% in Port Moresby. 64% of people in Mt Hagen owned houses, in-between the 59% in Lae and the 80% in Port Moresby. Table 17: Household Occupancy Household Composition Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Four or more adults 47 77 78 Four or more children 71 30 40 Own house 64 59 80 Note: Q.1.4, 1.6. Mt Hagen, N=321, non-response=2%. Lae, N=397, non-response=2%. NCD weighted N=165 389, non-response=0%. Earlier surveys in Port Moresby, Lae and Bougainville found that the large number of household occupants stemmed from traditionally derived households arrangements in some areas, where many individuals in separate dwellings shared eating arrangements. The definition used of a household came from the 2000 Census: “a person or group of persons living and eating together and sharing arrangements for cooking and the other necessities …”. Mt Hagen was quite different, especially when fathers lived separately from children and mothers, which is a traditional cultural practice from some parts of the Highlands. What Type of Employment? Another indicator of occupancy is that, of those surveyed, 63% were involved in home duties, unemployed, or students (slightly more than Lae at 57% and Port Moresby at 58%), as Table 18 shows. These individuals would be likely to use household space on a regular and constant basis. Full-time or government employment would normally place people in an advantaged group of the fully employed: In Mt Hagen, 25% of respondents was in this group, very similar to Lae at 24% and 23% in Port Moresby. Unemployment was reported as 15%, much the same as Lae but lower than 21% in Port Moresby. Who Are the Victims? Table 19 shows that in Mt Hagen, different age and gender groups were sometimes victims of different types of crime. Caution is needed with the data because small numbers of most types of victimisation of individuals were reported within the sample. Table 18: Occupational Status Occupation Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Home duties 33 29 22 Unemployed 15 16 21 Student 15 12 15 Full time (formal) 10 13 13 Full time (informal) 8 7 6 Casual work 8 4 3 Government employee 7 4 4 Self employed 4 11 10 Retired 2 4 5 Farmer/fishing 0 3 2 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.9.5. Mt Hagen, N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted N=165 542, non-response=0%. Table 19: Individual Crime Victimisation by Age and Gender Type of Crime Age (%) Gender (%) Incidents (No.) 15-24 25-34 35+ Male Female Percent in Sample 37 31 32 54 46 - Stealing your property from you 41 35 24 52 48 58 Unprovoked violence (eg. an attack by a stranger) 32 44 24 68 32 34 Assault 29 44 27 37 63 41 Stealing property with some force or threat 45 38 17 59 41 29 Provoked violence (eg. payback) 33 42 25 50 50 12 Using a firearm against you 39 39 23 54 46 13 Car, truck or bike stolen 18 46 36 55 46 11 Sexual Assault 67 17 17 0 100 6 Other 33 33 33 100 0 3 Average % 37 38 25 53 47 - Note: S.3 for individuals only x S.9 demographic data, N=328, non-response=72%-99%. Further cross analysis would be limited by small cell sizes. Victimisation was fairly evenly distributed by age group, although the oldest were slightly less prone to victimisation (ie. 35+ year olds represented 32% of the sample and were victims in 25% of reported cases). Younger people were more vulnerable to: Stealing property with some threat or force (45%), but were less prone to Vehicle theft (a low 18%), assault (29%) and unprovoked and provoked violence (32% and 33%). Mature adults were more prone to: Vehicle theft (46% v. 31% in the sample), unprovoked violence and assault (44% each), firearm use (39%) and robbery (38%). Older adults were more prone to: Vehicle theft (36% v. 32% in the sample), but less prone to Various forms of violence. Males and females were victims at very similar levels overall, but there were differences in the types of crime to which they were vulnerable: Females were most likely to report as victims of: Sexual assault (all the 6 reported cases) and assault (63% v. 46% in the sample), but were less prone to Unprovoked violence (32%) and stealing property with some threat or force (41%). Males were especially likely to be individual victims of: Unprovoked violence (68% of cases v. 54% in the sample) and robbery (59%). In What Setting Does Crime Occur? Respondents were asked to self-identify the most troubling crimes for them or their household during the last 12 months (S.4 of the questionnaire). They nominated a wide range and variety of troubling crimes, which were presented in Table 7. Here it is relevant to look at the settings in which these crimes occurred. Table 20 shows that: 66% of the most troubling crimes occurred in the home. Only 16% occurred on the street. This was similar to Lae and Port Moresby. Additionally, other questions showed that: Only 31% of victims indicated that they were alone at the time (Q.4.5). The crimes were most likely to occur at night (57% of the nominated cases, Q.4.6) and on Saturday (22%, Q.4.7). Injury from nominated crimes occurred in only 9% of cases (Q.4.11). In the 20 such cases, 95% of respondents knew the reason for the injury (Q.4.12). Domestic disputes (33%) and alcohol (22%) and were the main reasons identified. These patterns were similar to all other surveys. Table 20: Location of the Most Troubling Crimes Location Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Home 66 75 64 Street 16 12 15 Shops 1 1 2 Other 17 11 18 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.4.4. Mt Hagen, N=225, non-response=31%. Lae N=227, non-response=44%. NCD weighted, N=79 251, non-response=52%. S.4 answers were conditional upon respondents having identified in S.3 crimes experienced by them or other household members in the previous year. The high non-response rates derive mainly from respondents who gave nil responses to S.3. Who Are the Perpetrators? The survey showed that the perpetrators in Mt Hagen were less likely to be known to their victims than in Lae and Port Moresby. When asked who was most likely to commit crimes in their area 33% of respondents nominated outsiders (Q.2.13). In the 36% of the most troubling cases of victimisation where the victim knew the offender, these were more likely to be: a relative or wantok or spouse (39%), or a neighbour or friend (27%) (Table 21). These figures were similar to Lae and Port Moresby. Additionally, There was more than one offender (Q.4.8) in 75% of the most troubling cases (this was above 56% in Lae and 61% in Port Moresby). Weapons were used in a very high 54% of the cases (Q.4.10), and 9% of these resulted in an injury (Q.4.11). Table 21: The Perpetrators Perpetrator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Relative or wantok 31 38 26 Spouse 8 5 15 Neighbour 26 19 29 Friend 1 12 6 Gang member 24 19 8 Someone you had only seen before 10 8 18 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.4.9. Mt Hagen N=80, non-response=76%. Lae N=117, non-response=71%. NCD weighted N=35 423, non-response=79%. The high non-response rates derive from respondents who gave nil responses to S.3 or did not know the perpetrator. Are the Real Levels of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Known? Table 6 indicated that 5% of respondents in Mt Hagen perceived sexual assault to be the crime that happened most in their area and 3% said domestic violence. Table 13 showed that a high 11% of households reported that a member was a victim of sexual assault, an average of 1.5 times per affected household. The reported level of sexual assault in Mt Hagen was similar to Lae and higher than Port Moresby (3% of households, although an average of 4.0 times). However, while the household surveys do at least give an indication of the perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault, and give minimum levels for them, their occurrence is highly likely to be under-reported and the surveys cannot give an accurate indication of their real level. These problems are grounded in the survey methodology. Questionnaire surveys based on short, closed-response questions are appropriate for the surveys’ prime purpose of providing quantitative information to decision makers about trends in crime victimisation. The methodological problem is magnified by fieldwork constraints. Occupancy rates in the areas surveyed are high and constant, so that it is difficult to separate interviewees from the influence and observation of other household members. The structure of domestic authority could reduce the independence of the interview because the influence of the dominant male or female in the family structure may have limited candid responses. Open communication between respondent and interviewer may also have been difficult when the victim and the perpetrator were members of the same household and perhaps nearby during the interview. However, these surveys are not intended to obtain the type of in-depth qualitative information necessary to give a more valid understanding of sexual assault and domestic violence relevant to service organisations and social workers. The solution to their need for deeper understanding is additional research using qualitative methodologies. What Types of Community Action? In Mt Hagen, as in other surveys, Table 22 shows respondents believed that communities should have some responsibility for crime prevention and control. However, police responsibility was ranked first, which was a marked contrast to Lae and Port Moresby. Table 22: Group Responsibility for Crime Prevention/Community Safety Group Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Police 35 23 24 Individuals 31 20 36 Community 22 29 21 Police & Community 6 11 7 Other combinations 6 15 12 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.8.6. Mt Hagen, N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=402, non-response=1%. NCD weighted, N=164 492, non-response=1%. Complementing this finding: 38% in Mt Hagen reported their most troubling crime to the police (Q.4.13), which was slightly above Lae and Port Moresby. 