Citizensʼ Views on the Importance of Different Areas of Police Work

1. Introduction

Crime policy and the role of the police has gained increased attention in the political discourse, a trend that seems to be shared by the public. According to a recent study conducted by Andersson et al. (2021) and surveys conducted by different newspapers such as Lundborg Andersson (2018) as well as Roos and Israelsson (2018), crime policy issues have emerged as the top concern among voters in the latest election. This represents a significant shift from 2007, when crime policy was ranked at the bottom of the list (Demker & Duus-Otterström, 2007), suggesting a noteworthy change in public opinion and political priorities regarding crime policy issues. According to the latest SOM survey, an annual survey conducted by the SOM Institute at Gothenburg University, crime is now, for the second year, ranked as the publicʼs main area of concern, with organized crime being a significant issue, right after the situation in Ukraine (Andersson et al., 2023). Presumably, this concern is amplified by the increased media attention that crime, especially organized crime, has gained in recent years. The mediaʼs almost daily news reports on organized crime, open drug scenes, and gang shootings have contributed to a heightened sense of urgency and fear among the public. This phenomenon can be understood through the lens of “moral panic,” a sociological concept describing the process by which media and public discourse exaggerate a problem, leading to widespread public concern that may be disproportionate to the actual threat (Cohen, 2011). Moral panic involves a cycle whereby the media amplifies an issue, leading to heightened anxiety among the public and, subsequently, demands for swift government action. Additionally, an agency report showing that Sweden now has the highest rate of gun-related fatalities per capita in Europe (Brå, 2021) has likely fueled this phenomenon.

However, the police have received media coverage not only related to violence but also when facing criticism. Examples include extended passport processing waits after the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, low clearance rates on numerous types of crimes, as well as their preparedness for police presence during demonstrations where Korans were burned, leading to riots on several occasions. The police have also been criticized by the national audit office (Riksrevisionen, 2023) for decreasing clearance rates of so-called everyday crimes such as burglary, damage to property, theft and traffic offenses. The situation is worsened by the fact that the police are forced to prioritize more serious crimes or have had to reallocate police officers to other areas or departments. The criticism from the national audit office has also been echoed by police officers concerned by the police prioritizing gang-related violence over other crimes (Asplund, 2023). A recent poll ordered by Swedish television reveals that the public has low confidence in the policeʼs ability to deal with organized crime (Leijman, 2023). Public dissatisfaction with police performance can negatively impact trust in law enforcement, underscoring the importance of strong relationships between the police and the public. The value of a solid police–citizen relationship extends beyond democratic ideals; it is widely believed to have a significant impact on the efficacy of law enforcement, affecting the willingness of the public to report crimes, provide crucial information, and adhere to instructions given by the police (see e.g., International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2018). Naturally, mechanisms for establishing strong police–public relations are crucial and have gained a good deal of academic attention. Transparency, impartiality, and fairness in interactions with citizens—commonly understood through the lens of procedural justice—is widely recognized for its role in establishing the legitimacy of law enforcement in the eyes of public (Tyler, 2006). However, this approach focuses on the processes of law enforcement. It is also worth considering that the content of police actions—what police do, not just how they do it—may play a significant role in building strong connections between police and the public.

