THES|S mW‘QEWQWNWW LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ici‘i ‘i QuAur/ A$SUIQAAJC€ STUDY FOR ‘T’l-E, RARE) QTY, Scum ‘- POLALE 02/? 7' " "' DAKO ”A presented by G 'A& mm. "SAY W01 ‘T'HA L has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASTERS degree in CRU’NNAL 1433(6- ngm i m Major professor Date 3- 30 ~95 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE Ii RETURN Boxwrornovothbciuckouhom your record. TO AVOID FINES rotum on or bdoro duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU loAn WWW Opportunity Instituion mm: 1994 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEY FOR THE RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA POLICE DEPARTMENT By Jay Mathew Woythal A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1995 _ ‘7‘“31. 231:. The pur; the cilia policere were uu' satisfy 0 year, M The data Amas it issues in I'EIaliOns altitude them” 0 by the da ABSTRACT 1994 QUALITY ASSURANCE STUDY FOR THE RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA POLICE DEPARTMENT By Jay Mathew Woythal The purpose of the study was three-fold; l) to determine the needs and expectations of the citizens residing in Rapid City, 2) to assess the level of satisfaction with specific police-related contacts, and 3) to compare data across a one year trend. Two surveys were utilized; one by mail to gather data for objective one, the other by telephone to satisfy objective two. The results were generally consistent with those of the previous year, which revealed a high level of satisfaction for the Rapid City Police Department. The data from the present study supported that of the previous study almost to a question. Areas where the police department could use improvement included crime and safety issues in the North and Downtown regions of the city, and a need for renewed community relations city -wide to further increase the image of the department. Whether one’s attitude towards the police department was influenced by demographics (the conflict theory) or by specific contacts with the police (the functional theory) was also considered by the data. ~ Lutofl InuOdw Backg: Revi TABLE OF CONTENTS - List of Tables vi Introduction 1 The City 1 The Police Department 2 Background of Police Evaluations 5 The Service Style of Policing 5 Statistics as Performance Indicators 6 Citizen Satisfaction Surveys 7 Police Perceptions of the Community 7 Mass Media’s Influence on Perceptions 8 Community Expectations of the Police 9 Using Surveys as a Policy Change Instrument 10 Review of the Literature 11 Theoretical Basis 11 Examination of the Individual Level Variables 13 Age 1 3 Gender 14 Socioeconomic Variables 14 Race 15 Examination of Contextual Factors 16 Neighborhood Composition 16 The Police as Government 18 The Police and the Crime Rate 19 Knowing Police Officers 20 Victimization and Threat of Becoming a Victim 20 Police Fairness and Integrity 21 The Reporting or Non-reporting of Crime 22 Examination of Contacts with the Police 23 Types of Contact with the Police 24 Type of Crime 26 Police Response Time 28 Police Investigative Response 29 Conclusions from the Research 29 iii Results Conch Recon APPén. APDCm Appenc Append Append; Appendi AppendiJ Methodology Community Survey Subjects Design and Procedure Analysis of Data Contact Survey Subjects Design and Procedure Analysis of Data Results Community Survey Independent Variables Prioritization of Police Services/ Citizen Involvement Crime and Safety Issues Police Department Performance Contact with the Police Contact Survey Variables Affecting Overall Satisfaction Overall Police Department Performance Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A Community Survey Instrument Appendix B Contact Survey Instrument Appendix C Mayor’s Cover Letter and Instruction Sheet for Community Survey Appendix D Mayor’s Follow-Up Letter to Nonrespondents Appendix E Telephone Consent for Contact Survey Appendix F Qualitative Comments from the Community Survey Appendix G Additional Responses to Community Survey Question #1 32 32 32 34 35 36 36 38 39 41 41 41 45 49 53 57 64 64 69 76 85 87 95 100 101 102 103 147 Amer Apper List 01 Appendix H Additional Responses to Community Survey Question #15 Appendix I Qualitative Comments from the Contact Survey List of References 148 149 151 ...‘.1 Table I Table II Table II Table I\ Table V Table V’ Table V Table V Table 1) Table X Table X Table x Table )4 Table X Table X Table x Table x Table X Table x Table I Table II. Table HI. Table IV. Table V. Table VI. Table VII. Table VIII. Table IX. Table X. Table XI. Table XII. Table XIII. Table XIV. Table XV. Table XVI. Table XVII. Table XVIII. Table XIX. LIST OF TABLES Respondent Selection by Voting Precinct Voter Precincts by Patrol Area Respondents by Type of Contact Response Rate by Region Years Lived in Rapid City by Category Age of Respondents by Category Significant Neighborhood Problems with Regions Number of Contacts Type of Contact by Region Degree of Professionalism Estimate of Arrival by Perceived Arrival Degree of Professionalism Type of Contact by Degree of Professionalism Degree of Investigative Effort Recontact Overall Satisfaction by Type of Contact Number of Contacts Years Lived in Rapid City Age of Respondents vi 33 34 38 41 42 43 51 58 59 61 62 65 65 67 68 69 7O 72 73 -9A_-—_---—. 2‘ ‘ 1 Table XX. Type of Contact by Gender 73 Table XXI. Gender by Overall Satisfaction 74 vii R Penningt. educatior make cer SChool c Located i National) Tl 54.523. When [he P601316 Vis INTRODUCTION The City Rapid City, founded in 1876, is located in western South Dakota, the seat of Pennington County. The second largest city in South Dakota, Rapid City is a center for education, tourism, and trade for a five state region. The principal industries in Rapid City make cement, computer parts, and meat products. It is also home to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, National College, and Ellsworth Air Force Base. Located on the Eastern edge of the Black Hills, about 25 miles from Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Rapid City is a diversified and unique city. The population of Rapid City was reported in the 1990 United States Census to be 54, 523. This figure significantly increases during the summer, the peak tourist season, when the population living in the city is estimated to exceed 64,000 and over 100,000 peOple visit daily (Jones, 1992). The ethnic breakdown of Rapid City is atypical for a city of its size: 88.2% of the population is Caucasian, 8.9% is Native American, and the remaining 2.9% is divided among several races (Lee, 1993: 1). Rapid City is divided into three major geographic areas. The West section is physically separated from the rest of the city by a large hill, and is known for being the t [l [1‘ it] are SM field Se OCCUpy [€86 I'Ve TWO p8 the Nor the C0,. eSI‘iblis] ASSOCia EnforCe PoilCe E more affluent section of the municipality (1993: 1.). In contrast, the North section, which is inhabited by the highest percentage of minority residents, is the least affluent section of the city. It is bordered on the south by Main Street, which runs east-west through the center of the city, and is familiarly known as North Rapid. The third section, the South, is inhabited by predominantly middle income residents and is bordered on the north by Main Street. The Police Department The Rapid City Police Department employs a total of 130 personnel, 90 of whom are sworn officers. The officers are divided amongst several different fields; 73 are in field services, which includes patrol and traffic divisions, 20 are in investigations, and 6 occupy administrative positions. The department also maintains an average of twelve reserve officers at any one time. There are eight patrol areas divided according to the geographic areas of the city. Two patrol areas are designated within both the West and South regions, another three to the North, and one to the downtown district (1993: 2). The Rapid City Police Department is an officially accredited agency of CALEA, the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. This organization was established in 1979 by four national law enforcement organizations: The international Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), The National Sheriff’s Association (NSA), and The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) (1993: 2). The goals of this new organization were and it 8CCI€C recogr: City. m accredit conduct Of these impetus deSCflbe W “34.2.9 were “to develop and test standards for law enforcement administration and operations and to make those standards available to the law enforcement field through a voluntary accreditation program” (Williams, 1989zvii). The Rapid City Police Department has been recognized by this organization as an accredited member since July of 1990. A11 police departments that wish to become an accredited agency, including Rapid City, must fulfill numerous requirements and satisfy many standards in order to become accredited. Furthermore, the commission suggests that numerous Optional standards be conducted in order to professionalize police departments. The community survey is one of these optional standards which many departments choose to implement, hence the impetus for the present study. Departments that choose to conduct an annual survey should follow the guidelines described in Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program: “54.2.9 An annual survey of citizen attitudes and Opinions is concluded with respect to: overall agency performance; overall competence of agency employees; officers’ attitudes and behavior towards citizens; concern over safety and security within the agency ’s service area as a whole; concern over safety and security within the beat where the respondent lives; and recommendations and suggestions for improvements. Commentary: The use of surveys iS widespread in both the public and private sector. Law enforcement agencies should use citizen attitude surveys to complement other sources of information used in the decision-making process. The survey should use established research practices such as random sampling of at least 1 percent of the population and sampling within each motorized patrol beat in proportion to the ratio of population within the beat to total population in the jurisdiction. The survey may be conducted by mail, in person, or by telephone and may be combined with questions relating to victimization and other issues. The results of this survey should be provided to the community. The survey may be carried out directly by agency personnel or by others with agency guidance.” (1989: 54-4). *‘I‘lr‘l'i Depar this e I . The fir with were the used to SUl'VC-yg mailedt as a at who hat kite] of haVe Ch COmpari as that C [O aSCerI The present study is the fourth such survey undertaken by the Rapid City Police Department. The first attempt at a citizen satisfaction survey was done in 1991; however this effort yielded no usable results (1992:42). In 1992 Michael Jones utilized two survey instruments to conduct a second study. The first instrument was a community survey that not only explored citizen satisfaction with police performance, but also examined which police services the residents thought were the most important, and those most in need of improvement. The second survey was used to elicit responses from citizens who had direct contact with the police. Both surveys revealed a high level of satisfaction with the police department. A third study, also utilizing two surveys, was conducted by David Lee in 1993. A mailed community survey was used to assess the needs and expectations of the community as a whole, while a telephone survey was used to gauge citizen satisfaction from those who had direct contact with the police department. Again, both surveys revealed a high level of general satisfaction with the Rapid City Police Department. The present study was undertaken to determine if, and how, public perceptions have changed toward the police department in the past year. In order to draw direct comparisons to the previous data, the present study utilized the same survey instruments as that of the preceding study. In so doing, data can easily be compared from year to year to ascertain any differences. Backgound of Police Evaluations Much of the following text was first reported by David Lee in his review of the literature for the 1993 quality assurance Study. Mr. Lee thoroughly and competently perused the existing literature and compiled a detailed manuscript of related information pertinent to the study. Considering less than one year has passed since his study, and relatively few new articles have been published concerning this topic, much of Lee’s analysis is incorporated into the present text, only expanded upon where necessary. In all, the same outline was followed as a guideline for the present study. The Service Style of Policing The contemporary measuring stick of police professionalism in the United States today is customer satisfaction. As Flanagan points out, positive public evaluations of the police are “inextricably bound to noncrime-related services that most departments provide” (1985: 19). This philosophy is a stark contrast of the “crime fighter” image practiced by police departments just several decades ago. Then, as Moore & Kelling (1983), Trojanowicz (1986), and Roberg and Kuykendall (1993) point out, the police role was to concentrate on criminal apprehension, while maintaining order and providing services was not a priority. As a consequence, this legalistic style isolated the police from the entire community, as police officers became increasingly impersonal in their responses’ to citizen needs (1993: 69). As a result, rejection of citizen demands for assistance by the police, “increased existing antagonism between the police and segments of the public” (Carte, 1973: 200). As Decker (1981) and Zamble & Annesley (1987) acknowledge, the police qukh' COUUT quant needs recogr; they sh consun- respont in “EC( Safisfie eXpress give h. “BIUral quickly realized that crime control could not be accomplished without the aid of the community. Trojanowicz further expanded upon this point by stating, “In order for the quantity and quality of information to be improved between citizens and the police, there needs to be contact, communication, and trust. Police administrators immediately recognized the need for citizen participation, and scrambled to regain community support. Hahn suggests that in order for police departments to regain community support, they should begin by “providing services that offer tangible benefits” (1971: 192) to the consumer. Whether a call for service is crime-related or not, it is most important that the responding officer handle the situation with sincere concern and compassion for the citizen in need. Not surprisingly, that officer will be judged according to whether he/she has satisfied the expectations of that particular citizen. Guyot embellishes upon the fact by expressing “we see someone who is seeking help is visited by a person whose job is to give help. That the seeker appreciates courtesy and concern from the giver is only natural” (1991: 56). This new impetus towards customer satisfaction can only be accomplished through diligent service to the community. Of course one must be cognizant of the needs of the community before one attempts to serve the community. The community survey has proven to be a most powerful tool for determining citizen expectations’. _S_tatistics as Performance Indicgaara As the mission of modern police departments gravitates towards quality customer service, and away from exclusively fighting crime, Uniform Crime Reports fail to be an accurate measure of police performance. Neither the UCR nor clearance rate percentages can measure an officer’s aptitude for non-crime related duties. AS Carlson & Sutton depart demar citizer for th Well. With 1 COmm express, these statistics “tell us little about an officer’s fairness, lack of prejudice, genuine concern for people in distress, nor skill in reaching satisfactory outcomes without becoming involved with violence” (1979: 583). Obviously, new methods of evaluation must be conceived to accurately determine police performance. One such method that has shown considerable promise is the citizen satisfaction survey. Citizen Satisfaction Surveys The citizen satisfaction survey has proven to be a most valuable tool for police departments who wish to “monitor the public’s pulse and adapt to meet the changing demands of the public” (Charles, 1980: 303). Not only is the survey a means to assess a citizen’s level of satisfaction with police performance, but it also serves as a mechanism for that citizen to express his/her desires and expectations of the police department as well. The survey process builds trust within the community, for it initiates direct contact with the citizenry. This trust is essential for police agencies, as it encourages open communication with the police department. The survey may also help to alleviate any misunderstandings between the police and the community. These two groups frequently misinterpret the actions of one another and oftentimes the survey helps to identify how these misconceptions can be remedied. Police Perceptions of the Community Not only do many individual police officers falsely perceive public satisfaction towards their profession to be low, but many police agencies as a whole express the same positu misu n recept authoi attitut misconception. Thomas and Hyman reported, “Police relations with community members almost always ranks high on any listing of police perceptions of their major problems (1977: 306). Additional concerns were reported by Roberg and Kuykendall, “Almost 40 percent of the officers surveyed felt that there was a negative relationship with the public, including the pubiic’s apathy and lack of support for the police and a negative image of the police” (1993: 413). Radelet also reported that “the chief complaint of officers is the lack of public support for their efforts” (1986: 212). Most often these perceptions prove incorrect; for “attitudes are predominantly positive and supportive of the police” (Smith & Hawkins, 1973: 135). These misunderstandings can often result in citizen resentment for “police expect a hostile citizen reception and hence take a more authoritarian attitude” (1973: 135). Thus, this authoritarian attitude breeds discontent within the community, and results in a disgruntled attitude towards the department. A survey revealing the true nature of the public’s attitude toward the police may not only alleviate some hostilities, but encourage police officers to be less authoritarian as well. Mass Media’s Influence on Perceptions Several researchers (Carter, 1985; Charles, 1980; Hadar & Snortum, 1975; Smith & Hawkins, 1973) have reproached the media for their role in forging the erroneous perception that public sentiment towards the police is negative. Not only is the news media guilty of biased reporting, but movie and television shows are guilty of portraying negative stereotypes as well. A direct consequence of these false portrayals is a misinformed public whose understanding of “appropriate police behavior is not necessarily grounded in reality” (Brandi & Horvath, 1991: 303). Hence, citizens become dissatisfied when their false expectations that the police will dust for fingerprints, conduct a crime scene search, or recover stolen property, are not met. As Carter points out, “when expectations were not fulfilled, satisfaction levels with the police decreased” (1985: 497). Although it has been shown that in many of these circumstances little relation exists between investigative effort and the probability of an arrest, it has been suggested that these actions be performed solely for their public relations value. Community Expectations of the Police Members of the community possess specific expectations concerning police services in their municipality. Whether or not these expectations are fulfilled directly influences their level of satisfaction with the police department. As Decker expressed, “Justice is the congruence between citizen expectations and the actual behavior of the police, injustice as the gap between the two, or Specifically, the extent to which expectations were unmet” (1981: 81). Of course, citizens do not unanimously agree what the proper police function should be. Therefore, regardless of the technique of policing a department employs, “it can expect criticism from some because of the lack of consensus among community residents regarding the law and the police function.” (Charles, 1980: 296). 10 A significant amount of research has been conducted to determine what factors contribute to a citizen’s expectations of police service. These variables are examined in detail in the upcoming review of the literature section. Using Surveys as a PolicLChange Instrument According to Michael Charles, “Survey efforts can alert decision makers of a need to make the public aware of their misconceptions and to provide them with an accurate picture of existing circumstances” (1980: 303). Of course, it is imperative that policy makers be well-versed with the characteristics and expectations of the community before they implement programs to improve citizen relations. Without such knowledge the programs are bound to fail. The survey is the mechanism which provides the necessary information required by policy makers to formulate programs. Brian Stipak warns; however, of the possible shortcomings of such surveys. First, since respondents’ attitudes are susceptible to subjective influences, “responses may not reflect actual service performance” also, “difficult statistical and conceptual problems complicate the use of subjective data to evaluate service performance” (1979: 44). useful the ab. phuoso public 1 'FC) 81: methoc be 3p; lnClUdt‘ Specifi. maker, flor [ljt groups Review of the Literature Theoreticfial Basis According to White and Menke, “It is widely agreed that data are meaningful and useful only to the extent that some theory guided their development and interpretation. In the absence of such theory, data are useless and meaningless” (1978: 205). This phiIOSOphy holds especially true for surveys of public opinion, which directly influence public policy decisions. Michael Charles developed six guidelines for the design of an effective instrument. To start, a solid theoretical base must exist; this ensures that the appropriate methodological and statistical approaches will be used. Second, the survey sample must be specifically designed according to the area under study. Third, the survey should include specific questions concerning prevalent police practices. Fourth, there must be specificity in reporting results, which allows for more informed decisions by policy makers. Fifth, agency involvement and commitment is essential in the planning process, for the results will directly effect the planning process. Finally, the survey must be continually updated and redone, since attitudes change over time, and the needs of the community can shift (1980: 301-2). Two formal theories regarding the relationship between the police-citizen contact were discussed at length by Klein, Webb, & DiSanto (1978). These researchers described two models which may explain attitude formation towards the police The first, conflict theory, “conceives society to be an ongoing struggle between groups holding opposing goals and world views” (1978: 443). Demographic variables 11 pOilCe peCrS - 12 such as socioeconomic Status, minority group status, age, or neighborhood composition are the impetus for this model. The conflict theory views the political process “as an ongoing struggle among vested interest groups seeking to have their particular views legitimated and supported by the state” (1978: 443). The resulting effect is that members of the group without power become alienated due to their social status, and thus rate the police lower, since they are more likely to be the targets of criminal law. The functional or “order” model is the second model described by Klein, et al. The functional model conceives society “to be a system which is unified at its most general level by shared cultural values; thus “attitude toward the police is primarily the outcome of contact-specific encounters with the police rather than a function of group membership” (Klein, et a1, 1973: 443). Direct contact between a citizen and a police officer, and the officer’s ensuing conduct, is the attitude builder for this model. The professionalism of the officer, or lack there of during these encounters, is often communicated to others, and this information will thus help formulate their opinion of the officer(s) as well. The functional model also operates under the premise that different groups in the community have different expectations of police service. One inherent flaw of the functional model is that it does not explain an individual’s attitude who has neither had contact with an officer, nor heard any reports about the police department. This person’s attitude might be influenced by the experience of his/her peers within a reference group, which he or she may have sought for advice. -H many relatiox consis Gn’ffit? Would lead [0 13 EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL VARIABLES Numerous studies have been undertaken in order to discover what independent variables contribute to positive evaluation of police services. Individual characteristics such as race, age, gender, and other socioeconomic indicators were the focal point for many of these studies. Although the results of these studies varied, some prevailing relationships were found, and are briefly discussed below. A positive relation between age and an individual’s attitude was found to be consistent in several studies. Decker (1981), Smith & Hawkins (1973), and Winfree & Griffiths (1971), all discovered that the older the respondent, the more likely he or she would rate the police positively. According to Smith & Hawkins, the young “held more negative attitudes toward the police because of the influences of youth culture, as well as more specific experiences with the police” (1973: 138). Because “young people constitute the ‘crime prone’ segment of the population, they are more likely to have negative contacts with the police” (1981: 82). In other words, they are more likely to have contacts that involve law enforcement rather than the non-enforcement, helping services of the police (Winfree & Griffiths, 1971: 83) and are therefore more apt to rate police performance negatively. It should be noted that the young are not a target of the police solely because of their status as a group. Rather it is their propensity to participate in illegal activities that lead to negative contacts with the police. 14 Omit: Sex is another variable which has received considerable attention by researchers. Data from these studies have produced various results concerning the relationship between gender and satisfaction with police services. Smith & Hawkins (1973), as well as Thomas & Hyman (1978), found that females were more apt to rate the police favorably. Decker (1981); however, found little relationship between gender and attitude towards the police. Males may rate the police more negatively as a group, because they are more likely to participate in illegal activities than females. Consequently, they are more likely to be the targets of law enforcement contacts with the police. Therefore, younger males, shown to engage in habitual criminal activity, will most frequently rate officers negatively due to their contacts with police. Socioeconomic Vag'ab_1e§ The social standing of a respondent is another variable which has been explored in great detail by many researchers (Benson, 1981; Decker, 198 i; Poister & McDavid, 1978; Smith & Hawkins, 1973; Winfree & Griffiths, 1971). Such variables as income, education, occupational prestige, or a combination of these into a single SES variable were considered. AS may be expected, results from these studies varied as well. Some studies revealed a positive relation between SES and evaluation of the police, while others found only a slight relation between these two variables. A partial explanation may be attributed to the fact that different measures were used for each study. Poister and McDavid found family income to be significant, but not education (1978: 59). However, these findings .5; u h...‘ A ... a __g I. not a so the is $111.: more 1 conflie 1'68an AlthOu infCITe langual in raciz POllce; (1983: phengn within. treat Ib hand, .. 