83% also reported the crimes to someone in the community, which was also higher than Lae (75%) and Port Moresby (72%). Of those in Mt Hagen, 62% reported to a relative, 36% to a community group or leader, and 9% to a traditional authority (Q.4.21). The relatively high levels of reporting of crimes to both police and community authorities could be explained by an expectation that all authorities have a responsibility to act on law and order issues. The survey also asked respondents if there were organisations other than the police that provided protection against crime in the community: 36% of the respondents said yes (Q.5.3). The groups mentioned included (Q.5.4): Law and order committees, such as Neighbourhood Watch. Community leaders. Community groups, including neighbourhood youths. Security services. Thirty-five percent said that someone in the household participated in a group (Q.5.5). Community patrolling was an important feature of the community crime prevention groups, with 51% of those who answered Q.5.6 indicating that patrols were an activity. Offender apprehension was also a function, with 54% of people stating this (Q.5.7). Offenders were dealt with in a variety of ways (Q.5.8): Counsel them and encourage young youths not to engage in crimes. The community leaders deal with the criminals. Community leaders talk and settle the dispute between the offender and the victimised people. Take them to the village court. The offenders are reported to the police if the matter is serious, if not they solve themselves. We bring them to the court or the police depending on the crime. Belt them up and refer them to police or tell them to pay compensation. Bring them to the police station and lock them behind bars. Chased them out of their home. When asked about imprisonment or restorative justice options for people who commit crimes (Q.2.14): 83% said that people who commit crimes should go to prison (which was a higher figure than all the other surveys). Only 15% thought that compensation and supervision was the best option for offenders. Restorative and retributive options were offered, with an emphasis on payment of compensation: At least know the reason why they are stealing and act on that reason in a positive way. They are put in public for the whole community to see and know, then are sent to jail or told to pay compensation. Criminals should be apprehended and sent to prison. The implication seems to be that in the absence of underlying social cohesion, community retribution does occur. Restorative options were seen as relevant only to less serious crimes, or to ones where the offender is a member of the community rather than an outsider over whom less social control can be wielded. Despite this, the prime emphasis was on punishment. What Can Be Done for Youth? Like other centres, respondents believed that crime would reduce if there were more employment for youth, coupled with more activities for them. People clearly saw prevention through change in social and economic conditions as a long-term solution to crime, but there was a narrow majority that wanted law and order solutions. This is the first time such a finding has appeared in these surveys. When asked what their government could do to make their area safer, Table 23 shows: 51% favoured law and order solutions: more police (25%), fight corruption (11%), harsher penalties from the courts (10%) and crack down on gangs (5%). In Lae and Port Moresby and Lae, 45% and 38% favoured these solutions. 49% favoured social change: more jobs (23%), youth activities (18%), and better living conditions (8%). In Lae and Port Moresby, 55% and 61% favoured these solutions respectively. Table 23: Preferred Government Initiatives on Crime Group Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) More police 25 17 19 More jobs 23 24 25 Youth activities 18 19 23 Fight corruption 11 9 6 Harsher penalties from the courts 10 9 8 Better living conditions 8 11 13 Crack down on gangs 5 10 5 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.5.9, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen, N=326, non-response=0%, responses=543. Lae N=403, non-response=0%, responses=608. NCD weighted N=162 420, non-response=2%, responses=279 851. One message for community leaders in Mt Hagen was to develop more activities for young youths, similar to Lae and Port Moresby, but Hagens were prone to want cooperation with the police and punishment for offenders (Table 24). Open-ended comments provided for the young, for example: Keep youths busy with formal employment so that they would not have time criminal activities. Provide contract work for youths. Create more jobs for youths. Allocate funds for youth projects. Provide advice and create awareness to young people. Encourage Christian activities and church services. Community must not involve in crime and must work together. However, there was also a heavy emphasis on law and order solutions, for example: Stop the home brewing within the area. Ensure that the community cooperates to remove criminals from the area. The offenders must be heavily penalised. Make strong laws to change behaviour. Must not follow wantok system (be firm). Act according to the law. Allowing residents to use guns. All squatter settlers should be evicted and allow only genuine people with improved living conditions to reside. Table 24: Preferred Community Initiatives on Crime Group Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Develop more activities for young people 26 25 29 Cooperate better with the police 24 27 17 See that people caught committing crime are punished 20 16 11 Regulate people coming in from outside your area 13 12 10 Better living conditions 4 8 11 Other 13 14 22 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.5.10, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen, N=327, non-response=0%, responses=510. Lae N=403, non-response=0%, responses=608. NCD weighted N=165 418, non-responses=0%, responses=231 752. Like other centres, respondents believed that crime would reduce if there was more employment for youth, coupled with more activities for them, but Mt Hagen residents wanted strong law enforcement and had a punitive attitude to law breakers. This seemed to reflect the greater level of victimisation in Mt Hagen and more authoritarian attitudes to law and order in the Highlands. CHAPTER 5 COMMUNITY VIEWS ABOUT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Previous surveys focused on the role of the police. In 2005, other sector agencies sought data on their level of public awareness and public satisfaction with their work, which is presented in this chapter. The chapter shows the public awareness data from Mt Hagen and addresses a second sector concern about perceptions of corruption and action over it by the agencies. This information can only put a frame around the overall level of awareness among the public. To find out more information about the thinking of people who come into contact with the agencies, and who therefore have some personal experience of their activities, would require separate client studies. Key Law & Justice Agency Indicators The survey found moderate levels of public awareness about L&J agencies and low levels of satisfaction with police performance, which Table 25 summarises. The results revealed that the public had minimal contact with the formal sector agencies. Table 25: Summary Law & Justice Agency Indicators Indicator Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Satisfaction with all agencies over handling of own matter 50 62 61 Satisfaction with police over handling of own matter 42 54 57 Satisfaction with all agencies over handling of corruption 50 51 54 Satisfaction with police over handling of corruption 27 31 37 Police do a good job 17 27 27 Reported most troubling crime to police 38 32 33 Improvement in opinion from contact with the police 47 49 44 Police discipline improved (yes, sometimes) 30 27 33 Police participate in community consultations (yes, sometimes) 31 42 31 Only 12% of the public had contact with the agencies on average. In these few cases, satisfaction with how their matter had been handled was moderate, with a mean level of satisfaction of 50% (which was less than Lae’s 62% and Port Moresby’s 61%). Where the public had contact with the police in Mt Hagen, the satisfaction level was 42%. This was also lower than both Lae (54%) and Port Moresby (57%). Awareness of agency action over corruption was low at 12%. The people who were aware had a moderate average level of satisfaction of 50% in Mt Hagen (very similar to Lae’s 54% and Port Moresby’s 51%). Satisfaction with police action over corruption was lower than other agencies, with a satisfaction level of 27% in Mt Hagen (lower than to 31% in Lae and 37% in Port Moresby). Satisfaction with other aspects of the performance of the police varied: 17% of people in Mt Hagen thought that police were doing a good job overall: Somewhat lower than the 27% of people in both Lae and Port Moresby. The percentage who reported their most troubling crime to the police was 38% in Mt Hagen: Higher than the 32% in Lae and the 33% in Port Moresby. The percentage who improved their opinion of the police as a result of official contact with them was 47% in Mt Hagen: Similar to the 49% in Lae and the 44% in Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that police discipline had improved at least sometimes over the last year was 20% in Mt Hagen: Lower than the 27% in Lae and the 33% in Port Moresby. The percentage who thought that the police participated in community consultations at least sometimes was 18% in Mt Hagen: Much lower than the 42% in Lae and the 31% in Port Moresby. Public satisfaction with agency action was somewhat lower than in Lae and Port Moresby, and this was generally true of satisfaction with the police too. Corruption was not an abstract notion to Hagens: there was a widespread belief