V‘s-vfi-v v—v-‘vvvv‘ 1v ‘vvv- .oOW~QtO ’V9-.-~HFQOOI.VVV '0‘ a“. ' '.'O 9». - ocuoo-o COG-V. -'- ~.-.o. 0...:0 '— 9.1 o (“cc-au- 0- .Illl"| ' PREFERENCES FOR RIFFS AND ASHE _ «mm AND USES or SELECTED ITEM-S 05 ¢ A ST UDY OF MICHIGAN POUCE CH THE v'al'lll. 'D-’ I WINESTRATWE DATA . . . . . .. n .C— . . . . n 0.. . .. .. a ._‘ . 9.. ... . . . . . .o 0.. ‘0. . l A . . .. . . . . a , v. .. . . . . _... o _. _ . ..4. n _. ._. c . . . n I . . g . . . .. .. . r . o . r. . .— .. . A.. _ CAI. v . . . o . . . . . . o . n o .. . 4 . . a -_ . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . c . . .. . _ v . . . . . . . . . . . , .. 0 . . . . . .. .2 ..._.. ‘v...¢~. ‘ ‘oz -.. . c . .. ‘ ..c ..o ¢.—ao/D. ‘ ..€ .o.J.-_¢vrooo. I' r, liii1gli' _ ‘ ... ... .. 4 .. w... . .. _ _ .. .71..~ . . C _. .3 _. .,._....{.. 7.3512}; . . . .al . . o. .r o «O C. ..v. .. . _ ..-. ...o. . .. .. . .. a . o . . ' V. .. to . . I ,. . l .. .u. o. . . 2 » . .. . 1 J . o < av. . I .... ’ . . .q s .. . _ .q t .. . .. b . . . s . . r . o. .. . .. . .. . _. n . ._.. . 1 o . y. . v0 . . . _ . . < ' '. o . . 4' . . n .t ‘ . o n .. .o .. . . .o. . . . o. .. .... _ . . . . . ’ . . . . A... ..... _ . . a O r ’ . I. . . . . _ ‘ o . . . .. 2... .. . n .. - . nn.’. A . I . o. _ o . o. . . . I ... .. - on o ._ .. . . ... o. I .1 .. .. . .. . . .. . l O n .4 . . . _ 1 . o. _ .- O.IJ . ‘ o. . . _ ....o . .. .I .v... 4 .. . p, . .o'.4.o l .. .. .¢l.aOo o A - ..p .o..... v . . o, i. v. . ._ a o. .v. a l . ... ..... .o . . . . V .. . . a . .. . .._ ;.ov_ . ._ . 4 on ..0 o... A . _ o.- 1 . _. u a. . .... vv. A u . . c. n . - ..- o......f:ao.. . n . cl'v.‘ . .. .....l.ai .. .1 . . . ... . .l _ g. o... . . n . . .v .a... -. d .01'. I! I , .o.¢b..r .- . .4. .‘fou. . . , ’ v o .‘ . . c .o . a .4.. 9/.. .. ‘ . .. a .u. .44 -. .4 r . . ..¢O<. a! I.“ ’ ...I.?¢- a 2.; . . n. . .0... o- . . . .‘... .71 .0 .- . .;f v .. . A . . a. . Jo... .. . a .- .a van . I . . t . .. frqurn . A v. . — I‘v' ‘ I . o ...l.’l . _ . . v: 1‘. ‘ u . .o._ nIOf . .p:. a _ ‘. 9.07.5... I .3 I . . . v 1- . . . Jpn. . .1 . y . on . K . n.c..‘ _ . A . ..Oo.'. O l r . o..,.l . 4.. .5 . ' J in .A u . . . -v.»..v . o o 4. co‘ ..... . ..l . a... . . .v o (r. . . o ,1. .. ‘.a. . . . - . . . .. o ‘ . 4.. l 1 I _ . .. a . c . u . . .. . . o . . . . . . _ 9;. . . .c ... o . . . . . n . .a a :.c ... . n.f.. . .. o 4' 2 a. .1 . .v . . a. . c. 0 u I I ‘I . .. . . . .. o. . a . o .. 14. I .o .a ,. oc’vo‘ _. _ c _.... . ...l¢ .dc . a A . . I . .0 A . .. .r. .v . O. A,.-. . . _ ..v...).. . . ..o.,. I . . 0 9a., ...J .la y . .c..'..‘-PJ J n . .. . ¢. . .4 ...,.I ._ .I un. l.‘l..| 1 not. .5 v '0. to. . .4 0 41":.4"4. .- .... . .I y . ..:o_ll:.o..l .. . u . ._a ..D.¢ .u r. . .1... a I . 5.00.. .-n . . o .I. u . I .. .. . . .. r40. . . 17.7.- . ¢ . l.¢ . .(..-: c I. (.v . . . . . » on o . l . .1 . a .3 , c . . 1. cl _ l . . .r .. . .u ¢.. Al .. u' a . .- . o . . . . . . v . . . ‘ . . . or . I I . . . O .o . p . _ . . . .,_ . 0.. . n out/J. V. «loo-fo9tsrlflrw. .0. 9.... i. I . 31?... . v o ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MICHIGAN POLICE CHIEFS' AND SHERIFFS' PREFERENCES FOR THE CONTENT AND USES OF SELECTED ITEMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA by John Kinney Longstreth This study consists of an investigation into the types of information items which Michigan police chiefs and sheriffs most prefer about other law enforcement agencies, and into the degree of consensus which chiefs and sheriffs, in selected categories of department size, hold regarding their use of the data, Its purpose is to determine whether there are significant differences in the use of the data by departments of the various sizes, There has been some occasional comment made by small-town police chiefs to the author that less legal emphasis is placed upon the smallest-sized police and sheriff agencies, and that in some ways, their needs are different than the needs of the adminis- trators of larger departments, In an approach to answering this question, this study is designed to determine whether there are significant differences in the ways that chiefs and sheriffs, when grouped in selected categor- ies of department size, view the use of the data, and how much they "agree among themselves" regarding the various uses, John Kinney Longstreth To measure these views of the data usage, a questionnaire was developed and sent to the chief of every police and sheriffs' agency which was sent a c0py of an administrative directory in 1968, The questionnaire content was developed, in part, from the content of that 1968 directory, The hypothesis used in this study as the measure of the research was, in general, that chiefs of smaller agencies hold less consensus, as a group, regarding the use of police administrative data, than chiefs of larger departments, (Throughout this study, the term "chief" includes sheriffs as well as police chiefs,) The study indicates that the hypothesis holds true, There does tend to be less consensus among smaller department chiefs regarding their use of data, Also, there are significant differ- ences between the various categories of chiefs, in their perceived uses of the data, A STUDY OF MICHIGAN POLICE CHIEFS' AND SHERIFFS' PREFERENCES FOR THE CONTENT AND USES OF SELECTED ITEMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA By John Kinney Longstreth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1971 Approved: w ghaiw , We W I U (Member) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many persons, both present and past, have contributed to the conduct of this thesis, Although not all of them can be recogni- zed here, they are all greatly appreciated, ESpecial thanks goes to the members of my thesis committee for their guidance and understanding: Dr, Robert Trojanowicz, Mr, Lawrence Baril, and Mr, Clarence Romig, Their encouragement and interest was most helpful, Thanks also goes to Captain Robert Earhart, a valued associate, whose review and helpful criticism during the conduct of the study was most appreciated, and to Mr, Roger Steggerda, whose guidance in statistical methodology was most helpful, I wish to eXpress my deep appreciation to my mother, Mrs, Mary Kinney Longstreth, for her lifelong guidance and constant en- couragement in the paths of education, Finally, heartfelt thanks to my wife, Barbara, and my son, Christopher John, for sacrificing many hours of family activity, and for their understanding, TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABE S O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v LIST OF CHARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x CHAPTER I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Background of the Study , , , , , , , , , 3 Purpose and Importance of the Study , , , , , , , 6 Overview of the Study , II, REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 10 Availability of General Administrative Police Information for Michigan, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 10 Selected Sources of Nation-Wide Police Information, III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Statement of the Hypothesis , , , , , , , , , , , , , 39 Definition of the POpulation of the Study , , , , , , , 40 Definition of Groups Within the Population, , , , , , 41 Description of the Measurement Instrument , , , , , 43 Implementation of the Measurement Instrument, , , , , 48 Analysis of the Questionnaire ReSponse Pattern, , , , , 50 Analysis of the Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA, 0 Examination of the Hypothesis Hypothesis, 0 0 Analysis of ReSponses to Individual Questions , Listing of Data Items by Degree of Preference for Inclusion in a Future Directory , Examination of the Present Use of Summary of Chapter IV , V Structure of the Study, Summary of the Hypothesis Significant Independent Limitations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A , APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F , 0 Findings, Observations, of the Study, , CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE the 1968 Directory, RESULTS iv PAGE 61 61 62 66 84 86 89 91 91 92 92 94 96 97 99 102 108 114 116 118 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1, Items of Data Reported for Individually Listed Police Agencies in Five Selected Directory Publications, , , 25 Distribution of Departmental Size for 583 Michigan Police and Sheriffs' Agencies , , , , , , , , , , , , 42 3, Re3ponse Pattern for Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire, by Date Response was Received, , , , , 51 Number of Returned Questionnaire Forms Which Were Rejected, with Reasons for Rejection, , , , , , , , , 52 5, Number of Usable ReSponses Received, with Percent of Total Indicated for Each Category , , , , , , , , , , 53 6, Listing of the Twenty-two Items Under Section 3 of the Questionnaire Selected for variance Analysis, with Number of ReSponses Per Question , , , , , , , , 55 7, Point Values Assigned to Likert Scales for Purposes of Computing Mean and Variance Scores , , , , , , , , 59 8, Number of Responses for Each Size Category, and the Overall Mean and Overall Variance for Each Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9, F Score and F Value at the a,05 Level of Confidence for Each Combination of Two Departments , 64 vi LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE 10, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 1 Entitled "Name of Chief or Sheriff", , , , 67 11, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 2 Entitled "Business Address and Telephone Number" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 12, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 3 Entitled "Number of FUll-Time Officers , , 68 13, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 4 Entitled "Number of Part-Time Officers , , 69 14, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 5 Entitled "Number of Full-Time Officers Per 1,000 Population" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 70 15, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 6 Entitled "1970 U, S, Census P0pulation of All Areas Served by the Agency" , , , , , , , 7O 16, Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 7 Entitled "Estimated Peak Population, , , , 71 17. Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 8 Entitled "Total Police Expenditures During the Past Fiscal Year", , , , , , , , , , , , , 72 TABLE 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 23. vii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) PAGE Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 9 Entitled "Percent of Police Expendi- tures as a Part of Total Government Expenditures Last Year". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 10 Entitled "Total Number of Marked and Unmarked Police Sedans and Station Wagons Used by the Department" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 11 Entitled "Number of Patrol Vehicles on Duty at 1 p.m. WeekdayS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 12 Entitled "Number of Patrol Officers Normally on Duty at l p,m, Weekdays , , , , , , , , , 75 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 13 Entitled "Established Patrol Officer Work Week (Hours Not Counting Overtime)", , , , , , , 76 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 14 Entitled "Average Patrol Officer Work Week (Hours) Including Overtime" , TABLE 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 15 Entitled "Is the Agency Recognized as the Ambulance Service in the Community?" , , Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 16 Entitled "Is Each Individual Officer or Patrol Team Required to Maintain a Written Log of Activity While on Duty?" , , , , , , , , , , , Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 17 Entitled "Has This Agency Ever Had a Patrol or Beat Distribution Study?" , , , , , , Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 18 Entitled ”Does Department Keep a Pin Map or Other Map-Based Record of Traffic Accidents?", Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 19 Entitled "Does Department Keep a Pin Map or Other Map-Based Record of Major Crimes in the Jurisdiction?", , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 20 Entitled "Location of the LEIN Terminal Serving the Jurisdiction" , , . . . . . . . . viii PAGE 77 78 79 81 82 TABLE 30, 31, 32, 33. 34, ix LIST OF TABLES (Continued) PAGE Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 21 Entitled "Is the Felony Clearance Rate for the Department Calculated Regularly?", , , , , , 82 Variance and Mean Scores by Size of Department for Question 22 Entitled "Do Your Patrol Level Officers have an Organization or Association Which Participates in the Setting of Wages or Working Conditions?" , , 83 Listing of Directory Items, In Descending Order of Preference for Retention, with Mean Score for Each Item. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Number of ReSponses to Each Selection in Question One, Section One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Number of Re5ponses to Each Selection in Question TWO, Section One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 LIST OF CHARTS CHART PAGE 1, Graph Illustrating the Relative Points of Overall Variance, in Descending Order of Variance Score, , , , 65 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Within the broad Spectrum of law enforcement, the fields of prosecution, courts, corrections, probation and parole, the juvenile services have a much longer tradition of research than the police field, Research bases are, as a result, more firmly established in these "other-than-police" fields, In noting this situation, Bruce Olson writes: Oddly enough, a nation which for years has embraced an anti- police state ideology finds itself in the position of knowing very little about the nature and extent of the use of its local police power, In some states, for example, no one knows how many police officers are employed in local government, or for that matter, which local governments do - and do not - provide police services, Against this data vacuum, a deep-seated national apprehension about the "crime problem" often reaches an anxiety level: politicians campaign on law enforcement issues, the police report ever-increasing restraints on their activities, grocery trade associations train their members in the use of firearms, billions of dollars are Spent for social programs which are designed to reduce criminality, entire police forces threaten to strike, yet we seem to continually be plagued by the absence of reliable data with which we can evaluate current programs and plan future improvements, Two types of data can be categorized as being a part of the data vacuum - "hard data," and "soft data," "Hard data" refers to what might be called "facts," It appears often in the form of statistics 1Bruce T, Olson, Patterns of American Law Enforcement: Research §y_Questionnaire (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community DevelOpment and Services, Michigan State University, 1968) Author's Preface, 2 or statements which would normally not be Open to diSpute, "Soft data" refers to attitudes, opinions, and perceptions, Hard data must exist before soft data can be meaningfully deve10ped, compiled, and inter- preted, For example, an original census of the population (hard data) must be made before theories of population, or population projections can be deve10ped, Likewise, a legislator can not meaningfully expound upon the social implications of welfare-payment reform (soft data) unless he knows the current fiscal amounts of welfare payments and some characteristics of the welfare recipients (hard data), Hard data - or "base-line" data, as it is sometimes called - is equally important for studying police systems, or general crime situation, or any field of human activity, The police researcher, for example, must know how many police officers in the state are employed in departments of a given size category before he can fully determine the implications of proposed legislation which would require training of all officers in departments of the apprOpriate size, As indicated above, the absence of reliable data about the police is a significant problem, The writer, in the course of research for this study, learned that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administra- tion of the United States Department of Justice has conducted an un- published study which was administered through the fifty state criminal justice planning agencies, in which it can account for 14,000 police . . 