If we acknowledge that the priorities underlying police actions can have significant effects, it would be valuable to examine some mechanisms that determine these priorities. The police may be understood as a street-level bureaucracy in that they provide a distinctive social service while interacting directly with citizens and making legal decisions that have a great impact on an individualʼs life (Liljegren et al., 2021). A distinguishing feature of such organizations is that the demand for public goods has no theoretical upper limit (Lipsky, 1980). The time spent fostering strong relations with citizens could always increase, the clearance rate on different types of crimes could be higher, the processing time could always be shorter, more crimes of different types could theoretically be prevented, and service functions could be more accessible. In short, the combination of not having a set upper limit while the available resources are limited means that some sort of prioritization is required. Prioritization is multifaceted and complex as it can occur on multiple levels. Politically, the police is governed through regulations issued by the Department of Justice. Organizationally, resources are allocated to different units of the police. Additionally, at the individual level, the judgments and actions of crime investigators and police officers on the streets also contribute to shaping priorities (Finstad et al., 2023). Prioritization, regardless of the level of decision-making, essentially involves the distribution of resources, including skills, staff, and time. While resource allocation is inherently strategic, the distinctive role of the police also relates these issues to legitimacy. This does not suggest that the police should uncritically follow public opinion. Police activities are legally regulated, and laws cannot be disregarded based on popular demand. Much of the policeʼs work is reactive and most crimes fall under general prosecution, which mandates the police to report and investigate them. Furthermore, it is important to note that there is not necessarily a single, unified public opinion on various aspects of police work. Opinions can vary among different subgroups in society, potentially leading to the neglect of minority viewpoints. Additionally, the police can play a crucial role in protecting minorities, such as in cases involving hate crimes, which are designed specifically with the intention to protect groups that are not in the majority. It is therefore important to note that public opinion should not directly guide police activities in a linear way. However, this does not undermine the value of public opinion entirely. By considering public opinion as one of many factors, rather than a definitive directive, understanding public opinions can contribute to a broader discussion about the potentially conflicting values in the policeʼs missions.

Naturally, dealing with the most serious criminality and protecting citizens is one of the policeʼs main tasks. According to the second paragraph of the Police Act the police should prevent, detect, and investigate crimes, maintain public order and safety, but also offer social services to citizens that do not necessarily require an authorized officer or a certain legislative mandate to perform. While often discussed in times of fiscal austerity, the concern is of principal interest, as priorities express the values of the police to the public while also providing a frame for democratic accountability (Higgins, 2019). “Traditional policing” represents one perspective on the role of the police, as illustrated by the views of the former British Home Secretary Theresa May in 2011: “We need them to be the tough, no-nonsense crime-fighters they signed up to become” (Millie, 2014). In reality, the scope of police activity is far more nuanced and multifaceted than that, often involving activities aimed at dealing with problems that are not necessarily serious or even crime-related (Boulton et al., 2017; Ratcliffe, 2021). The sociology of policing has shown that what the police symbolize is as—if not more—important than what they actually do (Loader, 2014). The police, in this view, matter because of their capacity to send signals that sustain (or undermine) peopleʼs sense of the social world as an ordered place and their feelings of belonging securely within it. Consequently, this broad perspective on policing goes beyond mere “crime fighting” to include a wide range of order and social service functions, leading to the common characterization of the police as a “secret social service” (van Dijk et al., 2015). In contrast to traditional policing, community policing (see e.g., Goldstein, 1990) is a strategy that focuses on building ties and working closely with community members. The core idea is to establish trust and cooperation, which can help to identify and solve problems collaboratively. As such, it is an approach to public safety that involves partnerships between the police force and the community. Community policing encourages officers to adopt a problem-solving mindset that goes beyond traditional crime fighting and understand the underlying issues contributing to crime and disorder. By engaging with community members, police can gain a more intimate knowledge of the neighborhood dynamics, which can aid in crime prevention efforts. Officers may work to improve social conditions by participating in community meetings, developing community contacts, and implementing community-based programs. This policing model acknowledges that police cannot solve public safety problems alone and must collaborate with the community to achieve lasting solutions, enhance quality of life, and improve trust in the police. In times of a rapidly increasing police force, the dynamic between different theoretical models for policing prompts a discussion about the essence of the police role.