15 cannot be compared to other studies because the researchers used separate measures and not a composite variable. Benson reported, “lower class respondents tend to rate the police negatively more so than those respondents who are middle or upper class (1981: 59). Although the effect is small, Benson attributes this outcome to the fact that the lower-class as a group are more likely to be stopped by the police (1981: 51). This view would seem to support the conflict theory, however Benson offers no support to defend this assertion. When considering all of the individual level variables, race or ethnicity of the respondent has proven to be the most reliable predictor of attitudes towards the police. Although blacks were used as the sample for most of these studies, the results may be inferred to other groups as well. According to Carter, “Ethnic characteristics embodied in language, norms, culture, and appearance, create the same minority group dynamics found in racial distinction (1985: 489). According to Smith and Hawkins, “A high level of negative feelings toward the police among minority groups is not significantly affected by either arrest or victimization” (1983: 138). Some researchers (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Carter, 1985) believe this phenomenon may be linked to the belief of minority groups that “the police provide them with inadequate protection and service, expose them to harassment and verbal abuse, and treat them in a different manner than other groups” (1985: 487). Police, on the other hand, “tend to believe that minority groups target law enforcement personnel as a readily avail View evalua OVCI, a feelings an indi lnClUdCl 16 available symbol of oppression by a white power structure (1985: 487). These opposing views obviously comply to the conflict model. EXAMINATION OF CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES Individual level variables are not the only factors which may explain a respondent’s evaluation of police service. Contextual variables, those which a respondent has control over, are also responsible for shaping a respondents attitude. One’s neighborhood or feelings of political alienation are examples of contextual variables. External variables that an individual would not have control over, i.e. crime rate or victimization, are also included. Neighborhood Composition A study of fifteen American cities by Schuman and Gruenberg revealed that one’s ethnic background does not matter as much as the percentage of that ethnicity in one’s neighborhood. They came to this conclusion once they discovered that “blacks are almost always less satisfied with the police than whites when the particular city is held constant; however, blacks in some cities are more satisfied than whites in other cities (1972: 375). This convinced the researchers that “it is not color of skin, but color of area that is associated with dissatisfaction” (1972: 380). The results were very convincing, “with few exceptions, black dissatisfaction declines each step of the way from all-black to mostly white areas, while white dissatisfaction increases each step of the way from all-white to mostly black areas” (1972: 379). diSCC withi: “an it black this re. evaluat depend increasc [he [30“: more pt Scale. I the p0“ findings PCITOrm CVahnuu perCema llldiyidua 17 A similar study by Apple and O’Brien (1983) yielded comparable results. They discovered that negative evaluations of the police increased, as the percentage of blacks within a neighborhood increased. The researchers offer two possible explanations. First, “an increase in the black population of the neighborhood, increases the opportunity for blacks to associate with others who have the same negative attitude toward the police, and this results in an overall increase in their negative sentiment” (1983:83). Likewise, white evaluations become more negative as their fear of crime increases and they become more dependent on the police” (1983:77). If this increase in dependency is not met by an increase in services, then white expectations are not met, resulting in a lower evaluation of the police. The second explanation offered for this phenomenon is that minorities are often more prone to commit crimes because many inhabit the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Following this reasoning, as minority percentages increase, negative contacts with the police also increase. A study by Wesley Skogan (1979) corroborated the earlier findings of Schuman and Gruenberg (1972) that blacks in some cities rate police performance higher than whites in others. He discovered that whites’ and blacks’ evaluations of the police vary from city to city. This result may be due to the fact that the percentage of whites and blacks in the cities studied were different. Another explanation offered by Skogan is the possible contrasting styles of policing between the two cities. “Different practices may have different effects on different types of individuals, and this signals interaction effects between city- and individual- level attributes”( 1979: 40). Bar: [0 e (19.; dCCO Barn 18 flie_1_’o_liggas Government Michael Charles states “[W]hile the police appear to be the major recipient of citizen hostility, this occurs largely due to the fact that the police are the most visible element of the established governmental structure, and because it is the police who have the task of maintaining order, not because the public is disenchanted solely with the police” (1980: 297). Benson (1981) and Carter (1985) also advocate this point of view. “The police are the most visible and obtrusive agents of governmental authority to the average citizen” (1981: 45). The police, therefore, bear the brunt of public discontent as they are accused of “prejudicial and discriminatory actions that should more appropriately be directed towards other elements of government” ( 1985: 487). Further research on this tOpic was conducted by Benson (1981) and Chackerian & Barrett (1973). They hypothesized that “politically alienated respondents are more likely to evaluate police services negatively than are respondents who are not so alienated” (1981: 49). Therefore, citizens who have a sense of admittance to the government accordingly proclaim higher satisfaction with the police (Benson, 1981; Chackrian & Barrett, 1973). The results of these two studies; however, did not support each other. Chackrian and Barrett discovered a positive relationship between evaluation and access to government stating, “A high sense of access to government is indeed related to high evaluation of law enforcement” (1973: 348). Benson’s results, on the other hand, were more complex. A relationship was found to exist between the variables across social class I‘r q—i police ofpubl in mum thhmv OUghnu) A foundthz 8b0u1 [he inCreasing do 1101 e) reSUllg of Cities, of, ( fir “Ce Peri Chine r5130. 19 and perceived integrity of the police, but not consistently in the expected direction (1981:59). Benson’s study did not lend support to the conflict theory’s assumption that politically alienated and powerless individuals will rate police performance more negatively. The Police and the Crime Rate Studies exploring the public’s perception of local crime rates and consequent police evaluations have had varying results. Thomas and Hyman discovered that “Levels of public support in the police were high even though the majority of the citizens sampled in numerous studies felt that crime was a major social problem and that the probability of their becoming victims of criminal oflenses was increasing” (1977:308, italics in original). A study by Benson (1981); however, did not arrive at the same conclusion. He found that regardless of the respondent’s race, social class, political alienation, or beliefs about the integrity of the police that “those respondents who believe the crime rate is increasing in their neighborhood tend to be more critical of police services than those who do not express the belief that local crime is on the rise” (1981:59). The contradictory results of these studies may be attributed to the different policing styles within the separate cities, or, differing expectations of police performance by the respondents. A reduction in the crime rate, in and of itself, is not a precise method for measuring police performance. According to Couper “a quality police agency will receive more crime reports Simply because citizens are more confident in the ability of the police to respond effectively” (1983: 5). As a result, increased reporting of crime will increase the 20 A reduction in the crime rate, in and of itself, is not a precise method for measuring police performance. According to Couper “a quality police agency will receive more crime reports simply because citizens are more confident in the ability of the police to respond effectively” (1983: 5). As a result, increased reporting of crime will increase the crime rate, leading to an erroneous assumption that the police are incompetent, when the exact opposite may be true. Knowing Police Officers Guyot (1991) and Smith & Hawkins (1973) explored the relationship between a citizen’s personal acquaintanceship with a police officer and the resulting evaluation of the department as a single entity. Smith and Hawkins discovered that personally knowing an officer did not effect a citizen’s opinion toward the police in general. They stated that “the citizen who knows individual police officers may separate the man from the role, and while accepting the man, may still hold negative views about the police in general” (1973: 143-4). Although knowing an officer may not change attitudes toward the police, Guyot acknowledges that it does have advantages for reporting crime. She reported that people who are familiar with an officer “feel more comfortable contacting the police, and therefore are more likely to report minor crimes” (1991 :272). Victimization and Threat of Becoming a Victim Taking into account increased crime rates, Smith and Hawkins hypothesized that “the greater the threat of victimization, the more negative the view of the police” (1973: 139). The results revealed the exact opposite to be true. Considering crimes against the 21 person and crimes against property, no significant relation existed concerning attitude towards the police (1973: 139). A study by Skogan, on the other hand, came to a much different conclusion. When considering whether or not a respondent had recently been a victim of a crime, and how it affected police evaluation, he discovered that respondents “were less likely to grant the police a favorable rating” (1979: 35) if they had recently been victimized within the previous year. Roger Parks offers a hypothesis to explain these paradoxical results. He states that “Victimization does effect citizens’ rating of police service, but that police actions taken in response suppress the relationships” (1976: 89). As Parks makes evident, “Citizens receiving a satisfactory police response will rate the police higher, where as those who receive an unsatisfactory response will rate the police lower. The resulting evaluation will show no correlation, for the combined ratings will mask the true relationship (1976: 90). These studies lend direct support to the functional theory in that the citizen’s attitude toward the police is directly shaped by the post-incident police response to the preceding victimization. The actions of the officer, or lack there of, are responsible for the citizen’s appraisal of police performance, not the personal characteristics of the citizen. Expectations of the victims may have been the determinant for a favorable or negative evaluation of the police response, and this variable is what can be attributed to the individual. Police Fairness and Integriar been the p This varia This d expect WBIC dlSCrin Consid. did PM When a theOry Charact Officer‘ 22 Citizen perception of police fairness and integrity is another variable which has been explored at length by researchers. Benson surmised that “respondents who believe the police lack integrity are more likely to evaluate police services negatively” (1981: 59). This is indeed the case. Benson discovered a significant relationship between these two variables, even more so when minorities and members of the lower class were considered. This difference concerning racial and socio-economic groups may be attributed to different expectations these individuals have towards appropriate police behavior. Smith and Hawkins’ research explored how citizen attitudes toward the police were molded by perceived fairness of the police as a group. Such factors as discriminatory practices, selective law enforcement, and police impartiality were all considered (1973: 136). The results revealed that “observing police officers ‘do wrong’ did produce more negative feelings about the police. This relationship remained strong when age, sex, race, income, and education were controlled” (1973: 141). The functional theory is once again corroborated by the evidence. The individual’s personal characteristics were not responsible for attitude formation towards the police, but the officer’s actions themselves. The Reporting or Non-reporting of Crime Philip Ennis reported four primary reasons why victims did not report a crime to the police. First, a majority of respondents, 55%, cited police ineffectiveness as the reason. “They believed the police could not do anything about the incident, would not catch the offenders, or would not want to be bothered” (1970: 92). Next, 34% believed the incident was not a police manner. Third, 9% said they did not feel it was worth their 23 time or trouble. Finally, 2% cited they were afraid of a reprisal. Carter (1985) and Decker ( 1981) also confirmed similar reasons for not reporting crimes. In a related study, Hahn discovered that “black perceptions of major inequities in the protection offered by law enforcement officers may be related to a lack of confidence in the police” (1971: 183). This lack of confidence lead many respondents to “Display a reluctance to contact law enforcement officers in circumstances that appeared to require police intervention” (1971: 191). Poister and McDavid acknowledged that “an important consideration in developing and sustaining linkages is to show that police officers are responsive to residents’ demands” (1978: 148). A resident not satisfied with a police response may develop a propensity not to involve the police in future situations; resulting in a reduction of contacts between residents and police, thus reducing opportunities to ascertain the needs and demands of the resident (1978: 148). The non-reporting of crime also eliminates a potential means to identify consumer satisfaction. Guyot has recognized that calls for service can be a useful tool to gauge the public perspective. Citizens can “report the degree to which the officer listened to their problems and helped them towards solutions” (1991: 52). Once again the functional theory has been supported by another variable. Officer conduct was the main impetus for customer satisfaction concerning the non-reporting of crime. EXAMINATION OF CONTACTS WITH POLICE 24 Officer conduct is often the primary component for deveIOping one’s attitude toward the police. Officer conduct can only be judged by one who has had direct contact with an officer. Contacts vary in circumstance, and do not always relate to crime control. Met with Police Scaglion and Condon ascertain that “The preoccupation with the examination of socioeconomic variables has tended to obscure other factors which may contribute to attitude formation” (1980: 486). Their argument lies on the premise that “personal contact is a more significant determinant of general attitudes towards police than are major socioeconomic variables” (1980: 486). Citizens , of course, are the consumers of police services and therefore are directly responsible for judging police performance. AS Mastrofski points out, “the participants of a police encounter comprise a social microcosm . . a small theater in which the citizen- actors are also the audience” (1981: 402). Klein, Webb, & DiSanto outlined four prevalent types of contact with the police: First, the citizen may make a request for information or assistance; Second, traffic related encounters; Third, the citizen contacts the police as a result of a victimization or the reporting of a crime; Fourth, the citizen is a suspect of criminal activity (1978: 443). These types of contacts can be dichotomized into two groups. The first, voluntary contacts, are initiated by citizens in need of service. Often they include crime victims, witnesses of suspicious activity, as well as those in need of general service (Decker, 1981: 83). The second, involuntary contacts, “are those initiated by the police which are likely to have an inquisitorial purpose” (1981: 83). C0113 th bett 198 rati; reSE Cor polii the I act“. CiilZe inferio. 25 According to Decker (1981) and Winfree & Griffiths (1973) the nature of the police contact has a relevant significance on citizen evaluation of the police. Involuntary contacts “are frequently of an adversarial nature, provoking hostility on the part of the citizen and ultimately lowering attitude towards the police” (Decker, 1981: 83). Conversely, voluntary contacts often result in more positive evaluation because “the police are playing a supportive role” (1981: 83). Generally this relationship was revealed to be authentic; nonetheless, some discrepancies did exist. Officer conduct was the primary determinant for citizen satisfaction when considering the general service and assistance contacts. “It was found that respondents who had spoken with police officers in an informal but official way, tended to have a better opinion of the police than those not having such contacts” (Scaglion & Condon, 1980: 488). Respondents who had been targets of law enforcement reported much lower ratings of police performance. “The result of many lawful police contacts fosters citizen resentment, indignation, and/or disrespect toward the police” (Charles, 1980: 296). Conversely, Smith and Hawkins found a significant relation between arrest and lower police evaluation, but only for youth and minorities. However, these lower evaluations of the police may simply be due to the fact that the individual was apprehended in an illegal activity; in which case officer conduct would not be the primary determinant of the citizen’s attitude. In addition, only lower income citizens were found to rate police performance inferior for traffic-related contacts. A possible explanation may be that “Traffic tickets 26 were more salient to low income respondents because resulting fines were relatively more costly” (1973: 142). Winfree and Griffiths caution policy makers to be aware of the effects of negative contacts. “While a preponderance of positive contacts may result in positive attitudes towards the police, negative contacts carry more ‘weight’” (1971: 97). In other words, one negative contact may eliminate all the trust gained by numerous positive contacts. Type of Crime A 1991 study by Brandl and Horvath explored the relationship concerning crime victims and their subsequent evaluation of police services. They hypothesized that “victims of serious crimes might have different needs and expectations than those involved in less serious offenses” (1991: 295), and therefore rate police performance according to different standards. They categorized crime into three divisions: 1, crimes against the person; 2, major property crimes; and 3, minor property crimes. Of all the variables explored in the study, “police professionalism (or, more precisely, victim perceptions of it) was the only aspect of police performance which was consistently and strongly related to victim satisfaction for each of the three types of criminal offenses” (1991: 302). It should be noted here that the authors operationalized professionalism to be the officer’s courtesy, understanding, concern, and competence; they were not alluding to the “legalistic” style of policing. Considering crimes against persons, only the victim’s expectancy of response time, along with professionalism, was found to be significant. ir‘w-T" resp' ReCt beth crime the on.’ i time, n professit a signifit \ crimes of an eXplar. and as a res130nse trallmuiic: 27 Regarding serious property crimes, investigative effort, professionalism, and response time expectation were the most significant variables predicting citizen evaluation. Recontacting the victim, or lack there of, was also somewhat significant. Age proved to be the only demographic variable which demonstrated significance for serious property crimes ( 1991: 296). Concerning minor prOperty crimes, investigative effort and professionalism were the only variables revealed to be significant. None of the demographic variables, response time, nor recontact were significant. It is obvious from the Brandl and Horvath study that perceived officer professionalism was the most meaningful variable concerning citizen satisfaction, as it was a significant determinant for all three crime types. Victim’s expectation of response time proved to be significant for the more serious crimes of those against the person and major property crimes. Brandl and Horvath offer an explanation for this occurrence; “Victims of serious crimes suffer emotional traumas, and as a result, may expect immediate police attention” (1991: 303). An immediate response is not crucial for victims of minor property crimes, for the experience is less traumatic. The officer’s degree of investigative effort was revealed to be significant for both property crimes, but not so for crimes against persons. This may be due to false expectations created by the media. “Victims expect the police to take an intensive interest in the incident... and employ all the techniques that citizens have come to associate with [police] work” (Goldstein, 1977: 57). Of course these methods are not appropriate for crimes against the person, and as such would not be expected in those investigations. 28 Brandi and Horvath recommend that “it is important that data be collected specific to victimization categories” (1977: 296). This is evident because victims of different crimes will rate police performance according to different criteria. Police Response Time Studies by Parks (1976) and Furstenberg & Wellford (1973) indicate that police response time is significantly related to a victim’s evaluation of police performance. Parks found “a marked drop-off in satisfaction with police action in response to reported victimization as the length of time taken to respond increases” (1976:99). Consequent studies have proven that actual swiftness of the response is not significant, but the victim’s perceived response time vs. actual response time which is the overriding determinant. A study by the Kansas City, Mo. Police Department (1977) was the first to determine that citizen satisfaction was governed by expected vs. observed response time. “Satisfaction with response time was positively related to citizen satisfaction with the responding officer” (Percy, 1980: 76). To maximize citizen satisfaction a police dispatcher should furnish callers with an estimated time of arrival, and the officers should try their best to arrive before the appointed time (Kansas City Police Department, 1977). As Moore and Kelling point out, an instantaneous police response is often not necessary. Quite frequently victims do not discover a crime until long after it has been committed. As such, the probability of apprehending a criminal at the scene of a crime is remote (1983: 56). Likewise, Guyot acknowledges that citizens are often satisfied with a slower response time when the call is a non-emergency (1991: 57). Of course, such instances where a person’s life is in danger, or the chances of catching a criminal in the act is likely, a rapid response will always be necessary. 29 Waive Response Several studies have been conducted to ascertain citizen satisfaction with the investigative response of the police. Poister and McDavid found that overall satisfaction increased “when citizens perceived that the police conducted or dealt with suspects, as opposed to just talking with the victims” (1978: 139). As Smith and Hawkins point out “individuals not satisfied with police action will have more negative attitudes than individuals who are satisfied” (1973:140). Parks confirmed that certain positive actions taken by officers, such as filling out a report, questioning suspects, checking the premises, and recovering stolen property increase positive evaluations (1976: 100). Conversely, failing to fill out a report, and just questioning the complainant, greatly increased negative evaluations. Police officers who “comforted and reassured participants also increased satisfaction” (Percy, 1980: 85), revealing that not only is the officer’s actions significant, but his behavior as well. Parks recommends that “if the police are very late in arriving, they had better take positive action in order to satisfy the complainant” (1976: 100). He emphasizes that “favorable actions after the arrival may ameliorate the negative effects of a slow response” (1976: 100). Conclusions from the Researgh The varying results of citizen satisfaction surveys have lead many researchers to criticize their value. White and Menke warn that due to a lack of convergent validity concerning these studies “there are important theoretical and/or methodological problems which characterize this research” (1982:214). The researchers were referring to the fact 30 that the studies were conducted in different cities, where citizens may not share the same expectations of police service. An additional explanation to the varying results may be attributed to the questions themselves. It was discovered that “the mood of the public is very different depending on the level of specificity of the items used to tap that mood” (1982: 21 1). After comparing several studies, White and Menke concluded that “the mood of the public is different depending upon whether the general or Specific items are selected to represent their opinions” (1982: 214). Stephen Mastrofski; however, declares “a citizen’s encounter with the police is an appropriate event to inform policy decisions” (1981: 397). The results from the a fore mentioned studies appear to corroborate this statement. Respondents who have had contacts with police are more infomied about police performance, and therefore are a valuable source for police evaluations. In conclusion, surveys that poll police-citizen contacts are a reliable mechanism for determining citizen satisfaction with police services. These surveys; however, are restricted to those who have experienced direct police contact, and fail to measure the expectations and desires of those who have not had such a contact. Michael Charles further elaborates, “Specific criteria must be developed to ascertain if various subgroups of the community have divergent views of the police” (1980: 298). Therefore, it becomes obvious that two different mechanisms are needed to accurately determine community satisfaction with the police. First, a general survey of the community is necessary to determine what services the public expects from the police. Next, a second survey concentrating on police-citizen contacts is necessary to measure "“1 _ [IP— OH? I can g 56“? 31 overall satisfaction with police performance. The combined results of both these surveys can greatly assist policy makers in their quest to create appropriate alternatives to better serve the community. 3““ i l Hung. METHODOLOGY Community Survey The general survey of the community was exploratory in nature. Lacking a definite encounter with the police, the citizen could not appraise police performance. Instead, this survey was used to elicit citizen expectations of the police department. Subjects The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies suggests that a random sample of at least one percent of the community be surveyed when conducting an exploratory study ( 1989: 54-4). Considering the current population of Rapid City is 54,523, a minimum sample of 545 would be essential to adhere to this standard. In the 1992 study by Jones, 2.5 percent of the registered voters in Rapid City were selected through a cluster sampling of the seventeen precincts, yielding 801 names. “A probable problem with this method is that at the time of Jones’ study, only 31,865 of the citizens were registered voters; out of the voting-age population (39,529 according to the 1990 Census), this method of sampling eliminated 19.4 percent” (Lee, 1993: 31). In 1993 David Lee utilized a significantly more efficient method. A sample of 1000 voters was drawn from a computerized list of registered voters. The subjects were then divided by precincts. “This enabled different sections of the city to be readily compared, as well as probability proportionate to size sampling from each of the 32 33 precincts” (1993: 32). Of Lee’s 1000 surveys mailed, 359 were returned: thus yielding a response rate of 35.9% for the survey. As in 1993, the subjects for the 1994 survey were chosen according to the same method. A sample of 1000 voters was drawn from a computerized listing of registered voters. The sample of voters from each of the twenty precincts, with the exception of precinct 1-4 which no registered voters inhabited, was drawn in proportion to the absolute number of voters in that precinct. The voters were then randomly selected within each precinct, the results are shown in Table I below. Table II. indicates which patrol areas are responsible for each particular precinct. The voting precincts have been grouped according to their respective regions. Table 1. Respondent Selection by Voting Precinct Precinct No. in Precinct No. Selected Percent 1-1 1,191 36 3.0 1-2 2,360 70 2.9 1-3 3,1 17 94 3.0 1-4 0 O 0 2-1 1,851 56 3.0 2-2 1,418 43 3.0 2-3 1,895 57 3.0 2-4 940 28 2.9 3-1 928 28 3.0 3-2 1,752 53 3.0 3-3 2,225 67 3.0 3-4 1,582 48 3.0 3-5 934 28 2.9 4-1 2,132 64 3.0 4-2 2,531 76 3.0 4-3 872 26 2.9 5-1 1,162 35 3.0 5-2 2,194 66 3.0 5-3 2,394 72 3.0 5-4 1,775 53 2.9 34 Table II. Voter Precincts by Patrol Area Ragiga Patrol Area Voting Precincts Downtown/Central 3 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 5-4 South 4,5 1-1, 1—2, 1-3, 1-4 North 6,7,8 2-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 West 9,10 , -2, 3-3, 3-4 3-5 3-1 3 5-1, 5-2, 5-3 W The survey was mailed to the sample population from the Mayor’s office by third- class bulk mail. Even though administering the survey by telephone would have been less expensive, citizens are more inclined to reveal sensitive information on a mailed survey, than while being interviewed (Babbie, 1990). As can be assumed by both the 1992 and 1993 studies, an inherent flaw of mailed questionnaires are their low response rates (39.7% for the former, 35.9% for the latter). A follow-up mailing is often used to mitigate this problem. To ensure that only non- respondents received follow-up surveys, each survey included a number which corresponded with a name from the sample population. Citizens who returned the survey were removed from the list. Despite the fact that this process jeOpardized the anonymity of the subjects, a cover letter assured them confidentiality. The survey instrument itself was identical to the 1993 survey, with the exception of one additional question concerning police patrol. In all, 33 questions were asked regarding police performance, perception of crime, and perception of safety in Rapid City. 35 AS it is probable that a random sample of the community will generate several respondents who have had a direct contact with police, five questions addressed specific police contacts. These questions were included in order to compare them with the second survey, which concentrated on subjects who had direct contact with the police. Demographic variables were considered by seven of the questions. Contemporary theory suggests that these variables may be responsible for shaping a citizen’s attitude toward the police, if he/she has not experienced a direct contact with an officer. The remaining questions addressed citizen perception of safety, crime, and service functions of the police. The subjects were given three weeks to complete the survey and mail it back. Once the deadline was reached, according to a date on the cover letter, the follow-up survey was mailed to non-respondents. Analysis of Data Exploratory items which most often required the ranking of functions were compared across demographic variables, most Specifically the area in which the respondent inhabited. Those variables which utilized Likert-type scales were compared by mean ratings across the same variables. Although these variables are ordinal in nature, Kerlinger states “that the neutral points can be considered natural origins”, and as such “the equality of intervals can be assumed” (Kerlinger, 1986: 402). Therefore, more powerful statistical procedures, such as analysis of variance, can be utilized. 