Bridging the gap between police and citizens: what we know, what we've done, and what can be done

Master's Project (M.A.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2017There is a long history of distrust between police and citizens and there have been no meaningful and sustained steps to correct this situation. Death and injuries are sustained by citizens and police, but still there has not been a real attempt to prevent this occurring because there is no trust between police and citizens and this lack of trust has created a rift or gap between police and citizens and this projects aim is to address the gap. Research into what causing damage and finding a way to repair the damaged relationship between police and citizens by way of finding approaches that tend to lead to trust between groups of people. Communication, a better ethics base for police, training and education, restorative justice, media, and the studying of social theories will help find a way to repair the damage. A collaboration of all of the aforementioned categories will tend to help bridge the gap between police and citizens. It is believed that by addressing the issues and the roots of the problems between police and citizens, a new relationship built on trust will emerge. By having a more trusting relationship there will be less harm caused to police and citizens

Political Trust and Civic Engagement During the Crisis

This policy brief highlights findings on a specific topic from Eurofound’s European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) that is of particular interest from a policy perspective. It brings together results from the analysis of EQLS data and evidence from other sources to formulate a number of policy pointers. The focus of this policy brief is findings on trust in national and European political institutions and on civic engagement during the economic crisis

Culture and disaster risk management - synthesis of citizens’ reactions and opinions during 6 Citizen Summits : Romania, Malta, Italy, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during six Citizen Summits held in A) Romania (Bucharest) on July 9th, 2016 B) Malta on July 16th, 2016 C) Italy (Rome) on June 17th, 2017 D) Germany (Frankfurt) on June 24th, 2017 E) Portugal (Lisbon) April 14th, 2018 F) The Netherlands (Utrecht)on May 12th, 2018. All Citizen Summits were designed as one-day events combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection, as laid out in Deliverable D5.1 (Structural design & methodology for Citizen Summits). A total of 619 citizens participated in the six events. In the morning session, the Citizen Summits started with a presentation of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, several sets of questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and responses collected via an audience response system. All questions in this part of the event aimed to explore citizens’ attitudes, perceptions, and intended behaviours related to disasters and disaster risks. Between these sets of questions, additional presentations were held that informed the audience about state-of-the-art disaster preparedness and response topics (e.g., large-scale disaster scenario exercises, use of social media and mobile phone apps), as well as CARISMAND research findings. Furthermore, the last round of Citizen Summits (CS5 in Lisbon and CS6 in Utrecht) were organised and designed to additionally discuss and collect feedback on recommendations for citizens, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-10 results and in coordination with the Work Package 11 brief. These Toolkit recommendations will form one of the core elements of the Work Package 9 CARISMAND Toolkit. In the afternoon session of each event, small moderated group discussions (with 8-12 participants each) of approximately 2 hours’ duration were held, which aimed to gather citizens’ direct feedback on the topics presented in the morning sessions, following a detailed discussion guideline. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed, please see Appendices A-1 to A-3. The rest of this report is structured in six main sections: After the executive summary and this introduction, the third section will present an overview of the different methods applied. The fourth section will provide a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during all Citizen Summits. The fifth section will present the evaluation of CARISMAND Toolkit recommendations for citizens, followed by a final concluding chapter.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Rethinking Trust, Crime Policy and Social Theory,

This article analyses the relationship of ‘trust’ to crime, power and criminal justice policy. The theoretical model employed to analyse this relationship draws from Owen’s (2009a), conceptually driven argument that is based on an ontologically-flexible critique of agency-structure, micro-macro and time-space. This relationship stands at the interface of competing pressures working to produce the increasing complexity of crime and criminal justice policy (Powell 2005). We then move the attention to the conceptual problems of ‘trust’ which is linked with uncertainty and complexity whilst law and order and crime policies rest on the specialist knowledge claimed by a range of professional “experts” and technologists that inhabit powerful spaces through which crime policy and practice is governed and articulated

Culture and disaster risk management - synthesis of stakeholder attitudes during 3 Stakeholder Assemblies in Romania, Italy and Portugal

