.fy? .rt..!:...!..:).a.7rr .l,.. frFKrl-Iiiiéf. W a“. :22}: '53:... .2..3.7rv...)?l!. {EC-I. Egriii. 3:... t. 15.5.!!! ‘1 5... {1041... 5.5.3 (a? .( .. {til-.72! fight-2.. . as 2.2., II. 33.15... 1:... §;.}DII‘ s: :11 33.92:}.7... J 41.3.... .1. v . r v r v a .1 y. w r v. . y w _! . . g!!!)tla {v .2 1...)? (ii... I: I.si>.r5f....!.{a\t..r<‘l}lilr vitii. 1....‘r I: 96¢437JO RS TY LIBRARIES . lllllllljglljlm‘lill:w 5486 ll This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IMPACT OF SATELLITE POLICE STATIONS ON THE COMHJNITY 0F SAGINAH, MICHIGAN presented by Ann M. Davis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Scrence dpgvein Cr1m1na] Just1ce V f K. (44 W3 Majclr professor Dan: February 23, 1989 07639 MSU is an AUTrmalive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State; University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE SEP 2 7 im n p '31 5:1 1' ‘ r001" 12 g‘ii . I. ‘_ . ' inf, .J N39 as 8 mg W02 MSU .Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\clic\ddedue.pm3-p.1 THE IMPACT OF SATELLITE POLICE STATIONS ON THE COMMUNITY OF SAGINAW, MICHIGAN by Ann M. Davis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial FulFillment 0F the requirements For the degree 0F MASTER OF SCIENCE School 0F Criminal Justice 1989 7 i 7 5627 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF SATELLITE POLICE STATIONS ON THE COMMUNITY OF SAGINAW, MICHIGAN By Ann M. Davis Modeled aFter the Detroit mini-station program, Saginaw began implementing mini-stations in high crime neighborhoods in 1985. Currently there are three mini—stations in operation. Triangulation was employed to describe any observed eFFects they program may have had on crime rates and the Fear oF crime in the target areas. Through participant observation, mini—station operations and oFFicer rationale in report writing were documented. Secondary analysis oF Saginaw Police Department statistics revealed that crime has relatively stabilized in both the city and one oF the target areas between 1885 and 1988. Anal- ysis oF three separate surveys demonstrates the visible police presence and increased patrols are much wanted in Saginaw's high crime minority neighborhoods. Mini-stations in Saginaw serve neighborhoods which have demonstrated inconsistent changes in reported crime since program implemention. The study concluded that the mini-station impact could not be determined For Fear oF crime and that changes in crimes reported were inconsistent For each oF the three Facilities. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: Introduction Introduction ......................................... .1” The Characteristics oF Saginaw ...................... ,4 The Saginaw Police Mini—Station Program ............. .B Other Mini-Station Programs .......................... 1E Importance oF the Study ............................. 13 Summary ............................................. 15 Chapter II: Review oF the Literature The Concept oF Community Policing ................... 17 The Fear oF Crime ................................... 33 Community Policing in Practice ...................... 37 Summary ............................................. 30 Chapter III: Methods Study Setting ....................................... 32 Participant Observation ............................. 38‘ The Surveys ......................................... 42 Secondary Analysis .................................. 47. Summary.............................................AE Chapter IV: Results Participant Observation ............................. SO Survey Analysis ..................................... 57' Secondary Analysis .................................. 71 Summary ...................................... 81 Chapter V:Discussion Major Findings ............................... 82 Methodological Implications .................. 88 Implications ................................. 90 Summary ...................................... 93 Glossary ......................................... SS Appendices Appendix A: Maps ............................ 98 Appendix B: Surveys ........................ 106 Appendix C: Diary .......................... 110 Appendix D: Documents ...................... 114 Appendix E: Recommendations ................. 118 Bibliography .................................... 122 List oF General REFerences ...................... 126 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table A _\ n) _\ Lil LIST OF TABLES Number oF Saginaw UCR OFFense: ..................... S Saginaw Burglary and Larceny Reports ............... 9 Demographic Characteristics oF gurvey Subjects....58 Responses to Police Expectations .................. 59 Survey Responses to Policing Problems ............. 61 Responses to E. Genesee Survey .................... 62 Number oF Reported Calls .......................... 62 Does the Subject Feel SaFe? .............. . ......... 64 Level 0F Fear ..................................... 65 Categories and their Fear Level ................... 66 Neighborhood Police Problems ...................... 68 Expected Police duties ............................ 70 1986 Crime and Victimization Rates ................ 73 1986 Part I Rates ................................. 74 Standard Deviation oF Part I Totals ............... 76 Deviation in Area Crime Rates ..................... 77 City — Area Crime Lorrelation ..................... 80 Racial Breakdown oF Saginaw 197D and 1980 ........ 114 Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2. Figure 4.3. List oF Figures Total Part I OFFanses, Saginaw 1976—1988.. ...... ......72 Comparison 0F Saginaw city to Area Crime ....... .. ..... 76 Area a Monthly Major Crime Trends 1986-1968...........79 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Overview The purpose oF this chapter is to describe how com- munity policing is practiced in the Saginaw, Michigan, mini-stations. AFter a brieF explanation oF the concept, a characterization oF the city is given. A statement oF the problem is presented. The importance oF the study is explained. The Community Policing Concept Questions about the eFFectiveness 0F motorized police patrols have lead to the development 0F experimental policing designs and patrol innovatidns (Goldstein,1987). Long viewed as eFFective law enForcement techniques, the vi- sible presence and rapid deployment oF patrol cars have been challenged in recent research eFForts, most notably the 1974 Kansas City study (Kelling, 1974). Exploring patrol eFFect- iveness, this study concluded that variations in motorized patrol techniques had little eFFect on crime patterns, cit- izen attitudes and satisFaction toward the police, or Fear 0F crime. The physical barrier presented by the patrol car, 1 2 sporadic contacts with the police, and the lack oF Face— to-Face contact can caused motorized patrol oFFicers to easily become isolated From the public (Alpert and Dun— ham, 1986). The important communication linkages which can supply inFormation to prevent and control crime are absent. The Kansas City study (Kelling, 1974) concluded: Motorized patrols have brought little crime control, no greater sense oF security, and have prevented the police From perForming order maintenance and service Functions eFFectively. Community policing is currently employed as an innova— tion to improve police—community relations and encourage cit- izen participation in proactive policing (see glossary). 0b— ligation For law enForcement and social control are histori- cally rooted in citizen involvement. BeFore the Norman Con- quest, early English society gave villagers the responsibil— ity For aiding neighbors and protecting the settlement From thieves and marauders (Save aijemfil,1984L The community policing concept is recognized to have Formally originated in 1829 in London, England, when Sir Robert Peel established the First organized police Force. As criminal justice specialists later assumed sole responsibility For keeping order, citizens have become apathetic while crime has burgeoned (CoFFey, EldeFonso and Hartinger, 1982). With its 1970's revival, community policing encour— ages the citizen involvement necessary to suppress crime. At its core is citizen participation in crime prevention and control. To promote proactive policing, crime control partnerships are Formed between the police and the com— munity. This partnership may include citizen patrol and/or watch groups, police newsletters, police Foot patrols, and/or storeFront police stations (or mini—stations). Al— though community policing does not always reduce crime rates, it can still be successFul in improving quality oF liFe, increasing Feelings oF security, reducing Fear oF crime, improving attitudes toward the police, or elevating oFFicer morale, satisFaction, and attitude, Both the Flint, Michigan (Trojanowicz, 1983) and the Newark, New Jersey, (Williams and Pate, 1987) Foot patrol programs were Found to successFully improve quality oF liFe, reduce .Fear oF crime, improve police—community relations, and el— evate oFFicer morale, despite the programs' not reducing re— ported crime. Indeed, the rapport established between com- munity policing personnel and the community may cause an in— crease in reporting oF crime. In both Newark and Flint, successes in improving quality oF liFe were judged to be oF Far greater importance than reductions in crime. Reduced Fear oF crime can lead to greater cultural enrichment (Wilson and Kelling, 1974), release From Feel— ings oF being imprisoned in one's own home (Cordner, 1986), strengthening oF social bonds (Wilson and Kelling, 1974), greater Freedom to move about to conduct one's daily busi- ness, and Financial relieF For those who can ill—aFFord the expenses oF burglar alarms and home security devices. Facing declining revenues and manpower since 1980, 4 Saginaw, Michigan implemented 3 police mini—stations to (a) reduce the city's high crime rates, (b) improve police- community relations, and (c) improve the quality oF liFe For area residents. The Saginaw program can be considered community policing because crime control partnerships are Formed between team policing oFFicers and the community (Rosenbaum, 1987). The Characteristics 0F Saginaw Saginaw is the eleventh largest city in the state oF Michigan. The UniForm Crime Reports have placed Saginaw sixth through tenth in the state in total number oF reported crimes For the years 1982 through 1987. The total number and rate per 100,000 For each oF the Part I oFFenses in Saginaw between 1982 and 1987 are listed in Table 1.1. on page S. 5 Table 1.1. Number 0F Saginaw UCR DFFenses Crime 1982 005 1983 005 1984 005 * N Rate N Rate N Rate Murder“ 23 30.1 15 21.0 11 14.7 Hape** 93 121.8 122 150.4 157 209.2 Robbery 355 477.8 335 440:5 298 397.1 Assault*** 838 1097.0 1017 1337.3 989 1317.9 Burglary 2841 3719.3 2503 328.7 2178 2902.4 Larceny 5825 7525.8 4455 5859 4 3789 5049.2 UDAA 247 323.4 324 -427.4 355 474.4 Arson N/A N/A N/A N/A 158 210.5 Table 1.1. cont., Number 0F Saginaw UCR DFFenses Crime 1985 005 1985 005 1987 005 * N Rate N Rate N Rate Murder 12 20.0 20 25.9 18 24.7 napa** 158 223.5 208 280.2 132 170.1 Robbery 284 377.9 315 424.3 359 492.9 Aeea01t***1125 1497.0 1204 1521.9 1140 1555.4 Burglary 2385 3173.5 2280 3071.4 2515 3453.5 Larceny 3387 5172.2 3585 4954.0 3584 4921.4 UDAA 327 435.1 299 402.8 355 502.5 Arson 185 247.5 193 250.0 188 258.2 Includes non—negligent homicide =* Forcible rape ¥** Felonious or aggravated assault Note: Rates are per 100,000. Source: Crime in the United State; UnimetCrime Reports United Sates Department 0F Justice, Washington 0.0., For the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1986. and 1987 6 The 1980 Census places the population 0F Saginaw at 77,508. The current population is believed by the Saginaw Police Department to be 74,234. The city is divided into east and west by the Saginaw River. The river is a symbolic boundary separating the city's white and minority populations. Also, the river serves as an economic boundary. Property values on the West Side are considerably higher than on the East Side. Com— parable homes may cost up to twice as much to purchase on the West Side. Rental units on the East Side cost less, although many oF the East Side privately owned apartments are considerably deteriorated. Hundreds oF rent—subsidized apartments are located in East Side housing complexes, while most oF West Side rent-subsi— dized rental units are available exclusively to senior citizens. The 1980 Census breaks the city population in 75.4% white and 35.6% black (see Table 6.1., page TM 0F the Appendices). Between 1970 and 1980, The East Side lost 18,000 whites while gaining 5,000 blacks. The East rose From 43.7% percent black in 1970 to 64.8% in 1980. The Department 0F Planning and Economic Development reports that these trends in racial make—up 0F the East Side have continued in the same direction to the present time. Slight increases in minority relocation to the West side continue. The minority in—migration to the WestSide is most concentrated in an economically 7 depressed neighborhood adjacent to the west side oF the Saginaw River. The decline in city population is tied to two Factors: the greatest loss is due to the loss oF employ— ment opportunities in the area over the past 2 decades; the second Factor is economic Flight 0F all racial groups to the more aFFluent adjacent suburbs. Heavily dependent upon the auto industry, the area has been hard hit by sev- eral major plant closings and massive lay oFFs. The auto plants currently employ 17,000 workers in the area. another 3,000 workers are oFFicially laid oFF. Located in central eastern Michigan, Saginaw is the county seat oF Saginaw county. The city oF Saginaw's OFFice oF Economic Development estimates the current city population to be 72,824. The 1980 Census revealed that 99.2 percent 0F the city's West Side population was white and 43.2 percent 0F the city's East side residents were black, 2 de Facto segregation demarcated by the Saginaw River. The national unemployment rate in July, 1988, was 5.6 percent, while in the city 0F Saginaw the rate was 11.5 percent For the same month. The auto industry is the area's largest employer. Plant closings have not only displaced thousands 0F auto workers but also countless other employees who used to serve the auto workers' needs in the past. Closings 0F other businesses include sev— eral area schools, a city hospital, a grocery store chain, 8 and numerous smaller businesses such as restaurants and retail stores. The city 0F Saginaw has a mayoral—managerial Form 0F government. The mayor is elected From within the city council body. The city manager is appointed by the city council. The current city manager was appointed in 1985. His predecessor appointed the current chieF oF police in 1983. The city is divided into tab zones and areas For the ease 0F dispatching and record keeping 0F the Saginaw Police Department (SPO). The size 0F each area and tab zone is approximately equal in either total population and/or acreage. (For maps oF the city and the mini- station target areas, see Appendix A). The Saginaw Mini-Station Program The Saginaw mini—station concept originated during a police department administrative planning meeting in 1985. Hoping to qualiFy For grant Funding, the experi- ence 0F the Detroit mini—stations was used as the base For the Saginaw program. Currently 3 mini—stations oper— ate in Saginaw. Each 0F these Facilities was jointly Fund- ed For the First year through the DFFice 0F Criminal Just- ice Programs oF that State oF Michigan and city general revenues. AFter the First year, the projects operate solely upon city Funds. Each oF the mini—stations was opened under separate grant applications. Grants were 9 obtained From the Michigan Justice Assistance Act. Areas 2, 3, and 4 were chosen, based on each area's burglary rates. Mini-Station #1, the Cherry Street Mini-Station, opened July 5, 1985, to serve police tab zones 108—110. This station cur— rently serves all oF Area 2. Opened January 1, 1987, Mini-Station #2, the East Genesee Mini-Station, serves tab zones 118, 119, 126, 127, 129, 146, 154 and 156 in Area 4. The South Washington (Street) mini—station, #3, serves Area 3 (40 tab zones). Areas and tab zones are Saginaw Police Department geographic divisions 0F the city, created to Facilitate dispatching and record keeping. Table 1.2. Saginaw Burglary and Larceny Reports ,1986 City Target Area 2 3 4 Burglary 2280 433 434 542 Larceny 3685 481 541 725 Total Part I 8269 1179 1135 1425 Note: Figures shown are For the time period January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1986. Source: Saginaw Police Department "Major Crime Trends" T UCR Part I oFFenses The Saginaw mini—stations have been designed to provide high crime area residents with concentrated "Full—service" law enForcement. Overall goals developed by the Department were "...to reduce actual crime rates 10 and/or the perceived crime rates via an all—out policing eFFort to inForm citizens 0F good public saFety/crime prevention habits..." and "...to establish a meaningFul rapport between the oFFicers and the community." The mini-station objectives, as Formulated by the Saginaw Police Department, For all three mini—stations are: 1. The generation 0F community awareness oF the techniques oF crime prevention in the districts. 2. To work closely with the churches, city agencies, etc., to identiFy the target group within the target areas who need specialized attention, e.g., the elderly and youthFul oFFender. 3. To maintain a continued, high proFile police presence in the districts by staFFing police mini-stations in the neighborhoods. 4. To target, through case assignment and resolu— tion, the criminal element operating within the districts and to bring these individuals to trial. 5. To permanently assign oFFicers to duty at the mini-stations in an eFFort to generate produc— tive rapport with the residents. 