A 125:? . .l . r. e .2; . ¢ é _ z. .. .53.; as. v.’ . ... «aka? : .- a»? .51. .J- 1 _ ram a u: .h ...71.;.«., ,\.u. . . . . .. . .. 3.2 3. 3&3» 3. 3% . _ . fig? 3%,»: w a, .. m. .13 “423's L/ ){N’lfi llllllllllllllllNlllllllllllllllllHilllllllllllllllllll 293 01841 0252 “- ;= .3RARY Michigan State Unlverslty This is to certify that the thesis entitled VILLAGE OF FOWLERVILLE, MICHIGAN: A LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT presented by Douglas James Tanner has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Criminal Justice degree in Major profes r Dam 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this chedtout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE VILLAGE OF FOWLERVILLE, MICHIGAN: A LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY Douglas James Tanner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE The School of Criminal Justice 1999 Professor Dennis M. Payne ABSTRACT VILLAGE OF FOWLERVILLE, MICHIGAN: A LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY Douglas James Tanner Through history, the village of Fowlerville, Michigan, has operated its police department under a variety of organizational structures. While some aspects of past policing methods have been positive for the community, each organization was ultimately dissolved. This organizational turmoil has had negative effects on policing in Fowlerville. This paper seeks to solve the problem of an ineffective police organization by developing a policing framework with a higher probability of success. This study employed a normative sponsorship approach to problem solving. Information for this study was gathered through numerous resident interviews and a survey exercise. The combined data is presented for a police administrator and the public to utilize as necessary. The major findings for this report include a support for a normative sponsorship approach to problem solving, as well as utilizing aspects of Community-Oriented Policing in the daily activities of a Fowlerville police organization. Dedicated to the people of Fowlerville, Michigan In Memory of Dr. Robert C. Trojanowicz iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful to the late Dr. Robert C. Trojanowicz; without his guidance and materials, this research would not have been conducted. Thanks also to thesis co-chairs Dr. Dennis M. Payne and Dr. Bruce L. Benson, MSU's Police Chief, for their extensive review of this community-policing related work. A special word of appreciation to committee member Dr. Christina DeJong, without whose help this thesis could not have been completed. Thanks also to the citizens of Fowlerville and former Fowlerville police officers for providing essential and unique insights. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................... vii INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 THESIS ORGANIZATION Background ............................................ 2 Research Setting ...................................... 3 Overview of the Problem ............................... 3 Identification of the Research Issue .................. 4 Purpose of the Study .................................. 4 Significance of the Study ............................. 5 Research Questions .................................... 5 Organization of Thesis ................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Policing History of the Village of Fowlerville ........ 7 CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Normative Sponsorship Theory ......................... 17 Principles of Social Organization .................... 18 The Systematic Method ................................ 19 Social Units ......................................... 20 Community Oriented Policing .......................... 21 CHAPTER 4 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Flint, Michigan Foot Patrol Experiment ............... 26 Aurora, Colorado ..................................... 28 Lansing Community Policing Program ................... 29 CHAPTER 5 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY Research Setting Divisions ........................... 34 Administrator Interviews ............................. 35 Legislative Interviews ............................... 36 Community Service Group Interviews ................... 37 Agency Client Interviews ............................. 38 Church-Related Interviews ............................ 39 Paraprofessional Interviews .......................... 39 Professional Interviews ............ , .................. 40 Family Interviews .................................... 4O Landowner Interviews ................................. 41 Renter Interviews .................................... 41 Neighborhood Interviews .............................. 42 CHAPTER 6 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGIES Survey Instrument .................................... 47 Data Collection Procedures ........................... 47 Survey Distribution .................................. 48 Efforts to Increase Response Rate .................... 49 Survey Response ...................................... 50 Variables ............................................ 52 Scale Construction ................................... 52 Open-Ended Responses ................................. 68 CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF DATA AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Interview Analysis ................................... 71 Survey Results and Survey Data Analysis .............. 72 Open-Ended Responses ................................. 73 CHAPTER 8 RESEARCH-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS Community Policing Pilot ............................. 76 Suggestions for Fowlerville Police Department ........ 81 Suggestions for Future Research ...................... 83 APPENDICES Human Subjects Approval .............................. 88 Livingston County Planning Department Reports ........ 90 Community Survey Form ................................ 98 Area Maps ........................................... 107 Law Enforcement Attitudes, January, 1994 ............ 110 REFERENCES vi Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Quantitative Measure of Community Cohesion ....... 53 Quantitative Measure of Community Disorder ....... 55 Quantitative Measure of Community Fear Of Crime..56 Response Rates By Area ........................... 57 Survey Demographic Results for Age ............... 58 Survey Demographic Results for Race .............. 58 Survey Demographic Results for Gender ............ 59 Survey Demographic Results for Marital Status....60 Survey Demographic Results for Occupation ........ 60 Survey Demographic Results for Education ......... 61 Survey Results for Neighborhood Residence ........ 62 Survey Results for Type Of Residence ............. 82 Survey Frequencies for Cohesion Items ............ 64 Measures of Social Control Across Neighborhoods..66 Social Construct Measures Across Neighborhoods...67 vii INTRODUCT I ON Human organizations operate by a set of norms, or variables, which control and predict whether proposals for change are adopted or rejected. Over the last one hundred years, the Village of Fowlerville, Michigan, has operated its policing activities under several administrative approaches. In the Spring of 1995, Fowlerville changed its policing structure from a contractual entity with the Livingston County Sheriff's Department and created its own Fowlerville Police Department. An opportunity exists to create a police organization with a higher probability of success. Chapter One explains the organization of this thesis, and includes an overview of the problem, the purpose, the significance of this study, and research questions. The community of Fowlerville was studied to determine elements of its social systems, identify and prevent potential areas of opposition to police operations, and understand the customary procedures which produce systemic change. By identifying community norms, it is intended that police operations will be tailored to maintain a stable police administration which best serves Fowlerville. Chapter 1 THESIS ORGANIZATION Background Prior to the study, an acceptable, accessible site was selected for research. In identification of the study site, the opinion of Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, then Director of the National Center For Community Policing (NCCP) at Michigan State University, was sought in December, 1993. On the advice of Dr. Trojanowicz, the Village of Webberville was first selected as a research site. However, Michael Lesick, then Chief of Police of the Village of Webberville, suggested the Village of Fowlerville. Lesick was to start as Chief of a new police department in Fowlerville in February, 1994, and wanted to identify community problems and attitudes to develop an effective policing strategy. In December, 1993, Dan Bishop, Village Manager of Fowlerville, was interviewed to determine the degree of cooperation the researcher could expect from village officials and residents. Once it was determined that Fowlerville was manageable in terms of size, the village was selected for study based on its proximity to Lansing and the demonstrated cooperation of village officials and residents. Following selection of Fowlerville, the Village Manager was provided a description of the research strategy and objectives. The Village Council was also notified as to the research intentions. Research Setting Fowlerville is a village located 25 miles east of Lansing. The village is situated just north of Interstate 96, and is bisected into north and south halves by Grand River Avenue, formerly the plank road mentioned in Chapter Two, and further divided into east and west halves by Grand Avenue, which connects to Interstate 96 just south of the village. Fowlerville has approximately 2648 residents. In 1990, 10.5% of residents were under age five, 20.4% were between the ages of 5 and 17, 11.7% were ages 18-24, 32.2% were ages 25 to 44, 8.9% were age 45 to 54, and 55 and older residents numbered 16.3%. Of these Fowlerville residents, 51.7% are female, and 48.3% are male (General Accounting Office, 1990). Fowlerville's racial makeup is 96.1% White, 1% Hispanic, .2% Oriental, and 2.1% Other. Further population details are found in Appendices B and C. The village has a history of difficulty maintaining a single viable police organization. This paper addresses the issue of constructing a durable police entity for Fowlerville which can best serve the public. Overview of the Problem Fowlerville needs some form of law enforcement to protect its citizens and enforce its ordinances and laws for an ordered society. The form this law enforcement organization takes, whether in the form of a citizen patrol, private agency, Village Constable, a Village Police entity, a Sheriff's Department contract or a State Police Resident Trooper Program, is disputed. The history of Fowlerville's law enforcement has been troubled by the organization's failure to remain viable through political turmoil. The result is diminished police service to the residents of Fowlerville. Identification of the Research Issue The research issue is a research-based plan of action to develop a viable law enforcement entity in the village. This issue was raised by several sources, including a former area police chief, the Fowlerville Village Council, who felt current costs were not being justified by the perceived level of service, and the taxpayers of Fowlerville, as they funded expenditures and used law enforcement services. Purpose of this Study The purpose of this study is to assist in the creation of a viable law enforcement agency which can provide the highest possible degree of service for Fowlerville. This purpose will be accomplished by identifying and understanding the norms of the social systems at work in Fowlerville, developing a means of countering opposition to a police organization, and identifying the dynamics that impact change in Fowlerville. Significance of the Study This study is significant for several reasons. Foremost is the safety and security of Fowlerville residents. Fowlerville needs an organization which can quickly respond to emergencies, investigate and apprehend criminals, and educate to prevent crime. Also at stake are several million dollars of taxpayer funds. The cost for policing Fowlerville in 1994 was $325,000 for the contracted services of the Livingston County Sheriff's Department. Lastly, an effective police organization can diminish the effects of existing problems, as well as potentially preventing new problems from forming in a community. Research Questions The research questions of this study as applied to a police organization are: 1. What social systems and norms are at work in Fowlerville? 