36 Utilizing crosstabulations and chi-squared tests, variables which had been dichotomized into categories, such as yes/no, were compared across demographic and contact variables to determine any level of significance. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the contact questions against overall satisfaction with police officer performance. The contact questions may be used in conjunction with the contact survey to ascertain if any differences in outcomes are attributable to the different survey instruments, or the manner in which they were administered. The questions concerning type of contact, professionalism, and response time are comparable between the two survey instruments. The operationalization of these variables is discussed in the Methodology section of the contact survey. The sole distinction concerning these variables is that the professionalism questions for this survey appeared in a collection of Likert-scale items; which were then dichotomized into high and low values for comparison to the contact survey. Contact Survey The contact survey was administered to those citizens who had experienced a direct contact with the police. This direct contact, in addition to shaping a citizen’s attitude toward the police, allows the respondent to appraise the performance of the officer(s). As a result, both improvement in officer conduct and the degree of public opinion towards the police can be assessed. 37 Subjects Since numerous types of contact with the police exist, a more sophisticated sample method was required for this survey. A representative number for each type of contact was necessary for the purpose of analysis. Some contacts, such as traffic citations, are plentiful; where as relatively few contacts, such as sex crimes, are recorded. “Therefore, the number for each type of contact was selected accordingly with a large enough sample such that statistical tests would be meaningful” (Lee 1993: 36). Kerlinger suggests that at least 30 respondents are required for these tests (1986: 119). A total of 337 subjects were selected by Jones in the 1992 study. Categories such as assault, sex crimes, and murder/suicide cases were all included; however, no quantitative data was recorded for these categories. Lee’s 1993 study selected a total of 187 subjects from the following categories: Traffic Citations, DWI/DUI arrests, Nuisance/Harassment calls, Vandalism (destruction of personal property) calls, Theft, Burglary, Assaults, and Sex Crimes. “The categories of the subjects were divided into three categories: 1) targets of enforcement, which included recipients of traffic citations and DWI/DUI arrests; 2)victims of property crimes, which included the minor crimes of vandalism, theft, and larceny, and the major crimes of first and second degree burglary; and 3) victims of crime against persons, which consisted of the minor crimes of nuisance, harassment, indecent exposure, and window peeking, and the major crimes of simple assault and assault to rape” (1993: 37). The 1994 study utilized the same survey instrument as the 1993 study. However, as was the case in 1993, certain categories were eliminated from the study due to the fact that significant numbers were not achievable. These categories included first degree 38 robbery, aggravated assault, murder, and suicide. Table III. below outlines the number of respondents who agreed to participate in the survey by each type of contact. Table III. Respondents by Type of Contact T of ontact Number of Respondents Target of Enforcement (100) Traffic Citation 60 DWI/DUI 40 Property Crime (80) Vandalism (DPP) 20 Theft 20 Larceny 20 Burglary 20 Crimes against Persons (40) Nuisance/Harassment 2O Assaults 20 Design and Procedure Questions from the contact survey were primarily taken from an earlier study by Brandl and Horvath (1991) concerning crime-victim evaluations of police performance. In order to save time and money, as well as ensure a high response rate, the contact survey was administered by telephone. Four categories were used to assess the performance of the officer(s): professional behavior of the officer, degree of investigative effort, perceptions of police response time, and whether their was a recontact. Professionalism was operationalized by four questions: Was the officer courteous?; understanding?; concemed?; and competent? Investigative effort was also operationalized by four questions: Did the officer search the crime scene?; examine evidence?; attempt to locate/question witnesses?; or fill out a report? 39 Response time questions included whether or not an estimated time of arrival was given, and whether the officer arrived faster, slower, or the same as expected. Whether or not a respondent was recontacted: further questioning, or information about the status of the investigation (1993: 38). Two general questions concerning satisfaction with the police were also included to ascertain which elements influence the dependent variable: overall satisfaction with the police. Considering there are several categories of police contact, each of the four individual measures were not applicable to each category (1993: 39). Certain questions, such as investigative effort and response time, did not apply to targets of enforcement. Also, questions concerning investigative effort were eliminated for crimes against the person, for the respondents often had testified there was no crime scene or evidence. Analysis of Data As the questions for the contact survey were taken primarily from Brandl and Horvath’s study, the current analysis was devised to model their methodology. Composite scores were created for both professionalism and investigative effort. These variables were dichotomized into high and low values according to the number of positive responses for each question. Those respondents who indicated an affirmative response for more than two of the four categories were regarded as high responses, while those indicated two or less responses in the affirmative were rated as low. 40 The questions concerning recontact from the police department were each dichotomized according to yes/no responses. The response time question was trichotomized between faster, the same, or slower than expected. Chi-squared tests were performed for each of the above mentioned variables against type of contact, as well as, demographic variables against type of contact. Overall satisfaction was then compared, using analysis of variance, to each of the above mentioned variables, along with demographic variables. [#1Lfiv1m.‘ ‘ | I (3 O :1 1. p051( these nead} presen renderi RESULTS Communin Survey Of the one thousand surveys mailed out, 139 were returned as undeliverable by the post office, while 383 completed surveys were returned by citizens. The response rate for the survey was 44.5%, thus ensuring a reliable representation of the sample population, as nearly one half of all deliverable surveys were returned. The response rate by region is presented in Table IV. Five of the respondents removed the control number, thus rendering their precincts unknown. Table IV. Response Rate by Region Region No. Returned Percent by Region Downtown 59 26.5 South 90 45.0 North 74 33.2 West 155 39.0 Unknown 5 --.- Total 383 44.5 The following questions revealed the demographic characteristics of the respondents. These questions will be used to determine if any differences between geographic areas is due to divergent subgroups of the population, as Opposed to the region in which one lives. 27. How would you classify your work? 41 42 Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were performed for region by type of employment to determine if any differences across regions were a function of the residents’ type of work, rather than the region in which they lived. The results revealed that type of employment did not contribute to any difference of opinion within each of the regions. Variable Value Frequency Percent Professional 1 1 16 30.5 Clerical/Technical 2 37 9.7 Blue Collar 3 43 1 1.3 Retired 4 1 13 29.7 Homemaker 5 31 8.2 Unemployed 6 5 1 .3 Other 7 35 9.2 (N=380) 12 (df 18)=20.849, p<.287 28. How long have you lived in Rapid City? Responses to this question ranged from 1 to 73 years, with a mean of 22.526 and a standard deviation of 15.873. As can be seen by Table V, the number of years lived in Rapid City was re-categorized into five levels for the purpose of analysis. A Chi-squared and crosstabs were then used to compare years lived in Rapid City to region, to determine if any differences across regions were due to the amount of years lived in Rapid City, instead of the region in which the respondent lived. The tests proved that years lived in Rapid City did not have a significant influence on this relationship. Table V. Years Lived in Rapid City by Category Variable Value Frequency Percent 1-5 1 68 17.9 6-10 2 49 12.9 1 1-20 3 78 20.5 21-30 4 69 18.2 43 Table V. (cont’d) 31-7 3 5 1 16 30.5 (N=380) x2 (df 12)=9.756, p<.637 29. How old are you? The results of this question ranged from 18 to 90 years, with a mean of 51.201 years and a standard deviation of 17.069. Again, for the purpose of analysis, age was re- categorized into five levels as seen in Table VI. Age was compared to region to determine if the age of the respondent, not the region in which he/she lived, was responsible for any significant differences in the reported data. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests revealed that one’s age did not influence the results. Table VI. Age of Respondents by Category Mble Value Frequency Percent 18-24 1 20 5.3 25-30 2 28 7.4 31-39 3 54 14.3 40-60 4 154 40.7 61-90 5 122 32.3 (N=378) x2 (df 12)=14.l49, p<.291 30. What is your sex? As is common with mailed surveys, more females than males responded to the study. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests revealed that gender was not responsible for any differences reported across regions. Variable Value Fretmency Percent Male 1 l 64 43.5 Female 2 2 1 3 56.5 (N=377) x2 (df 3):.310, p<.958 31. What is your marital status? Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests comparing region to marital status proved that one’s marital status was not a factor when considering any differences reported across regions. Variable Value Frequency Percent Single 1 39 10.4 Married 2 265 70.7 Widowed 3 33 8.8 Separated 4 4 l . 1 Divorced 5 9 9. 1 (N=375) x2 (df 3)=l7.844, p<.1l9 32. What is your education level? Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were performed to determine if any differences reported across regions were due to a particular level of education achieved in that region. This relationship proved to be significant as 42.5% of all those respondents who had achieved only a high school education or less were residents of the North region. Conversely, 57.9% of those individuals who had gone beyond a bachelor’s degree in their education level were residents of the West region. Variable Value Frequency Percent Less than HS. 1 20 5.3 High School 2 86 22.9 Some College 3 146 38.9 Bachelor’s Degree 4 64 17.1 Beyond Bachelor’s 5 59 15.7 (N=375) x2 (df l2)=24.884, p<.015 __J 45 33. What is your racial/ethnic identity? Race was compared across regions to determine if any differences across regions may be attributed to a particular race living in that region. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests revealed that race is slightly responsible for differences across regions. It appears the race of the respondents in the North region is partially responsible for the lower level of satisfaction reported for that region. The North region is inhabited by the highest percentage of minority residents, 14.2%. As is consistent with previous studies, minorities often rate the police lower than their white counterparts. Variable Value Frequent;I Percent Asian 1 4 1.1 Black 2 6 1.6 White 3 341 92.2 Hispanic 4 3 .8 Native American 5 14 3.8 Other 6 2 .5 (N=370) x2 (df 15):23.1 14, p<.081 The following questions on the community survey elicited responses concerning expectations of police service. Both law enforcement and service-oriented categories were included, along with several questions directed towards those who had experienced a contact with the Rapid City Police Department in the past year. 1. It is generally felt that patrolling officers can discourage the following types of crime. How much attention would you like to see your police concentrate on the following areas? (The question was scaled from 1 to 5, with 5 representing “Much Attention”, and 1 representing “No Attention”. Below are the mean and standard deviation for each of the eleven categories, which have been ordered high to low by the means.) Category N Mejia Stafltrd Deviation Robberies 367 4.56 .70 Drugs 371 4.53 .76 Burglaries 373 4.50 .71 Property Destruction 373 4.34 .78 Auto Theft 368 4.07 .89 Theft of Car Parts 367 4.04 .93 Liquor Law Violations 369 3.75 1.00 Traffic Violations 369 3.58 1.00 Juvenile Curfew 371 3.57 1.09 Loud Parties 367 3.27 .97 VagrantS/Panhandlin g 363 3.00 1.04 46 An additional concern was expressed by 32 of the respondents for an “Other” category. These concerns are listed in Appendix G. Analysis of variance revealed that five of the categories neared, or were Significant by region. Liquor law violations and drugs were problematic for the North and Downtown districts, with F (df 3)=2.769, p<.039, and F (df 3): 5.536, p<.021 respectively. Vagrants/Panhandling neared significance in the Downtown precinct, with F (df 3)=7.697, p<.064, while burglary and robbery neared significance for both the North and Downtown precincts, with F (df 3)=3.666, p<.067 for the former, and F (df 3)=3.627, p<.062 for the latter. 2. If you observed a crime, would you . . . (This question had seven categories answered “yes,” “no,” or “don’t know”. For some questions, no is a positive answer.) Vmaple Frequency Percent Avoid involvement in the crime (N=373) No 226 60.6 Yes 50 13.4 Don’t Know 97 26.0 Assist a victim needing help (N=380) Yes 337 88.7 No 3 .8 Don’t Know 40 10.5 Report suspicious activity it 47 (N=378) Yes 364 96.3 No 3 .8 Don’t Know 1 l 2.9 Avoid involvement with the crime (N=374) No 335 89.6 Yes 17 4.5 Don’t Know 22 5.9 Report the crime (N=382) Yes 376 98.4 N o 5 1.3 Don’t Know 1 .3 Assist police officers needing help (N=378) Yes 340 89.9 No 12 3.2 Don’t Know 26 6.9 Testify in court (N=380) Yes 31 1 8 1.8 N o 9 2.4 Don’t Know 60 15.8 For purpose of analysis, a composite score was created from those respondents who answered all seven question. A mean of 6.06 positive responses and a standard deviation of 1.25 was derived from the data. Analysis of variance was not significant when compared across region, F (df 3)=2.932, p<.593. 3. Keeping in mind that the budget is limited, please rank the importance of the following services. (5 is the most important, 4 the next most important, . . . l the least important.) (There were five categories to rank, which have been ordered from high to low by means.) Many respondents misinterpreted the directions to this question, thus resulting in the lower response rate. The common error exercised by the respondents was that many (N=315) Motor Vehicle Patrols Investigate Crimes Crime Prevention Traffic Enforcement Foot Patrols Mean. 3.81 3.70 2.90 2.42 2.18 Standard Deviation 1.13 1.17 1.47 1.24 1.22 sin: vari the 1 (df P in in enforI After 48 simply rated all variables as most important on a scale of 1 to 5, instead of rating each variable from descending level of importance. Those respondents who properly answered the question revealed a significant difference across region for motor vehicle patrol, with F (df 3)=10.226, p<.045. Residents of the South precinct rated motor vehicle patrol highest in importance with a mean of 4.09 and standard deviation of 1.01. 4. How much time do you feel the police department dedicates to traffic enforcement? (This question was scaled from 1 to 5, with 5 representing “Much Attention”, and 1 representing “No Attention”.) (N=365) This question had a mean of 3.04 and a standard deviation of .87. Analysis of variance revealed that region was significant when compared to amount of time dedicated to traffic enforcement, with F (df 3)=6.700, p<.029. The South precinct was most satisfied with traffic enforcement time, with a mean of 3.26 and standard deviation of .76, while the downtown precinct was the least satisfied with the amount of time dedicated to traffic enforcement, with a mean of 2.84 and standard deviation of .93. 5. How important is it for the police to do each of the following services? (There were twelve categories to be rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Very Important” and 1 represented “Not Important”. The categories have been ranked by means.) Categopy N Mean Standard Deviation Investigation of all vehicle accidents 375 3.99 .98 Assist stranded motorists 375 3.75 1.03 Teaching children pedestrian safety 375 3.41 1.18 Checking welfare of senior citizens 375 3.35 1.15 School truancy checks 372 2.89 1.17 Pick up found property 373 2.80 1.10 Business buildings security checks 373 2.72 1.09 Funeral escorts 374 2.70 1.20 Animal complaints 375 2.58 1.03 Home security checks for vacationers 374 2.53 1.19 49 Assist peOple locked out of homes 372 2.27 1.18 Assist people locked out of their cars 374 2.19 1.08 Analysis of variance revealed only two of the twelve categories to be significant when compared across region. Funeral escorts was significant for the Downtown region with F (df 3)=l8.838, p<.004, while picking up found property was significant for both the Downtown and North precincts, with F (df 3)=12.312, p<.016. 6. For each of the following statements, circle the appropriate number for the degree of concern you have that the problem might happen in your neighborhood. (There were six categories to be rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Very Concerned”, and 1 represented “No Concern”. The results have been ranked by means.) Categogy N Mean Standard Deviation Someone will try to break 373 3.15 1.12 into your home. Someone will damage or 374 3.09 1.18 vandalize your house or other property. Someone will try to steal 372 3.05 1.19 or damage your car. Someone will try to rob or 372 2.98 1.16 steal something from you Someone will try to attack 374 2.48 1.34 you sexually. Someone will try to attack 374 2.47 1.23 you while you are outside. Of the Six categories, only the fear that someone will try to rob or steal from you was significant across region, with F (df 3)=l4.181, p<.013. Respondents from the North and Downtown precincts were the most fearful that someone would try to steal from them. Fear of sexual assault, the last category, was more applicable to female respondents. When only female respondents were regarded, the mean score for the gm" Landfill. I- I! l 50 category increased to 2.88, with a standard deviation of 1.27. The category was still not significant when compared across region. 13. In the last year, were you the victim of a crime which you did not report to the police? Variable Value Frequency Percent No 0 344 9 1 .2 Yes 1 33 8.8 (N=377) Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests that compared region to the non-reporting of crime proved not significant, with x2 (df 3)=4.569, p<.206. Race; however, did prove to be significant when compared to the non-reporting of crime, with x2 (df 5)=14.537, p<.012. 14.2% of Native Americans had not reported a crime to the police department in the past year. This percentage was considerably higher than any of the other races. 14. What was your reason for not calling the police? Variable Value Frequency Percent Not worth the time or effort 3 12 34.3 The police would not do anything 4 12 34.3 Other 5 5 14.3 The incident was not a police matter 1 4 11.4 Fear of harm from the offender 2 2 5.7 15. How important are the following problems in your neighborhood? (There were thirteen categories to be rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Big Problem” and 1 represented “Not a Problem”. The results are ordered by their means.) Categogy N Min Standard Deviation Parking/Traffic 363 2.13 1.30 Vandalism 364 2.00 1.16 Noise 364 1.89 1.14 Juvenile problems 362 1.84 1.14 Burglary 362 1.83 1.05 Appearance problems 365 1.81 1.19 51 Robbery 363 l .66 .94 Probes w/ neighbors 363 1.50 .94 Public intoxication 362 1.35 .94 Drug use 355 1.34 .83 Run-down buildings 362 1.26 .86 Homeless people 363 1.19 .62 Prostitution 362 1.10 .67 Question fifteen also included an “Other” category, of which twenty-five respondents expressed an additional concern. As those responses are varied, they were not included in the above list, but can be found in Appendix H. Of the thirteen categories, only parking/traffic and prostitution were not significant when compared by region, with F (df 3)=6.526, p<.280 for the former, and F (df 3):.164, p<.948 for the latter. The remaining categories all proved significant by region, the results are expressed in Table VII. Table VII. Significant Neighborhood Problems with Regions Category F df p(<) Regions Vandalism 14.532 3 .012 North Noise 21.318 3 .000 North Juvenile Problems 1 1.886 3 .028 North Burglary 13 .765 3 .005 North Appearance Probs. 29.001 3 .000 North, Downtown Robbery 22.719 3 .000 North, Downtown Probs.w/Neighbors 8.989 3 .018 North, Downtown Public intoxication 44.023 3 .000 North Rundown buildingle.006 3 .003 North, Downtown Street People 10.197 3 .000 North Drug use 9.628 3 .003 North 16. How serious of a problem do you think crime is in Rapid City compared to similar cities in the U.S.? (This question was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Very Serious”, and 1 represented “Less Crime”.) The responses to this question had a mean of 2.94 and a standard deviation of .91. An analysis of variance across region was not significant, with F (df 3)=4.302, p<. 162. 52 17. To what extent has the fear of crime caused you to change your activities? (This question was also rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Great Extent”, and 1 represented “Not at All”.) The results of this question had a mean of 2.24 and a standard deviation of 1.08. Analysis of variance was not significant when fear of crime was compared to region, nor to age, with F (df 3)=1.451, p<.746 for the former, and F (df 4)=3.6l4, p<.548 for the latter. Gender; however, did prove to be significant, with F (df 1)=5.713, p<.027. Female respondents were more likely to curve their activities due to a fear of crime. Females had a mean of 2.36 and a standard deviation of 1.12 compared to male respondents who had a mean of 2.10 and a standard deviation of 1.02. 18. Is your neighborhood dangerous enough that during the last year you have considered moving? _Va_riable Value Frequency Percent No 0 369 97. 1 Yes 1 1 1 2.9 (N =380) Although only a small number of subjects were available for analysis considering this question, as only eleven respondents reported that they had considered moving in the last year, chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were still performed to determine any level of significance between variables. Chi-squared tests were significant when this variable was compared to both region and contact with the police, x2 (df 3)=15.180, p<.001, and x2(df 1)=10.941, p<.009 respectively. Crosstabulations revealed that of those respondents who had considered moving in the last year, 7 of 1 1 (63.6%), resided in the North region. Contact with the police also proved significant when compared to whether one considered moving in the past year, as 10 of the 11 respondents (90.9%) who 20. to qt Ana? (df both City 53 considered moving also had experienced a contact with the police department within the same time frame. Type of contact; however, was not significant when compared to whether one considered moving in the last year, x2 (df 7)=8.240, p<.31 1. 19. In the United States as a whole, do you think that personal safety is changing? (This question was scaled from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Becoming Safer”, and 1 represented “Becoming Less Safe”.) The results of this question had a mean of 1.67 and a standard deviation of .95. The variable neared significance when compared across region by analysis of variance, with F (df 3)=5.936, p<.082. 20. Is safety in your neighborhood changing? (This question was scaled identically to question 19.) The results to this question had a mean of 2.89 and a standard deviation of .68. Analysis of variance was not significant when the variable was compared across region, F (df 3)=1.690, p<.293. Question 19 and 20 were utilized to determine the relative perceptions of safety both in Rapid City, and the United States as a whole. Although the respondents felt Rapid City was becoming slightly less safe, as can be judged by the mean, they felt safety within the US. as a whole was much worse. A Pearson’s correlation between question 19 and 20 proved to be significant, r=.276, p<.000. 21. In your neighborhood, how well do you think the police department performs its duties? (This question had three parts, all to be scaled from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Very Well”, and 1 represented “Very Poor”.) 3. In General/Overall (N=362): QUCS l:(df b. P' l deviat aCfOSS c. Det Detecti Vafianc satisfat 22, T (This repreS 54 A mean of 3.83 and a standard deviation of .98 was reported for this part of question 21. Analysis of variance revealed no significance when compared across region, F (df 3)=3.764, p<..270. b. Patrol Officers (N=347): The results for this part of question 21 had a mean of 3.51 and a standard deviation of 1.14. Analysis of variance revealed no significant difference when compared across region, F (df 3)=3.485, p<.448. c. Detectives (N=314): The mean and standard deviation for this part of question 21 was 3.57 and 1.06. Detective performance was significant when compared across region with analysis of variance, F (df 3)=10.602, p<.022. Residents of the North region expressed the least satisfaction with a mean of 3.22 and standard deviation of 1.11. 22. To what extent does the Rapid City Police Department need improvement? (This question was scaled from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Great Extent” and 1 represented “Not at All”.) The results of this question had a mean of 2.64 and a standard deviation of .88. Analysis of variance was significant when compared across region, with F (df 3)=6.123, p<.047., as well as when compared by police contact within the last year, with F (df 1)=3.948, p<.023. Residents of the North, with a mean of 2.90, rated the police department in need of the most improvement. Likewise, respondents who had experienced a contact with an officer within the past year, as opposed to those who had not, were more likely to rate the police as requiring improvement. Respondents who 55 experienced a contact had a mean of 2.76 and a standard deviation of .89, while the mean for those who had no contact was 2.55 with a standard deviation of .86. 23. Has Rapid City Police performance improved or gotten worse in the past year? (This question was scaled from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Improved”, and 1 represented “Worse”.) The results to this question had a mean of 3.33 and a standard deviation of .75. Analysis of variance revealed no significance when compared across region, F (df 3)=1.080, p<.594, but was significant when compared to whether or not a respondent had a contact with the police in the past year, F (df l)=2.429, p<.038. 