If we consider the Swedish policeʼs strategic plan for 2020–2024, which guides the current and future prioritization of main tasks (Polismyndigheten, 2023), all tasks are listed as important, and the police is set to increase its ability and competence within most areas—although some areas are especially highlighted and can be interpreted as given higher priority than others. Violence against children and women, as well as organized crime, are identified as important areas that may have especially harmful consequences for society, and their prevention and investigation should be prioritized. These areas are also a priority for the government, and special national plans to combat violence against women and organized crime have been issued (Polismyndigheten, 2023). Terrorism and extremism are also highlighted as important threats to democracy that should be given priority.

Given the policeʼs role as both a symbol of authority with a unique right to use force and as a “secret social service,” it is valuable to consider the publicʼs views on the role of the police. Against this background we set out to examine the publicʼs prioritization of various police activities. Results from a citizen survey on prioritization are presented with the aim of contributing to the broader discourse on police remit and effective resource allocation within law enforcement. Swedish research in this area is limited, and even though annual polls on public trust in the police provide an important perspective, we currently lack studies that investigate views on prioritization between the different activities.

2. Methods

To measure the relative value that Swedish citizens attribute to different police activities, a list of 11 items representing different aspects of police work was developed into a survey (Figure 1) in a best–worst scaling (BWS) format, where five items were presented repeatedly in randomized combinations. BWS is a common method to measure preferences and can be used in various fields, e.g., patientsʼ preferences in health care (Cheung et al., 2016; Wittenberg et al., 2016) or consumer perspectives in marketing research (Louviere et al., 2013). Beginning on May 25, 2022, 2000 individuals were recruited from the SOM Instituteʼs Swedish citizen panel, of which 1002 (50.1%) chose to participate. Two reminders were sent out, and data collection ended on June 15, 2022. The sample was prestratified by age, sex and educational level, and then randomized within those strata. After removing all the participants who did not fully complete the survey, 979 participants remained. Data regarding age, type of residential area, and education level were also gathered. In the Swedish school system, three education levels are commonly used: elementary school (högstadium) is mandatory and completed by the age of 15; high school (gymnasium) is voluntary but has a high admission rate and is typically completed at the age of 19; university is a possibility thereafter.

2.2 Survey Design

The survey was designed in a best–worst scaling object case 1 format (BWS) with a conventional discrete choice model. When measuring preferences, BWS is generally considered superior to other common alternatives. One common method is to use Likert scales, which may suffer from the problem that the respondentsʼ frame of reference may change with each question—an issue that is likely to be particularly present in the matter of police work due to its morally charged nature, where, in some sense, “everything matters.” Another alternative could be to simply list all the alternatives and let the respondent rank the alternatives, which entails the risk of information overload and respondent fatigue. Hence, a BWS design is considered the best option (Burton et al., 2021). When using a BWS design, a list of items is produced and divided into several sets, with different alternatives occurring repeatedly. In this case, the 11 items pertaining to diverse police work were allocated across seven distinct sets. Each query consisted of a set comprising five items, whereby the participant was required to select one item deemed most significant and one item regarded as least important.

Figure 1

When an item is selected as the most important or least important, it is assigned a value of 1 or -1 respectively, which is then aggregated and standardized. The remaining three items of a certain set are assigned a value of zero and thus have no quantitative effect on the standardized score but add information by being a selectable option in relation to other options. Each item appeared in three sets, except for gang criminality and traffic safety, which appeared four times each.

3. Results

In total, 979 participants assessments were analyzed: 50.1% of participants were women and 49.9% were men (see Table 1). The participants were distributed across all levels of education and place of residence, although the sample size was slightly lower in the lowest age category.

The main features of the data were explored by constructing a standardized BWS score that is presented in Figure 2. To investigate the generality of the assigned values, the standard error is presented for each alternative, as well as the mean value depending on sex and education level and residency.

Table 1

On aggregate level, responding to emergency calls was the most important, followed by gang criminality, crimes against women, terrorism and extremism, drug crimes, building relationships with youth, burglary, hate crimes, traffic safety, attending public gatherings, and administrative tasks. The consistently low standard errors for all alternatives imply a substantial consensus among respondents regarding the prioritization of specific choices.