6. To create a citizen—based core group to assist police in preventing criminal activity. Mini—station activities include: (a) providing 24— hour, Full service oFFicers to the neighborhoods, (b) permanent assignment oF oFFicers inside each target area, (c) direct telephone and personal contact with the oFFicers, (d) distribution 0F crime prevention inFormation, and (e) acting as the coordination Facility For citizen watch groups. Programs include assisting residents in the surveillance and reporting oF crime, bicycle licensing, crime prevention awareness, muscular dystrophy Fund raising carnivals and social activities such as block 11 parties, to introduce neighbors and community leaders to each other. The mini—station grant applications proposed using the Following criteria to measure mini—station eFFective— ness (no numerical goals were cited): 1. Comparative crime statistics relative to the target neighborhoods: A. Number oF cells For service 6. Part I crimes investigated 0. Part I crimes adjudicated 0. Number 0F arrests made DFFicers' daily reports. Citizen and community contacts (For example, watch group meetings, phone contacts, or walk- ins). 4. Pre—and post—surveys on community needs, expec— tations and the proper policing responses to these issues. 5. Political and media responses to the project. UN Manpower shortages and the lack 0F computerized re— cord keeping precludes departmental analysis oF Part II oFFenses, political and media responses, post-surveys, and citizen and community contacts. Records are currently kept on oFFicers' daily activities, arrests made, cells For service, and Part I crimes investigated and cleared. Separate statistics For the target area list only Part I oFFenses reported. Departmental policy mandates des- truction 0F records aFter 2 years. The Department used Part I oFFenses exclusively For their own analysis 0F mini— station eFFectiveness (For a graphic illustration oF this evaluation, see Appendix page 117). The pre—surveys were administered in area 2 and 4 immediately Following the 12 opening 0F each mini-station. The pre—surveys will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters III and IV. Other Mini-Station Programs The Saginaw mini-station program is modeled aFter the Detroit, Michigan mini—station program. The Detroit pro- gram began in 1975 and currently includes 52 mini-stations. The volunteer staFFs at these mini-stations are encouraged to believe that the mini-stations belong to them, rather than to the Detroit Police Department. Problem-plagued during the First 2 years oF operation, the Detroit program was revamped and has served as a model For mini—station programs in the United states and Canada. Studies 0F mini-stature in Newark, New Jersey, (Wil— liams and Pete, 1987) and Houston, Texas, (Brown and Wy- coFF, 1987) echo the Detroit Format 0F permanent oFFicer assignment, coordination 0F watch groups, volunteer civilian staFFing, the establishment oF linkages with area residents, and involving the community in crime prevention. Typically, mini-stations are located in high crime, minority neigh— borhoods. OFFicers are pre—screened For assignment and are required to attend relevant workshops and seminars. While mini—stations share many common goals, diFFer- ences exist in activities and staFFing. OFten volunteers are diFFicult to Find, under—qualiFied, and lose interest rapidly. Detroit made limited use 0F WorkFare recipients in their mini—stations. Detroit's mini-stations oFFered 13 Free security locks and lock installation For low income senior citizens. The Newark and Houston mini—stations were parts oF a multi-Facted approach to reducing crime and the Fear 0F crime. These approaches included police newsletters without crime data, newsletters with crime data, citizen contact patrols, victim recontact, mini- stations community organizing, removal 0F "signs 0F crime" (WycoFF, 1988) (social disorder and physical deterioration), and problem solving to remove sources oF criminal activity From the areas. In both Newark and Houston, the mini- stations were determined to be more eFFective in re— ducing crime and the Fear 0F crime than any 0F the other methods. Importance 0F the Study It is readily recognized that the results oF this study will not answer all the questions that can be posed regarding police mini—stations. It is hoped that the research here developed will Furnish some insight into this innovative policing technique. One important aspect oF the study is that it will provide a working proFile oF the Saginaw mini-station program and will help develop a base For Further examination oF this Facet oF policing. The purpose 0F the study is to determine the strength and direction oF the eFFects oF the Saginaw mini-station program. To measure impact, both crime rates and Fear oF crime will be considered. Although quality 0F 14 liFe encompasses innumerable variables, the variable "Fear 0F crime" will be the only variable considered in this study. The results oF the present research will supplement a Saginaw Police Department 1985 evaluation which was based solely upon major crimes reported in the target area. Although the Department selected several measures to gauge mini-station eFFectiveness when the grant pro— posals were written, statistics were not tallied For most 0F the categories. The Department‘s evaluation was based only upon number 0F cells For service, Part I oFFenses reported, and oFFicer logs oF daily activities. The results 0F the present research will provide a sup— plement to the Department‘s evaluation by: (1) using objective, outside evaluation; (2) use 0F more data sources; (3) analysis oF the Department's own survey, and (4) by providing an additional point in time during which to assess whether or not the mini—station program continues to meet the goals set by SPO. A research question will be: To what extent are the mini—station services being utilized by the target area residents? The Theoretical Model As criminal justice specialist have assumed the sole responsibility For keeping order, citizens have become apathetic toward involvement while crime has 15 burgeoned and police—community relations have deteri— orated. Reinvolving the community in order maintenance, making the community the "eyes and ears" oF the police, building rapport between the police and the community and heightening crime prevention awareness can help to reduce crime and increase crime resolution while im- proving quality oF liFe and oFFicer satisFaction. Mini— stations are viewed as intensive, personalized eFForts to bring the police back into high crime neighborhoods to help improve quality 0F liFe by reducing victimization and Fear 0F crime. First, the reduction 0F minor disorders may ulti- mately lead to a reduction in serious crime by dis- rupting the hypothesized escalatory cycle oF com- munity decay thought to produce rampant serious crime. Second, order maintenance is justiFied in its own right in that it contributes to the estab- lishment 0F 5 civil,]jveafle environment in which citizens may, without Fear, exercise their right to pursue their livelihood, commerce, selF-expres— sion, entertainment, and so on. (MastroFski, 1988) The study is descriptive and exploratory. The study will be limited to researching reported crime, Fear oF crime, and mini—station operations in a "target area" oF Saginaw. Because the study is restricted to a spec~ iFic area in one city, generalizations to the community as a whole and other dissimilar neighborhoods are not possible. The hypotheses to be tested are: (1) Crime in the target areas has not decreased 16 since the mini—stations were implemented. (2) There is no correlation between changes in crime rates in the target areas and in the city-wide totals. Summary This section has given a statement oF the problem and the purpose oF the study. A brieF introductory sketch oF the city precedes a description oF the populace, which will be described in Chapter III. The theoretical model upon which community policing, and more speciFi— cally, mini—stations is based has been given. The re— search questions and testable hypotheses have been list- ed. Chapter II contains a review oF literature perti— nent to community policing, mini-stations, and the twin goals oF crime reduction and reduced Fear 0F crime. Chapter III presents a detailed description 0F the re— search methods to be employed and the population and sample evaluated by each method. The results oF the analysis oF data will be presented in Chapter IV. the Focus 0F Chapter V is the discussion 0F the major Find— ings and implications. Recommendations For the mini- station program will be given. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview Literature pertinent to the concept 0F community policing is reviewed. Community policing eFForts, in— cluding mini—stations (or storeFront police stations) are included. The goals 0F community policing, crime reduction and reducing Fear 0F crime, are developed along with methods employed For evaluating the produc— tiveness oF police in meetings these goals. Reasons For stressing the reduction 0F Fear oF crime in evalu- ation are given. Causes oF Fear 0F crime are addressed. The Concept oF Community Policing Community policing is not a new concept. When Sir Robert Peel organized the First police patrol in London (England) in 1829, Foot patrol oFFicers were assigned to provide protection and service to the community. The oFFicer "learned his beat," enabling him to adapt to his neighborhood's unique characteristics and nec— essities (Alpert and Dunham, 1986). The implementation 17 18 0F motorized patrols in more recent history has led to a decrease in oFFicer Familiarity with the unique char— acteristics 0F the neighborhood and its residents. Re— cent research challenging the eFFectiveness oF traditional policing methods has prompted departments "on the cutting edge" to implement experimental Forms oF policing(Gold- stein, 1987). Many neighborhoods have become Frustrated because the police have become strangers, rushing in and out and responding to calls For service in a brusque Fashion. Contemporary policing has created a sense oF alienation between the community and the poUce. Many minority residents believe the police have not been a tangible presence, actively assisting neighborhoods in developing peace and security (Kelling, 1987). Policing is: ..characterized as having lost touch with the public, as threatening oF civil liberties, as invasive, opp— presive, and alienating; or as slack, indiFFerent, and ineFFicient. (Weatheritt, 1988) Historically, police—minority relations have been strained. Contacts between the black community and the police have generated, rather than assuaged, tension. Each group tends to Focus on their diFFerences rather than on com- mon problems. For many blacks, the police may symbolize all that is hated and Feared. Police normally view blacks as the most demanding group to serve, Find they raise the most anxiety, are the most hostile, and pose the greatest criminal threat (CoFFey, 1982). Police oFten Feel 19 aggrieved, mistreated, and put—upon. Blacks charge the police with brutality and demand greater civilian control, complaining 0F diFFerential treatment and harassment. Communication between the two suFFers because oF unwill— ingness to talk, listen, discuss and act (CoFFey, 1982). Mini-stations are traditionally located in minority neighborhoods where police—community relations are oFten poor.Community policing is being implemented experimentally with the intent to allow the community some input into the delivery oF police services, while enabling the police to develop a greater Familiarity with the community and its unique problems. Perhaps the earliest attempt to revive community policing in the United States was the experimental Foot patrol program in Newark in the mid—70's. The umbrella term "community policing" embraces a variety oF programs which have taken many Forms. The most common characteristics oF community policing are: (a) increased neighborhood cohesion to reduce Fear and increase police eFFectiveness (Goldstein, 1987): (b) police eFForts to reinForce inFormal social controls in the area (Wilson and Kelling, 1982); (c) the involvement oF the residents oF the community in preventing or solving crime; (d) the permanent assignment oF oFFicers to a speciFic neighborhood in an eFFort to build better police community relations with residents 0F the mmmunity; (e) the setting 0F police priorities based on the speciFic needs 0F the community; and (F) the allocation oF 20 police resources and personnel For order maintenance and service calls (Goldstein, 1987). Some oF the more successFul community policing programs have been based on the problem-solving approach (Farrell, 1988; Weisburd and McElroy, 1988; and Dttemeier and Brown, 1988). One oF the most common characteristics 0F community policing is the attempt to eliminate the psychological barrier presented by the patrol car. Implementation oF saturation patrols, motorcycle patrols, bicycle patrols, and Foot patrols have been designed to Facilitate com— munication linkages between the police and the community. Communication linkages can be important in preventing crime and improving police-community relations. Flint (Michigan) (Trojanowicz, 1983) implemented 5 Foot patrol program to countaflxm the problems 0F lack oF communi- cation between pclice oFFicers and citizens and the lack 0F citizen involvement in neighborhood crime prevention organizations. Increased opportunities For communication between police oFFicers and citizens were expected to lead to a greater understanding oF the neighborhood's unique characteristics, Facilitating police recognition oF potential problems. Foot patrol oFFicers were ex— pected to mobilize the community and encourage citizens to work together For mutual support and protection. While the Flint program did not signiFicantly reduce reported crime, the program was judged successFul due to measured reductions in Fear 0F crime. 21 A signiFicant problem in community policing has to do with the style oF policing used and what is accept— able to police oFFicers and will be tolerated by the community (Alpert and Dunham, 1986). Both police and civilians want diFFerential policing based on each neigh- borhood's unique characteristics. While upper class neighborhoods may be the appropriate setting For the service style, order maintenance may be more appropriate For lower class neighborhoods (Wilson, 1968). Greene (1988) stresses order maintenance as basic to community policing. Citizen contacts can help build trust, Foster greater rapport and aid the establishment oF a two-way Flow 0F inFormation (Trojanowicz, 1988). A basic goal 0F community policing is crime pre- vention. The core 0F crime prevention is the combin- ation 0F watch groups, property engraving and home se— curity analysis (Rosenbaum, 1987). Watch groups are typically small and engage in surveillance oF the neigh— borhood and crime reporting activities. Interested groups are guided by the police to recognize crime problems in their area, heighten crime prevention awareness and assist the police in crime detection. Watch groups have an underlying philosophy that strengthening social bonds can increase the neighborhood's sense oF inFormal social control (Rosenbaum, 1987; Goldstein, 1987; Brown and WycoFF, 1987; and Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Crime prevention includes opportunity reduction. 22 In addition to strengthening environmental barriers to crime, watch groups are urged to become the "eyes and ears” 0F the police and to report any suspicious or criminal activity in their area. Signs are oFten posted to alert would—be criminals that the risk oF detection and apprehension have been increased in the area. StoreFront police stations, or mini-stations, have been implemented in various cities in eFForts to strengthen social bonds, reduce crime and reduce Fear oF crime. Mini—stations provide watch group coordination, walk- in crime reporting, direct telephone contact with an oFFicer, distribution 0F crime prevention inFormation and problem reFerrals to other city and community agencies. The Newark storeFront evaluation (Pets, 1987) concluded: What is most notable about the community—oriented approach, apart From the Fact that it achieved several oF its desired goals, it that it was especially adroit at responding to changes in the environment. Most explicitly, the program pro— vided police oFFicers with the opportunity to learn From the people they serve by listening to them intently and regularly. By doing so, the police obtained current inFormation about what local residents Felt were problems, what the causes oF these problems appeared to be, and what kinds 0F approaches that could be used to resolve the prob— lems. This adaptive ability can be duplicated in other mini- stations, and has helped Foster mini-station implemen— tation in several cities. Detroit (Michigan) implemented police Mini— stations in 1975 to FulFill a campaign promise to bring 23 the police Force back in to the neighborhoods and make the police more accountable. Residents were invited to volunteer their services to the operation 0F the mini—stations and were aFForded input into the design and delivery oF services. Initially plagued with staFF problems 0F apathy and indiFFerence, staFF assignment was revamped. By the third year 0F operation, the mini— stations were able to demonstrate their eFFectiveness in aiding crime reduction (Holland, 1985). Houston (Texas) implemented police mini-stations in the mid—80's. The mini—stations were one Facet oF a task Force recommended program which used several approa— ches in the attempt to reduce Fear 0F crime. Along with citizen re—contact, newsletters, direct citizen contact patrols, and dissemination 0F crime statistics, store— Front police stations were opened in target areas. 