Levels of trust and performance approvals have increased over the recent year reaching an all-time high.
MOSCOW, November 9, 2017. The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) presents the data of a study devoted to Day of the employee of internal affairs held in Russia.
Two-thirds of Russians trust the policemen of their region (67%, a record high); in 2015 and 2016 this share was at about 46-47%. The distrust levels have decreased to 27%. The highest levels of trust go to the police control room officers (71%), district police officers (70%), youth liaison officers (68%), the transport police (67%), the police patrol and checkpoint service officers (65%).
At the moment, the police performance index has hit its high over the entire measurement period (58 p.p. out of 100 vs 46 p.p. in 2015 and 2016). Forty-six percent of Russians assess the police performance positively (which is twice higher than the 2016 record of 24%). The number of disapprovals has decreased from 21% to 7%, respectively. For the first time, the share of positive assessments prevails over the share of average assessments (43%).
The public image of policeman is rather positive: Russians describe him/her as a neat (77%), polite (66%), friendly (66%), of good character (65%), courageous (65%), and competent (64%) person who is ready to help (64%). Compared to the 2012 assessments, the public assessments have considerably improved. Respondents’ evaluations are drawn from their experiences with the road traffic police officers (33% of Russians have interacted with them over the recent year; vs 20% in 2012) and district police officers (22%; previously 15%).
The latest survey evidence shows that 22% of Russians know their district police officer personally; a further 27% know what position he/she holds (the survey was conducted among full-aged persons). The total percentage of such answers has reached 49% over a year (vs 36% in 2016). There is a positive correlation between trust levels/police performance assessments and the fact whether a respondent knows the district police officer or not.
The levels of respondents’ readiness to help the police are high: 90% of respondents say they would provide details of an incident they witnessed; 74% would agree to act as a witness.
Today cases of misconduct of police officers are cited less frequently that a few years ago: respondents mention rude behavior (6%). Eighty-one percent of Russians did not witness any violations conducted by the police officers (vs 62% in 2009).
Police Performance Index shows how Russians assess the work of the police in their region. The higher the value of index, the better the police performance assessments are. Index is based on the question “How do you generally assess the police performance in your region?” and calculated through answer summarization. The answers “It is very good” corresponds to the coefficient “1”; “It is good” – “0.75”; “It is average” - “0.5”; “It is bad” - “0.25”; “It is very bad” -“0". Index is measured in points and can vary between -100 and 100.
The VCIOM-Sputnik Russian nationwide survey was conducted on November 3-4, 2017. The survey involved 1,800 Russians aged 18 and over, and was carried out using stratified dual-frame random sample based on a complete list of landline and mobile phone numbers operating in Russia. The data were weighted according to selection probability and social and demographic characteristics. The margin of error at a 95% confidence level does not exceed 2.5%. In addition to sampling error, minor changes in question wording and different circumstances arising during the fieldwork can introduce bias into the survey.
The 2005-2016 results are based on household surveys.
Do you trust the policemen in your region?* (closed-ended question, one answer, %) | ||||||||
| 2005 | 2009 | 2010 | 2012 | 2013 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
Definitely yes | 8 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 14 | 17 |
Somewhat yes | 29 | 32 | 29 | 32 | 39 | 32 | 33 | 50 |
Somewhat no | 39 | 35 | 37 | 40 | 34 | 23 | 23 | 20 |
Definitely no | 18 | 18 | 21 | 21 | 11 | 23 | 24 | 7 |
Don’t know | 6 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
*In 2005, 2009, 2010 the question was related to militia
Could you assess the level s of your trust /distrust in the following police bodies? (closed-ended question, one answer per each line, %) | ||||||
Completely trust | Somewhat trust | Somewhat distrust | Completely distrust | Don’t know | ||
Police control room | 2012 | 8 | 45 | 25 | 8 | 14 |
2017 | 25 | 46 | 11 | 6 | 12 | |
District police officers | 2012 | 8 | 46 | 28 | 9 | 9 |
2017 | 24 | 46 | 14 | 7 | 9 | |
Youth liaison officers | 2012 | 10 | 43 | 20 | 7 | 20 |
2017 | 20 | 48 | 8 | 0 | 24 | |
Transport police (railway, air transport, underground) | 2012 | 8 | 45 | 26 | 8 | 13 |
2017 | 23 | 44 | 11 | 5 | 17 | |
Police Patrol and Checkpoint Service | 2012 | 5 | 38 | 35 | 11 | 11 |
2017 | 20 | 46 | 15 | 8 | 11 | |
Crime detection | 2012 | 8 | 41 | 27 | 7 | 17 |
2017 | 25 | 40 | 11 | 8 | 16 | |
Investigative Department investigators | 2017 | 20 | 41 | 13 | 8 | 18 |
State Road Safety police officers | 2012 | 5 | 34 | 38 | 15 | 8 |
2017 | 17 | 42 | 20 | 14 | 7 | |
Licensing Service officers | 2017 | 20 | 39 | 11 | 5 | 25 |
Directorate for Migration Affairs officers | 2017 | 19 | 36 | 13 | 7 | 25 |
Drug Control Service officers | 2017 | 22 | 32 | 16 | 9 | 21 |
How do you generally assess the police performance in your region?* (closed-ended question, one answer, %) | ||||||
| 2005 | 2009 | 2013 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
Very good | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
Good | 11 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 22 | 42 |
Average | 49 | 50 | 52 | 46 | 47 | 43 |
Bad | 27 | 21 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 5 |
Very bad | 6 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Don’t know | 5 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 4 |
Police Performance Index | 42 | 41 | 47 | 46 | 46 | 58 |
*In 2005, 2009, the question was related to militia.