To investigate disparities in prioritization tendencies among different groups, differences between individuals grouped on sex and educational level, respectively. Results are presented in Table 2. In analyzing the impact of educational attainment, it is notable that significant differences were only observed in drug crimes where the group with higher level of education assigned a lower mean score. This underscores the relative consistency in the hierarchical arrangement of priorities, irrespective of oneʼs educational background. In contrast, the differentiating factor became more pronounced when examining variances between men and women. In this regard, significant differences manifested across seven alternatives: crimes against women, burglary, gang criminality, responding to emergency calls, administrative tasks, hate crimes and building relationships with youth. Compared to the female group, the male group assigned higher values to the following items: drug crimes, burglary, gang criminality, responding to emergency calls, attending public gatherings and administrative tasks. Consequently, the female group assigned relatively higher values to the remaining items: crimes against women, traffic safety, building relationships with youths, terrorism & extremism and hate crimes.

Figure 2

Table 2

Although significant on a 0.05 level, these differences were generally minor, with the exception of crimes against women, which exhibited a significant difference of 15.7%. Although male and female respondents demonstrated similar patterns in terms of their prioritization of individual alternatives, there were differing patterns in the emphasis placed on certain characteristics of the alternatives. Overall, men tended to favor traditional “crime-fighting” activities such as responding to calls, fighting gang crime, and investigating burglaries. Women placed slightly higher value on other issues, such as protecting certain groups, as indicated by their higher valuing of crimes against women and hate crimes or working with community-oriented aspects of policing, such as building relationships with young people.

Figure 3

Another aspect worth examining is the impact of residency on mean values. In our analysis, we found the mean values to be remarkably similar, with the greatest variation being 0.089, observed in administrative tasks. Therefore, opinions on these matters, as measured in our survey, appear to be largely unaffected by residency.

4. Discussion

In the current study, we investigated how citizens prioritize between different areas of police work. When examining the distribution of the assigned value of individual items, citizens express the highest importance for a swift response to emergency calls. Traditionally, an assumption has been that the allocation of resources toward responding to emergency calls is inherently justified due to its perceived importance (Pate et al., 1976). However, a contrasting view could be that dedicating staff and resources to maintain consistently short response times could come at the cost of other aspects of police services, such as crime investigation or community engagement activities. Our data show that, if considering the views of the public, it may indeed be worth the effort to prioritize responding quickly to calls. Hence, maintaining a sizable force for emergency call response seems vital. While our survey specifically measured responses to emergency calls, it is worth noting that a substantial proportion of calls for services are neither serious nor crime-related (Boulton et al., 2017; Ratcliffe, 2021; Wilson, 2013). This suggests that alternative approaches might also be suitable. For instance, the objective of reducing response times could be achieved by an increase in police presence on the streets, as it increases the likelihood of geographic proximity to the incident. This proposition aligns well with the preferences expressed by citizens in previous studies, as police officer visibility has commonly been found to be regarded as important by citizens (Liederbach et al., 2008; Webb & Katz, 1999).

After responding to emergency calls, dealing with gang criminality is the most important police part of police work, according to citizensʼ views. This is not surprising. Not only can gang criminality be assumed to be high on impact, but gang-related violence is at extreme levels with Swedish measures, but also compared with other European countries (Brå, 2021; Sturup et al., 2019; Westfelt, 2022). Gang criminality has also received considerable coverage in Swedish as well as international media (Svenska institutet, 2023). Moreover, crimes that are commonly linked to criminal gangs, such as shootings, serve as appropriate instances of the concept of signal crimes (Innes & Fielding, 2002). This is characterized by their effect on the publicʼs perceived sense of safety, which seems to be confirmed by the increase in concern over crime in society (Brå, 2023). Although few people are likely to have direct experience of gang criminality themselves, media coverage is likely to have a large impact on how urgent different areas of police work are perceived to be. This indicates that self-lived experiences are not necessarily the driving factor for preferred priorities on a general level.

