The Michigan Public Policy Survey Spring 2024 Data Tables

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2024 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, region of the state, and urban/rural designation are accessible below.

Table of Contents

Public Safety Service Satisfaction

2. 1. Satisfaction of respondent with state police
   2. Satisfaction of respondent with county sheriff’s office
   3. Satisfaction of respondent with county prosecutor’s office
   4. Satisfaction of respondent with local police (if applicable)
3.  
   1. Satisfaction of jurisdiction’s residents with state police
   2. Satisfaction of jurisdiction’s residents with county sheriff’s office
   3. Satisfaction of jurisdiction’s residents with county prosecutor’s office
   4. Satisfaction of jurisdiction’s residents with local police (if applicable)

Service Delivery Arrangement

4. Primary service delivery arrangement for law enforcement

Staffing

5.  
   1. Sufficient workforce in County Sheriff’s Office
   2. Sufficient workforce in local police department (if applicable)
   3. Sufficient workforce in County Prosecutor’s Office
6.  
   1. Recruiting qualified law enforcement officers aproblem for jurisdiction
   2. Retaining qualified law enforcement officers a problem for jurisdiction
   3. Having officers in poached by other jurisdictions a problem for jurisdiction
   4. Officer morale a problem for jurisdiction
   5. Negative public perception of officers a problem for jurisdiction
   6. Lack of training and professional development problem for jurisdiction
   7. Too much required training a problem for jurisdiction
7.  
   1. Revising hiring standards would help recruitment or retention
   2. Streamlining the hiring process would help recruitment or retention
   3. Increasing pay rates would help recruitment or retention
   4. Increasing benefits would help recruitment or retention
   5. Increasing nontraditional incentives (e.g., more paid time off, flexible schedules, childcare, tuition reimbursements, etc.) would help recruitment or retention
   6. Professional development opportunities would help recruitment or retention
   7. Creating or expanding pipeline programs would help recruitment or retention
   8. Investing in community trust and relationship-building would help recruitment or retention
   9. None of the above would help recruitment or retention
   10. Don’t know what would help recruitment or retention

Law Enforcement Funding

9. Jurisdiction’s appropriations of funding to meet law enforcement needs (cities/villages/townships)
10.  
    1. County’s appropriations of funding to meet Sheriff’s Office needs
    2. County’s appropriations of funding to meet County Prosecutor’s office needs
11. Respondent's support or opposition to pursuing local funding for law enforcement
12.  
    1. Priority of hiring new officers if given additional law enforcement funding
    2. Priority of increasing pay or benefits if given additional law enforcement funding
    3. Priority of other recruitment or retention efforts if given additional law enforcement funding
    4. Priority of mental health support for officers if given additional law enforcement funding
    5. Priority of additional or improved training officers if given additional law enforcement funding
    6. Priority of updating equipment if given additional law enforcement funding
    7. Priority of investing in new technologies if given additional law enforcement funding
    8. Priority of crisis response teams if given additional law enforcement funding
    9. Priority of addressing pension or OPEB liabilities if given additional law enforcement funding

Law Enforcement and Crime

13.  
    1. Public perceptions of crime have a negative effect on economic development and/or tourism
    2. People feel confident that law enforcement will arrive in time to handle an emergency
    3. Primary law enforcement agency is more effective now than 5 years ago
    4. Law enforcement policies have recently been a topic of discussion within in jurisdiction government
14.  
    1. Violent crimes as a problem in jurisdiction
    2. Domestic violence as a problem in jurisdiction
    3. Property crimes as a problem in jurisdiction
    4. Drug crimes as a problem in jurisdiction
    5. Public-order offenses as a problem in jurisdiction
    6. Crime overall as a problem in jurisdiction

Police-Community Relations

15.  
    1. Likelihood of using community policing
    2. Likelihood of law enforcement civilian oversight board
    3. Likelihood of proactively making agency policies available for public review
    4. Likelihood of mandating independent investigations into officer-involved injuries
    5. Likelihood of training law enforcement officers in de-escalation tactics, cultural understanding, and/or bias awareness
    6. Likelihood of adopting policies to recruit a workforce that reflects jurisdiction’s racial and ethnic makeup
16.  
    1. Most people in jurisdiction trust law enforcement officers
    2. Inappropriate use of force by law enforcement is an issue
    3. Concern that a major incident of civil unrest connected to police use of force could happen in jurisdiction
    4. Most law enforcement officers in jurisdiction treat all people professionally
    5. Most people in jurisdiction want fewer law enforcement officers patrolling their neighborhoods
17.  
    1. Relationship between board/council and County Sheriff’s Office
    2. Relationship between board/council and local police departments
    3. Relationship between board/council and County Prosecutor’s Office