that the police and magistrates courts were open to bribery. There were also low levels of satisfaction with agencies within the Attorney General Department. What Do People Know of the Law and Justice Agencies? The survey results revealed that the public had little contact with the formal sector agencies. Table 26 shows that 4% or less of respondents had come into contact with agencies other than the police, lower courts and correctional services. The contact that did occur mirrored a progression through the justice system: from contact with the police (43%), then the magistrate courts if a case was prosecuted (27%), to the prisons if a sentence resulted (11%). This is not to imply that the respondents who had contact with correctional services, for example, had been to jail – merely that they might have been associated with a matter that led to an imprisonment or might have visited a prisoner in jail. The pattern was the same as all other 2005 surveys. Table 26: Contact with the Law & Justice Agencies Agency Mt Hagen Yes (%) No (%) Don’t Know of Them (%) Police 43 56 1 Magistrates Courts 27 65 7 Correctional Services 11 83 6 High Court 4 82 14 Public Prosecutor’s office 4 73 24 Public Solicitors office 3 73 24 Ombudsman Commission 2 75 23 Attorney General Department 1 74 26 Average 12 73 16 Note: S.2.15-2.36. N=328, non-response=0%. Only 12% of the public in Mt Hagen had contact with the agencies on average. In these few matters, satisfaction with how their matter had been handled was generally moderate (Table 27). Table 27: Satisfaction with Law & Justice Agencies Handling of Own Matter Agency Mt Hagen Matters (No.) Satisfied (%) Public Prosecutor’s office 12 58 High Court 12 58 Ombudsman Commission 7 57 Magistrates Courts 86 52 Correctional Services 34 50 Attorney General Department 2 50 Police 139 42 Public Solicitor’s office 9 33 Average 11 50 Note: S.2.16-2.37. Mt Hagen N=328, non-responses=58%-99%, eg. Attorney General Department N=2 ie. only 2 respondents out of 328 (1%) had matters to do with this Department, so non-response=99%. Varying non-response rates derive from respondents who had no knowledge of particular agencies. . In an average of 11 matters per agency in Mt Hagen, 50% of respondents were satisfied. Satisfaction was lower than in both Lae (62%) and Port Moresby (61%). The level of satisfaction with the police was below average at 42%, which was somewhat lower than Lae (54%) and Port Moresby (57%). The levels of satisfaction with the Police, Magistrates Courts, Correctional Services, and the Public Prosecutors and Public Solicitors offices were all lower in Mt Hagen than in Lae and Port Moresby. Are the Law and Justice Agencies Doing a Good Job over Corruption? Chapter 2 showed that crime was thought to be a major problem in Papua New Guinea as a whole: A high 91% of respondents in Mt Hagen (the same as Lae and higher than the 79% in Port Moresby) thought that the crime problem in Papua New Guinea was large or very large (Table 2). A very high 89% in Mt Hagen thought that corruption nationally was increasing (higher than 78% in Lae and 70% in Port Moresby) (Table 3). Respondents were also asked whether they thought that the Law & Justice Sector agencies were doing a good or bad job over corruption (Table 28). Table 28: Satisfaction with the Law & Justice Agencies over Action on Corruption Agency Mt Hagen Responses (No.) Satisfied (%) Ombudsman Commission 7 57 Correctional Services 34 47 High Court 12 42 Magistrates Courts 86 41 Public Prosecutor’s office 11 36 Public Solicitors office 9 33 Police 131 27 Attorney General Department 2 0 Total 37 50 Note: S.2.17-2.38. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=60-99%, eg. Police N=131, ie. 131 respondents out of 328 (40%) had matters to do with this Department, so non-response=60%. Varying non-response rates derive from respondents who had no knowledge of particular agencies. Low levels of awareness in Mt Hagen of agency actions were indicated by very high levels of non-response, which averaged 89% among the eight agencies. Among those who expressed an opinion, there was a moderate average level of satisfaction of 50%. The levels of satisfaction with the Attorney General Department (0%, but only two responses), Police (27%), Public Solicitors (33%) and Public Prosecutors (36%) action were all low. The pattern of responses was similar to Port Moresby and Lae, where satisfaction with police action was also low, although higher than in Mt Hagen. Notably, the Attorney General Department and its two agencies, the Public Solicitors and Public Prosecutors offices, all had low levels of satisfaction. What Are Attitudes to the Policing Services? Respondents in Mt Hagen, Lae and Port Moresby all had low levels of satisfaction with the work of the police (Table 29). At only 17% in Mt Hagen, this was even lower than the 27% in Port Moresby and Lae. Table 29: Opinion on Whether Police Do a Good Job Opinion Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 17 27 27 Sometimes 29 29 21 No 52 39 43 Don’t know 2 6 9 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.6.6. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0%. Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted N=165 542, non-response=0%. Concerns regarding police efficiency and behaviour were captured in open-ended answers (Q.6.8), for example: Arrive late at the crime scene. See boys standing on the road: swear and bash boys up for no good reason. Misuse of police vehicles. They are lazy. However, the main concern was bribery (see below). Respondents demonstrated a moderate amount of contact with the police: 96% in Mt Hagen said they knew where the local police station was. This was similar to Lae and Port Moresby with 98% (Q.6.1). 49% had been to their local police station in the last year. This was more than Lae (31%) and Port Moresby (27%) (Q.6.2). 32% had had official contact with the police, 50% of these as a victim of crime. These figures were similar to Lae and Port Moresby (Q.6.3-4). Of those respondents who had official contact with the police, a moderate 49% in Mt Hagen said it had improved their opinion of them, similar to the 49% in Lae and 44% in Port Moresby (Table 30). Table 30: Improvement in Opinion from Contact with the Police Improved Opinion Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 49 49 44 No 51 51 57 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.6.5. Mt Hagen N=100, non-response=70%. Lae N=83, non-response=80%. NCD weighted N=42 528, non-response=74%. The high non-response rates derive from respondents who had no formal contact. Respondents were asked whether police discipline had improved in the last 12 months. Table 31 shows generally negative opinion. Table 31: Improvement in Police Discipline Improved Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 10 13 20 Sometimes 20 14 13 No 58 45 47 Don’t Know 12 28 19 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.7.7. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0% Lae N=402, non-response=1%. NCD weighted N=165 120, non-response=1%. In Mt Hagen, 10% thought police discipline had improved; another 20% thought sometimes. The combined figures were similar to Lae and Port Moresby. Do the Police Participate in the Community? Another question monitored community perceptions of police participation occurring in the community. Table 32 shows: In Mt Hagen, a low 18% of respondents thought participation occurred at least sometimes. This result was between Lae and Port Moresby. Table 32: Police Participation in Community Consultations about Crime Participate Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005(%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 13 12 17 Sometimes 18 30 14 No 60 49 64 Don't know 9 10 5 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.8.7. Mt Hagen N=328, non-response=0% .Lae N=403, non-response=0%. NCD weighted N=165 542, non-response=0%. In Mt Hagen, 22% of people were able to provide examples of community-based policing, which was less than Lae (34%) and similar to Port Moresby (20%) (Q.6.12). What About Other Types of Policing? Respondents were asked to differentiate between regular and auxiliary police (Q.6.9): In Mt Hagen, 76% were able to (Lae 44%, Port Moresby 56%). 66% in Mt Hagen preferred the regular police to the auxiliaries (compared to Lae 70% and 60% in Port Moresby) (Q.6.11). In Mt Hagen, only 25% of respondents indicated that mobile squads made them feel less safe (which was much lower that the 53% in Lae and 64% in Port Moresby) (Q.6.13). The clear preference was for regular police but, unusually, in Mt Hagen 69% of respondents said that the mobile squads (which are a branch of the regular police) did make them feel safer. Is Crime Reported to the Police? Victims of crime were asked whether they reported the most troubling victimisation to the police (Table 33): 38% in Mt Hagen (higher than 32% in Lae and 33% in Port Moresby) did report the most troubling crime to the police. Of those who reported to the police (Q.4.15): In Mt Hagen, only 20% were satisfied with the police response, while 81% were not. The level of satisfaction was lower than Lae (36%) and Port Moresby (33%). Most respondents also reported the crime to others beyond the police (Q.4.21): In Mt Hagen in 2006, 84% of people stated that they reported the crime to forms of authority other than the police (such as relatives or traditional authorities), more than in Lae (75%) and Port Moresby (72%). Table 33: Reporting of Most Troublesome Incident to the Police Reported Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Yes 38 32 33 No 62 68 67 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.4.13. Mt Hagen N=227, non-response=31%. Lae N=227, non-response=44%. NCD weighted N=79 251, non-response=52%. The high non-response rates derive mainly from respondents who gave nil responses to S.3. The high number of reporting of crimes to both police and other forms of authority indicates greater respect in Mt