24. How would you rate the image of the Rapid City Police Department within the community? (This question was also scale from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Excellent”, and 1 represented “Poor”.) The responses to this question had a mean of 3.73 and a standard deviation of .83. Both region and race proved to be significant when compared by analysis of variance to this variable, F (df 3)=6.085, p<.032, and F (df 5)=8.759, p<.024 respectively. Both Blacks (mean of 3.00 and s.d. of 1.10) and Native Americans (mean of 3.38 and s.d. of 1.19) rated the image of the police department the lowest. It may come as no surprise that the North region, which has the highest percentage of minority residents, rated the image of the police department the lowest, with a mean of 3.56 and Standard deviation of .90. The West region, conversely, rated the image of the police department the highest, with a mean of 3.88 and a standard deviation of .79. 25. How would you portray the Rapid City Police? (This question consisted of four sets of paired adjectives that were scaled from 1 to 5 where 5 represented the positive adjective and 1 represented the negative adjective.) This b. FL‘ Anal), 3)=6.3 Downt South 0. Hor 0f .83. 31:555 [he 01hr 56 a. Effective/Ineffective (N=367) The results of this question had a mean of 3.95 and a standard deviation of .78. This variable was not significant across region, F (df 3)=2.708, p<.214. b. Fair/Unfair (N=359) Responses to this question had a mean of 3.86 and a standard deviation of .89. Analysis of variance proved to be significant when compared across region, F (df 3)=6.361, p<.045. The difference is apparently due to the fact that the West and Downtown regions rated police fairness slightly higher than those respondents of the South and North. c. Honest/Dishonest (N=360) Responses to this part of question 25 had a mean of 4.00 and a standard deviation of .83. Honesty was found to be significant when compared across region, F (df 3)=5.590, p<.042. The North rated the honesty of the officers significantly lower than did the other three regions. (1. Unprejudiced/Prejudiced (N=355) Responses to this portion of question 25 had a mean of 3.64 and a standard deviation of 1.00. Region proved to be significant when compared to this variable, F (df 3)=8.624, p<.035. Again, this appears to be due to the fact that the West and Downtown precincts rated the police higher than did the North and South regions. Of the four categories for question 25, only category D, Unprejudiced/Prejudiced, was significant by race when compared using analysis of variance, F (df 5)=14.956, mea the pC dHT€fi3 WllCe resi—‘Orrt DOWmC 57 p<.008. Whites and Asians believed the police were unprejudiced as can be seen by their means, 3.68, and 4.50 respectively. Native Americans; however, believed the police to be prejudiced, and rated them with a mean of 2.33. 26. Does the local media (television, newspapers, etc.) portray the Rapid City Police Department better or worse than they actually are? (This question was to be rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Better”, 1 represented “Worse”, and 3 represented “Accurate”.) The respondents rated this question with a mean of 3.04 and a standard deviation of .75, which rates media portrayal as accurate. Media portrayal was not significant when compared across region, F (df 3)=1.642, p<.404, nor when compared across race, F (df 5):.645, p<.946. The following group of questions deal specifically with those respondents who had experienced a contact with the Rapid City Police Department in the past year. 7. Have you had contact(s) with the Rapid City Police in the last year? Forty-two percent of the respondents reported having experienced a contact with the police department within the past year. A chi-squared test revealed a significant difference across region when compared to whether or not a respondent had experienced police contact. Of the 161 respondents who experienced a contact, 32.7% of the respondents lived in the West, while only 17.6% of the respondents lived in the Downtown region. 7a. of'2. anah' crosst depan (ION/(W 58 Variable Value Frequency Percent No l 221 57.9 Yes 2 161 42.1 (N=382) 12 (df 3)=14.489, p<.002 7a. How many? The number of contacts reported by respondents ranged from 1 to 75, with a mean of 2.26 and a standard deviation of 6.00. The number of contacts, for the purpose of analysis, were re-categorized into 4 levels as can be seen in Table VIII. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests revealed that the number of contacts one had with the police department was not influenced by the region in which one lived. Table VIII. Number of Contacts )Lajable Value Frequency Percent 1 1 91 57.6 2-5 2 62 39.2 6- 10 3 2 1.3 10+ 4 3 1.9 (N=158) x2 (df 9)=9.614, p<.382 8. What was the nature of the most recent contact? The nature of the most recent police contact has been ordered according to frequency below. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were perfomied to determine if any particular contact was distinctively characteristic to a given region. The results can be seen in Table IX, type of contact by region. Variable Value Frequency Percent Other 8 47 29.4 Reported and Incident 3 34 21.3 Victim of a Crime 4 28 17.5 ‘Fil’ FREE-nan .41 8CCOI’ of the 45.59 Well ; victir 59 Vehicle Accidents 2 20 12.5 Traffic Ticket 1 13 8.1 Witness to a Crime 5 8 5.0 Requested Info 6 7 4.4 Arrested 7 3 1.9 (N =l60) As can be seen below, the type of contact a respondent reported was significant according to region. 50.0% of all traffic accident contacts were accountable to residents of the South region, while this region only accounted for 7.1% of crime victim contacts. 45.5% of all traffic citation contacts were attributed to residents of the North region, as well as 66.6% of the arrest contacts. Residents of the West accounted for 46.4% of crime victim contacts, as well as 71.4% of all contacts concerning requests for information. Table IX. Type of Contact by Region REGION SOUTH D.TOWN NORTH WEST Contact Fre. Percent Fre. Percent Fre. Percent Fre. Percent Traffic Citation 1 9.1 2 18.2 5 45.5 3 27.3 Car Accident 10 50.0 3 15.0 1 5.0 6 30.0 Reported an Incident 6 17.6 4 1 1.8 11 32.4 13 38.2 Victim of Crime 2 7.1 6 21.4 7 25.0 13 46.4 Witness of a Crime 1 12.5 2 25.0 2 25.0 3 37.5 Requested Info. 1 14.3 1 14.3 0 --.- 5 71.4 Arrested 1 33.3 0 --.- 2 66.6 0 —-.- x2 (df 21)=32.689, p<.049 12. Overall, how satisfied were you with the manner in which the officer(s) responded to your contact? (This question was rated on a scale of l to 5 where 5 represented “Very Satisfied”, and 1 represented “Dissatisfied”.) The responses to this question had a mean of 3.89 and a standard deviation of 1.27. Analysis of variance revealed that overall satisfaction was not significant when compared to the number of contacts, nor the type of contact, F (df 3)=7.965, p<.175, and 60 F (df 7)=12.843, p<.359 respectively. Analysis of variance also revealed that neither age, marital status, type of employment, gender, education, nor race were significant. 9. How would you rate the Rapid City police on the following? (This question consisted of five categories, each to be rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Excellent”, and 1 represented “Poor”.) a. Courtesy (N=159) The respondents rated officer courtesy with a mean of 4.08 and a standard deviation of 1.1 1. b. Understanding (N=159) Responses to this question had a mean of 3.81 and a standard deviation of 1.14. c. Concern (N=158) The results of this question had a mean of 3.65 and a standard deviation of 1.26. d. Competence (N=155) The respondents rated this question with a mean of 3.85 and a standard deviation of 1.11. The first four categories of question 9 are the same as those used in the contact survey to determine the level of police officer professionalism. A composite score was created combining the four categories into high and low values. A positive rating (4 or 5 on the Likert scale) was given a “1”, and a negative score received a “0”, the scores were then summed and dichotomized. A sum of 3 or 4 registered as a high degree of professionalism, where as a sum of 2 or less registered a low degree of professionalism. The results are presented in Table X below. 61 Table X. Degree of Professionalism Enable Value Frequency Percent High 1 l 14 72.1 Low 2 44 27.9 (N=158) x2 (df 7)=16.067, p<.024 A chi-squared test revealed that degree of professionalism was significant by type of contact, those respondents who had been targets of enforcement were more likely to rate officer professionalism as low. 76.9% of all targets of enforcement reported a low level of officer professionalism. Analysis of variance revealed that overall satisfaction was significantly related to degree of professionalism, F (df 1)=89.552, p<.000. Those respondents who perceived officer professionalism as high, were more satisfied with their contact. e. Solving the problem (N=153) The results of this question had a mean of 3.35 and a standard deviation of 1.35. As many problems are never resolved, this variable was not included as part of the professionalism score. A Chi-squared test revealed no significance when this variable was compared across region, x2(df 12)=7.749, p<.804. However, this variable was highly significant, as determined by analysis of variance, when compared to overall satisfaction, F (df 4)=146.950, p<.000. 10. Did a police dispatcher give you an estimate of how long it would take the police to arrive? Variable glue Frequency Percent Yes 1 40 42. 1 No 2 55 57.8 (N=156) y__ariable filue Frequency Percent Slower 1 29 29.9 Same 2 40 4 1.2 Faster 3 28 28.9 (N=97) A Chi-squared and crosstabs test revealed a significant relationship between whether or not an estimate of an officer’s arrival time was given and the respondent’s 62 11. Did the officer(s) arrive (faster, the same, or slower) than you expected? F“ rating of the officer’s actual arrival time. Table XI reveals the crosstabs for the two variables. As is evident, relatively few respondents who had received an estimate of I.“ ‘.\_.L officer arrival rated the arrival of the officer as slower than expected. Table XI. ' Estimate of Arrival by Perceived Arrival Estimate Given Slower Same Faster No 22 19 10 Yes 7 20 13 x2 (df 2)=6.947, p<.03 1. A significant relation was not revealed by a Chi-squared test when perceived time of arrival was compared to type of contact, x2 (df 14)=9.895, p<.769. The respondent’s perceived arrival time; however, was significantly related to overall satisfaction when compared by analysis of variance, F (df 2)=42.201, p<.000. As can be assumed, a specific encounter with an officer may greatly influence that individual’s opinion towards the police department. Therefore, question 21 (general performance, patrol officer performance, and detective performance) was compared to the respondent’s type of contact, and by their overall satisfaction with the contact. Only one of the three parts of question 21, general performance, differed significantly when compared by type of contact, F (df 6)=13.795, p<.049. Not 63 surprisingly, those respondents who had been targets of enforcement, i.e. received traffic tickets, were the least satisfied, while those who were involved in motor vehicle accidents or called the department to report an incident were the most satisfied. Part B of question 21, patrol officer performance, approached significance with F (df 6)=17.150, p<.063, again this may be attributed to those respondents who received traffic tickets. Part C, detective performance, was not significant by type of contact, F (df 6)=l4.244, p<.1l2. When compared to overall satisfaction with a contact, all three parts of question 21 differed significantly. General performance rated F (df 4)=24.203, p<.000, patrol officer performance rated F (df 4)=34.787, p<.000, and detective performance rated F (df 4)=21.740, P<.000. As is evident, these results directly support the theory that a specific encounter with the police will influence that individual’s opinion towards the department. Contact Surve As was previously mentioned in the Methods chapter, a total of 220 persons who experienced a contact with a police officer within the previous year were interviewed by telephone. The respondent’s reported that they were generally satisfied with the manner in which their contacts were handled by the officers. The results of the contact survey can be examined below. Questions one and two are not present for they were used to record the case number and type of contact. Professionalism 3. Was the officer (or officers) courteous? (N=220) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 20 1 9 1 .4 No 0 19 8.6 4. Was the police officer (or officers) understanding? (N=217) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 166 76.5 N o 0 5 1 23.5 5. Was the police officer (or officers) concerned? (N=202) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 l 59 78.7 No 0 43 21.3 6. Was the officer (or officers) competent? (N :2 14) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 193 90.2 No 0 21 9.8 65 For purposes of analysis, the four questions pertaining to professionalism were combined into a composite score, and then dichotomized into high and low variables. As previously mentioned in the Methods section, two or less answers in the positive for professionalism was scored as low, and three or four answers in the positive was scored as high. The resulting values are exhibited in Table XII. Table XII. Degree of Professionalism Mble \Qlue Frecniency Percent Yes 1 164 82.8 No 0 34 17.2 (N=198) A Chi-squared and crosstabs (see Table XIII) were executed for type of contact by degree of professionalism. This relationship was found to be significant, as 64.7% of those respondents who rated officer professionalism to be low were targets of enforcement, i.e. traffic citations or DWI/DUI arrests. Table XIII. Type of Contact by Degree of Professionalism Type of Contact High Low Target of Enforcement 61 22 Property Crime 72 7 Crime against Person 3] 5 x2 (df 2)=9.193, p<.010 Analysis of variance determined that degree of professionalism was significantly related to the respondent’s rating of overall satisfaction with the contact. The results, F (df 1)=80.135, p<.000, ascertain that the degree of an officer’s professionalism is directly related to a respondent’s satisfaction with their contact. Investigative Effort: 66 7. Did the police officer(s) adequately search the crime scene? (N=88) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 65 73.9 No 0 23 26. l 8. Did the police officer(s) adequately examine evidence? (N=66) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 44 66.7 No 0 22 26. 1 9. Did the police officer(s) attempt to locate or question witnesses? (N=7 1 ) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 49 69.0 N o 0 22 3 1.0 10. Did the police officer(s) make out a report? (N=99) Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 96 97.0 No 0 3 3.0 Utilizing the same procedure as questions for professionalism, a composite score was also created for investigative effort. The variables were dichotomized into high and low values; the results are revealed in Table XIV. Responses for investigative effort were minimal because certain contacts, such as traffic citations, did not apply to the category. Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were performed for type of contact by degree of investigative effort to determine if any particular type of contact influenced a respondent’s rating of investigative effort. No such relationship was revealed by the tests. An analysis of variance between these two variables; however, did prove to be significant, 67 F (df 1)=3.633, p<.046. This outcome, albeit taken from a small sample, indicates that the amount of effort a respondent perceives the officer to have exerted does directly influence that respondent’s level of overall satisfaction. Table XIV. Degree of Investigative Effort Variable fllue Frequency Percent High 1 47 72.3 Low 0 18 27.7 (N=65) x2 (df l)=.029, p<.956 Response time: 11. Did a police dispatcher give an estimate of how long it would take for an officer to arrive? Mble Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 32 40.5 No 0 47 59.5 (N=79) 12. Did the police officer(s) arrive (faster, the same, or slower) than you expected? Variable Value Frequency Percent Slower 1 9 l 1.7 Same 2 4 1 53.2 Easter 3 27 35. 1 (N=77) As was the case with degree of investigative effort, a low number of cases were available for the response time category; many contacts, such as traffic citations, did not apply to this category. Crosstabs and Chi-squared tests were performed to compare whether an estimate was given, by perception of arrival, as well as to compare type of contact by perception of arrival. Both cases were not significant, x2 (df 2):.212, p<.889 and x2 (df 2)=2.112, p<.347. An analysis of variance for perception of arrival by overall 68 satisfaction was significant, F (df 2)=7.868, p<.015. Obviously, respondents who perceived a faster response time by the officers were more satisfied with their contacts. Recontact: 13. Were you recontacted for further questioning? Variable Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 30 27.3 No 0 80 72.7 (N=1 10) 14. Were you recontacted about the status of your investigation? Variable Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 27 26.0 No 0 77 74.0 (N: 104) Considering whether or not a respondent had been recontacted was dichotomized into yes and no values. If a positive value was given for either question, then a positive value was bequeathed for recontact, the results are expressed in Table XV. A Chi-squared and crosstabs test were performed for type of contact by whether a respondent was recontacted to determine if any particular type of contact was more likely to recontacted. The results revealed that this relationship was not significant. An analysis of variance revealed that whether a respondent was recontacted was significantly related to overall satisfaction, with F (df 1)=5.077, p<.024. Those respondents who had been recontacted were significantly more satisfied with their contact. Table XV. Recontact Variable Value Frequency Percent Yes 1 32 30.8 N o 0 72 69.2 (N=103) x2 (df l)=3.864, p<.1 r4 69 Overall Satisfaction: 15. Overall, how satisfied were you with the manner in which the officer(s) responded to your contact? (Scaled from 1 to 5 with 5 being “Very Satisfied”, 1 “Not Satisfied”, and 3 “Somewhat Satisfied”.) Overall satisfaction of the respondents had a mean of 3.85, with a standard deviation of .96. An analysis of variance revealed that type of contact was significantly related to overall satisfaction with F (df 2)=12.435, p<.012. The target of enforcement respondents expressed the lowest satisfaction as a group, with a mean of 3.52 and a standard deviation of .80. The results are expressed in Table XVI below. Table XVI. Overall Satisfaction by Type of Contact Typ_e of Contact No. Mm Standard Deviation Target of EnforcementhO 3.52 .80 Property Crime 80 4.02 .99 Crime against Person 40 4.30 .99 16. In your neighborhood, how well do you think the police department performs its duties? (Scaled from 1 to 5 with 5 being “Very Well”, 1 “Poor”, and 3 “Average”.) a. In General (N=l92): Respondents’ rated general police performance with a mean of 3.71 and a standard deviation of 1.08. General performance was compared to type of contact by analysis of variance and was found to approach significance, F (df 2)=6.549, p<.060. Analysis of variance was also used to compare general performance to overall satisfaction. This relationship was not significant, F (df 4)=4. 125, p<.366. b. Patrol Officer Performance (N=178): A mean of 3.51 with a standard deviation of 1.1 1 was expressed for patrol officer performance. Analysis of variance for type of contact by patrol officer performance, as 70 well as patrol officer performance by overall satisfaction was conducted. The former test proved to be significant with F (df 2)=2.751, p<.021, while the latter approached but was not significant with F (df 4)=8.017, p<.066. Targets of enforcement were the least satisfied with patrol officer performance. c. Detectives Performance (N=12 l ): The rating for detective performance had a mean of 3.38 and a standard deviation of 1.08. The low number of responses was due to the fact that many of the respondents had not experienced a direct contact with a detective. Detective performance was compared with type of contact as well as overall satisfaction through analysis of variance. Type of contact proved to be significant with F (df 2)=19.343, p<.002, most likely due to targets of enforcement. Overall satisfaction; however, did not prove significant, with F (df 4)=3.638, p<.474. 17. How many contacts have you had with the Rapid City Police Department in the last year? The number of contacts ranged from 1 to 65 with a mean of 2.55 and a standard deviation of 5.36. Table XVII reveals the re—categorized number of contacts into four levels for the purpose of analysis. Table XVII. Number of Contacts Variable Value Frequency Percent 1 1 l 15 52.3 2-5 2 81 36.8 6-10 3 1 1 5.0 1 1-65 4 13 5.9 (N=220) F (df 3)=2.279, p<.480 was ens C0111; Demr 18. H ClOSSiu discou proved Worker was per “thus :1" 23111! \ ”Y—1 ICU-r" .r—\ ’ l 19. How It Standard U 71 Analysis of variance was performed to compare the number of contacts to overall satisfaction with the contact and proved not significant. The number of contacts one experienced did not substantially influence the respondent’s overall satisfaction with the contact. Demographic Data: The following section explores the demographic characteristics of the respondents. 18. How would you classify your work? One’s work was categorized into the seven variables below. Chi—squared and crosstabulation tests were performed for type of contact by type of employment to discover if one’s employment was related to a particular type of contact. This relationship proved to be significant, mainly due to the fact that a high percentage of blue-collar workers (40.0%) experienced contacts as targets of enforcement. An analysis of variance was performed to determine if one’s occupation had an influence on overall satisfaction with the contact. This relationship was not significant. Mble Vafl: Frequency Percent Professional 1 35 15.9 Clerical/Technical 2 50 22.7 Blue Collar 3 76 34.5 Retired 4 l 3 5.9 Homemaker 5 12 5.5 Unemployed 6 7 3.2 Other 7 27 1 2.3 (N=220) x2 (df 12)=23.723, p<.022 F (df 6)=7.l83, p<.250 19. How long have you lived in Rapid City? The responses for this question ranged from 1 to 76, with a mean of 19.06 and standard deviation of 14.95. As is evident from Table XVIII, the number of years lived in Rap] varia thcc 20. H years 3 PUFPOS were C rCSpond as victi n be the v compare Significar 72 Rapid City was recategorized, for the purpose of analysis, into five levels. Analysis of variance was then used to compare years lived in Rapid City to overall satisfaction with the contact, and was not significant. Table XVIII. Years Lived in Rapid City Variable Valaa Freoaencya Percent 1-5 1 48 21.8 6-10 2 41 18.6 11-20 3 69 31.4 21-30 4 30 13.6 31-90 5 32 14.5 (N=220) F (df 4)=l.870, p<.505 20. How old are you? The results to this question ranged from 17 to 90 years, with a mean of 36.95 years and standard deviation of 14.54. Age was also re-categorized into five levels for the purpose of analysis, the results can be seen in Table XIX. A Chi-squared and crosstabs were conducted for age by type of contact and proved to be significant. Younger respondents were more prone to be involved with target of enforcement contacts, as well as victims of crimes against the person. Older respondents, conversely, were more apt to be the victims of property crimes, as they are more likely to own homes. Age was then compared to overall satisfaction with the contact by analysis of variance, and was not significant. 73 Table XIX. Age of Respondents ya_n_'able _Value Frequency Percent 17-24 1 46 21.0 25-30 2 43 19.6 31-39 3 60 27.4 40-60 4 57 26.0 61-90 5 12 5.9 (N=219) x2 (df 8)=19.512, p<.012 F (df 4)=2.051, p<.690 21. What is your sex? Enable Value Frequency Percent Male 1 l 12 50.9 Female 2 108 49. 1 (N =220) A Chi-squared and crosstabs were performed for type of contact by gender to determine if any type of contact was characteristic to a particular sex. The crosstabs for type of contact by gender can be seen in Table XX, where it is evident that males are more often the targets of enforcement but are almost equally likely as females to be the victims of both property and crimes against the person. Table XX. Type of Contact by Gender Contact Male Female_ Target of Enforcement 55 45 Property Crime 39 41 Crime against Person 18 22 Total 1 12 108 x2 (df 2)=1.377, p<.502 Analysis of variance for gender by overall satisfaction proved to be significant, with F (df 1)=9.364, p<.001. Mean satisfaction by gender can be seen in Table XXI, where females rate overall satisfaction considerably higher than do their male counterparts. 74 Table XXI. Gender by Overall Satisfaction Gender No. Mean Standard Deviatign Male 1 12 3.64 .99 Female 108 4.06 .87 22. What is your marital status? Variable Value Freqrfly Percent Single 1 67 30.5 Married 2 130 59. 1 Widowed 3 6 2.7 Separated 4 4 l .8 Divorced 5 1 3 5.9 (N=220) x2 (df 8)=l3.972, p<.082 F (df 4)=6.106, p<.154 Neither Chi-squared and crosstabs, nor analysis of variance tests proved to be significant when comparing type of contact by marital status for the former, or marital status by overall satisfaction for the latter. 23. What is your education level? Chi-squared and crosstabulation tests were used to discover if one’s education level was related to a particular type of contact. This relationship was not found to be significant, as was the case when analysis of variance was used to compare education level by overall satisfaction with the contact. Variable Value Frequency Percent Less than HS. 1 18 8.2 High School 2 78 35.5 Some College 3 93 42.3 Bachelor’s Degree 4 23 10.5 Beyond Bachelor’s 5 8 3.6 (N=220) x2 (df 8)=5.972, p<.650 F (df 4)=4.620, p<.284 75 24. What is your racial/ethnic background? Whether a particular type of contact was characteristically common of one racial group was proven not significant when compared by chi-squared and crosstabulation tests. Members of all races were equally likely to have been the subjects of all types of contacts. Analysis of variance also proved that racial identity was not a significant factor influencing overall satisfaction with a contact. Variable Value Frequency Percent Asian 1 2 .9 Black 2 5 2.3 White 3 196 89. 1 Hispanic 4 4 l .8 Native Amarican 5 13 5.9 (N=220) x2 (df 8)=8.081, p<.425 F (df 4)=5. 184, p<.226 Finally, both age and race were tested against general performance of the police department (question 16a) , however neither were found to be significant, F (df 4)=1 . 182, p<.910, and F (df 4)=1.174, p<.91 1, correspondingly. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS In order to compare data from this year’s study to data collected a year earlier, the methodology for the 1994 study was consistent with that of the 1993 study. Two different survey instruments were created in order to evaluate not only police performance, but various crime and safety issues within the community as well. A Community Survey was developed for the purpose of discerning the public’s perception of crime, safety issues, and the relative importance of various police services. In order to collect the data, a written questionnaire of 33 questions was mailed to a sample of one thousand registered voters residing in Rapid City. A representative number of citizens from each of the twenty voting precincts, except precinct 1-4 where no registered voters resided, were drawn for the sample. A Contact Survey was created in order to evaluate encounter-specific issues between the police department and its citizens. 220 persons who had experienced a contact with the Rapid City Police Department in the past year, as determined from a computer-generated list of contacts, were administered the survey by telephone. For the purpose of comparison, a group of questions from the contact survey were likewise included on the community survey. A synopsis of the results for both surveys is expressed below. The question numbers are included where necessary to enable the reader direct reference to the results section for the purpose of analysis. 