2 . . . agenc1es with two or more officers, When the writer inquired about the 2Telephone conversation with Mr, Peter Silvain, L,E,A,A,, Washington, D, 0,, May 24, 1971, 3 comparison of this figure with the statement of the President's Crime Commission in 1968 that there are approximately 40,000 police agencies in the United States,3 the LEAA said it could not account for the dis- crepancy, These figures represent a discrepancy of major magnitude, BACKGROUND g THE STUDY In a Step toward alleviating the general dearth of police ad- ministrative data in Michigan, the Institute for Community Develop- ment and Services of Michigan State university was commissioned by the Michigan Commission on Crime, Delinquency, and Criminal Administration, in the fall of 1967, to compile and interpret extensive administrative information on Michigan's village, city, township and county police agencies, The main product of this "Michigan Law Enforcement Inven- tory" was a rather detailed compendium of information which was extracted from a twenty-two page, seventy-two item questionnaire, This compendium was primarily intended, however, for researchers and students of government and law enforcement, and was given very limited distribution, It was never widely publicized, A by-product of the project, which was prepared for police chiefs or administrative officers, was entitled the Michigan nggl_ggg. Enforcement Directory, 1968,4 This volume lists 1,801 of the 1,857 3President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge 9f Crime in_a_Free Society, (Washington, D, C,: U, S, Government Printing Office, 1967), p, 91, Institute for Community Deve10pment and Services, Michigan State University, Michigan Locgl_Law Enforcement Directory, 1968, (East Lansing, MiChigan: Michigan State University, 1968), 4 county or local jurisdictions in Michigan (in 1968), which answered a "pre-listing" questionnaire; it reports whether each such juris- diction financially supports a police or sheriff's department, and presents a total of twenty-five columns of selected data on (1) agency identification and address, (2) Staffing data, (3) fiscal expenditures, and (4) governmental tax factors, A sample format of the Directory appears in this thesis as Appendix A, Having the view that a field of "base-line" or hard data regarding the police is a mandatory need, the writer was surprised to hear (in the summer of 1969) a member of the staff of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice state: "There is no need for that (Directory) data--there is no demand for the books," This aroused the thought of the writer, Although the Commission did not sell a great number of the Directories after the initial comple- mentary mailing was made, this fact does not necessarily mean that there is no need for this type of data, A directory of this type, when imaginatively used, can have a number of helpful and very valid uses for police administrators, con- sultants, government officials, students and researchers, There may be some truth, however, to the aforementioned staff member's observations, that there has been "no demand," (or at least a limited demand) for the books by the intended consumers - the police chiefs of Michigan, From his work on the Inventory project, the writer recalls that only a mini- mum of work was done to determine the types of administrative data which chiefs and sheriffs themselves would most prefer in such a Directory, (The items in the Directory were selected, for the most part, by members of the Institute for Community Development staff, assisted by the Crime Commission Staff,) The question can be raised, therefore, whether the perceived administrative data preferences of local police chiefs of departments of various sizes may differ, There is, indeed, the possibility that many chiefs do not recognize the diagnostic informational value of such a Directory, Perhaps many chiefs perceive these data as helpful to some police chiefs, but not to all chiefs, Furthermore, the question arises, "Do Michigan's police chiefs Speak in agreement as to which items of basic administrative data they prefer or reject?" If they agree on their basic administrative needs, then these needs (as they are perceived by the chiefs themselves) could be met in a Single directory, If there is great diversity regarding the data items they feel most helpful, then the production of no relatively small desk reference book - or directory - could be widely accepted by the chiefs, Each of these questions can be related to the two following pragmatic questions: (1) Which items in the Directory would local chiefs like to have included or excluded in a similar, future directory? (2) What uses do chiefs see for items listed in the Directory? Both of these questions should be of great interest to the Student of police administration, Both should serve to assist in the development of more useful data for police chiefs, 6 One further comment Should be made at this point, It was noted above that two general bodies of data were produced aS a result of the Michigan Law Enforcement Inventory project: The unpublished general compendium of information for the researcher or advanced student of governmental or police systems, and the "Directory," intended Specifi- cally for local police chiefs and sheriffs, This latter publication was produced under the assumption that the local chiefs have a different point of perSpective than researchers, and would have dif- ferent needs and uses for data, Indeed, in the author's experience, he has participated in discussions wherein chiefs of police agencies stated they often felt they were "forgotten men," They, in some cases felt that general information which was available tended to be designed for the general researcher but was not useful in helping the local chief "run his department," These general statements, whether or not they are valid, do raise the question of whether or not the data needs of local police chiefs, as Opposed to disciplined students and observers of police affairs, are being met, PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE Q§_THE STUDY The purpose of this study will be twofold, The first purpose is to determine which selected items of information in the Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 19685 are preferred for retention or Ibid, rejection in a future updated version of the Directory, by chiefs of police agencies (which are placed within selected categories based upon numbers of sworn officers per department), The second purpose is to determine the relative degrees of consensus with which police chiefs, within selected categories of department size, perceive the degree of usefulness of selected items listed in the Directory, It is around this second purpose that the major emphasis of this study is placed, and around which the hypothesis is deve10ped, This point of departure for the thesis begins with the view that the most basic form of hard data (which can serve as the source for the conduct of many broad areas of research as well as a basis for management decision-making) is the "directory" or compilation of primary "working facts" about individual organizational entities - in this case, police departments, The "Directory" holds the same basic position as does a listing of the enumeration of the population, with related facts about individuals, in the entire field of demography, The importance of the study relates to two concerns, The first is that of the "need to know," The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice reported in 1967 that "Of the many needs of law enforcement and the administration of justice,,, the greatest need is the need to know," Also, on the subject of crime, "There is probably no subject of comparable concern to which the Nation is devoting so many resources and so much effort with so little knowledge of what it is doing,"6 6President's Commission, 0p, cit,, p, 273, 8 This study would contribute by identifying selected information items which Michigan police chiefs and sheriffs state they want or do not want, The second area of concern is that of determining whether the chiefs of various sizes of police departments (as defined by the number of sworn officers in the reSpective departments) view their information needs and usages with a "common eye" or whether there are significant differences in these information needs and uses, The writer has been unable to locate past research regarding the relative administrative qualities or characteristics of police chiefs when categorized by size of department, yet this is viewed as a valid field for research, When related to information needs, it is highly desirable to know whether a Directory is meeting the needs of small departments and large departments alike, or varies in degrees of usefulness, As a theoretical point, could it be possible that the general field of police management theory has devoted itself to larger police agencies, but excluded smaller agencies? That is a question much larger than this thesis will explore, Our concern here is limited to basic information needs of police departments of varying Sizes, OVERVIEW 9: THE STUDY The first chapter of this study concerns itself with describing the background events which "set the stage" for this work, discusses the limitation of the study to the exploration of basic "hard data" on individual police agencies, and gives the purposes of this study: 9 determination of chiefs' and sheriffs' preferences for data-items in Michigan ng§l_Law Enforcement Directory, 1968,7 and determination of the degrees of concensus with which chiefs, grouped by department Size, perceive the usefulness of the data, Chapter two is a review of the items of basic hard data which are available to Michigan police agencies, A comparison of published information items is made concerning Michigan information as well as selected publications of nation-wide statistics on individual police departments, Chapter three describes the methodology of the study, including a description of the categories of departments, a description of the measurement instrument and its implementation, and the method of analysis of the questionnaire results, Chapter four is concerned with the examination of the hypothesis, the analysis of the data, the listing of the data items by degree of preference and perceived usefulness, and an examination of the present use of the 1968 "Directory," Chapter five discusses the implications of the study results, presents significant findings, and reviews results, Institute for Community Development and Services, op, cit, CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AVAILABILITY OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POLICE INFORMATION FOR MICHIGAN The accessability of "hard data" on individual police agencies in Michigan has been rather difficult for the police practitioner or the observer, for this study found only one publication with such information, In fact, a simple listing of all_police and Sheriff's departments in the state is believed to have been non-existent until the Michigan Law Enforcement Inventory was conducted in 1967 by the Institute for Community Development and Services at Michigan State University for the Michigan Commission on Crime, Delinquency, and Criminal Administration, This Study was the most comprehensive ever conducted regarding Michigan police and sheriffs' agencies, In this research effort, which utilized questionnaires, information was received from 1,801 of the 1,857 governmental units in the state (at that time) which gave indication of whether each such unit supported a police agency with at least one paid part-time or full-time officer, Of these 1,801 reSpondents, 773 governments reported having a police agency and furnished information on their reSpective agencies, 1Institute for Community Development and Services, Nfichigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 1968 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968) p, 99, 11 This is a greater number of individual police departments than had been thought to exist, Col, Frederick Davids, former Director of the Michigan Department of State Police, stated that a total estimate of 600 agencies was commonly used,2 0f the 773 agencies reported, 509 reported having at least one full-time officer, and the remaining 264 agencies had part-time officers only, Undoubtedly part of the difficulty in listing and enumerating all police agencies in Michigan lies in the definition of a police agency, The Michigan State Police, which is by law the central repository of crime statistics for the state, maintains a list of "agencies of record," or agencies which submit any type of record (criminal or traffic record) to the Department Records Division, within any one year period,3 Under this system a number of agencies are ex- cluded from the State Police listing because (1) they may submit their reports through another law enforcement agency, such as a village department whose officers are sworn by the county sheriff as well as by the village, and who submit their reports as deputy sheriffs rather than as village officers, or, (2) they may be small agencies which have a local policy of handling only local informal complaints, and who always call the State Police or the county Sheriff to take official reports on any incidents requiring such reports, 2Personal interview with Col, Frederick E, Davids, Michigan State Police, East Lansing, Michigan, March 18, 1968, 3Personal interview with Capt, Glen Dafoe, Michigan State Police, East Lansing, Michigan, January, 1971, 12 In either case, these departments may not be listed by the State Police, Where the State Police discover, however, that an agency does exist, even though it reports through another agency, it does keep the orig- inating agency listed, At present the Department of State Police lists approximately 515 "police departments of record,"4 The items of information provided about each reported police and sheriff's agency in the Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 1268; include (1) name of the governmental jurisdiction; (2) the name of the head of the police agency; (3) the "common name" of the agency, such as sheriff's department, police department, or traffic department; (4) the post office and zip code; (5) the telephone area code and local number; (6) the p0pulation of the jurisdiction; (7) the number of full-time, part-time, and on-call officers by category; (8) the total number of officers (combined categories); (9) the ratio of full-time to part-time officers and part-time to on-call officers; (10) the number of full-time officers per 1,000 p0pulation; (11) the number of constables for the jurisdiction; (12) the role of the constables; (13) the total governmental budget for the fiscal year last ending before July 1, 1967; (14) the total police expenditures Personal interview with Mr, George Lipscomb, Data Processing Section, Michigan State Police, East Lansing, MiChigan, June 9, 1971, 5Institute for Community Development, Ibid, 13 for the same fiscal year; (15) the percent of police costs to govern- ment costs; (16) police costs per capita; (17) police costs per full- time officer; (18) police costs per part-time officers; (19) state equalized valuation for the jurisdiction; (20) the state equalized valuation per full-time officers; and (21) the equivalent police tax rate in mills, The Michigan Department of the Treasury, Local Audit Division compiles fiscal information yearly on each governmental unit in the State, In the annual financial report on county governments, the Treasury Department publishes for each county (1) the total govern- mental expenditure, (2) the total expenditure for public safety activities, (3) the salary of the sheriff, and (4) the salary of the prosecuting attorney, In the past, official fiscal audit reports submitted to the Department of the Treasury by local villages, cities, and townships, have not included a separate category for police services, therefore, no fiscal information regarding police services is available from that source, However, under Act No, 2 of the (Michigan) Public Acts of 1968, all municipalities of 2,000 pOpulation or greater will be required to submit fiscal information, including a separate listing of police expenditures, to the Department annually, beginning with 6State of Michigan, Michigan County Government Financial Report for the Year Ending December 31; 1969, (Lansing, Michigan: State of Michigan, 1970) pp, 16-18, 14 the fiscal year 1971-1972, All municipalities of less than 2,000 population will submit similar financial reports on a biennial basis,7 These sources of fiscal information will, without doubt, be helpful to interested students and administrators in the future, The most recent Michigan County Government Financial Report which is available is that for the year ending December 31, 1969, It appears unlikely that the State of Michigan will publish a corres- ponding volume for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1970, due to the current "austerity budget" under which the State of Michigan is Operating, The information for the volume has been compiled, however, and is available upon request,8 One further compilation of information applying to Michigan should be mentioned here, although the results of the compilation are not published for general distribution, Each year, the Michigan Sheriffs' Association assembles general information from its member- ship regarding the various sheriffs' departments, One hundred per- cent of the sheriffs in Michigan are members, therefore, information requests go to every sheriff, Although data are not published for distribution, Specific requests for information on sheriff depart- ments may be sent to the Association for reSponse, 7Telephonic interview with Mr, Emil Tahvonen, Deputy Director, Michigan Department of the Treasury, June 2, 1971, 8Ibid, 9Personal interview with Mr, Jack Foster, Executive Director, Michigan Sheriffs' Association, Lansing, Michigan, April 27, 1971, 15 These three sources comprise the general extent of base-line information which is prepared eXpressly about individual Michigan police and sheriffs agencies, There are, however, five additional publications, nation-wide in scope, which are designed to provide general information about individually-listed agencies, These will be discussed in the following section, SELECTED SOURCES 9E_NATION-WIDE POLICE INFORMATION This section will describe five publications, nation-wide in scope, which are regularly published to provide basic administrative data on individual police and Sheriffs' agencies, Four of the five include data regarding some Michigan agencies, however all five are included here to assist in reviewing the types of information which have been included in what this study views as "directory information" or hard data on current, Operating police and sheriff's agencies, Following the description of each of these five publications, a comparison table will be presented to assist the reader in evaluating the types of data content which the various authors have included in their publications, The first nation-wide directory to be discussed is published by the State and Provincial Police Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Comparative Data Report, 197010 0International Association of Chiefs of Police, Comparative Data Report, 1970, (Washington, D, C,: I,A,C,P,, 1970), 16 includes the most comprehensive data format of all publications review- ed under this study, although it reports only on the forty-nine state police and highway patrol organizations in the United States (Hawaii has no state police agency), as well as the two Canadian Provinces with provincial police agencies - Ontario and Manitoba, No information on city police or county Sheriffs' agencies is given, nor does the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) publish such information, The Forward of the volume States that In 1970 the International Association of Chiefs of Police celebrated its 77th Anniversary, In 1893, when the Association was formed, one of the most compelling reasons for its formation was the realization that a mutual exchange of in- formation relative to police management and administration was essential, The IACP Constitution singled out the pro- motion of information-gathering and exchange as one of the chief purposes of the Association, The 1970 Comparative Data Report is an excellent example of our continuing ded- ication to this purpose, In this Statement, the Association strongly recognized the value and importance of information gathering and exchange, The content of the data tables is grouped into four categories: Administration, Operations, Services, and Information Services, The sc0pe of basic information provided in the volume for each stmxa can be appreciated by reviewing the sub-categories of content, 11Ibid, P. iii, 17 Under the section on "Administration," the volume gives data on highway safety legislation; organizational structure; budget; per- sonnel; personnel selection criteria; job benefits; recruitment; State law enforcement planning agencies; police employee organizations; and a miscellaneous category which includes driver's