Hagen for both traditional and modern authority. The strength of traditional ties in Mt Hagen and contributes to the arguments for strengthening community based crime prevention mechanisms. Are the Police a Deterrent? Table 34 shows that in Mt Hagen a visible police presence was thought to be a key deterrent. All the surveys have shown that respondents wanted to see police driving or walking around and talking with people. This pattern was the same as in Lae and Port Moresby 91% of respondents in Mt Hagen (higher than the 86% in Lae and the 88% in Port Moresby) believed that having the police around in their community would stop people from committing crimes (Q.7.5). The police were only one option for community crime prevention/community safety, but they were the main one given by Mt Hagen respondents. Communities and individuals were also thought to have responsibilities. When asked, “Who do you think should be most responsible for community crime prevention/community safety” (Q.8.6), the following answers were given: In Mt Hagen, 35% thought the police should (Lae 23%, Port Moresby 21%). In Mt Hagen, 31% thought individuals (Lae 20%, Port Moresby 24%). In Mt Hagen, 22% thought the community (Lae 29%, Port Moresby 36%). Table 34: The Most Important Things Police Can Do in the Community Actions Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) Driving around 28 24 23 Walking around in groups 23 20 24 Talking with people 16 19 19 Cautioning young people 12 7 7 Just being around 8 14 14 Attending meetings 4 9 7 All of these 6 4 4 They do nothing important in this regard 3 3 3 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.7.4, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen, N=326, non-response=0%, responses=551. Lae N=400, non-response=1%, responses=847. NCD weighted N=159 725, non-response=4%, responses=295 811. Are the Police Thought to be Criminals? The police in Mt Hagen were accused of widespread corruption through bribery. The following comments made about police in the open-ended questions reflect this issue: Police are operating on bribery. They often accept bribery and practice nepotism. They want money for fuel (really a bribe). The police operate when/if they are bribed. They always want some kind of money payment for things like car fuel or for themselves. When we face a problem and call, they do not respond quickly. They always want money first before visiting the crime site. Wantok system and bribery. If you bribe them, they will do their job. They deal with the rascals, instead of fighting crime they get involved. They collaborate with criminals. Similar views were freely expressed about magistrates too, for example: Magistrates handle court with bribery. Magistrates sometimes do accept bribery. My first husband was bribing the magistrates to win the court case. Are the Police Thought to Respect the Community? One aspect of respect for police is based on the manner in which they carry out their duties. Another aspect is the attitude that police show to the public. Like in all the other surveys, Mt Hagen respondents who thought that the police were doing a good job predominantly did so because of service delivery rather than attitude (Table 35). Table 35: Reasons Why Police Were Doing a Good Job Actions Mt Hagen 2006 (%) Lae 2005 (%) Port Moresby 2005 (%) They are responsive to crime in your area 30 26 51 They are fair in their dealings with the community 25 18 10 They do things to maintain the safety of the community 21 36 29 They treat the community with respect 7 9 5 Other 8 11 6 Total 100 100 100 Note: Q.6.7, multiple responses allowed. Mt Hagen N=63, non-response=81, responses=75. Lae N=118, non-response=71%, responses=140. NCD weighted N=49 358, non-response=70%, responses=59 772. The high non-response rates derive from respondents who gave a negative answer to Q.6.6. In Mt Hagen, of the 17% of respondents thought that the police in their area were doing a good job (Q.6.6), the main reasons were: Responsiveness to crime (30% compared to 26% in Lae and 51% Port Moresby). Police maintaining community safety (21% compared to 36% in Lae and 29% in Port Moresby). 25% thought that police were fair in their dealings. This was higher than Lae and, especially, Port Moresby. APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE Rationale/Background As part of the development of the Law and Justice Sector Performance Monitoring Framework, the Government of Papua New Guinea has identified as a priority the reduction of crime in urban areas, beginning with Port Moresby. To be able to monitor and measure whether such a reduction is in fact occurring, it is necessary to develop and implement a community crime survey in those urban areas, to provide crucial data that counter-balances reported crime rates and provides a fuller and more reliable picture of crime levels in the community. This information is also essential for the purposes of monitoring the effectiveness of the police and other sector agencies in addressing crime. An ongoing and broad-based survey will provide information on trends over time so that progress (or regress) in addressing law and justice issues can be measured and responded to effectively. The surveys will be implemented in Port Moresby, Arawa, Buka, Lae, and Mt Hagen. Purpose The primary objectives of the Community Crime Surveys are: To provide information on the levels, extent and types of crime in Papua New Guinea, in order to provide a balance to reported crime data, enable the sector to ascertain trends in crime levels and provide a measure of the actual environment in Papua New Guinea that can inform programs and strategies to counter crime. To capture community perceptions of the police and to monitor changes in perceptions over time. This should extend more broadly than the perceptions held by victims of crime, in recognition of the many other forms of experience everyday people have with the police. The JAG will partner with NRI, provide oversight and quality assurance, as well as ensuring that the work is closely coordinated with the GoPNG’s Law & Justice Sector Strategic Framework and stakeholders in Papua New Guinea including the NCM, LJSWG, all L&JS Agencies, and the Western Highlands Provincial Government. APPENDIX B PERSONNEL Research Team Principal Researchers In alphabetical order, Dr Gerard Guthrie (Principal Consultant, Educo Pty Ltd, formerly Foundation Professor of Education, University of Goroka) designed and directed the survey, refined the survey instrument, developed implementation plans with NRI, provided training and quality assurance on the fieldwork in Mt Hagen, oversighted data entry in Canberra, reported on the survey results, and provided oversight and coordination. Ms Fiona Hukula (Senior Research Officer, NRI) reported on the survey results. Lt Col James Laki (Senior Research Fellow, NRI) oversighted NRI’s involvement, managed the fieldwork in Mt Hagen, and reported on the survey results Data Collectors Mr Henry Koi (Research Officer, NRI, Field Superviser), Mr Arnold Mek (Field Assistant), Ms Carolyn Gau, Mr Samson Goiye, Ms Julie Joe, Mr Richard Kennedy, Mr Steven Kiap, Ms Mary Par, Ms Jennie Paraica, Ms Freda Pepa, Mr James Piandui, Mr Barnabas Tepa. Data Processing Ms Barbara Davis, Managing Director, Barbara Davis & Associates, Canberra. Ms Kani Kikman, NRI. Ms Julia Zelenska, Statistician, Barbara Davis & Associates, Canberra. Peer Review Mr Rowan Downing QC, Project Director, JAG. Ms Anastasia Mason, Project Manager, JAG. Dr Richard Guy, Data Analysis Adviser, JAG. Mr Steve Miller, Performance Monitoring Adviser, JAG. Dr John Rivers, Monitoring & Evaluation Adviser, JAG. AusAID Ms Joanne Choe, Second Secretary (Governance), Australian High Commission, Port Moresby. Ms Tanya McQueen, PNG Law and Justice Unit, Canberra. Mr Romias Waki, Project Officer, Australian High Commission, Port Moresby. APPENDIX C METHODOLOGY The Government of Papua New Guinea’s Law & Justice Sector Strategy 1.3.1 is “to improve urban safety”. To measure whether a reduction is occurring, it was necessary to implement periodic community crime surveys. Community perceptions data are intended to supplement official statistics and provide a fuller and more reliable picture of crime levels and responses to them in the community. After initial surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka in 2004, a second round of surveys was extended to include Lae in late 2005 and Mt Hagen in early 2006. This first Mt Hagen survey, conducted in March 2006, provided baseline data. Appendix C outlines the methodology. Full background on the underlying methodology is in: Findlay, M., Guthrie, G., Hukula, F. & Laki, J. (2005). “Port Moresby Community Crime Survey, 2004”, Special Publication No.36. Port Moresby: National Research Institute. pp.62-85. Responsibilities to support monitoring and evaluation of sector performance are held by the Papua New Guinea Justice Advisory Group (JAG). AusAID has contracted Educo Pty Ltd of Canberra to manage the JAG, which was originally tasked by AusAID to provide technical oversight, management and quality assurance on the surveys. The JAG has continued to partner with the Papua New Guinea National Research Institute (NRI), which conducts the fieldwork and shares the write up. Consultation The 2004 surveys had extensive peer review and quality assurance on the design. The second round of surveys was approved by the GoPNG L&J Sector Working Group and the National Coordinating Mechanism in August 2005. Objectives The primary objectives of the Community Crime Surveys (Appendix A) are: To provide information on the levels, extent and types of crime in Papua New Guinea, in order to provide a balance to reported crime data, enable the sector to ascertain trends in crime levels and provide a measure of the actual environment in Papua New Guinea that can inform programs and strategies to counter crime. To capture community perceptions of the police and to monitor changes in