Imagine a typical Russian policeman. Rate his/her qualities on the following scale (closed-ended question, one answer per each line, %) | ||||||
The first characteristic fully describes a typical police officer | The first characteristic is likely to describe a typical police officer | Both are equally intrinsic | The second characteristic is likely to describe a typical police officer | The second characteristic fully describes a typical police officer | ||
Neat or clumsy | 2012 | 20 | 39 | 32 | 7 | 2 |
2017 | 44 | 33 | 18 | 4 | 1 | |
Open-minded or hypocritical | 2012 | 8 | 23 | 44 | 17 | 8 |
2017 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 12 | 6 | |
Fair or unfair | 2012 | 7 | 19 | 48 | 19 | 7 |
2017 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 10 | 4 | |
Incorruptible/honest or briber | 2012 | 6 | 15 | 40 | 24 | 15 |
2017 | 21 | 24 | 36 | 13 | 6 | |
Polite/educated or rude, ill-mannered | 2012 | 10 | 28 | 42 | 15 | 5 |
2017 | 32 | 34 | 24 | 7 | 3 | |
Strong, robust or weak, infirm | 2012 | 12 | 31 | 42 | 12 | 3 |
2017 | 29 | 32 | 31 | 5 | 3 | |
Educated, competent or uneducated, incompetent | 2012 | 10 | 27 | 44 | 15 | 4 |
2017 | 32 | 32 | 26 | 7 | 3 | |
Athletic, well fit or non-athletic | 2012 | 9 | 25 | 42 | 19 | 5 |
2017 | 27 | 29 | 29 | 10 | 5 | |
Hard-working or loafer | 2012 | 8 | 24 | 44 | 17 | 7 |
2017 | 29 | 30 | 26 | 9 | 5 | |
Friendly or aggressive | 2012 | 8 | 23 | 46 | 18 | 5 |
2017 | 30 | 36 | 27 | 5 | 2 | |
Courageous or coward | 2012 | 9 | 25 | 47 | 14 | 5 |
2017 | 32 | 33 | 28 | 4 | 3 | |
Ready to help or indifferent | 2012 | 9 | 24 | 41 | 18 | 8 |
2017 | 35 | 29 | 25 | 7 | 4 | |
Of good character or dishonest | 2012 | 8 | 19 | 48 | 18 | 7 |
2017 | 34 | 31 | 28 | 5 | 2 |
What kind of police officers have you happened to interact with over the recent year? (closed-ended question, any number of answers, %) | ||
| 2012 | 2017 |
State Road Safety police | 20 | 31 |
District police officer | 15 | 22 |
Police Patrol and Checkpoint Service | 8 | 9 |
Police control room (including call center) | 8 | 9 |
Investigation departments | 3 | 8 |
Extra-departmental security service | 2 | 5 |
Criminal Investigation | 2 | 4 |
Transport Police | 2 | 4 |
Youth liaison office | 1 | 4 |
Directorate for Migration Affairs | 4 | 3 |
Licensing Service | 1 | 3 |
Drug Control Service | 0 | 1 |
Not happened to interact with police | 53 | 40 |
Other | 1 | 4 |
Don’t know | 1 | 0 |
Do you know your district police officer?** (closed-ended question, one answer, %) | ||||
| 1990 * | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
No, no idea | 53 | 62 | 63 | 50 |
I know but not personally | 25 | 19 | 19 | 27 |
I know the officer personally | 20 | 18 | 17 | 22 |
Don’t know | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
*in 1990, the Russian nationwide survey was representative of the urban and rural populations aged 16 and over (n=1962)
** In 1990 the question was related to the militia
Imagine you have an unhurried walk, and you are stopped by a police officer. The police officer asks for help. What will you do in the following situations? (closed-ended question, one answer per each line, %) | ||||
|
| I will agree to help him/her | I will refuse politely telling that I am busy | Don’t know |
A request to provide details of a situation you witnessed | 2017 | 90 | 8 | 2 |
A request to be a witness (testifying the police actions) | 2012 | 45 | 46 | 9 |
2017 | 74 | 21 | 5 | |
A request to tell about the conduct of a person the police is interested in | 2017 | 70 | 23 | 7 |
A request to help in detention of an offender | 2017 | 63 | 32 | 5 |
A request to participate in the public order maintenance | 2017 | 59 | 36 | 5 |
Did you witness violations of human rights by the police officers this year? If yes, what kind of violations were there?* (closed-ended question, any number of answers, %) | |||||
| 2009 | 2013 | 2014 | 2016 | 2017 |
Rude, tactless behavior | 18 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 6 |
Use of public office for private gain | 10 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
Attempts to distort facts, falsify materials | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 5 |
Blackmailing, cash grabs, bribery | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
Cruel behavior | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 3 |
Refusal to accept the application | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 |
Other | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Nothing mentioned above | 62 | 68 | 69 | 73 | 81 |
Don’t know | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
*in 2009 the question was related to militia
Note: Using materials from the site www.wciom.ru or wciom.com, as well as distributed by VCIOM, the reference to the source (or hyperlink for the electronic media) is obligatory!