2. What are potential areas of organized opposition? 3. What dynamics customarily work to introduce change in Fowlerville? 4. What is the best policing strategy for a viable Fowlerville Police Department? The answers to the research questions may provide an opportunity to better predict whether a police agency action will be accepted or rejected. Goals and the activities to reach goals can be realigned to produce a higher success rate. Organization of Thesis Chapter 2 explains the historical basis of the research problem, and documents Fowlerville's policing history including past strategies. Chapter 3 provides the conceptual and theoretical framework for this paper. Chapter 4 contains a review of applicable literature, including Community Policing Programs at work in three locations. Chapter 5 contains the qualitative aspect of the study, including material gathered from interviews and community interaction. Chapter 6 presents the quantitative aspect of the study, including data collection procedures and response rates. Chapter 6 also includes discussions of content validity, construct validity, reliability, and response validity as related to Cohesion, Disorder, and Fear of Crime in the Fowlerville community. Chapter 7 contains an analysis of data and presentation of findings, with applicable ANOVA tests. Chapter 8 illustrates research- based recommendations for the Fowlerville police department, and suggestions for future research. Chapter 2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Policing History of the Village of Fowlerville Demographics Fowlerville is a village approximately 2.5 square miles in area, located in Handy Township, Livingston County, Michigan. Fowlerville is bordered on the south by Interstate 96, and is bisected into northern and southern sections by Grand River Avenue. Fowlerville is also divided into eastern and western halves by Grand Avenue (Livingston County Data Book, 1991). Fowlerville's 1980 population was 2289, and by 1990 had reached 2648. The median age for Fowlerville was 28.6. Educationally, Fowlerville has the largest percentage of persons in Livingston County with less than a ninth grade education (6.2%) (Livingston County Data Book, 1991). Background The Village of Fowlerville, Michigan, was selected as a study site after speaking with former Webberville Police Chief Michael Lesick, who intended to take the position of chief of a newly-formed police department in the village. The chief planned to use the information to identify problems in each neighborhood, with the intention of starting a Community-Oriented Policing program. Fowlerville's proximity to Lansing and a cooperative Village Manager were also factors in its selection for study. To supplement scarce documents of Fowlerville's law enforcement history, the author located and interviewed a former Fowlerville police chief, former officers, current Livingston County Sheriff's Department officials and current deputies for information. Colonial Times Though land purchases were made within Fowlerville's present boundaries on April 11, 1834, the history of the Village of Fowlerville does not properly begin until November 7, 1849. Under instruction of Ralph Fowler, a surveyor platted 29 lots bordering Grand River Street. During 1852, a plank road covering Grand River Street from Lansing to Howell (Livingston County Seat) was completed, which made Fowlerville a commercial center of some significance. This plank road was later extended to Detroit, and became a heavily-traveled thoroughfare in the state. As is recorded, "A four-horse stagecoach passed each way twice a day, and the accommodations of Independence Hall were taxed to the utmost" (Ellis, 1880, p. 245). The Village of Fowlerville was later incorporated on April 5, 1871, and John G. Gould was elected its first Marshal. Jared L. Cook took over the duties of Marshal in 1872. When the village was reincorporated in 1873, William H. Spencer became both Marshal and Fire Warden. Albert S. Leland served as both Marshal and Fire Warden in 1874, and in 1875 served again as Marshal. William Head assumed the responsibilities of Marshal in 1876, while Conrad C. Hayner was Marshal for 1877-1879. Before the construction of Michigan's freeway system, the plank road which ran through Fowlerville became the main route between Detroit and Grand Rapids (Ellis, 1880). This is now significant, as the new highway, Interstate 96, and the old plank road, now Grand River Avenue, still border and divide Fowlerville, respectively. Fowlerville's location is thus subject to visit by many types of people at all times of the day and night. The 1930's and 1940's While the historical figures of Fowlerville are well documented, details of policing Fowlerville are not available until the 1930's. A "village watchman" was the means of policing the village during the 1930's. Chief duties of the foot patrol officer were to check doors at night, guard against fire, and ensure public order (Manning, 1994). Motorized patrol began in the village during the 1940's, and the police department added a part time officer. These new officers, fresh from service in the United States Navy, were politically involved and helped change the village political setup. Few other details are known about police service delivery or activities until 1959 (Manning, 1994). 1950's and 1960's The Village of Fowlerville employed a chief, two full— time officers, and a part—time officer, and no academy training was required at this time. In 1962, the workweek was 54 hours, with no overtime pay and rotating shifts. Officers received $85 per week for their services, and had to switch shifts to cover court time. Despite what would be considered poor pay and training, officers described close and positive community relations (Manning, 1994). Policing at this time was significantly different, as an officer recalled his experiences. The police department was self-supporting, as the local Justice of the Peace pushed for traffic tickets. The police department collected a portion of parking tickets from expired meters on the village's main streets. Parking ticket collections were so numerous that the Fowlerville Police Department was one of the first agencies in the region to have a patrol car radar unit, purchased from fines. Since Fowlerville was on Old US-16, the connection between Detroit and Grand Rapids (Now Interstate 96), many types of people came through the area (Manning, 1994). The Livingston County Sheriff's Department was only a 17 man force at this time, and backup would often have to come from the Michigan State Police. Truck drivers were noted for stopping and assisting officers with suspects who fought with officers during arrest. Often, truck drivers 10 would "pull over and wait to see if traffic stops turned out O.K." (Manning, 1994). Manning also indicated that there was more respect for officers then, as "you could count on the family to back you up. Many was the time I could take a rowdy juvenile home, knowing the punishment they would get would far exceed what a court could do. But it kept their records clean, and most of them are good folks today. But it worked because the family was boss" (Manning, 1994). An adult Fowlerville resident recounted the treatment he received by the Fowlerville Police Department after getting into trouble. Shortly after his minor crime, he took a factory night job. His work partner was a drunk, and he was often left alone operating heavy machinery. "Even though I had been in trouble, [the patrol officer] used to check on me every hour at night to make sure I was still O.K. You have to respect a guy like that." (Anonymous Fowlerville Citizen, 1994). Activating police services also changed. Rather than dialing 911, as is done today, citizens would press a button at the police station to summon an officer. A light on top of the village stoplight would come on when the station button was pressed. An officer on foot or in a vehicle would then return to the station to respond to the caller. This was later "upgraded" to a piece of paper the chief would place in the window when he wanted to speak to an 11 officer or an interview was required at the station (Manning, 1994). Pay for officers in 1963 was $4200 per year, and the workweek was 48 hours, with no overtime pay; only one day off per week was granted. A part—time officer was also added to the department. Problems facing the village and its department at this time were largely youth and/or drug and alcohol related. A former officer recalled the days when "women were afraid to walk down the street in broad daylight for fear of being harassed by youth gangs." This was quickly squelched, as handling such problems "in those days" was more direct. "It used to be you could bend one of those guys backwards ’ over the hood of your car to straighten 'em out and the community would appreciate it. It got rid of our gang problem, but you sure couldn't do stuff like that these days. In many ways, this has served to lessen respect for the law" (Anonymous Fowlerville Police Officer, 1994). Other problems at this time included a power struggle between the Village Council and the Police Chief. The friction, it was noted, tended to affect morale somewhat, but for the most part the Council was ignored by the line staff. 