perceptions over time. This should extend more broadly than the perceptions held by victims of crime, in recognition of the many other forms of experience everyday people have with the police. Instrumentation The methodology was primarily quantitative, based on random grid sampling using a structured questionnaire. The survey instrument from the 2004 surveys was quite satisfactory. For the second round, it was broadened to include Questions 2.15-2.38, which provide coverage of all key sector agencies, as well as Q.7.7 on police discipline and Q.8.7 on community consultation by the police. Appendix D contains the English version. Survey Design Mt Hagen contains three separate areas. Town is the heavily populated city proper. The Kagamuga airport area, some 7km along the Highlands Highway to the east, is mainly airport reserve plus a small urban area and some rural land use. Kerebug, an area 2km to the northwest of the town, contains Mt Hagen Technical College, a small residential area, and rural land use. Target Population The urban population of Mt Hagen was 27 887 in the 2000 Census (Table C1). The target population aged 15 and above comprised 64.0% of the population, an estimated 17 841 people. National Statistical Office (2002). Papua New Guinea 2000 Census:2000 Community Profile System CD-ROM, Port Moresby. Table C1: Mt Hagen Urban Population by Gender, 2000 Census National Statistical Office (2002). Papua New Guinea 2000 Census: Census Unit Register Western Highlands Province, Port Moresby, pp.22-3. Gender Mt Hagen Town incl. Kerebug Kagamuga Urban Total N N N % Males 13 500 1 474 14 974 53.7 Females 11 599 1 304 12 903 46.3 Total 25 099 2 778 27 877 100.0 Sample Size Sample size tables set a sample target of 376 based on a 95% probability of achieving a sample age mean less than one year above or below the mean age of the population aged 15 and above in 2000. Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social Research (2nd ed.). Macmillan, Melbourne, p.163. Sampling of the target area was based on current maps using random grid sampling, which is a standard and widely accepted geographical and sociological practice. Grid sampling used one variable (house location) overlaid by an arbitrary, independent variable (grid intersections based on compass bearings). From a map of Mt Hagen, random numbers were allocated to grid point intersections where they overlay residential areas. Mapmakers (2003). PNG Maps CD. Port Moresby. Less detailed versions of the Town maps can be found in the PNG Telephone Directory White Pages 2005. pp. 48-50. A random number generator selected the required number of 16 sites. Whether or not houses were on or near a grid intersection was a random matter, thus there was no bias in selection. Fourteen of the 16 sites were in Town (12 of which were southeast of the town centre at various locations accessed along Kum Road) and two were in Kagamuga. Ten of the 16 sites were identified on the maps as being in “Customary, Informal or Low Cost Housing Areas” and six were in “Medium Covenant to High Host Residential Areas”. The sample site distribution was consistent statistically with the distribution of land use into the two types (X2=2.06, df=1, p=.15) and between the three urban areas (X2=0.98, df=2, p=.61). Housing within each site was homogenous. Interviews targeted the 10 houses nearest the grid point at each of the 16 sites. The aim was to collect 25 interviews at each site, with quotas at each site filled by data collectors based on the variables of age and gender to compensate for any bias in non-response. A 40% allowance for non-response was built into the site sampling and interviewers were instructed not to take substitute houses if people were unavailable. They worked weekends and were instructed to revisit within the 10 selected houses to fill quotas. Of the 160 households identified (out of the 4 314 found in the 2000 Census), data was collected at 124. Fieldwork constraints (see later) meant that the outcome was a sample of 328 people aged 15+. This was 13% smaller than desirable, but even so provided a relatively high sample fraction of 1.84% of the urban population aged 15+ (compared to 0.31% in Port Moresby in 2005 and 0.53% in Lae). The sample numbers were within the statistically acceptable parameters set by the standard sampling tables used, which accept small sampling fractions. The standard error of the sample mean was 0.67. The sample size proved to be acceptable statistically for the purposes of generalisation to the total adult population of Mt Hagen. The size would have been limiting had detailed criminological analysis been undertaken by disaggregating data to cell size for demographic cross-analysis. The potential for cross-analysis of household and demographic variables was limited in instances where small cell sizes gave high standard errors of the mean. To achieve reliable detail considerably larger samples would be required, but there has been no requirement for such analysis. Longitudinal analysis would be possible in future by comparing household data from this survey with data from the same households in any repeat surveys. Sample Reliability Despite the smaller than intended sample size, statistical tests against all available population parameters showed that the sample achieved results exceeding a 95% level of probability that it was statistically representative of the population of Mt Hagen compared to 2000 Census data. The sample matched all the key demographic variables (age, gender, marital status and education) on which data is available for the 15+ population in the limited published Census reports. Because of the limited available Census data for Lae, some comparisons had to be based on the urban population of Morobe Province. Age The sample of 328 had age means and standard deviations identical to the 2000 Census data for the total urban population of Western Highlands Province (which included Banz and Minj, with some 7% of the provincial total urban population) because separate data were unavailable for Mt Hagen (Table C2; t=.01, df=327, p=.99). Table C2: Sample Age Mean and Standard Deviation, Age 15 Plus Location Age Western Highlands Urban (2000 Census) 30.6+/-12.0 Mt Hagen (2006 Survey) 30.6+/-12.0 Gender The same age and gender interview quotas applied to each site. The 15+ group age and gender numbers and percentages from the 2000 Census follow in Table C3. The age and gender proportions were also for the Western Highlands. These percentages were used for allocating age and gender quotas from three to five people in each category for each sample site in Mt Hagen. Table C3. Western Highlands Urban Adult Population Proportions, by Age and Gender, 2000 National Statistical Office (2002). Papua New Guinea 2000 Census: 2000 Census Basic Tables Provincial Level – Urban Sector, Western Highlands Province, Port Moresby, pp.1-3. Gender 15-24 25-34 35+ Total N % N % N % N % Males 3 655 19.1 2 989 15.6 3 828 20.0 10 482 54.7 Females 3 410 17.8 2 780 14.5 2 514 13.1 8 694 45.3 Total 7 065 36.8 5 769 30.0 6 342 33.1 19 176 100.0 Table C4 shows the quotas and sample results. Differences between the sample (observed frequency) and estimates derived from the Census (expected frequency) for this size sample were not statistically significant (X2=3.76, df=5, p=.58), ie. the sample was highly representative of the known age and gender cohorts. Table C4: Mt Hagen Sample Quotas, by Age and Gender Data Source Males 15-24 Males 25-34 Males 35+ Females 15-24 Females 25-34 Females 35+ Total Census 2000 63 51 66 58 48 43 329 Sample 2005 65 53 60 55 49 46 328 Marital Status Married people in Mt Hagen were 61.4% of those aged 15+ in the 2000 Census (57.8% for males and 65.6% for females). The proportions in the site samples are shown in Table C5. The differences between the married and unmarried numbers in the sample and the Census were not statistically significant (X2=1.67, df=1, p=.20), ie. the sample was representative of marriage levels. Table C5: Interviews by Marital Status, Age 15 Plus Location Census Married N Census Married % Sample Married N Sample Married % Mt Hagen 10 965 61.4 190 58.1 Education The proportion of people in Mt Hagen in the 2000 Census who had technical or university level educational qualifications was 12.4% of those aged 15+. The proportion in the sample is shown in Table C6. The differences between those who were tertiary educated and those with lesser education in the sample and the Census were not statistically significant (X2=0.003, df=1, p=.96), ie. the sample was statistically highly representative of education levels. Table C6: Interviews by Tertiary Education Qualifications, Age 15 Plus Location Census Tertiary Educated N Census Tertiary Educated % Sample Tertiary Educated N Sample Tertiary Educated % Mt Hagen 2 212 12.4 41 12.5 Gender Issues While in many households there were frank reports on sexual assault and domestic violence, the indication was that reporting was below the level of actual victimisation. This problem is grounded in the methodology. Questionnaire surveys based on short, closed-response questions are appropriate for the survey’s prime purpose of providing quantitative information to decision makers about trends in crime victimisation. The methodological problem is magnified by fieldwork constraints. Occupancy rates in the areas surveyed were high and constant, so that it was difficult to separate interviewees from the influence and observation of other household members. The structure of domestic authority could reduce the independence of the interview because the influence of the dominant male or female in the family structure may have limited candid responses. Open communication between respondent and interviewer may also have been difficult when the victim and the perpetrator were members of the same household and perhaps nearby during the interview. However, these surveys are not intended to obtain the type of in-depth qualitative information