This report provides a synthesis of the results of three CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in A) Bucharest,Romania on April 14-15, 2016; B) Rome,Italy on February 27-28, 2017; and C) Lisbon,Portugal on February 27-28, 2018. These Stakeholder Assemblies, together with six Citizen Summits (see Deliverables D5.3 – D5.9) were part of the CARISMAND cycle of events (see Figure 1 below). This cycle of events was the key concept at the core of the CARISMAND project which aimed to ensure a comprehensive feedback loop betweendisaster practitioners and citizens. It also allowed for the progression of ideas co-created by disaster practitioners and citizens. The locations of the three Stakeholder Assemblies were chosen due to their rather different “backgrounds”. The three countries had been struck at the time of the respective event by different types of disasters. In addition, the three countries have very different “cultures”, or cultural impacts, at a societal level. Romania has a comparatively strong authoritative systems due to its political history; Italy has experienced a strong direct in-flow of migrants in the last years due to its geological location; and Portugal has long been a traditional “melting pot” where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnic origins (in particular North Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived together. Accordingly, these differences were expected to allow a wide range of practitioners’ attitudes and perceptions related to cultural factors in disaster management to emerge. In order to not only gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions but also promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer, the audience in all three events consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection agencies , the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection agencies, the Red Cross, firefighters, the military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in the respective country; in Portugal, the Stakeholder Assembly also included practitioners from the island of Madeira. The 40-60 participants per event were recruited via invitations sent to various organisations and institutions that play a role in disaster management, and via direct contacts of local partners in the CARISMAND consortium. Each assembly consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for detailed schedules see Appendices A1-A3). In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, participants were split into small working groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback on a specific topic. After each working group session, panel discussions allowed the participants to present the results of their working group to the rest of the audience. After each panel discussion, keynote speakers gave presentations related to the topic that had been discussed during the working groups. This schedule was designed to ensure that participants are provided with detailed information about recent developments in disaster management, but without influencing the attitudes and perceptions expressed in the working groups. In the third Stakeholder Assembly, different sets of recommendations for practitioners (related to the use of cultural factors in disaster management) were presented to the general audience, followed by small discussion group sessions as described above.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014–2020).peer-reviewe

Does one trust judgement fit all? Linking theory and empirics

Copyright @ 2010 The Authors. This is the accepted version of the following article: Fisher, J., Van Heerde, J. and Tucker, A. (2010), Does One Trust Judgement Fit All? Linking Theory and Empirics. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12: 161–188, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00401.x/abstract.Few questions in political science have received more attention in recent times than the role of trust in democracy, democratic government and political participation. In Britain this has become a particular concern as levels of democratic engagement in traditional politics have declined, exacerbated by media reports of politicians' untrustworthy behaviour. A common feature of previous empirical work on political trust is that trust is treated as a single theoretical concept. Scholars have assumed that trust operates in a similar fashion across different political institutions—that citizens' trust mechanisms are the same for trusting parliament, the prime minister or the European Union. As a consequence, the operationalisation of trust has generally been through a single measure. In this article we draw on recent research from political theory, where different forms of judgements whether to trust—strategic, moral and deliberative—have been conceptualised, to argue that trust judgements may vary in application and significance depending upon the institution under examination. Using specially designed data sets generated from YouGov's weekly omnibus and the British Election Study's Continuous Monitoring Panel, we operationalise these three forms of trust judgements to examine trust in two British institutions—political parties and politicians. We find, as hypothesised, that different forms of trust judgements are of differing significance depending upon the institution under consideration

Exploring Political Disappointment

Disappointment is often identified as a pathology of modern politics; citizens expect much of politicians, yet governments are ill-equipped to deliver outcomes commensurate with those expectations. The net result is said to be a widespread disappointment; a negative balance between what citizens expect of government and what they perceive governments to deliver. Yet little attention has hitherto been paid to which kinds of citizens are particularly disappointed with politics, and why. This article offers one of the first empirical analyses of political disappointment. Drawing on a survey conducted in Britain, it provides a quantitative measure of political disappointment and explores its prevalence among citizens. It then considers which social groups might be more prone to disappointment than others. In particular, it explores whether certain groups are more disappointed by virtue of holding very high expectations of government or very low perceptions of government performance. The article concludes by considering what strategies might be open to policy makers to alleviate political disappointment

