Enhancing the Rule of Law and Culture of Lawfulness in Pereira, Colombia Assessing the Impact on Citizens REPORT ON THE RESULTS Dennis Jay Kenney John Jay College, City University of New York January 2011 Dennis: I still have about 30 pages of mostly grammar & punctuation edits that I haven’t entered onto this version. They begin after page 38 (skipping the 48 pages of my quantitative results that were pasted in soon after that). I promised Melissa I’d get this emailed to you by 7:30 a.m. Saturday your time so I’ve got to send this— it’s 5 a.m. here. I’ll get them entered early next week. I note several issues for you to address in the text, let me know what you think. Here are some more issues: 1. Do we use numbers or names for the departments? I used numbers in the quantitative section. You dealt with the Chiefs more than I, so you call it. 2. I changed the title because so little of our results actually ended up dealing with community-oriented policing directly. If we need to stay with the original project title, I think we’re still covered buy you may want to emphasize it in the introductory summary. 3. Speaking of summaries, I wonder if you’re not the best person to fill in the blanks after you go through this? I’ve been buried in it for so long that I can’t see it anymore. 4. Can you also add all the nice acknowledgements? Cheers, Bryan CONTENTS Page 1. The Survey 1 2. The Results of the Project 10 A. ROL and COL in Pereira 13 B. Respondents’ Self Assessments 15 3. The Justice System in Pereira 20 4. Conclusions From the Project Efforts 23 A. Increasing Residents’ Awareness of the ROL and COL Concepts 23 B. Individual Involvement in the Creation of a Lawful Culture 24 C. Police/Community Collaboration in the Creation of a Lawful Culture 26 Beginning  on  January  1, 2008,  the  Culture  of  Lawfulness  project  began  a  concerted   effort  to  bring  together  the  social  and  political  forces  in  Pereira,  Colombia  to  present   a  unified  view  of  the  rule  of  law  and  the  value  in  promoting  a  culture  of  lawfulness.     As   the   effort   prepared   to   get   underway,   project   staff   and   consultants   adopted a   straightforward   evaluation   to   assess the  impact of   the   project’s   efforts among   the   city’s  residents.    Since  the  project’s  interventions  and  the  areas  where  they  would  be   introduced  had  not  yet  been determined,  however,  no  controls  could  be  established   prior  to  the  beginning  of  data  collection.    As  such,  during  July 2008  pretest  measures   began   with a   citywide   survey   of   citizens.     For   the   next   27   months   the   project’s   participants   introduced   a   variety   of efforts   including   public   advertising,   police   interactions   with   neighborhood   residents,   park   reclamation   activities,   neighborhood   contests   and   school   culture   of   lawfulness   programs   in   an   effort   to   reach   as   many   Pereira   residents   as   possible.     During   November   2010   posttest   measures   were   gathered   so   that   the   impact   of   the   project’s   efforts   could   be   examined.     The   data   for   both   pre   and posttests were   gathered   using   in-­‐person   interviews   with  more   than   1,000   residents   from   a   sample   of   the city’s   residential   communes.    What  follows  is  a  review  of  the  information  gained. The  Survey The   survey   used   for   the   project’s   pretest   consisted   of   42   multiple   part   questions   yielding  a  total  of  130 analyzable  variables.    The  posttest  instrument  was  modified   somewhat   to  include   48 questions   offering   130 variables.     The   combined   data   set   resulted   in   150 analyzable   variables.     Beyond   just   demographic   questions,   both 2 survey  instruments inquired of  the  respondents’  knowledge  of  the  concepts  of  rule   and  culture  of  lawfulness,  adding  questions  about  where  those  who  have  knowledge   may   have   learned   of   the   concepts.     After   giving   their   own   assessment   of   the   importance   of   both concepts,   respondents   were then   asked   how interested   they   believed   that   those   who   are influential   in   Pereira   government,   media   and   public   affairs   are   in   promoting   a   lawful   culture.     For   those   familiar   with   both   concepts,   individual   and   scaled   measures  were   also included   to   examine   each   respondent’s own: • Obedience  to  the  law, • General  social  responsibility,  and   • Personal  responsibility  to  promote  lawfulness. Specific   questions   concerning   the   respondent’s   or   their   family’s   experiences   with   the   police   and   as   crime   victims   are   added   to   assist   in   the   interpretation   of   the   opinions  given,  although   these  questions  varied  considerably  between   the  pre  and   posttest   measures.     Finally,   the   survey’s   participants   were   asked   to   evaluate   a   variety   of   personal   safety   issues   and   activities   to   determine   which   they believe   should   be   the   sole   province   of   the   police,   the   community   or  the   responsibility   of   both  working  together. Administering  the  Survey The   final   drafting   and   actual   administration   of   both surveys was   undertaken   by   Estudios  Y  Consultorias  Socioeconomicas,  a  private  research   firm  located  in  Pereira.     Once  provided  with  the  initial  draft  of  the  first  survey,  Consultancy  staff  reviewed  its   content   with   an   eye   towards   unfamiliar   language or   awkward   translations   into   Spanish.     In   all,   about   one-­‐dozen   revisions   were   completed   during   this   process.     Based   on   their  experiences   during   the   pretest  administration,  additional   revisions   were  made  to  the  posttest  instrument. 3 For  each   survey,  a  multi-­‐stage   sampling  process  was  employed   to   select  an   actual   sample   of   respondents.     