Among the selectable alternatives, crimes against women were considered third most important. Notably, when the data was disaggregated by sex, men assigned a greater significance to counterterrorism and extremism compared to crimes against women. Conversely, crimes against women held an even higher rank among female participants. This observation suggests that while respondents demonstrate a willingness to consider interests of the common, individual perspectives may diverge based on personal attributes on some specific issues. The observed difference may be driven by self-interest, group affiliation, or other factors. Although this issue was not within the scope of the current study, it is a well-known fact that women are more worried about being the victim of a sexual crime compared to men, aligning with the rate of victimization. This can explain some of the differences in general fear of crime, as opposed to actual victimization, between men and women (Mellgren & Ivert, 2018). This in turn suggests that some personal attributes affect both fear and concern and prioritization.

At the bottom of the list, one finds activities such as administrative tasks, attendance at public gatherings, and traffic safety—items relating to the social or order function of the police. It is intriguing that traffic safety is considered one of the least important, despite the fact that annually, approximately twice as many people die in traffic accidents compared to lethal violence. This may reflect public views on what the essential function of the police is—specifically, managing situations where the use of force is a key element. If we consider public opinion, it might be logical to transfer certain parts of the policeʼs responsibilities, such as passport processing or traffic safety, to another agency, similarly to how parking regulations are enforced. Compared to the emphasis on areas that are expressed by the police in strategic plans and regulatory letters, there seems to be an agreement between the public and the police, with some minor disparities. The mission of the police as expressed in the Police Act encompasses a wide variety of responsibilities, and all are considered important to prioritize; the same is expressed in the strategic plans. However, some areas must be prioritized when the situation demands it.

Other activities that would fit within the control function of the police, such as drug use or traffic safety, are found in the middle of the chain, while items that fit well within the social function are found at the bottom. This may appear self-evident: the basic function of the police is to prevent and solve crimes. However, how this should be achieved is not as straightforward. Summarizing citizensʼ views on the matter, it can perhaps be phrased such that responsibilities that are further down the causal chain of crime are not regarded as the primary obligation of the police force (Webb & Katz, 1997). However, this may reflect the notion that individuals are not well informed about the preventive measures carried out by the police force (Salmi et al., 2005). Nonetheless, a potential contradiction may arise from the discrepancy between modern approaches to policing and public opinion, as there may be strategic justifications for prioritizing certain areas that citizens do not immediately perceive as urgent. While community-oriented policing (COP) aims to deal with problems rather than incidents, support the public, and maintain order while fostering robust community relations, most citizens seem to place greater emphasis on items related to a “standard model” of policing (Higgins et al., 2017; Lum & Koper, 2017). Potentially, this presents a paradox, considering that citizen satisfaction constitutes a central objective of COP. Generally, police activities characterized as proactive, location-based, and focused have been demonstrated to effectively reduce crime (Lum & Koper, 2017). In contrast, rapid responses to calls have not shown to have a deterrent effect on crime, although some recent evidence suggests it may increase clearance rates (Vidal & Kirchmaier, 2018). Similarly, strong community relations have been shown to improve clearance rates (Carter & Carter, 2016; Lum & Koper, 2017), in part because of citizensʼ improved willingness to cooperate with police. Although, this effect is indirect and therefore unlikely to be regarded highly by the public in terms of prioritization. This suggests that decision-makers within law enforcement may have to handle trade-offs in which evidence-based strategies and public opinion diverge. Alternatively, greater efforts could be devoted to informing the public about the strategic foundations underpinning police decisions, particularly in cases in which the gap between police actions and citizensʼ perceptions is significant. Educating the public on the rationale behind specific strategies may help bridge this divide and enhance the understanding of the complexities involved in policing.