license point data, anti-pollution law enforcement, and the policy toward officers from an outside state carrying firearms in the reSpondent's State, Under the section on "Operation," information is reported on organizational functions; motor vehicles and equipment; driver licensing; aircraft types, usage and costs; training; field operations; and traffic statistics, The "Services" section provides data on records; organizational services; manpower allocation; planning and research; inSpections; crime laboratory facilities and services; internal affairs; intel- ligence units; narcotics and dangerous drug divisions; and youth divisions, The section on "Information Systems" has sub-categories on internal directives; data processing; data types; and a miscellaneous category including types of management data programs, presence of and participation in regional information systems within the state and participation in national information systems, A more detailed outline of data items for this publication, as well as other publications described below, will be found in Table 1, beginning on page 25, 18 The second of the five nation-wide publications being dis- cussed here is the 1970 Survey 2f Municipal Police Departments which is conducted annually by the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department,12 This survey, which was begun in 1951, eminated from a perceived need by the Department for working administrative data about other police agencies which served pOpulations approximately the same as Kansas City, For this reason, the survey includes only police agencies which serve populations of 300,000 to 1,000,000 according to the latest United States Census, The Department originally needed base data to make a number of police workload and salary correlations with other agencies, because no Similar data was available,13 In justifying the need and expense for compiling the body of information, Lt, Col, James Newman stated: Not only do we use the data as a partial basis for numerous studies we conduct regarding police activities, we find that the other departments now find the data in- valuable for their own research purposes, This is shown by the fact that we have consistently had 100% participation of the 37 police departments over the past few years,1 He further stated that he knows of no other source of similar infor- mation which has been deve10ped which his department could utilize, 12Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, "1970 Survey of Municipal Police Departments" (lithographed chart, with notations, Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, 1970), 3Personal interview with Lt, Col, James Newman, Kansas City Police Department, Kansas City, Missouri, December 1, 1969, 14Ibid, 19 The Kansas City survey does not include any Michigan police agency, for no Michigan city falls within the population range of 300,000 to 1,000,000 (1960 United States Census), The general classifications of data reported through this sur- vey include population and square miles of coverage; budget data; numbers of employees; employee numbers per 1,000 inhabitants; salary figures by rank; compensation (to officers) for uniform and firearms cost; retirement and death benefits; Sick leave and health care pro- visions; vehicle fleet numbers and maintenance arrangements; helic0pter data; computer types and usages; numbers of patrol vehicles and officers on-duty by shift; number of traffic units by shift; compen- sation arrangements for court time and overtime; vacation benefits; educational requirements; college incentive pay; characteristics of promotional policy; and time-in-grade requirements for eligibility for promotion, This survey presents the most comprehensive collection of data for municipal departments which this study finds to be available, The third body of data is compiled by the International City Management Association, In its Municipal Yearbook, 1970,15 a com— pendium of a great variety of statistics and reports regarding munic- ipal affairs, police statistics are included, with particular regard, 5International City Managers' Association, The Municipal Yearbook, 1970 (Washington, D, C,: I,C,M,A,, 1970), 20 in the 1970 edition, to statistics regarding minority group employ- ment by the police, and other data on police-community relations programs, This publication, which was originated in 1951 presents police data only for cities over 10,000 population, Data is supplied pre- dominantly by municipal officers and state municipal league directors, This publication should be eSpecially useful to the Michigan police community, for of the 974 cities with listed police information, 78 are from Michigan, Two groups of data are presented in the volume; individual city data, and grouped data, The information items regarding individual city police agencies are: the name of the police chief; number of full-time uniform personnel per 1,000 population; number of civilian personnel per 1,000 pOpulation; hours worked per week; total number of employees; number of minority group members employed (both uniform and civilian); the percent of the pOpulation served by the juris- diction which is non-white; the number of hours of police-community relations training; the number of total employees who had received police-community relations training; and the percent of the time (Z of 24 hour day) during which at least one member of the police- community relations unit is on duty, Grouped data about police departments (serving pOpulations of 10,000 or more) includes police chiefs' salaries; total personnel salary payments; total personnel expenditures; longevity pay data; salary trends; police salary by rank; indications whether 21 police-community relations programs are at least partially supported by federal funds; listing of ranks of officers in charge of police- community relations functions if there is no Special unit; and the time devoted to police-community relations by the individual reSponsible for the program, The Forward of the Yearbook notes that emphasis upon a given area of interest may be made for one publication only, The point of emphasis for 1970 is that of police-community relations, hence similar data will not appear in Yearbooks of other years, Also noted was the statement that emphasis in previous years to subjects involving police activity was "The Police and Human Relations" in 1965; "Police Train- ing for Crowd Control" in 1966; and "Police Preparedness for Civil Disorders" in 1969,16 The fourth publication listed here is the annual "Survey of Salaries and Working Conditions of the Police Departments in the United States," prepared and published by the Fraternal Order of Police,17 This publication lists approximately 1,500 police and Sheriffs' agencies in the United States, grouped by population size category, These categories range from "Population over 1,000,000" to "Population under 10,000," 0f the data sources being reported in this study, this publication concerns itself with the greatest number of agencies, 16Ibid,, Forward, 17Fraternal Order of Police, "A Survey of 1967 Salaries and Working Conditions of the Police Departments in the United States," (lithographed charts, Fraternal Order of Police, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967), 22 Data items reported are: salaries by rank; whether or not longevity pay is granted; number of officers on the department; stand- ard work-week (hours); number of annual vacation days granted; whether or not overtime compensation is granted; number of paid holidays; annual clothing allowance; percent of hOSpitalization premiums which are paid by department; number of annual sick days; basis for deter- mining pension payments; age required for pension; and the minimum years of service required for pension, The fifth data source is the Uniform Crime Reports for 1969, entitled Qgimg_i2_the United States,18 This publication, which is prepared annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is well known for its presentation of grouped crime and arrest Statistics for Part I Crimes: murder and non-negligent man-slaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny over $50, and auto theft, Additional data which are presented yearly, and which fall into the category of administrative base-line data for individual departments include the following items for State police and state highway patrol agencies; number of sworn officers, number of civilian employees, number of police officers killed, miles of primary highway per police officer; and state motor vehicle registrations per police officer, 18U, S, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover), Crime $3 the United States, uniform Crime Reports - 1969, (Washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, 1970, 23 Items listed for individual city police agencies include the total number of police department employees, with a sub-category of the numbers of officers and civilian employees for cities of 25,000 pOpulation or greater; and a single statistic of number of police employees for cities under 25,000 population, This latter category includes a number of listings of departments with as small as one employee, The listings are not complete, however, for they exclude many agencies appearing in the Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory 1968,19 Table 1 which appears below, presents the data items which are published for individual police agencies in the five publications described in this chapter, This table is organized in four sections; administration, Operations, services, and information systems, By the use of a matrix, each listed data item is correlated with each publication which presents the item, It should be noted that a series of correlation marks for any one Specific data item does not necessarily mean a duplication of data occurs, for the actual departments represented in the various publications will differ, The agencies reported in the IACP Compara- tive Data Report are state-level agencies only, The Kansas City survey represents only thirty-seven agencies, The array of agencies 19Institute for Community Deve10pment, Ibid, 24 listed in the other three publications is quite diverse, The table is presented to assist the reader in his review of the types of items which the various editors and compilers had deemed worthy of publi- cation - as manifest by the fact the items actually are published, The table assists in an overview of the frequency with which indi- vidual items are repeated, A brief summary of content follows the table, It should further be noted that in compiling the data items from the five sources, the author combined like-categories under a single heading where deemed apprOpriate, For example, when salary figures for eight separate full-time police personnel ranks were listed in the original document, these were combined into a Single listing of "salary of full-time police personnel by rank," In similar form, a number of individual health insurance items were placed under the heading of "health plan benefit Specifications," In Table 1, an asterisk (*) by a correlation mark indicates that information is grouped rather than reported for individual agencies in the original document, TABLE 1 TABLE OF ITEMS OF DATA REPORTED FOR INDIVIDUALLY LISTED POLICE AGENCIES IN FIVE SELECTED DIRECTORY PUBLICATIONS Column Key: 1 - IACP Comparative Data Report, 1970 2 - Kansas City, Missouri Survey of Municipal Police Departments 3 - Municipal Yearbook, 1970 4 - Fraternal Order of Police Salary Survey, 1967 5 - Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, 1969 Information Item 1 2 3 4 5 ADMINISTRATION Identity of department x x x x x Name of police chief x x Indication whether agency is part of a larger department x Title of larger department x Population of area served x x Percent of pOpulation served which is non-white x Number of stations Operated by the department x x Span of control for Specified levels of personnel x Does department have state-wide police authority? x TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item Current annual budget Total budget per capita Coverage period of annual budget Total salary budget Percent of budget expended for personnel Percent of budget expended for janitor service Percent of budget expended for police tranSportation Capital outlay for police Total number of employees authorized Total present full-time officers Total present part-time officers Total present full-time employees Total present part-time employees Number of personnel in operational auxiliary force Number of minority group members employed Present strength of full-time police personnel by rank Salary of police chief Salary of beginning patrolman Salary of full-time police personnel by rank TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item Present employees per square mile Authorized employees per 1,000 population Present employees per 1,000 population Normal work day Normal work week (hours) Is longevity pay in effect? Holidays per year (number of) Vacation days earned per year (number of) Maximum sick leave per year Average number of sick days taken per officer per year Education requirements College incentive pay provisions Number of personnel separated from active duty Percent of manpower turnover Characteristics of promotional policy Number of police officers killed or injured in the line of duty Assaults on police officers Time expenditure percentages by function Amount of time expenditure in court X* X* TABLE 1 (Continued) m Information Item 1 28 Method of court time compensation Method of overtime compensation Listing of personnel selection criteria x Is overtime compensation paid? Resume of highway safety legislation status in state x Amount of annual clothing allowance Uniform issuance conditions x Firearm issuance conditions Health plan benefit Specifications x Pension provision x Death benefit provisions Retirement contributions x Retirement provisions Type of agency reSponsible for recruitment x Number of applicants per year x Title of State planning agency x ** Organizational authority for SPA x Location of SPA within state government x SPA is an abbreviation for State Planning Agency TABLE 1 (Continued) 29 Information Item Number of members on SPA Advisory Board Number of personnel on state law enforcement planning agency staff Number of personnel on state planning agency Staff Total planning grant from LEAA Method of making planning funds available to local jurisdictions Requirements for local jurisdictions to receive grants Are police-community relation's pro- grams supported by federal funds? Does department have an employee organization? Membership of employee organization OPERATIONS Listing of primary operational functions of department Number of patrol cars per shift Number of accident investigation cars per shift Regular areas of patrol (types of roads - U,S,, interstate, etc,) Square miles of area served Number of vehicles in agency motor fleet x'k TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item Motor fleet maintenance performed by whom? Operational cost per mile Number of accidents Does agency have vehicle air conditioning? Percent of fleet with police marking Listing of routine equipment for patrol vehicles Color of vehicle emergency lights Method of patrol shift (rotation) personnel assignment If shift is fixed, what is method for determining officer shift assignment? Number of offenses known to police Total crime index Vehicle replacement criteria Total vehicle miles Types of aircraft in police Operations Types of heliCOpters in police operations Types of aircraft missions Number of aircraft (including helic0pters) Time and cost of aircraft use 31 TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item 1 2 3 4 5 Deployment of aircraft x Number and status of pilots x Title of person responsible for training x Rank of person reSponsible for police- community relations unit x* Time devoted to police-community relations activity by person in charge of the program x* Title of person to whom training director reports x Training budget for current fiscal year x Ranks included in training staff x Listing of types of training conducted x Listing of groups or ranks which receive training x Department recruit training school is Operated by: (name of organization) x Recruit hours of training devoted to: classroom work x Recruit hours of training devoted to: police-community relations x Recruit hours of training devoted to: field training x Length of time recruits assigned to field training officer x TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item 1 32 Percent of all sworn personnel who received police-community relations training Are training services and programs provided for other agencies by your department x Does department have a formal system to determine training needs x Number of beats per shift Number of men assigned to selected Operational areas x Does department have latent print examiners x Does department have a central latent print examination unit x Number of composite drawings by type used by department x Type of field procedure manual used x Is department reSponsible for criminal investigation in rural areas x Is department criminal investigation authority equal to that of county sheriff X Does agency assist local or municipal police upon request x Organizational unit making diSpositionS of complaints regarding officer conduct x Supervision ratio criteria x TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item Listing of general traffic accidents and licensing statistics Listing of interstate agreements SERVICES Does department have centralized record system Number of personnel assigned to records unit Vehicle inSpection records maintained by agency Vehicle insurance furnished by whom Types of records included in records division organizational structure Forms of identification which agency routinely keeps Listing of data reporting programs in which department participates Title of state/provincial agency reSponsible for collecting and pro- cessing accident data Does department operate civilian "courtesy" patrols Status of contract services for local agencies Does department conduct manpower a1- location and deployment studies Types of manpower allocation and deployment studies TABLE 1.