To   do   so,   city   zoning   maps   from   the   Secretary   of   Municipal  Planning  were  employed  by  Consultancy  staff  with  the  local  researchers   and  the  city’s planning  staff  designating  the  city’s  socio-­‐economic  strata  on  a  block-­‐ by-­‐block   basis   throughout   the   city.     For   their   own   planning   purposes,   Colombia   classifies residents  into  one  of  six  socio-­‐economic  groups  varying  from  1  to  6  with  a   higher   designation   indicating   a   higher   income   level.     Since   a   specific   goal   of   this   evaluation’s  sampling  frame  was  to  insure  participation  of  residents  at  each  income   level,  a  general  determination  of  the  areas  where  each  group  of  citizens  were  likely   to  be  found  was  the  necessary  first  step  in  sample  selection. Once  the  socio-­‐ecomonic  groupings  were  established before  the  pretest,  the   remaining  phases  of  the  initial  sample  selection  occurred  as  follows: Stage  2:    Next,  a  proportionate  group  of  blocks  within  each  of  the  strata   groups  were  randomly  selected  for  participation.     Stage   3:     Local   research   staff   then   visited   the   selected   blocks   to   count   housing   units  located   within   each.    Housing   units   were   then   organized   into   groups   of   eight.     Specific   housing   groups  were   then   systematically   chosen  for  inclusion. Stage  4:    Within  each  housing  unit,  a  primary  household was  selected  for   participation.     After   making   contact   with   the   household,   interviewers   inquired   about   the   number   of   residents   over   age   18   who   might   be   presently  on  site.    Using  a  table  of  random  numbers,  a  respondent  would   be  chosen  from  among  those  adults. Selection  of  the  sample  for  the  posttest  followed  a  similar  process  building  upon  the   earlier  background  work  completed  by  the  local  researchers. For   each   survey,   the   interviews   themselves   were   conducted   by   local   staff   selected   by   the   Consultancy   for   their   previous   survey   and   interview   experience.     Prior  to  the  pretest  each  interviewer  participated  in  a  two-­‐day  training  course  given   to   familiarize   each   with   the   instrument,   explain   the   respondent   selection   process   and   identify   any   anticipated   problems   so   that   solutions   could   be   devised.     In   4 addition,   two   experienced   survey   supervisors   monitored   the   interview   process   to   insure   consistency   and   the   quality   of   information   gathered.     Finally,   before   data   collection   began   each   interviewer   conducted   a   small   number   of   pre-­‐tests   of   the   survey   instrument   to   insure   his   or   her   own   comfort   with   the   process   as   well   as   identify  any content  or   translation  problems   that  might  remain.    Final  revisions   to   the  instrument  were  made  by  the  Consultancy  with  this  input  in  mind  and the  actual   survey  administration  was  begun. A  total  of  1,002  pretest  surveys  and  1,042  posttest  surveys  were  completed   with  this  process. Despite   the  care  in   their  selection,  it  is  likely   that   the  samples  surveyed  are   not   fully   representative   of   the   population   of   Pereira.     Although   with   its   nearly   400,000  residents  (Pereira  is  the  sixth  largest  of  Colombia’s  cities)  surprisingly  little   demographic   information   about   the   city’s   communities   is   readily   available.     Still,   from   the   2005   national   census   of   Colombia   conducted   by   the   National   Administrative  Department   of   Statistics   (Departmento   Administrativo  Nacional   de   Estadistica   – DANE)   we   do   have   a   reasonable   picture   of   the   Colombian   people   generally.1 Clearly,   the   sample’s   demographics   differ   from   that   of   the   Colombian   population  as  a  whole  with  an  oversampling  of  women  and  an  under  representation   of  lower  income   citizens.     This  may   result   from   an   apparent   oversampling   of  less   populated  communes  of  the  city. While   these   differences   are   some   cause   for   concern, their  influence   on   this   evaluation  are  managable.    First,  recall  that  one  goal  of  the  sample  selection  process   was   to   insure   that   respondents   from   all   socio-­‐economic   levels   were   selected   for   inclusion.     While   the   local   researchers   went   to   considerable   effort   to   do   so,   it   appears   that   they   did   not   succeed   in   adjusting   the   selection   process   to   achieve                                                                                                                 1 Estudios  Y  Consultorias  Socio  Economicas  (2008).    Preliminary  Report  to  the  National   Strategy  Information  Center.    Pereira,  Colombia:  Author. 5 proportionate  representation.    This  is  true  for  respondents’  gender  as  well.    Still,  in   each   case   while   the   differences   may   influence   our   ability   to   generalize about   the   larger  population  of  Pereira,  they  will  have  little  impact  on  our  ability  to  understand   any   specific   group’s   views   on   the   issues   of   culture   of   lawfulness.     Also,   should   greater   representative   be   required,   the   sample   is   large   enough   to   allow   the   responses  of  respondents  to  be  weighted  for  such  analysis.     Table  1 The  Culture  of  Lawfulness  Respondents Colombia Pretest Posttest Gender: Male 49% 32% 36% Female 51 68 64 Median  Age: 26  Years 43 Years 45  Years Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 5% 18% 15% Middle  Class 20 39 40 Lower  Classes 75 43 45 Education:2 None 10% 14% 16% Primary 37 36 39 Seconday 32 24 24 Technical  or  Special 8 10 12                                                                                                               2 Respondents  coded as  none  includes  all  not  completing  primary  school;  primary  includes   those  not  completing  secondary  school.    Nearly  16%  of  respondents  were  attending  or  had   completed  a  college  education;  comparable  figures  for  the  public  more  generally  are  not   available. 