76 77 ni urve Many questions on the survey asked citizens to rate not only the relative importance of various crime issues, but the level of police services as well. Question 1, which dealt with crime control, is ordered according to the level of severity expressed by the respondents. Interestingly, the identical order was also expressed by those respondents of the 1993 study. Consistent with the previous data, Liquor law violations, vagrants/panhandling, and drugs were symptomatic for the North and Downtown regions. The current data also revealed a near significance for robbery and burglary concerning the North and Downtown precincts. Question 5 explored the importance of service functions provided by the police department. The functions which the police department currently provide, such as investigation of all motor vehicle accidents and assisting stranded motorists, topped the list. The same order of functions was reported by the 1993 study, with the exception of home security checks for vacationers (ranked 9th in 1993 compared to 10th in 1994) and animal complaints (from 10th in 1993 to 9th in 1994). Question 3 suffered from a lack of understanding when the respondents were asked to rate the importance of various functions. Many respondents simply rated all the variables as most important, on a scale of 1 to 5, instead of rating each variable from descending level of importance. As was the case in the 1993 study, the 1994 respondents ranked the functions in the same order. Motor vehicle patrols rated the highest, followed by investigation of crimes, crime prevention, traffic enforcement, and foot patrols. Residents of the South region expressed the greatest importance for motor vehicle patrol 78 out of all the regions. Interestingly, they also were the most satisfied by region with the amount of time dedicated to traffic enforcement, as is evident by question 4. One of the most heavily congested roads in Rapid City runs directly through the South region. The Rapid City Police Department appears to be doing a competent job patrolling this region, as residents of the South are pleased with the police department’s response to their most important concern. The relative severity of problems within one’s neighborhood was explored by question 15. As can be seen in the results section, a number of these problems were significant by precincts, most notably the North and Downtown regions. The 1993 study also reported similar problems for the North and Downtown regions, although the order of importance for the problems was quite different. Two questions on the survey were designed to ascertain the degree of cooperation a respondent was willing to offer if that individual was involved in an incident. Question 2 was the first of these questions. It consisted of seven functions which ranged from reporting suspicious activity to testifying in court. A significant majority of respondents would be willing to assist the police in all seven of the categories. Such was the case in the 1993 data as well; with assisting a victim and testifying in court ranking the lowest in degree of cooperation. This occurrence; however, was not due to negative responses, but to the fact that many respondents simply answered “don’t know”. Of the 383 subjects who responded to the survey, only 33 respondents replied to questions 13 and 14, which asked if the respondent had been a victim of a crime in which the individual did not report. The two most common reasons expressed by the respondents was that the incident was not worth the time or effort (34.3%), and the fact 79 that they believed the police would not do anything about it (34.3%). The latter reason was an increase from the 1993 study, which only reported a 30.0% frequency. The respondents’ fear of crime and perception of relative safety was explored by six of the questions. The first of these, question 6, investigated the concern a respondent had that a problem would occur in that individual’s neighborhood. Of the six categories for this question, the concern that someone would attempt to break into the respondent’s home proved to be the most significant fear. This was also the case for the 1993 study, although both the figures for this concern were just above the middle response of 3, some concern, on a scale of 1 to 5. Question 16 measured the seriousness of crime in Rapid City as compared to cities of similar size. The result was identical to that reported in the 1993 study, a mean of 2.94 on a scale of 1 to 5. The same question was also asked in the 1992 study, which reported a mean of 3.18, slightly higher than the following two years. Consistent with the data from the 1993 study, respondents to the 1994 study only changed their activities to some extent due to a fear of crime. The means for question 17 were almost identical for both surveys, as females were more likely than their male counterparts to change their activities. Only 11 respondents indicated that they had considered moving in the past year due to a fear of crime. As is evident by the above mentioned results, the respondents feel Rapid City is a relatively safe place to live. Questions 19 and 20 lend further credence to this point, as the respondents rate Rapid City much safer than the rest of the United States as a whole. Almost the identical means were reported for both the 1993 and 1994 studies. 80 The next set of questions rated the performance of the Rapid City Police Department in three categories; in general, patrol officers, and detectives. The means reported for the 1994 study were all lower than those reported for the 1993 study; in general, 4.00 to 3.83, patrol officers, 3.73 to 3.51, and detectives, 3.64 to 3.57. The respondents were then asked to what extent the Rapid City Police Department needed improvement. The mean of 2.64, on a scale of l to 5, was slightly higher than the mean of 2.55 for the 1993 study. Many respondents simply indicated that there was always room for improvement, and as such, they rated the police department as slightly improved over the last year with a mean of 3.33. The image of the department in the community fell slightly according to 1994 data which had a mean of 3.73 compared to 3.89 for 1993. This rating may be attributable to the fact that the means for each of the categories for question 25 rated lower in 1994 than in 1993; effectiveness of the department, 4.14 to 3.95, fairness of the officers, 4.10 to 3.86, honesty of the officers, 4.16 to 4.00, and lack of prejudice by the officers, 3.84 to 3.64. The race of the respondent was significant when compared to the unprejudiced/prejudice category of question 25, with Native Americans more likely to rate the department as prejudice. It should be noted that although the means are lower for 1994, the respondents still rated the image of the police department well above average. Question 26 explored the accuracy of media portrayal when concerning the police department. The respondents rated media portrayal as accurate, with a mean of 3.04, which was not significant when compared to race. As was mentioned earlier, a set of questions concerning respondents who had contact with the police department in the past year were included in this survey to 81 compare to the contact survey. 42.1% of the respondents replied that they had an encounter with the police within the past twelve months. This figure is slightly less than the 45% response reported in the 1993 study. On a scale of 1 to 5, overall satisfaction with a specific contact was down from 4.01 in 1993 to 3.89 in 1994. This did not vary be type of contact. A composite score of four characteristics; courtesy, understanding, concern, and competence was created to rate officer professionalism. Although the respondents who had come in contact with an officer rated professionalism of the officer relatively high at 72.1%, this percentage is slightly less than the 78.5% reported just a year earlier. Professionalism was significantly related to overall satisfaction with the contact, and did not vary with type of contact, both facts were consistent with 1993 data. Both years of the survey also revealed that the arrival time of the officer was significant when compared to overall satisfaction. Those who perceived the officer arriving later than expected were more likely to be dissatisfied with the contact. To remedy this situation, according to both years of the survey, an estimate of anival time should be given by a dispatcher. Therefore respondents would be aware of officer arrival time and be less likely to rate the contact negatively. Contact Survey The respondents for the contact survey reported nearly the same level of satisfaction, 3.85 to 3.89, as those respondents of the community survey who had a contact with the police department. Although the types of contact differed for the two surveys, as the contact survey included records of traffic arrests and victims of crimes, the respondents for this survey were just as satisfied as those respondents of the community 82 survey who may have just come into contact with the department on noncrime—related matters. The 3.85 level of satisfaction for the contact survey was up slightly from the previous year’s average of 3.49. To remain consistent with the methodology for the community survey, a composite score from four questions was created to measure officer professionalism. 82.8% of the respondents rated the professionalism of the officers as high, which was considerably higher than the 72.1% reported for the community survey. As was the case in the community survey, professionalism was highly significant when compared to overall satisfaction. The type of contact also proved significant for this survey, with those respondents who were targets of enforcement more likely to give the officers low ratings in professionalism. The same results for professionalism were also reported in the 1993 study. The degree of investigative effort was also found to be significantly related to overall satisfaction. 72.3% of the respondents rated the degree of investigative effort as high, compared to only 68.3% from the previous year. Although excessive effort in this field usually does not produce additional evidence, a little extra time exercised by the detectives could prove most significant for overall satisfaction. The contact survey also revealed, as did the community survey, that perception of response time was significantly related to overall satisfaction. The relationship; however, between whether an estimate was given and perception of response time was not significant. This may be attributed to the fact that many of the respondents reported that they had not been the ones to call the police, consequently they were unaware if an estimate of arrival had been given. The level of significance reported in the community 83 survey between these two variables (.031); however, warrants the assumption that an estimate given by a dispatcher increases the assessment of response time, thus increasing overall satisfaction with the contact. Both these findings were consistent with the 1993 study. A significant relation was also discovered between whether a respondent had been recontacted and overall satisfaction. This was also the case in the 1993 study, which again indicates that any additional effort exercised by detectives and officers may greatly increase satisfaction with the contact. A set of questions, consistent with those of the community survey, addressed the overall performance of the police department. The question was divided into three categories concerning overall performance, patrol officers, and detectives. The mean responses were nearly identical to those reported in the 1993 study; overall, 3.71 (1994) to 3.70, patrol officers, 3.51 (1994) to 3.54, and detectives, 3.38 (1994) to 3.24. This question proved difficult for many respondents of the contact survey, for they had not experienced a contact with a detective. Demographic data for the contact survey was slightly different than that of the community survey. The respondents were considerably younger, with a mean of 36.95, while a higher percentage of minorities responded to the survey, with only 89.1% of the respondents Caucasian. Type of contact by race did not prove significant, therefore the difference between the two surveys was not due to a higher percentage of minorities experiencing contacts with the police, but may be attributed to a better response rate to the telephone survey by minorities. Similar results were also reported in the 1993 survey. 84 Although the 1993 study reported a significant difference for type of contact by gender, the 1994 study did not. Both studies; however, consistently discovered that females who had experienced a police contact were more likely to report a higher level of satisfaction than their male counterparts. In conclusion, the variables most responsible for determining public satisfaction are performance-related, and are not a function of demographic variables. As was consistent with the 1993 data, professionalism, investigative effort, response time, and recontacting a victim all influenced how a respondent rated the performance of not only the officers involved, but the police department as an entire entity as well. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for the Rapid City Police Department Even though the community is generally satisfied with the Rapid City Police Department, several areas of improvement need to be considered. 1. Stress the importance of community relations to all members of the department. Several categories on the community survey reported a consistently lower level of satisfaction with the police department over the past year. Although the differences in the results from year to year were minor, they still deserve consideration. The image of the department fell, as did performance ratings for all phases of police work: in general, patrol officers, and detectives. This same perspective may have influenced the increased rating for the department’s need of improvement. Furthermore, although the percentage of respondents who had not reported a crime to the department did not increase, of those who did not report a crime, a higher percentage expressed the belief that the police department would not do anything about it. These findings would suggest that the community has lost some faith in the department over the course of one year. 2. Concentrate on area-specific concerns. Many of the regional problems first reported in the previous study continue to plague the residents of those areas, most specifically the Downtown and North regions. The results indicate that the residents of these regions have not witnessed any significant changes within the past year. The addition of a community police officer into one or both of these regions may significantly reduce the fear of crime, as well as open dialogue concerning ways to improve the neighborhood. 85 86 3. Continue to stress to officers the importance of a professional demeanor when responding to calls for service. This recommendation was first advocated in the 1993 study and has proven to be beneficial. Respondents to the contact survey reported a higher level of overall satisfaction in 1994 than the previous year. Those same respondents also rated officer professionalism and investigative effort slightly higher than the previous year. It may be surmised that additional effort exerted by officers may have resulted in a higher level of satisfaction for citizens who experienced a direct contact with an officer. APPENDIX APPENDIX A 87 ‘ APPENDIX A Rapid City Police Department Community Survey Instructions For each question select the most appropriate answer. In some cases this will require placing a check in a box; for others, a number is to be circled or placed in a blank. For some questions with number scales, not all of the numbers are marked with headings; these numbers represent a response between two marked responses, and may be selected. Where asked, please explain your answers; these comments are extremely helpful in evaluating the performance of the Police Department. There are questions on both sides of the pages; be sure to answer those on the back sides. After you have completed the survey, place it in the stamped return envelope and mail it by July 7, 1994 so that your responses will be included in the results. All of your answers will be kept strictly confidential; the police will not be informed who has received the survey or how individuals responded. The number on the survey is for control only; it will not be used to identify you. By completing and returning the questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in the study. 88 Rapid City Police Department Community Survey 1. It is generally felt that patrolling police officers can discourage the following types of crime. How much attention would you like to see your police concentrate on the following areas? (Please circle the appropriate number for each.) Much Some No Attention Attention Attention Burglaries 5 4 3 2 1 Property Destruction 5 4 3 2 1 Auto Theft 5 4 3 2 1 Traffic Violations 5 4 3 2 1 Robberies 5 4 3 2 1 Liquor Law Violation 5 4 3 2 1 Juvenile Curfew 5 4 3 2 1 Vagrants/Panhandling 5 4 3 2 1 Theft of Car Parts 5 4 3 2 1 Loud Parties 5 4 3 2 1 Drugs 5 4 3 2 1 Other 5 4 3 2 1 2. If you observed a crime, would you... Don't s No Know Avoid involvement with the victim Assist a victim needing help Report suspicious activity Avoid involvement with the police Report the crime Assist police officers needing help Testify in court HHHHHHHF< I—I—Jh—lh—dt—dh—le—Io Hr—tt—tr—tl—tHF-t HHHHHHH r—nr-HF-Itr—NI—tr—Hr—‘I HHHHHHH 3. Keeping in mind that the budget is limited, please rank the following services in order of importance. (5 is the most important, 4 the next most important, 1 is the least important. Use each number only once. Motor vehicle patrols [ Foot patrols [ Investigation of crime by detectives [ Crime prevention programs [ Traffic enforcement [ HHI—dh—Jh—J 89 4. How much time do you feel the police department dedicates to traffic enforcement? Too much About average Too little 5 4 3 2 1 5. How important is it for the police to do each of the following services? (Place the appropriate number in the blanks.) Very important Somewhat important Not important 5 4 3 2 1 Pick up found property _Home security checks for vacationers ___Assist people locked out of their cars _Investigation of all vehicle accidents __School truancy checks ___Funeral escorts _Animal complaints _Business building security inspections Teaching children pedestrian safety Checking welfare of senior citizens Assist people locked out of their homes _Assist stranded motorists 6. For each of the following statements, circle the appropriate number for the degree of concern you have that the problem might happen in your neighborhood. (Circle the appropriate number for each.) Very Some No Concerned Concern Concern Someone will try to 5 4 3 2 l rob or steal from you. Someone will try to 5 4 3 2 1 attack you while you are outside. Someone will try to 5 4 3 2 1 break into your home. Someone will try to 5 4 3 2 l steal or damage yourcan Someone will damage 5 4 3 2 l or vandalize your house or other property. Someone will try to 5 4 3 2 1 attack you sexually. 7. Have you had contact(s) with the Rapid City police in the last year? [ ] Yes How many? [ ] No Please skip to question 13. 8. What was the nature of the most recent contact? [ ] I received a traffic ticket. [ ] I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. [ ] I called the department to report an incident. [ ] I was the victim of a crime. (Specify type ) [ ] I was a witness to a crime or incident. [ ] I requested information from the department. [ ] I was arrested. [ ] Other (Please specify ) 9. How would you rate the Rapid City police on each of the following. (Circle the appropriate number for each.) Excellent Good Average Fair Poor Courtesy 5 4 3 2 1 Understanding 5 4 3 2 1 Concern 5 4 3 2 1 Competence 5 4 3 2 1 Solving the 5 4 3 2 1 problem. 10. Didia police dispatcher give you an estimate of how long it would take the police to arrive? [ ]Yes [ ]No [ ] Not applicable... Please skip to question 12. 11. Did the officer(s) arrive: [ ] Faster than you expected [ ] Same as you expected [ ] Slower than you expected 12. Overall, how satisfied were you with the manner in which the officer(s) responded to your contact? (Circle the appropriate response.) 91 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Dissatisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Why? 13. In the past year, were you the victim of a crime which you did not report to the police? [ ] Yes... Please answer question 14. [ ] No Please skip to question 15. 14. What was your reason for not calling the police? [ ] The incident was not a police manner. [ ] Fear of harm from the offender. [ ] Not worth the time or effort. [ ] The police would not do anything about it. [ ] Other (Please specify .) 15. How important are the following problems in your neighborhood? (Place the appropriate number in the blanks.) Big problem Somewhat a problem Not a problem 5 4 3 2 1 _Appearance problems (for example, junk cars, etc.) _Robbery _Burglary _Parking/Traffic _Vandalism _Problems with neighbors _Street people/Homeless _Noise _Juvenile problems _Abandoned/run-down buildings _Public intoxication/drunkenness _Prostitution ___Drug use _Other 16. How serious of a problem do you think crime is in Rapid City compared to similar cities in the U.S.? (Circle the appropriate number.) Very serious About average Less crime 5 4 3 2 1 17. To what extent has the fear of crime caused you to change your activities? (Circle the appropriate number.) 92 Great extent To some extent Not at all 5 4 3 2 1 18. Is your neighborhood dangerous enough that during the last year you have considered moving? [ ] Yes [ ] No 19. In the United States as a whole, do you think personal safety is changing? (Circle the appropriate number.) Becoming safer Not changing Becoming less safe 5 4 3 2 1 20. Is safety in your neighborhood changing? (Circle the appropriate number.) Becoming safer Not changing Becoming less safe 5 4 3 2 1 21. In your neighborhood, how well do you think the police department performs its duties? (Circle the appropriate number for each.) Very well Average Very poor In general/Overall 5 4 3 2 1 Patrol Officers 5 4 3 2 1 Detectives 5 4 3 2 l 22. To what extent does the Rapid City Police Department need improvement? (Circle one.) Great extent To some extent Not at all 4 3 2 1 Why? 23. Has Rapid City Police performance improved or gotten worse in the past year? (Circle the appropriate number.) Improved Same Worse 5 4 3 2 1 Why? 24. How would you rate the image of the Rapid City Police Department within the community? (Circle the appropriate number.) 93 Excellent Average Poor 5 4 3 2 1 Why? 25. How would you portray the Rapid City Police? (Circle the appropriate number.) Effective 5 4 3 2 1 Ineffective Fair to citizens5 4 3 2 1 Unfair Honest 5 4 3 2 1 Dishonest Unprejudiced 5 4 3 2 1 Prejudiced 26. Does the local media (television, newspapers, etc.) portray the Rapid City Police Department better or worse than they actually are? (Circle the appropriate number.) Better Accurate Worse 5 4 3 2 1 TO HELP OUR ANALYSIS, WE NEED TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOU... 27. How would you classify your work? [ ] Professional (teacher, social worker, etc.) [ ]Clerical/I‘echnical [ ] Blue collar (factory work, construction, etc.) [ ]Retired [ ]Homemaker/Housewife [ ]Currently unemployed [ ]Other 28. How long have you lived in Rapid City? _Years 29. How old are you? _Years 30. What is your sex? [ ] Male [ ] Female 94 31. What is your marital status? [ ]Single [ ]Married [ ]Widowed [ ]Separated [ ]Divorced 32. What is your education level? [ ] Less than high school [ ] High school diploma [ ]Some college [ ] College degree (BA or BS) [ ] Beyond bachelor's degree 33. What is your racial identity? [ ]Asian [ ] Black/African American [ ]CaucasianlWhite [ ]Hispanic [ ]Native American [ ]Other PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: m m m 95 APPENDIX B Rapid City Police Department Contact Survey 1. Case Numbers: - 2. Type of Contact: Traffic Citation [ ] DWI/DUI [ ] Nuisance/Harassment [ ] Vandalism(DPP) [ ] Theft (Petty and Grand) [ ] Robbery (lst/2nd degree) [ ] Burglary [] 3rd/larceny [ ] lst/2nd [ ] Assault [ ] Simple [ ] Aggravated[ ] Sex Crime [ ] Indecent [ ] Rape/Asslt [ ] Murder/Suicide [ ] Suicide [ ] Murder [ ] Professionalism: 3. Was the police officer (or officers) courteous? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes I] [l [l [l [l N0 [1 [l [l l] [] Don’tKnow [l [l [l [l [l 4. Was the police officer (or officers) understanding? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes [ l l ] [ 1 N0 [ l [ l I l 1 l [ l [ ] Don’t Know r—1P—\P—! t—Jh—Ji—l r—HI—uI—H s—dh—Jh—r 5. Was the police officer (or officers) concerned? 1 N La.) A LII Yes [1 [l [l [l [1 NO I] [l [l [l [l Don’tKnow [l [l [l [l [l 6. Was the police officer (or officers) competent? l 2 3 4 5 96 Yes I] I] [l I] I] No I] I] I] I] I] Don’t Know I] I] I] I] I] Investigative Effort: 7. Did the police officer(s) adequately search the crime scene? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] I] I] I] NO I] I] [l I] I] Don’t Know I] I] I] I] I] 8. Did the police officer(s) adequately examine evidence? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] I] I] I] No I] I] I] I] I] Don’tKnow I] I] I] I] I] 9. Did the police officer(s) attempt to locate or question witnesses? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] [l I] I] NO I] I] I] I] I] Don’t KnOW I] I] I] I] I] 10. Did the police officer(s) make out a report? Response Time: 1 1. Did a police dispatcher give you an estimate of how long it would take for an officer to arrive? I 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] I] I] I] No I] I] I] I] I] Don’t Know I] I] I] I] I] 12. Did the police officer(s) arrive: Faster than you expected [ ] [ ] [ ] I ] I 1 Same as you expected [ ] [ ] [ ] I l I ] Slower than you expected [ ] [ ] I ] I ] [ ] Recontact: 97 13. Were you recontacted for further questioning? l 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] I] I] I] NO I] I] I] I] I] Don’t Know I] I] I] I] I] 14. Were you recontacted about the status of your investigation? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes I] I] I] I] I] No I] I] I ] I] I] Don’t Know I] I] I ] I] I] Overall: 15. How satisfied were you with the manner in which the officer(s) responded to your contact? (Scaled from 1 to 5 with 5 being “Very Satisfied”, 1 “Not Satisfied”, and 3 “Somewhat Satisfied”) 1 2 3 4 5 I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Why? 1 Why? 2 Why? 3 Why? 4 Why? 5 16. In your neighborhood, how well do you think the police department performs its duties? (Scaled from 1 to 5 with 5 being “Very Well”, 1 “Very Poor”, and 3 “Average”.) 1 2 3 4 5 In General/Overall [ ] [ ] [ ] I ] I ] Patrol Officers [ ] [ ] I ] I ] I ] Detectives I ] I l I ] I l I l 17. How many contacts have you had with the Rapid City Police Department in the last year? Lit->935)— lllll Demographic Data: 98 TO HELP OUR ANALYSIS, WE NEED TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOU.... 18. How would you classify your work? Professional I ] I ] I ] I l I ] Clerical/1‘ echnical I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Blue collar(factory, construction, etc.)[ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Retired I l I ] I ] I ] I ] Homemaker/Housewife [ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Currently unemployed I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Other I ] I ] I l I l I ] 19. How long have you lived in Rapid City? 1_ Years 2_____ Years 3___ Years 4 Years 5 Years 20. How old are you? 1 Years 2 Years 3__ Years 4 Years 5 Years 21. What is your sex? Male I ] I ] Female I ] I ] HF—N l—ll—l h—IH 22. What is your marital status? Single I ] I ] I l I ] I ] Married I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Widowed I ] I l I ] I ] I ] Separated I ] I l I l I l I l Divorced I ] I l I] I ] I ] 23. What is your education level? Less than high school I ] I ] I ] I l I ] 99 High school diploma [ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Some college I ] I] I] I ] I ] College degree (BA or BS) [ ] I ] [ ] I ] I ] Beyond bachelor’s degree [ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] 24. What is your racial identity? 1 2 3 4 5 Asian I ] I l I l I ] I ] Black/African American [ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Caucasian/White I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Hispanic I l I ] I ] I l I ] Native American I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Other I l I l I ] I ] I ] PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: APPENDIX C II I . \lllrl\l \t l . II In ea 0/... aw (@- RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 57701 0% 0/ Me Jlaym 300 5PM 5PM! cos-3.944410 9m 605-394-6793 June 2], 1994 Subject: 1994 Police Quality Assurance Study Dear Rapid City Citizen: As your Mayor, I am writing this letter to encourage and ask for your important help. Our City and the Rapid City Police Department seeks your help in evaluating our Police Department and police services provided to our community. In July 1990, the Rapid City Police Department became a nationally accredited law enforcement agency. In order to maintain their accredited status, the Department willingly complies with numerous guidelines and standards. One of these guidelines is to conduct an annual survey of citizens attitudes and opinions with respect to overall agency performance. Enclosed you will find the Rapid City Police Department's 1994 community survey. I encourage you, a respected citizen of Rapid City, to take the time to complete the survey and tell us just how well you think your Police Department is doing. Remember, the Rapid City Police Department does exist to serve you. This survey is their citizen report card. Your responses are viewed by the Police Department as a means to learn from our citizens about how they can improve their service to the community. May I stress to you that you are one of a select number of citizens who have been randomly sampled to complete this survey. As such, your responses are incredibly important to our study. Please take the few minutes necessary to answer each and every question. Please place the completed questionnaire in the stamped return envelope and mail it no later than July 7, 1994 so your responses will be included in the results. As your Mayor, and on behalf of the Rapid City Police Department, I would like to thank you in advance for your time and effort to help evaluate our community's police department and services. Together we can make Rapid City an even better and safer place for all of us and our families to live. Sincerely, Ed McLaughlin Mayor SING ECW‘LM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER APPENDIX D (a? 0/1: 92W ep- RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 57701 300 9% Wheat cos—3.94-4440 .97“ 605-394-6733 July 15, 1994 Subject: 1994 Police Quality Assurance Study Dear Rapid City Citizen: About three weeks ago, a survey on the quality of police services was mailed to a randomly selected number of the residents of Rapid City. Unfortunately, the response by the requested date was very low. I encourage you, a respected citizen of Rapid City, to take the time to complete the survey, if you have not already done so, and tell us just how well you think your Police Department is doing. Remember, the Rapid City Police Department does exist to serve you. This survey is their citizen report card. Your responses are viewed by the Police Department as a means to learn from our citizens about how they can improve their service to the community. Because of the low response rate, the period of the study has been extended so that your input may be included in the results. Please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire as soon as possible, as your cooperation is vital to the study. If you have any questions regarding the survey, or have misplaced yours and need another copy, please contact the Project Manager, Jay Woythal. He is working out of the Investigations office at the Police Department, and can be reached at 394- 4134. As your Mayor, and on behalf of the Rapid City Police Department, I would like to thank you in advance for your time and effort to help evaluate our community's Police Department and services. Together we can make Rapid City an even better and safer place for all of us and our families to live. Sincerely, Ed McLaughlin Mayor EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER APPENDIX E 102 APPENDIX E Telephone Survey Consent for Contact Survey W Hello, my name is , and I am with an independent research consultant conducting a survey on the quality of service of the Rapid City Police Department. According to the Police Department’s records, you [(made a call for service) or (came in contact with an officer)] on [date ] regarding [nature of contact ]. Is that correct? [If no, apologize for the inconvenience and terminate the conversation] Would you be willing to take a few minutes to answer some questions about how the police handled the incident? Your answers will be kept strictly confidential; the police do not know which individuals are being contacted. Although your participation in this survey is voluntary, I am hoping that you will take this opportunity to voice your opinion on the quality of service provided by the Rapid City Police Department. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by answering the questions. You may refuse to answer any questions you do not want to, although complete responses will be the most helpful in evaluating your police. Closin Remarks Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions or comments after this conversation, please contact the project manager, Jay Woythal, at (605)-394- 4134, or write to the Rapid City Police Department. APPENDIX E 103 APPENDIX F QUALITATIVE COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY SURVEY SOUTH REGION Ward 1 Precinct 1 218. “Just because a person doesn’t dress like everyone else doesn’t mean that he or she is a bad person.” 937. “As far as I know, Rapid City has a very good police force which is constantly striving to improve. I still drive and am not afraid to go anywhere alone at night. There are some areas I wouldn't want to be in on foot and alone at night but that is just being sensible. Chief Hennies seems very interested in improving the department. I'm thankful to live in Rapid City.” 968. “My one contact was tainted by the fact the officer knew the other party on a first name basis and I felt he lost his professionalism in performance and judgment. Overall, I have great respect for the police department." Ward 1 Precinct 2 048. “I have lived in Rapid City since 1945 and have been very pleased with our Police Department. [I] am very glad to live in Rapid.” 062. “We have good police protection. ALL WE CAN AFFORD.” 073. “Rapid City has a fine police force, one to be proud of.” 314. “In the last few weeks there has been some Vandalism and Robberies in our area. Also, a few blocks away, a Burglary and Vandalism occurred. I am very concerned about this. I see police cars setting waiting for speeding cars but I am just as concerned about vandalism and robberies also. I would like to see more patrolling of the residential areas. I would like to thank you for this opportunity.” 330. “Panhandlers (and drunks) in uptown area, in Parks, and near Restaurants should be dealt with and removed from the area. The local citizens and visitors should not have to be bothered by these individuals.” 362. “The problem is not the Police, it is the pencil pushers and judges. I got fiUgerprinted, mugshot, put under arrest, and had to pay a $100.00 fine because I didn't 104 show-up for court. I didn't get any ticket, or summons telling me to be there, but I did get a warrant for my arrest. Now you tell me where the PROBLEMS are at. The lawyer I had was a joke, I paid #36000 for nothing, I didn't commit any crime at all.” 654. “I believe that Rapid City is one of the safest areas to be living in. I believe our police force is one of the best and most efficient for miles around, Thanks to the Police Chief and Mayor Ed McLaughlin.” 717. “I BELIEVE THE OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS of the police department is quite good!” 811. “I would like to see [the police department] offer more education to potential trouble sources at a younger age.” 849. “My wife and I both think that our police department is second to none. One only has to listen to the scanner to see that our guys are caring and considerate- we understand you can't pussyfoot around with everyone. But [the officers] remain considerate as [possible] under the circumstances.” 886. “Overall, the Rapid City Police Department is very good. More officers patrolling would help cut down on the crime we do have.” 908. “Although we have not had an opportunity recently to have personal contact with the police, I feel they are doing an excellent job. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion. Keep up the good work!” 954. Re #17 “I would like to see the police department in the community dissolve ALL GANGS in Rapid City- So my children don't have to worry about going to Thriller games, skating, or just walking in the mall. I would like to see this city called a safe and crime free city. Ward 1 Precinct 3 052. “I moved from the South end of Rapid City (Bridewood Estates Apartments) to a home on the West Side- May, 1994. The questions pertain to both areas.” 067. “POLICE DEPARTMENT FRUSTRATION OVER JUDICIAL LENIENCY IS EVIDENT. SPEED UP PROSECUTION OF FELONS AND LOCK THEM UP FOR A LONG TIME!” 071. “I'm a Senior Citizen living in the new Robbinsdale area where it is quiet and peaceful. We are never involved with the police, therefore I feel that I'm a poor judge to answer these questions." 105 132. “I think that SOME of the officers are prejudice against Indians and Asians. While most of the officers I have had contact with seem fair, it only takes a few to spoil the image for the entire force.” 248. “I believe the reason our police department is one of the finest is due to the leadership. We have first class leadership in Tom Hennies our police chief. Tom receives much support from the community and other city leaders- the result is a fine police department. Training is also one of the steps that helps fine tune the troops that serve our community.” 267. l. “I would like to see the RADAR GUNS PUT AWAY AND PATROL VEHICLES PERFORM A USEFUL TASK BY EDUCATING DRIVERS in the use of turn signals. Some don't know what they are for. Some just like to play (expletive) and impede traffic. A progressive fine $25-$50-SlOO-$200 would improve education and fill the city coffers. 2. "Increase the speed limit on Fairmont Blvd (Rushmore RD. to Locust) to 35mph. This should increase traffic flow. We sit and wait too long while bunched up traffic doodles on by the side streets or cross streets. I feel R.C.P.D. personnel are doing a good job but they are not superhuman and can't be in all places at all times. Most do not have time to second guess a situation. Therefore training must be stressed. The book is only a guide, an officer must be able to use his/her head under pressure and react as the situation dictates. Hire only the best and TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN!" 368. 1. “I feel additional training should be provided officers to do welfare checks and look beyond what they are being told-exploitation of the elderly is quite a problem. 2. "Anytime an officers is called and responds. a report should be made. I have been informed that unless they find reasonable cause, no report is made to establish a history or pattern. [That] can be very important.” 420. “On 6—24-94 at 3:30pm there was a truck stalled in the middle of the intersection at West Main and Jackson Blvd. The truck was in the west bound lane with its hood up. It was hot and traffic behind him was at a stand still but they kept honking their horns at this stalled truck. A police car went by and didn't even stop to help this man or to direct traffic. The police car did not have its sirens going or its lights on so I take it [the officer] wasn't on a call somewhere. I feel my taxes are used to pay the police department, so they should stop to help the taxpayer." 482. “Jim Gillette responded to our call and gave us detailed instructions and walked us through the steps of taking care of our accident. He was polite, courteous, and helpful. If all officers treat the public that well, this city will be a wonderful place to live.” 624. “Keep up the good work!” 106 674. #18 “Moving would be due to taxation, not crime. We love our city; but when retired, and living on a fixed income, it makes it difficult with the property taxes increasing [to live in the city].” 905. “The few times I have had any dealings with the Rapid City Police they have been very polite and fair with me. I would assume that would be true of any adult, ifI am courteous to them. I think that Chief Hennies has been a very good representative to the public for the police department.” 971. “I don't like the traffic TRAPS. Or how [the police] drive and speed as they want. Or how [the police] park in handicap spaces, or wrong way on streets blocking traffic. This gives them a bad ass image. Its hard to respect that kind of attitude.” 992. “I think the Police Department does an outstanding job of solving the "big" crimes, ie: murder. They should be applauded.” Ward 1 Precinct 4 022. “I feel more attentions needs to be paid to Speeders. However, I believe the situation has improved somewhat in the last 3 months.” 164. “I have been very fortunate. Only twice did I call the police- once when some drunks were noisy under my bedroom window at night and another time when someone threw a rock through my patio door. They responded VERY WELL both times.” 188. "I've had a hard time answering your questions. I’m not that well informed about your department.” 71 1. “My biggest fear is drugs coming into the community from the west (either coast). So far they haven't made a big push in, but if they do, crime will get worse, because of gangs coming with the drugs. I think drug units could wipe out any drug problems we have and send a message to the bigger traffickers not to come.” 732. “Approx. 5 years ago I was a victim of burglary, vandalism to my car, and threatening phone calls- all from my ex-boyfriend. 1 had a protection order. I was real impressed with the dispatchers, the effectiveness and courtesy of officers, etc... Whenever there was a need. The police department is great! I'djust have to say ,after that, the judicial system was a real letdown." 869. “I would not spend a great deal of time on the " war on drugs". This is politically correct ,but drug use actually follows a 50 + year cycle that has been in the declining mode since the mid 70's. While it is popular to claim " victory" at a period of natural decline, the time might be better spent on more serious offenses that endanger life and property. The use of the drug alcohol (legal) is far more devastating, at least in cities of this size.” 107 DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REGION Ward 2 Precinct 1 124. “I was not satisfied with the investigation of a burglary which took place in my home. The police know who the person is, but would not pick him up because he denies doing it. His own father says he‘s a thief! I have not been contacted about the burglary at all by the department. I had to do all the calling, they never called me. Two pistols and a camera were stolen. I hope the guns don't show up in a crime. I filled out this questionnaire because Jennifer no longer lives in Rapid City, she is in school in Watertown.” 737. “The cars in my neighborhood drive too fast.” Ward 2 Precinct 2 456. “I see so much in the media regarding domestic violence, and injury occurring during parties, and so on. As a registered nurse in the ICU, I also see shootings and stabbings of people when they are drunk and get into a brawl. I’ve also seen a lot of severe injuries related to DUI. I wish more interest was taken to catch and prosecute those who drink and drive. Although I myself have a clean driving record, I know so many people who have been ticketed for driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, or not stopping at a stop sign. Although these are illegal acts and they should not be allowed to occur, I can’t help but think that too much attention is being made toward these trivia] things, and I wish patrolmen would spend more time patrolling bars when they close, the downtown area, North Rapid, sporting events, and other areas where drinking and driving occurs. I was once at a Tech football game in which I observed a bunch of idiots drinking and when I informed the police, they walked by and looked at them, and that was all. One of the fools left after half time, obviously drunk, with his wife and small child in the car. Those officers could have had a great opportunity to nail that jerk, but they were no where to be seen when he drove off. That sickens me for I don’t want to have to take care of this guy when he breaks his neck and is unable to care for himself. Nor do I want him to wreck and kill some unsuspecting person. Sorry for the bandwagon, but I’ve been carrying this around for a while.” War 2 Precinct 4 723. “We need more patrol in the West Blvd area. The speeding is very bad and from Mount Rushmore road to West Blvd on Saint Patrick its seems like it has become how fast can we go.” 801. “I feel Chief Hennies is an outstanding improvement to the police image and trust.” 108 848. “Survey your officers, they have a better idea of how they are doing their jobs than the average citizen does.” 906. “For ten years I lived next door to a military cop who turned reserve, who turned full time city cop. I wish I had a dime for every time his kids said ‘1 can do what I want, my dad is a cop’. One July fourth when the officer himself was shooting bottle rockets off in the city, he told me he could do that because he was a cop. Base people make good yes-men for the chief but I wish he would hire more local people, not so much base attitude. When I went to complain about my neighbor’s attitude and action, I found the same attitude with his captain. I complained to the chief and received no satisfaction and was told I was the problem in the neighborhood. I moved and still found myself the target of vandalism. Not one instance where I have called on the city police department have I received satisfaction. Thank you. Please remember, you asked.” Ward 5 Precinct 4 386. “My family has been happy with the service of the police department. Our irritation has come from the inattentive drivers that don't relate to the police department services.” 600. “The one and only time I reported destruction of property, the investigating officer's first question of me was whether I owned or rented my home (the property involved was a vehicle). Why home ownership should matter was a puzzlement (I'm an owner, by the way). I am also aware of Rapid City Police Department's susceptibility to gossip. Having left behind a child-molesting, dispatcher/officer in Meade County when we moved, my son (the officer's victim) was harassed for nearly a year. I am aware of the Meade County officer's connections and friends in Rapid City, and the combination of the position and the amusement factor made life miserable for my family for several months. To presume the worst about the private sector, rather than to question that a number of one's own ranks can be fallible, is to create a rift between the department and the citizenry that cannot be repaired.” 632. “Doing a greatjob all the way around with the exception of not sending a car quickly enough to catch the suspect.” WEST REGION Ward 3 Precinct 1 714. “The Rapid City Police Department is doing a very good job of serving the community. Give them a large raise!” 867. “I live in Weston Heights so this survey may not be accurate. Also, my impressions of the Rapid City Police Department come mostly from what I read in the paper." 109 Ward 3 Precinct 2 143. “I have not had much police contact during my time in Rapid City. I certainly hope that if I should need assistance the Rapid City Police would do their job effectively, honestly, and fair.” 294. “I feel the adopt-a-cop program is great. Children need to know that authorities are their to be their friend and keep the peace in the community. I am sure officers feel that some days they are in a thankless job, but all they due for the community to enforce its laws and help those in need is greatly appreciated.” 375. “I don't feel I can evaluate the police because I have never had contact with them or heard others commenting on their performance.” 713. “General friendliness of officers, it helps when trying to convince our children that police officers are our friends.” Ward 3 Precinct 3 095. “I live in Springbrook Acres, and we seldom see a patrol car.” 345. “Thank you for your services in the past. Please be there when I need you in the future.” 404. “To have respect, one must give respect. When an officer sees himself as powerful or better than a 'citizen' then we all have problems. We need men and women who are knowledgeable in a great variety of areas. A police man/woman almost needs to be a Sociologist, Doctor, Minister, E.M.T , etc., etc. Basically an honest human being, good commom sense will do.” 481. “Rapid City has a well trained police force and the tax dollar is well spent. Many poor drivers in Rapid City, encourage more to take AARP 55 driving course. Maybe develop similar driving program for younger drivers. Need to give out more tickets for traffic violations and speeding.” 521. “A few officers need to show a little more respect.” 594. “There would be possibly less crime if the news media was not able to report on every incident that the police investigate.” 644. “I live in a nice area and have very little contact with the police. I may not be a very good candidate for this survey.” 110 729. “I would recommend having spot checks for headlights, turn signals, proof of insurance, etc.” 913. “I see a police officer in our area about one time a month, I feel we need more people to cover all of Rapid City. Just because we live in a low crime area doesn’t mean that we should be neglected by patrols.” 921. “Having teenage daughters, my biggest concern is underage drinking. 1 will always hold individuals responsible for their own actions, but I'm very curious as to where the beer (etc.) comes from. Someone is selling to minors illegally- or it is being purchased for them by adults. I would like to hear that more of these people are being caught and jailed.” Ward 3 Precinct 4 030. “Although I rated crime prevention programs of least importance in question #3 (in view of budget restrictions) I believe it is an important service to the schools. It has been my observation that the officers are well prepared for their presentations, patient with the children's questions, and gear their talks to the children's level. It gives younger children a chance to get to know a policeman as a friend, and it teaches the older ones a little more about the real world. The other four services listed are more enforcement type activities, or crisis control. But again, perhaps with more crime prevention programs there would be less need for crisis intervention.” 074. “I think our police department is excellent. However, I think the City should hire more police officers, buy more cars, etc. Our city is growing. I know money is hard to come by. Maybe Phuton has something in mind. I don't have much hope for him. I'm sure Tom Hennies will come up with something. He's a good man.” 125. “We believe we have a good police department.” 207. “I haven't had much contact with the police. We have lived here only 2 1/2 years, and in that time our business was broken into and money was stolen. I also feel drunken driving laws should become tougher. More penalties. Lock the car up.” 305. “I received a parking ticket in an unmarked area. So I wrote a letter and my money was refunded. I appreciate this as I did feel the ticket was unwarranted. I gave question 9 a poor rating because when I received the ticket and went into the traffic department office they were rude, uncaring, and arrogant about my concern about the area not being marked. The officer implied that I took down the no-parking sign. Later on in subsequent calls I made, someone there admitted they knew the sign was missing but just hadn't gotten it replaced.” 350. “I think [the police department] does a great job handling burglaries, robberies, and assaults. It is the little things [the officers] ignore-cars parked on the wrong side of street, 111 cars blocking fire hydrants, traffic violations, dogs at large, junked cars in lots, unsafe cars( bald tires, no brake lights, smashed Windshields) etc. These, when unchecked, allow our neighborhoods to deteriorate because people continue to break the law, ignore others' I” rights, and develop the attitude of, 'Hey, anything is OK here. 450. “Doing a good job. But I think a little more speed control on side streets such as Park Dr. [is needed]. Now that it is a through street, most cars from the new school to the park are speeding. Who cares about 35 mph on Jackson, it should be 45 to help the flow of heavy traffic. Also, streets such as Central and West Flonnan are real race tracks. You might watch the smaller streets to insure safety where it is most important, where are children play. Thanks.” 540. “I suspect there may be more in-house conflict in the Rapid City Police Department than what is observed outside which may impact their ability to perform. 1 also get 'hints' of an inter-agency conflict in Pennington County Sheriffs Department, which may have some small negative impact on coordinated efforts.” 750. “The last time that I witnessed a patrolman ticket a red light violation was the spring of 1953 (it is so rare I remember it, honest). In my limited driving (40 minutes a day) I witness at least two violations a day. In fact, I have watched a patrolman witness someone run a red light and do absolutely nothing about it. Such disregard for safety is deplorable and totally unacceptable.” 777. “Spend less time raising funds for the BOA.” 845. “Why is it when there is an accident, you will see more police cars than are needed to do the job. There could be better use of their time, like picking up people for running red lights or stop signs.” 933. “I'm proud of our police department and feel a good sense of trust when I deal with the officers. Thank you for including me in this community survey." Ward 3 Precinct 5 443. “I think your people are doing a good job. Need more patrols. Keep up the good work! Send me a survey on the mayor and city council.” 479. “I personally observed a policeman napping in his car at the comer of 4th and 5th (next to Casey’s Auto business). I also recently saw a patrol car parked in the Norwest parking lot off Quincy on the Northside. There is a stop sign on 9th street and again on the Blvd yet the patrolman was spending time (parked next to the large hedge) attempting to catch Speeders within one block. It would seem there are more important things to be done. I resent the fact that cruisers have complete control of Mount Rushmore Rd. and other areas. If you would patrol Mt. Rushmore Rd. to the city limits, you could certainly have many opportunities to enforce traffic laws.” 112 548. “Please help! Women Against Violence" 786. “-1 think with responding to auto accidents, [the police department] is doing a good job. -I like the Officer Friendly program and DARE in schools. -[The officers] do the usual appropriate job on traffic violations. ~With my neighbor kids, who [the police] know well, I think it's hard for them to deal effectively with them. I have become involved in breaking-up fights with the siblings on several occasions. Some officers work very well with these juveniles, some are less understanding, finding it difficult to keep from taking sides with the two warring parties. One female officer was very good at defusing the situation without picking on one dysfunctional kid or the other. Another officer spoke with the girl’s dysfunctional brother and seemed to put down the 13 year old female. Granted, providing psychological care to difficult people in crisis is VERY DIFFICULT, we still need to strive for professionalism. Also, I was disappointed to find that, after about six weeks, absolutely no incident evaluation was forth coming following our loss of $250 worth of fishing rods stolen from our car. I paid $5.00 for a police report and spoke with the detective assigned to our report. He basically said they really couldn't do much follow-up on it. You have a difficult job, and overall I'm satisfied with the police department.” Ward 5 Precinct 1 024. “Please do not discount a woman's fears and the potential for violence and harm in domestic situations. My ex-husband has said many times that he wants to kill me, but it has been very difficult for me to get law enforcement to believe me. Just because we live on the west-side, does not mean that we are immune from domestic violence and abuse.” 184. “I moved from Cincinnati, Ohio last year and must say I feel much safer here than anywhere I have ever lived (much larger towns). l have never felt afraid going to my car from the Mall or grocery store, or being downtown after dark. You couldn't do that in Cincinnati! The only real encounters I have had with the police here have been the waves I get when I walk in the morning- now that's friendly! And of course, the meter maids.” 322. “I have taken some time to observe the Police here in Rapid City. Overall I feel they are OK but they do show preference as to how they treat different races. One example is one time when the police were summoned to the seen of kids destroying property over on Canyon Lake Rd. One child was a minority, the other white. The minority child was given a citation, the white child was not. Which in fact it was the white child who destroyed the property, but because the officer knew the child's parents, he said he was going to talk to them instead. I feel the other child should have gotten a citation as well. And there were other observable moments. I feel they have to be less forceful and less pushy with minorities. Not all police officers do this, but a great deal do. Not all minorities are trouble.” 113 Ward 5 Precinct 2 051. “Our police department does the best it can for the area it has to cover. They can't be all over at one time. Keep up the good work.” 400. “Isn't there a city ordinance against riding bikes on the sidewalk in downtown Rapid City? Some of these bikers travel the speed of a car on the street. Also noise pollution from young peoples' radios- I like to listen to my own radio. Thank you.” 871. “My only complaint about the police department is the lack of traffic enforcement on our street. I plan on calling the police department to express my concern.” 922. “I am strongly against the system for the lack of support/prevention measures in dealing with juveniles in this area. This creates more problems for everyone. The lack of community social events available to the younger age group, probation officers who handle too many cases, and unprofessional juvenile delinquency courts all contribute to the problem. If preventive measures were in place, it wouldn‘t be an issue.” Ward 5 Precinct 3 083. “I have always had high regard for the Rapid City Police Department during the years I have lived here in the past while raising my three children as a single (widowed) parent. I have full confidence my loyalty to them will continue. Thank you.” 193. “I don't think the response time is fast enough for fender-benders, nuisance calls, damage to personal property, etc. (the boring calls). And sometimes the calls for back-up are slow in coming.” 239. “I appreciate the attention officers give to juveniles, as they are our future and tend to be influenced easily as to right and wrong. I have seen officers give them the right kind of example and direction. Also, sexual assault on females is my biggest crime concern in Rapid City.” 721. “I feel it is important that you know I have very little interaction with the police department. However, during one incident, I was influenced to respond in a less positive way to portions of the questionnaire.” 