(Continued) Information Item Does agency have a Special planning and research unit or division within department Number of personnel assigned to planning and research Type of internal inSpections Method of transmittal of internal inSpection results Assistance to local police, by type Agency providing crime lab service, (police or other agency) Is contract crime lab work performed, for other agencies Types of crime laboratory services performed Annual case load of crime lab Mobil evidence technicians per shift, number of Number of crime lab personnel Does agency have organized internal affairs unit Number of personnel assigned to internal affairs Number of personnel assigned to police-community relations Does agency investigate complaints against other police agencies Intelligence unit, number of personnel TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item Narcotics and dangerous drug division, number of personnel Youth division: number of personnel Youth division: rank of commanding officer Police-community relations unit: per- cent of time an officer is on duty Does juvenile unit conduct all investigations involving juveniles Is police-community relations training mandated by the state Minimum driver licensing age Status of driver licensing legisla- tion in selected areas of concern Age at which offender is considered an adult INFORMATION SYSTEMS Internal directive System: classifi- cation of directives Internal directive system: distri- bution of general orders Data processing: computer model and type Date of computer installation Data processing: controlling agency Is computer totally for police use or is it shared 36 TABLE 1 (Continued) Information Item 1 2 3 4 5 Data processing personnel, number of x x Listing of data types by data processing unit x x Listing of national communications systems which agency utilizes x Basic reporting area for computer purposes x Is computer interfaced with other law enforcement agencies x *Indicates grouped data is reported, rather than data for individual agencies, 37 In reviewing the 177 items listed in Table 1 only one item (other than the identity of the department) appears in all five publi- cations: total of full-time officers, Two items appear in four of the sources: total full-time employees (officers and civilians combined) and the number of hours in the normal work week, Seven items appear in three publications: current annual budget, present strength (number of employees) by rank, salaries of full-time personnel by rank, number of holidays per year, health plan benefit Specifications, pension plan Specifications, and the percent of the annual budget which is expended for personnel, These categories Show that data regarding personnel matters (personnel numbers, compensation and working hours) are the most com- mon items reported, Budget figures are the next most common, The diversity of category headings indicates a great Splinter- ing of items that appear once or more, This prevents a great deal of "pooling of information" in two or more publications in any given area of interest, and Speaks to a need for a basic body of standardized information which could be compiled in various studies and data- collection efforts, Accurate cross-referencing of separate directory publications could then be made, and data combined when helpful, This should be considered a basic step in the deve10pment of disciplined, well-defined police administrative information systems, CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY It has been noted in the previous chapters that this study begins with the position that a dearth of administrative information, available to police administrators and students of law enforcement, exists today in Michigan and throughout the United States, Such information is a basic part of any develOping field of theory and practice - a position in which law enforcement exists today, As the need for base-data increases, it is incumbent upon police practi- tioners and students to develOp basic data systems which will most effectively serve as a catalyst for further research, The realistic definition of data needs on the part of both practitioner and student must be made, To date, this has not been done, As was observed in Table l, the types of information which are compiled are generally quite diverse, In approaching the determination of basic data needs, as an area of disciplined research, the question is raised whether the data needs of smaller police departments differ significantly from the data needs of larger departments, If there is a significant difference, then the developer of data should know his various "consumers," An error in sound data develOpment would be made, for example, if a completed directory of police data were published which small departments found very useful, but which larger departments could not use, This forms the background for this thesis, 39 The purpose of the thesis, as stated in Cahpter I, is two- fold, The first is to determine which selected items of information in the Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 19681 are preferred for retention or rejection in a future directory, The second purpose is to determine the relative degrees of concensus with which police chiefs, within selected categories of department size, perceive the degree of usefullness of selected items of information, most of which were listed in the "Directory," It is around this second pur- pose that the major emphasis of this study is placed, and around which the hypothesis is deve10ped, STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS The formation of the hypothesis is based upon the author's contacts over the past ten years with police officers, including his experience as a major participant in the 1968 Michigan Local Law Enforcement Inventory Project, It is posited that police chiefs of larger police agencies are required to face and deal with a greater variety and complexity of administrative problems than chiefs of smaller departments, and that the larger department chiefs have acquired, through various means and experiences, a more common body of administrative methods 1Institute for Community Development and Services, Midhigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 1968, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968), 40 and skills than comparative methods and skills shared by chiefs of smaller departments, Therefore it is hypothesized: Chiefs of larger sized departments will evaluate the degree of usefulness of various selected items in the "Directory" with greater concensus than will chiefs of smaller sized departments, A, Assumptions 1, It is assumed that chiefs of the various depart- ments will know what types of data are most useful to them, in their local situations, , All municipal police agencies falling within any one selected category of pOpulation classification will have similar municipal and organizational benefits and constraints which affect the needs for administrative data, and the uses of such data, 3, All administrators of police agencies falling within any one selected category of population classification will have similar data needs and potential uses for data, as manifest through their common local situation, DEFINITION QE_THE POPULATION OF THE STUDY The population of this study was established as the police chief (or his designated representative who was delegated to complete the instrument) of each of the 583 police agencies which were mailed 41 complementary copies of the 1968 ”Directory” by the Michigan Commis- sion on Crime, Delinquency, and Criminal Administration, Departments ' were excluded in order to ensure which were not mailed a ”Directory' that only those departments which received a c0py, and which, there- fore, have had an opportunity to use it, would respond to this study, It was held that police agencies which had the Opportunity in the past to use such an information source should have a more valid perSpective for indicating data preferences and actual usages of the data, These 583 police agencies represented agencies within the full Spectrum of department size, as is outlined below, DEFINITION OF‘GROUPS WITHIN THE POPULATION It was determined that categories would be based upon the number of sworn officers in each department, There is no current in- formation which could be located on the numbers of departments within Specified categories of department size (based upon the number of officers per department), It is known that the number of officers within a department will often fluctuate during a given time period due to the addition or separation of officers, Guidance was received from a distribution chart of the sizes of 583 departments included in the population of this study, which was compiled in the summer of 1967, The data, therefore, are four 42 years old, Table 2, presented below is extrapolated from data taken during the Law Enforcement Inventory, TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF DEPARTMENTAL SIZE FOR 583 MICHIGAN POLICE AND SHERIFFS' AGENCIES (COMPRISING THE THESIS POPULATION) Compiled Summer, 1967 1 fl , Number of Percentage Size 0f Department Departments of Total All Part-Time (meaning no full-time officer) 125 21,44 Full-Time 1 member 95 16,29 2-5 members 143 24,53 6-20 members 125 21,44 Over 20 members 95 . 16.29 TOTAL 583 100.00 Table 2 indicates that the greatest size category is the 2 to 5 member category, with 24.53% of the total, and the 6 to 20 category includes 125 departments, or 21,441, In an effort to equalize these two categories, the deliniation was changed to classes of 2 to 3 and 2Bruce Olson, An Introduction £9 the Michigan Law Enforcement Inventory, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968) p. 25. 43 4 to 20 members, for purposes of this Study, It was arbitrarily determined that the tOp limit of the 6 to 20 category should not be raised for equalization purposes, The resulting department size categories for purposes of this study were established at: I, All part-time (meaning no full-time officer) II 1 full-time member III 2 to 3 full-time members IV, 4 to 20 full-time members V, Over 20 full-time members DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT The questionnaire method of data compilation was determined to be the most feasible, due to the number of departments included in the pOpulation, In order to encourage the completion of a question- naire by the greatest number of departments, the decision was made to mail the questionnaires to each present chief of the departments, but not to stipulate, in the instructions, that the chief himself com- plete the form, It was believed that if a chief wished to assign the form to a staff member for completion, there was a greater likelihood that form would be returned, than if the chief was asked Egg to reassign the form, In effect, then, the reSponse should be considered a reSponse from the department rather than from a chief, It is assumed that a department reflects the policies and views of the chief, 44 In order to accurately determine the proper size category of each reSponding department, a series of labeled check boxes was pro- vided at the beginning of the questionnaire form, The reSpondent was asked to check the box which described the membership number of his agency, The questionnaire was developed in three sections, each of which lends insight into the usage of the "Directory," The first section inquires whether the agency received a c0py of the 1968 ' and if so how recently the book has been used, Because "Directory,' it is known that each department receiving the questionnaire was mailed a copy of the "Directory" in 1968, this question serves as a check to ' and to determine how many agencies still have their "Directories,' ascertain the degree of use, The second section lists twenty-two items of selected data which were gathered from the 1968 "Directory" from questions which the author believes to be pertinent and useful for police agencies, stemming from consultation with faculty members of the School of Crim- inal Justice, Michigan State University, These selected items should not be construed as representing a complete format for a future directory, They are designed to be representative, The twenty-two selected items of data, with the correSponding number on the questionnaire, are: 1, Name of chief or sheriff 2 Business address and telephone number 3, Number of full-time officers 10, ll 12, 13. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 45 Number of part-time officers Number of full-time officers per 1,000 pOpulation 1970 U, S, Census population of all areas served by agency Estimated PEAK population (the greatest number of peOple in the jurisdiction at any one time) Total police expenditures during the past fiscal year Percent of police expenditures, as a part of total government expenditures last year Total number of marked and unmarked police sedans and station wagons used by the department Number of patrol vehicles on-duty at 1 p,m, weekdays Number of patrol officers normally on duty at l p,m, weekdays Established patrol officer work week (hours) NOT counting overtime Average patrol officer work week (hours) including over- time Is this agency recognized as the ambulance service in the community Is each individual officer or patrol team required to maintain a written log of activity while on duty Has this agency ever had a patrol or beat distribution study Does department keep a pin map or other map-based record of traffic accidents Does department keep a pin map or other map-based record of major crimes in the jurisdiction Location of the LEIN terminal serving the jurisdiction Is the felony clearance rate* for the department calcu- lated regularly? (*Ratio of felonies reported to felonies cleared by arrest,) 46 22, Do your patrol-level officers have an organization or association which participates in the setting of wages or working conditions With each item in the second section, an example of the directory information item is given to assist the reSpondent in accurately understanding the item heading, On the same horizontal "yes" and one marked "no," enabled line, two check boxes, one marked the reSpondent to indicate for each item whether or not he would like the item included in the next directory, In analyzing the results of this section a value of "l" was assigned each " yes" answer and a "2" value was assigned to each "no" answer, By tabulating the mean value for each of the twenty-two items, an array of items, listed in ascending order beginning with the lowest mean score (which was the most positive score), enabled a rank order listing of items by degree of grouped positive response, The third section of the questionnaire was designed to Speak to the hypothesis as stated in this study, In order to determine the degree of consensus with which police chiefs (or their designated representatives) view their use of the twenty-two information items listed in Section 2 of the questionnaire, a method of requiring a value-judgment regarding the use of the items was necessary, In order to measure consensus of attitudes in a Ph,D, dissertation, Dr, Robert Anderson formed a rating scale device which 47 provided that means "by which to rate and measure the variation, or degree of consensus, which exists among members of an organization,"3 The interpretations of results from the rating scale device are based upon the grand mean score, or overall mean score, and variance as a measure of consensus, Anderson used a five point Likert scale as the basic reSponse instrument, The center point on the scale enabled his reSpondents to give a "neutral" answer, In this study, the scale was reduced to four points to discourage a "neutral" reSponse, In this questionnaire section, two potential uses for each of the twenty-two data items were listed, and a four point Likert-type scale was presented for each potential use, This results in forty- four scales (two per directory item), Each scale enabled the reSpondent to indicate whether he would ever use the item for the potential use listed, He was instructed to mark an "X" on the point which indicated (beginning at the left of the scale) definite yes, yes, no, or definite no, He was Specifically instructed on page two of the questionnaire to "Mark an 'X' on a dot at the appropriate end of the scale to show a definite yes or no, If you do not have a definite answer, mark one of the two center dots to indicate your best estimate of 'yes' or 'no'," 3Robert C, Anderson, "A Method and Instrument for Predicting the Consequences of Intra-Organizational Action" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), p, 2, as adapted from Neal Gross and others, Explorations 12 Role Anal sis, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958) Chapter 5, 48 Each scale appeared in this format: Definite Definite YES Yes N0 N3 In a final item of Section 3, the questionnaire asked the reSpondent to list other items (in addition to the twenty-two listed directory items) which he would like to have added to a future law enforcement directory, IMPLEMENTATION Q§_THE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT During the development of the questionnaire, two organizations were asked to participate in the questionnaire phase of the study to increase the legitimacy of the questionnaire for the questionnaire recipients, The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police was asked to authorize the use of its name in connection with the questionnaire, It agreed to let its name be printed on the heading of the question form, and a letter from the President to accompany the form, Further- more, it agreed to let the return envelopes mailed with the question- naires to be imprinted with the name of the Association's secretary- treasurer, In similar form, the Michigan Sheriff's Association authorized a letter from the Executive Secretary to accompany each questionnaire, and each reSponse from a sheriff to be returned to the organization's office, It did not approve the use of its name on the questionnaire form for sheriffs, 49 In both the mailings to chiefs and to sheriffs, no mention was made that the reSponses would be used for a thesis, The question- naires appeared to be only for purposes of assisting in the develOpment of a future directory, This latter purpose is legitimate, for in his employment with the Michigan State Police, the author does anticipate involvement in the development of an updated directory of Michigan police information, On the questionnaires themselves, a "deadline date" of April 24, 1971 for the return of the form was given, 'This was included to add an "urgency incentive" for the recipients, thereby hopefully prevent- ing some Situations where the form would be laid down for "future ' and forgotten, Also, the exterior of the 9" x 12" completion,' mailing enve10pe in which the questionnaire was sent to the reSpondents was Stamped diagonally in red capital letters "IMMEDIATE ATTENTION - DATED MATERIAL," The questionnaire final composition and printing was performed by the Printing and Mailing Section of the Michigan State Police, although the actual mailing of forms was done by the author, The questionnaire forms, letters of endorsement, and pre- stamped return enve10pes, were mailed on Saturday, April 17, 1971 from East Lansing, Michigan, Please see Appendix B for a c0py of the letter and form sent to police chiefs, and Appendix C for the similar letter and form sent to