12 The 1970's and 1980's The 1970's brought a new chief and officers with a new attitude to the Fowlerville Police Department. Many former Detroit Police Department (DPD) officers began working in Fowlerville at this time. The department was unionized under the Teamsters Local 214, with leadership from a former DPD officer, and a professional image was recalled by many citizens. "They sure cleaned up this town" was a quote from several residents. Budgetary matters concerned the Village Council, as costs mounted to 42% of the village budget. On October 9, 1983, the village council, without a great deal of community input, struck a deal with the Livingston County Sheriff to provide police protection at a lower price than the Fowlerville Police Department. The Fowlerville Police Department was disbanded, and the officers went to work for other departments in the area. Ironically, one former officer is Undersheriff of the Livingston County Sheriff's Department, in charge of overseeing law enforcement services for the village. Financial records reveal that during 1983 and 1984, the sheriff did not charge the village for overtime incurred by deputies; instead, costs were spread over the entire county to maintain appearances of low cost service. While costs of keeping the Sheriff's Department coverage remained "low" for the first few years, a new sheriff corrected the accounting process. Consequently, 1994 law enforcement costs account for approximately 45% of the village budget. 13 The 1990's In addition to high costs, the village felt it did not get the service it deserved. Patrols were bolstered in May of 1991, following a bar brawl that injured two LCSD deputies. (“Council told," 1990). The community saw this as a response that only resulted from a one-time crisis, and the rift widened. By May of 1993, the village council agreed to study bringing back a local police department. Costs for the LCSD coverage were $325,000 for 1993, and increases in costs were expected for successive years. However, the council wanted the meetings regarding a new police department to be private (“Council approves," 1993). , On September 20, 1993, the village council approved the hiring of Michael Lesick, at the time the Chief of Police of Webberville, Michigan, and planned to terminate the LCSD contract and start a new department February 1, 1994. No community input was given in the matter, and thirty angry residents expressed their distaste with the process at the October 4, 1993 village council meeting. Nearly 150 people attended the October 18 meeting with similar concerns. Lesick, who had donated many hours researching startup costs and design of the proposed department, announced his candidacy withdrawal for the chief's position at the meeting, citing he did not want Fowlerville to be split over the law enforcement issue. The council split in a 3-3 tie to accept Lesick's resignation that night, but recanted on 14 November 15, 1993 and accepted the chief's self-removal from the position. The village council determined Fowlerville start its~ own village police department approximately April 30, 1994. The LCSD contract expired January 31, 1994, but the LCSD agreed to provide services for an extra 60 days. The LCSD indicated it would enact a new contract to cover this time period if the village experienced a gap in service from the startup of its own police agency. A new provision included unemployment pay for the five deputies who worked in Fowlerville. The LCSD stated since the Village eliminated the five job positions by starting its own department, unemployment! pay costs must be absorbed by the Village. The Village believes it can avoid this cost situation by having a department implemented by its LCSD contract deadline (Anonymous LCSD Administrator, 1994). Summary The founding fathers of the Village of Fowlerville realized a need for law enforcement in the community and appointed a Marshal as one of the first acts of incorporation. Policing progressed to foot patrol in the 1930's, and motorized patrol began during the 1940's; officers have since worked largely from vehicles. Policing in Fowlerville generally mirrors the U.S. history of law 15 enforcement, with budget constraints holding Fowlerville about a decade behind general trends. The same problems associated with reform era policing occurred in Fowlerville. For example, negative attitudes resulted from notions that the police organization is the sole source of law enforcement policy and procedure, and that the public knows little about police work. This has distanced police from the local political unit, and contributed to a breakdown of communication between the residents and the police. Fowlerville's police history has demonstrated that despite advances in technology, training, and budgets, problems still remain when communication fails between police and the public. With the possibility of a new police department starting in April 1994, or 1995, the Village of Fowlerville has an opportunity to implement a strategy which will serve to bring the police and the community closer together to exchange information, solve crimes, and reduce fear. This strategy, actually a philosophy, has developed from what is known as Community- Oriented Policing. 16 Chapter 3 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Introduction With the historical information provided in Chapter Two, a plan to solve the research problem is next established. Normative sponsorship theory lays a foundation for introducing new ideas to a group. Normative sponsorship draws on social and organizational principles and builds to an orderly problem solving process known as The Systematic Method. The Systematic Method is then modified and employed to solve the research issue. Normative Sponsorship Theory Sower developed normative sponsorship theory in 1957. This social action construct stipulates that acceptance of an innovation or change, in this case, policing the village, will be higher if introduced within organizational norms, goals, and leadership (Sower, 1994). The normative sponsorship idea is centered around the belief that decisions about change in any human organization are guided by the norms of both its formal and informal social systems. Proposed changes have a higher probability of being accepted (sponsored) when they are designed and initiated to fit the norms and goals of the organization. The-probability of acceptance is further increased if the "rules of initiation" for the organization are not violated in introducing the proposed change. Rules of initiation are the customary methods that define how change is introduced within a social system. (Sower, 1994) 17 Sower believes nearly all people of a community have an ownership stake, as well as some emotional attachment to cooperation and challenge. Normative sponsorship theory holds most community individuals have goodwill and are motivated to increase a community's quality of life. This is especially applicable to citizens seeking to elevate their own status and the quality of their majority of the citizens...it will not generate the necessary resources, activities, and effort required from the community citizens" (Sower, 1957). Principles of Social Organization Sower also discusses plans for using normative sponsorship theory in problem-solving. Sower draws from both social anthropology and organizational sociology, and states that in order to effect predictable change: 1. You need to understand the elements of each social system that are relative to achieving the goal. All human social systems have a recognized set of elements such as norms, leadership, and roles (behavior expectations) defined for each position. These may be based on age, sex, place, time, social rank, or some other criteria. 2. You must plan to prevent dedicated or organized opposition to your objective. 3. You need to understand the action processes through which changes customarily are introduced in each social system. - (Sower, 1994) 18 The Systematic Method Building upon Sower's principles of social organization, normative sponsorship theory involves a series of steps which allow for greater prediction of success or failure. This process is also known as the Systematic Method. The first step is to solve one recognized problem at a time, by determining if a solution is within community norms and social organizations. Sower believes the ideal of community good is more powerful in a group than the rights and privileges of a community member or community power force. Sower holds this principle works in problem solving to bring together local people and organizations (Sower, 1994). Next, one must determine who in a community will support a proposal, who will oppose it, and why. The third step is to understand the problem to be solved by way of a a systematic study. A compilation of past methods of problem solving in similar cases also serves to further understanding, as well tabulating other relevant literature. Next, solutions are introduced (the change model) within norms and goals of the community units that have an interest in solving an issue. This increases potential acceptance and minimize opposition. Lastly, a reminder is issued to follow the community rules of initiation when presenting the change model (Sower, 1994). With the Systematic Method established, the next course of action is the application of its principles. The 19 problem of creating a viable policing agency in Fowlerville has already been put forth. Therefore, a list must be created which approximates the formal and informal units of social organizations of interest to a Fowlerville law enforcement entity. Social Units While this term precludes a human element, it is essential to remember each group which follows contains living, breathing people who all have an interest in creating and maintaining a viable law enforcement entity in Fowlerville. The social units have been drawn from Sower's works, as well as research into Fowlerville's village offices, business groups, educational elements, the area Cooperative Extension Service, and interviews from knocking on many doors in the neighborhoods of Fowlerville. The list includes, but is not limited to, Administrators (Village, Police, Fire, etc.), Legislative and Executive Bodies (Village, County, State, Federal), Community Service Groups, Agency Clients (Students, Law Offenders, etc.), Churches, Paraprofessionals, Professionals, Families, Landowners, Renters, and Neighborhoods. These groups must be considered when determining policing strategy. A police entity will have greater predicted success in its operations by identifying and incorporating the norms of these groups. 