819. “The police work their tail off only to have it thrown out of court by some technicality. More help from the upper system to many Ifs and Ands.” 980. “Too much of our tax money is spent on victimless crimes i.e., searching for pot plants, filling our generation whose drug of choice is different than ours, impeding traffic flow and peoples’ lives with road blocks, etc., etc. People in law enforcement, above all, must show respect for the constitution." 114 994. “If traffic light, stop sign, and vehicle signaling violations were enforced and appropriate fines levied, we would not have financial problems with the City and County budgets. We could finance education and improve police recourses (personnel and equipment). I have lived in eight different states and in all regions of the country and the driving by the local population here is atrocious. Everyone wants to blame the tourists but we locals are the real culprits. Enforce the laws and safety will improve. I personally witnessed three accidents in the last three weeks because motorists continued through intersections on a red light. I'm starting to believe most South Dakota drivers think turn indicators waste fuel because they simply never use them. We're growing all the time and we are gaining more visitors every year. We've got to stop driving like we are on the farm with no one around. Sorry I got on my soapbox, but I'm genuinely concerned about the selfish driving attitudes that are going unchecked.” NORTH REGION Ward 2 Precinct 3 390. "I talk to a lot of people and hear no complaints, which tells me that the police department is doing a good job." 623. "Last year I should have reported officer [XXXXX] and his attitude problem right away. But since I've received your questionnaire I'm still reeling from a statement made by this officer and I can quote him word for word, 'I have to get up every damn morning and put on this damn uniform and fight with people all day long' unquote. The incident is too unimportant to write about, but his attitude is!! As I said earlier I should have reported this officer right away, but I thought 'who cares'. Anyway, thank you for the survey, maybe things will improve. OH! Please set up speed traps at random. There is no need for people to be driving sixty miles per hour in a town where it takes only five minutes to get across it. There is no excuse for this dramatic behavior. I used to drive a bus in Denver, Co. so I know what 1 am talking about. Since I am sensitive to attitudes in mass transit, I also find more bad drivers in this town per capita than in Denver! Speed traps!! Think about it!" 715. “Keep up the good work. Don't worry so much about parking tickets.” 837. “As a motel owner and citizen, I have to look at things somewhat differently than as a bar owner. It may show up in this survey. But I must tell you that as a citizen first I tried to be fair with all of my answers.” 955. "I feel the Walk/Don't walk traffic signals need to be adjusted to give Pedestrians more time to cross the streets." Ward 4 Precinct 1 115 053. “At a recent Thrillers game I observed an officer being very verbal with a teenager. I would have liked to seen the officer be more of a role model vs. authoritative, but I did not know what the entire situation was about.” 289. “[The officers] are nice and patient with the people when there is a problem.” 559. "Although I do not currently live in South Dakota, I will soon be returning to the area. I live now in Alabama where it would be really nice to have a police department here that is as effective as the RCPD. One of the reasons I will be relocating back [to Rapid City] is because the crime here is so terrible. I always felt safe in South Dakota and while working with the RCPD while employed at the courthouse, I found each officer to be competent and courteous. Thanks to your department for the great job you are doing. PS. I recently visited Raped City last week and my parents were very safe and happy.” 775. “Overall, with what our police department has to work with, I think they do a good job. Certainly more officers are needed out on the street, in my opinion and as responsible citizens, we should be willing to pay for this. It seems to me, the City shouldn't always be so concerned about 'holding the line on taxes', and bite the bullet and do what needs to be done. You try and do have, for the most part, capable department heads but often 'hamess them' with to tough budget restraints. Its a shame our school district isn't as concerned about 'holding the line', as the City is. For what we pay in City property taxes, we get a lot in return , a real bargain. As our City grows and takes in more area, more patrols are needed. People like to 'see' a police car or van in their area. Our police department needs our support and we should all do what we can to help ourselves also. People need to stop expecting the government to do it all for them. Thank you for including me in this survey.” 838. “My daughter's friend, age 17, left her new bicycle in my garage without permission and refused to come and get it. This went on for about 5 months. It was absolutely ridiculous. I did not want to be responsible for the bike and told the owner this on numerous occasions. I got so upset about the bike in my garage for such an absurdly long period of time, that my daughter borrowed a friend's pick-up and attempted to return the bike. Finding no one at home, she took the bike to [the owner’s] boyfriend‘s house for safe keeping (without my knowledge). A few weeks later the friend's mother called and wanted to come and get the bike. I told her I thought it must be at the boyfriend's house, I would check with my daughter as soon as she got home, and call her back immediately. It was obvious this woman was off her rocker, she was paranoid and incredibly hard to reason with (very threatening). She called [the police department] and said I stole her bike. To make a long story short, my daughter tried to return the bike to the police department. I didn't want her to have any further contact with those weirdoes. You wouldn't take the bike. You talked my daughter into accepting this deal- She would give the people 10 days to come and get the bike- after that it would become our property. This made me very angry. I was not willing to accept responsibility for this bike for 10 days- RIDICULOUS. Luckily, the owners came and got the bike immediately so the problem was solved. You people weren't really listening to my side though." 116 850. “I know you'll say it is our age but the cars with the loud speakers are probably the worst. Even with the house closed-up you can still hear them about 2 blocks away. I feel there should be a law against this. Thank you!” 1000. “I think the Rapid City Police do a very good job. We have a wide variety of crime from petty crime to murder. They have a very dangerous occupation and do a great job under the circumstances. IfI were to have a complaint it would be that they are not visible enough. I see them daily as I travel 5th Street, but I seldom see them anywhere else. As Rapid City grows, so must the budget for law enforcement— sometimes visibility is enough to prevent some crimes. Thank you for this opportunity.” Ward 4 Precinct 2 194. “I feel more media attention should be given to areas such as gangs and vagrants/homeless. If the police/city/media look into or admit these are problems, then maybe the city would become more concerned and show more support for the department.” 219. “I get the feeling sometimes law enforcement doesn't want to get involved. So I always ask if they would prefer I handle the problem myself. Their option. I have no problem handling things my way.” 418. “Basically they do pretty good. What is lacking is the precise law so they can do something about some of the crimes. Like curfew, children left alone under a certain age, and then judges who will enforce it when it gets to them. No more slaps on the wrist. Do the crime, do the full time.” 590. “I moved to Rapid City in August of 1992 after a two week vacation in July the same year. I have been very happy since I moved here and very much like the quiet that was not available in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. The crime had risen to the point that my own neighborhood started 'neighborhood watch' but those in the neighborhood usually were part of the crime. Thank you.” 707. “My assessment of this survey is to the best of my knowledge due to very little contact with the police department. However, North Rapid area needs a lot of help with our many burglaries, domestic violence, kids home alone at night, thefts, kids out hurting other kids. Nighttime here requires total lock-up and kids inside at dusk. We also have MANY drunk drivers on Anamosa to Haines, all through Maple St., and around Wood, Willsee Avenues, and Haines Avenues. To my knowledge Rapid City has a good, solid police department.” 741. “In visiting with Mr. Richard Talley, the grant to provide more police force should be good.” 117 807. “I think that it does take to long for an officer to come. I called once from work for assistance and it was during shift change. It took nearly an hour for them to come.” 885. “I felt on the one occasion when our house was broken into the police were very courteous and helpful. Fortunately we've not needed them on very many occasions but over all I feel I could count on them if I needed their help.” Ward 4 Precinct 3 415. “This question [#33] would prejudice the survey. This area is very narrow minded and prejudicial. If I say Native American my input would be thrown out. If I say Hispanic, I would be quickly classified as an illegal alien. If I respond Black, I'm an out- of-state agitator. If I respond Asian, I don't know the language and my input would be thrown out. My answer to this question is American because that is what we all are. You should have the Rapid City Police Department tested to see how they would respond to arrest and apprehension of an individual of each racial or ethnic group. Using racial background information on the officers, see how they would handle each racial group. The results of your survey would probably be: 1)Native American-worst treated group 2)Hispanic 3)Asian 4)B1ack 5)White. Sometimes officers use unnecessary detention and force. I can understand their concern for their own safety and life, but not everyone is armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. This is the West, not the Old West when everyone carried a side arm or rifle, but the New West. An officer is there to protect the citizens. Unfortunately police officers are like pitbulls, we train them to fight and kill on command, but sometimes they turn on the citizen! Those few Bad Apple Officers drag the Rapid City Police image down quickly.” 579. “I think we could take a lesson in our country from Singapore. I believe that our handling of juvenile offenders is a joke. If we would cane convicted vandals, shoot looters and electrocute child sex offenders on the first offense, this country might come back to its once Most Favorite Nation Status. As long as criminals have the ACLU on their side, our great country will suffer greatly.” 118 Satisfaction with Contact (Question 12) The following responses were given for question number 12, “Overall, how satisfied were you with the manner in which the officer(s) responded to your contact?” This question was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “very satisfied” and 1 represented “dissatisfied". The respondents answers have been included, along with the type of contact each respondent had with the police. SOUTH REGION Ward 1 Precinct 1 937. [The officers] were courteous and concerned.” [R=5 for motor vehicle accident.] Ward 1 Precinct 2 362. “People just laugh them off (the officers) after they have gone.” IR: 3 for loud music complaint.] 465. The officer’s personal opinions were involved, not the facts, or the law. [R=l, contact was not identified] 717. “The officer investigated the incident in a timely manner.” [R=4 for Other contact: “I am an employee for a local motel, so I am in contact with the police quite often.”] 797. “Right on the spot!” [R=5 for witnessed a crime or incident] 886. “The police responded quickly.” [R=4 for motor vehicle accident.] 990. “The kids stayed outside after [the officer] left.” [R=4 for Other contact of juvenile curfew.] Ward 1 Precinct 3 037. “The officers were polite.” [R=5 for reported an incident] 052. “Seemed like [the officers] didn't have the time .” [R=3 for motor vehicle accident.] 295. “The service was prompt, courteous, and helpful.” [R=5 for requested information from the department.] 389. “The police officer was very rude and incompetent.” [R=l for Other contact: “Falsely accused of a hit and run accident by a Rapid City Police Officer.”] 119 420. “The problem was handled by a detective.” [R=5 for victim of a crime: property stolen from car.] 482. “[The officer] made the accident less traumatic.” [R=5 for motor vehicle accident.] 624. “The officer took control of the situation, made a good report, and followed through." [R=5 for reported an incident] 674. “Quick response.” [R= 5, contact was not identified] 855. “The officer was courteous, thorough, and knowledgeable.” [R=4 for reported an incident] 905. “[The officer] understood that I had forgotten (her license) and did not make a big deal of it.” [R=5 for Other contact: “I was driving with an expired license, the officer checked, and realized I had purchased a new one and forgot to put it in my car.”] 984. “The officer was prompt and concerned.” [R=5 for reported an incident] DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REGION Ward 2 Precinct 1 711. “The truants were taken care of quickly.” [R=5 for reported an incident] Ward 2 Precinct 2 124. “[The officer] seemed to pass it off, as not very important.” [R=3 for Other contact: “Found stolen wallet in front yard.”] 737. “It took the officers a while to get there.” [R= 3 for victim of a crime: robbery] Ward 2 Precinct 4 723. “Because Larry Rose also checked back a week later.” [R=5 for Other contact: “a man threatened me.”] 848. “Professionalism by the officers, they were helpful and friendly.” [R=5 for Other contact: “picked up stolen property from evidence department.”] 877. “[The officers] responded quickly, listened, and acted to further protect us.” [R=5 for victim of a crime: assault and unlawful entry] 906. “I had a complaint against a neighbor who was a police officer and ended up being retaliated against by that officer and others.” [R=] for reported an incident] 120 Ward 5 Precinct 4 005. “I reported a dangerous speeding incident from my cellular phone. The response was fast, well thought through, and courteous.” [R=5 for reported an incident] 339. “[The officer] didn’t bother to respond. The problem wasn’t solved.” [R=l for Other contact: “Called to pick-up loose dog.”] 386. “I was hit in a parking lot I received no help. The officer only had one police report, so I had to write information on scratch paper and I am involved in subrogation now.” [R=2 for motor vehicle accident.] 507. “It was an unresolvable situation.” [R=3 for reported an incident] 600. “Slow, seemed unconcerned.” [R=3 for reported an incident] 632. “We had to fill out to much information before the officer was sent to catch the hit and run driver.” [R=3 for motor vehicle accident.] 746. “[The officers] came right away and were very courteous.” [R=5 for Other contact: “Complained about 8th Street cruisers congregating behind our house at 3 AM.- Loudly.”] 762. “There was no crime involved, just visiting.” [R=5 for Other contact: “Talked to Jim Gillette at MS Camival.”] 778. “[The officers] made a good check pertaining to a stolen pick-up.” [R=4 for victim of crime: stolen vehicle] WEST REGION Ward 3 Precinct 1 080. “The officer was understanding and willing to help me get home safe.” [R=4 for Other contact: warning for no tail lights] 714. “[The officer] was very professional.” [R=5 for reported an incident] Ward 3 Precinct 2 631. “The officer knew his job, he was well educated.” [R=4 for victim of a crime: vandalism] 926. “The officer was understanding.” [R=5 for reported an incident] 121 Ward 3 Precinct 3 404. “[The officers] had to weigh the rights of those involved, protect the innocent and make decisions quickly.” [R= 5 for victim of a crime: simple assault] 795. “Not much was done.” [R= 2 for victim of crime: car window was shot out while driving] Ward 3 Precinct 4 030. “Classroom presentation was very well done.” [R=5 for Other contact: Classroom presentation] 144. “The streets were icy and [the officers] were busy.” [R=4 for reported an incident] 291. “It was handled matter-of-factly and quickly.” [R=5 for Other contact: “A report of child abuse at first led the officer to the incorrect apartment (ours). The error was soon corrected.”] 305. “Should of been made aware of a possible problem.” [R=3 for victim of a crime: petty larceny] 350. “[The officer] was way too late to solve the problem on both occasions.” [R=1 for reported an incident] 540. “[The officer] did what could be done. He indicated the suspect was caught, however we never heard about it again, no follow-up.” [R=4 for victim of a crime: Burglary] 750. “The officer did what had to be done without passing judgment.” [R= 5 for motor vehicle accident.] 933. “[The officer] took my complaint seriously.” [R=5 for reported an incident] Ward 3 Precinct 5 503. “[The officer] would not even listen.” [R=1 for motor vehicle accident.] Ward 5 Precinct 1 024. “I had a couple of officers who were totally unconcerned and one who was very good.” [R=no response. The contact was for victim of a crime: domestic violence] 641 . “[The officers] left before the suspicious man came back.” [R=5 for Other contact: "I saw some people that looked like they were up to no good.”] 122 927. “After giving me a parking ticket on a private lot which I had permission to park, the officer said he would cancel the ticket which he failed to do. I feel the officer could find a better use of his time.” [R=1 for Other contact: parking ticket] Ward 5 Precinct 2 511. “[The officer] asked to many questions before he responded to the call.” [R=3, contact was not identified] 772. “The department didn’t do anything.” [R=1 for reported an incident] 802. “[The officer] was pleasant on the phone, and responded quickly.” [R=4 for reported an incident] 922. “Rapid City has no room for troubled juveniles. They commit a crime, we report it, [the officer] brings the child home- due to no room in the Juvenile Delinquency Center.” [R=1 for reported an incident] 956. “[The officers] were concerned and polite.” [R=5 for Other contact: “My wife fell, the police assisted.”] Ward 5 Precinct 3 239. “[The officer] took the time to explain and listen.” [R=5 for witnessed a crime or incident] 547. “Very sociable, professional bearing.” [R=5 for Other contact: “Social call.”] 596. “Very professional attitude.” [R=5 for motor vehicle accident.] 686. “[The officers} were very prompt and willing to help.” [R=5, contact was not identified] 721. “It was very difficult to communicate.” [R=1 for Other contact: “Son’s inappropriate treatment.”] NORTH REGION Ward 2 Precinct 3 01 1. “The officer was not personable, understanding, and didn’t want to hear my side of the story.” [R=1 for received a ticket] 123 226. “[The officers] were very concerned and caring and made sure I knew exactly what would happen and that I was all right.” [R=5 for victim of a crime: Simple assault by ex- husband] 298. “The officer seemed very competent.” [R=5 for reported an incident] 460. “They showed up.” [R=3 for requested information from the department.] 623. “[The officer] was an hour late. His excuse was traffic was bad.” [R=1 for reported an incident] 790. “[The officers] were courteous and understanding.” [R=5 for witness to a crime] 837. “Too lenient, in some cases.” [R= 4 for Other contact: “I was asked to talk about our business.”] 988. “Nothing was done.” [R=1 for victim of crime: theft] Ward 4 Precinct 1 115. “The officer was courteous, but he interrupted my game of Mortal Combat 11.” [R=4 for Other contact: “The officer had my registration checked because he only saw an expired tag."] 359. “[The officers] came when they should.” [R=4 for reported an incident] 838. “The problem was resolved in a satisfactory manner.” [R=3 for Other contact: “A mentally ill paranoid person complained that I stole her bicycle and wasted your good time.”] 1000. “[The officer] was very understanding and cooperative.” [R=5 for Other contact: “My child was stopped for shoplifting.”] Ward 4 Precinct 2 072. “[The officer] was friendly, courteous, expedient and efficient.” [R=5 for victim of crime: damage to vehicle] 194. “[My] headlight was out, and [I] received a warning ticket.” [R=4 for traffic ticket] 219. “The problem was handled.” [R=4 for Other contact: “ To calm a loud party rather than let me handle it. Their option.”] 293. “The detectives said registration was made and it never was.” [R=1 for victim of a crime: vehicle vandalism] 124 442. “Fast action for taking care of the problem.” [R=5 for Other contact: “Removed a drunk.”] 707. “The first officer was rude and demanding. The second officer was very courteous, polite, and explained himself very well.” [R=4 for Other contact: “Police came to a loud party given by a friend (approximately 1:00 A.M.)"] 741. “[The officer} was timely, courteous, and business like.” [R=5 for victim of a crime: theft] 807. “[The officer] was very informative about the problem.” [R=5 for Other contact: “Alarm at business went off.”] 903. “The officer was very professional and quick to finish the needed paperwork.” [R=4 for traffic ticket.” 925. “[The officer] made a complete check of the house.” [R=5 for Other contact: "House alarm went off.”] 125 Extent of Improvement (Question 22) The following comments were made for question 22, “To what extent does the Rapid City Police Department need improvement? Why?” This question was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 represented “great extent” and 1 represented “not at all”. The respondents’ answers have been included. SOUTH REGION Ward 1 Precinct 1 034. 100. 218. 283. 653. 881. “‘Every department should try to improve.” [R=2] “Shortage of police on duty, such as bike path.” [R=3] “They need to improve their attitudes.” [R=4] “I’m assuming there is always room for improvement.” [R=2] “There is always room for improvement in any service sector.” [R=2] “No personal respect for citizens- I expect to be greeted with a smile and a ‘Hello’, not with suspicion.” [R=4] 937. “Can always improve.” [R=3] Ward 1 Precinct 2 048. 073. 177. 276. 314. 330. 362. 465. “More personnel.” [R=2] “I think [the officers] do a good job.” [R=1] “Need more foot patrols in shopping areas.” [R=3] “Could use more mature and experienced officers.” [R=3] “Need to patrol residential areas more often.” [R=4] “[Need to] deal with panhandlers.” [R=3] “Let people know [the police department] means what it says.” [R=3] "Personnel should be reminded that they are humble servants of the community.” [R=3] 126 495. “[I] hardly ever see a patrol car on my street.” [R=3] 564. “Need less patrol for stupid stuff, for example, random checks for car horns.” [R=3] 654. “Too many police to investigate small accidents.” [R=3] 717. “More officers to handle expanding city.” [R=2] 81 1. “Response to minor problems are too slow.” [R=3] 886. “More patrol officers are needed.” [R=3] 899. “Faster response to calls.” [R=3] 908. “Simply because there is always room to grow- no specific incident.” [R=3] 940. “Need to solve reported problems.” [R=3] Ward 1 Precinct 3 052. “Everything always needs to be improved.” [R=3] 067. “Paperwork logjam, [the department] needs additional administrative support.” [R=2] 132. “Racial prejudice.” [R=3] 205. “Priorities.” [R=3] 217. “[The police department] needs additional officers.” [R=5] 248. “The police department does its job adequately. It’s the judicial system that is failing. Crime pays. [There are] no consequences. Criminals have a nice place to stay.” [R=2] 262. “[The police department] needs to keep the public more informed about issues concerning gangs, teen crime, and prevention.” [R=3] 267. “Need more visibility in traffic control.” [R=3] 295. “Every program could use improvement.” [R=2] 36. .— “[The police department] has to many arrogant rookies.” [R=3] 385. “More visibility.” [R=2] 127 433. “My experience with the police department has been nothing but excellent.” [R=1] 482. “I think their is always room for improvement. Faster response time, etc.” [R=2] 585. “Some [officers] need to be more pleasant.” [R=3] 615. “Better response time.” [R=3] 645. “To my knowledge, [the police department] appears to operate effectively.” [R=1] 674. “The courts need to reinforce the police. [There are] too many avenues for crooks to escape the legal system.” [R=2] 905. “Since I have very little contact with the police department, I can’t say what needs improvement. I have always assumed they’d help me if I needed help.” [R=no response] 950. “[The police department] needs additional officers.” [R=3] 971. “[Police officers] think they are above the laws.” [R=5] 992. “[There is] always room for improvement.” [R=2] DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REGION Ward 2 Precinct 1 126. “[The police department] needs more officers.” [R=3] 164. “[The police department] probably needs more policemen.” [R=3] 463. “No one is perfect.” [R=3] 711. “Anti-dug programs/units." [R=3] 869. “The police department should always be searching for the proper emphasis on real public dangers as opposed to political correctness.” [R=3] Ward 2 Precinct 2 124. “I had two guns and a camera stolen. I don’t know who did it, but they did not arrest him.” [R=3] 157. “In the truancy department.” [R=3] 128 221. “Areas of improvement are always present.” [R=3] 456. “I feel for the population of this town, too much crime has occurred.” [R=3] 478. “Juveniles on 8th Street, cruisers.” [R=3] 957. “Illegal parking- such as wheelchair, etc.- not checked enough.” [R=3] Ward 2 Precinct 4 199. “I don’t see police in our area at all.” [R=3] 270. “[There are] too many people stopped for barely speeding yet the 50 MPH speeders in town never seem to get caught.” [R=3] 723. “We need more patrols in neighborhoods.” [R=2] 801. “Always room to improve.” [R=2] 848. “Improvement is always welcome.” [R=3] 877. “Patrolling the school routes for kids- needs to be monitored for speeding vehicles and possible abductions.” [R=3] 906. “[The police] need to have an attitude of protect and serve the public, not themselves.” [R=5] Ward 5 Precinct 4 005. “Greater pay for officers.” [R=2] 017. “Domestic violence and rapes are a big problem here.” [R=3] 105. “All organizations need to improve.” [R=2] 339. “[Officers] aren’t really concerned with your story, they are more interested in the law. The officers are too slow in responding. Don’t usually solve the problem. Too much harassment on the highways. Personal appearance also needs improving, they are too fat.” [R=3] 386. “I’m sure more money could help keep more man power available.” [R=2] 600. “Everything can improve, less skepticism perhaps.” [R=3] 632. “Not dispatching officers quickly enough.” [R=3] 129 762. “The new officers need to smile more and lighten-up.” [R=3] WEST REGION Ward 3 Precinct 1 714. “[The police] are already as good as they can be.” [R=1] Ward 3 Precinct 2 166. “Stopping cars on highway and streets- causing hazards.” [R=3] 274. “Everything can stand some improvement.” [R=2] 294. “More officers on patrol.” [R=3] 451. “More patrols.” [R=5] 467. “More officers on the west-side.” [R=3] 631. “No matter what the job, there is always room for improvement.” [R=3] 713. “Patrolling neighborhoods.” [R=3] 805. “There is always room for improvement.” [R=3] 926. “No reason, just that everyone can do better.” [R=5] Ward 3 Precinct 3 023. “The police are doing all right.” [R=2] 063. “More patrol officers.” [R=4] 182. “There is always room to improve.” [R=2] 230. “More visibility in all areas of town to prevent good neighborhoods from deterioration.” [R=3] 320. “More efficient.” [R=4] 345. “Not enough man power.” [R=3] 388. “Doing a fine job.” [R=1] 130 404. “Need foot patrols downtown, North Rapid, schools, parks, get to know neighborhood folks on patrol.” [R=3] 481. “Continue education programs.” [R=2] 506. “[The police department] needs to be more involved in drug activities.” [R=3] 709. “Need more officers for patrols- in neighborhoods, traffic control, overall visibility.” [R=3] 754. “Improvement should always be a priority.” [R=4] 834. “There is room for improvement in any job.” [R=3] 913. “Officers need to be more visible.” [R=4] Ward 3 Precinct 4 030. “In general I think [the police department] is doing well. [The police] certainly need to be appreciated more for the job they do!” [R=2] 074. “I think [the police] are doing a finejob.” [R=1] 125. ‘[The police department] seems to be doing a greatjob.” [R=2] 144. “Every department has room for improvement.” [R=3] 253. “Need to be more visible.” [R=2] 291. “Twice in the last four years, my employer has caught a young shoplifter in the act and called the police. Both times it took roughly one hour for the police to arrive. While I understand it wasn’t exactly an emergency, it was very awkward to try to hold a shoplifter for that [amount of] time, even a young one. It was frustrating.” [R=2] 350. "[The police department] needs improvement in traffic enforcement, parking enforcement (not talking of meters, but illegally parked cars), and checking suspicious people and cars.” [R=4] 450. “[The police department] needs to stop people speeding on side streets.” [R=3] 540. “Education and training can always help.” [R=3] 628. “Without striving toimprove, everyone regresses.” [R=3] 131 750. “Running red lights has become an epidemic, and speeding is excessive.” [R=4] 917. “Every business or agency can improve and should be trying to constantly improve.” [R=3] Ward 3 Precinct 5 329. “There is always room for improvement.” [R=3] 503. “Tom Hennies on television.” [R=3] Ward 5 Precinct 1 024. “More concern with domestic violence.” [R=3] 184. “More officers are needed.” [R=3] 322. “I feel they show less care for minorities.” [R=4] 641. “Need more patrols in neighborhoods for children running around loose.” [R=3] 927. “We need to arrest more drunken drivers.” [R=3] Ward 5 Precinct 2 051. “Need more officers.” [R=2] 098. “More things forjuveniles to do without harassment.” [R=3] 51 ~— . “[The police] don’t seem to be able to slow speeders down.” [R=3] 635. “More funding for more officers.” [R=3] 740. “Anything can always be improved.” [R=2] 802. “Certain attention to traffic is slanted and unjustified; it could be more diplomatic. More foot/street patrol is needed downtown.” [R=3] 922. “Need to find results withjuvenile problem.” [R=4] Ward 5 Precinct 3 083. “Need additional officers.” [R=3] 193. “Need quicker response on some calls." [R=3] 132 209. “Need more officers.” [R=3] 406. “I suppose improvement can always be made. I’m not familiar enough with areas where it might be needed.” [R=2] 686. From everything I read, the officers need more help in patrolling- more personnel on patrol.” [R=2] 721. “Perhaps more training in communicative skills and a keen awareness to their responsibility to society different situations- so important to any position representing authority and power.” [R=3] 779. “Spend time on drug enforcement and not speeders.” [R=4] 819. “Help from the higher court.” [R=5] 851. “Improvement is always necessary with changing times.” [R=3] 898. “Be more severe with punishment on the juvenile offender.” [R=3] 909. “[The officers] do well, any job can be done better.” [R=3] 980. “Strive to achieve racial balance on the force.” [R=3] 994. “No enforcement of traffic laws. 80% of drivers in this area run red lights and do not signal when changing lanes or even turning.” [R=3] NORTH REGION Ward 2 Precinct 3 162. “[The police department] needs more minority officers.” [R=3] 390. “Improvements can be made in any organization.” [R=3] 460. “Officer's need to learn how to act without showing or wearing their authority, less arrogant.” [R=5] 623. “More officers are needed.” [R=4] 715. “There is always room for improvement. Go for quality.” [R=3] 790. “I feel we need more officers.” [R=3] 133 837. “[The police department] needs more officers.” [R=3] 936. “Fail to charge or arrest people.” [R=3] 988. “Attention needs to return to patrolling the neighborhoods instead of [focusing on] high profile crimes.” [R=4] Ward 4 Precinct 1 1 15. “There is a great deal of crime and more officers are needed." [R=3] 156. “I have seen very little of the police. I am impressed with the bike patrol on the bike path.” [R=2] 192. “Always room for improvement.” [R=4] 289. “More patrol officers needed.” [R=3] 326. “Dogs running loose.” [R=3] 379. “What happened to protect and serve?” [R=3] 550. “[Not at all] because the percentage of crime seemed to increase already.” [R=1] 626. “[The police] need to work with the people more.” [R=3] 775. “I feel more traffic enforcement is greatly needed.” [R=3] 838. “[Rapid City] has a very high quality police force, but their is always room for improvement.” [R=2] 850. “I know we need more officers that are dedicated.” [R=3] Ward 4 Precinct 2 194. “I feel [the police] are doing an adequate job with the resources they are provided.” [R=3] 293. “Give less tickets, spend more time patrolling for burglaries.” [R=5] 418. “More officer needed for patrol.” [R=3] 590. “Our neighborhood is very quiet.” [R=1] 652. “More patrols.” [R=3] 707. 