necessary to give a more valid understanding of sexual assault and domestic violence relevant to service organisations and social workers. The solution to their need for deeper understanding is additional research using qualitative methodologies. However, the household surveys do at least give an indication of the minimum levels of sexual assault and domestic violence. To reduce the effect of age and gender bias in non-responses, interviewers were given sample quotas in six age and gender cohorts. Same-gender interviews were used consistently throughout the whole survey. Fieldwork, Quality Control and Safety NRI visited Mt Hagen in the 2nd week of February 2006 to develop field work plans and to liaise with local authorities. The 2005 Lae Field Supervisor from NRI, who came from Mt Hagen, carried out the role in Mt Hagen too. NRI contracted qualified and experienced data collectors. Half of the group was men, half was women. One of the interviewers had worked on previous crime surveys elsewhere, the other nine were recruited locally through the Western Highlands Council of Women. Five data collectors were men; five were women. They were aged in their twenties and thirties. All had tertiary education, mainly at technical colleges. Half had previous data collection experience. All were fluent in English and Tok Pisin. The safety of the data collectors was a prior concern. A Safety Management Plan used in NCD (reproduced in the 2004 NCD report) was used as guidance by the field superviser in Mt Hagen. Radios were actively used by the fieldworkers and allowed more efficient field management as well as a greater sense of security. The field workers reported no security incidents. However, some fieldwork constraints made data collection difficult to manage, more so than in Lae or Port Moresby in the view of the Field Superviser. The main constraint was rain, which occurred on most days: often downpours lasting two or three hours in the middle of the day. This severely restricted interviewing, which involved taking notes sitting outside for safety reasons. Another important constraint was that Mt Hagen has a very strong informal economic sector, which means that many people are out of their houses for long and unpredictable periods. Daily absenteeism among potential interviewees (which was also a problem for similar reasons in the 2004 and 2005 Arawa surveys) meant that to obtain interview numbers, interviewing hours were varied, extending them into evening hours in some locations, and there was extensive revisiting of sites. The 328 interviews were achieved in 78% of targeted households, which compared to 71% in Port Moresby and 91% in Lae in their 2005 surveys. Data Analysis Coding and statistical analysis was undertaken in Canberra by Barbara Davis & Associates. It cross tabulated data and presented means using SPSS, and provided data files in SPSS and Microsoft Excel. CD-ROMs with these data are available free of charge to bona fide professionals and researchers through NRI email jrobins@nri.org.pg and Educo Pty Ltd, 1 Throsby Place, Griffith, ACT 2603, Australia; email anastasia@educo.net. Comparisons between Mt Hagen, Lae and Port Moresby in this report used the best available data for each location, which was unweighted in the case of Mt Hagen and Lae and weighted for Port Moresby. At city level, the 2005 Port Moresby sample was statistically representative in size, age means and standard deviations, gender, and marital status, but overrepresented the tertiary educated (which may be a consequence of social change since 2000 rather than a bias in sampling – see Port Moresby report 2005, pp.73-4). Because the Mt Hagen and Lae samples were a random and accurate representation of their populations as far as could be judged, weighting was not necessary. The use of age and gender quotas meant that the samples were, in effect, weighted a priori as best as the available data allowed and they were statistically representative on all available measures. While the use of unweighted data is only accurate to the extent of the .05 level of confidence, this is adequate for the purpose of generalisation. Even were weighting desirable, the limited and province-wide Census data would mean that it would not address any inherent inaccuracies in the data. In comparison, weighting was necessary with the 2004 and 2005 surveys in Port Moresby because the two-stage sampling was not random at the first stage. This was possible in practice because Port Moresby and NCD (which is a province for Census reporting purposes) share the same boundaries and adequate Census data and maps were available to weight at the necessary Census Unit level. Even so, the result was that totals varied usually by 1% or less (eg. NCD 2005 Q.4.2 unweighted data found that 53.2% of respondents stated they thought the crime problem in Papua New Guinea was very large; the weighted figure was minimally different at 53.4%). If the small changes deriving from the NCD weighting are a guide, minor changes from weighting the Mt Hagen data would not change interpretations against NCD (where the Mt Hagen-Port Moresby differences were generally large). Providing the unweighted data is used if future surveys are conducted in Mt Hagen, reliable trend information will be provided, which is the real interest in the findings. Inferential statistics were not used in data analysis, with the exception of testing the sampling parameters. This report compares data from three different populations. No attempt is made in any of the survey reports to generalise data beyond the city in which it was collected (eg. to the nation as a whole by assuming that a city was a sample of the urban population of the nation), so inferential statistics would not be appropriate for comparison between different urban populations. Within Port Moresby, the weighted sample represented the whole population (insofar as known from the 2000 Census). Because the Mt Hagen and Lae samples were random and accurate representations of their populations as far as can be judged, weighting would not change the proportions represented by the samples, which also effectively makes the use of inferential statistics redundant. While analysis of variance of site samples in Port Moresby and non-parametric test of small cells in cities would strengthen the statistical interpretation, it would clutter the reports for their intended audience of public servants and community groups in Papua New Guinea. In the absence of statistical testing, comparisons between Mt Hagen, Lae and Port Moresby were guided by the standard errors of the sample means (0.67 in Mt Hagen, 0.67 in Lae and 0.49 in Port Moresby in 2005). Little importance was attached to differences of 1 or 2%, except where they were part of trends. Two units of analysis were used: responses from individual interviewees and responses for households (which contained an average of 2.6 interviewees in Mt Hagen). The first paragraphs of each chapter make clear what type of data is to be presented in the chapter and the text uses ‘respondent’ when reporting is based on individuals and ‘household’ when using household data. The JAG/NRI surveys household data generates increased reliability by using multiple responses from within each household. Household victimisation surveys typically use one respondent (notionally the head of household), which can have reliability problems. It is vulnerable to the limitations of the head of households’ own memories and whatever censoring they wish to apply to information about their families or their own behaviour. Averaged responses give a more reliable enumeration of household victimisation than might be obtained from the head of household, who may be a perpetrator of sexual assault and domestic violence. Nor does household data necessarily have less validity than individual responses by virtue of respondents not being independent of each other. Any assumption that an individual’s comment has more validity than a group one is not necessarily correct. In Papua New Guinea and many cultures elsewhere, the individual is a less meaningful social unit than the family, clan or community. Many individuals do not express any opinion other than the revealed household or community truth: thus, their response is not independent. In any case, no perceptions are independent of social influence, whether from inside the household or out. During data analysis household crime victimisation reports were aggregated at two levels to allow analysis by individual household (for example, to examine repeat crime more closely in Chapter 3) and by city (to give overall crime statistics for long term analysis of tends): Individual households. The victimisation figure is the mean of the number of any particular type of crime reported by individuals within that household for that household. Town. Means for the affected households were calculated by adding all crime reports and dividing by the number of individuals reporting them. This allows identification of both the level of non-occurrence of crime and the frequency that it occurs in affected households, which provides more detail than averaging crime rates over affected and unaffected households. Timing The 2005 surveys were conducted according to the following timetable: Table C7: Survey Timetable Task Responsibility Completed Survey approval NCM 25 August 2005 Revise instrumentation JAG, NRI, LJSWG 3 September Conduct training, commence field work NRI 1-5 March 2006 Complete fieldwork NRI 25 March Preliminary data analysis BDA, JAG 8 May Report submission JAG, NRI 25 May Report acceptance AusAID APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE PNG Community Crime Survey - 2005 Respondent No. (coders to insert) Interviewer Name Location Household ID No. Date Checked by Partner (name/date) For supervisor/office use only Name of Supervisor: Date checked: Selected for call-back: Yes No Date of call back: Introduction (The interviewer can shorten this or simplify