20 There have been numerous policing strategies through history, all of which have failed to date in Fowlerville. The next police entity must incorporate a policing strategy grounded in normative sponsorship theory, and utilize a Systematic Method for problem solving. A strategy adapting normative sponsorship theory to policing is community- oriented policing. Community-Oriented Policing While no one theory adequately addresses all the elements of Community-Oriented Policing, (one reason for resistance to and confusion about community oriented policing), normative sponsorship provides a foundation upon which to build a successful community oriented policing strategy. Additionally, definitions of community and community oriented policing supplement these theories (Trojanowicz, 1992). Community-Oriented Policing is founded on the normative sponsorship ideas of involvement, cooperation, and challenge. COP also assumes that people want to be independent, and have input when constructing alternatives and implementing actions over which they have control. People are assumed happiest when making contributions to their existence, in matters of family, occupation, or environment (Trojanowicz and Moss, 1975, 135). Normative sponsorship has organizational and strategic implications for a police agency. An agency promoting normative 21 sponsorship ideals must shed an authoritarian image for greater cooperative efforts with citizens. Police roles also change, as department members serve as catalysts for problem identification, help facilitate neighborhood changes, and become a referral system source for citizens (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1990). Normative sponsorship theory was tested in the Detroit riot of July, 1967. As a result of the riots, 43 persons were killed, over 7200 persons were arrested, and the city assessor's office placed losses at $22 million, excluding business stock, private furnishings, and the building structures of churches and charitable institutions. Against this backdrop, however, a success was realized: As the riot alternately waxed and waned, one area of the ghetto remained insulated. On the northeast side the residents of some 150 square blocks inhabited by 21,000 persons, had, in 1966, banded together in the Positive Neighborhood Action Committee (PNAC). With professional help from the Institute of Urban Dynamics, they had organized block clubs and made plans for the improvement of the neighborhood. In order to meet the needs for recreational facilities, which the city was not providing, they raised $3000 to purchase empty lots for playground. Although opposed to urban renewal, they had agreed to co-sponsor with the Archdiocese of Detroit a housing project to be controlled jointly by the archdiocese and PNAC. When the riot broke out, the residents, through the block clubs, were able to organize quickly, youngsters, agreeing to stay in the neighborhood, participated in detouring traffic. While many persons reportedly sympathized with the idea of a rebellion against the "system," only two small fires were set--one in an empty building. (U.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 96) 22 While this example existed on a small scale compared with the totality of circumstances, cooperation, consensus building, common goals and interests produced individuals who acted in their best interests and maintained a quality of life for their community. From this beginning, Community-Oriented Policing arose in the 1980's, and handles problems at the infrastructure level. COP places officers in neighborhoods with the intention of long-term, sustained neighborhood management (Hoover, 1992). A philosophy, not a specific tactic, Community- Oriented Policing is a proactive, decentralized approach to reduce crime, disorder, and fear of crime by intensely involving the same officer in the same community on a long- term basis. Residents thus develop trust and cooperate with police, providing information and assistance to achieve these goals. COP uses tactics such as foot patrol to encourage a two—way information flow. Residents become the officer's eyes and ears on the streets and help set departmental policies and priorities. Improved police— community relations is a byproduct, not a goal, of this approach (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1990). To develop communication and trust, COP creates a framework to identify community goals through "discussion, discourse, debate, and consensus building". This idea exchange creates social action based on "cooperation... and determination of common goals" and "challenges people to act according to their best interests and improvement of their 23 quality of life" (Trojanowicz, 1992, 36). The vision of COP is enhanced police-community relations, and COP's goal is more frequent officer contact with the public. COP information exchange builds trust so crimes can be prevented or solved and citizen safety and welfare improved (Trojanowicz, 1994). While COP is the current trend, American culture generally reacts negatively to armed government agents in its neighborhoods. COP seeks to overcome this negative attitude through improved citizen service. Summary This chapter established the problem-solving normative sponsorship theory, provided organizational principles from which to operate, and introduced the Systematic Method for problem—solving. The problem to be solved here is the creation of a viable law enforcement entity in Fowlerville. A compilation of the groups relevant to the law enforcement issue was established, and consisted of Administrators (Village, Police, Fire Service), Legislative and Executive Bodies (Village Council, County Government, State Government, Federal), Community Service Groups (4-H, Treatment Resources), Agency Clients (Students, Law Offenders), Churches, Paraprofessionals, Professionals, Families, Landowners, Renters, and Neighborhoods. Lastly, Community-Oriented Policing was briefly explained as an application of normative sponsorship theory 24 in policing neighborhoods. The following chapter is the next step in the Systematic Method, a literature review of the applicable studies already conducted in Community Policing in America. 25 Chapter 4 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE To provide further insight into successfully policing Fowlerville, a compilation of applicable literature regarding community-oriented policing programs in action in other communities was conducted. This provides practical understanding of community-oriented policing, and lends support to tailoring a COP strategy for Fowlerville. This section examines successful Community-Oriented Policing programs from three communities in America: Flint, Michigan, Aurora, Colorado, and Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Each is examined to determine strategies involved in each program, and the principles applied in these cases can be adapted to Fowlerville. Flint, Michigan The Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program is an excellent example of normative sponsorship theory in action. The program operated in full effect from 1979 to 1989. Despite its success, the program today remains only in a few neighborhoods in the city. The Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program was a medium for Flint's community policing program. Surveys were first conducted to provide information on the history, attitudes, demographics, and neighborhood leaders of the residents in the beat areas. Privately funded with $3 million from the Charles Stewart 26 Moss Foundation, 22 officers were assigned to 14 beats in 1979 (Trojanowicz and Pollard, 1986). Officers met with residents and neighborhood leaders in citywide community meetings, and the public was allowed to take an active role in determining how it would be policed; this idea exchange was an essential process. Once problems were identified and goals established, a mutually agreeable strategy was established to combat crime. The media was also an important element in the COP process. Press assistance was negotiated by police to help foster the information exchange and educational process. This cooperation is an underpinning of normative sponsorship theory, which states that people are of good will and cooperate with others to satisfy needs (Trojanowicz, 1990; Trojanowicz and Smyth, 1984). Officers functioned as social scientists in the neighborhoods, and were allowed some freedom to determine solutions to specific problems. Additionally, officers assumed roles of department representative, law enforcement expert, educator, arbitrator, and assistant while on patrol. These roles required effective officer communication skills to make the program successful (Trojanowicz and Smyth, 1984) . The program was so well received that when the Mott funds expired three years later, the community voted to raise taxes to continue the effort. Flint PD expanded the foot patrol program citywide, to sixty-four beats, and the 27 same method of neighborhood problem analysis with community involvement was applied. Pleased residents voted tax raises in 1985 and 1988, something no other community at this time had done. Researchers asserted the levies proved a successful COP effort (Trojanowicz and Moore, 1988). Despite success in Flint, several factors resulted in the demise of the foot patrol program. First was a lack of political economic support in this financially depressed area. Second, the Mott funds expired. The department then experienced a downsizing due to financial reductions. Lastly, resources were shifted to motor patrol because the volume of serious calls for service precluded proactive efforts. The Flint program demonstrates the success or failure of a COP program depends on the community it serves. No matter the cooperation between residents and police, without financial support and strong political influence by residents, a COP effort will fail. Though Flint's public appropriated finances for foot patrol, decision makers would not supply adequate motor patrol funds. Ultimately, resources were shifted from foot patrol, and the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program collapsed. (Moore and Trojanowicz, 1988). Aurora, Colorado The Aurora, Colorado police department implemented a Community-Oriented Policing strategy in the summer of 1987. 28 A pretest on officers and the community was conducted prior to the implementation of the COP program. A posttest was also conducted. Results of the study continue to be valuable in the way the department conducts its personnel management. While citizen perceptions of the Police Department did not change significantly, officers reported significantly higher perceptions of safety on the job and greater job satisfaction as a result of community policing efforts. In addition, community police officers (CPO's) believed the new positions in the neighborhoods afforded them improved opportunities to utilize training, address conflicts, and create positive police-community relations. CPO's also demonstrated lower tendencies to transfer within the department or seek employment outside the agency. Community Police Officers were less likely than their peers to seek advancement positions within the department which removed them from their CPO assignment. These factors indicate an increased job satisfaction aspect of Community- Oriented Policing (Trojanowicz, Unpublished Results of the Aurora Study, 1990). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan After extensive planning, Michigan State University's (MSU) Department of Public Safety (DPS) in East Lansing, Michigan, implemented a campus Community Oriented Policing program in September, 1987. The program began with two Community Police Officers, each assigned to a beat covering 29 a geographical area approximately one-sixth of campus acreage. Each CPO was made responsible for the establishment and introduction of the Community Policing program in their "community". The CPO's agenda included identification of local leaders and volunteers and development of a "leader team". Officers were also assigned to identify potential resources such as MSU management staff. Building on the foundation of community associations, CPO's took part in criminal activity assessments in their assigned areas. Community-perceived needs were also placed on an objectives roster. Promoting DPS goals and values, CPO's planned objectives to combat community problems. Input from MSU's student body and faculty was crucial in the development and implementation of strategies and programs to resolve community needs. The officers also participated in program analysis to change their individual programs as necessary for community benefit (Benson, 1993). The test program was so well received by the communities it served, four more CPO's were assigned to Michigan State University's campus. As of 1990, six CPO's were at work in designated zones on the college grounds. MSU's 48 DPS officers serve, in addition to 8000 faculty and staff, 42,000 students, of which 25,000 reside on the 5,000 acres of central campus (Benson, 1993). The local media was also recognized as an integral component of the Community-Oriented Policing program. The 30 State_News student newspaper and the Lansing_SLaLe_JQurnal have exhibited positive efforts to promote the successes of the COP program. Numerous headlines and articles have featured exploits of both volunteers and police, which serve to educate the public and promote communication (Benson, 1993). Michigan State University's COP effort was implemented during a time of budget cuts, and required departmental resources to be reallocated to fund the program. With the help of volunteers and a department-wide commitment to COP, the following philosophies have continued to remain at the forefront: Community Policing is the philosophy of involving a police officer in a specific section of the community, with ownership, on a long-range basis. The key element is geographic ownership. The officer works to organize community resources, the police department and other agencies to reduce crime and meet the appropriate community needs. Community policing is a philosophy of caring, working with people, and helping people. This often means helping people informally when the formal systems do not seem to work. (Benson 1993) SUMMARY The successful concepts of Flint's Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program were applied to the Aurora, Colorado, and Michigan State University locales. Each community was analyzed to determine residential makeup. Leaders in the populace were identified and cultivated for assistance, and 31 the public was actively involved in the creation and application of the policing strategy. The media was regarded as an ally and recognized for its educational and informational potential . Cooperative efforts of the COP programs also had the effect of enhanced job perceptions for police personnel as well as making quality of life improvements for the public (Benson, 1993). These cases demonstrate that a COP program can enhance a community, and show that residents are more likely to support a policing program which actively involves them in the design and application. The next step, then, is a community analysis. 32 Chapter 5 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY Introduction To reiterate, the research questions of this study as applied to a police organization involve: the identification of the social systems and norms at work in Fowlerville, distinguishing potential areas of organized or dedicated opposition, and reviewing the action processes through which changes are customarily introduced in Fowlerville. This knowledge is intended to construct the best policing strategy for a viable law enforcement entity. This chapter contains a community analysis of Fowlerville constructed through interviews with subjects from groups relevant to the law enforcement issue. Subjects interviewed were from the following groups: Administrators (Village, Police, Fire Service, etc.), Legislative and Executive Bodies (Village, County, State, Federal), Community Service Groups, Agency Clients (Students, Law Offenders, etc.), Churches, Paraprofessionals, Professionals, Families, Landowners, Renters, and Neighborhoods. The subjects were promised anonymity for their views. In addition to interviews, a survey exercise was conducted in the Village. The survey exercise is explained in Chapter 6, and together, the interviews and survey provide insights as to the norms and attitudes of the community. 33 Research Setting Divisions To more closely study the norms and attitudes of Fowlerville, the village was divided into four quarters to interview residents and distribute survey forms. The quarters are used as units of analysis in the study, and were selected according to the division of the village by Grand River Avenue (divides the village into Northern and Southern halves) and Grand Avenue (divides the village into Eastern and Western halves). The village was divided into four quarters to determine whether norms and neighborhood problems differ significantly by geography in the village of Fowlerville. The intent was to better allow a police agency to focus on specific problem areas. The quarters are called Areas for the remainder of this paper. Demographically, Area I (NW Quadrant) is sparse housing with mid to lower income neighborhoods; Area II (NE Quadrant) contains mostly new houses and schools (mostly upper income); Area III (SE Quadrant) contains churches and residential areas. The south area of Area III contains two large apartment complexes and restaurants (e.g. McDonald's) near Interstate 96. Area IV has the most densely populated area of the village, with a 148 trailer mobile home park and an apartment complex. Few residential areas exist here. Once the research layout was completed, interviews were conducted of subjects from the various social units of Fowlerville, including 14 Administrators (Village, Police, Fire Service), 18 members of Legislative and Executive 34 Bodies (Village Council, County Government, State Government, Federal), 10 members of Community Service Groups (4-H, Treatment Resources, etc.), 74 Agency Clients (Students, Law Offenders), 5 Church leaders, 6 Paraprofessionals, 12 Professionals, and 244 members of groups comprising Families, Landowners, and Renters. The interviews were not exhaustive, nor was each member of each group interviewed, as time and financial constraints precluded this. The author feels the 383 subjects located and interviewed provide sufficient insight on the community norms. A breakdown of the numbers of each group interviewed by Area is shown in the Appendix under Community Maps. Administrator Interviews Many former Fowlerville Police Department (FPD) officers were interviewed, as well as current Livingston County Sheriff's Department (LCSD) administrators and deputies assigned to the Fowlerville substation. Former Fowlerville Police Officer Bud Manning (1959-1960), Livingston County Undersheriff Kenneth Wright (FPD Officer 1969-1983), LCSD Lieutenant Henry Gallup (Oversees Law Enforcement Operations), Lieutenant Gerald Bockhausen (formerly an FPD officer, now a Lieutenant with the Brighton, Michigan, Police Department), LCSD Deputy Robert Smith (assigned to day shift in Fowlerville) and Chief Robert Kritchke (Fowlerville Police Chief, 1973-1983, now Chief of Police with Hamburg Township, Michigan, Police 35 Department) were interviewed to supplement Fowlerville's official records and provide insights into the dynamics of its policing history. Former FPD employees, as well as the LCSD administration, indicated the Village Council has little idea of operational resources necessary to run an effective law enforcement agency. Cost factors outweighed mention of law enforcement service quality by the Fowlerville Village Council. A former FPD chief stated, "Training in those days consisted of anything that was free." A LCSD administrator noted, "The Village has champagne tastes and a beer budget." These statements were supported by council member interviews. The LCSD deputies interviewed had just begun a rotation in Fowlerville in November of 1993, and were still becoming acclimated to the environment. They were, however, genuinely interested in the research. Both deputies stated they were well aware of the problems facing the community, and cited alcohol, youth problems, and family disintegration as examples. Deputies noted a lack of communication between LCSD administration, LCSD line staff, and Village Council, and resulted in an unfocused policing approach. Legislative Interviews One person interviewed was a councilwoman of twenty years. She gave a historical development of Fowlerville's crime problems and law enforcement, as well as why the 36 Fowlerville Police Department was disbanded in 1983. She also stated the FPD unionized in 1971. This resulted in requests for higher wages and benefits, which the village council was unable or unwilling to pay. The FPD was dissolved, and the LCSD was contracted to cover law enforcement duties at a lower cost to the village. Cost concerns were confirmed by other sources, including the Village President of over 10 years. Little mention of police service quality was made by local government. The village council perceives law enforcement from a cost perspective. The history between the council and the local law enforcement entity has been marked by hostility towards unions, lack of communication on both-sides, and a mutual lack of understanding of the job roles of police administrators and council members. A policing strategy must consider these problems in its approach to be successful, and be cost-responsible while educating the council on matters of cost justification. Except for the village manager, the village council was most hostile to the researcher, and often questioned the study's validity prior to completion. Community Service Group Interviews There are a great deal of community service groups in Fowlerville and the immediate area. The groups have operated basically independent of one another in the past. The groups have the potential to be utilized by a police 37 administrator for additional assistance and possible cost reductions to the police agency. Agency Client Interviews Students were also interviewed during the course of this study. Students felt they did not receive enough credit from the community, and said Fowlerville believes many of its youth are unfavorable. Students said when a small percentage of their peers destroy property and cause trouble in the village, all youth get labeled as bad. Most students stated they would assist police if asked to do so. The problem of youth perceived by the community, then, could be lessened by incorporating youth into positive activities, such as cleaning up park areas. The police agency could organize the youth on its own or through a service agency like 4-H, and coordinate a media coverage of the event. The village community should respond favorably to youth contributing to the public. Youth causing problems must be handled by the police in a decisive manner, and a reputation that youth crime and status offenses will not be tolerated by the police agency should be cultivated in the community. This will serve the purpose of providing community support of its police by responding to specific community concerns. Youth offenders could also be placed on community enhancement projects by juvenile court officials, to serve to help the community and stand as a message to other potential youthful offenders. 38 Church-Related Interviews The clergymen in the village responded very favorably to the research. The clergy perceives the law enforcement problem from a perspective of a breakdown in societal values. The clergy overwhelmingly would support a law enforcement administrator and should be called upon to communicate the ideas of the police to the members of the churches they serve. This situation is an excellent opportunity for constructive, two-way communication between the police and a large portion of Fowlerville. The clergy expressed an active interest in acting as leaders and identifying leaders within their church who could garner law enforcement support and involvement. The clergy also offered to support positive youth-based activities. Paraprofessional Interviews Paraprofessionals are nonprofessional workers who assist professional workers in their activities. There is not as yet a great deal of industry or service technology built up in the village. The views of the paraprofessionals are consistent with those obtained in the interviews of families in neighborhoods, as paraprofessionals were observed to be residents who lived in Fowlerville. Further information is contained under the Family Interviews heading. 39 Professional Interviews There are a fair number of professionals in the village of Fowlerville, mostly located in businesses in the downtown area. Professionals see the law enforcement problem from a business-related standpoint. Professionals are concerned about the tax dollars used to fund a law enforcement organization, as well as getting proper protection for their business establishments. Professionals as a whole were supportive of law enforcement, and, if proper credit was given in the media, could be considered a police asset. Family Interviews Families were concerned for the day to day safety of the people and their personal property. Children were also consistently mentioned. Most families indicated a willingness to remain in Fowlerville, as they perceived it as having fewer problems than larger towns nearby. Families did express a growing concern that things are becoming worse in the village. Reasons given were drug use and youth problems, and an increasing number of welfare recipients, who were seen as not having as great a stake in the community. Families expressed a great desire to have some form of law enforcement present in the village. The family unit in Fowlerville also appears to be a strong proponent for police operations, and seems more intact in Fowlerville than other areas. 40 Landowner Interviews Landowners in the village seemed the most concerned about the law enforcement issue, and were most willing to discuss the matter. Over and over, the author was invited into homes of strangers to discuss issues. Landowners perceived the law enforcement problem from both a business and protection standpoint. Concern over tax burdens was the focus of landowners, as well as protection of property from theft and vandalism. Landowners also expressed emphasis on renters not having a complete stake in the community, as if not owning property lessened a personal commitment to Fowlerville. Landowners were supportive of a law enforcement entity in the village, as long as the services were consistent with the taxes incurred. Landowners blame the village council more than the police for the current situation. Landowners expressed greater concern for ordinance enforcement than general law enforcement, a view which must be kept high in police priorities to maintain landowner support. Renter Interviews Renter interviews were the most difficult to accomplish for the study. Most apartment renters seemed unwilling to talk with the author about concerns, or complete a survey form. Renters mentioned police responded to more calls at the village's apartment complexes than to other portions of town. Generally, apartment renters worked in more service- 41 related jobs, or were unemployed. Most apartment renters stated they did not know their next door neighbors. Neighborhood Interviews To accomplish this objective, several Village Council members, two LCSD deputies, and Fowlerville residents were informally interviewed. Area I was noted as quiet and is the least populated Area in the research. Police and residents reported no problems other than the vandalism of a park gazebo by juveniles. While no mention of neighborhood groups in Area I was made, it appears high in cohesion, and low in disorder and fear of crime. While Area II contains two small blocks of low income housing, most of the section appears to be of an upper socio-economic status. Area II appears to be the only village Area where new homes are being built. Area II has a long dead end street, which cuts down on traffic. Area II has the only visible window stickers in the village which indicate the presence of home security alarms. Area II is held in high regard and has a very clean and ordered appearance. Area II appears high in cohesion, low in disorder, and low in fear of crime. Area III is largely residential, and contains several churches. Problems with unsupervised juveniles in Area III were noted frequently by residents. While most houses in Area III are clean, there are several which have trash on the lawns. The problem apartment complexes, indicated by 42 police and residents, are located in the southern portion of Area III in close proximity to one another. Area III, after interviews and observations, appears low in cohesion, and high in disorder and fear of crime. Area IV is the most densely populated area, due to the 148-trailer mobile home park. Problems with several elements in this area, including low income or state assisted families, fear of crime by the large elderly population which resides in the area, and unsupervised juveniles were mentioned frequently by both law enforcement and residents. Upon examination, Area IV appears low in cohesion, high in disorder, and high in fear of crime. Summary The qualitative aspect of the study was observational in nature, with semi-structured interviews. These interviews were semi-structured and gathered impressions of potential respondents towards the history of law enforcement in Fowlerville, attitudes towards police services, and whether the policing situation is seen as a problem in the village. The dominant methodological strategy was as an observer, with considerable time spent at Village Council meetings, the Fowlerville News and Views newspaper office, and the Village Office. Based on interviews, the social systems at work in Fowlerville are composed of Administrators, Legislative and 43 Executive Bodies, Community Service Groups, Agency Clients, Churches, Paraprofessionals, Professionals, Families, Landowners, Renters, and Neighborhoods. The norms of these groups are conservative and exemplify traditional morals and family-oriented values. All groups expressed a genuine concern for the community and the law enforcement issue. Potential areas of organized or dedicated opposition exist in all groups, but are most evident in the local legislative body and renters. Law enforcement must develop sensitivity to the issues concerning these groups to lessen resistance. The action processes through which changes are customarily introduced in Fowlerville have traditionally been through the involvement of only a few persons on the village council, and renters have been least active. Based on interviews, the best policing strategy for a viable law enforcement entity incorporates normative sponsorship and COP into its operations to improve interaction among community groups. This addresses the most visible problem, a lack of communication, between the community, the Village Council, and the LCSD. This was evidenced by poor public showings at council meetings (also frequent absences of the LCSD representative charged with presenting police service updates), the historical absence of community input to its council, and the failure of the police services contract. 44 Residents felt the LCSD ignored the "needs" of the community, e.g., not "unlocking the cemetery gates," and "difficulty in getting consistent enforcement on zoning violations" (Village Council Meeting, 1993). Deputies had the option to leave the village to handle emergency calls, a concern for many village residents. While the people in outlying areas of Fowlerville did not pay extra taxes for the coverage provided by the Sheriff's Department, they enjoyed faster emergency services from the Fowlerville substation. In short, factors inhibiting effective communication produced a situation in which the Fowlerville Village Council and the Livingston County Sheriff's Department parted cooperation for the benefit of Fowlerville residents. In synopsis, Fowlerville's social units form a rather conservative, cohesive, family-oriented community which overwhelmingly supports law enforcement in the village. The challenge, then, is not whether a law enforcement entity should exist, or even in what form, but how the organization operates in the village and responds to peoples' needs. The following chapter contains a survey exercise intended to elicit further attitudes and community norms in a manageable form. 45 Chapter 6 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY Introduction In addition to interviews, I administered a survey to village residents. The survey, developed by Mark Lanier (See Appendix D) measures levels of cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime in the community. The survey measures norms and attitudes about crime and law enforcement issues and its information can be used as a starting point for a police agency. The survey could be administered again in the future to measure success or failure of law enforcement. The numbers alone yielded by the survey are not intended to be all—encompassing, as time and financial constraints precluded a detailed, technical application of research techniques. Combined with interviews, the survey yielded valuable insights of Fowlerville which could not have otherwise been obtained. This chapter describes the survey research strategy and procedures used to enhance the reliability and validity of the study. The survey goal was to identify social systems and norms at work in Fowlerville, distinguish potential areas of organized or dedicated opposition, and review the action processes through which changes are customarily introduced in Fowlerville. This knowledge, combined with interview facts, is intended to construct the best policing strategy for a viable law enforcement entity. 