0F the Five approaches used, mini-stations were Found to be the most successFul in meeting the objective. Many oF the oFFicers Felt that the strategy allowed them to do the best policing they had ever done. The Fear 0F Crime Community policing goals may be reductions in crime and/or the improvement in quality 0F liFe by reducing the Fear 0F crime (WycoFF, 1988). Since the increased rapport between the oFFicer and the community may cause an increase in c4 crime reporting (possibly due to increased Feelings that "something can be done"), reducing the Fear oF crime is oFten given greater priority as a goal than is crime reduction. Fear oF crime is oFten higher than is warranted by actual victimization (Brown and WycoFF, 1987; Wilson and Kelling, 1982; Kelling, 1987: and Brooks, 1974). Fear oF crime can lead to a cycle oF neighborhood decline which sparks higher crime rates (Brown and WycoFF, 1987). The city oF Newark developed a community policing program guided by the Wilson and Kelling (1982) thesis that Fear oF crime results From public disorder and phy— sically deteriorated neighborhoods, creating a sense oF anomie. Part oF Newark's Fear—reducing strategy was a storeFront police station, intended to enhance the neighborhood's sense oF community and to provide the Feeling oF being physically closer to the police. Anal— ysis associated the storeFront station with reductions in Fear oF personal victimization, lowered perceptions oF area crime, and lowered perceptions oF social dis— order in the area. Wilson and Kelling theorized the Fear oF victimization is heightened by the Fear oF being bothered by disorderly persons (e.g.,panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers and the mentally disturbed). "Disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked,” (Wilson and Kelling 1982:36). Many residents, thinking crime is on the rise, will modiFy 25 their behavior. People will exhibit "staying—in be— havior," avoidance oF others and a greater reluctance to get involved. Police presence and restoration oF order can make the diFFerence between Feeling Free to move about to conduct one's normal business and being a prisoner in one's own home (Kelling, 1987). Personal crime produces more intense Fear than other types oF crime. The chance oF being a victim oF a violent crime is minute compared to the possibility oF an accidental injury requiring medical attention or one day or more oF restricted activity (Brooks, 1987). Fear oF crime can be increased by the media. Lurid accounts oF another's victimization may lead people to give up certain activities involving going into certain neighborhoods, particularly at night. Costs paid due to altering behavior as a reaction to Fear oF crime in- clude the losses oF opportunities For pleasure and cul— tural enrichment, reduced levels oF sociability and mutual trust, and economic losses paid by those who Feel compelled to purchase protective locks, bars, alarms, or weapons. Individuals may change their habits, become suspicious oF others, move to another home, or even reFuse to leave the saFety oF their own homes. The cumulative eFFects oF such behaviors can destroy the senses oF social integration and community, resulting in increasing neigh— borhood deterioration, abandonment oF homes and busi— nesses and increased levels oF both crime and Fear 0F as crime (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). The level oF Fear oF crime Felt is oFten dispropor— tionate to the actual risk oF victimization. Women, the elderly, the poor, urban dwellers and minority groups are generally more FearFul than their counterparts (Cordner, 1985). Fear oF crime is both a personal and a social problem. A number oF approaches to the Fear oF crime problem have been suggested. By their mere presence, the police may reduce Fear through "symbolic reassurance” (Bahn, 1974). The police may reduce Fear through the dissem- ination oF realistic crime statistics (Brown and WycoFF, 1987). The police may also use conFidence building techniques such as teaching people how to better protect themselves and encouraging the organization oF watch groups (Hosenbaum, 1987). The police might actually get involved in community organizations in an eFFort to strengthen social bonds and to buttress social control (Wilson and Kelling). Wilson and Kelling (1982) , Kelling (1987), and Gold- stein (1987) recommend that community policing oFFicers stress the order maintenance style oF policing delineated by Wilson (1978) to best aFFect the public‘s sense oF well—being. Wilson contrasts order maintenance with law enForcement in police work. Order maintenance implies an intervention oF the police to stop the disorderly behaviors that threaten or disturb the community. Order 27 maintenance implies settling a dispute between two or more parties without engaging the Formalized processes oF the criminal justice system, wherein one or more oF the parties would Face criminal prosecution. Wilson states that the problem oF order maintenance is more central to a patrol oFFicer's role than law enForcement. In order maintenance, the police oFFicer must be highly selective in enForcing laws, using his discretion to enForce some laws, yet not enForcing others (Albanese, 1984). In many cases, rather than arrest, the oFFicer may warn, reprimand, or release an individual. MastroFski (1988:58) notes the community service is one oF the strategies employed in the police oFFicer's order main— tenance role. Community Policing in Practice Close citizen contact is central to community policing. Cumming, Cumming and Edell (1965) examined the police oFFicer as a provider oF both social control and support. Peak periods oF cells For service in interpersonal inci— dents occur when other agencies are relatively unavailable. Cumming, et.al., state that poor, uneducated people appear to utilize the police in much the same manner that middle class people use Family doctors and clergy- men. In addition to the relative unavailability oF other support services in times oF crisis, the police 38 must oFten deal with groups oF people — the poor and the ignorant — that other agents are not anxious to serve. These Factors have lead to one oF the perceived police roles as amateur social worker. Although police are normally taught minimal necessary human relations skills, Bouza (1975) reports that the symptoms 0F crime are not addressed and the problem cosmetized. Unresolved are the underlying root causes, including loss oF hope, escapism in alcohol and drugs, Filth, poverty, heat, violence, inadequate housing and the lack oF education. Behind every police statistic is a drama oF human suFFering. Knowledge in human relations can aid oFFicer discretion, making the decision whether to dismiss, divert or engage the Formal criminal justice system (Hanson and Rhodes, 1975). The development oF respect and rapport can lead to increased police eFFective— ness in dealing with problems between police oFFicers and the neighborhoods and a decreased need to resort to the criminal justice process (Goldstein, 1987). Community policing eFForts may not be most eFFectively measured by traditional standards such as arrest rates (Goldstein, 1987). Wilson and Kelling (1982), Anderson (1984), and Colwell (1984) recommend using qualitative rather than quantitative measurements, For example, reduction in Fear oF crime, improvement in police-community relations or increased oFFicer satisFaction. A quantitative measure proposed by Anderson (1984) 29 is the "suppression oF crime” to gauge community policing eFFectiveness: this is based upon historical and projected crime rates, compared to the actual crime rates. Colwell (1984) reports that most public service programs are concerned with diFFicult to measure human values, such as enhanced saFety or an enriched cultural or intellectual liFe. Many perFormance measures indicate only the extent oF law enForcement activities, estimated to occupy a range oF From 10 to 32 percent cF a police oFFicer's work load (Lab, 1984). Traditional quantitative police perFormance measures normally do not measure the remainder oF the police oFFicer's duties, particularly service Functions. In Charlotte (North Carolina) a 1983 evaluation placed the proportion oF order maintenance, or service Functions, at 57.5 percent, including mediating neighbor and Family disputes, dealing with intoxicated persons, assisting motorists, checking buildings, giving advice, and providing escorts (Lab, 1984). These are the types oF activities stressed by mini—stations which are not reFlected in crime statistics. OFFicers involved in community policing may not be viewed by Fellow oFFicers as engaging in "real" police work and may be ostracized and isolated (Goldstein, 1987). Community policing oFFicers may be viewed as undependable when their assistance is needed in dangerous situations, Antagonism developed in the Flint Police Department between Foot patrol and regular patrol oFFicers 30 because only regular oFFicers were assigned to handle serious calls (Trojanowicz, 1983). Early in the Detroit mini-station program, oFFicers were assigned to the mini— stations because they had Fallen into disFavor with their immediate supervisors. In the Saginaw program, oF- Ficers were attracted to the mini-stations by being oFFered the Fringe beneFit oF regular week-ends oFF (during one month, the oFFicer has Saturdays and Sundays oFF; the Following month, the oFFicer has Sundays and Mondays oFF). In the initial stages oF oFFicer assignment, oFFicers were pre—screened to assign those oFFicers demonstrating the greatest amount oF personal commitment to the pro- gram's objectives. This practice was later replaced with assignment based on seniority and shiFt commander recom— mendation, allowing For assignment based upon Favoritism. Additional incentives to attract oFFicers to the Saginaw mini—stations are "comp time" (one and one—halF hours cFF with pay, in exchange For one hour oF overtime) which can be earned while putting in overtime hours with Watch groups and departmentally paid expenses to seminars relevant to community policing. Summary The revitalization oF the community policing concept, originated by Sir Robert Peel, has been discussed. The concept cF community policing Focuses on restoring impor— tant communication linkages between the police and the 31 community in the attempts to reduce both crime and the Fear oF crime. An umbrella term, community policing may take diFFerent Forms: the Form stressed in this study is mini—station (also called storeFront or satellite policing stations). The goals oF mini—station programs have been discussed, with greater emphasis placed on the reduction oF Fear oF crime than on reductions in reported crime rates. In some community policing programs, aFter building rapport between the police and the community, there have been increases in reporting oF crime, which may be due to increased public sentiments that "something can be done" about crime. CHAPTER III METHODS Overview Descriptions oF the survey sites, populations and samples are Followed by delineation oF the procedures used in data collection. The demographic composition oF the survey samples is presented. Data collection methods are given For participant observation and secondary analysis oF Saginaw Police Department statistics. Methodological assumptions and limitations oF the study are addressed. The Focus oF the study is exploratory and descriptive. Study Setting The city is divided into tab zones and areas For the ease oF dispatching and record keeping oF the Saginaw Police Department (SPD). The size oF each area and tab zone is approximately equal in either total population and/or acreage. Police areas 1 through 4 are located on the East Side (For maps, see Appendix A). The study Fo- cuses on tab zones 108, 109 and 110, located in Area 2. These tab zones were the original "target area." The "target area" now includes all oF area 2. The 850 homes in these 3 ‘1"? .1;— 33 tab zones house approximately 2500 residents, about 1000 oF whom were under the age 0F 18 in 1985. In this target area For the First police mini-station, police estimate 96 percent oF the population is black. Tab zones 108 and 109 have the highest reported crime rates in the city's 173 tab zones. Between June, 1984, and May, 1985, police responded to more than 525 calls oF serious or Felony—type crime incidents in tab zones 108 and 109. More than 900 other cells involved "potentially serious" incidents in this area. Although police statistics indicate that crime has decreased in Area 2 since the mini-station opened in 1985, this area continues to generate the city's highest crime rates. The area 3 mini—station will not be examined in detail in the study. The newest oF the mini-stations, the South Washington Mini—Station opened in March oF 1988 and did not administer a survey in its area. The Cherry Street Mini—Station occupies the Front two rooms oF a Catholic church rectory. The large two story brick building also serves as church oFFices, meeting rooms and the home oF a nun currently assigned to minister to the church. Dne oF the rooms rented by the police department serves as the secretary's oFFice and is Furnished with departmental cast—oFFs salvaged From storage. The second room has 2 desks For the convenience oF the oFFicers assigned to the mini-station. City maps, photos oF mini— station community involvement activities and police memos 34 are displayed on the walls. This pleasant oFFice suite is separated From the church's areas by a Frosted—pane glass door. The many windows in the Cherry Street mini— station have twice provided escape routes when the sta— tion was burglarized. AFter each burglary, doors, windows and lock were FortiFied and locks installed on File cab- binets. The East Genesee mini—station is housed in the corner oF a commercial building on a main thoroughFare. The mini—station shares the building with two businesses, each having separate entrances and quarters. The one— room oFFice is shared with a volunteer who works with the sexual assault crisis intervention center. There is one desk For the oFFicers, one For the crisis worker, and one For the mini—station secretaries. Two secretaries are assigned, each on a part—time basis. Entry to the mini—station is through a side door which is so heavily tinted that inside activities cannot be viewed From out— side. Placement oF the mini—station sign on the side oF the building makes locating the Facility diFFicult For persons not Familiar with its location. The building is windowless and shows signs oF wear. The South Washington mini—station occupies an old, converted gas station in a commercial district. On a busy street, the oFFice is surrounded by a high chain link Fence which is kept locked at night. A small portion oF the building is used For the mini-station oFFice. 35 One secretary is permanently assigned to this mini—station. The large windows, remnants oF the gas station, are covered by vertical blinds which can be opened or closed to permit light and visibility to the street. An outside sign prominently displays an ad For the building's sale. Each mini—station has telephones For both the oFFicers and the secretaries. These phones are equipped to allow calls to any city oFFice by use oF a three digit extension number. All three stations have police radio monitors to enable the staFF to monitor radio calls. OFFicers assigned to the mini—station must also handle the normal patrol duties For their areas. Frequently callers must leave messages For the oFFicer to answer upon his return From call assignments or patrol duties. When there is no one present at the mini-stations to answer telephone calls, the calls are routed to the Front desk at police headquarters. Departmental statistics are kept in two SPD depart- ments: Records Division and Statistics. Records Division stores incident reports on all crimes reported in the last 100 years, case reports based on these incident reports and accident reports. Accident reports are kept For 7 years. This department has computerized indexing For their records. Analysis oF daily, weekly, monthly and annual "crime trends" is the responsibility 0F Statistics, a one person department. Daily "crime trends" are bulletins listing 38 each day's crime incidents in summary Form: these bulle— tins are not statistically analyzed For trend analysis. Crime trends are kept For only two years beFore destruction and are diFFicult For the police statistician to retrieve. The police department does not have its own computer but uses a centralized computer at city hall on a time- sharing basis. Daily crime totals are hand tallied From incident reports and summarized as "recaps" detailing: (a) burglaries; (b) auto theFt; (c) armed robberies; (d) unarmed robberies; and (e) homicides. "Major Crime Trends" is a daily summary oF all reported larcenies and is used as a supplement to the recaps. The numerical total From these two bulletins are entered into computer- ized "Major Crime Trends in Area," an area speciFic list oF recorded robberies, burglaries, larcenies, auto theFts and arsons kept by day From January 1 to the present date in the current year, or From January 1 through Dec- ember 31 For 1987 and 1988. Each mini—station compiles weekly area crime maps with color-coded dots indicating the street location oF each major oFFense reported in their area. The present research will use statistics From these sources and From other miscellaneous departmental records and memos classi- Fied as public records. Due to Financial and manpower constraints, the SPD does not have "on—line" a proposed computer system capable oF conducting statistical tests on crime reports, 37 although authorization For this equipment has already been given. The SPS statistician does not currently test data For statistical signiFicance, but does subject date to numerical analysis. Another limitation to using SPO data is that lack oF administrative Favor and manpower constrants have de—emphesized recording Part II oFFenses and cells For service. Records 0F cells For service on a city- wide basis are kept by Emergency Dispatch (911) which is a separate agency, housed at the Saginaw City Hall, rather then at the police department. Area Part II oFFenses and calls For service are periodically kept on a piece-meal basis. In 1989, the SPD has 89 certiFied oFFicers; this in— cludes detectives and oFFicers given administrative "light duty" (restricted physical activity due to oFFicer injury or other medical problems requiring sedentary duties). In 1989, the Department also employed 17 sergeants, S lieu- tenants, 2 assistant chier and 1 chieF. For both 1987 and 1988, the city Personnel OFFice (located at City Hall, rather than in the Police Department) listed the number oF certiFied oFFicers at 112 and number oF oFFicers with the rank cF sergeant or higher as 24. The reduced number oF oFFicers in 1989 reFlect both the city manager's decision to lay oFF 9 oFFicers and the retirements oF 14 oFFicers due to either medical disability or having reached the minimum required number oF years oF service necessary to qualiFy For pension beneFits (20 years are required). 