6 Of   far   greater   concern   are   the   differences   between   and   among   the   respondents  from  the  neighborhoods  within  the  city  where  project  activities  did  and   did   not   take   place.     As   table   2   demonstrates,   respondents   from   the   areas   where   project   activities   were   conducted   were   significantly   more   likely   to   be   male,   have   greater   income   disparity   and   be   less   educated.     These   differences   are   especially   pronounced,  however, when  we  include  only  those  respondents  living  in  the  project   area  neighborhoods  from  the  Consota  Commune.    There  the  respondents  were  more   likely  to  be  younger  males  who  were  universally poor  and  with  far  less  education. Table  2 The  Culture  of  Lawfulness  Respondents No  Project Project Consota Proj Activities Areas Neighborhds Gender: Male 32% 38% 44% Female 68 62 56 Median  Age: 44 Years 44 Years 41 Years Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 15% 21% 0 Middle  Class 43 30 0 Lower  Classes 42 50 100% Education: None 15% 14% 16% Primary 36 43 53 Seconday 25 21 18 Technical  or  Special 10 9 11 University 14 12 2 7 Interestingly,   while   few   respondents   overall   reported   having   been   arrested   by   police   during   the   previous   six  month,   far  more  who   did   came   from   these   Consota   commune   neighborhoods   making   comparisons   between   them,   the   other   project   areas  and  Pereira  as  whole  problematic. The  difficulties  of  evaluating  the  impact  of  the  project’s  individual  component activities  (interventions)  was  made  even  more  difficult  by  the  clustering  of  program   activities  into   only  a   few of   the   city’s   communes  and  the   survey   firm’s  decision   to   sample  from  different  neighborhoods  within  commune  during  the  pre  and  posttest   data   collection.     For   example,   of   the   19   communes   in   the   city,   the   eight   different   program   activities   took   place   among   nearly   half   (N=9).     Four,   primary   activites,   however,  occurred  in  one  commune  (Centro)  while  two  each  took  place  in  the  same   neighborhoods   in   the   Cuba,   Consota   and   Universidad   communes.     Obviously,   it   becomes  difficult  to  sort  out  individual  effects  when  multiple  interventions  occur  in   the  same  time  frame  and  physical  area.    The  project’s  activities  are  listed  below  with   the  communes  where  they  occurred: Centro Billboard  Education  Campaign Megabus  Education  Campaign Police  Action  Plans Park  Reclamation Cuba Billboard  Education  Campaign Megabus  Education  Campaign Consota Billboard  Education  Campaign Police  Action  Plans Universidad Billboard  Education  Campaign School  COL  Program Villavicencio Park  Reclamation 8 Villa  Santana Most  Lawful  Neighborhood  Contest El  Oso Police  Action  Plans El  Poblado Most  Lawful  Neighborhood  Contest Perla  de  Otun NGO  – Youth  Prevention  Network Finally,   the   problems   of   comparisons   are   made   worse   by   the   different sampling   decisions that   produced   the   pre   and   posttest   samples.     While   both   samples   were   intended   to   be appropriately   representative   of   the   city   as   a   whole,   variation   between   neighborhoods   was   considerable.     Further,   problems   of   comparison   are   compounded   because   of   the   relatively   small   samples   selected from   many   of   the   project  activity  areas.    Unfortunately,  prior   to   the  collection   of   the  posttest  data,  a   request   was   made   to   oversample   those   areas   where   at   least   extensive   project   activity   occurred,   however,   as   the   table   shows   with   one   exception   – the   Consota   commune  – that  was  not  done.    And  even  in  Consota,  the  differences  noted  earlier  in the   composition   of   the   respondents   chosen   further   limit   the lessons   that   can be   learned. 9 Table  3 Sampling Outcomes  by  Commune Surveys  Conducted Commune Neighborhood Pretest Posttest Centro Sector  Lago  Uribe 15 15 Sector  Parque  La  Libertad 24 8 Sector  Plaze  de  Bolivar 16 0 TOTAL 55 23 Cuba Cuba 40 8 San  Fernando 47 24 TOTAL 87 32 Consota Valencia 8 25 Eldorado 24 24 Naranjito 8 0 Panorama  II 0 32 TOTAL 40 81 Universidad Popular  Modelo 8 15 Camino  de  Loas  Alamos 8 0 TOTAL 16 15 Villaviencio Corocito 9 8 Villavicencio 8 24 TOTAL 17 32 Villa  Santana Las  Brisas 8 23 El  Oso Santa  Fe 0 48 El  Poblado Samaria  I 7 25 Peria  del  Otun Commune-­‐wide 33 8 10 The  Results  of  the  Project The  findings  from  the surveys  are  unmistakeable  – the  Culture  of  Lawfulness  project   appears  to  have  had  a  clear  and  positive  impact  on  the  residents  of  Pereira.    At  the   project’s  start  the  residents  of  Periera  were  largely  unfamiliar  with  the  concepts  of   both  rule  of  law  and  a culture  of  lawfulness.    In  fact,  as  table  4  shows,  no  more  than   one  in  six  respondents  reported  having  heard  of  either  term.    Interestingly,  while  a respondent’s   age   had   no   bearing   on   their   understanding   of   either   concept,   as   the   table   shows   gender,   education   and   socio-­‐economic   grouping   clearly   did.     Prior   contact   with   the   police   is   associated   with   knowledge   of   both   concepts as   well,   however,  it  is  not  clear which  of  these  two  variables  may  have  influenced  the  other. Of   those   respondents   who   were   familiar  with   the   lawfulness   concepts,   the   media  was  clearly  the  primary  source  of  their  awareness.    Even  prior  to  the  project’s   activities,  nearly   two-­‐thirds  (62%)  of   those   familiar  with  both  lawfulness  concepts   reported   learning   of   the   terms   through   the   media   while   16   percent   of   those   knowing  about   the  rule  of  law  and  19  percent  who  were   familiar  with  a  culture  of   lawfulness   gained   their   understandings   from   school.     