46 Survey Instrument In reviewing applicable literature, a survey was discovered that had been used in a community policing program in neighborhood evaluations. The information was applicable to norms and attitudes of a community and consists of an eight page questionnaire (see Appendix D). The instrument was designed using text requiring only about a sixth grade reading level. Furthermore, the questionnaire was designed to elicit information on perceived crime, fear of crime, disorder, cohesion, and respondent demographics (Lanier, 1993, p. 57). The Community Survey consists of 61 items. Subjects respond to items by marking a response on the questionnaire form. Answers are then categorized according to numeric values assigned to categorical responses . Data Collection Procedures The population to be studied for this thesis is the approximately 2650 residents of Fowlerville. Surveys were given to subjects ages 14 and over, because Lanier's survey requires approximately a sixth grade education for completion. The 1990 Census indicated that approximately 25% of Fowlerville residents were under age 14. Thus, survey feedback was intended to be the attitudes and norms of approximately 1986 adult subjects in Fowlerville. I intended to give each adult Fowlerville subject an equal chance of being selected for a survey completion. To 47 this end, a property map showing Fowlerville residences was used to track survey distribution and response rates. Fowlerville's Zoning Future Development Guide map, updated in 1984 by the Office of County Planning, identified households in Fowlerville neighborhoods. Each household was contacted and a Community Survey given to each adult. Survey Distribution The survey forms had a cover letter attached, which was approved by the MSU University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) office. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey, the optional completion of the survey, the return location, and the researcher as the contact person for the survey. The return location chosen was the Fowlerville village office. This site was chosen, because it lent credibility to the authenticity of the survey, and was centrally located in the village. Residents must also pay their water bills at the village office, and it was intended the survey be turned in with a resident's monthly water payment. Pencils were also provided to subjects. Using Fowlerville's Zoning Future Development Guide map, the researcher hand delivered the survey to convenient samples (every residence in a neighborhood) in Areas I, II, and III. In Area IV, a combination of a convenient sample and a systematic sample (every third trailer in the densely populated trailer park) was used. Because the trailer park 48 is comprised of a similar population of retired subjects over age 55, this systematic sample was used to reduce time and reduce skewed results by the overreporting of subjects who had the most likely opportunity to complete the survey. This action was later supported when surveys were tabulated and Area IV resident response rates were consistent that elderly subjects completed the survey. For the Area IV mobile home park, distribution occurred Wednesday, December 22, 1993. For an Area III apartment complex, distribution occurred Tuesday, December 28, 1993. Fowlerville's remaining residences were contacted January 3- 5, 1994, and given a response deadline of January 17, 1994. Approximately 75% of all Fowlerville residences were contacted over the course of the survey distribution. Efforts to Increase Response Rate Locations with large numbers of residents but an anticipated low return rate were two Area III apartment complexes and an Area IV mobile home park. Since these areas were targeted as problematic for questionnaire returns, a slightly longer time period to turn in the forms was given. The apartment complexes in Area III were dealt with using a person familiar to residents. At one complex, the apartment manager agreed to collect forms if residents could not transport themselves to the village office. At the other, the maintenance staff member accompanied the 49 researcher and introduced the author to all occupants (one Community Survey form per apartment was distributed). The maintenance staff member also allowed residents to return completed Community Survey forms at the Maintenance Office. The maintenance staff member also volunteered to transport any completed questionnaire forms to the village office to facilitate convenience for the residents and the researcher. Additionally, the manager at the mobile home park agreed to accept questionnaire forms at her office, where residents had to drop off rent checks. Of the 148 trailers, every third residence (48 total) was systematically selected and given questionnaires. Survey Response A total of 669 surveys were delivered to Fowlerville residents. The distribution of the surveys by Area is further explained in Table 4. The estimated face to face adult contact rate by the researcher was 34%. In all, approximately 41 of 50 households in Area I, 76 of 132 households in Area II, 163 of 201 households in Area III, 121 of 167 households in Area IV completed surveys. Also, 8 business owners in Area I, 8 business owners in Area II, 12 business owners in Area III, and 8 business owners in Area IV received questionnaires. V Despite every effort to explain the survey in face to face interviews and provide a convenient means of return, 50 only 195 completed surveys were returned to the village office for analysis, a rather low response rate of 29.1%. In addition, only 2 of 36 (5.6%) Community Survey forms distributed at one of the apartment complexes (despite introductions by maintenance staff, provision of pencils, and convenient return location) were returned. Only 5 of the 16 (31.3%) distributed at the other complex were returned. Also, only 19 of the 48 (39.5%) questionnaires were returned at the mobile home park. Excluding these three instances (74 questionnaires not returned total), 595 surveys, or a 32.7% (195/595) response rate, composed the "community opinion." The low response rate of returned completed surveys to residences contacted can be due to several factors. First, the survey was distributed during the holiday season, which may have contributed to its being made a low priority among residents during a busy time of year. In addition, the survey length may have contributed to the low return rate. The fact that much personal information (e.g. income) was on the survey also have made some residents unwilling to reveal information. Also, no follow-up surveys or recontacts were conducted due to time and budget restraints. While the low return rate seemed disappointing at first, it is consistent with the norms and attitudes of the community. Interviews reported low community participation in government activities at the local level; this low response rate is typical of this community attitude. The 51 low response rate also speaks to a police organization's need to involve more citizens in its activities. When subjects develop a sense of ownership of the law enforcement entity, it is believed the response rate would rise notably. Variables The independent variable is Area (I, II, III, or IV). The dependent variables consist of Questions 1-52 on the survey, which measure cohesion, fear of crime, and disorder. Also, rates of marital status, educational background, employment, and race/ethnicity were measured for comparison against census data to check whether a representative response sample was obtained. The final item on the survey was an open-ended question. Respondents were asked to provide personal views on the law enforcement issue, discuss problems in their neighborhoods, or provide other relevant information. Scale Construction Table 1 contains scales, or narrative descriptions, of survey questions designed to measure cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime to assist in assessing a community's norms and attitudes. With exception of fear of crime measures, Lanier established content and construct validity for questionnaire variable measurement from police researchers and criminal justice student input. Use of multiple measures and techniques decreased bias threats (Lanier, 1993). 52 Table 1. Quantitative Measure of Community Cohesion (Cumulative reliability coefficient alpha of 4 factors=.73) Attachment (affection for, and sensitivity to others, strength of ties to others; alpha=.63) How often do you have friendly talks with neighbors? How many of your neighbors do you know by name? Most neighbors don't talk to each other. Belief (conventional moral beliefs acceptance, strength of conformity attitudes; alpha=.41) How important is it for neighbors to think you always obey the law? As long as no one gets hurt it is O.K. to break some laws. The laws are to protect you. Public support of the police is important for keeping law and order. Commitment (rational investment in conventional society, local community, and devotion to conformist conduct; alpha=.55) How often do you do things outside (yard, playground, sidewalk) to take care of, or improve, the place you live? How often do you do something to keep your house and/or neighborhood nice? Is crime serious enough here you would move if you could? Most neighbors don't care about this neighborhood. Involvement (time spent with conventional activities; alpha=.60) During the day, how often do you walk/run/bike in your neighborhood? After sunset, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? How often do you participate in neighborhood group (Church, athletic, neighborhood association, social) activities? Each stage of the research contained speCific threats to both reliability and validity. Manning (1988) stated, "self and role of the observer mediate the data gathered, information on the role of the observer is essential to 53 questions of reliability and validity" (Manning, 1988, 24). Lanier examined each scale to evaluate how individual items met standardized internal consistency criteria described in Babbie (Babbie, 1992, 247, 248). Lanier's statistical manipulations indicated all three scales had consistent reliability properties on the elements they measured (Lanier, 1993, 109, 110). Due to the study's exploratory nature, no claims of generalization to other neighborhoods or villages can be made. Also, no stimulus was measured, so extraneous factors had minimal influence on the results. Lastly, the research design prevents causal determination identification (e.g., maturation, testing, instrumentation). Reliability is measured on a scale from 0 to 1, with 1 being the highest possible score, and is termed an alpha reliability coefficient factor. An alpha score essentially explains to what extent a scale accurately measured what it was intended to measure. An alpha of .60 is generally considered good for research purposes. Table 1 shows the overall measure of Cohesion in Fowlerville was good (.73). Belief is measured using four items. While the relationship has a low Alpha (.40), this item must still be examined against the qualitative data. While the Belief items may at first appear not to measure what they were intended to measure, the field observations of the community overall suggests an overwhelming support for law and order, as well as strong support of law enforcement agencies. 