sheriffs, On Monday, April 26, 1971, a reminder letter was sent to all departments for which no reSponse was received by April 23, 1971, 50 This letter stated the deadline had been extended to April 30, 1971, and encouraged all respondents who had not yet submitted their forms to do so, It also stated that if the recipient had miSplaced his form, to notify the office (Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police or Michigan Sheriffs Association) immediately, and a form would be sent by Special delivery mail, Eleven communications were received Stating either that no form was ever received, or that the form had been discarded, Eleven Special delivery forms were sent in reSponse to the Special requests, Please see Appendices D and E for reminder letters, ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE PATTERN The total reSponse of 363 usable reSponses is adequate for analysis, This is 62,3% of the total 583 questionnaires which were originally mailed, Table 3, which follows, indicates the number of reSponses which were received each day, between April 20, 1971, and May 11, 1971, inclusive, with an accumulative total column, Note the ”swell" in responses received on May 3, 1971, which wag in part, a result of the reminder letter mailed to non-reSpondents on April 26, 1971, Also note that 377 forms were received, 14 of which were not usable, TABLE 3 RESPONSE PATTERN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORY QUESTIONNAIRE, BY DATE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL ._—f —: Date (Year 1971) NumR::e::e§ormS Accuggiziive April 20 32 32 21 69 101 22 63 164 23 30 194 26 31 225 27 19 244 28 13 257 29 10 267 30 26 293 may 3 ' 44 337 4 22 359 5 10 369 6 3 372 7 1 373 1° 2 375 ll 2 377 52 Table 4, below, indicates the reasons for rejection of 14 forms, with the number rejected for each reason, TABLE 4 NUMBER OF RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS WHICH WERE REJECTED, WITH REASONS FOR REJECTION —— j— n Reason for rejection Number rejected Form only partially completed 12 Form not completed - letter Stated department no longer exists 1 Returned by Post Office, marked "Addressee Unknown" 1 TOTAL 14 Table 5 indicates the number of reSponses received, by size of department, with the percentage of the total for each item, No computation can be made on the percent of reSponses received from all incumbents within each category, for no current numbers of depart- ments, by size, are available, 53 TABLE 5 NUMBER OF USABLE RESPONSES RECEIVED, WITH PERCENT OF TOTAL INDICATED FOR EACH CATEGORY Number of Z of Total Size of Department ReSponses ReSponses Received Received Part-time officers only 27 7,44 l full-time officer 50 13,77 2-3 full-time officers 54 14,88 4-20 full time officers 147 40,50 Over 20 full-time officers 85 23.42 TOTAL 363 100,00 Examination of Table 5 indicates that the range of reSponses is 27 in the smallest category to 147 in the largest, These are deemed adequate for representing departments of each category in analysis procedures of this study, ANALYSIS 91.: THE DATA The reporting and analysis of the study data was performed basically in three stages, to correSpond to the three sections of the questionnaire, The analysis of the third section will Speak to the hypothesis, The first section analysis consists of a simple count of total reSponses to indicate how many agencies stated they did receive a 54 "Directory" in 1968, and how many state the last time the Directories were used, by selected time increments, The second section was analyzed by listing the twenty-two data items listed on the questionnaire, in rank order of preference for retention, beginning with the most preferred item, This is done by listing the items in ascending order of the mean score computed for each item, Also, a listing is given of the items which reSpondents stated they would like to have added to the next questionnaire, This is performed by the formation of a compiled list of reSponses, with a frequency count of duplicate reSponses, The third section was analyzed by first counting the total number of reSponses for each of the two (2) Likert-scales, for each of the 22 data items for this section, The scale under each item which received the greatest total number of reSponses was selected for further analysis, and the other item (which received the fewer reSponses of the two items offered) was dropped, This technique insures a maximum reSponse for each of the 22 directory headings, thereby increasing the validity of data for analysis; where the two items under a single directory heading received the same number of reSponses, one item was selected by a random method, The 22 Specific items selected for further analysis are presented in Table 6, with the total number of reSponses received for each, LISTING OF THE TWENTY-TWO ITEMS UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE TABLE 6 SELECTED FOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS, WITH NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER QUESTION (Questionnaire column headings are shown for the two center columns) Item Directory Information Would you ever use Number of No, Item the item to,,, ReSponseS 1, Name of chief or Assist in Sending sheriff mail to a department whose chief you do not know 357 2, Business address and Assist in telephoning telephone number a distant department 355 3, Number of full-time Help locate depart- officers ments the same size as yours 359 4, Number of part-time Help determine the ratio officers of part-time to full- time officers in an agency 351 5, Number of full-time Assist in comparing officers per 1,000 the citizen-officer population ratio of your agency with other agencies 361 6, 1970 U, S, Census pop- Help compare the number ulation of all areas of people served by served by the agency your agency and another agency 360 TABLE 6 (Continued) 56 Item No Directory Information Item Would you ever use Number of the item to,,, ReSponseS 10. ll, l2, 13. Estimated PEAK pop- ulation (the greatest number of peOple in the jurisdiction at any one time,) Total police expen- ditures during the past fiscal year Percent of police expenditures, as a part of total govern- mental expenditures, last year Total number of marked and unmarked police sedans and station wagons used by the department Number of patrol vehicles on duty at l p,m, weekdays Number of patrol officers normally on duty at 1 p,m, week- days Establish patrol officer work week (hours) not counting overtime Find the greatest number of non-residents an agency is reSpon- sible for at one time Assist in finding and comparing the expendi- tures of other depart- ments which serve the same population size as your agency Help find whether your agency is getting "its share" of the local tax dollar Assist in finding how many cars are used by other selected depart- ments of your size Help you find the ratio of on-duty officers to census pOpulation for departments in your area Help find whether the number of on-duty cars per 1,000 population is re- lated to day time crime rate Help calculate the num- ber of agencies in your region with more than a 40-hour basic work week 351 359 354 358 354 354 355 TABLE 6 (Continued) j 57 Item Directory Information Would you ever use Number of No, Item the item to,,, ReSponses 14, Average patrol officer Assist in calculating work week (hours) in- the actual average cluding overtime work week for all agencies in your region 356 15, Is the agency recogni- Help find whether most zed as the ambulance agencies your size are service in the com- recognized as providing munity this service 356 16, Is each individual of- Aid in finding out how ficer or patrol team other chiefs and sher- required to maintain a iffs use the informa- written log of activity tion on the logs 357 while on duty 17, Has this agency ever Help find the Sizes of had a patrol or beat agencies which have done distribution study this type of Study 353 18, Does department keep a Help make a list of pin map or other map agencies which could based record of tell you how they use traffic accidents such a map 353 19, Does department keep a Aid in building a pin map or other map system of placing your based record of major traffic patrols more crimes in the effectively 355 jurisdiction 20, Location of the LEIN Find the routing of terminal serving the LEIN messages to this jurisdiction agency 351 58 TABLE 6 (Continued) Item Directory Information Would you ever use Number of No, Item the item to,,, ReSponses 21, Is the felony clearance Help you measure your rate for the department calculated regularly 22, Do your patrol-level officers have an or- ganization or associ- ation which partici- pates in the setting of wages or working conditions agency's effectiveness with other agencies your Size 355 Compare pay scales of agencies with and with- out employee organiza- tions 358 Following the selection of the above twenty-two items for analysis, the Likert-scales were given the four points on the scale beginning at the left, Because it was found that a few reSpondents placed "X" marks between fixed points, rather than 92_ points, the values of 2, 4, and 6 were assigned to intermediate spaces beginning at the left of the scale, The following table illustrates the point values assigned to each Likert Scale for purposes of computing mean and variance scores, TABLE 7 POINT VALUES ASSIGNED TO LIKERT SCALES FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING MEAN AND VARIANCE SCORES OF ITEMS OF SECTION 3 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Likert Defigite : : Defigite Scale: YeS""V“‘*’YeS"’"V”‘—’No\‘”“"“—'No T T I T T values Assigned: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 In any case where an "x" was placed at any location other than 92.a dot of the scale, a 2, 4, or 6 value was assigned, Following the assignment of weight values, mean scores were computed for each of the 22 directory items, for each of the five size categories of departments, This was a total of 110 calculations, which were performed on the Burroughs B-5500 computer at the head- quarters of the Michigan State Police, From these calculations were simultaneously computed an overall mean score (of the 22 mean scores) for each of the five department size categories, This formed a step toward the computation of variance for each item under each category, and an overall variance for each category, The computer program to determine variance was defective, Therefore, these variance calculations were done individually by the author, using a programmable electronic calculator, 60 The calculation of variance, which is the measure of consensus in this study, enabled the measure of internal consensus among the chiefs within each category, and a comparison of relative degrees of consensus among the five categories, At this point, the test of the hypothesis was conducted, as is described in Chapter IV, One further statistical test was performed, The "F test" was performed on the ten combinations of two categories to determine whether the variance calculations among the categories (or among the perceptions of data uses among the chiefs within the separate categories) are significantly different, Values of F at the a,05 level of confidence were found, These results are also reported in Chapter IV, CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter will present an analysis of the data that was collected on the questionnaire, beginning with the results of Section 3, which was computed to Speak to the hypothesis, The hypothesis will be re-stated, and its acceptance or rejection will be determined, Also, the F-test, with the value at the a,05 level of confidence will be presented to analyze whether the variance scores, compared among the five size categories, are significantly different, Following this analysis, the chapter will analyze the mean and variance scores, by department size category, for the twenty- two directory items in Section 3, Finally, the twenty-two directory items, as reported in Section 1, (in which chiefs answered "yes" or "no" regarding their preference for retaining or deleting the individual items in a future directory) will be listed in order of preference; and tabula- tion will be made of the current use of the 1968 "Directory," EXAMINATION 93 THE HYPOTHESIS As was previously stated, an overall variance score for each department Size category would be computed, A comparison of the variance scores among the categories would serve as the basis for evaluating the relative degrees of consensus among chiefs within each 62 category, The lower the variance score for any category, the greater the degree of consensus, Conversely, the higher the variance score, the less is the degree of consensus, HYPOTHESIS Chiefs of larger sized police departments will evaluate the degree of usefulness of various uses for items in the "Directory" with greater consensus than will the chiefs of smaller sized depart- ments, 63 Table 8 presents the number of reSponses for each department size category, and the overall mean and variance scores for each category, TABLE 8 NUMBER OF RESPONSES FOR EACH SIZE CATEGORY, AND THE OVERALL MEAN AND OVERALL VARIANCE FOR EACH CATEGORY Department Number of Overall Overall Size ReSponses Mean Variance All part-time officers 27 3,4105 3,7813 1 full-time officer 50 3,1809 4,3697 2-3 full-time officers 54 2,5705 3,7380 4-20 full-time officers 147 2,5964 3,1498 Over 20 full-time officers 85 2,9950 3,4280 Appendix F presents the mean and variance scores for each individual question, by category, 64 Table 9 presents the F score and value of F at the a,05 level of confidence for each of the ten department size category combin- ations, TABLE 9 F SCORE AND F VALUE AT THE a,05 LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE FOR EACH COMBINATION OF TWO DEPARTMENTS (PT = part-time officers; FT 2 full-time officers) Department F Value at a,05 Sizes F Score Level of Confidence PT and 1 FT 1,16 1,80 PT and 2-3 FT 1.01 1.65 PT and 4-20 FT 1,20 1,46 PT and over 20 FT 1,10 1,55 1 FT and 2-3 FT 1,17 1,53 1 FT and 4-20 FT 1,39 1,50 1 FT and over 20 FT 1,27 1,43 2-3 FT and 4-20 FT 1,19 1,32 2-3 FT and over 20 FT 1,09 1,43 4-20 FT and over 20 FT 1,09 1,22 65 By using data in Table 8, a graph, identified as Chart 1, was plotted to illustrate the relationships of the five overall variance scores, when placed in descending order of score, The appropriate department size category names were then placed by the prOper points on the graph, CHART 1 GRAPH ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIVE POINTS OF OVERALL VARIANCE, IN DESCENDING ORDER OF VARIANCE SCORE (Indicators at each point identify department Size category and vari- ance score,) Variance Score 1 FT 4.3698 OHNWDMO‘NWOOHNWDU Over 20 FT WWWWWWWUWWL‘DDL‘DD Analysis revealed that the two smallest categories, part-time officers and l full-time officer, occupied the two positions of least consensus, The median category, 2-3 full-time officers, occupied the 66 mid-point on the graph, and the two largest categories, 4-20 full-time officers and over 20 full-time officers occupied the two positions of greatest consensus, From this analysis, a trend was established which could Speak to the hypothesis, provided the overall variance scores among the categories were significantly different, or represent- ed unique characteristics with categories, To test this, the F test, also know as the variance ratio test, was applied, See Table 9, which gives the F score and the value of F at the a,05 level of confidence, for each combination of two categories, In each case, the value of F at the a,05 level of confidence was found to be a higher score than the F score, indicating that each overall variance was significantly different from every other variance score, Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted, ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS This section will present the mean and variance scores for each of the twenty-two directory items, arrayed by each of the five department size categories, In comparing the mean scores for each item, it Should be remembered that a lower score indicates a higher degree of usage would be made of the item (for the potential use listed), A lower variance score means a higher degree of agreement (or consensus among the chiefs on their answer regarding usage of the item), Note that a high consensus indication for any item does not necessarily mean a high degree of usage for the item, 67 Throughout this section, PT indicates departments with all part-time officers, FT indicates a number of full-time officers, The digits appearing before "FT" indicate the number of full-time officers per department within the category, TABLE 10 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 1 ENTITLED "NAME OF CHIEF OR SHERIFF" (Listed usage: Assist in sending mail to a department whose chief you do not know,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 1,44 1,86 1,22 1,26 1,10 VARIANCE 1,0255 2,8333 0,4025 0,6118 0,1857 Table 10 indicates that this would be widely used, and that there is generally high consensus among chiefs on the usefulness of this item, The least degree of consensus is among chiefs who have no other full-time officers working with them (1 FT officer category), Chiefs of departments over 20 men are most in agreement that the data item would definitely be used when sending mail, TABLE 11 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 2 ENTITLED "BUSINESS ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER" (Listed usage: Assist in telephoning a distant department,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 1,59 1,53 1.23 1,26 1,19 VARIANCE 1,1738 1,4625 0,4136 0,6720 0,4452 Table 11 indicates a very high degree of acceptance, much closer to "definite yes" than "yes" on the Scale, Consensus runs very high in all categories, particularly in the 2 to 3 man depart- ments and larger, TABLE 12 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 3 ENTITLED "NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFFICERS" (Listed usage: Help locate departments the same size as yours,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,15 2,84 2,22 2,12 2,15 VARIANCE 4,9000 4,9728 3,2327 2,4289 2,4215 Table 12 indicates positive acceptance for the use indicated, The lower consensus of the part-time category is logical, for 69 part-time departments, by definition, have no full-time officers, therefore this is not a useful item to them, There was far less con- sensus among the smaller departments than the larger, TABLE 13 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES, BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 4 ENTITLED "NUMBER OF PART-TIME OFFICERS" (Listed usage: Help determine the ratio of part-time to full-time officers in an agency,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,22 3,42 3.00 3,37 4.35 VARIANCE 4,7176 5,1597 8,2745 4,4487 4,3033 Table 13 indicates that all sizes of departments are not enthusiastic about the usage stated, All sizes range between "yes" and "no" points on the Likert scale, The largest size category gave a 4.35 score, which indicates more "no" than "yes" answers, A mean of 4,00 would be the "neutral" position, The degree of consensus is not great, The 2 to 3 FT category is unusually undecided, as a body, about the listed usage, TABLE 14 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 5 ENTITLED "NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFFICERS PER 1,000 POPULATION" (Listed usage: Assist in comparing the citizen-officer ratio of your agency with other agencies,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,74 3,26 2,13 2,08 1,93 VARIANCE 5,5838 4,6045 4,0783 2,4179 2,1635 Table 14 indicates a consistent pattern wherein the larger departments would use the item for the purposes indicated more readily than the Smaller departments, Although all categories give a positive usage indication, the smaller department chiefs are less in agreement regarding its usage, TABLE 15 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 6 ENTITLED "1970 U, S, CENSUS POPULATION OF ALL AREAS SERVED BY THE AGENCY" (Listed usage: Help compare the number of people served by your agency with another agency) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,00 2,52 1,68 1,86 1,90 VARIANCE 4,6152 4,0098 1,6836 1,9949 2,4487 71 Table 15 indicates that all mean reSponse scores range on or between "definite yes" and "yes" on the continuum, This item and its listed usage is very pOpular, The PT and 1 FT chiefs are much less in agreement about their usage of the item than the chiefs of larger departments, TABLE 16 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 7 ENTITLED "ESTIMATED PEAK POPULATION" (Listed usage: Find the greatest number of non-residents an agency is reSponsible for at one time,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 4,15 3,36 2,73 2,90 3.11 VARIANCE 3,8951 5,1924 4,4831 4,0044 4,6269 Table 16 indicates the greatest popularity for this usage among chiefs of 2-3 and 4-20 FT agencies, with indicators between "definite yes" and "yes," Chiefs of 1 FT and 4-20 FT indicate between "neutral" and "no," Consensus among chiefs of any category is not great, TABLE 17 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 8 ENTITLED "TOTAL POLICE EXPENDITURES DURING THE PAST FISCAL YEAR" (Listed usage: Assist in finding and comparing expenditures of other departments which serve the same pOpulation size as your agency,) L ._—_ _ 1 F L.— - PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,52 2,61 2,08 ‘ 1,93 2,40 VARIANCE 5.1053 4,1174 3,3665 2,1656 3,8342 Table 17 indicates general popularity for this usage, with the greatest popularity in the 4-20 FT category, The range of mean scores for this directory item ranged from the positive side of "yes" to a mid-point between "yes" and "neutral," The least amount of usage and consensus indicated was in the PT category, TABLE 18 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 9 ENTITLED "PERCENT OF POLICE EXPENDITURES AS A PART OF TOTAL (Listed usage: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES LAST YEAR" Help find whether your agency is getting "its share" of the local tax dollar,) PT FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,74 3,06 2,37 2,41 VARIANCE 3.7376 4,3369 3,01 3,7584 3.2925 4,8413 Table 18 indicates reSponses in the general area of "yes" for all categories, category is not high, The general degree of consensus within each TABLE 19 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 10 ENTITLED "TOTAL NUMBER OF MARKED AND UNMARKED POLICE SEDANS AND (Listed usage: STATION WAGONS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT" Assist in finding how many cars are used by other selected departments of your Size,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,59 3,31 2,36 2,44 2,67 VARIANCE 3,0196 4,7585 3,5036 2,2483 3,2610 74 Table 19 indicates general usage would be made of this item, for all categories give a reading between "definite yes" and "yes," The most frequent usage would be made by the larger departments, There is a generally low degree of consensus among chiefs in each category, TABLE 20 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 11 ENTITLED "NUMBER OF PATROL VEHICLES ON DUTY AT 1 P,M, WEEKDAYS" Help you find the ratio of on-duty officers to census (Listed usage: population for departments in your area,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,96 3,78 3,26 3,23 3,93 VARIANCE 4,4213 4,7873 5,0827 4,0184 4,6695 Table 20 indicates a high degree of usage would be made of this item, All categories report answers between "definite yes" and "yes," Consensus among chiefs of all categories is quite low, TABLE 21 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 12 ENTITLED "NUMBER OF PATROL OFFICERS NORMALLY ON DUTY AT 1 P,M, WEEKDAYS" (Listed usage: Help find whether the number of on-duty cars per 1,000 pOpulation is related to the day time crime rate,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT .4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 4,48 3,90 3,12 3,26 4,07 VARIANCE 2,6436 4,6633 4,0659 4,2224 4.1876 Table 21 indicates that the usage which would be given this item would be rather varied, The smallest and largest categories indicated more "no" than "yes" responses, as shown by their mean scores of over 4,00, The central three categories indicated more "yes ll than "no" reSponses, The variance Scores range from a relatively low score for part-time chiefs to much lower scores, indicating far less consensus, among chiefs of the four largest categories, TABLE 22 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 13 ENTITLED "ESTABLISHED PATROL OFFICER WORK WEEK (HOURS NOT COUNTING OVERTIME)" (Listed usage: Help calculate the number of agencies in your region with more than a 40-hour basic work week,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,89 3,42 1,85 2,14 3,21 VARIANCE 3,4868 4,1669 2,5641 1,9808 3.9679 The greatest usage of this item would be by the 2-3 FT category, although all mean reSponses are between "definite yes" and "neutral," Variance ranges from a relatively low score in the 4-20 FT category to a high score in the 1 FT category, The pattern is irregular among the categories, TABLE 23 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 14 ENTITLED "AVERAGE PATROL OFFICER WORK WEEK (HOURS) INCLUDING OVERTIME" (Listed usage: Assist in calculating the actual average work week for all agencies in your region,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3.96 3.35 2,23 2,23 3.18 VARIANCE 4,1136 4,4813 3,0045 2,6076 3.6377 Table 23 indicates positive usage reSponses in all categories, Mean reSponses range between "definite yes" and "neutral," Greatest usage would occur in the 2-3 FT and 4-20 FT categories, with the least usage in the PT category. Overall consensus is not great, TABLE 24 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 15 ENTITLED "IS THE AGENCY RECOGNIZED AS THE AMBULANCE SERVICE IN THE COMMUNITY?" (Listed usage: Help find whether most agencies your size are recognized as providing this service,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FI‘ 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3.74 3,67 3.87 3.73 3.98 VARIANCE 4,3531 5.4745 4,5399 4,7317 4.5777 78 Table 24 shows that the mean scores for all categories are clustered between "yes” and ”neutral" on the continuum, The con- sensus among chiefs within each category, however, is low, ranging from variance scores of 4,3531 to 4,7371, TABLE 25 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 16 ENTITLED "IS EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFICER OR PATROL TEAM REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A WRITTEN LOG OF ACTIVITY WHILE 0N DUTY?" (Listed usage: Aid in finding out how other chiefs and sheriffs use the information on the logs,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 2,56 2,66 2,48 2,74 3,51 VARIANCE 3,4868 3,8208 3,8015 3,5487 4,4196 Table 25 indicates that each of the four smallest categories "yes," and the gave a mean reSponse between "definite yes" and over 20 FT category gave a reSponse between "yes" and "neutral," The consensus within each category was moderately low, TABLE 26 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 17 ENTITLED "HAS THIS AGENCY EVER HAD A PATROL OR BEAT DISTRIBUTION STUDY?" (Listed Usage: Help find the sizes of agencies which have done this type of study,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 4,70 4,53 4,25 3,82 3.77 VARIANCE 4,2165 4,6293 4,1887 4.5904 4,0074 Table 26 indicates this item is relatively unpopular, The three smaller categories gave negative mean reSponses - between "neutral" and "no," The two larger categories gave mean reSponses between "yes" and "neutral," Agreement within each category was low, with a range of variance scores being 4,0074 to 4,6293. TABLE 27 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 18 ENTITLED "DOES DEPARTMENT KEEP A PIN MAP OR OTHER MAP-BASED RECORD OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS?" (Listed usage: Help make a list of agencies which could tell you how they use such a map,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,77 3,96 3,60 3.56 4,29 VARIANCE 3.5446 4,3812 4,0900 4,8018 3,7005 Table 27 indicates a range of mean reSponses generally clustered around the "neutral" point, The smallest four categories gave indicators on the positive side of "neutral," and the largest category gave a mean score on the negative side, Variance for each category indicated moderately low consensus, TABLE 28 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 19 ENTITLED "DOES DEPARTMENT KEEP A PIN MAP OR OTHER MAP-BASED RECORD OF MAJOR CRIMES IN THE .JURISDICTION?‘l (Listed usage: Aid in building a system of placing your traffic patrols more effectively.) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,69 3,94 3,23 3.55 4,02 VARIANCE 3,8212 4,3152 5.0247 4.3905 3.8566 Table 28 indicates the four smallest categories gave mean responses on the positive side of "neutral," and the largest category gave a mean reSponse slightly on the negative side of "neutral," In general, agencies are not enthusiastic about using this item for the listed usage, Variance scores indicate a range of moderately low consensus by the PT and over 20 FT categories, to very low consensus by the 2-3 FT category, TABLE 29 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 20 ENTITLED "LOCATION OF THE LEIN TERMINAL SERVING THE JURISDICTION" (Listed usage: Find the routing of LEIN messages to this agency,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 2,26 2,37 2,14 2,51 2,45 VARIANCE 3.1223 3,8622 3,5608 3,6517 3,5428 Table 29 indicates a favorable view toward the usage of this item, as listed, Mean reSponses from each category fall between the "definite yes" and "yes" points on the scale, with all reSponses being closer to "definite yes," The consensus among chiefs of each category was moderate, TABLE 30 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORES BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 21 ENTITLED "IS THE FELONY CLEARANCE RATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT CALCULATED REGULARLY?" (Listed usage: Help you measure your agency's effectiveness with other agencies your Size,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3,44 3,30 2,73 2,56 3.22 VARIANCE 3,4868 4,3367 4,5535 3.1429 3,8525 83 Table 30 indicates reSponses on the usefulness of this item cluster on both sides of the "yes" point, Greatest usefulness was indicated by the 4-20 FT and 2-3 FT categories, Consensus within categories ranged from moderate (3.1429) to low (4,5535). TABLE 31 VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORE BY SIZE OF DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTION 22 ENTITLED "DO YOUR PATROL LEVEL OFFICERS HAVE AN ORGANIZATION OR ASSOCIATION WHICH PARTICIPATES IN THE SETTING OF WAGES OR WORKING CONDITIONS?" (Listed usage: Compare pay scales Of agencies with and without employee organizations,) PT 1 FT 2-3 FT 4-20 FT Over 20 FT MEAN 3.44 3,33 2,77 2,16 2,45 VARIANCE 4,7176 5,7662 4,5631 2.3729 2,4644 Table 31 indicates this usage to be considered favorable by each category of reSpondents, Mean reSponses by the three largest categories are between "definite yes" and "yes," The mean reSponses of the two smallest categories fall between "yes" and "neutral," The consensus of reSpondents in the two largest sized categories was moderately high, while consensus of the three Smallest sized categories was moderately low to very low, 84 LISTING OF DATA ITEMS BX_DEGREE OE PREFERENCE FOR INCLUSION IN'A FUTURE DIRECTORY Section 2 of the questionnaire gave each reSpondent an Opportunity to indicate whether he would like each of the twenty-two directory items included in a future directory, A "yes" or "no" answer could be given, In analysis, a mean score was tabulated for each item, with a range of l to 2, A higher mean score indicates a greater number of "yes" answers, and a lower score indicates a greater number of "no" answers, Detailed methodology is presented in Chapter III, Table 32 presents the twenty-two items, in descending order Of preference for inclusion, The score is computed from all reSponses, without regard to department size category, TABLE 32 LISTING OF DIRECTORY ITEMS, IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PREFERENCE FOR RETENTION WITH MEAN SCORE FOR EACH ITEM Overall Rank Questionnaire MEan Order Item Number Directory Item Score 1 1 Name of chief or sheriff 1,01 2 2 Business address and telephone number 1,01 3 3 Number of full-time Officers 1,07 4 6 1970 Census of population of all areas served by agency 1,10 TABLE 32 (Continued) 85 Overall Rank Questionnaire Mean Order Item Number Directory Item Score 5 20 Location of the LEIN terminal serving the jurisdiction 1,12 6 10 Total number of marked and un- marked police sedans and station wagons used by the department 1,17 7 5 Number full-time Officers per 1,000 population 1,18 8 8 Total police eXpenditures during the past fiscal year 1,20 9 4 Number of part-time officers 1,27 10 14 Average patrol Officer work week (hours) including overtime 1,27 11 7 Estimated peak population 1,28 12 9 Percent of police expenditures, as a part of total government expenditures, last year 1,29 l3 16 Is each individual Officer or patrol team required to maintain a written log of activity while on duty? 1,30 14 22 Do your patrol level officers have an organization or association which participates in the setting of wages or working conditions 1,32 15 21 Is the felony clearance rate for the department calculated regularly 1,37 86 TABLE 32 (Continued) Overall Rank Questionnaire Mean Order Item Number Directory Item Score 16 11 Number of patrol vehicles on duty at 1 p,m, weekdays 1,42 17 12 Number of patrol officers normally on duty at l p,m, weekdays 1,43 18 18 Does the department keep a pin map or other map-based record of traffic accidents 1,46 19 13 Established patrol officer work week (hours) not counting over- time 1,47 20 15 Is this agency recognized as the ambulance service in the community 1,48 21 19 Does department keep a pin map or other map-based record of major crimes in the jurisdiction 1,54 22 17 Has this agency ever had a patrol or beat distribution study 1,65 The mean scores of the items in Table 32 indicate that the first twenty items had more "yes” than "no" answers, The final two items, with mean scores of over 1,50, received more no" than yes answers, EXAMINATION OF THE PRESENT USE QF_THE 1968 DIRECTORY Section one of the questionnaire was designed to enable each respondent to indicate whether he recalls receiving a COpy of the 87 1968 "Directory,” (The entire population of this study was mailed a copy of the "Directory" in 1968,) Secondly, if the reSpondent did receive a cOpy, he is asked to check a box indicating the category of his most recent use of the data source, Tables 33 and 34 report the results, TABLE 33 NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO EACH SELECTION OF QUESTION ONE, SECTION ONE OF THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE (Question: Did you receive a copy of the 1968 Michigan Law Enforce- ment Directory?) Number Indicating Selection Selection Yes 142 NO 117 Do not know 86 SUB-TOTAL 345 Number not responding 18 TOTAL 363 TABLE 34 NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO EACH SELECTION OF QUESTION TWO, SECTION ONE, OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE (Question: If you did receive a copy, when was the last time you used it?) Number Indicating Selection Selection Within the last 6 months 100 1/2 to 1 year ago 27 l to 2 years ago 8 2 to 3 years ago 2 Was not used 23 SUB-TOTAL 160 Number not responding 203 TOTAL 363 Analysis of Tables 33 and 34 reveals that 142 (or 41%) Of the 345 reSpondents have knowledge of receiving a "Directory," It appears, therefore, that less than half of the original recipients placed enough value upon usage of the "Directory" to have kept it within the agency for three years, There appears to be a discrepancy in the sub-total of 160 reSpondents in Table 34, (wherein they state the latest usage) as n Opposed to the number of 142 agencies which answered yes" in 89 Table 33 (stating they originally received a "Directory"), It is possible that the 18 of the "overflow reSpondents" in Table 34 marked "was not used," In any case, Table 34 shows that 100 of the 160 reSpondents in Table 34 have used the data source in the past six months, and an additional 27 have used it within the past year, The observation is made, therefore, that agencies tended to miSplace or disregard the ”Directory" after its arrival or else to keep it and use it relatively frequently, SUMMARY 913 CHAPTER TX The central point of interest in Chapter IV was the examination of the hypothesis that chiefs of larger sized police departments will evaluate the degree of usefulness of various selected uses for items with greater consensus than will the chiefs of smaller sized depart- ments, By plotting a graph in descending order of overall variance score, a trend was established which verified the hypothesis, The F test showed that a significant difference exists between each of the various categories, which verified the uniqueness of each category, and affirmed the ability of the measurement instrument to measure differences between categories, The next section presented mean and variance scores for each individual question as listed in Section 3 of the questionnaire, and presented a brief analysis of the degree of acceptance of each 9O directory item, This analysis facilities an understanding of the perceived usefulness of each item, by each department-size category Of reSponseS, A listing of the proposed