By   the   project’s   conclusion,   however,  the  importance  of  the  media  only  increased  with  more  than  three  of  every   four  (77%)  of  the  now  larger  group  of  respondents  who  were  familiar  with  the  rule   of  law   concept  and   80%   of   those   knowing  about  a   culture   of  lawfulness   reporting   that   they   had   learned   of   it   through   the   media.     Television,   in   fact,   was   the   most   significant   source  with  more   than  60  percent   reporting   that   their  information  had   come   from   it.     Still,   another   40   percent   of   those   aware   of   either   concept   got   information  from  the  radio  and  nearly  12  percent  from  newspapers.    Predictably,  all   other   sources   of   information   about   the   concepts   were   diminished   with   only   10   percent   of   the   posttest   respondents   advising   that   they   learned   of   the   rule   of   law   through  school  and   three  percent   from  work.    Only  billboards,  one  of   the  project’s   public  education  campaign  strategies,  appears  to  have  had  a  significant  impact  with   about   eight   percent   of   the   posttest   respondents   who   were   familiar   with   either   concept  attributing  information  to  them.    Almost  none  reported  learning  of  the   11 Table  4 Knowledge  of  the  Rule  of  Law  and  Culture  of  Lawfulness Respondents  Having  “Heard  of”  Each  Term Rule  of  Law Culture  of  Lawfulness Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest All  Respondents: 16% 22% 14% 32% Gender: Male 22% 28% 20% 38% Female 14 19 12 28 Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 24% 40% 23% 46% Middle  Class 19 22 14 32 Lower  Classes 11 15 10 27 Age: 18-­‐25 15% 21% 16% 41% 26-­‐40 16 22 13 32 41-­‐55 20 28 15 33 56  and  up 13 16 12 25 Education: None 6% 7% 8% 14% Primary 8 16 7 24 Seconday 21 20 18 33 Tech  or  Special 25 40 19 59 University 33 51 27 60 Police  Contact: Yes 25% 37% 16% 56% No 15 19 14 28 12 concepts   from   either   a   religious   organization,   a   cultural   event,   local   NGOs   or   the   city’s  Transportation  Institute.    Not  surprisingly,  considerable  overlap  between  the   concepts   of   rule   of   law   and   culture   of   lawfulness   were   observed   as   well.     Indeed,   more   than   85   percent   of   those   respondents   who   had   heard   of   the   rule   of   law   concept   and   58   percent   of   those   aware   of   a   culture   of   lawfulness   also   reported   knowledge  of  that  concept’s  counterpart. Although   not   offered   as   an   option   to   explain   awareness   of   the   rule   of   law   concepts,   increasing numbers   of   respondents   nonetheless   noted   that   during   the   course  of   the  project   they  had  noticed   that   their  elected  leaders  – officials  such  as   the  Mayor  or  members  of  the  City  Council  – were  interested  in  promoting  a  lawful   culture.    Indeed,  those  numbers  increased  from  only  eight  percent  of  all  respondents   at   the   project’s   beginning  to   more   than   one-­‐in-­‐five   (21%)   by   the   posttest   period.     More   significantly,   by   the   project’s   end   more   than   60   percent   of   those   reporting   having   specific   familiarity with   the   ROL   and   COL   concepts   reported   a   belief   that   their   city   leaders   were   supportive   of   them while   42 percent   added   that   they   had   actually   seen   those   officials   take   specific   steps   to   promote   a   lawful   culture.     Interestingly,  nearly  all  (82%)  of   the  posttest   respondents   surveyed in   the  project   neighborhoods   from   the   Centro commune   expressed   a belief   in their   leaders’   interest to   promote   a   culture   of   lawfulness   whle   those   from   the   Cuba commune   more   often   (62%)   claimed   to   have   seen   specific   actions  leaders   had   taken   to   that   end.     Beyond   those   neighborhoods,   respondents’   views   were   consistent   for   both   males  and   females  and  among  all  ages,  income  and  education  levels  as  well.      Not   surprisingly,   at   Table   5   displays,   respondents’   assessments   of   other   community   groups’   efforts   to   promote   a   culture   of   lawfulness   increased   during   the   project   activities   as   well.     Only   labor   leaders   and   the   business   community   continued   to   generate  doubts  among  the  respondents  interviewed. 13 Table  5 Perceptions  of    Support  for  a  Culture  of  Lawfulness Perceptions  of  those  Respondents  Familiar  with  the  Concept Helped  Promote  COL  in  Pereira Pretest Posttest Media  * 66% 86% Schools  and  Teachers ** 66 75 Elected  Leaders  * 40 61 Civil  Society  Leaders * 39 55 Religious  Leaders ** 39 51 Labor  Leaders  or  Businesses 43 42 Observed  Leaders  Perform  Specific 20 42 Act  in  Support  of  COL * *  Differences  significant  at  .00 **  Differences  significant  at  .01 ROL  and  COL  in  Pereira While  the  community  may  perceive  their  opinion  leaders to  have  increased  support   for the  rule  of  law,  changes  in  their  own  views  appear to  have  been  far  more  muted.     For   example,  while  more   than   86 percent   of   all   respondent   groups expressed the   posttest  view  that  the  rule  and  a  culture  of  law  was  good  things,  nearly  13  percent   were   not   sure;   a   significant   difference   from   the   pretest   where   all   respondents   familiar   with   the   concepts   were   supportive.     Even   fewer (69%)   of   the   posttest   respondents added  that  they  thought  that  a  culture  of  lawfulness  affected  their  daily   lives.     The   differences   in   the   views   expressed   here   were   significant   since only   slightly  more  than  half  (54%)  of  those  respondents  from  the  project  neighborhoods   of   both   the   Centro   and   Consota   communes,   but   more   than   three   of   four   (77%)   residents   from   the   Cuba   commune   neighborhoods saw   a   culture   of   lawfulness   14 having  a  daily  impact.    