it if it is appropriate in any particular interview) (To the person who meets you when you visit the household) Hello. My name is . I am working for the National Research Institute. We are conducting a survey about attitudes to crime and to the police. We need peoples’ views on crime and safety in your area to inform Government about crime in your area. We have picked some houses to survey by drawing them from a hat (In Port Moresby and Bougainville: This interview repeats interviews we did last year to see if things have changed since then). Is it OK to conduct an interview in your house? To get an overall view we want to speak separately to all persons in each house who are 15 years old or more. Here we would like to speak to (describe person as per quota provided) who lives here with you. Are they home? (If not, ask for someone else who might be of another sex or age). (To the respondent) Hello. I am from the National Research Institute. I would like to ask you a few questions about your views about crime and policing. The survey will take about 30-40 minutes. Your answers will be confidential. This is a chance to inform Government about crime in your area. No-one outside the survey team will have access to your personal information. Please answer as honestly and accurately as you can. If you are uncomfortable with any question, then don’t answer. Time interview commenced: NOTES TO INTERVIEWERS: Numbers for coding are in bold. Use the form that is in the same language (English or Tok Pisin) as the interview. Section 1 – Screening Questions and Demographics of the Household 1.1 Do you or anyone in your house, work for the police, the courts or the prison service? 1 Yes 2 No (If yes, politely discontinue the interview) 1.2 Where is your home place? (Interviewer circle number if respondent is an expatriate): 1 Expatriate 1.3 How long have you lived in this house? Does the household: 1 Own 2 Rent 3 Other Specify other: 1.5 Does anyone in the household own a: 1 Car 2 Truck 3 Motor-bike 4 Bicycle 5 Boat, or 6 None of the above 1.6 How many people usually live in your house? Children under 15( ) Adults 15 and over( _ ) 1.7 Is the house connected to electricity? 1 Yes 2 No 1.8 Do you have a telephone or mobile phone in the house? 1 Yes 2 No 1.9 (Don’t ask this or the next two questions if the answer is obvious to you) Is the house connected to a permanent water supply? 1 Yes 2 No 1.10 Do you have a toilet connected to the sewer? 1 Yes 2 No 1.11 Is this house? 1 Walled 2 Fenced 3 Unfenced Section 2 – General Thinking/Beliefs about Crime Interviewer to read out: I would like to ask you some questions about your opinion of crime in this area. Do you think the level of crime in your area has changed in the past 12 months (In Port Moresby and Bougainville: since the last survey 12 months ago)? 1 More 2 Less 3 Stayed the same, or 4 Don’t know (If Stayed the same or Don’t know, skip to 2.5) If it has changed, then why? (Don’t read out the alternatives) 1 2 The police are doing a good/bad job 3 4 The courts are doing a good/bad job 5 6 The prisons are doing a good/bad job 7 8 The community is doing a good/bad job 9 10 The raskols are getting better/worse, and/or 11 Other (specify) Do you think violent crime against people (killing, robbery, rape, assault – give examples) in your area has changed in the past 12 months? 1 More 2 Less 3 Stayed the same, or 4 Don’t know Do you think property crime (house-breaking, stealing) in your area has changed in the past 12 months? 1 More 2 Less 3 Stayed the same, or 4 Don’t know Do you think corruption in PNG is: 1 Increasing 2 Decreasing 3 Staying the same, or 4 Don’t know (Blank) (Blank) (Blank) What crime happens most in your area? (Read out the alternatives) 1 Stealing 2 Assault 3 Robbery (stealing with violence) 4 Sexual assault 5 Violence outside the home 6 Domestic violence 7 Alcohol or drug related crime 8 Trespassing, or 9 Don’t know What one crime are you most afraid of happening to you and your family in your area? 1 Stealing 2 Break and enter 3 Assault 4 Robbery (stealing with violence) 5 Sexual assault (including rape) 6 Violence outside the home (including murder) 7 Domestic violence (including murder), or 8 Don’t know What does crime stop you from doing in your area? (Don’t read out the alternatives. Use them for coding the answers given. There can be more than one response to this question) 1 Using PMV 2 Walking to the shops 3 Walking to work/garden 4 Walking to fetch water (if appropriate) 5 Allowing your children to walk to school 6 Using open areas like parks or church 7 Walking around at night 8 Investing in this house or in a business 9 Nothing in particular, and/or 10 Other (specify): Does dangerous driving or dangers on the roads in your area make you feel unsafe? 1 Yes 2 No Do you think that crimes in your area are most likely to be committed by: 1 People who live in this place 2 Outsiders 3 Both 4 Don’t know Do you think it is more effective that people who steal are: 1 Sent to prison, or 2 Given a punishment that does not involve going to prison (eg. community work, paying compensation)? Have you had anything to do with the Attorney General Department? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.18) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is the Attorney General Department doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with Correctional Services (the prison system)? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.21) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is Correctional Services doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the High Court? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.24) Were you satisfied with how it handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is the High Court doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the Magistrates Courts? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.27) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Are the Magistrates Courts doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the Ombudsman Commission? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.30) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is the Ombudsman Commission doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the Police? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.33) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Are the Police doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the Public Prosecutor’s office? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, skip to 2.33) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is the Public Prosecutor’s office doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Have you had anything to do with the Public Solicitor’s office? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know of them (If No or Don’t know, go on to next section) Were you satisfied with how they handled your matter? 1 Yes 2 No Is the Public Solicitor’s office doing a good job over corruption? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Section 3 – Experience of Crime Interviewer to read out: Now I will ask you about your personal experiences of crime over the past 12 months (in Port Moresby and Bougainville, since the last interviews). I am going to read out a list of crimes that might have affected you or someone else in your house. I would like you to tell me whether you or a house member has been a victim of any of these crimes. If this has been more than once for each crime in the past year please tell me that too. (Put down the number of crime instances in the past 12 months and whether it was the respondent that was the victim or another household member) Car, truck or bike stolen: 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Stealing your property from you: 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Stealing your property from you with some force or threat: 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Assault: 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Unprovoked violence (eg. an attack by a stranger) 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: ( In the home? Outside the home?) Provoked violence (eg. pay back): 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Sexual assault: ( In the home? Outside the home?): 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Using a firearm against you or your household: 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: Killing (household member): 0 Not victim 2 Household Number of times: Destruction or damage to your property (household): 0 Not victim 2 Household Number of times: Breaking into your house and stealing (household): 0 Not victim 2 Household Number of times: Other (Specify) 0 Not victim 1 Individual Number of times: 2 Household Number of times: If the respondent or household member has been the victim of any particular crime, then move on to Section 4. If not, continue at Section 5. Section 4 – Experience of Nominated Offences Interviewer to read out: Now I will ask you some questions regarding the crimes where you or a member of your house was a victim in the past 12 months. Concentrate on the crime that you or your household found most troubling. I know it might be difficult to talk about this, but do your best. Don’t worry about telling me these things. (Interviewer: Check for consistency with Section 3). 4.1 What was the crime? 4.2 Why do you consider this crime to be the most troubling? Did it involve you personally as the victim? 1 Yes 2 No Where did it happen? (Don’t read out alternatives) 1 Home 2 Street 3 Shops 4 Work-place 5 Another private space 6 A community space (meeting, school), or 7 Other place (specify) Were you (house member) on your own? 1 Yes 2 No When did it happen? 1 Morning 2 Afternoon 3 Night Did it happen: 1 During the week 2 Saturday 3 Sunday Was there more than one offender? 1 Yes 2 No Was the offender known to you? 1 Yes 2 No. If yes, was he/she/they a: 3 Spouse 4 Relative 5 Friend 6 Neighbour 7 Wantok 8 Gang, and/or 9 Someone you had only seen before? Were any weapons used in the crime? 1 Yes 2 No Was anyone hurt? 1 Yes 2 No (If no, skip to 4.13) If someone was hurt, do you know any reason for the violence? 1 Yes 2 No. If yes, was it an: 3 Ethnic dispute 4 Land dispute 5 Domestic dispute 6 Compensation dispute 7 Alcohol, or 8 Other (specify) Did you report the incident to the police? 1 Yes 2 No (If no to 4.13, skip to question 4.21) Why? (specify) If you did report, were you satisfied with the police response? 1 Yes 2 No Why? (specify) Was an arrest made in this case? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know (If No or Don’t know, skip to question 4.21) Did you have to attend court? 1 Yes 2 No, or 3 Case on-going (If no, go to 4.21) How long did it take before the case came to court? 1 Up to 1 month 2 Between 1 and 6 months 3 6 to 12 months 4 More than 1 year 5 More than 2 years, or 6 Still waiting Were you satisfied with the way the authorities (police/prosecutor/public solicitor/judge) handled the case? 1 Yes 2 No Did you report the crime to anyone else (other than the police)? 1 Yes 2 No. If yes, who? (Don’t read out the alternatives) 3 Traditional authority 4 Relative 5 Local gang 6 Doctor, and/or 7 Other community group or leader (specify) (Interviewer to ask depending on the crime nominated) If your property was taken, was it ever recovered? 1 Yes 2 No After the crime was committed against you what was the most important thing for you as the victim? (Don’t read out the alternatives) 1 Getting your life back to normal 2 Recovering what you lost 3 That the criminal suffer for the crime 4 Avoid being victimized again 5 That the criminals be taken off the street 6 That the criminal pay for the loss or damage, and/or 7 Nothing As a result of this crime or your treatment by the authorities did you make a claim for compensation? 1 Yes 2 No If yes, specify Have you changed your behaviour as a result of this crime you or your house experienced? 1 Yes 2 No (If no, skip to Part 5) If yes, in what way? Do these measures make you feel safer? 1 Yes 2 No All respondents continue the questionnaire from here. Section 5 – Individual and Community Response to Crime Interviewer to read out: Next I would like to ask some questions about what you believe people in your area, the police and the government can do to bring down the level of crime in your area. Do you feel safe and secure from crime in your area? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes What one thing could you and your household do better to make yourself and your home safer from crime? (Don’t read out alternatives) 1 Help the police 2 Make your house more secure 3 Participate more in crime prevention activities in your community (like peace and good order committees) 4 Avoid some places at certain times of the day or night 5 Carry weapons 6 Praying for help from God, and/or 7 Others (specify) Is there an organization or group in your area (other than the police) that provides protection against crime in your community? 1 Yes 2 No (If Yes, then the next 5 questions. If No, skip to 5.9) Can you describe it? Do you or your house participate in this group? 1 Yes 2 No Does this group do community patrols? 1 Yes 2 No Does this group catch offenders? 1 Yes 2 No If yes, what do they do with them? (specify) If you could tell the government what one thing to do to make your area safer from crime would it be for? (Don’t read out alternatives. More than one response possible) 1 More police 2 Harsher penalties from the courts 3 Crack down on gangs 4 Fight corruption 5 Better living conditions 6 More jobs, and/or 7 Youth activities If you could tell your community leaders what one thing to work on to make your area safer from crime would it be? (Don’t read out alternatives. More than one response possible) 1 Cooperate better with the police 2 See that people caught committing crime are punished 3 Develop more activities for young people 4 Regulate people coming in from outside your area 5 Better living conditions, and/or 6 Other (specify) How big do you feel the crime problem is in PNG? 1 Very large 2 Large 3 Average 4 Not large, or 5 Don’t know Section 6 – Police – General Interviewer to read out: Next I will ask you some general questions concerning what you know about the police. Do you know where is the nearest police station where you could go for help or to make a complaint? 1 Yes 2 No Have you been to this police station in the past 12 months? 1 Yes 2 No Have you ever had official contact with the police other than visiting the police station? 1 Yes 2 No (If No to either this or the previous question, skip to question 6.6) If so, was this as a victim of crime? 1 Yes 2 No Did this contact with the police, or your visit to the police station improve your opinion of the police? 1 Yes 2 No Do you think the police in your area are doing a good job? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t know If Yes to 6.6, is it because: (Don’t read out the alternatives. More than one response possible) 1 They treat the community with respect 2 They are fair in their dealings with the community 3 They are responsive to crime in your area 4 They do things to maintain the safety of the community, and/or 5 Other (specify) If no to 6.6, is it because: (Don’t read out the alternatives. More than one response possible) 1 They do not treat the community with respect 2 They are not fair in their dealings with the community 3 They are not responsive to crime in your area 4 They don’t do enough to maintain safety in your community, and/or 5 Other (specify) Can you tell the difference between the regular police and the auxiliary police? 1 Yes 2 No (Bougainville only) Can you tell the difference between police from Bougainville and others from the rest of PNG? 1 Yes 2 No If so, which do you prefer? 1 Regular police 2 Auxiliary police 3 Neither Can you give me any examples of community-based policing in your area? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know (specify where appropriate) Some police are heavily armed and travel as mobile squads. If you know of these police, do they make you feel: 1 Safer 2 Less safe, or 3 Don’t know (Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka only). Did the presence of the Australian police make any difference to crime in your community? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know If yes, what difference did they make?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Port Moresby, Arawa and Buka only). Once they left, was there any difference in crime in your community? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know If yes, what difference was there? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Section 7 – Police Accessibility and Service Delivery Interviewer to read out: Still thinking about the police, I would like to ask you some questions about access to the police and the service they provide. Have you had to call the police to your home in the last 12 months to respond to a crime? 1 Yes 2 No How long do you think it takes for police to respond to such calls and be at the scene? (Don’t read out alternatives) 1 0-30 minutes 2 30 minutes -1 hour 3 Over 1 hour 4 After 2 hours, or 5 They do not come at all Do you think they come as quickly as possible? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know What do you think are the most important things the police can do in your community for crime prevention/community safety? (Don’t read out alternatives. More than one response possible) 1 Walk around in groups 2 Drive around 3 Talk with people 4 Just be around 5 Caution young people 6 Attend meetings 7 All of these, and/or 8 They do nothing important in this regard Do you think that having the police around your community would stop some people from committing crime? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know Do you think that the police around your community provide a good example, particularly to younger people? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t know 7.7 Has police discipline improved in the last 12 months? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t know Section 8 – Police – Community Participation 8.1 In what ways could members of your community better assist the police? (Don’t read out alternatives. More than one response possible.) 1 Participate in peace and good order (crime prevention) committees 2 Provide more information to the police 3 Call the police when they see criminal activity 4 Co-operate with the police 5 Be more respectful, and/or 6 Other (specify) 8.2 Generally are people in your community willing to give information about crime to the police? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t know 8.3 Why? If you are a victim to a crime in the future, would you report it to the police? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know 8.5 Why? Who do you think should have most responsibility for crime prevention/community safety? 1 The police 2 The community 3 Individuals, or 4 Don’t know Do the police participate in community consultations about crime? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t know Section 9 – Personal Demographics Interviewer to note where possible: Gender: 1 Male 2 Female What is your age? years (Interviewer can check household list or estimate) Marital status: 1 Married/living together 2 Separated/divorced 3 Widowed 4 Never married Highest level of education completed: 1 Never went to school 2 Primary (grade 6) 3 Secondary (grade 10) 4 Secondary (grade 12) 5 Technical/vocational 6 University/college What best describes your main occupational activity? (Probe – what kind of work do you do most of the time?) 1 Student 2 Home duties 3 Retired 4 Unemployed 5 Casual work 6 Self employed 7 Farmer/fishing 8 Full time (formal) 9 Government employee 10 Full time (informal) This ends the interview. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Time interview concluded: Interviewer’s initials: 1 16