38 The research design For the present study involves the triangulation oF participant observation, survey research and secondary analysis. By using more than one research technique, more accurate Findings can be obtained (Hagen, 1982). Using diFFerent measures oF the same concept may result in similar Findings (conver- gence) or diFFerent results (discrimination). IF no diF- Ference in Findings takes place, interviewer eFFects can not be responsible For producing the Findings. Participant Observation By volunteering clerical and secretarial assistance to the SPD since May, 1987, this observer has become an "insider” while remaining an "outsider." Assignments allowed observations oF: (a) police radio transmissions; (b) interactions between walk—in visitors and the mini— station staFF; (c) mini-station daily operations; and (d) headquarters and mini—station personnel during cells For service and while available to receive a call For service. While accompanying oFFicers in patrol cars, the observer was not allowed to interFere with the oFFi— cer's perFormance oF duty. Civilians accompanying oFFicers are expected to merely observe while the oFFicer is "on assignment." Mini—station oFFicers From all 3 mini— stations were observed either between or during assignments. DFFicers From other patrol assignments who served as (ll 9 "back—up" and uniForm and non—uniForm oFFicers From headquarters were also observed. While perForming vol— unteer duties, the observer was able to interview and interact with SP0 administrators, line—staFF, visitors, and phone callers. Visitors included SPD personnel, personnel From other law enForcement agencies, city residents and media representatives. Monitoring police radio Frequencies aFForded listening to transmissions between Emergency Services (911) dispatch, Front desk dispatchers, patrol oFFicers, and supervisory personnel. Radio transmission included the ”lein” (see glossary) channel which is used For more sensitive transmissions. Highly sensitive transmissions are made by telephone to ensure complete conFidentiality. Observations will be made on radio, telephone and personal visit requests For inFormation or assistance. Observations will be made during the one month period From September 1, 1988, to September 30, 1988, weekdays, From 1000 to 1800 hours. Evenings and week-ends will not be considered because the mini—stations are normally closed during these hours due to saFety considerations For the secretarial staFF and oFFicers have the Fringe beneFit oF regular week—ends oFF. Observations will be made on the report writing practices oF individual oFFicers. The oFFicers were selected based upon their willingness to be observed and to discuss their individual rationale. The oFFicers 40 were inFormed oF the purpose oF the present research. The sampling scheme employed is snowballing (reFerence through Fellow oFFicers). Interviews were conducted with departmental admin- istrators to gather inFormation concerning oFFicial directives in report writing. Interviews were requested with SP0 administrators. Manpower shortages have caused the SP0 to release reports to the media that police cannot always be dis— patched to write burglary reports. To accommodate resi— dents in obtaining minor loss burglary reports, victims can selF—report burglaries by visiting Headquarters or one oF the mini-stations, where assistance in Filling out the reports can be given by departmental personnel. Another area in which manpower shortages has caused an announcement oF cut-backs in service is responding to repeated unFounded burglar alarms at the same address. The Department announced that aFter reaching a quota oF unFounded calls to the same address, police response would be stopped except in those cases where additional inFormation could veriFy that an actual crime was in progress or had been committed. In addition to gathering descriptive inFormation about report writing practices in light oF manpower shortages, observations were made concerning the mini— station operations. Observations oF mini—station activ~ ities will be presented in a diary (Appendix C) For one week oF operations. Advantages to participant observation include the opportunity to observe the group studied in a natural setting and the opportunity to gather qualitative data about attributes or peculiar characteristics oF the group studied (Babie, 1983). Potential disadvantages include "going native," the possible loss oF objectivity, overidentiFication with the group studied and/or aversion to the group (Hagen, 1982). This method oF data collection will concentrate on the content oF cane made to the mini—station by: (a) 911 operators, (b) "the desk” (SPD dispatchers), (c) direct personal contact with mini—station walk—ins, (d)direct telephone contacts, (a) correspondence, and (F) oFFicer—initiated contacts while on routine patrol duty. Interviews will be arranged with line staFF and administrative personnel to augment these data sources. Police oFFicers will also be observed while perForming normal daily Functions both in the mini—station and while in the patrol car. The observations will Focus on gaining insight in- to the decisions whether or not to respond to a call or write a report. Analysis oF this portion oF the research is designed to be exploratory and descriptive. The results oF empirical observations on report writing, in light oF manpower constraints, will be discussed. To ensure objectivity in the analysis, both administrative and several line staFF viewpoints will be examined. Data will be presented in narrative Form. The Surveys Surveys have been selected For this study because they aFFord the abilities to describe and explain; surveys represent general codiFications oF experience and observe- ions; and surveys permit indirect measurement oF behavior. The interview method oF survey administration is being used because: (a) interviews yield better response rates than mail surveys, (b) the presence oF an interviewer decreases "don't know" and "no answer" responses, (c) the interviewer can observe attributes such as race, age and language skills, and (d) the interviewer can clariFy misunderstandings (Babie, 1973). The greatest limitations to interview surveys are the cost and time involved. Disadvantages to surveys are that the respondent may underreport due to memory Failure, embarrassment or Fear oF getting into trouble; that the respondent may over— report due to telescoping or exaggeration; or that misrep- resentations by the respondent or the respondent's Faulty recall may cause misrepresentations in the survey response (Hagen, 1982). Both the survey instrument and the interviewer can also aFFect responses: saliency, recency, simplicity and positive aFFect oF the instrument can increase the accuracy oF inFormation obtained. Characteristics such as the race and demeanor oF the interviewer will also aFFect J3 ( 1) responses (Babie, 1973). Surveys are appropriate For gathering data to make descriptive assertions about a population and/or discovering the distribution oF certain traits or attributes oF the population. The Saginaw Police Department-administered surveys were not guided by scientiFic methods. The purpose cF their surveys was to serve as an introduction between the Department and the residents oF the target neighbor- hoods. Few questions were asked because the survey was designed to be simple and tailored to the samples. The SPD surveys have been assigned low priority. The surveys were not analyzed by SPD but have been made available For analysis in the present research. The SPO surveys were designed by mini—station oFFicers in each area. The Cherry Street survey was administered in Face to Face interviews. The survey was conducted during the summer oF 1985 (exact dates are not available). Black Female volunteers and part—time secretaries, along with mini-station oFFicers, called at each home in the target area oF tab zones 108, 109 and 110. Each oF the homes was contacted only once. The names and addresses oF the respondents were recorded For call back purposes in regard to meetings on crime prevention. The East Genesee survey was administered in tab zones 118, 119, 126, 127, 129, 14B, 154 and 156 early in 1987. The surveys were leFt at the households to be returned to the mini—station by the resident. The 44 target area consists oF approximately 2045 households. Responses were obtained From 805 households (39.4%). The study will compare the responses oF 100 surveys selected at random From each area. The questions regarding interest in attending group meetings will be disregarded. Open ended questions will be assigned numerical codes For analysis oF responses given. Approximately 15 broad categories will be used For coding. The coding will be perFormed by the researcher. Results oF the analysis will be presented descriptively. The present survey contains both open and closed ended questions. Subjects were asked closed ended question about their Fear oF crime. Open ended questions concerning neighborhood problems and police expectations will be repeated From the Cherry Street pre-survey. The subjects will also be asked to express an opinion about the Cherry Street mini—station. The population For the present survey is the 850 households in tab zones 108—110. Street guide indexes will be used as a basis For a simple random sample based on cluster sampling. The tab zones will be divided into city blocks with each block receiving a number. Block numbers will be drawn at random. Each city block will contain all those houses on all Four sides oF that block. To ensure that at least 10 percent oF the target area is included in the completed surveys, over-sampling will be used, selecting 7 oF the 42 blocks For the sample. 45 This number will compensate For vacant houses or lots, commercial businesses, other non-residential Facilities such as churches or non—proFit charitable agencies, and a possibility oF reFusal oF many subjects to participate. Area 2, the Cherry Street mini—station area, has been chosen as the Focal point oF the study For the Follow— ing reasons: (a) this mini—station has been in operation longer than the others; (b) this Facility has received the most media publicity; (c) this mini—stations has sponsored many community service programs to generate interaction between the police and the community and within the community; (d) this Facility serves as the coordination Facility For neighborhood watch groups; and (e) the present study may aid city and police admin— istrators in reaching a decision as to whether to continue or eliminate the program during cost cutting moves necess- itated by declining city revenues. Sampling will be used in the surveys because its logic allows inFerences to the larger area population. The present survey will be administered by interviewers who will meet the subjects Face to Face. The interviewers will be selected From Former and current mini—station secretaries who participated in the earlier survey in 1985. The interviewers will be asked to contact each household in the sample 3 times beFore abandoning their attempts. Interviewers will be instructed to ask to speak to the head oF household. In the event that the 48 head oF household is not present at the time, the adult spouse or cohabfiant oF the head oF household will be asked to participate in the survey. The interviewers will read a brieF description oF the purpose oF the survey, assure the subjects that their responses will be kept conFidential and will not record any identiFying demo— graphic data. Each home will be assigned a code number corresponding to a conFidential list oF the subjects' addresses. This list will not be shown to anyone else by the researcher and will be destroyed upon the comple— tion oF the administration oF the surveys. The code numbers on the surveys will later serve as case numbers. The importance oF conFidentiality and anonymity will be stressed to the interviewers and each will be asked to sign a declaration promising not to disclose any inFor— mation in their possession. The researcher will not meet with any oF the subjects Face to Face. Neither the interviewers nor the researcher will be supplied with the names oF any oF the subjects. This researcher recognizes that there are a number oF intervening variables which may aFFect Fear oF crime. It is not the purpose oF the present study to identiFy all these variables but only to construct a description oF the level and perceived sources cF Fear in the target areas. Data is nominal level and will be represented in descriptive tables. Meaaxes will be taken to ensure that the interviewers 47 protect the conFidentiality and anonymity oF the sub- jects. Names will not be used, nor will the completed surveys contain any identiFying demographic data. The researcher will have no Face to Face contact with the subjects and will not release any inFormation which can be attributed to any one oF the subjects. The identities oF the subjects will not be known to the researcher. Secondary Analysis SPO crime statistics will be examined From January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1988. The study will Focus on the Following types oF crime: (a) burglary, (b) larceny, (c) robbery, (d) arson, (a) motor vehicle theFt, (F) rape, (g) homicide, and (h) aggravated assault. To be examined are the documents titled: (a) Major Crime Trends in Area, (b) Part I Crime in the City oF Saginaw, Com— parative Analysis, (c) Local Crime Statistics, (d) Major Crime Trends, (a) Crime Analysis Recaps, (F) Crime Updates, (g) OFFenses Known or Reported, and maps oF Major Crime Trends in Area. Secondary analysis is necessarily limited to this time Frame due to the practice oF destroying departmental statistics aFter two years. The SPD crime totals are descriptive enumerations which are calculated only For the percentage(s) oF the amount oF changes in crime rates when comparing 2 or more areas or time periods. Other miscellaneous titled and untitled SPD memos and 48 recaps will be used as they become available. Secondary analysis will be used to gather reported crime data because this method: (a) is unobtrusive, (b) provides insight into the area's history, and (c) economizes time. Possible disadvantages to secondary analysis oF crime statistics include: (a) not all crimes are discovered, (b) not all crimes are reported, (c) not all crimes reported are recorded, (d) data may be intentionally or unintentionally misrepresentative, or (e) changes in agency recordmaytavecmcwwed Hfigen,1984L Limitations to secondary analysis oF crime statistics include the Facts that not all crime is reported, nor is all reported crime recorded. Victimization studies such as the National Crime Survey have revealed a "dark Figure 0F crime." The ”dark Figure 0F crime" is the estimated one-halF oF all crime that is neither reported nor r‘ecorwded. (Senna and Siegel, 1982). Statistics For incident reports in areas 2, 3 and 4 occurring between January 1, 1986, and December 31, 1988, will be gathered. Any available data on number oF cells For service will also be collected. This time Frame has been selected due to the Following: (a) the destruction oF SPD crime statistics aFter 2 years, (b) the sporadic tallying oF number oF cells For service, and (c) lack oF area speciFic totals oF Part II oFFenses. Crime statistics will be analyzed to test the two hypotheses: 49 (1) Crime rates in the target areas have not demwmsedsince the openings oF the mini-stations. (2) Changes in target area crime rates are not correlated with city—wide crime rates. Data will be subjected to time series analysis. Moving averages and algebraic Forecasting through 1993 will be computed. Pearson's r will be used to measure cor— relation oF area crime rates to the city—wide rate. 2 scores will be computed For each area For the years 1988 through 1988 to determine whether any signiFicant trends exist in the crime rates in any one or more areas. Summary The population and samples For the study have been described. The sample For the present survey will be drawn From the Cherry Street target area. Crime stat— istics will be analyzed For trends and signiFicance. Observation on oFFicer behaviors and report writing prac— tices will be presented descriptively. Whenever possible, comparisons oF the 3 surveys will be made to determine whether or not any area changes over time have occur- red. The present survey will be administered to measure the level and sources oF Fear oF crime in the target area. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Overview The results oF the three research methods are pre- sented. Participant observation yielded inFormation on report writing practices and allowed construction oF a represefiztifladiary oF a week's operation oF the mini—station. Survey analysis is presented descriptively For each oF the three surveys. Secondary analysis links target area crime rate with city totals. Trends in area and city crime rates are presented. Participant Observation Both. Saginaw Police Department administrators and line staFF report there appears to be no change in the number oF cells For service in Area 2. OFFicial statistics on number oF calls For service are unavailable. In 1987, the Department issued 2 press releases concerning limiting answering repeated unFounded burglar alarms to the same address and dispatching cars to respond to minor burglary report (under $10,000). The decision 50 51 whether or not to answer all 911 calls rests with the ChieF. Current policy is to answer all cells For service. Neither state law nor local ordinances govern which. cells must be answered. Both central dispatch (911) and SP0 administrators report calls are not pre-screened with the exceptions oF obvious hoaxes or repeated, un— Founded calls to the same address, such as may be made by "48's" (persons with obvious mental aberrations). One deputy chieF reports that legal research into respond— ing to repeated Falsely-generated or unFounded burglar alarms revealed the Department has no liability For Failure to answer such cells on a continuing basis. Despite newspaper announcement that the dispatching oF cars to addresses generating high numbers oF unFounded alarms would be curtailed, all burglar alarms in the city are still answered, including back-up cars. 911 personnel report that in 1987, their operators dispatched city police vehicles 112,387 times. Provisions have been made For victims oF minor burg- laries to File selF—reports by either telephoning or visiting headquarters oF one oF the mini—stations. Per- sonnel have been instructed to assist victims in Filling out reports For insurance purposes. Again, aFter press releases that responding oFFicers would no longer be dispatched to minor burglaries, all burglary calls are still answered by sending a car. During the observation period, September 1, 1988, to 52 September 30, 1988, one oFFicer was assigned to each shiFt at each oF the mini—stations. Each oFFicer is responsible For answering all calls and patroling one- quarter oF the city's East Side. Originally, 2 oFFicers per shiFt assumed these responsibilities at the Cherry and East Genesee Streets mini—stations. Cuts in city revenues and the eFFect on police department manpower reduced staFFing to 1 oFFicer, eFFective June 1, 1988. At that time, SPD laid oFF 9 oFFicers, disbanded their school resource oFFicer program,and reassigned (usually demoted) other personnel to Fill patrol positions. During the observation period, each mini—station employed sec— retarial help For 32 hours a week. The Cherry Street day shiFt oFFicer answered 110 cells For service From radio dispatchers during the ob— servation period. 