No  comparison  estimate  of  how  project  activities  may  have   influenced   these   residents’   views   is   possible   since the   question   concerning   the   impact  on  daily  living  was  added  following  the  pretest  survey. Perhaps   part   of   the   hesitance   to   report   on   a   positive   affect   from   a   lawful   culture  is  the  lack of  certainty  among  some respondents  of  its  existance  in  Pereira.     In  fact,  fewer  than half  of  all  groups  of  posttest  respondents  familiar  with  the  culture   of   lawfulness   concept   agreed   either   somewhat   or   completely   that   such   a   culture   existed  in  Pereira  at the  time  they  were  surveyed.    Worse  yet,  a  significant  reduction   in   respondents’   agreement   appears   to   have   coincided   with   the   completion   of   the   project.    Where  21 percent   had   completely   agreed   at   the   pretest,   only   11   percent   continued  to   feel  so  after  the two  years  of  project  activities.    Older  respondents,  as   well   as   those   with   the   least   education   and   lowest   socioeconomic   status   appeared   most   certain   of  its   status  in   Pereira  while   younger,   better   educated   and  wealthier   ones   were   least   sure.     Whether   these views   can   be   attributed   to   a   sense   of   deteriorating  conditions  or  an  increased  awareness  and  ability   to  assess   their  own   communities  as  a  result  of  the  project’s  focus on  the  ideals  of  the  rule  of  law  and  a   culture  of  lawfulness  is  not  known.    However,  no meaningful  differences  in  attitudes   of   those   residents   from   project   neighborhoods   versus   those   from   non-­‐involved   communities  were  found. Despite   some   apparent   skepticism   among   some   about   the   extent   that   their   community  is  upholding  the  principles  of  the  rule  of  law,  near  universal  agreement   existed   among   all   respondent   groups,   both   before   and   after   the   project   activities,   that  strengthening  the  rule  of  law  would  improve  the  quality  of  life  and  coexistence   in   Pereira   and   that   the   respondents   themselves   could   contribute   to   its   strengthening. 15 Table  6 Obligations  Felt  by  Respondents Percent  Who  “Completely  Agree”  with  Responsibility Report  Crimes Pretest Posttest All  Respondents: 82% 76% Gender: Male ** 84 75 Female ** 81 76 Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 92 88 Middle  Class 80 79 Lower  Classes * 79 69 Education: None 75 71 Primary 80 72 Seconday 81 77 Technical  or  Special 88 86 University 91 84 Project  Activities: Centro 93 87 Cuba 76 88 Consota 88 78 No  Activities 83 76 *  Differences  significant  at  .00 **  Differences  significant  at  .01 Respondents’  Self  Assessments Beyond  just  general  support  for  a  culture  of  lawfulness,  the  project  and  its  activities   appears   to   have   had   little   effect   on   the   Pereira   respondents’   attitudes   about   the   16 more  specific  acts   that  might  be  required  of   them   to  strengthen   their  community’s   lawfulness.     From   table   6,   for   example,   we   can   see   that   while   the   overwhelming   majority  (82%)  of  respondents  felt  that  it  was  their  responsibility  to  report  crimes   that  occur  around  them  to  the  police,  respondents  with  higher  educations  and  social   status,   as   well   as   those   from   the   project   activity   areas   of   the   Cuba   and   Centro   communes,   felt   especially   so.     Still,   by   the   project’s   conclusion   some   slight   weakening  in  those  views  of  responsibility  was  observed. Beyond   an   expectation   that   they   will   report   crimes   to   police,   somewhat   fewer   respondents were   committed   to   the   need   to   take   more   active   steps   to   promote  lawfulness.    When  asked,   for  example,  if   they  agreed   that   they  personally   have  a  responsibility  to  do  whatever  possible  to  assist  police  in  solving  crimes  and   prosecuting  criminals  those  in  complete  agreement  decreased  to  slighly  more  than   two-­‐thirds   (68%)   of   all   respondents   and   continued   declining   as   the   project   progressed to  61  percent  by   the  posttest  survey.    While   the  willingness   to  support   police  remains  respectable,  the  trendlines  here  should  be  of  some  concern  since  it  is   the   young   and   the   lower   economic   grouping   respondents   – the   very   groups   most   likely  to  experience  crimes  – who  were  the  least  in  agreement.    Indeed,  only  half  of   those   respondents   between   the   ages   of   18   and   25   years   old   expressed   such   agreement. As  table  7 shows,  support  for  the  responsibility  to  go  beyond  simply  helping   police   to   that   of   denouncing   friends,   colleagues   and   even   relatives   who   engage  in   crime  or  corruption  weakens  further.    As  before,  those  respondents  from  the  higher   social   classes   were   more   willing   to   embrace   this   expectation as   were   those   with   more   advanced   levels   of   education.     Interestingly,   with   the   exception   of   upper   income  respondents,  who  were  initially  less  willing   to  denounce   their   friends,  and   those   from   the   project   areas   of   the   Centro   and   Consota   communes,   attitudes   concernng  this  responsibility  changed  little  during  the  course  of  the  project. 17 Table  7 Obligations  Felt  by  Respondents Percent  Who  “Completely  Agree”  with  Responsibility Help Police Denounce  Friends Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest All  Respondents: 68% 61% 60% 58% Gender: Male 75 65 54 58 Female 65 58 62 58 Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 80 73 55 70 Middle  Class 63 60 59 60 Lower  Classes 67 57 62 52 Age: 18-­‐25  Years 59 50 52 53 26  to  40  Years 66 58 56 57 41  to  55  Years 68 64 69 66 56  and  Above 78 66 58 54 Education: None 67 60 58 50 Primary 66 56 61 54 Seconday 64 63 56 63 Technical  or  Special 77 70 65 67 University 72 65 58 64 Project  Activity  Areas: Centro 80 61 53 70 Cuba 61 78 61 53 Consota 72 65 75 59 No  Activities 68 60 60 58 18 Overall,   then,   the  levels   of   social   responsibility  expressed   by   our   respondents  and   measured   by   our   surveys   changed   little   during   the   project’s   activities   while   the   degree  of  personal  obligation  to  promote  lawfulness  worsened slightly  from  a  scaled   score   of   1.65   to   1.76   where  lower   scores  indicate   a   greater   sense   of   obligation   to   follow   the   law.     