134 “North Rapid is a very dangerous place at night. [There are] lots of kids running around at all hours and lots of kids are left unsupervised.” [R=3] 74. r— 759. 828. 856. 885. 903. 925. “More neighborhood patrols in the evening.” [R=3] “[The police department] could be less political.” [R=4] “Need quicker response to calls and increased patrols in North Rapid.” [R=4] “Need more patrols in high-crime, less affluent areas. (North Rapid) [R=4] “[The police department] could probably use more officers.” [R=3] “More officers patrolling would help.” [R=3] “To be good, one must always keep improving." [R=2] Ward 4 Precinct 3 415. “Officers [need to improve] their attitude toward the public and how they deal with them. Never blow-off what you consider a useless complaint, it could be a big break or lead." [R=5] 667. “More patrol units are needed.” [R=3] 135 Improvement in the Last Year (Question 23) The following comments were given by respondents to question 23, “Has Rapid City Police performance improved or gotten worse in the last year? Why? This question was rated from 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Improved” and 1 represented “Worse”. The respondents’ answers have been included. SOUTH REGION Ward 1 Precinct 1 034. “I personally haven’t noticed much difference.” [R=3] 218. “They need to smile and be more friendly.” [R=3] 283. “I never hear any complaints.” [R=5] 653. “Have had very limited experience on a personal level; have not witnessed any incidences of poor performance.” [R=2] Ward 1 Precinct 2 062. “Better leadership.” [R=4] 073. “Police are more visible, Rapid City has a good police force.” [R=5] 362. “I still have the same problems.” [R=3] 654. “Quicker apprehension of criminals and suspects.” [R=5] 717. “Better visibility of officers.” [R=4] 81 _— . “Not enough officers.” [R=1] 849. “We think [the police department] was good last year, and good professionals improve all the time.” [R=4] 886. “[The police department] has improved some but more improvement can always be made. Better enforcement of juveniles is needed, I see many young kids on the streets at midnight when I come home from work.” [R=4] 990. ‘[The police department] is always on top of things.” [R=5] Ward 1 Precinct 3 136 052. “I haven’t noticed any improvement.” [R=3] 067. “Focus on gangs, drugs, burglaries.” [R=4] 248. “Policemen are very professional in their behavior- they don’t have the attitude that they are better than anyone else. I have no complaints, they appear to be good people, doing their job of protecting citizens to the best of their abilities." [R=5] 433. “The police have to put up with so much that is offensive, and yet the few times I’ve had contact with an officer he has been a perfect gentleman. When you are that good there is not much room for improvement.” [R=3] 624. “When we needed [an officer], he was there.” [R=4] 971. “I can’t see any improvement, [the police department] is still blind to the same things.” [R=3] DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REGION Ward 2 Precinct 2 124. “[The police department] still seems more interested in hiding on streets to catch speeders than solving crimes.” [R=3] 157. “I feel safe in my neighborhood since I moved from the Northside.” [R=4] 221. “I think people care more about each other.” [R=4] Ward 2 Precinct 4 704. “Still some problems.” [R=3] 906. “Adding more officers to the streets will not solve crime. Unless there is one officer for every one citizen with a 24 hour watch, you will not deter crime this way. The courts need to get tough. Twojuveniles stole a motorcycle from my front-yard. The police told me to forget about ever seeing it again. Finally one of the thieves’ friends turned them in. I received my damaged motorcycle back after six months in evidence. The judge ordered them to pay restitution, they have not paid in over a year. The judge said that is all he can do. They received no punishment for a felony.” [R=1] Ward 5 Precinct 4 339. “[The police department’s] performance is the same because the same incidents are happening over and over again." [R=3] 137 507. “Response time and traffic offenses are static.” [R=3] 600. “My comparison basis is limited, but I see few things being done differently.” [R=3] WEST REGION Ward 3 Precinct 1 080. “I have not seen a difference.” [R=3] 714. “[There] seems to be more officers on the streets.” [R=5] ’9 867. “I like the neighborhood officer program, it shows concern for the community. [R=4] Ward 3 Precinct 2 274. “[The police department] has more officers.” [R=4] 294. “More patrol cars are out where groups of teens hang-out, and where speeding occurs.” [R=4] 451. “[The police department] is better helping school crossing guards, and being there for schools without crossing guards.” [R=5] 489. “More awareness of problenrs.” [R=4] 926. “[The police department] has increased its service to children.” [R=4] Ward 3 Precinct 3 023. “Crime is not out of control, but there is still plenty of it.” [R=3] 182. “I don’t know of any change.” [R=3] 404. “I believe [the police department has improved] due to training, and awareness of issues.” [R=4] 627. “The community seems to be under control with the police being proactive.” [R=3] 709. “[The police department is] doing a good job with the available resources.” [R=3] 138 834. “Even though I’m very careful and I know there is crime in our city, I love Rapid City and the Black Hills. I take pride in our parks and the way our city looks. I feel safe here.” [R=4] 913. “There is not enough officers to take care of Rapid City. Rarely do we see a patrol car in our neighborhood. Just because crime is low, does not mean that the police should be invisible.” [R=2] Ward 3 Precinct 4 074. “I do think we need more police officers, cars, etc.” [R=3] 540. “[The police department] seems very professional.” [R=3] Ward 3 Precinct 5 548. “Too many young children on the streets.” [R=2] Ward 5 Precinct 1 641. “There seems to be more officers on the streets.” [R=4] 927. "I think DUI’s are on the decline.” [R=4] Ward 5 Precinct 2 051. “With more help, [the police department] will improve.” [R=5] 098. “[The police department is] making an effort to improve safety in the city.” [R=4] 225. “[The police department has improved because of] training, and a good chief.” [R=4] 435. “Certainly no decrease in crime against our citizens.” [R=3] 635. “Better trained specialists." [R=4] 922. “[The police department] has become routine.” [R=2] 956. “I have not noticed a change.” [R=3] Ward 5 Precinct 3 083. “We need better control of the cruisers and gangs- their hangouts.” [R=3] 139 239. “[The police department has improved] because of better training and selection of officers.” [R=5] 696. “It is a nice gesture to escort funerals.” [R=4] 819. “[The officers are] better trained.” [R=5] 851. “More crimes, more serious.” [R=2] 909. “Reacting to national crime statistics.” [R=5] NORTH REGION Ward 2 Precinct 3 390. “l have not heard of any complaints.” [R=3] 715. “I feel the Rapid City police do a good job. I’m glad this town isn’t full of drugs and gangs. I know there is some of both, but it is under control.” [R=4] 790. “I feel [the police department] has improved their communication with the public.” [R=5] Ward 4 Precinct 1 550. “[The police department has improved] because of more arrests.” [R=5] Ward 4 Precinct 2 194. “I feel more attention should be given to the gang violence which the City says does not exist.” [R=3] 759. “Crimes are reported but not taken care of. The system is more at fault than the police department.” [R=3] 925, ”[The police department has improved] because of training.” [R=5] Ward 4 Precinct 3 415. “I have personally witnessed police officers breaking the law for kicks. Flashing their lights and speeding down the road but not responding to an accident. One cut infront of me without signaling and I have witnessed many other incidents.” [R=1] 140 Image Within the Community (Question 24) The following comments were given by respondents to question 24, “How would you rate the image of the Rapid City Police Department within the community? Why? This question was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Excellent” and 1 represented “Poor". The respondents’ answers have been included. SOUTH REGION Ward 1 Precinct 1 034. “Haven’t had more crime.” [R=4] 218. “The officers are still harassing teenagers.” [R=1] 283. “I hear only positive comments.” [R=5] Ward 1 Precinct 2 062. “[The officers] do a good job.” [R=4] 088. “I’ve never heard anything bad.” [R=4] 314. “For the size of Rapid City, it could use more police officers.” [R=3] 564. “[The police department] tries to look good by working with children and the elderly.” [R=4] 654. “Good reports from the public.” [R=3] 717. “I hear positive and negative comments about the police department.” [R=3] 81 .— . “Good public rapport.” [R=4] 849. “For the most part [the officers] are kind, considerate, and really care (I listen to a scanner). [R=5] 879. “[The officers are] very professional.” [R=4] 886. “[The police department] is well respected.” [R=5] Ward 1 Precinct 3 141 052. “I don’t ever hear any real negative things.” [R=4] 114. “The limited contact I have had [with the police department] has been positive in nature.” [R=4] 248. “I never hear any bad reports or bad reputations of any of the police officers or anyone in the police department.” [R=5] 295. “We do not seem to have a racism problem within the department as they do in other communities.” [R=4] 433. “I suppose if an officer has to be firm with someone that person will have a lower image of the police department.” [R=4] 482. “I've only heard good things.” [R=5] 992. “[The police department] maintains a positive image partly by its involvement in various fund-raisers (Special Olympics) which allows citizens to have contact and perhaps learn that officers are people too.” [R=4] DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REGION Ward 2 Precinct 1 869. “I have heard no serious complaints.” [R=4] Ward 2 Precinct 2 055. “I cannot recall hearing negative remarks about the police department.” [R=4] 157. “Where I live I can leave my car unlocked, the kids can leave their bikes and toys out front and they are still there the next morning.” [R=5] 221. “They handle every situation very well.” [R=5] 665. "Compared to the demands and the number of officers, [the police department] seems to do a good job.” [R=4] 737. “Hennies seems to be on top of things.” [R=4] Ward 2 Precinct 4 349. “I frequently see patrol cars driving through my neighborhood.” [R=4] 142 877. “[The police] are concerned, very friendly, helpful, and have instilled a ‘friend‘ image to the kids instead of a ‘fear' image.” [R=5] 906. “[The police] need to be more outgoing as they provide service to the community.” [R=2] Ward 5 Precinct 4 386. “Most people I know feel the police department is very professional.” [R=4] 507. “Same number of people whining as elsewhere.” [R=3] 600. “What I hear, and what I read is not always very positive. However, most people that have reason to talk do not have reason to say positive things.” [R=3] 762. “Some of the younger (newer) officers get a bad reputation amongst younger adults by being [expletive].” [R=3] WEST REGION Ward 3 Precinct 1 080. “There is more exposure in the media and other programs." [R=4] Ward 3 Precinct 2 294. “It appears that most of the officers care about their jobs, the community, its people, and they are there when people need them. They have the greatest job in the community. They risk their lives everyday.” [R=4] 631. “The officers are always professional in appearance.” [R=4] 926. “Some police officers can be rude and swear, which may offend some people.” [R=3] 949. “Good performance.” [R=5] Ward 3 Precinct 3 345. “[The officers are] well dressed, well mannered, and they do their best.” [R=5] 388. “I hear no complaints.” [R=5] 404. “Most people believe [the police] are ‘DWI’ patrol." [R=3] 143 481. "[The police department] is well trained and certified.” [R=5] 709. “I have no complaints or criticism.” [R=5] 834. “[The police] have an extremely difficult job to do. I have never had any dealings with the police, but I believe what I see is a professional image.” [R=4] 913. “I don't think [the police] go out of their way to be friendly.” [R=3] Ward 3 Precinct 4 125. “[The police] seem very professional.” [R=5] 144. “[The police] are very professional.” [R=5] 253. “I have not heard any negative comments about the department.” [R=5] 291. “Close contact with schools.” [R=4] 350. “I hear as much negative as positive, therefore image = average.” [R=3] 450. “[The police] are well equipped and sharp looking.” [R=4] 589. “I have seen better.” [R=2] 628. “[The police] are learning to handle the public better.” [R=5] Ward 3 Precinct 5 548. “[The police] try their best.” [R=4] Ward 5 Precinct 1 641. “I think they do an OK job.” [R=4] 927. "[The police] do a good job overall.” [R=4] Ward 5 Precinct 2 051. “[The police] do very well in our area.” [R=5] 098. “Most people are impressed [with the police department]. [R=4] 213. “We have always heard good comments from anyone who has ever needed help from the police.” [R=5] 435. “[The police department] image is good because it became a nationally accredited agency.” [R=4] 802. “The feedback I have heard from other people has not been that spectacular.” [R=3] 922. “In some cases, [the police] do not take situations serious enough." [R=2] 956. “[The officers] seem to be proud to wear the badge.” [R=5] Ward 5 Precinct 3 193. “Overall, [the police] are very good.” [R=4] 239. “Training and community involvement.” [R=5] 406. “1 think the [police department] has an excellent police chief and that they all work very hard at doing a good job. This is my impression from coverage in the paper and personal knowledge.” [R=5] 547. “[The police] have a very professional appearance.” [R=5] 596. “[The police] always seem courteous and efficient.” [R=5] 686. “[The police] are efficient and thorough.” [R=5] 819. “[The police department] is getting more involved.” [R=4] 909. “[The officers] are friendly, courteous, and efficient.” [R=5] NORTH REGION Ward 2 Precinct 3 202. “I guess because you can’t judge media reporting.” [R=3] 390. “Officers and equipment look good.” [R=4] 460. “Good visual presentation.” [R=4] 623. “Communication and openness.” [R=5] 715. “I don’t hear that criminals are set free because the police screwed it up. That shows that the officers follow policy and procedures.” [R=5] 145 790. “Unfortunately a lot of the officers have to deal negatively with the public therefore their image is not going to be excellent.” [R=3] 837. “[The officers] are their when they are needed.” [R=4] 988. “Lack of concern for public needs.” [R=2] Ward 4 Precinct 1 115. “[The police] do a good job but a lot of people do not like the police." [R=3] 156. “I have heard nothing pro or con for the police.” [R=3] 289. “[The police] are there when you need them.” [R=3] 559. “My dealings with the Rapid City Police Department have always been professional.” [R=4] 626. “Incidents need to be more looked into before someone gets put into jail. Treat all races equally.” [R=3] 775. “Complainers may make a lot of noise but overall I think the average citizen is satisfied [with the police department]. [R=4] 838. “[The police department] has high quality employees.” [R=5] Ward 4 Precinct 2 194. “I feel [the police] are well respected.” [R=4] 219. “CHECK MY COMMUNITY.” [R=2] 47. .— “[The police department] has dedicated officers.” [R=5] 590. “I have not heard any bad talk about the Rapid City Police Department.” [R=5] 707. “Good response time and treatment of the situation.” [R=4] 828. “I appreciate the school liaison officers.” [R=3] 925. “[The officers] are professional.” [R=5] Ward 4 Precinct 3 146 415. “Lack of concern for the public and poor attitudes of the officers lead to a poor image. Some officers are pretty cocky.” [R=1] APPENDIX G 147 APPENDIX G Additional responses to Community Survey Question #1 The following are responses given in the “Other” category for question 1 on the community survey; “How much attention would you like to see the police concentrate on the following services?” Responses No. of Responses Domestic Violence Drunk Driving Rape Dogs/Animal Control Gangs Child Abuse Parking Violations Drive By Shootings Loud Cars Public Safety Education Stalking -‘—'—‘--‘NNUJJ>'JIO\O\ APPENDIX H 148 APPENDIX H Additional Responses to Community Survey Question #15. The following are the responses given in the “Other” category for question 15 on the community survey; “How important are the following problems in your neighborhood?” Responses No. of Responses Dogs/Animal Control Speeding Cars Loud Parties Arson Cars with loud stereos Children left home alone Illegally parked cars Juveniles Sidewalks overgrown with trees Weeds on adjoining property -——p——-_-——-N\]\o APPENDIX I 149 APPENDIX I QUALITATIVE COMMENTS FROM THE CONTACT SURVEY 1. “I have rowdy daughters and therefore I have had several contacts with the police department. The police offices have always treated them fair. I am very impressed with the police department.” [contact= vandalism) 2. “I don’t feel safe in my neighborhood. I never see any patrol cars.” [contact= vandalism] 3. “A bunch of car windows were smashed on my street due to vandals. The officer came to my house to fill out a report. He was very helpful although the culprit was never caught. I still appreciated the effort.” [contact= vandalism] 4. “I was not satisfied when I reported my car stolen. A neighbor witnessed an adolescent drive away in my car. I then asked the police officer to go the middle school to check if the car might be there. He refused to do it so I went to the school himself and recovered the car. The adolescent then confessed to the crime but the officer refused to arrest him.” [contact= theft] 5. “I was not satisfied with the police response. I never received a follow-up phone call and the perpetrator was never apprehended.” [contact= theft] 6. “The police were excellent.” [contact= aggravated assault] 7. “I would like to see officers treat children better. They don’t need to be so mean.” [contact= aggravated assault] 8. “The officers were very professional and handled the situation well.” [contact= aggravated assault] 9. “My older brother threatened to kill me. I went down to the police station to talk to an officer. The officer was very helpful even though he said he could not due much about it. He agreed to go by my brother’s house to talk to him.” [contact= assault] 10. ”My girlfriend (white female) and 1 (Native American female) were pulled-over for driving while intoxicated. I was in the passenger seat and the officer told me to get out of the car and so he could check to see if I had been drinking or had an open bottle in the car. He then ran my name to find out ifl may be wanted. All the while he never checked to see if the driver had been drinking. He was obviously totally prejudiced against Native 150 Americans for I was not the one driving but I was the one under investigation.” [contact= traffic citation] 11. “The officer would not listen to my side of the story when he pulled me over. He just gave me a ticket for speeding and left. I was not pleased.” [contact=traffic citation] 12. “I was caught for speeding on Mount Rushmore Road. The officer was nice and considerate.” [contact=traffic citation] 13. “A police officer pulled me over for a broken tail light. He just gave me a warning and let me go. He treated me with respect.” [contact= traffic citation] 14. “I was arrested for driving while intoxicated almost a year ago. The officer was fair and did not treat me abusively.” [contact= DWI/DUI] LIST OF REFERENCES Apple, N., and O’Brien, D. J. ( 1983) Neighborhood Composition and Resident’s Evaluation of Police Performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, fl (1), 76-84. Babbie, E. (1992). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Benson, P. R. (1981). Political Alienation and Public Satisfaction with Police Services. Pacific Sociological Review, 23(1), 45-64. Brandl, S. G., and Horvath, F. (1991). Crime-Victim Evaluation of Police Investigative Performance. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1_9, 293-305. Carlson, H. M., and Sutton, M. S. (1979). Some Factors in Community Evaluation of Police Street Performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1(6), 583-591. Carte, G. E. (1973). Changes in Public Attitudes Towards the Police: A comparison of 1938 and 1971 Surveys. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1(2), 182- 200. Carter, D. L. (1985). Hispanic Perception of Police Performance: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1_3(6), 487-500. Chackerian, R., and Barrett, R. F. (1973). Police Professionalism and Citizen Evaluation. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 8(3), 345-349. Charles, M. T. (1980). The Utilization of Attitude Surveys in the Police Decision- Making Process. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8(3), 294-303. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. (1989). Standards Manual of the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program. Fairfax, VA: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Couper, D. C. (1983). How to Rate your Local Police. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 151 152 Decker. S. H. (1981). Citizen Attitudes Towards the Police: A Review of Past Findings and Suggestions for Future Policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 2(1), 80-87. Ennis, P. H. (1970). Crime, Victims, and the Police. In M. Lipsky (Ed.), Law and Order: Pplice Encounters (pp. 85-101). Aldine Publishing Company. Flanagan, T. J. (1985). Consumer Perspectives on Police Operational Strategy. Journal of Police Science and Administratipn, EU), 10-21. Furstenberg, F., and Wellford, C. (1973). Calling the Police: the Evaluation of Police Service. Law and Society Review, 6(3), 393-406. Guyot, D. (1991). Policing as though People Matter. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Hadar, H., and Snortum, J. R. (1975). The Eye of the Beholder: Differential Perceptions of Police by the Police and the Public. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2(1), 37-54. Hahn, H. (1971). Ghetto Assessments of Police Protection and Authority. Law and Society Review, 6(2), 183-194. Jones, M. (1992). 1992 ualit Assurance Citizen Satisfaction Survey and Results. Rapid City, SD: Rapid City Police Department. Kansas City Police Department (1977). Response Time Analysis Remrt. Kansas City, MO: Board of Police Commissioners. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Klein, J. F., Webb, J. R., and DiSanto, J. R. (1978). Experience with the Police and Attitude Towards the Police. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 3(4), 441-456. Lee, D. (1993). 1993 Quality Assurance Citizen Satisfaction Survey and Results. Rapid City, SD: Rapid City Police Department. Mastrofski, S. (1981). Surveying Clients to Assess Police Performance. Evaluation Review, 5(3), 397-408. Moore, M., and Kelling, G. (1983). "To Serve and Protect”: Learning from Police History. The Public Interest, E, 4965. 153 Parks, R. B. (1975). Complementary Measures of Police Performance. In K. M. Dolbeare (Ed.), Public Policy Evaluation (pp. 185—218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Parks, R. B. (1976). Police Response to Victimization: Effects on Citizen Attitudes and Perceptions. In W. G. Skogan (Ed.), Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime (pp. 89-104). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. Percy, S. L. (1980). Response Time and Citizen Evaluation of the Police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8(1), 75-86. Poister, T. H., and McDavid, J. C. (1978). Victims’ Evaluations of Police Performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6(2), 133-149. Radelet, L. (1986). The Police and the Community. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Roberg, RR, and Kuykendall, J. (1993). Police and Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Scaglion, R., and Condon, R. G. (1980). Determinants of Attitudes Towards City Police. Criminology, 11(4), 485-494. Schuman, H., and Gruenberg, B. (1972). Dissatisfaction with City Services: Is Race and Important Factor? In H. Hahn (Ed.), Police and Politics in Urban Society (pp. 29- 42). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Smith, P. E., and Hawkins, R. O. (1973). Victimization, Types of Citizen-Police Contacts, and Attitudes Towards the Police. Law and Society Review. 8(1), 135- 152. Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen Satisfaction with Urban Services: Potential Misuse as a Performance Indicator. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 4, 441-447. Thomas, C. W., and Hyman, J. M. (1977). Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police Performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6(3), 305-317. Trojanowicz, R., Gleason, R., Pollard, B., and Sinclair, D. (1987). Community Policing : Community Input into Police Policy Making. E. Lansing, MI: National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center. 154 Trojanowicz, R. (1986). Foot Patrol: Improving Police-Citizen Contact. In L. Radelet (4th Ed.), The Police and the Community (pp. 481-485). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. White, M. F., and Menke, B. A. (1982). On Assessing the Mood of the Public Towards Police: Some Conceptual Issues. Journal of Criminal Justice, L), 21 1-230. Williams, G. L. (1989). Making the Grade: The Benefits of Law Enforcement Accreditation. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Winfree, T., and Griffiths, C. (1971). Adolescent Attitudes Toward the Police: A Survey of High School Students. In T. Ferdinand (Ed.), Juvenile Delinquency: Little Brother Grows Up (pp. 79-99). Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing Company. Zamble, E., and Annesley, P. (1987). Some Determinants of Public Attitudes Toward the Police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16(4), 285-290.