60 direct contact cells For service were made by persons calling or walking into the mini— station. Another 17 calls were oFFicer—initiated. The mini—station received 11 personal visitors: 2 From Fellow patrol oFFicers, 2 From detectives, 1 From the media, 2 From motorists requesting assistance, 3 From persons inquiring about watch groups, and1 From a person inquiring about an incident report. 43 phone contacts were made with the oFFicer. Calls included 3 From headquarters, 3 From other city departments, 8 From watch groups, 8 From complaintants, 1 From the media, and 20 requests For general inFormation. The oFFicer was Frequently 53 "on assignment” or routine patrol when cells were re— ceived at'dm mini—station. When unable to herselF resolve a call, the secretary took a written message For the oF— Ficer. Phone messages are answered on a time allowing basis, with the oFFicer reporting he oFten returns calls during his oFF duty hours at home. Mini-station oFFicer priorities, as curretnly set by the deputy chieF in charge oF mini—station operations, are (in order oF importance): (1) answer cells For ser- vice; (2) perForm routine motorized patrols; and (3) station one's selF in the mini—station. Hours spent in the mini—station are irregular. On days when there are a great many cells For service or calls that cannot be speedily resolved, the oFFicer will stop by the mini— station only to pick up messages and answer staFF questions. AFter answering cells For service, patrol duties are per— Formed. Whenever possible, oFFicers write reports and make log entries at the mini—station to make themselves available For personal contact. When cells For service begin to back up, they are answered in order unless 911 operators prioritize certain cells based on seriousness. Factors used in determining seriousness are whether weapons are involved, whether the crime is still in progress, and what risks to death or serious bodily injury may be involved. Calls not answered by the end oF the shiFt are carried over to the next shiFt. Additional personnel cannot be dispatched into the target 54 areas without the authorization oF the sergeant on duty. Not all mini-station oFFicers report to the mini- stations each day. Certain oFFicers, particularly those on the second and third shiFts, just stopped by every Few days to pick up messages. Some oFFicers preFerred to remain on patrol between assignments, rather than make themselves available For direct phone contact. While there is no one present in the mini-station, bells to the phones are turned oFF and the calls answered when the ring is heard at Headquarters. There is speculation, and general agreement, between mini-station line staFF and headquarters administrators that the number oF cells For service in the target areas has not diminished since the opening oF the mini—station (this is based on personal experience, rather than oFFicial records). Just aFter the Cherry Street mini—station opened, there was a temporary decrease in the number oF calls originating in area 2. Currently, area 2 still generates the city's highest major crime rates (as determined by the SP0 "Major Crime Trends" reports), although these re- cords show that the number oF major crimes in the area has diminished since the Facility opened. OFFicers at— tribute this decline to diFFerential report writing prac— tices. Discretion in report writing is not guided by oFFicial directives. One deputy chieF reports that SPD relies upon academy training, job experience, and oFFicer judgment in shaping discretion. 55 Former and current mini-station oFFicers report spending more time with complaintants aFFords greater opportunities to diFFerentiate between cases which should result in Formal incident reports (For incident report sample, see Appendix D) or should be handled inFormally and carried on the oFFicer's daily log (For sample oF log, see appendix 0). A typical call carried only on the daily log would be a break—in committed by a boyFriend who returned to retrieve a possession leFt behind when he was ordered From the girlFriend's house. In this case, oFFicers advise the complaintant to seek civil remedy and reFer her to the prosecuting attorney's oFFice to sign her own complaint. Such cases are carried on the oFFicer's log as a Family or boyFriend/girlFriend complaint. Any call which an oFFicer answers and does not process as a written incident report must be carried on the daily log. The practices oF ”spending more time with” and "talking to the people" are cited by oFFicers es Factors in the decrease in number oF incident reports. Rapport generating strategies employed by the Cherry Street mini—station include many programs to draw neighbor- hood residents into the mini—station, For a variety oF activities. Annually, this mini—station sponsors a mus- cular dystrophy Fund raising carnival, open to the public. Block watch group members, members oF local civic and social organizations, and mini—station staFF members 55 organize and staFF the carnival. City leaders, including the mayor, city council members, and police administrators, participate in the "dunk tank” and circulate amid the carnival—goers. Although the carnival is held in one oF the city‘s poorest neighborhoods, theevent generates in excess oF $400 per year through the sale oF 25¢ tickets. The money is then donated to the muscular dystrophy asso- ciation. The carnival is given media coverage. The mini-station also annually checks Halloween candy For the presence oF metallic objects. Also, one mini- station event enlisted the neighborhood children to gather litter From the neighborhood, in exchange For a candy bar For each bag Filled. In 2 hours, over 70 Filled trash bags were returned by the children. All 3 mini—stations have held "get acquainted" picnics during the First year oF operation. The picnics draw crowds estimated to be over 250. The picnics include displays oF the police robot, police puppet theater, Fire preven— tion house, and crime prevention literature. Patrol cars circle the picnic area to allow children the opportunity to ride in the cars and talk to the oFFicers. The participation in these activities showed willing— ness oF the neighborhoods to become involved with the police to improve the community and the neighborhood. The act- ivities serve as an opportunity For neighborhood residents to build rapport with the police, area civic and social leaders, and with each other. The extent to which the 57 participation may serve to strengthen secisl bonds was not subject to examination in the present study. The mini-stations, primarily the Cherry Street Mini— Sation, serve as coordination Facilities For watch groups. although there is no centralized record keeping on watch groups, active groups are estimated to be 20 in number, with 4 or 5 additional groups in Formative stages. 10 groups are considered inactive due to lack oF contact with the block captain and SP0 personnel. Although aFter 5 months oF lack oF contact the groups may still practice neighborhood watch techniques, contact with the Department is a requirement to remain in the "active" classiFication status. Watch groups Frequently request the coordinating oFFicer to engage guest speakers From among area police and civic leaders. Periodic meetings are held For watch group block captains From throughout the city to discuss common problems and activity coordination. Block parties are Frequently held, with members From other watch groups invited. A news letter For the watch groups is in Form- ative stages. A diary oF one week's mini-station activities is contained in Appendix C. Survey Analysis The departmentally administered Cherry Street pre- survey yielded 550 completed surveys From 850 households, a response rate oF 54.7%. 0F these completed surveys, 58 the present research examined 100 selected at random From SPD Files. 58% 0F the subjects were Female (For demograhp— ic data, see Table 4.1. Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics oF Survey Subjects Cherry Street East Genesee Number Percent Number Percent Gender Female 58 58 55 55 Male 32 32 3 34 Age group 18—30 3 3 17 17 30—45 15 15 30 3 45—50 24 2 18 18 50 and over 25 25 20 20 UnspeciFied * * 2O 20 Marital status Married v IL 20 20 Single * $ 37 37 Divorced >k k 15 15 Employed Yes * fl= 35 35 No * * 43 43 Home owner Yes 55 55 57 57 No 3 34 43 43 Burglar alarm Yes * * 21 21 No * * 78 78 Residency length 3 or less years 35 35 fi< ! 5-10 years 10 10 i= 1 11—15 years 13 13 * * 15—20 years 15 15 i: I 21—25 years 15 15 fl: ' 25 or more years 11 11 * * Mean years 14.33 N=1OO N=1OO Source: 1985 SPO survey and 1987 E. Genesee surveys, administered by the Saginaw, Michigan, Police Department. Indicates data that was not gathered. 59 Almost halF (49%) reported being at least 45 years old. The largest age group was 18 to 30 (N=34) 55% 0F the re- spondents reported owning or buying their own homes. 55% reported living in their homes more than 5 years. The mean length or residency was 14.3 years For the Cherry Street sample. When asked, "What do you as citizens expect the police department to do in your neighborhood?" the most oFten cited expectation was "protect the neighborhood" (N=27) Followed by "patrol more" (N=23). Responses to this ques— tion appear in Table 4.2. Table 4.2. Responses to "Police Expectation." 1985 SP0 Survey Present Survey (100 Subjects) (92 Subjects) Number Percent Number Percent Protect the neighborhood 27 22.3 —— —— Petrol more 22 18.2 3 33.3 Respond when called 13 10.7 —— — Respond quickly 10 8.3 13 12.7 SatisFied (now) 10 8.3 13 12.7 Oisperse kids/gangs 9 7.4 15 15.7 Do the best they can 9 7.4 —— —— Improve PCR 3 2.5 -- Stop/solve BSE's 3 2.5 5.9 Nothing/nothing more 2 1.7 —— —— Control traFFic better 1 .8 2 2 0 More drug enForcement —— -— 3 2.9 Get tough on criminals —— -- 5 3.9 Miscellaneous 5 4.1 3 4 9 No response __Z 5.8 __4 2.9 Totals 121 100.0 105 99.9 Note: Totals do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: 1985 SP0 survey and 1988 present study survey responses to the question, ”What do you expect the police department to do in your neighborhood?" The 1985 SP0 survey had 21 subjects who gave 2 responses. The present study survey had 14 subjects who gave 2 responses. 50 23 responses cited "respond when called" or "respond rapidly to cells." due to a lack oF probing, it is impos— sible to determine whether the response "respond when called" reFers to rapidity or certainty or response. 10 subjects reported current satisFaction. 7 subjects (7%) Failed to respond to this question. Although the site selection For the cherry Street mini—station was based upon the area's burglary and larceny rates, only 2.5% oF the subjects cited burglaries as a problem they expected the police department to start taking action against. 59.5% (N272) responses reFerred to general- ized patrolling and protection oF the neighborhood, crime related activities. When asked, ”What types oF problems should be ad— dressed by the police department in your neighborhood?" 45 subjects (45%) reported "no problems" currently (1985) needed to be addressed in the Cherry Street area. 5.5% reported burglaries to be a problem needing police atten— tion. The problems related to juveniles, variously stated as teenage gangs, juvenile loitering, or juvenile vandalism were cited more than any other single problem on the SPO Cherry Street pre-survey (25.2%) Disorder problems (noise, animal complaints, litter, abandoned cars, etc.) occurred 9 times. A list oF responses to this question can be Found in Table 4.3. on page 51. 51 Table 4.3. Survey Responses to ”Policing Problems"* E. Genesee 1985 Survey Present Survey Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent None 41 41.0 45 45.0 31 33.7 Juveniles 5 5.0 32 25.2 30 25.8 Disorder 1 1.0 S 7.4 5 12.9 Burglaries 20 20.0 8 5.5 11 9.5 Vice** —— —— 3 2.5 —— —- TraFFic 5 5.0 3 2.5 -— —— Personal saFety 1 1.0 3 2.5 1 .9 Drugs 4 4.0 4 3.3 13 11.2 Miscellaneous 5 5.0 4 3.3 7 5.1 No response _JZ_ 17.0 _:: —- _:: —— Totals 100 100.0 112 100.2 108 100.1 Note: Totals do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. * Question asked was, "What problems are you having in your area that you believe the police should be taking care 0F?" ** vice complaints other than drugs. The East Genesee survey yielded 805 completed sur— veys From 2045 households. Response rate was 38.9%. 100 oF the surveys were selected at random For examination in the present study. The demographic characteristics oF the respondents appear in Table 4.1. on page 58. 55% 0F the subjects are Female. 54% reported being unemployed or retired. 21% report having their homes equipped with burglar alarms. 57% reported owning or buying their home. Only minor diFFerences in demographic characteristics occur when comparing the SPD Cherry Street survey with the department's E. Genesee survey. The responses to the questions on the East Ganesee survey appear in Table 4.4. on page 52. 52 Table 4.4. Responses to E. Genesee Survey* Yes No N ** Have you been/did you questions: Burglary victim 33 57 —- Serious crime victim 5 95 —— Were police called 27 55 —- Suspected arrested 4 89 7 Called police in last 5 months 27 72 1 Watched absent neighbor's house 72 2 3 Asked neighbor to watch own house 57 3O 3 REcorded names, models, serial numbers 35 51 3 Licensed bicycles 3. 50 5 Heard oF police mini—stations 85 15 -- Heard oF neighborhood watch program 85 11 3 Interested in watch group 92 5 2 N=1OO * Administered in Saginaw police area 4 in 1987. ** No answer. Although no time period was speciFied, 33% reported having been the victim oF a burglary. 5% reported being the vic- tim oF a ”serious crime" (unspeciFiad). 27% reported having called the police during the 5 months prior to survey distribution. The Frequency oF reported calls ap— pear on Table 4.5. Table 4.5. Number oF Reported Calls* *East Genesee residents rc crth1 havhvrcslled'dwzuclicc nus mos. _ F Number oF calls reported N 1 15 Total calls, N=53 2 4 Mean calls, §=1.ea 3 5 % reporting having 4 1 called police = 27% 5 1 5 1 More 0 Total 27 53 OF the 27 subjects reporting calls tothe police in the prior 5 months, a total oF 53 calls were placed. The mean number oF calls placed was 1.95 For those reporting having called. 41% 0F the subjects reported then-major Fear in their neighborhood was "none" or "nothing" in the East Genesee survey. The responses to this question appear in Table 4.3. 17% did not respond to this question; 20% 0F the subjects speciFied burglaries as their greatest neighbor— hood Fear. 5% listed traFFic, while another 5% named juvenile or juvenile gangs as their greatest Fear. Only 4% Felt drugs were to be more Feared than anything else. The present survey was administered in November, 1988. Over—sampling resulted in 124 subjects. 92 surveys were completed. The response rate was 74.2%. The 92 completed surveys represent 10.8% oF the total households in tar— get area 2. 8 subjects reFueed to participate in the sur— vey. 24 subjects could not be located or could not arrange a mutually agreeable time to participate aFter 3 attempts. During the test administration oF the present survey, 2 questions were eliminated. When asked which general problems trouble them the most, respondents could not cite any problem unless examples were oFFered by the in— terviewer. When examples were given, subjects would re— peat one oF the examples. Since the subjects appeared to chose only From examples supplied to them, the question was not used in the survey administration. Also eliminated 54 was the question asking iF subjects were FearFul oF anything other than the crime problems already mentioned in the survey. Subjects in both the test and in initial stages oF survey administration reported that they "could not think oF anything else” or that the survey "covered it all.” Not only did these questions Fail to Find responses, interviewers reported that subjects appeared ill at ease aFter considering the question and being unable to provide an answer. When asked whether the police department make: the subject Feel saFe in his/her neighborhood, over halF re— ported Feeling saFe. 13% didn't know. About one-third (34.8%) reported not Feeling saFe. The responses to this question appear in Table 4.5. Table 4.5. Do the Police Make Person Feel SaFe?* *The question asked was, "Do the police make you Feel saFe in your neighborhood?" Question was asked 0F 92 subjects in Area 2 in November, 1988. Number Percent Responses: Strongly agree 7 7.52 Agree 41 44.57 Disagree 14 15.22 Strongly disagree 18 19.57 Don't know 12 _13.04 Totals 92 100.01 Note: Does not total 100 percent due to rounding. When asked whether the subject was FearFul oF crime in his/her neighborhood, 55.3% (N=51) reported "yes." 55 This was considerable more than reported Feeling unsaFe (34.8%). However, the Feeling oF being saFe or unsaFe may not be linked with the police perFormance, but other personal variables (i.e., sex, age, race, etc.). 