Still,   as   table   8 shows,   in   two   of   the   three   primary   areas   where   project  activities  were  taking  place,  respondents’  feelings  of  personal  responsibility   and   obligation   actually   improved   even   as   attitudinal   scores   were   growing   less   positive  elsewhere.    And  in   the   third  project  area  recall   that   the  respondents  were   significantly  more  likely  to  be  males  of  lower  income  and  education,  the  very  groups   already  seen  to  be  least  accepting  of  these  personal  expectations. Table  8 Respondents’  Sense  of  Social  Responsibility  and  Personal  Obligation (Lower  scores  indicate  increased  commitment) Responsibility Obligation Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest All  Respondents:   1.21 1.24 1.65 1.76 Project  Activity  Areas: No  Activities 1.22 1.21 1.63 1.74 Centro  commune 1.16 1.16 1.51 1.49 Cuba  commune 1.25 1.16 1.78 1.49 Consota  commune 1.06 1.34 1.53 1.76 19 Table  9 Scaled  Scores  for  Obedience  to  the  Law (Higher  scores indicate  increased  commitment) Obedience  to  the  Law Pretest Posttest All  Respondents: 3.89 4.00 Gender: Male 3.84 3.98 Female 3.91 4.00 Socio-­‐economic  Level: Upper  Class 4.03 4.28 Middle  Class 3.88 4.11 Lower  Classes 3.83 3.79 Education: None 3.62 3.79 Primary 3.89 3.86 Seconday 3.88 4.06 Technical  or  Special 4.03 4.29 University 4.05 4.35 Project  Activities: Centro 3.70 4.34 Cuba 3.85 4.13 Consota 3.85 3.55 No  Activities 3.91 4.03 While  some  respondents’  felt  sense  of  personal  obligation  may  have  weakened  a  bit   during   the   course   of   the   project,   their   reported   obedience   to   the   law   did   not.     As   example,  respondents’  rejection  of  the  idea  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  disregard   laws   they   don’t   like   increased   significantly   from   74   percent   disagreeing   at   the   20 project’s   beginning   to   78   percent   doing   so   after   its   activities.     Similarly,   while   43   percent  of  respondents  began  the  project  period  disagreeing  that  it  was  pointless  to   report   a   lawbreaker   if   he   or   she   were   unlikely   to   receive   punishment,   by   the   posttest  48  percent  felt  so.    In  fact,  as  table  9 shows  significant  increases  were  found   in   the   commitment   every   respondent   group   except   the   poor   expressed   towards   lawful   behavior   by   the   project’s   conclusion.     Of   course,   since   all   respondents   selected   for   the  project  areas  of   the  Consota  commune  were   from   the  city’s  lowest   income   strata,   they   too   failed   to   respond   positively   on   the   measures   of   legal   obedience. The  Justice  System  in  Pereira Perhaps   the   most   positive   outcome   of   project’s   assessment   is   the   transition   observed   in   the   respondents’   attitudes   about   the   roles   of   the   police   and   the   community   in   the   production   of   safety.     First,   there   was   widespread   agreement   among   all   groups   of   respondents,   both   pre   and   posttest,   that   it   is   important   for   citizens  to  meet  regularly  with  police  to  discuss  matters  of  safety  and  concern.    This   is  significant since  a  key  ingredient  in  the  development  of  a  lawful  culture  is  sharing   of  responsibility  between officials  (especially  the  police)  and  citizens  comprising  the   culture.    Indeed,  nearly  three-­‐fourths  of  those  surveyed  (73%)  at  both  project  time   periods  reported  that  such  police/citizen  interactions  were  “very  important.”    That   said,  fewer  than  one-­‐in-­‐six  respondents  added  that  they  or  a  family  member  had  had   such  a  meeting  with  police  during   the  previous  year.    Of   those  who  had  met,   there   was  a  near  even  split  between  those  who  had  only  one  meeting  during  the  year  and   those   have   met   “only   a   few   times.”   Fewer   than   two   percent   of   all   respondents reported   that   they   met   with   police   on   a   regular   basis,   at   least   once   a   month.     Perhaps  not  surprisingly,  higher  educated  respondents  and  those  with  higher  socio-­‐ economic   status   were   significantly  more  likely   to  meet   with   police   than   their  less   educated,  less  well-­‐off  peers.    Older  respondents,  too,  were somewhat  more  likely  to   have  met  with  police. 21 Beyond   just   meeting   with   police,   as   the   project   progressed   our   sample   of   Pereira  residents  became  ever  more supportive  of  an  active  role  for  the  community with  many  activities  typically  involved  in  establishing  community  safety.    As  we  see   from   table   10 below,   respondents   were   asked   to   rate   a   series   of   activities,   giving   their  opinions  about  who  should  hold   the  responsibility   for   their  completion  – the   police,   the   police   and   community   working   together   or   representatives   of   the   community   on   their   own.     