A new survey reveals divides in how Philadelphians want the next mayor to fight crime

It’s no secret that public safety is a major concern for Philadelphians.

Following years of record-setting levels of shootings and homicides, this year’s mayoral and City Council elections have been dominated by issues of crime and policing.

A new survey by the Urban Affairs Coalition confirms that Philadelphians remain focused on safety while also showing the nuances that aren’t always reflected in the talking points heard on the campaign trail.

“It’s good to think of the psychology of the average Philadelphian as separate from the politics,” said Arun Prabhakaran, president of the Urban Affairs Coalition. “When you start to ask Philadelphians what they think, you get some really brilliant insights. The problem is we don’t really listen to Philadelphians when we think about our problems.”

Crime prevention was by far the most important issue for respondents, with 34% saying it was the most pressing issue the city should address. Between 12% and 14% of respondents ranked education, affordable housing, and jobs as the most urgent policy area.

Just over half of respondents said crime has had a “major negative impact” on their lives, and an additional 32% said it has had a “minor negative impact,” according to the results, which were based on a web survey taken by 1,002 Philadelphians.

But while the top-line findings reflect the messages carrying the day in this year’s election, there was a disconnect when it came to opinions on how the city should fight crime.

Survey respondents ranked “passing stricter gun laws,” “increasing access to mental health and drug treatment services,” and “increasing funding for schools” as the most popular crime-fighting strategies. About 58% of respondents said each of those was “extremely important.”

The least popular options were “increase police funding,” which only 28% of respondents viewed as extremely important, and “expand use of stop and frisk,” which only 23% of respondents said was extremely important.

That’s a striking finding given Democratic mayoral nominee Cherelle Parker’s promises to bolster the Police Department and expand the use of stop-and-frisk, a controversial policing tactic that has been criticized as ineffective and prone to racial discrimination.

Like almost all of her Democratic rivals, Parker supports the strategies that got the highest marks from survey respondents. But in the spring she stood out from the crowded and competitive Democratic primary field in part by advocating for the increased use of what she called “constitutional stop-and-frisk.”

Many of her opponents wanted to bulk up the ranks of the Police Department, and some gave tepid approval to stop-and-frisk. But only Parker made a habit of emphasizing her comfort with it. Even David Oh, Parker’s Republican opponent in the Nov. 7 general election, has been critical of it.

It’s unclear, however, whether the next mayor can significantly change the Police Department’s approach to stop-and-frisk because its use is strictly governed by court rulings.

Although stop-and-frisk and increasing police funding were the least popular crime-fighting strategies in the survey, they were still embraced by a majority of respondents.

Another 51% of respondents said increasing police spending was “very important” or “somewhat important,” meaning more than three-quarters of those who took the survey supported the idea.

Meanwhile, an additional 42% gave similar backing to expanding stop-and-frisk, for a total of about 65% supportive.

The survey, distributed by Urban Affairs Coalition and its partners, targeted respondents in underserved neighborhoods and those who experienced high rates of violence. It was conducted by Anavi Strategies with support from the Lenfest Institute’s Every Voice, Every Vote Initiative.

Staff writer Anna Orso contributed to this article.