The second objective of the current study was to investigate the extent of consensus concerning the relative importance of various aspects of policing. Logically, prioritization necessitates deprioritization, meaning that law enforcement ought to incorporate the values and expectations of the general population in its prioritization. Consequently, ensuring that police actions align with public concerns may be vital to maintaining legitimacy. If the degree of consensus is low, there is a potential risk that the policeʼs activities and how they are prioritized become politically charged and associated with perceived injustice; if low enough, the public is a questionable premise to begin with. Regarding this issue, our data indicates a high degree of general agreement on how the police should prioritize. This notion is supported by the fact that the standard error is low: groups of different demographic characteristics such as sex, educational level, or residency responded similarly. Survey responses could not be significantly clustered, meaning that there are no distinct groups representing differing viewpoints. Additionally, prior research reports similar results, despite variations in which items were included and in which context the study was conducted. However, in the current study it is important to consider that the level of consensus is something that is observed within the framework of the surveyʼs design. We have utilized categories that are broadly defined, which increases the probability of one-sidedness in the answers. Conversely, if one has options that provide very specific information, dividing lines that are not prominent here might have been identified. Additionally, since participants were required to prioritize the options we presented, there may be diverse opinions on other policing aspects that were not presented in the survey.

Another aspect relating to the generalizability of the findings is to consider whether our sample can be said to represent “the public.” Although our sample was stratified and randomly selected to represent society as a whole, the response rate was approximately 50%, indicating the possibility of a systemic difference between those who chose to participate and those who did not. Moreover, the sample was gathered from Medborgarpanelen, which is a web-based panel of people who have chosen to answer questions by email a few times a year. It is plausible that the individuals included in this survey predominantly belonged to a segment of society that initially possessed a high level of trust in authorities and may have had different experiences of crime and law enforcement than other parts of the population. Conversely, groups with lower levels of trust in the police may not be adequately represented in this survey. This assertion is supported by the fact that trust in the police is comparatively higher in our sample than that reported in the annual survey conducted by Brå (2022), which covers a larger part of the population and employs a different methodology for collecting responses from people. Whether individualsʼ trust in authorities influences their perceptions of which priorities are deemed the most important has not been thoroughly examined in the existing literature. In conclusion, our findings indicate a high degree of consensus, but this should be interpreted with caution.

When interpreting the survey results, it is critical to reflect on the selection and phrasing of the items included. As previously mentioned, capturing every aspect of policing within a single survey is not feasible, meaning that some essential options might be excluded. In this case, investigating crime has not been included, despite being commonly presented in previous research. Hence, choosing not to include it is likely to affect the results. Given the consistently high ratings for crime investigation across various studies, it is reasonable to assume it would have received similar importance in our survey. Including it would potentially add more weight to the traditional policing perspective. This highlights the importance of considering which items are included, or not included, when drawing conclusions based on a survey. The labeling of activities is an equally important aspect when analyzing survey results. For example, “Building relations with youths” suggests an emphasis on long-term crime prevention and community engagement, a cornerstone of community-oriented policing. In contrast, alternative phrasings, like “Keeping children and young people safe,” might evoke a more immediate, protective stance, underscoring the urgency of direct crime prevention. Such nuances in language underscore the complexity of investigating public safety priorities, where the balance between addressing current challenges and investing in preventive measures becomes an important consideration. Our findings must therefore be interpreted with an awareness of how terminological choices can shape perceptions of policing priorities.

With the caveats above in mind, there is good reason to believe that, in line with the reasoning of Higgins (2019), perceived impact and harm are critical determinants of how important a certain activity is considered to be. The responses captured in our study reflect immediate perceptions, which could potentially shift if respondents were provided with more information about specific examples or the strategic priorities behind certain police activities. However, gaining an understanding of immediate perceptions is valuable because it provides insights into the views of citizens as such. It is reasonable to assume that the average citizen may not be deeply familiar with the intricacies of police operational strategies or the specific challenges and considerations that guide the prioritization of various tasks. This snapshot of public opinion, while potentially subject to change with increased awareness and understanding, is crucial for estimating the present view on police role and its alignment with community expectations.