33.7% (N=31) replied that they were not aFraid oF crime in their neighborhood. OF those who expressed Fear, subjects were asked to rate their Fear on a scale 0F 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The mean level oF Fear was 3.59 For those expressing Fear. The responses to rating level oF Fear appear in Table 4.7. Table 4.7. Level oF Fear* Level Number Percent 1 5 9.84 2 5 9.84 3 20 32.79 4 4 5.55 5 25 40.98 Total 51 100.01 * Rated From 1 to 5, with 5 the highest. Subjects who reported being aFraid oF crime in their neigh— borhood in Saginaw police area 2 in November, 1988 were asked to give their Fear a numerical value. The most Frequently occurring response to this question was level 5, the highest possible. This level was re- ported by approximately 40% DF the subjects who had responded that they were aFraid oF crime in his/her neighborhood. Some subjects reported they Felt saFe because they had guns, burglar alarms, guard dogs, or bars on their 55 windows. Other subjects stated that their religious belier gave them senses oF saFety and serenity. Subjects report— ing that they lived in neighborhoods populated by retirees claimed they were not aFraid because their neighborhood did not have any crime problems. Although some subjects reported Feeling saFe going out during the day, they would not leave their homes at night because they Feared travel aFter dark. One reported being aFraid to leave her home unattended and would only go out iF someone remained pre— sent in the home. Rating Fear From 1 to 5 (with 5 being the highest) For the 4 categories (burglary, drugs, personal crime, and/or strangers and unruly kids) was completed by both the group expressing Fear and the "no Fear” group. Both groups reported Fearing drugs and drug users the most. Lowest Fear levels For both group were associated with strangers and unruly kids in the neighborhood. The mean kwels oF Fear For each group and category appear in Table 4.8. Table 4.8. Categories and their Fear Level* *Levels range From 1 to 5, with 5 the highest. Figures shown are means. Peer Group No Peer Group Both Source oF Fear: Burglaries 4.11 1.51 3.24 Drugs/drug users 4.34 1.97 3.50 Personal crime 3.82 1.55 3.98 Strangers/unruly kids 3.79 1.51 3.18 N=51 N=31 N=92 Subjects in Saginaw police area 2 were asked to assign a numerical value to each category in November, 1988. 57 Fear levels From a review oF the literature appear in T5515 0,8br Table 4. 8.a. Fear Levels in Previous Studies Rosenbaum study oF Chicago watch groups (1987) (Demographic data unspeciFied) Target neighborhood A 2.79 Target neighborhood 5 3.15 Target neighborhood C 3.51 Target neighborhood 0 3.21 Lewis and Salem study oF Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Chicago neighborhoods (N=10) (1985) Black, low income and education and high unemployment) Fear (in general) 2.3 Fear oF teens 2.72 Fear oF disorder 2.58 Fear oF drugs 3.57 Fear oF vandalism 2.47 Cordner study oF Baltimore County, Maryland (1987) (White suburbs and rural areas) Fear (in general) 2.35 Fear oF personal crime 2.5 Fear oF property crime 3.0 Fear oF juveniles 2.7 Note: The studied cited appear in the Bibliography. The Cherry Street survey subjects possess these attributes which are most associated with Fear oF crime: (a) small city size; (b) Female gender; (c) black racial group; (d) not married; (a) Midwest state; and (F) high rate oF unemployment. Fear levels in the other studies were measured on groups oF peoples less likely to have high levels oF Fear oF crime than the Cherry Street sample. The Cherry Street sample is higher in all categories except For Corner's (1987) Fear oF property crime, when contrasted with Cherry Street Fear oF burglaries. Both the Fear and "no Fear" groups were asked What 58 problems were occurring in their neighborhood that they Felt the police should be taking care oF. The responses to this question appear in Table 4.9. Table 4.9. Neighborhood Police Problems* Response: No problems 18 50 13 18 31 29 Juvenile problems 7 19 23 32 3O 28 Disorder 3 8 12 17 15 14 Burglaries 3 8 8 11 11 10 Property theFt 2 5 3 4 5 5 Rape - — — — - 1 1 Many problems __1 3 __; __; 1 1 Totals 35 97% 71 98%108 101% Note; Figures do not total 100 percent due to rounding. Source: survey responses to 92 subjects in Saginaw police area 2, who were asked,"What problems are you having in your neighborhood that you would like the police to take care oF?" in November, 1988. 15 subjects gave 2 responses. 50% 0F the "no Fear" group reported there were no problems in their neighborhood that they Felt the police should be taking care oF. 19.4% oF the "no Fear" group reported juveniles were presenting policing problems in their neigh— borhood. 8.3% were concerned with stranger/unruly kids, one oF the symptoms oF disorder. 5.5% reported they Felt the police should address drug problems. 8.3% named bur— glaries as the problem most needing police attention. The subjects who reported being FearFul reported their biggest problem to be juvenile complaints (32.4%). 59 Only 18.3% oF the Fear group reported there were no prob— lems in their neighborhood. 15.9% were concerned about strangers and unruly kids in the neighborhood. 11.2% reported burglaries to be the biggest problem. 15.5% reported they were most concerned about drug problems. Those subjects reporting "no problems" declined From 45% in the 1985 survey to 33.7% in the present survey. Concern about juveniles was relatively unchanged, From 25.2% to 25.*% since the First survey was administered. Concern has increased regarding symptoms oF disorder (From 7.4% up to 12.9%), burglaries (From 3.5% up to 9.5%) and drugs (From 3.4% to 5.1%). Concern For vice other than drugs, traFFic problems, and personal and property saFety concerns have declined. All subjects were asked what duties they expected the police to perForm in their neighborhood. 33.3% oF the subjects want the police to patrol more. 13.7% re- ported they believe the police ”are doing okay now." 12.7% requested rapid response to cells For service. 5.9% want greater attention paid to burglaries. 11.8% was more at— tention paid to what they believe are area gangs. Prob— lems the police should address were cited in the same re— lative Frequency in both groups. The responses to the expected police duties question appear in Table 4.10. on page 70. 70 Table 4.10. Expected Police Duties* Fear Group No Fear Both N % N . % N % Responses given: Patrol more 23 32.9 11 34.7 34 33.3 SatisFied now 7 10.0 7 21.9 14 13.7 Respond quickly 10 14.3 3 9.4 13 12.7 Clear out gangs 10 14.3 2 5.2 12 11.8 Greater attention to BSE's 5 8.5 — — 5 5.9 Get tough on criminals 5 8.5 - - 5 5.9 EnForce curFew 3 4.3 1 3. 2 4 3.9 Increase drug enForcement 2 2.9 1 3. 2 3 2.9 Better traFFic control 1 1.4 1 3. 2 2 2.0 Environmental changes 1 1.4 1 3. 2 2 2.0 Miscellaneous 1 1.4 2 5. 2 3 2.9 No response 1 1. 4 3 9.4 4 3.9 Totals 71 101. 5 32 100. 5 103 99.9 Note: Figures do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. *Question asked in Saginaw police area 2, November, 199, was ”What would you like to see the police do to make you Feel saFe in your neighborhood?" 5 subjects gave 2 responses. Approximately one—third oF all subjects requested that the police increase patrolling. Requesting more patrols occurred 32.9% in the Fear group and 35.5% in the "no Fear" group. 22.5% oF the "no Fear" group reported satisFaction with the present police perFormance, while only 10% 0F the Fear group reported satisFaction. Patrol- ling more also generated the highest number oF responses in the Departmental 1985 "pre—survey." Those reporting satisFaction increased From 5.4% in 1985 to 13.7% in a988. Concern about juvenile activities increased From 7.4% to 15.7% between 1985 and 1988. The belieF that the police should "get tough" on criminals (in the Form oF not releasing oFFenders so quickly back into the community) was reported 71 by 3.9% oF the subjects. Secondary Analysis Crime rates in the city oF Saginaw hit a high peak in 1982. The present chieF was appointed January 1, 1983. In the 2 years prior to his appointment, crime had risen dramatically. Since the new administration, reported crime has declined to levels lower than that in the years prior to the new administration. Moving averages oF Saginaw UniForm Crime Report Part I total oFFenses demonstrate a steady, gradual decline since 1982 (see Figure 4.1., page 72). The moving average is indicated by the broken line. The solid line indicates the numbers oF UCR Part I totals For the years From 1975 through 1988. . 7a Figxe 4.1Saginaw (MI) Part I OFFenses, 1975-1988 10,500 10,000— _9500 GOOD \ 8500 .8000 (7500 ~ 7000 a ,L NumberT 1 c I I I 1 I l l 1 l 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 85 87 88 Year Source: FBI UniForm Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1953, 1984, 1985, 1985, 1987 and 1955 73 Reported Part I oFFenses in Saginaw exceed na— tional UCR rates (per 1,000) in all categories except violent crime and motor vehicle theFt in Table 4.11. For 1985. Table 4.11. 1985 Crime and Victimization Rates (Rates shown are per 1,000) J. Saginaw UCR NCS Part I OFFense: Crime index total 54.79 107.92 95.5 Violent crime 51.73 23.53 28.1 Property crime 48.52 85.98 57.5 Murder .08 .27 NA Forcible rape .37 2.80 0.7 Robbery 2.25 4.24 5.1 Aggravated assault 3. 5 15.22 7.9 Burglary 13.44 30.71 51.5 Larceny 30.10 49.54 57.5 Motor vehicle theFt 50.78 4.03 15.0 Arson NA 2.50 NA Source: UniForm Crime Report: Crime in the United States 1985. Rates shown are reported crime rates per 1,000. **Source: Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1985, U.S. Department oF Justice, Bureau oF Justice Statistics. Rates shown are reported victimization rates per 1,000. Reported Part I oFFenses For Saginaw exceed National Crime Survey victimization rates For total crime index, property crime, Forcible rape and aggravated assault, based on national averages. urban and lower rural rates For the year 1985. National rates include both Saginaw is a mid—sized urban city with an estimated population oF over 74,000. 74 Table 4.12 compares the 1985 UCR Part I oFFenses rates For the city oF Saginaw, the state oF Michigan, and Group III cities (cities with populations between 50,000 and 99,999). Table 4.12. 1985 Part I Rates (Rates shown are per 1,000) Saginaw Michigan Group III OFFense category: Crime Index total 107.92 54.91 53.15 Violent crime 23.53 2.84 5.28 Property crime 85.98 40.77 54.15 Murder .27 .02 .05 Forcible rape 2.80 .32 .35 Robbery 4.24 1.02 1.84 Assault 15.22 1.48 3. 3 Burglary 30.71 10.04 14.39 Larceny/theFt 49.54 27.85 34.52 Auto theFt 4.03 2.88 5.14 Source: FBI UniForm Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1985. U.S.Oepartment oF Justice, Washington, 0.0. In all Part I oFFenses, rates in the city oF Saginaw exceed both the rates For the state oF Michigan and the rates For all cities From 50,000 to 99,999 in population. Although Saginaw demonstrates substantially higher than average crime rates For Part I oFFenses in 1985, total Part I oFFenses occurring in the city are declining From the peak years 1981 and 1982. Crime totals For the years 1984 and aFter show generally lower levels oF negative deviation From the mean oF 8553. 75 The decline in city UCR Part I totals can also be seen in Table 4.13. which lists the standard devia— tion oF UCR Part I oFFenses For the years From 1975 through 1988 in the city oF Saginaw. Table 4.13. Standard Deviation oF Part I Totals (City oF Saginaw, Michigan, 1975—1988) UCR Part I Totals 2 Scores Year: 1975 8903 .30 1977 7908 —.90 1978 8221 -.52 1979 8913 .31 1980 8599 .05 1981 10,155 1.82 1982 10,395 2.10 1983 8931 .33 1984 7942 —.85 1985 8378 —.33 1985 8011 —.77 1987 7595 -1.15 1988 8325 —.39 x=8553, s.d.=831 Source: Saginaw Police Department "Local Crime Statis— tics." Figure 4.2. on page 74 illustrates the proportion oF crime in each oF the 7 areas to the city as a whole. Areas 1 through 4, the divisions oF the East Side, gen— erate over two—thirds (x=59.52%) 0F all reported crime in the city. The 3 mini-station target areas (2, 3 and 4) generate 55.8% oF the city's crime. Figures 4.2. Comparison of Areas to City—wide Crime Totals (Combined Burglary, Larceny,_Robbery Auto Th2Ft and Arson) Saginaw, Michigan 985—1988 Figure 1985 Crime Comparison % Area 1 1077 15.55 Area 2 1179 17.35 Area 3 1135 15.59 Area 4 1425 20.95 Area 5 555 9.80 Area 8 540 9.42 Area 7 575 9.93 City = 5797 100.00 Figure 1987 Crime Comparison % Area 1 857 13.15 Area 2 1148 17.51 Area 3 1125 17.25 Area 3 Area 4 1275 19.55 17-51% Area 5 711 10.90 Area 5 Area 5 678 10.40 10.90% Area 7 725 11. 2 City = 5519 100.00 Figure 1988 Crime Comparison N % Area1 352 12.32 Area 2 1120 15.80 10.78% Area 3 1415 20.48 Area 4 1479 21.39 Area 5 592 10.01 Area 5 745 10.78 Area 7 510 8.82 City 5914 100.00 77 The West Side areas (5, 5 and 7) tend to have the lowest major crimes rates in the city. Major crime rates in the Cherry Street mini-station area have consistently declined since the opening 0F the mini—station. Deviations in area crime rates For the 7 areas For the years From 1985 through 1988 are shown in Table 4.14.. Table 4.14. Deviation in Area Crime Rates (In the City 0F Saginaw, Michigan, 1985—1988) 1985 1987 1988 Total 2 Total 2 Total 2 Area: 1 1077 .39 857 —.37 852 -.38 2 1179 .75 1148 .54 1120 .54 3 1135 .50 1125 .55 1415 1.57 4 1425 1.47 1275 1.11 1479 1.78 5 555 —1.03 711 —.87 592 -.94 5 540 —1.12 578 —.98 745 -.75 7 575 —.99 725 -.82 510 —1.22 Note: Above totals reFlect only robbery, burglary, larCeny, arson and auto theFt totals. Other area oFFense totals were unavailable. Source: Saginaw Police Department "Major Crime Trends in Area.” A copy 0F the SPD evaluation 0F Area 2 major crime rates For the last quarters OF 1984 and 1985 appears in Appendix 0, page 119 . The evaluation concludes that crime in the target area was reduced 45% For the last quarter OF 1985 when compared to the last quarter oF 1984. During each successive year oF operation oF the mini—stations, Area 2 major crimes rates have demonstrated less deviation From the city mean oF 953 with a standard deviation oF 289. 78 Crime rates in the East Genesee area (Area 4) decreased in the First year 0F program operation, but have increased since the time staFFing was reduced. Only the Area 3 (South Washington) mini-station demonstra— ted an increase in target area.‘ crime rates in the First year oF operation. Changes in Area 2 crime rates did not exceed the 1 tailed, alpha=.O5 t—test value oF 2.920, so the null hypothesis, ”Crime in the target area has not decreased since the mini—station was implementedfl'canrxm be rejected. Figure 4.3 (page 79) illustrates the "major crime trends For Area 2 on a monthly basis For the years 1985 through 1988. The Figures include reported burglary, larceny, robbery, arson and auto theFt. The major crime trend totals For the last quarters oF 1984 and 1985 have been included as they appear on the SPD evaluation (see Appendix page 117). The Figure illustrates the relative- ly small year to year changes in major crime rates in Area 2. Pearson's r was used to test the null hypothesis "There is no correlation between changes in crime rate in the target areas and in the city wide totals." The correlation coeFFicients obtained From this test appear in Table 4.15. on page 80. 79p Figure 4.3. Area 2 Monthly Major Crime Trends, 1985-1988 Number 210 200 . 5 190 ;‘ " 150 5' 170 . 5 1 150 - _. 150 . : 3 : K1984 140 . ‘ ”a s , u ’\ 130 ‘ ,’ \1955 1 \ 120 - .& ./.'\ 110 I -/‘ -.1987 \ ‘ \ \ ‘ 3 100 ' \ 90 80 \ a, 70 ,“n \ 50 - 50 ~ 40 - K . 30 . ey ——-—— 1988 20 _ "'“"1987 ————— 1985 10 . - — 1985 ..... 1984 O l l l I I l I I l I Month: J F M A M J J A S O N C Data source: For the years 1985 through 1988, data was obtained From Saginaw Police Department "Major Crime Trends.” 1984 and 1985 data were obtained From the SPD mini—station evaluation on Appendix page 80 Table 4.15.0ity-Area Crime Correlation (Saginaw, Michigan, For the years 1985—1988) Area City 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 City 1.00 Area 1 -.40 1.00 Area 2 .30 .22 1.00 Area 3 .74 .20 -.07 1.00 Area 4 .99 .24 .02 .97 1.00 Area 5 -.53 .90 .75 .20 —.33 1.00 Area 5 .43 .79 .92 .92 .54 .44 1.00 Area 7 —.95 .09 .3 -.91 —.82 .35 .58 1.00 The critical value oF r,bassd.' on a 2-tailed test at the -05 sig- niFicance level is i .754. OF the target Areas 3, 4 and 5 only Area 4 demonstrate correlation to city wide crime rates. The null hypothesis,”There is no correlation between changes in crime rates in the target areas and in the city wide totals" can be rejected For Area 4. Area 2 to city rates has r=.30, Area 3 has an r=.74. Correlation co- eFFicients have been calculated on city area area crime totals For the years 1985 through 1988. Forecasting For crime rates in both the city and Area 2, using the algebraic method, shows that crime rates can be expected to vary by —.950 per year For Area 2 and by .19 For city wide, times the number oF years since the base year OF 1975, Should all Factors remain constant, For— casting predicts crime in the city oF saginaw will vary by less than 1% per year through the year 1993. 81 Summary Participant observation was the method used in con- struction 0F a mini-station diary. Interviews which probed reportwritingpractices revealed mini—station personnel have changed this practice since the program's implementation. Samples From both departmentally administered surveys were examined. The results oF the 2 Saginaw Police Department surveys were compared and contrasted with the present sur- vey. Crime related problems are cited much more by area residents as policing problems needing address than are the order maintenance and service Functions. Crime in the city oF Saginaw was examined in relation to other cities and Found to be higher than both other Michigan city and same— sized city averages. Area 2, the Cherry Street Mini—Station area, was examined For its own unique crime concerns. Crime rates in both the city and area 2 were subjected to alge— brais Forecasting, which revealed crime rates will vary by less then 1% For the next Five years, iF all Factors re- main constant. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Overview The major Findings oF the research methods are ident- iFied. Alternate explanations oF the observed results are presented. The study's methodological limitations are addressed. Implications cF the mini—stations program are discussed. Recommendations For the Saginaw program are given. Major Findings The mini—stations appear to have relatively low utili- zation rates. Possible explanations For the low rates are the absence oF mini—station phone numbers in the phone directory, low visibility oF signs, irregular oFFicer availability and media releases which announced the Cherry Street Mini—Station would close eFFective June 1, 1987. Over two—thirds oF survey respondents reported Favorable opinions about the mini—station. Only one subject reported opposition. The remainder held neutral opinions. Even those neighborhood residents who had not used the mini- station services generally reported Feeling better knowing 82 83 that the mini—station was there in the neighborhood. As reported by Bahn (1974), the mini—station may serve as symbolic reassurance to the neighborhood residents. There is insuFFicient data to support the speculation that crime in the target areas declined due to "spill over" into adjacent areas (Latessa, 1980). Police patrols in the target area are a scarce re— source. During peak periods oF answering calls For service, patrols cannot be perFormed in the target areas. Obliga— tion to patrol between assignments seriously reduces the potential For oFFicer contacts in the mini—station. While low availability is not conducive to building rapport, the team policing used in the target neighborhoods can Facilitate making the oFFicer an identiFiable member oF the neighborhood. Target area residents Frequently request more police services in the Forms oF increased patrols, rapid and certain response, and disbursing loitering in the area. Responses to neighborhood problems vary From Area 2 to 4. In area 2, the problem generating the most re- sponses is the presence oF juveniles and young adults in the streets. Area 4 residents have a lower concern For juveniles and loitering while being more concerned about bur— glaries. SPD administrators and the community are now at odds about the juvenile and juvenile gang problems. The Department reports being unable to enForce the city's curFew against persons over the age 0F 17 and attributes much oF the late night loitering and gang activity to 84 persons over the age 0F 17. Nevertheless. the visibility oF loiterers and the perception that they are juvenile gang members generates Fear and a good deal oF concern For area 2 residents. During1fle adfinisfletimfioF the SPD surveys, drugs were not oFten cited as a problem. Since SPD administrators and the media have reported the inFiltration oF the crack market into the area, residents have become more concerned about drug problems in the city. Media publicity may have heightened concern, although a great deal oF concern is generated by the visibility oF area drug traFFicking. Over two-thirds oF area 4 residents reported prac— ticing watch group-like crime prevention prior to the opening oF the East Genesee Mini—Station. Interest in watch group Formation is high, with 92% 0F area 4 and 88% 0F area 2 subjects stating they would like to Form watch groups or attend meetings on crime prevention. Almost halF (48%) 0F area 2 residents agree that the police make them Feel saFe in their neighborhood, although only 33.7% reported not being aFraid 0F crime in their neighborhood. About one—third (32%) reported the .police do not make them Feel saFe. The mean level oF Fear among those reporting that they were aFraid oF crime is 3.59 (on a scale 0F 1 to 5, with 5 the highest). High— er than average levels oF Fear can be expected due to the predominance oF Females and blacks in the target areas. Just over 40% 0F the subjects reported that his/her level 85 0F Fear "is as high as it can get." Drug related crimes generated highest levels oF Fear. Lowest Fear levels were connected with stranger and/or unruly kids in the streets or on the sidewalks. One subject reported highest concern For strangaesand unruly kids because she Felt that they were responsible For all the other crime categories. In the years Following 1975, crime in Saginaw peaked in 1951 and 1952, coincident with massive layoFFs and plant closings in the area. Under the administration oF the new chieF, crime has decreased to lower levels than in the years prior to the peak. These lower levels are co— incident with decreases in city population. At the pre- sent time, population losses are believed to have stabil- ized, iF not reserved. While new small businesses and industries are opening to absorb the city's surplus labor, new businesses generate relatively Few new job openings. Major plant lay oFFs and closings remain problematic For the area. Reduction in plant—generated revenue to the city has resulted in cuts in city police and Fire manpower and Forestalled acquisition oF equipment such as police computerization oF more complete records. Pay— roll budget cuts have also restricted oFFicer availability For "comp time" watch group coordination and advisory Functions. The last major plant closing in the area occurred early in 1987. City Part I oFFenses For 1987 do not exhibit a coincident increase in area crime. At the present time, speculation abounds concerning more 85 plant lay oFFs due to an announced transFerring oF engine block production to an out oF state plant. The 3 mini-station target areas continue to generate the city's highest area crime rates. Crime in Area 2 appears to have become relatively stable since mini-station implementation, despite the upsurge oF drug traFFicking in the area. Reported crime in Areas 3 and 4 , in- creased in the last year. The increases in Area 3 can be anticipated during the program's rapport building phase. Increases in Area 4 are likely to be post—implementation regression to the mean. In light oF the low number oF oFFicers assigned to the target areas, a high likelihood exists that changes in assignment (i.e., transFers and reassignments) may aFFect reported crime rates through oFFicer report writing prac— tices. Currently assigned oFFicers report that although number oF cells For service has not diminished, calls are better screened For inFormal disposition than had previous— ly been done in the target areas. Formal incident reports serve as the basis For case reports. Incident reports contain a built in mechanism For determining whether or not the incident will receive Follow up investigation. A series 0F 8 boxes appear on incident reports, where the responding oFFicer will check either "yes” or "no” to questions such as "Was there a witness to the crime?" and "Can a suspect be identiFied?" The likelihood oF Follow up investigation is related to 87 the number oF boxes checked "yes." Central dispatch reports dispatching 112,357 city police cars in 1987. Central Records reports having 25,274 incident reports on File For this year. From the incident reports, 21,937 Founded case reports are on File. In prior years, responding oFFicers were required to write incident reports on all calls. Current manpower cutbacks have replaced the practice oF writing up all calls with writing incidents only on the more serious criminal complaints and carrying the remainder on the oFFicer's daily log. Crime rate For the city oF Saginaw, although declin- ing since a peak in 1982, remain much higher than national averages, state averages and averages For other cities oF the same size. Forecasting predicts a relatively stable Future crime rate, all other Factors held constant. The 3 mini—station target areas continue to generate the city's highest area crime rates, despite decreases in Area 2 crime totals. Crime in Area 2 has become relatively stable, despite police and media accounts 0F the inFiltra- tion oF crack—cocaine traFFicking in the area. Reported increases in Area 3 crime are to be expected as evidence oF the rapport building since program implementation. InsuFFicient evidence exists to support the theory that crime in Area 2 decreased during the First year due to displacement. The area 4 First year decrease and second year increase may indicate regression to the mean, Following 88 the First year oF program implementation. An alternate explanation oF the increases in crime in Areas 3 and 4 For 1988 is that they reFlect the general city wide in— crease which has occurred since manpower was reduced. Methodological Limitations The included mini—station diary is more representa— tive 0F 5 days dfimen at random than oF one single week.nue to the irregular nature oF police work,-the diary-should not.inter— preted as deFinitive oF mini—station daily operations. The survey samples are not representative oF the city as a whole. The samples have been selected From low income, high unemployment minority neighborhoods with a high number oF Female heads oF household. Undereduca- tion and welFare reliance is common among area residents. The appearance oF the neighborhood is deteriorated. Litter, stray animals, boarded windows and abandoned vehicles are omnipresent. Although Females generally demonstrate higher levels oF Fear, the Female predominance in the sample is characteristic oF inner—city neighborhoods, although Saginaw lacks the population density Found in many major metropolitan areas. Survey questions were designed to take minimal time and require little thought. Previous surveys involving the same subjects indicated a high likelihood that sub— jects would reFuse to participate in a longer or more Fn 89 diFFiCUlt to answer survey. Minimal probing was done. Many oF the more FearFul subjects appeared suspicious oF the interviewers. When subjects appeared uncomFort— able, no probing was done. The departmentally adminis- tered surveys did not involve probing. The police oFFicer interviewers For the Cherry Street pre—program may have introduced either personal bias or the Hawthorne eFFect. The East Genesee survey response rate was abnormally low. Surveys were simply leFt at the homes, to be returned to the mini—station at the subject's time and expense. Interviewers were not present to clariFy questions or time Frames. The pre—program surveys did not measure levels oF Fear oF crime at the time oF program implementation. Fear was measured only aFter the program had been in oper— ation For 3 years. Changes in the level oF Fear since program implementation cannot be calculated. Discrepancies exist between mini-station and head— quarters record keeping. For standardization and consis— tency, only headquarters data were used. Headquarters records are consistent with totals published in UniForm Crime Reports. Secondary analysis For the target areas was limited to reported 'arscn, larceny, auto theFt, burglary and robbery. Statistics For other Part I and Part II oFFenses and number oF cells For service data were not available For the study. Records prior to 1985 had been deleted From computer Files prior to the present study. 1 SO During the study period, 1985 records were also deleted. Presprogram reported crime rates For Area 2 could only be obtained For the last quarter oF 1984 and were derived From an SPO evaluation, rather than From the standardized "Major Crime Trends" print—out. Not having the crime data For the period prior to implementation disallows analysis oF any crime reducing aFFect the mini—station may have produced. Had number oF calls For service been available,Further clariFication oF the program's impact could have been presented. The comparisons between 1985 National Crime Survey victimization and UCR reported crime must be cautiously contrasted to city rates in Table 4.11. Victimization studies are subject to a wide array oF subjective bias. UCR national rates also include higher crime major cities and lower crime rural areas. The NCS and UCR rates in this table reFlect national averages, rather than compari— son with cities with similarly sized populations. Also to be noted is that victimization studies such as the NCS traditionally reveal crime reporting to law enForce— ment agencies is indicative oF only about halF oF all victimizations (Senna and Seigel, 1984, and Hagen, 1984) Implications In May, 1988, Saginaw voters deFeated a measure to increase taxes. The proposed millage was designed to 91 allow maintaining police and Fire services at 1987 levels. OeFeat oF the proposed millage resulted in the laying oFF 0F 9 police oFFicers and 18 FireFighters. Saginaw police oFFicers were redeployed to Fill vacancies created by the lay oFFs. The police School Resource oFFicer pro— gram was disbanded. Mini-station staFFing was reduced to 1 oFFicer per shiFt, per station. StaFF reductions and increased responsibilities hamper rallying the sup— port oF the neighborhoods in crime prevention and solution. AFter answering cells For service and perForming routine patrols, mini—station oFFicers are available For personal contact on a limited and irregular basis. Both the announced closing oF the Cherry Street Mini— Station and the reduced oFFicer availability have contri— buted to decreased utilization oF mini-station services. Most oF the callers and visitors wish to speak directly to an oFFicer,rather than to a secretary or volunteer. Noted academicians such as James O. Wilson and George Kelling prioritize reducing the Fear oF crime over reduc— ing reported crime. ”Whether community service strategies reduce crime and disorder, they are important ways oF demonstrating that the police are trying to protect and care For the public," (MastroFski, 1988:57). Reducing Fear oF crime can lead to increased quality oF liFe, evinced through Feeling oF Freedom oF movement to conduct one's business, cultural enrichment, and strengthened social bonds. Freedom to move about and stronger social 92 bonds may potentially lead to reduced crime by limiting opportunities and increasing possibilities oF interven— tion and detection. That crime has not been substantially reduced in the Saginaw target areas is oF little suprise. Previous research into the eFFects oF mini—station pro— grams reveal there is seldom more than a minor eFFect in reducing crime rates and number oF cells For service. Yet mini—stations can still be a valuable tool in reducing the Fear oF crime. Mini-stations in Houston, Detroit and Newark (Williams and Pete, 1987; Brown and WycoFF, 1987; and Skolnick and Sayley, 1985) were judged success— Ful because Fear oF crime was reduced, even when crime rates did not diminish- OFten disproportionate to the risk oF victimization, Fear oF crime can lead to reduced quality oF liFe when it results in ”staying in" behavior. Even For target area residents who had not used the services oFFered by the mini—station, survey comments and anecdotal data revealed that knowing the mini-station were close by provided increased Feelings oF security. The location enhanced perceptions that the police response to calls For service would be both more certain and more rapid. Target area residents Feel lass isolated From police protection. Many subjects reported that prior to the mini-station program, their neighborhoods appeared to go unpatrolled. A common request was that patrols be Further increased. Although Saginaw's 1988 police and Fire millage 93 proposal was deFeated, East Side voters cast more votes in Favor oF the increase than against it. This may be inFerred as the East Side's vote to keep the police and the mini-stations in their neighborhoods. Some Fear that withdrawing the mini-station program would result in iso— lating the target areas From police protection. OF 100 subjects surveyed, only 1 voiced opposition to the mini— station program, while over two—flfirds Favored having the mini—stations continue to operate in their areas. Drug traFFicking proFits in Saginaw, concentrated in areas 1 and 2, are currently estimated by the chieF to be between $25.5 and 48.9 million annually. The Department reported that For the First quarter oF 1988, robberies increased 19% and burglaries 27%. The Department attributes the increases to loss oF oFFicers and increases in drug— related theFt. Drug—related homicides in the city are reported by the deputy chieF in charge oF investigation to be increasing. East side residents are publicly de— manding greater police protection, yet the city lacks the Financial resources to supply additional manpower and equipment. Summary The major Findings oF the study's three research methods (surveys, participant observation, and secondary analysis) have been presented. Alternative possible explanations have been suggested, based on previous research. V _ 94 Implications For police problems in the city oF Saginaw have been given in light oF reduced police manpower and Financial constraints. Summary The major Findings oF the study have been presented. Alternative possible explanations have been given. Study Findings have been related to previous research. It is diFFicult to determine whether or not the mini-stations have reduced Fear oF crime because no pre-program measures were made. Changes in reported crime are inconsistent in each oF the three target areas. It GLOSSARY Area — The seven divisions oF the city oF Saginaw used by the police department For dispatching and record keeping purposes. Areas 1 through 4 are located on the East side. Areas 5 through 7 are located on the West side. For maps, see Appendix A. Back up — Additional police cars and oFFicers dispatched to accompany the oFFicer who was originally assigned to answer the call. Crime Analysis Recap — the title given to a Saginaw Police Department list, issued daily, summarizing the major (Part I) oFFenses committed in the city. These bull— etins are not analyzed statistically. Crime Trends — The title given to a Saginaw Police daily list summarizing, by day, the reported larcenies in the city. Disorder — A perceived threat to saFety or quality oF liFe caused by contact with suspicious persons, such as panhandlers, prostitutes, loiterers, vagrants, or strangers in the neighborhood; or, the deteriorated physical appearance oF a neighborhood caused by neglect or decay. SS 95 Fear oF crime ~ Perceived threats to saFety or welFare, oFten higher than warranted by crime rates, caused by being a crime victim or hearing oF or witnessing another's victimization. Juvenile complaints — Those complaints made to the police in reFerence to juveniles, For example, juvenile gang complaints, curFew violations, runaways, or juvenile loitering. "Lein" channel - A radio channel which could not originally be heard on privately owned police radio monitors. New technology allows some home monitors to receive signals broadcast on this radio Frequency. Major Crime Trends — the title given to a Saginaw Police Department print-out listing daily, weekly, or monthly summaries oF reported robbery, burglary, larceny, arson and auto theFt. OFFicer—initiated - An assignment that an oFFicer enters into based on his own discretion, without receiving a radio call For service. Part I crimes - The crimes oF homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theFt, auto theFt and arson. Personal crime — Rape, personal robbery, personal larceny, homicide and assault complaints. Property crime - Household larceny, household burglary, arson and auto theFt. S7 SPD — the Saginaw, Michigan Police Department. Tab zone — the 173 smaller divisions oF the 7 police areas in the city oF Saginaw. Tab zones 1 through 54 are located on the West side. Tab zones 55 through 173 are located on the East Side. For maps detailing the tab zones in areas 2, 3 and 4, see Appendix A. Target area — the name given to the particular area and/or tab zones to be served by mini-station personnel exclusively, unless prior authorization is given to other police personnel to enter this area. APPENDICES Maps City oF Saginaw, by Police Area.............. Police Area 2 (Cherry Street). ...... ......... Police Area 3 (South Washington) ............ . Police Area 4 (East Genesee) ............ ..... .....SS Ill-101 ....104 98 Map oF the City oF Saginaw (Showing the 7 police areas) oEE SAUIHAW VALLEY STMI: SEPAHAIE PAGE AW be shown.) SAG (Nol all sueels x E SEE‘BRIDGEPURI AREA smnm PACE 99 City oF Saginaw Police Area 2A I l 67 i new“ 3r. :' . 3 l9 1: i’ . § i I L . ~ I a ,' [ Sir-q . C I .umnrrm J1! 4‘1 :j 2‘ C. . . 3' i {I II :5 I \ 3'1". _/‘ B 1 J l \ .1") l g L \3\ \. / _ f / ‘ /’ ‘ ll . v I -, - .._ / ' 3’? : -. 72 LI :. _ N ‘ rue: 7| § 3h; )I If...“ sr' .: H , ‘ r " I s; " ’ . —_ ‘--I. i I " ?- 8 “my" r 1 . j. . . i ‘t _, '1 . 2,: a—J L—J L_. .JLJ 44m .1 g 0 _m ,, ”I y—n r—r. l E T . 1:55 ’ S W ~—'o. L! 5. avg-cu . laid—Au i" 3 diet; :_.__:_7_ 1E; ' : _(,_ E 5 i E h] . '__},‘;_~T r“ "! Franc" n, =2 3 :3 * ' I “4 l ' .4 I" ~ ' -— x. 5 .. x . . . :z‘lfill * v I 1" TJ H _._.‘ 1, H _ S Atvuun :l U :' ,, “ nj n+4: 1OO Saginaw Police Area 25 I I| .II :I —-\I . ~“J‘ (‘c '. .9- ': £1 ‘20-. ’6‘ /' 33h m ; I'AV/flt n“! I ”7" . 5 —— - ' 5.] I'- -. ,. u if. .I..' , ' I fies/75 I . ‘ l: . " I 7 " =‘ __-._.. ‘ D D. I .* .. i :I v. E s -_ . 5‘ z z; E r. ': 1 ‘ I l -.u. T' - =Is~tu~6 R u j _ I - It‘ll l o l-,___ “- I T '- —) n,‘ , . I .4. (AICIE ti”: ”5.: LE? z: z: o T v >' I. l TMF ! ' ‘ IM::’,_ ng‘ \——_Iy\§2 : 1 v! ;'I til ixfiq’fg\\ k i'“ a!“ ‘ 15’ :4 ~_ ‘3 ' “I ‘ c' .. _ (I mm! "5,: \‘4 \y/ ‘\9 “~i—Dg'g. I F'gl {I1 \\ =‘ “‘\ —. ESE ti 3. ”,i LJ QM L 52;; Ft I K” ‘1': I I Ii 5:5, I 7: $15 4 fir .‘2 ‘:f *3); ~12 ii: .51. _ pbec II ~l I"! ‘3 _ I“ II 3i: =I' '7- ' ‘f I‘: r ~? 5 .4 g ___ Eli.-- ,I L) L Him I L "5,- [I V ‘4 Ei-JE " I d I _. .._" flflfsufic—‘Hfi .uJ 1;» S'ZOTM“ 101 Saginaw Police Area 3A 5 ”£5? /D/M/ é CALL/9.9 o .l a. A, r. .4 _... . r. IFIr.IIr. -2 \ iN§h~I 5 L In a [I PARK wool: E ‘Robleoo D - Guiana/opp Mr 102 Area Saginaw Police _ E m [am 103 Saginaw Police Area 3C 3» U L LLLL rm 1 _/v‘1 "" agnn/ EV lb. 104 Saginaw Police Area 4A 104 Saginaw Police Area 4A flaws/see. ,3”....-._- t. .. some? 1Er_.__ . " - AMfions .._ -.n . -. . L1._ .41. .__§_V. r7 105 Saginaw Police Area 48 V/\x .. 9W6. . ..x. atmflvc Ax \... 3 /. Appendix B Surveys SPD Survey (Cherry Street Pre—Survey)...... ..... ...106 East Genesee Pre—Survey ............. ... ......... ...107 Introduction to Present Survey ..................... 108 Present Survey (Post-program survey) ............... 109 a. 105 _.‘ Cherry Street Pre—Survey SAGZNAK POLICE MINI STATION 'ggyfi 1325 Cherry Street krj/ seamen-.1, MICHIGAN 1.8601 Phone (517) 776-1220 INTRODUCTION A “SAGINAW POLICE MINI STATION" has been set up in your neighborhood in order to help you as citizens with problems that aren't yet known to the Police Department. We're going :c try to help solve whatever problems there are in your area. We've prepared a "QUESTIONNAIRE” for all families in the area. We're asking that you take time out to answer each question. 1. Name 2. Address 3. How long have you lived in this area? 4. Do you own your home? Yes No 5. What age group are you? 18-30 30—45 45—60 Over 60 6. What do you as citizens expect the Police Department to do? by the Police Department? When did you notice or detect the problems or problem? 0) 9. Would you be interested in a group meeting scheduled at a designated area? 10. Would you be interested in a Neighborhood Watch? I. What type of problems are you having that should be addressed 107 ‘N- SPD East Genesee Survey 0 SACINAW POLlCE MINI-STATION 2609 E. Genesee SACIHAW, MICHIGAN 4860i Phone (517) 776~|205 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION SURVEY NAME; Annkasst AREA MARRIED: SINGLE: DIVORCED: EMPLOYED: YES -NO No..0F-Children HOME: OWN RENT DO YOU HAVE AN-ALARH ON YOUR HOUSE? YES NO I. Have you been the victim of a BEEY 2. Have you been the victim of any serious crime? 3. Were the Police called? a. Was.the suspect arrested? 5. 6 Nos. 6. HaVe you been asked to Watch they were gone? gone? 8. Do you have a record of the Name. Model No. of the major items in your home? 9. Are the Bicycles in your family licensed? Have you heard of the POLlCE HlNl-STATlONS? ll. Have you heard 12. Would you be interested gram for your Area? 13. What is your major fear of your Neighborhood? of the Neighborhood Watch ProgramJ TAB How many times have you called the Police in the last a neighbors house while 00 you request neighbors to watch your house when you‘re “0.. and Serial in a Neighborhood Watch Pro- 108 Survey Introduction Hello, my name is . I am helping a student From Michigan State University to collect inFormation about Fear oF crime in this neigh- borhood. Would you be willing to give me a Few minutes 0F your time to answer some simple questions about crime? Your answers will be kept conFidential. You do not have to give your name. 109 SAGINAW POLICE MINI—STATION SURVEY Can you name 2 or 3 general problems which trouble you the most? Do you feel the police department makes you feel safe in this neighborhood? ( )Strongly agree ( )Agree ( )Don’t know ( )Disagree ( )Strongly disagree Comments (if any): ' Are you fearful of crime in this neighborhood? ( )Yes ( )No A. If yes: ’ On a scale of 1 to 5, with five being the highest, how fearful of crime would you say you are? l 2 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, how much of each of the following cause you to be concerned about crime in this area? A. The chances of having your house or apartment broken into? 1 2 3 4 b. Stories that you hear about drugs and the people who use and sell them? 1 2 3 C. The chances of being raped, mugged, or assaulted? l 2 3 4 D. Groups of unruly kids or strangers that you see on the sidewalks or in the streets? 1 2 3 4 5 E. Is there anything you would like to add that causes you to be fearful of crime? In your view, what types of problems should thexpolice department take care of in your neighborhood? What would you like the police department to do to make you feel safer in your neighborhood? Do you know about the police department mini-station on Cherry Street? ( )Yes ( )No A. If yes: What is your opinion about this mini-station? Revised 11/9/88 Appendix C Diary Hours 700 945 950 1015 1035 1055 1115 1200 1230 1245 1250 1300 1315 1600 1530 110 Mini-Station Diary For One Week in September MONDAY OFFicer reports For roll call, instuctions, checks to ensure patrol car is Functioning properly OFFicer reports to mini-station, dropping oFF memos and bulletins. Hadio call; oFFicer responds to a reported burglarly discovered by persons opening a commercial building. OFFicers clears From commercial burglary scene and is given a residential burglary radio call OFFicer returns to the mini—station to write burglary reports needed by burglary victims For insurance companies. OFFicer also places and answers phone calls. Secretary arrives, unlocks doors and cabinets, turns on lights, radio monitor, and coFFee pot. She is given day's typing assignments. OFFicer receives radio call to answer burglar alarm. OFFicer clears From accidental alarm call and begins to patrol area. OFFicer receives radio call to respond to a hit and run accident; checks lein For vehicle and driver inFormation, then clears. OFFicer receives a radio call oF a person with kniFe at a party store; arrives and Finds no suspect present, unable to locate suspect or complaintant. OFFicer clears From assignment. OFFicer returns to patrol duties in area. OFFicer reports to mini-station, answers messages and write reports and daily log entries. Secretary begins binding reports, memos, and bulletins. Secretary gives Finished typing to oFFicer For inspec— tion and signatures. Detective A comes in to the mini—station to get more inFormation about a previous week's incident in the area. Detective A leaves mini—station. OFFicer begins to work on mini-station's next community project. Lost motorist comes in For directions. Watch group block captain B comes in to pick up a watch sign permit and talk to oFFicer about problems in the neighborhood. OFFicer receives a radio call to respond to a cutting, oFFicer's activities unknown temporarily. OFFicer returns to the mini—station, reports himselF‘W available to radio dispatchers; makes.phone calla, goes back to headquarters For shirt and. Secretary closes mini—statioanor the day. TUESDAY OFFicer reports For roll call; aFter checking patrol 1030 1145 1150 1205 1230 1245 1300 1315 1330 1345 1415 1430 1445 1510 1540 1600 1530 700 800 830 1000 1030 1045 1050 1110 1140 111 car, is immediately given a radio call to respond to a criminal sexual conduct (rape) call. Secretary opens oFFice For the day. OFFicer clears From rape incident and returns to mini— station to answer phone and mail messages and write rape incident report. Radio call received oF a suspicious persons loitering outside a school building. No one Found outside the school, no identiFiable complaintant. DFFicer and back up car make sure the area is secure, then clear and begin patrolling area. On patrol, oFFicers observes 5 persons on corner, suspects they may be selling drugs. OFFicer keeps up observation until group disperses. OFFicer returns to mini-station and begins writing letters For secretary to type. OFFicer receives telephone call From a watch group wishing to engage a guest speaker. OFFicer works on list oF crimes committed in watch areas and area maps to pass out at watch meeting. OFFicer meets with a streets department member to determine the placement site oF a watch group sign. Radio call oF a personal injury accident report; oFFicer responds and requests an ambulance, wrecker, and Fire engine to hose down gas. Radio call oF a shopliFter; suspect being held by store owner, who will not press charges. OFFicer clears and is called to car wash on a suspicious persons‘ radio call; Finds no suspicious person or complaint present. Four men drying cars leave. Radio call to respond to house Fire, house Fully involved. Neighbors report having seen a juvenile run From the house moments beFore Flames appeared. OFFicer locates juvenile suspected oF setting Fire to the vacant house. OFFicer notiFies mother that juvenile is being transported to headquarters For questioning. OFFicer returns to mini—station to check day's messages. OFFicer's shiFt ends. OFFicer Petu*ns car to HQ. Secretary closes the' oFFice For the day. WEDNESDAY OFFicer responds to roll call and checks patrol car. OFFicer next gathers supplies needed at mini—station beFore conFerring with ChieF and Deputy ChieF C. OFFicer arrives at mini-station and places phone calls. OFFicer receives radio call to report to shooting range. OFFicer clears From HQ and begins patrol. Secretary opens mini—station For day's business. OFFicer arrives at mini-station to give secretary assginments. Radio call to respond to a burglar alarm as back-up. Alarm accidentally set oFF, oFFicer clears. OFFicer Finishes phone and mail messages, signs letters 1150 1230 1245 1400 1425 1530 1600 1630 700 730 750 820 900 805 S10 1000 1005 1015 1200 1300 133D 1530 1600 112 prepared by secretary For meeting oF all block captains. Phone call requesting an accident report copy. Radio call, cutting at the soup kitchen. No suspects or complaintant Found. Crowd disperses as patrol car approaches. One suspicious group Followed until they enter a nearby abandoned building. OFFicer clears and begins patrolling area. OFFicer returns to mini—station to process paperwork and answer phone messages. Radio call oF a residential burglary. OFFicer determines the incident a part oF a domestic dispute and advises complaintant to File civil suit For return oF property missing. Radio call, report oF a runaway taken and written up. End oF oFFicer shiFt, returns to HQ. Secretary closes the oFFice For the day. THURSDAY Roll call and check car and equipment. Radio call oF a burglary, lawn mover missing From garage. No suspect, report written For insurance purposes. Clears, radio call oF burglary with TV missing. Report written For insurance purposes. OFFicers clears and is given radio call to respond to a report oF a person sleeping against telephone pole. OFFicer determines person sleeping against telephone pole is intoxicated. OFFicer advises suspect to go home and sleep it oFF. Radio call, burglary alarm. Alarm company representative arrives and determines alarm malFunctioned. Building checked to make sure it is secure. OFFicers clears and begins patrol duties. Radio report oF a property damage auto accident. OFFicer issues ticket to one driver, checks licenses and VIN on lein, then clears. OFFicer given radio call to report to HQ to see administrative oFFier. OFFicer clears From HQ, receives suspicios person call. OFFicer arrives on scene, Finds no one outside, no one answers door at residence where call originated. OFFicer clears and reports back to mini—station to write reports, daily log, and answer messages. OFFicer receives telephone call From television station requesting interview and reports selF"on assignment: Interview with news persons concluded. OFFicer makes and answers several phone messages. OFFicer gives secretary typing to do, then leaves to patrol area. OFFicer conFers with records division personnel For crime statistic inFormation. OFFicer's shiFt over. Car checked in. 1630 930 1330 1500 1515 1600 1630 113 Secretary closes the oFFice, leaving phone messages For second shiFt oFFicers who will later stop by. FRIDAY OFFicer reports to roll call, then is ordered to Freeze homicide scene. Secretary opens oFFice. DFFicer clears From homicide scene and begins patrolling area. OFFicer returns to mini-station For telephone messages. OFFicer begins working on upcoming area police picnic plans. ShiFt ends. Patrol car returned to HQ. Secretary closes oFFice. Appendix D Documents Table 6.1. Racial Breakdown oF Saginaw ............. 114 SPD Incident Report Sample ......................... 115' OFFicer's Daily Log Sample ......................... 115 SPD Mini-Station Analysis .......................... 117 In 114 .cmmficoflz .3mcfimmm mo sowo or» no ucmadon>mc oHeocoom ocm mcflcCMHm mo howsoumdmc we» so omuaodom mousmfim ommucmuuod m mm owmmmuoxw moomumo .N mcomumo uo umbeoc Hmsuoa .H .ommo on boo oaoosm :oflcmomfi:= .soflo or» com .moam ommz .ooam ummm or» now woodman sodomHoQOQ mCHHHMoou coca .mmfluommumo :oflomaodoo =umsoo= pom .xUme .wofiss booed =uflcmomflm= pom woodman omooHooH ocm madowd uo womb m mm cos» uwsumu ozoum oficcow cm no.2:mauo cmflcmoma mumofimcoo ommuom momcwo one mom.ks moe.mm mum.uv mvm.um eoe.ov Nvu.um sauce “0.0 u kmm.o Am.m v vvm.s Am.mHe mw©.m Am.o u Hmm.o Mo.u u vmo AH.HHV kmo.m oscmamua A©.mmc mmm.em AN.H u use Am.voc auu.em Am.vmv www.mm Av. v Has Am.mvu sou.mm somum “v.5mv mov.vv Ae.mmv mku.vm A©.ame mam.ou Ho.mev Nom.mo Am.mmv mmm.ov mle.mmv umom.mm mouse momm umaoe meow ommz team swam sauce team smog ovum ammo omou cams cams cam cams .ammuaUuz .smaummm to azoexmmum Hmsumm .v.m munmh OF PAGE 115 ' SAGINAW POLICE DEPARTMENT ‘ INCIDENT REPORT 1. YR. INCIDENT 4 CR. FOLLOW—UP 2. REPORTING OFFICER 4. REPORT TIME I DATE / i 3. BADGE D. BETWEEN TIME A DATE AND/OR TIME A DATE / 6. INCIDENT TYPE CLASS 7. INCIDENT ADDRESS AREA TAB 3. PROPERTY OR EVIDENCE PROPERTY 9. VEHICLE PAGE 0 DISPOSITION yo-C] MC] V REG YEAR ETATE N0 ‘0, VEHICLE YEAR MAI! noon on TYPE COLOR Tot/cone“ VIN. .- Io. CNIMACIIIIIIICI l INF DESC. c 8 REG YEAR ITATE no. 11. VEHICLE YEAR MAKE noon on "n COLON 1091 none:- v.I.N.~ Io. CNARACTENISTICI U INF DESC. P 12. NAME OF PERSON (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE) o: BUSINESS PLACE ID. NAME OF PERSON (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLE) or BUSINESS PLACE 15. ARRESTED 13. R/S AGE OR 0.0.3. 14. HOW INVOLVED VICTIM VOID 00D 20. RIS AGE 0R 0.0.3. 21. HOW INVOLVED VRWS 22. ARRESTED THC) MC] 13. WHERE LODGED/TAKEN 23. WHERE LODGEDITAKEN 17. ADDRESS 24. ADDRESS 13. EMPLOYER (COMPANY NAME) HTX 25. EMPLOYER (COMPANY NAME) HTX BTX BTX 28. NAME OF PERSON (LAST, FIRST. MIDDLE) OT BUSINESS PLACE 33. NAME OF PERSON (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLE) 0! BUSINESS PLACE 27. R/S AGE OR 0.08. 29. ARRESTED yo:[‘_‘] no C] 28. HOW INVOLVED V R W S 34. R/S AGE OR 0.0.8. 38. ARRESTED 35. HOW NVOLVED V R W S 30. WHERE LODGEDITAKEN VOID "DD 37. WHERE LODGEDITAKEN '~ 3T. ADDRESS as. women 32. EMPLOYER (COMPANY NAME) HTX 39. EMPLOYER (COMPANY NAME) H” BT x BTX 4I. GAME IN 42. IN PROGRESS 43 NON-VICT 44 A x FOR 45. VISIBLE 4e. DAYLIGHT 41. LIGHTING ON ARRIVAL CITIZEN HELP IB DFFICER FROM STREET INCIDENT STREET SCENE IPCIJOCIOC] YOSLIJ nOLJ THC) MLTJ Imonoo nao YO'IJ MC] WIDnoD unIID / 4a. PREMISES/LOCATION TYPE 49. POINT OF ENTRY 50. METHOD OF ENTRY 5I. INCIDENT PECULIARITIES 52. TYPE OF INSTRUMENT. WEAPON OR FORCE USED 53. FINCERPRINTs vest: 54. PHOTOS mm MC] 55. DIAGRAM YosLjnorj no by' D I’Y3 by: WAS THERE A WITNESS To THE CRIME 7 YES[ NO fl CAN SUSPECT BE IDENTIFIED 7 YES No CAN A SUSPECT BE NAMED 7 YES [j NO : CAN SUSPECT VEHICLE BE IDENTIFIED 7 YES No CAN SUSPECT BE DESCRIBED 7 YES I: No : IS STOLEN PROPERTY TRACEAeLE 7 YES “'1 N0 ' CAN SUSPECT BE LOCATED 7 YES NO — IS THERE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRESENT 7 YES NO SYNOPSIS AMT, currency Iconry cloIhInu vehicles on. equip lelovIIIon "mum: hsholdqu. consume" IIvqucII l mac. 1 TOTAL STLN. AMT RECOV. REWEWED BY ASSIGNED 1DISP. I INV. ASSIG 150 RE ‘LASSIFIED TIME :LEARED ASSIST. OFFICERS ORIGINAL ooofi t Z N . z W a w z N z . N z x z M z 5 a 1 Al 2 V w z N z w I z w Awmnww: mm mOGHH >cma mm mmsv mRmOoc>m DOB HHU OEHH HHMU mmud USO UEHB UUOU COHUMUQH Odvmm .289 383: 55mm ommoafiz Cam ommmafiz mudom uuflnm DURnumRo III I III III :50 .84. £5 wmnmm .304...qu umnmm I. 3038 IIII Bwommm NflHdo m.z¢£qom84m 117 SPD Mini—Station Analysis .000 NIP EOE Dee .mor .>oz / .PUO .mOr mmCON EMF mom mJJk m mm