data items, in descending order of preference for inclusion in a future directory was listed, Analysis of the mean scores indicated only two of the twenty-two directory items received more negative than positive reSponses for future inclusion in a directory, Finally, an analysis of the current usage Of the 1968 "Directory" revealed that most chiefs do not recall having received a "Directory;" but that nearly all of the chiefs that say they dig_receive the pub- location have used it in the past year, CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY This study has been an investigation into the types of information items which Michigan police chiefs and sheriffs most prefer about other law enforcement agencies, and into the degree of consensus which chiefs in selected categories of department size hold regarding their use of the data, Insight can be gained into the nature of police chiefs' and Sheriffs' administrative perceptions and skills by determining whether their perceived needs and qualities as groups, vary significantly as department size changes, A questionnaire was deve10ped and sent to 583 police chiefs and sheriffs, Of which 363 (or 62,26%) returned usable answers, The form listed twenty-two selected representative items of information, and respondents rated which items they would prefer in a future source publication (or "directory"), and indicated whether they would use the individual items for selected uses which were listed on the questionnaire form, Answers for the latter questionnaire segment, were placed on a scale by reSpondents, which enabled the analysis process to produce mean and variance scores, Variance was accepted and used as the measure Of consensus within department size categories, 92 SUMMARY OF THE HYPOTHESIS In order to systematize the primary concern of the study (the determination of whether chiefs of varying sizes Of depart- ments have significant differences in their perceived uses of data), the following hypothesis was deve10ped, Hypothesis: Chiefs of larger Sized departments will evaluate the degree of usefulness of various selected uses for items in the "Directory" with greater consensus than will chiefs of Smaller Sized departments, Analysis of the reSponses led to the acceptance of the hypothesis, and determined that a significant difference exists among the per- ceived data usages of chiefs in each size category, SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS It is apparent that police chiefs and sheriffs of departments of all sizes imply their acceptance of the concept of a police administrative directory for their local use, A grouped reSponse which gave more negative than positive indications regarding a question's usage was rare, Likewise, twenty of the twenty-two listed directory items received more ”yes" than "no" votes for inclusion in a future directory, It is interesting that of the 160 agencies which recall receiving a "Directory" in 1968, 100 (or 62,5%) have used it within vv-r wo—m—r 93 the past six months, An additional 27 (or 16,9%) used it within the past year, The observation is made, therefore, that the publication continues to be used (three years after publication) by the agencies which have retained their copy, Since this Study has determined that significant differences do exist among the perceptions of chiefs in the separate categories, and that chiefs of smaller departments Speak with less consensus than larger department chiefs, this question can be raised: Why is there significantly less consensus among the chiefs of smaller agencies? A theory under which the author deve10ped the hypothesis was that larger police agency chiefs are required to face and deal with a greater variety and complexity of administrative problems than chiefs of smaller agencies, and that the larger department chiefs have acquired, through various means and experiences, a more common body of administrative skills and methods than those of the smaller departments, An alternate theory regarding the greater con- sensus of larger agency chiefs is that they may have greater police practical and administrative experience than chiefs of smaller departments, Other parameters may be more influential than these, Further research is needed to speak to the accuracy of this theory, Finally, the reason for less consensus on the part of smaller agency chiefs could rest upon a theory that small chiefs tend to lack the administrative skills to best understand how the directory items could apply to their "small town" situation, If this is the case, 94 then provision for the means to provide administrative training for small agency chiefs and incentive to benefit from the training should be considered, INDEPENDENT OBSERVATIONS Although the author has attempted to use valid scientific methods in the conduct of this study, and attempted to remain Ob- jective in its implementation and evaluation, a subjective comment at this point may be of interest, As a result of numerous personal and official contacts with Michigan.police chiefs who represent departments Of all sizes, the author senses a degree of frustration on the part of chiefs of very small departments (generally the one to three-man departments) who feel that the field of police administration theory has virtually by-passed the smallest departments, They in- dicate, as a group, that there is almost no guidance they can get on "how to be an efficient chief" of a two or three-man department, They note that the Michigan Mandatory Training Act (Act 187, P,A, 1970) excludes training requirements for departments of two or less men, They indicate that they are placed in more dangerous and serious positions than officers in larger departments because "if one man is on duty by himself, there are no other Officers to assist in making an arrest" or come to his immediate aid if a crisis develOps, In another frame, they state that, as a rule, larger departments, but not smaller ones, are contacted when discussions on police regionali- zation are conducted, 95 A review of Table 2 reveals that 220 (or 37.7%) of the 583 departments composing the pOpulation of this thesis are agencies with part-time men only, or one full-time man, Although it is rec- ognized that the most serious crime problems and the greatest con- centration of crises in our society are centered in the larger cities, the point is raised here that if the situations pointed out by the small chiefs, as noted above, are true, than the field of police administration theory may need to place greater emphasis upon including the smallest departments in its areas of concern and study, If the role of the small department is valid, then that department should not be forgotten, This study has shown that a significant difference exists between the perceived needs and views of chiefs of different-sized police departments, This appears to confirm the possibility that administrative data which is designed for larger city departments will not be as helpful to the small city and village departments, It is suggested that future development of information for police departments be performed with the awareness that there is more than one "audience" within the body of police chiefs and sheriffs, To ignore the part-time chief or the chief of the one-man department is to ignore 37% of the chiefs in the state, To ignore chiefs of five-man departments, or smaller, is to ignore 62% of the state's chiefs, 1Extrapolated from Table 2 of this study, 96 LIMITATIONS QE THE STUDY There are some definite limitations of this study which, in retrOSpect, would have increased the value of the project, First, a different category limit for the 2 to 3 full-time and the 4 to 20 full-time department size categories may have given a more uniform number of reSponses per category, Note that 40.5% of the total reSponses were from the 4 to 20 category, Second, a rather short questionnaire mailing and reception period was established, Questionnaires were originally mailed on April 17, 1971, and due to computer scheduling, actual question- naire reception was closed on May 11, 1971, A more detailed "follow- up" program would have enabled more questionnaire reSponses to be sought, resulting in a higher percent of reSponse, A further limitation is in the fact that no method was implemented to determine who actually completed the questionnaire in each individual case, Although the chief was asked to fill out the form, he may have had another person do so, The author has learned informally that the wife of a chief in a small mid-Michigan town completed the form for him, A number of such situations, if they did occur, would have weakened the validity of reSponses, BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Olson, Bruce T, An_Introduction £2 the Michigan Law Enforcement Inventor , East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968. Olson, Bruce T, Patterns g£_American Law Enforcement Research by_ Questionnaire, East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Com- munity Deve10pment and Services, Michigan State University, 1968, MULTIVOLUME WORKS AND SERIES Fraternal Order of Police, "A Survey of 1967 Salaries and Working Conditions of the Police Departments in the United States," Lithographed charts, Cincinnati, Ohio: Fraternal Order of Police, 1967, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Comparative Data Report, 1970, Washington, D, C,: I,A,C,P, 1970. International City Managers Association, The Municipal Yearbook, 1970, Washington, D, C,: I,C,M,A, 1970, PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT Institute for Community Deve10pment and Services, Michigan State University, Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory, 1968, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968, Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, "1970 Survey of Municipal Police Departments," Kansas City, Missouri: Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, 1970, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, The Challenge gf Crime in §_Free Society, Washing- ton, D, C,: U, 8, Government Printing Office, 1967. State of Michigan, Michigan County Government Financial Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1969, Lansing, Michigan: State of Michigan. 1970. 98 U, S, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime $3 the United States Uniform Crime Reports - 1969, Washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, 1970, UNPUBLISHED WORK Anderson, Robert C, "A Mathod and Instrument for Predicting the Consequences of Intra-Organizational Action," Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, MiChigan State University, 1963. APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF THE DATA FORMAT PRESENTED IN THE MICHIGAN LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORY, 1968 100 « a a fix. man» awn oao omgoo Emsacz_:coaa has: at_49a tion no.40e r a a ago an» ~m7m_1 noon a a new as» WADE; woos a a “a.“ as» zxneawaas cook a a new“ as» «.mm.> anon « a a mnoa oaks. «nouns. ushaenzou bacon». ;cqua_¢u aka“ a « av: n1» consrau «Nos 9 a wen as» aces,_44w snoN a a vxo an» czaaxau cues a a oil a)» vrcrrwo when a a “Had a)» zsh>¢c egos a a one“ as» ‘_xrnsou macs e a \nad use Enema. “so“ a H mood my» zmrna "nos o « owed nah ,cara each 0 m c « anew «sew own saw some. xcmm¢> hem: wu_43s an.ru 1m_¢ anon « a a «as case men «an smug. wvuwr him: mt_aas 21mmxai r .«.33~. awwwo («as q a w a on«« menu «so ago ova-v ’npaz~.a_t pew: wc.aom am_ru >as; .qsas zoycz_as_v «won a a a so: fine. nee “Ha cease mas—>ssz Jaxnx>oxoa_au .mw: muaaoa azc»n :a42zmr w>czma_>~u mm+~u mmac «dos v c H sown «new nae “am nmacv czau pew: mu_42s .m_ru .u»zc: sue>qmu ooac "do“ a a n oom ahov «so «am “one. zcrxa Jamnxax Jaumsan z a 701:. eaos on c «a a man». ”man nho ham amass cmau uuaxwxm ezu «as: a sag: sezzou assume» e o“ <40Um=h a « vvca an» Jazxooo: toes o a comm n3» zczaw> coon o « naca a)» uo~2m> noon a a mava a)» wwmm<1<_xm moon 9 H on: an» a»o_um «cos c n nan” 11» 1mg: coon o a o\~« n3» >rcma one“ o a ooow n1» ommoxc than c « oxwa as» zm>O (~40 UZEuSrn 10.5.0.0285: J8 >n ><._ .28.. m0 >¢OhUm~=o 101 0000 000.0 000.0 vmomoogooo mmwa 0 omo.u 00.. a mow“ Ncnww . c 00.0 00.0 00.“ . 0000 000.0 000.0 0 mono mwo.o «0.0 a 000v" neuwoa 1 0 mo.0 00.0 0p.r H 0 00 000.0 (00.00 6000000000 0 ems. nov.~ 00.0 0 waswa mvmconw «0.0 00.0 00.0 0 zwgm z<> «000 000.0 000.0 nvn0v00000 0 n “00.0 00.0 a 0 asawm . 0 00.0 00.0 0 .- p .000 000.0 000.0 000000~000 0 a 000.0 00.0 a 0 00000 n m 00.0 00.0 0... . goon v-.0 000.0 av~0o09000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a on: 0,000 0 r 00.0 00.0 04. A 0000 000.0 000.0 mcnmnxno00 0 n nma.0 00.0 0 nvm momma p N 00.0 00.0 0 .. A 0090 n00.0 000.0 mmaxn0x000 000 0 000.0 00.0 0 0mm 00~uc 0 0 0.0 00.0 0... 0 ”mon 000.0 000.0 00xnan~000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 “any“ . 0 00.0 00.. 0“. U (ooh 000.0 000.0 0010000000 0 n noo.o 00.0 a 0 wommw v v 00.0 00.0 n... a «090 000.0 000.0 00xnoa~000 0 0 000.0 00.0 ~ A “.00” . ...F 00.0 0..” A soon 000.0 000.0 owwoxwwooo 0 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 000m“ 0 0 00.0 00.: 0... 0 «mon «00.0 000.0 0000000000 0 0 000.0 «0.0 a 00 snonn 00.: .0.0 0..n . woos 000.0 000.0 omnv0~0000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 aspen r m 00.. 00.; .... _ .000 000.0 000.0 0mvcoov000 0 . 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 )Haix e 0 03.0 .0.0 0 .q . anon 000.0 000.0 0000x00000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a n00.0 . t 00.0 ...0 0..” 0 0000 000.0 000.0 000vvn5000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a o wmamm : n _..m 00.0 0-} «Non 000.0 000.0 00onxoa0oo e 0 000.0 00.0 n 0 00000 . . 00.0 00.: 0 .p . (son 000.0 000.0 0030000000 0 0 000.0 00... a 0 mi}; . m .......0 0.. 0..., . r0o~ 000.0 000.0 owvcxad000 0 0 mn0.0 00.0 a ~0~ 0000. a n 00.0 :0.0 0 .0 . '00“ 000.0 000.0 ooflmvvnooo 0 0 000.0 00.0 a u no.«a : n ...n 0.0 0..- L r000 ~00.0 000.0 00~000¢000 0 0 000.0 an.0 0 mm Novem . a 00.0 .0.0 0..r 00o0 000.0 000.0 0000000000 0 0 000.0 00.0 N 0 m a v 00.0 00.0 0..0 . 0000 000.0 000.0 00~200¢000 0 0 000.0 00.0 n 0 00000 0 0 00.0 .c.; . 1 0000 000.0 000.0 0000\n0000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 mmnkn . 0 00.0 .0.0 .-.p . 0No~ coo.» mv«.- 0002000000 0 3000 www.00 0n.wa N Am}; nrunxn u .. 0'." 00.. 3.... a 0090 900.0 000.0 000000~000 00.0 0 ~00.~ 00.0 a 00.0 ~¢~um 4 0 0;.0 .0.0 ...0 . «000 000.0 000.00 00~ocm~000 0 0000 ~00.» 00.00 a 00., Aemxx . 0 ma.a :0.0 L... a («on nn~.a oom.flm oooxonwooo 0 «can mvv.o mv.~« a num\ v<¢.o m w u«.a 00.0 n .. a uuou 000.0 000.0 0000x00000 0000 n mom.v 03.. a 0000 occun x 0 e0.0 .0._ 0 .0 h pass ”\m.~ 000.0 mnoonca000 «man u 00~.o 0..«0 a «n00 .xmxx z 0 0..0 .0.0 M .0 . “do“ am~.n rku.~m 00o~000000 0 0000 000.00 00.00 a «msfiw 1000.0 n 0 0:.“ v0.0 0... n 0000 vmo.~ 000.a~ 00000~0000 0 0000 000.0 00.0 0 00.00 t «0.0 00.0 0... a .090 0mo.0 000.0 0000000000 000 u 000.0 00.0 0 Ion 4.0.x 0 . 0_.0 00.0 0..0 0 0 o0 000.0 000.00 enaoomona0 0 0000 0.0.0 00.0 0 swear c..aa0~ 00.0 00.0 0R. a on000 n 0 0.0.” 00.0 a 0 ommxxfi n H 00.0 00.0 0 .0 0 00cm 000.9 030.: fiOHAaVVcoc 0 n 003.... (0.... a o nw¢<fl r m 70.0 0.... 0.... 0 0020 000.0 000.0 onnao~n000 0 u 0r0.0 00.: ~ 0 000 0 v 0.0 00.0 0 .0 0 seem 000.0 000.0 s-0000000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a 0 0.4.0 . s 00.0 00.0 0..0 0 100\ 000.0 000.0 0000.00000 0 0 000.0 00.0 a U #0000 v a 00.0 00.0 0:.0 0 0000 000.0 000.0 naannoc000 0 0 000.0 00.0 0 0 somww r m 00.0 00.0 0..0 0 R‘ODCZCOUV UUWW<’<_ZW 62.002 0.03:. 0.3.. :3 0c 20 :2... cos.- I: $20.30.OU s... .( 33.234. con ... EOE—.300 0.0. .0. n .00.. con .. co..oE.o0c. cot-0.330.. .o 0039“ so. I 25:00.: O.“ o 32 d 32 :2 33 as :2 m. 3 .oa at E... :3 82 3: .0: 2:. 3: a: .2. W "J 0...! c. v) m. 7).?! .310330 .0330 OEOIU u u w .M) 0:00 EnoU O‘OU $0.300! 60.02.30: :IU 00 CORP 2 OI.F M u. 20¢ :30 P H. U m.“ £2.93.) In; to; .00. 0‘; :0; .os .00 2.00 m u w u 033$ 0:052:80 :308 .3152 00c. sot :0 tot =35 3;: n. m m A 35!...» 2.6 32o; 2:6 3;: 8...; m u n. o .2.» .2..— L336 Flotatw 0H .0 0.03 o 1 d u .h .-..L s 0 d 3 u o . "mm" "pm I m u o 0032-...0U 00:0: .0330 2955203 3402:2033 >0 255.2 00233. 20.5.0202. 44020220280 3 302.3290: 295.0203 44020220360 moo- Z<0_Iu=2 Z. thEmU¢OmZm APPENDIX B LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT AND QUESTIONNAIRE FORM MAILED TO POLICE CHIEFS AREA CODE 5 I 7-489-0 I 58 MICHIGAN SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION SUITE 838-40. MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWER LANSING. MICHIGAN 48933 April 9, 1971 Dear Sheriff: Three years ago, the Institute for Community Development at Michigan State University (under contract to the Michigan Commi— ssion on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice) produced the "1968 Michigan Local Law Enforcement Directory" which gave a listing of virtually every sheriffs and police department in the state, along with some personnel, population and budget figures for each depart- ment. Due to time limitations, however, department heads were not asked what items of information would help them most in such a book. Consideration is being given to the publishing of an updated Directory, intended primarily for the use of sheriffs and police chiefs as a "desk reference book" of information on all sheriffs and police agencies in the state. This proposed book would include 1970 Census figures for each jurisdiction and would have other items of administrative information which you indicate you would want. The enclosed questionnaire will enable you to indicate your preference. It includes some suggested items of information which may help you. In the form, please indicate which items of informa- tion (regarding each department in Michigan) which you do or do not want. Also, it will help in directory development if we know how. you would use the information items; therefore, please answer all questions in the final section regardless of which items you mark in the first two sections. Your prompt questionnaire return will assure that the planned directory will contain the kinds of information you, as a sheriff, want and need. Sincerely, ack P. Foster xecutive Secretary Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Preliminary Questionnaire tor i9“ LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORY This form consists of three sections which are designed to help determine the content of the proposed 1971 Michi- gan Law Enforcement Administrative Directory. Because this will be compiled for your use as a Chief or sheriff, you are being asked to help determine the kinds of information which will be included in the directory. Please answer all questions. At the end of the questionnaire, write any additional items you would like to have included in the directory. No individual answers on make on this form will be released. Only answers grouped by size of agency (the number of full-time and art-time of icers) will be analyzed. This form 5 ould be completed and returned NO LATER THAN APRIL 24. For office use only: (I) (2-5) — -— —- -— (6) IMPORTANT: Check the box which describes your agency: (7) D All part-time officers (No full-time) [:1 1 full-time officer [3 4—20 full—time officers E] Over 20 full-time officers E] 2 to 3 full-time officers SECTION I - REGARDING THE I968 LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORY 1. Did you (or your agency) receive a copy of the 1968 Michigan Law Enforcement Directory? (Manila-colored cover. published by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice). (8) |:] Yes [:1 Do not know [:JNo 2. If you did receive a copy, when was the last time you used it? (9) [:j Within the last 6 months [1% to 1 year ago L‘: p] 1 to 2 years ago [:12 to 3 years ago [; j Was not used SECTION 2 - Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire PLEASE CHECK WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION EACH ITEM IN THE NEXT GIVEN IN DIRECTORY DIRECTORY DIRECTORY INFORMATION ITEM ‘ Name of Agency Winston Twp. Police (Make ONE check on each line) 1 Name of chief or sheriff JR. Slate, Chief (10) E] Yes [:J No , 3617 Rolling Brook Rd. 2 Busmess address and telephone number Winston, Michigan 48899 (11) [:3 Yes [:3 No (517) 969-6969 3 Number of full-time officers 3 (12) [fl Yes I 1 No 4 Number of part-time officers 2 (13) |' | Yes | i No 5 Number of full-time officers per 1,000 population 05 (m l | Yes 1 1 No 6 1970 US. census population of all areas served 6.319 (15) l g I Yes [ _ 1 No by agency Estimated PEAK population (the greatest number of .