Forms, Sources and Processes of Trust

This chapter reviews some key points in the analysis of trust, based on Nooteboom (2002)i.The following questions are addressed.What can we have trust in?What is the relation between trust and control?What are the sources of trust? And what are its limits?By what process is trust built up and broken down?What are the psychological mechanisms involved?The chapter ends with an illustration of trust in the police.trust;social psychology;mental framing;relational signaling

Social capital, social norms and the New Institutional Economics

Douglass North (1990) describes institutions as the rules of the game that set limits on human behavior, now a universally-accepted definition. North and others especially underline the crucial role of informal social norms. They predict that, like all rules of the game, social norms should affect the economic prosperity enjoyed by individuals and countries – that they should have a crucial impact, for example, on economic and political development. In fact, substantial evidence demonstrates that social norms prescribing cooperative or trustworthy behavior have a significant impact on whether societies can overcome obstacles to contracting and collective action that would otherwise hinder their development. Much of this evidence comes from outside the new institutional economics, emerging instead from scholarly research in the field of “social capital.” A review of this evidence, and its implications for our understanding of the role of social norms and institutions, is therefore the focus of this chapter.social capital, norms, institutions, institutional economics

Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Rome, Italy

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during the third Citizen Summit held in Rome/Italy on June 7th 2017. As the previous two Citizen Summits held in Romania and Malta, this Citizen Summit was designed as a one-day event combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection. In the morning session, 42 questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and collected via an audience response system. In the afternoon session, small moderated group discussions of approximately 1.5 hours duration were held, which followed a detailed set of questions and discussion guidelines, including a short association exercise. All questions and discussions aimed to explore cultural factors in citizens’ attitudes, feelings, and perceptions towards disaster risks, as well as their identification in relation to disaster preparation, response, and recovery. In coordination with the Work Package 11 briefs, the definition and design of the questions was based on: 1) Results from Citizen Summits 1 and 2, complementing in particular the data related to risk perception with the aim to build up a comprehensive base for cultural comparison across all six summits; 2) Results from Stakeholder Assemblies 1 and 2, in particular regarding the identification of non-professional (“cultural”) leaders in disaster situations, motivators for improving disaster preparedness, and the role of trust/distrust; 3) Results from Work Package 3, aiming to complement and increase knowledge about citizens’ uptake of mobile phone apps and interest in usage of different features, also in contrast to social media use; 4) Results from Work Package 4, in particular regarding recent research findings in the relationships between perceived disaster preparedness and actual disaster preparedness, and in the ambivalent relationships between trust in authorities and citizens’ personal preparedness; 5) Results from Work Package 7, aiming to complement the research regarding citizen empowerment by exploring trust as a bi-directional relationship between citizens and disaster managers; and 6) Results from Work Package 8, taking into account the role of media in all phases of disaster management. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 105 citizens participated in the Italy event. The total sample shows a relatively even gender and age distribution, which is unsurprising given the target quotas that were requested from the recruiting local market research agency. The slightly lower number of senior citizens aged 65 and above was expected and reflects mobility issues. Participants were asked about three key aspects of experience of disasters and disaster risk perception that could potentially have an impact on how other questions were answered. Almost three out of four respondents (72.1%) indicated that they, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, but only one out of eight (12.6%) felt that they are currently living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 26.7% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Female respondents felt more often than male respondents that they live in a disaster area; other slight gender differences (as well as age-related differences) were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). This report presents the results of the third CARISMAND Citizen Summit and is structured in five main sections: After this introduction, the second section will provide an overview of the different methods applied. The third section, based on the quantitative data collected via the audience response system, presents the results from questions on general disaster risk perceptions, disaster preparedness, behaviours in disaster situations with a particular focus on the use of mobile phone apps and social media, and trust between citizens and different authorities including trust in different social media sources. In the fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the ten discussion groups, the analyses will take up the topics introduced in the previous section, focussing first on the role of citizens’ trust in different entities, in particular towards different authorities, “non-professional” leaders, and the media. Furthermore, this section will report on the participating citizens’ attitudes towards improving their disaster preparedness through different measures. In all topics, the analyses seek to identify different cultural aspects which may play a role in an improved disaster preparedness and response. The final section compares and contrasts the results from sections 3 and 4, draws some tentative conclusions, and identifies topics and issues that should feed into the last round of events in 2018, i.e. the 3rd Stakeholder Assembly, as well as the 5th and 6th Citizen Summits.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe