Lae Community Crime Survey, 2005
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The National Research Institute Special Publication No. 43 Dr. Gerard Guthrie Ms. Fiona Hukula Lt. Col. James Laki A report prepared for the Government of Papua New Guinea's Law and Justice Sector's National Coordinating Mechanism The National Research Institute and Justice Advisory Group First published in March 2007 Copyright © 2006, The National Research Institute NRI Special Publication No. 43 Published by the National Research Institute This report has been prepared by the National Research Institute and the Justice Advisory Group for the Government of Papua New Guinea's Law and Justice Sector's National Coordinating Mechanism, which was funded by AusAID. The National Research Institute (NRI) is an independent statutory authority established by an Act of Parliament in 1988 and confirmed by the lASER (Amendment) Act 1993. NRI's main aims are to undertake research into the social, political, economic, educational, legal, environmental, and cultural issues and problems of Papua New Guinea and to formulate practical solutions to these problems. Research results are published in the following NRI publication series. Monographs Post-Courier Index Discussion Papers Bibliographies Educational Reports Special Publications Occasional Papers Additional Publications The Publications Sales Coordinator National Research Institute P.O. Box 5854 BOROKO. NCD. III Papua New Guinea Tel: (675) 3260300/3260061 ext. 328 Fax: (675) 326 0213 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.nri.org.pg ISBN 998075 141 X National Library Service of Papua New Guinea The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those ofthe National Research Institute. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi ACRONYMS vi EXTENDED SUMMARY 1 The Survey 2 Individual Perceptions of Crime in Lae 2 Actual Crime Victimisation 4 Household and CommunityResponses to Crime 5 CommunityViews about Government Agencies 7 Policy Implications 8 CHAFfER 1: THE HOUSEHOLD CRIME SURVEY IN LAE 10 Lae IO Survey Background 11 Objectives 12 Methodology 12 CHAFfER 2: INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME IN LAE 14 Key Perception Indicators 14 Are Crime and Corruption Perceived to Be Increasing Nationally? 15 Is Crime Percevied to Be Decreasing in the Local Area? 16 Who Are Contributing Most to Crime Prevention? 17 What Crimes Are Perceived to Occur Most? 19 What Types ofVictimisation Trouble People Most, in Practice? 20 Do People Feel Safe? 23 Who Thinks Crime Has Changed Most? ~3 Do People Change their Behaviour Because of Fear of Crime? 24 CHAPTER 3: ACTUAL HOUSEHOLD CRIME VICTIMISA nON 25 Key Indicators of Household Victimisation 25 How Often Does Crime Occur? 26 How Do Survey Victimisationand Police Crime Statistics Compare? 30 CHAPTER 4: HOUSEHOLD AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO CRIME 32 Key Household and Community Indicators 32 What Levels of Security? 33 What Are Living Conditions Like? 34 What Type of Employment? 35 Who Are the Victims? 36 In What Setting Does Crime Occur? 38 Who Are the Perpetrators? 38 Are the Real Levels of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Known? 39 What Types of Community Action? 40 What Can Be Done for Youth? 42 CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY VIEWS ABOUT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 45 Key Law and Justice Agency Indicators 45 What Do People Know of the Law and Justice Agencies? 46 Are the Law and Justice Agencies Doing a Good Job over Corruption? 48 What Are Attitudes to the Policing Services? 49 Do the Police Participate in the Community? 51 What About Other Types of Policing? 52 Is Crime Reported to the Police? 52 Are the Police a Deterrent? 53 Are the Police Thought to Be Criminals? 54 Are the Police Thought to Respect the Community? 54 APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY CRIME SURVEY METHODOWGY, lJlE,2005 59 Consultation 59 Objectives 59 Instrumentation 60 Survey Design 60 SampleReliability 62 Field Work, Quality Control and Safety 64 Data Analysis 65 Timing 67 Table ESI: SummaryIndividual Perception Indicators Table ES2: SummaryHousehold VictimisationIndicators Table ES3: SummaryHousehold and CommunityIndicators Table ES4: SummaryLaw and Justice Sector Agency Indicators Table I: SummaryIndividualPerception Indicators Table 2: Perceived Size of the Crime Problem in Papua New Guinea Table 3: Perceived Changes to Corruption Levels in Papua New Guinea Table 4: Perceived Changes in the Level of Crime in Your Area in the Past 12Months Table 5: Perceived Contributions by Groups to Changing Crime Levels Table 6: Crime Most Frequently Perceived in the Local Area Table 7: Most Troubling Household Victimisation Table 8: Feelings of Safety and Security from Crime Table 9: Changes in the Level of Crime, by Age and Gender Table 10: SummaryHousehold VictimisationIndicators v Table 11: Multiple Household Crime in the Past Year 27 Table 12: Property and Violent Crime Victimisation in the Past Year 28 Table 13: Frequency and Repeat of Household Victimisation 29 Table 14: Comparision of Survey Victimisation and Police Crime Data, 2005 31 Table 15: Summary Household and Community Indicators 32 Table 16: House Security 33 Table 17: Housing Utilities 34 Table 18: Household Occupancy 35 Table 19: Occaptional Status 35 Table 20: Individual Crime Victimisation, by Age and Gender 36 Table 21: Location of the Most Troubling Crimes 38 Table 22: The Perceptors 39 Table 23: Group Responsibility for Crime Prevention/Community Safety 40 Table 24: Preferred Govenrment Initiatives on Crime 42 Table 25: Preferred Community Initiatives on Crime 43 Table 26: Summary Law and Justice Sector Agency Indicators 45 Table 27: Contact with the Law and Justice Sector Agencies 47 Table 28: Satisfaction with Law and Justice Sector Agencies Handling of Own Matter 47 Table 29: Satisfaction with the Law and Justice Agencies over Action on Corruption 48 Table 30: Opinion on Whether Police Do a Good Job 49 Table 31: Improvement in Opinion from Contact with the Police 50 Table 32: Improvement in Police Discipline 51 Table 33: Police Participation in Community Consultations about Crime 51 Table 34: Reporting of Most Troublesome Incident to the Police 52 Table 35: The Most Important Things Police Can Do in the Community 53 Table 36: Reasons Why Police Were Doing a Good Job 55 Table Cl: Lae Urban Population by Gender, 2000 Census 60 TableC2: Sample Age Mean and Standard Deviation, Aged 15 Plus 62 Table C3: Morobe Urban Adult Population Proportions, by Age and Gender, 2000 63 Table C4: Lae Sample Quotes, by Age and Gender 63 Table C5: Interviews by Marital Status, Aged 15 Plus 63 Table C6: Interviews by Tertiary Education Qualifications, Aged 15 Plus 64 Table C7: Survey Timetable 67 This had been a collective endeavour. 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, Australia, and Morobe Province, which sought out the infonnation 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 Lae. We also thank the community leaders and groups that supported the research, and especially, those people who gave their time freely to answer our questions openly and helpfully. Since 2004, extensive surveys of crime victimisationin Port Moresby, Arawa, and Buka have given the first complete pictures of crime victimisationwhich affects households in those towns. The surveys quantified crime from the perspective of the victims in the community. The surveys were about crime victimisation, as reported by household members, rather than crime for which convictions have been reached through the legal system. In 2005, the surveys were extended to include the collection of baseline data in Lae. The community survey in Lae interviewed 404 people, aged 15 years and over, in 145 households. The sample was statisticallyrepresentative, and facilitates generalisations to the adult population ofLae. Lae is Papua New Guinea's second largest city and the most important one on the northern New Guinea side of the country. Because Lae is connected to many other provinces by relatively low-cost road and sea routes, it is a convenient destination for many villagers who are seeking an urban stay. While some Lae settlements tend to follow the well-known pattern of chain migration and local clustering of ethnic groups, as found elsewhere in Papua New Guinea, Lae settlements have a different character from those in Port Moresby. At present, they appear less effective in relation to community crime prevention and control. While Port Moresby has an international reputation for crime and violence, Lae is often thought, within Papua New Guinea, to have similar problems to the nation's capital. This survey provides evidence on victimisation,and makes comparisons with the 2005 Port Moresby survey. Lae residents reported higher victimisation levels than those found in previous surveys in Port Moresby, Arawa, and Buka in 2004 and 2005, but lower than those reported in Mt. Hagen in 2006: • household crime victimisation levels in Lae were three percent to 22 percent higher than the crime levels in Port Moresby; • seventy-eight percent of households reported that they had been the victims of crime, at least once in the past year (compared to 61 percent in Port Moresby); • residents in Lae were the least likely in any of the surveys, to think that their crime situation was improving; • many respondents reported that youth gangs were a serious problem; and • community cohesion in Lae appears to be lower than in other towns, which reduced community effectiveness in crime prevention and control. • as elsewhere, many respondents thought that crime and corruption in Papua New Guinea were very high; • a very low level of public awareness existed about the actions of Law and Justice Sector Agencies when dealing with crime and corruption. Strategy 1.3.1 of the Government of Papua New Guinea's Law and Justice Sector Strategic Framework is 'to improve urban safety'.