What image of the police role emerges if one starts from the publicʼs responses? From the study it is evident that the public assigns lesser importance to administrative tasks within the police force. This might reflect a broader expectation that police officers should be more present in the community, engaging directly in activities that protect and serve citizens rather than being burdened with paperwork (Loader, 2014). Citizens seems to advocate for a more “boots on the ground” approach in which police visibility and action are clear and present. The emphasis on building relationships with youths and addressing crimes against women fits well within the community-policing framework. On the other hand, the high importance placed on responding to emergency calls and tackling terrorism and extremism as well as gang criminality aligns more closely with traditional policing models, which are centered around authority, response to crimes, and maintenance of public order. In terms of the policeʼs role, this implies the need for a careful balance: they must project a level of assertiveness that deters crime and maintains order, while also engaging in community-oriented strategies that prevent criminal activity and build strong police–citizen relations. This balanced approach is likely to enhance the publicʼs perception of the police as legitimate and trustworthy, elements that are fundamental to effective policing. Such a balance could perhaps be realized through the “comprehensive paradigm” suggested by van Dijk et al. (2015). This paradigm challenges the binary distinction of “control” versus “consent” or, in similar terminology, between fighting crime and engaging in community-oriented policing. In this perspective, transparency, accountability, and professionalism should be core values in policing. Embracing “hard” control measures, such as using force during disturbances, detaining individuals as needed, and stopping and questioning suspects—some of whom will be found innocent—is essential for maintaining order. However, these measures must operate within the framework of ethical conduct and professionalism to support the policeʼs overarching goal of community service. An important aspect of this perspective is referred to as “honest policing.” This implies that police leadership openly communicates the multifaceted nature of their responsibilities to the public. Such an approach does not view enforcement and community engagement as opposing forces but rather as interconnected facets of a comprehensive public service mission. Understanding and integrating citizensʼ perspectives into policing strategies may be an important part of this process.

That being said, the process of establishing operational priorities within policing is intricate and involves managing numerous competing demands. Day-to-day policing is often reactive in nature, allocating a significant portion of their resources to addressing incidents as they arise. Moreover, the police are legally obligated to investigate crimes falling within the principle of general prosecution. Hence, this type of research is unlikely to generate a result that has the same direct influence as market research has in business governance in the private sector, which is driven primarily by cost–benefit analysis and a “customer satisfaction mindset.” However, the Swedish police do possess a substantial degree of discretion (Landström et al., 2020) that facilitates the translation of theoretical priorities into actionable measures. Moreover, steps are being taken toward proactive policing (Polismyndigheten, 2022), which may give further space for active prioritization in the sense that decisions on resource allocation precede what to proactively work to prevent.

The extent to which public opinion should impact decision-making in policing is outside of the scope of the current study, but a foundational understanding of the publicʼs viewpoints, and their potential discrepancies in relation to the policeʼs priorities, may be important to consider when balancing different demands in modern policing. We have shown that understanding citizensʼ viewpoints when establishing priorities may have potential to improve policing. While our study serves as a foundational effort, there remains significant scope for further research to enrich our understanding. Building on the premise that understanding citizensʼ viewpoints can enhance policing strategies, further research could benefit from examining how providing additional information may change public perceptions. Moreover, this could provide insights into reasonings leading to a specific viewpoint. Additionally, there is a notable gap in research regarding the connection between policing priorities and trust—a factor frequently recognized as crucial for effective policing. However, the topic is inherently elusive. Society is rapidly changing, different problems emerge and need to be handled with varying urgency, ultimately influencing the priority of some areas over others in practice. The problem with deadly group-related violence has driven the development toward a more repressive crime policy in Sweden, and this prioritization seems to have the publicʼs support on a foundational level. The nature of policing, however, remains a complex issue.