Co-responder / Alternative Responder Programs

19.  
    1. Support for or opposition to co-responder or alternative responder programs
    2. Support for or opposition to co-responder or alternative responder programs
    3. Support for or opposition to co-responder or alternative responder programs
    4. Support for or opposition to co-responder or alternative responder programs
    5. Support for or opposition to co-responder or alternative responder programs
20.  
    1. Alternative crisis response options could save the jurisdiction money
    2. Civilian responders would not be safe responding to emergency calls
    3. Trust in 9-1-1 dispatchers to determine which professional should respond to an emergency
    4. Funding for co-responders or alternative responders will leave less funding for our primary law enforcement agency
    5. An alternative responder program would help address law enforcement staffing challenges
    6. People in community would like another option to call in a crisis beyond law enforcement
    7. Too many 9-1-1 calls for police that do not require law enforcement attention
    8. Availability of mental health professionals for implementing a co-responder or alternative responder model
21. Assessment of difficulty for implementing local co-responder or alternative responder program
23. Impact of additional funding on consideration of co-responder or alternative responder program

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)

24. Familiarity with ERPO act provisions
25. 1. Confidence in law enforcement officers determine when an ERPO is appropriate
    2. Confidence local officers are trained in ERPO petition process
    3. Confidence non-law enforcement petitioners will use ERPO process correctly
    4. Confidence in judges to make appropriate decisions regarding ERPOs
    5. Confidence in the safety of local law enforcement when serving an ERPO
    6. Confidence in ERPOs to reduce gun violence

    Use of Data and Technology in Policing

26. 1. Likelihood of using unmanned aerial vehicles
    2. Likelihood of using dashboard cameras
    3. Likelihood of using body cameras
    4. Likelihood of using other public surveillance cameras
    5. Likelihood of using automated license plate readers
    6. Likelihood of using facial recognition technology
    7. Likelihood of using predictive policing tools
27. 1. Assessment of investment in unmanned aerial vehicles
    2. Assessment of investment in dashboard cameras
    3. Assessment of investment in body cameras
    4. Assessment of investment in public surveillance cameras
    5. Assessment of investment in license plate readers
    6. Assessment of investment in facial recognition technology
    7. Assessment of investment in predictive policing tools
28. Perceived accuracy of automated risk assessment tools

Law enforcement accountability

29. Law enforcement should be held legally accountable for misconduct
30. Residents’ confidence in effective response to law enforcement misconduct
31. 1. Support for private database for law enforcement misconduct
    2. Support for public database for law enforcement misconduct database
    3. Support for department penalties for failing to review potential hire’s misconduct history
    4. Support for decertification for officers who engaged in felonies or other illegal acts
32. Support for formal civilian oversight board for primary law enforcement agency
33. 1. Trust in examples from law enforcement agencies in neighboring or similar communities
    2. Trust in Michigan local government organizations for information on policing strategies
    3. Trust in Michigan law enforcement associations for information on policing strategies
    4. Trust in national law enforcement associations for information on policing strategies
    5. Trust in non-profits or advocacy organizations for information on policing strategies
    6. Trust in similar law enforcement agencies for information on policing strategies
    7. Trust in universities or academic research for information on policing strategies
    8. Trust in policing technology manufacturers for information on policing strategies

Fiscal Health

34. 1. Better or less able to meet jurisdiction's needs this fiscal year than last
    2. Better or less able to meet jurisdiction's needs next fiscal year than this
35. Assessment of level of jurisdiction's unreserved general fund balance
36. Jurisdiction's cash flow as a fiscal health problem
37. 1. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health today
    2. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health five years from now

Functioning of Democracy

38. 1. Officials’ ratings of functioning of democracy in local jurisdiction
    2. Officials’ ratings of functioning of democracy in Michigan
    3. Officials’ ratings of functioning of democracy in the US

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home