- 7 people in the jurisdiction at any one time) 11.000 (16) [ _ I Yes i _ 1 No 8 Total police expenditures during the past fiscal year $33,417.17 (17) 1;] Yes [:1 No Percent of police expenditures, as a part of total r - 9 government expenditures, last year. 101% “5’ I: Yes I. l N0 10 Total number of marked and unmarked police sedans & 1 (,9) l: - Yes I I No station wagons used by the department. 11 Number of patrol vehicles on-duty at 1 pm. weekdays 1 (20) | _ | Yes [ 1 No SECTION 2(Coritinued) - Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire Page 2 PLEASE CHECK WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION EACH ITEM IN THE NEXT DIRECTORY INFORMATION ITEM GIVEN IN DIRECTORY DIRECTORY 12 Number of patrol officers normally on duty at 1 p.m. weekdays 1 ‘2” I: Yes l:l N0 Established patrol officer work week (hours) ‘ 13 NOT counting overtime 40 (22’ D Yes [:1 NO Average patrol officer work week (hours) 14 including overtime 42 (23) I: Yes [:1 No Is this agency recognized as the ambulance 15 service in the community? Yes (2" [:1 Yes l:l No Is each individual officer or patrol team required to 16 maintain a written log of activity while on duty? No (25) [:1 Yes B No Has this agency ever had a patrol or beat 17 distribution study? No (25) [3 YES [:1 NO Does department keep a pin map or other map-based 18 record of traffic accidents? Yes (27) D Yes [:3 No 19 Does department keep a pin map or other map-based record of major crimes in the jurisdiction? NO (28) I: Yes D No 20 Location 'of the LEIN terminal serving the jurisdiction East Lansing State Police (29) [:1 Yes C] No Is the felony clearance rate“ for the department 21 calculated regularly? (*Ratio of felonies reported to Yes (30) [:I Yes [:] N0 felonies cleared by arrest) Do your patrol-level officers have an organization or 22 association which participates in the setting of wages No (31) E] Yes [:1 No or working conditions? SECTION 3 — Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire NOTE: In developing a directory, it is a great help to know some of the ways the users (law enforcement officers, in this case) use the book. For each directory item below, two possible uses are given. Please indicate, for each use, whether you, as head of your agency, would ever use the item (under column A) to do what is indicated in columns B and C. Mark an “X” on a dot at the appropriate end of a scale to show a definite yes or no. If you do not have a definite answer, mark one of the two center dots to indicate your best estimate of “yes” or “no”. EXAMPLES: DE | ITE DEFINITE This means you definitely would use the x Y: N: :0 item for the purpose given. DEFINITE DEFINITE This means you are not sure whether you hwould use the item as described, but you YES yes 0 no estimate that you would not. A DIRECTORY B WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM C WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM INFORMATION ITEM UNDER "A" TO ... . UNDER “A" TO . . . Assist in sending mail to a department Assist in telephoning a chief whose Name of chief or sheriff whose chief you do not know? name you do not know? 1 DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE I32) 3* 3 3 g3 (33) 3 3 3 3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Business address and Assist in telephoning a distant Help call a small agency which does 2 telephone number department? not have a phone directory listing? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE I34) 3 3 3 3 (35) 3% 3 3 43 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Number of full-time Help locate departments the same size Determine whether a selected small officers as yours? department has any full-time officers? 3 DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE I36) 3 3 3 J. (S7) 3L 3 3L 3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Number of part-time Help determine the ratio of part-time Find whether an agency has NO officers to full-time officers in an agency? part-time officers? 4 DEFINITE DEFINITE OEF’INITE DEFINITE (3S) 3 3 3 4. I39) 3* 3 3 —‘ YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO SECTION 3 (Continued) - Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire Page 3 DIRECTORY A INFORMATION ITEM WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM UNDER "A" TO . . . WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM UNDER "A" TO . . . Number of full—time Assist in comparing the citizen-officer Help you “prove” to the governing officers per 1,000 ratio of your agency with other agencies? council or commission that you need 5 population more men? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (40) e e e e (41) 3 e e : YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO 1970 US. Census Help compare the number of people Help determine whether the size of your population of all areas served by your agency and another department has changed in proportion to 6 served by the agency agency? the population change since 1960? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (42) e e e c (43) e ' e e 3. YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Estimated PEAK Find the greatest number of non- Determine whether you need to “swear population (the greatest residents an agency is responsible in” additional deputies or reserve 7 number of people in the for at one time? officers? jurisdiction at any one DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE time). (44) s e e 4. (45) e e e 4. YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Total police expenditures Assist in finding and comparing the ex- Aid in finding and comparing the expend- during the past fiscal year penditures of other departments which itures of other agencies which have the 8 serve the same population size as your same number of officers as your agency? ‘ department? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (4o) .3 .3 c c (47) :— Afi : : YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Percent of police expend- Help find whether your agency is getting Help convince the local governing council itures, as a part of total “its share” of the local tax dollar? or commission that you need a larger per- 9 government expenditures, centage of tax money for your agency? last year DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (4a) , .3 e e c (49) e—e—e——e YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Total number of marked Assist in finding how many cars are Compare the ratio of cars to total number and unmarked police used by other selected departments of officers with other agencies in your 10 sedans and station wagons of your size? area? used by the department DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (SO) 33 3 3 4 (SI) .——.—.———‘ YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Number of patrol vehicles Help you find the ratio of on-duty offi- Assist in finding the ratio of on-duty on duty at 1 p.m. cers to census population for departments patrol units to the number of complaints 11 weekdays in your area? received during the day? 'DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE I52) 3 3 A 3 3 (53) 3——-—3——+—-—. YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Number of patrol officers Help find which agencies have the most Help find whether the number of on—duty normally on duty at l p.m. vehicles on the street per on-duty cars per 1,000 population is related to 12 weekdays officer? day time crime rate? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (S4) .3 3 3 3 (55) 3 4 3 3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Established patrol Help calculate the number of agencies Help find whether your department’s officer work week (hours) in your region with more than a 40 hour basic work week is “in line” with other 13 not counting overtime basic work week? departments of your size? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (56) 3 3 3 4. (57) .——.—O———. , YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Average patrol officer Assist in calculating the actual average Help determine whether smaller depart- work week (hours) work week for all agencies in your ments tend to work more overtime per 14 including overtime region? man. DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (58) e e e 4. (59) e—-—e———e——e YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Is the agency recognized Help find agencies which could tell you Help find whether most agencies your size as the ambulance service their experiences in providing ambulance are recognized as providing this service? 15 in the community? service? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (60) 3 3 3 3 (61) .—-—-—.——-—-——-O——-—. YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO SECTION 3 (Continued) - Law Enforcement Directory Questionnaire Page 4 DIRECTORY A INFORMATION ITEM WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM 8 UNDER "A" TO . . . WOULD YOU EVER USE THE ITEM C UNDER ”A" TO . . . ls each individual officer or patrol team required to Assist you in deciding whether your men should be required to keep on- duty logs? Aid in finding out how other chiefs and sheriffs use the information on the logs? cers have an organization or association which par- ticipates in the setting of wages or working with such an organization? DEFINITE DEFINITE (74) 3 3 3 3 YES YES NO NO conditions ? 16 maintain a written log of DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE oammrs activity while on duty? ”’2’ S 3 3 c “’3’ 3 3 3 = YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Has this agency ever had Help find the sizes of agencies which Determine whether agencies which use a patrol or beat distribu- have done this type of study? this type of study tend to have a lower 17 tion study? crime rate? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (64) 3 3 3 3 (SS) 3 3 3f 3 YES YES NO NO YES YESA NO NO Does department keep a Help find the smallest size of depart- Help make a list of agencies which pin map or other map-based ment which tends to keep this type of could tell you how they use such a 18 record of traffic accidents? information? map? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (SS) 3 3 3 3 (S7) 3 3 3 3 YES YES no NO YES YES No NO Does department keep a Help find the smallest size of depart- Aid in building a system of placing your pin map or other map-based ment which tends to keep this type of traffic patrols more effectively? l9 record of major crimes in information? the jurisdiction ? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (SS) 3 3f 33 3 (SS) 33 3 3 3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Location of the LEIN Find the routing of L.E.I.N. messages Help you find how selected agencies 20 terminal serving the to this agency? arrange for or pay their L.E.I.N. operators? - jurisdiction? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (70) 3 3 3 3 (71) 3 3— 33 3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO Is the felony clearance Help you measure your agency’s effec- Aid in convincing the local governing rate for the department tiveness with other agencies your size? board or council that you need a budget 21 calculated regularly ?‘ (fiscal) allocation increase? DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE DEFINITE (72) ' .3 L 3 a (73) 3 3 3 —3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO 22 Do your patrol-level offi- Make a list of departments in your area Compare pay scales of agencies with and without employee organizations? DEFINITE DEFINITE (78) 3f 3 3 3. YES YES NO NO 4 (Please list other items, if any, which you would like to have added to the next law enforcement directory. Thank you ‘for helping design the next directory. (76) SIGNATURE 7 NAME or AGENCY APPENDIX C LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT AND QUESTIONNAIRE FORM MAILED TO SHERIFFS APPENDIX D REMINDER LETTER MAILED TO POLICE CHIEFS MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION OFFICERS President '()I . FREDRICK E. DAVIDS Department of State Police First Vice President CHIEF EDWARD J. KAAKE Essexville Set, 0nd Vice President "IIIEF WALTER E. KRASNY Ann Arbor Secretary - Treasurer MAJOR JOHN N. BROWN Dept. of State Police Sergeant at Arms CHIEF GEORGE M. PERA Kingsford Executive Secretary E. 8. WILSON Leland House - 400 Bagley Detroit. Mich. 48226 DIRECTORS (It? JAMES W. RUTHERFORD Flint CHIEF MAX E. HARROUN Big Rapids {IEF LESLIE VAN BEVEREN Holland (" HIE F GEORGE GRADY Dowagiac F HIEF DEROLD W. HUSBY Lansing CHIEF HERMAN H. POTTS Royal Oak CHIEF DEAN A. FOX Kalamazoo Immediate Past President of CHIEFS OF POLICE Office of the Presxdent Col. Fredrick E. Davids 714 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, Mich. 48823 April 2Q, 1971 Dear Chief: This letter is a reminder that a preliminary survey of all Michigan police agencies is being conducted to deter— mine the preferred content of the proposed Law Enforce- ment Administrative Directory. We want to be sure that the Directory will contain the kinds of information which you, as a chief, would want in such a book. The ques- tionnaire (entitled ”Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Preliminary Questionnaire for 1971 Law Enforcement' Administrative Directory") which was sent you last week is for this important purpose. The response to the questionnaire is encouraging, however I am sure that more chiefs will want their questionnaire included in the study. Therefore, the date for submit- ting completed questionnaires has been extended one week, to May 1. Your questionnaire form had not arrived in the mail by 5:00 P.M., Friday, April 23. Therefore, unless you already have your form in the mail, you are urged to com- plete it and send it no later than Friday morning, April 30. You are reminded that no individual answers will be released. Only answers totalled from all questionnaire forms will be analyzed. If you have misplaced your form, please notify this office immediately, and a form will be sent you by special delivery mail. Remember, this is your opportunity to state the kinds of "desk information" you want regarding police agencies. Sincerely, ngw Fredrick E. Davids, Col. PRESIDENT J APPENDIX E REMINDER LETTER SENT TO SHERIFFS AREA CODE 5 I 7-489-0 I 58 MICHIGAN SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION SUITE 838-40. MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWER LANSING. MICHIGAN 48933 April 2a, 1971 Dear Sheriff: This letter is a reminder that a preliminary survey of all sheriffs is being conducted to determine the preferred content of the proposed Law Enforcement Administrative Directory. We want to be sure that the Directory will contain the kinds of information which you, as a sheriff, would want in such a book. The questionnaire (entitled "Sheriff's Pre- liminary Questionnaire for 1971 Law Enforcement Administrative Directory") which was sent you ten days ago is for this important purpose. The response to the questionnaire is encouraging, however, I am sure that more sheriffs will want to have their questionnaire included in the study. Therefore, the final date for submitting completed questionnaires has been extended to April 30. The questionnaire form from your department had not arrived in the mail by 5:00 P.M., Friday, April 23. Therefore, unless you already have your form in the mail, you are urged to complete it and send it no later than Friday morning, April 30. You are reminded that no individual an- swers will be released. Only answers totalled from all questionnaires will be analyzed for the Directory. If you have misplaced your form, please notify this office immediatel and a form will be sent you by special delivery. Remember, you are the one who stand to benefit from this. Sincerely, ack P. Foster Executive Secretary APPENDIX F MEAN AND VARIANCE VALUES OF THE RESPONSES OF EACH DIRECTORY ITEM, WITH OVERALL MEAN, OVERALL VARIANCE, AND RANGE nnnm.¢ ma.m namn.¢ mm.m ommm.q nm.m m¢m¢.m no.m ~mmm.¢ Gn.m ma unmo.m mH.m o~oo.~ mm.m m¢oo.m mm.~ mamq.q mm.m om~H.q om.m «H mnoo.n H~.m memo.“ c~.~ qum.~ mm.H ooe~.¢ mq.m mow¢.n mm.m ma ohm~.q mo.¢ «NNN.¢ o~.m ammo.¢ NH.m mmoo.¢ oa.m omqo.m m¢.¢ NH mace.¢ mw.m Gwflo.q mm.m nmwo.m om.m mwwn.¢ wn.m m~m¢.¢ om.m HA o~o~.m no.~ mmqw.m ¢¢.~ omom.m om.m mmm~.q am.m omfio.m mm.n 0H maqm.¢ Ho.m mmm~.m H¢.N «mmn.m nm.m momm.¢ oo.m onmm.m qu.m o «Gmm.m oq.m omoH.N mm.H moom.m mo.m c-~.q He.~ mmoH.m ~m.m m mo~o.¢ aa.m qqoo.¢ om.~ Han.¢ mu.w ¢~o~.m om.m gnaw.m mH.¢ n umcq.~ oa.~ mqom.d om.H ommo.~ mo.H mmoo.¢ mm.m mmao.q oo.n o mmo~.~ mo.~ mma¢.m mo.~ mmno.q m~.~ mqoo.q om.m wmwm.m Qn.m m mmOm.¢ mm.q nw¢q.¢ nm.m mqn~.w oo.m mmm~.m Nq.m on~n.¢ -.m q mamq.~ m~.m om~¢.~ NH.~ n~m~.m -.N mmnm.¢ cw.~ coco.¢ mH.m m ~m¢¢.o oH.H o-o.o o~.H moaq.o mm.H m~o¢.a mm.H wmn~.~ ¢m.~ m nmm~.o OH.H wHHo.o om.H mmoq.o -.H mmmm.~ ow.H mmmo.H ##.H H oocawum> 5mm: mocmwuw> Cum: mocmwum> cam: mucmwum> :mmz mocmfiuw> can: onHmmmm mmmoummo mMmUHmmo mmmoummo mmmonmo mmmoummo mzHauqumanzmzk mm>o mZHHIAADm MHZm3HIMDom mzHHuAADm mmmmanozh MZHHIAADh mzo mZHHnHm moz Qz< z fiégo omaa.~ qoom.~ mohm.~ momfi.m mofiq.m z com: cummflum> com: mucmfium> cam: wocmaum> cam: wocmfium> Cam: onHmmnd mmmonmo mmmonmo mmmonmo mmmonmo mmmonmo mZHHnAADm NHZM3H mm>o MZHHIAADH NHZN3HIMDOM mZHHnAADh mmmmHsOBH mZHHIAADm mzo MZHHuHm