The   extent   of   change   in   how   collaborative   the   responsibility  is  seen  to  be  is  also shown. Table  10 Community  Responsibilities  for  Safety  Issues %  Reporting  Shared   Police/Community Responsibility Pretest Posttest   %  Change Organize  community  meetings * 53% 65% +12% Advise  people  on  home  security * 48 61 +13 Advise  business  on  crime  prevention * 47 60 +13 Advise  people  on  personal  safety * 46 59 +13 Advise  schools  on  crime  and  safety * 46 58 +12 Help  victims  of  crime * 42 53 +13 Collect  crime/criminal  information * 37 42 +5 Deal  with  missing  persons * 36 40 +4 Control  drugs  and  prostitution * 35 27 -­‐8 Catch  Shoplifters 27 27 0 Deal  with  domestic  violence  and  fights 19 19 0 Patrol  community  on  foot 16 16 0 Patrol  community  in  cars ** 10 13 +3 Deal  with  public  disturbances 14 11 -­‐3 Investigate  crimes * 5 9 +4 *  Differences  significant  at  .00 **  Differences  significant  at  .01 22 Clearly,  from  the  table  we  can  see  an  overall  shift  in  the  perceptions  of  how  crimes   and  order  issues  in  the  community  are  addressed  and  who  shares  the  responsibility   for  that  action.    Not  only  was  there  a  significant  increase  in  the  expectation  of  a  role   for   the   community but, for   the   non-­‐hazardous  activities  at  least,   there  was  a   clear   increase   in   the   desire   for   collaborative   action.     From   table   11 it   is   clear   that   considerable  variability  exists  in  the  depth  of  the  opinions  held  by  the  residents  of   the  primary  project  areas.    Most  of  the  differences  observed,  however, can  be  linked   to  the  respondents’  income  and  education  levels. Table  11 Community  Responsibilities  for  Safety  Issues (%  Reporting  Shared  Police/Community  Responsibility) Respondents’  Posttest Responses All Centro Cuba Consota Organize  community  meetings 65% 83 47 56 Advise  people  on  home  security 61 74 47 48 Advise  business  on  crime  prevention 60 74 56 44 Advise  people  on  personal  safety 59 78 62 48 Advise  schools  on  crime  and  safety 58 78 56 42 Help  victims  of  crime 53 83 41 41 Collect  crime/criminal  information 42 44 44 33 Deal  with  missing  persons   40 44 34 40 Control  drugs  and  prostitution 27 13 31 27 Catch  Shoplifters 27 22 38 42 Deal  with  domestic  violence  and  fights 19 22 38 17 Patrol  community  on  foot 16 4 34 24 Patrol  community  in  cars 13 4 25 20 Deal  with  public  disturbances 11 0 25 16 Investigate  crimes 9 0 25 16 23 Conclusions  from  the  Project  Efforts The  results  of   the  Culture  of  Lawfulness  project  in  Pereira  are  both  significant  and   successful.     While   there   are   limits   to   the   evaluation   – some   unavoidable   – comparisons   of   the   respondents’   views   from   the   beginning   of   the   project   to   its   conclusion  suggest  that  two  of  the  project’s  three  major  goals  were  clearly  achieved   while  the  third  was  at  least  a  partial  success.     Increasing  Residents’  Awareness  of  the  ROL  and  COL  Concepts At   the   outset   of   the  evaluation  a   primary  goal   of  increasing   citizens’  awareness   of   the  concepts of   rule   of  law  and   the  culture   of  lawfulness  was  made  clear.    To   that   end,  interventions  intended  to  increase  citizen  knowledge  while  demonstrating  the   concepts  in  action  were  selected.    By  all  measures,  they  were  successful. 1. First,  while  only  a  small  portion  of  Pereira’s  citizens  were familiar  with   the   concepts  of  Rule  of  Law  (16%)  or  a  Culture  of  Lawfulness  (14%) initially,  by   project’s   end   that   awareness   had   grown   significantly   such   that   nearly   22   percent   were   familiar   with   rule   of   law   and   32   percent   with   a   culture   of   lawfulness.     2. While   the  increase  in  awareness  was  broad-­‐based, younger,  more  educated   and   upper   income   male   respondents   were   most   prominent   in   their   awareness.    More  than  half  (56%)  of  those  having  contact  with  police  in  the previous  six  months  reported  awareness  of  the  culture  of  lawfulness  concept   while  one-­‐third  (37%)  knew  of  the  rule  of  law. 3. Of  those  posttest  citizens  aware of the  concepts: § Most   learned   of   them   through the   media,   with   television   being   their   primary   source   of   information.     Still,   radio   and   newspapers   played   an   important  information  role  as  well. 24 § While   still   significant,   the   importance   of   school,   work and   other   visual   outlets  such  as  billboards  were  secondary  sources  of  information. § Few  respondents  received  information  from  their  church,  cultural  events,   NGOs  or  the  city’s  Traffic  Institute. 4. Beyond   a   general   awareness,   most   respondents   (60%)   added   that   they   believed   their  city  leaders  were   supportive   of  the  lawfulness  concepts with   more   than 40  percent  reporting  having  seen   those  leaders   take  active  steps   to  promote  them.    Respondents  from  neighborhoods  participating  in  project   activities   were   even   more   likely   to   report   their   leaders’   support   or   having   seen  positive  actions. 5. In   addition   to added   confidence   in   their   leaders,   following   the   program   activities   respondents’   views   of   support   for   the   lawfulness   concepts   from   nearly   all   sectors   of   society  – schools,   civil   society   and   religion  – increased   significantly.    Only  labor  and  the  business  community  was  unaffected  by  the   project  time  period. Individual  Involvement  in  the  Creation  of  a  Lawful  Culture While  awareness  and  an  understanding  of  the  concepts  of  rule  of  law  and  a  culture   of  lawfulness  are  an  important  first  step,  personal  support  for  those  goals  is  equally   meaningful.       A   far   more   difficult   goal   to   attain,   however,   personalization   of   both   goals  requires  a  deeper  understanding  and  a  willingness  to  engage  in  self-­‐sacrificing   action  to  advance  them.    As  such,  questions  always  remain  about  the  strength  of  the   intervention   being   attempted   (the   project   activities),   their   duration   and   the   countervailing   forces   they   must   confront.     In   addition,   given   the   difficulties   in   producing  such  outcomes,  establishing  realistic  goals  is  important. The  measures  employed  in   this  evaluation  would   suggest   that   the   program   and  its  activities  were  a  qualified  success  at  influencing  individual’s  commitment  to   25 the  ROL  and  COL  concepts. 1. At   the  basic  level,  of   those  knowledgeable  of   the  concepts  an  overwhelming   majority of   respondents   (86%)   expressed   support   for   both.     While   impressive,   these   results   were   nonetheless   a   reduction   from   the   near   universal   support   expressed   by   those   familiar   with   the   concepts   at   the   project’s   pretest.     This   change   may   be   at   least   partially   the   result   of   the   increased   numbers   of   respondents   with   awareness   and   the   more   realistic   understanding   some   may   have   developed   after   participating   in   project   activities.     The  finding  that  fewer  than  half  of  all  respondents  agreed  at  least   somewhat   that   a   strong   culture   of   lawfulness   actually   exists   in   Pereira   at   present  reinforces  this  view.    Worse  yet,  the  proportion  of  respondents  who   strongly  agreed  with  the  current  state  of  their  city  actually  declined  while  the   project   was   underway.     Given   the   support   most   offered   for   the   concepts, however,   these   results   suggest   a   more   realistic   perspective   rather   than   a   weakening  of  interest. 2. While  unsure  of  its  status  in  Pereira,  the  respondents  to  our  surveys broadly   accept  the  view  that  strengthening  the  rule  of  law  will  improve  the  quality  of   life  of  their  city.    Further,  nearly  90  percent  of  posttest  respondents  agreed  at   least  somewhat  that  they  could  personally  contribute  to  that  strengthening.     3. Similarly,   more   than   three   fourths   of   respondents   expressed   acceptance   of   the   notion  that  it   was   their   responsibility   to   report   crimes   they   observe   to   the  police  and  consistent,   though  reduced,  agreement  (61%)   that   they  must   do  all  they  can  to  assist  police  in  solving  crimes  and  catching  criminals.    Still,   support   for   the  notion   that   they  must  actually  denounce   friends,  colleagues   and  family  members  involved  in  crime  and  corruption  weakens  further  with   only  58  percent  still  being  in  agreement.    Of  greater  concern,  however,  is  that   the  young  and  lower  economic  residents  who  expressed  the  least  support  for   26 these   responsibilities.    Since   they  are  also  disproportionately   the   victims   of   crime,  their  views  are  a  challenge  for  those  seeking  to  build  a  lawful  culture.     5. Measurements   following   the   two  years  of  project  activities  showed  no  little   change   in   the   respondents’   scaled   scores   of   personal   responsibility   or   obligation  to  follow  the  law.    Scores  reflecting  respondents’  obedience  to  the   law  did  improve  significantly  with  particular  improvements  in   two of   three   primary  project  activity  areas. Police/Community  Collaboration  in the  Creation  of  a  Lawful  Culture It  is  with  this  third  goal  of  the  project’s  activities  that  perhaps  the  most  significant   positive   results   were   realized.     A   central   and   widely   accepted   element   of   the   creation  of  a  lawful  society  is  the  need  for  police  and  the  community  to  collaborate   on   its   creation.     This   collaboration   has   been   characterized   by   a   two-­‐wheeled   cart   with   the   analogy   that   unless   both  wheels   are  moving  in   the   same   direction   at   the   same  speed  the  cart  cannot  move  forward.    To  assess  this  project  goal,  both  the  pre   and   posttest   surveys   asked   respondents   not   only   about   their   willingness   to   work   with  police  but  their  views  on  who  has  primary  responsibility  for  a  variety  of  police   related  activities  – the   police  alone,   the   police  and   the   community,   or  members   of   the  community  alone. 1. During   both   surveys,   nearly   three-­‐fourths   of   respondents  (73%)   indicated their   belief   that  it  is  important   for   the   community   to  meet   with   police   and   provide   their   assistance.     Few,   however,   have   done   so;   almost   none   on   a   regular   basis.     Clearly,   more   will   be   required   in   Pereira   for   officials   to   act   upon  residents’  availability. 2. Perhaps  most  important,  however,  was  the  redefinition  of  responsibilities  for   the   coproduction   of   safety   and   lawfulness   that   occurred   as   the   project   progressed.     As   a   result,   with   few   exceptions   by   the   project’s   conclusion   a   27 significant   shift   had   occurred  in   the   respondents’   views   about   the   need   for   police  and  citizens  to  share  a  role  in  activities  ranging  from  crime  prevention   to  victim  assistance.     Clearly,   the  results  of   the  project  suggest   that  considerable  gains  were  achieved  in   the  citywide  effort  to  advance  the  framework  for  a  lawful  culture.    While  much  was   learned  and  areas  of  additional  need  were  identified,  one  caveat  to  the  evaluation  is   important.    Because   the  nature  of   the  project  called   for  an  evolution  of   the  project   activities   to   be   employed,   no   evaluation   controls   were   in   place   for   the   pre   and   posttest   comparisons.    As   such,  while  we   can   report   changes   that   occurred   or   did   not  during  the  course  of  the  project’s  activities  we  have  no  way  of  establishing  that   those   activities   were   the   cause   of   those   changes.     Other,   competing   explanations   may  also  exist  for  many  of  the  results  described.    Further,  many  of  those  competing   explanations   cannot   be  easily   dismissed   since  accurate   demographic   or   crime  and   order   maintenance   information   about   the   city   or   the   project-­‐involved   neighborhoods  is   readily  available.    As  a   result,  while the   results from   the   project   are   both   promising   and   exciting   considerable   caution   remains   warranted   at   the   project’s  efforts  more  forward.