54 overall suggests an overwhelming support for law and order, as well as strong support of law enforcement agencies. The Commitment construct is very near to a good score for accurately measuring the presumed traditional, conformist conduct of the Fowlerville community. The community can be presumed to have a good degree of commitment to an ordered society. The Involvement score of .60 demonstrates a good measurement of the Involvement construct in the community. Individuals in the community can be presumed to have a good deal of Involvement in the areas in which they live, and suggests a police agency could call upon residents to participate in assisting the police in neighborhood watch programs, and other measures aimed at increasing communication and decreasing crime in each Area. Table 2 shows the concepts used to measure Community Disorder. These concepts include criminal acts and also encompass several social concerns of a community. The alpha score of .91 demonstrates a very high level of accuracy for the measurement of Disorder in the Community. Table 2. Community Disorder Quantitative Measures(alpha=.91) Prostitution Drug use Theft, robbery Fighting, violence Unsupervised juveniles Excessive use of alcohol Inadequate Schools Loud Parties Sexual Assaults Homeless people Gang Activity Unemployment General Appearance Short-term renters Abandoned/run-down buildings 55 Table 3 displays results of Fear Of Crime measures, including individualized, or personal fear, as well as general neighborhood fear. Four of the nine Fear Of Crime questions measured "generalized, neighborhood-wide" fears (Lanier, 1993, 106). All Areas reported rates indicating safety over 91% of the time; Area IV respondents indicated their Area was safe at night 100.0% of the time. Area I reported the highest neighborhood fear rate, while Area III ranked second. Overall, less than 5% of village residents would move because of crime. Only 8.9% of Area II respondents and 8.3% of Area IV residents felt their Area was becoming safer. Area III ranked third in safety improvements (7.4%). No Area I respondents indicated the Area was becoming safer, a fact law enforcement should use to encourage visibility and interaction with residents to better improve perceptions of neighborhood safety. The alpha of .77 demonstrated the survey provided a very good measurement of the Fear of Crime construct in Fowlerville. Table 3. Quantitative Measures of Fear of Crime (alpha=.77) L How safe is your neighborhood at night? How is the safety level in your neighborhood changing? Fear of crime - ranked Is crime serious enough here you would move if you could? Do you think your chances of being a violent crime victim (rape, assault, mugging) are great in this neighborhood? Do you feel that you are more likely than most others to be a crime victim? How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood at night How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood during the day? 56 Table 4 is a breakdown of the survey distribution and response rate by Area. The total surveys distributed was 669. All four Areas were observed to have nearly the same return rate for surveys, suggesting community levels of participation in a project or feedback rates would likely be similar throughout the village for a police agency program or policy. Table 4. Response Rates By Area (N=669) Area Sample Size N of Respondents Response Rate I 76 26 28.9 II 155 56 36.1 III 265 68 25.7 IV 173 49 28.3 Overall Response Rate = 29.1 %. When Table 5 is compared with 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census data, the returned surveys overrepresent persons aged 56 and older. While this could skew the perceived norms and attitudes of Fowlerville, residents aged 56 and older can also be viewed as the group most likely to participate in a Community Policing plan. This assumption is based on the fact that the group demonstrated enough concern about issues to complete a lengthy survey. 57 Table 5 Survey Demographic Results For Age, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) Under 16 4.5 (1) 4.0 (2) 2.9 (2) 0.0 (0) 2.7 (5) 16-25 4.5 (1) 8.9 (5) 10.3 (9) 6.1 (3) 9.2 (18) 26-35 4.5 (1) 10.7 (6) 17.6 (12) 14.3 (7) 13.3 (26) 36-45 22.7 (5) 16.1 (9) 16.2 (11) 16.3 (8) 16.9 (33) 46-55 22.7 (5) 19.6(11) 25.0 (17) 16.3 (8) 21.0 (41) 56&Older 40.9 (9) 41.1(23) 27.9 (17) 46.9(23) 36.9 (72) Table 6 provides the survey rates of race demographics for the survey. The race demographics received in the survey are generally consistent with 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census figures and community observations. This information is valuable to a police agency, as budgeting and training decisions could focus less on multicultural issues if funds were found to be scarce. Table 6 Survey Demographic Results For Race, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total 95 (N) % (N) 95 (N) % (N % (N) White 100.0 (22) 96.4 (54) 97.0 (65) 93.9 (46) 96.0 (187) Black 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 4.1 (2) .5 (1) Hispanic 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) -4.1 '(2) 1.0 (2) Oriental 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) Other 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 3.0 (2) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (4) No Response 0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (l) 0.0 (0) 5 (1) 58 Table 7 shows survey Gender demographics, which are fairly consistent with 1990 U.S. Census Bureau information, as well as observations of the community. This serves to remind a police agency that issues and concerns of both men and women must be taken into consideration for policies, procedures, as well as the hiring and training of officers. Table 7. Survey Demographic Results For Gender, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total % (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N 96 (N) Male 50.0 (11) 41.1 (23) 42.6 (29) 40.8 (20) 42.5 (83) Female 50.0 (11) 58.9 (33) 57.4 (39) 59.2 (29) 57.5 (112) Table 8 is the Marital Status makeup of respondents, and is generally consistent with 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census statistics as well as community observations. A police agency should note the high level of married respondents as a good indicator of a source of community participation with law enforcement. Also of interest is the high levels of reported widowers in Area IV. This suggests a more aged population in this area to which a police agency should accordingly tailor its education programs and patrols. S9 Table 8. Survey Demographic Results, Marital Status, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N 96 (N) Single 9.1 (2) 16.1 (9) 14.9 (10) 6.1 (3) 12.3 (24) Married 77.3 (17) 66.1 (37) 70.1 (47) 61.2 (30) 67.1(131) Divorced 13.6 (3) 12.5 (7) 9.0 (6) 16.3 (8) 12.3 (24) Separated 0.0 (0) 3.6 (2) 1.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (3) Widowed 0.0 (0) 1.8 (l) 4.5 (3) 16.3 (8) 6.3 (12) No Response 0.0(0) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (1) 0.0 (0) .5 (1) Table 9 illustrates the occupation categories of survey respondents. The results are generally consistent with 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census data. The rates of professionals are slightly inflated over the actual population makeup, but this level of participation suggests a group a police agency could approach for support or special project funding. The high levels of retirees in areas IV and II suggest a more aged population for police patrol functions. Table 9. Survey Demographic Results For Occupation, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total % (N) 96 (N) 96 (N) 96 (N 96 (N) Factory 9.1 (2) 17.9 (10) 17.6 (12) 22.4 (11)17.9 (35) Professional 18.2 (4) 19.6 (11) 26.5 (18) 14.3 (7) 20.5 (40) Service 31.8 (7) 21.4 (12) 27.9 (19) 14.3 (7) 23.1 (45) Retired 22.7 (5) 30.4 (17) 13.2 (9) 40.8(20) 26.2 (51) Unemployed 18.2 (4) 10.7 (6) 14.7 (10) 8.2 (4) 12.3 (24) 60 Table 10 illustrates the education levels of survey respondents. Rates of education are fairly consistent with 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census data and community observations. Most Fowlerville residents were observed to be at least high school graduates with some college. 6.5% of Fowlerville residents have less than a ninth grade education. A police agency should construct its public communications at about a ninth grade level for maximum effectiveness. Table 10. Survey Demographic Results For Education, N=195 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total 96 (N) 95 (N) 96 (N) % (N) 96 (N) 330 .30 33.3 33. sauce? .3. 0.... 3. 0333.33 33.. .33 363.8. 3.33.83 033390 .3 3033.333: 6....» 3283... 90 ...9—999.8 99!: 9.9.8.999 929...! 9999.99 9. 9999!... .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .98 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .9.9 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 29399.99 99.9.3 999 .9.9 ..99 .999 .999 .999 .999 999 999 999 99. .999 .999 999 999 .999 9999 9999 ..999 (.9.9 939.00., 999 999 999 ..99 ..99 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 . .99 ...9 .999 999 .9.9 ..99 .999 9999 9999 fig .9. 999 999 .9.9 .999 .999 .99. .999 .999 .999 ..9. ..99 99. 999 999 999 999 ..99 .999 .9.9 900... ...9 999 999 .9. 9 ..99 .999 . .99 .89 .999 .999 999 999 9.9 99 . 999 999 9.9 ..99 .999 99.. 9999 9289 999 999 999 99. 99. .999 .99. 9.9 9.9 999 999 999 999 999 99. .999 9999 9999 999. .9999 933 999 999 99. 999 999 999 .89 999 9.9 99. 999 999 99. 999 999 .999 .999 999. 9999 .9999 ..99» 9&9 999 999 999 999 89 9.9 999 9.9 999 999 999 99. 99. 999 99. .9.9 9.99 999. ..9.9 .9999 9.3.9 .99 999 999 .999 9.99 999. 9999 9.99 ..9. .999 .999 .999 .99. 99. 99. 999 .9.9 .9 99 9999 9999 98... II 999 999 .999 ..99 ..99 .999 ..9. .999 .99. 999 999 999 999 999 999 .999 .999 9999 9999 9999 998.. 99. ..99 .999 9999 99.9 9999 9.99 .99. 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 .999 99 99 9999 9999 .0900 999 999 999 999 999 .9.9 9.9 999 999 999 89 999 999 99. 999 999 999 9. 9 .999 .999 3.3.3 999 999 999 .... ..99 .999 .9.9 ..99 .999 .9.9 999 999 .99. .9.9 .999 .999 .999 9999 9999 99.9 9090.9 999 999 ..99 .9.9 .9.9 .999 999 9.9 999 999 89 999 999 999 999 .999 .999 9999 9 .99 9999 ,3... 999 999 .9.9 .99. .9.9 .999 .999 999 9.9 99. 99. ...9 999 999 999 999 .99. 9999 9999 9999 .993.- 999 999 . .99 .999 ..99 .999 ..99 .999 999 9.. 999 999 999 999 999 .999 .999 9999 9999 9999 .9.9... . .9 999 .999 . . .9 .99. .999 .999 .999 .9.9 999 999 999 999 999 99. 999 .999 .9 .9 .999 9999 9999 9.399 9 9.2.9.9 9. 0. 91,93 0 e e e e e e 99. 9.9 99. 999 e e .999 .999 .99. 9999 9999 9999 9999 9. 0. 9312.4...- 0 o e e e e e o 99. 999 .9.9 e e ..9. ...9 .999 .999 .999 9999 9999 9. O. 998.. o o 999 e e e e 9999 9999 99.9 9999 N999 999. 99.9 9999 9999 999. 9999 9999 9.99 9. o. 9.393 e o e e e e e 999 999 98 999 o e 999 999 999 999 99. .999 .999 9.9.98.3 83.. 9999 .9999 .9999 .9999 99999 9999. 9.999 99999 99999 .9999 .9999 .9999 .9999 .9999 99999 99999 99999 99999 .99999 ..9999 299. ...9. Ila). a .D 99.3 s ..9.9 3 9.99.999 999... 3.9.39 9.. 9.9.93.3 89.. 25!.3 9993.3... 99:. .999 3... .9... 33 32.3.. 91 .325... 8...... 5.32.. .2 i=8... ...9. .3. 9...... .2252. 3.3.3. :93 8.8.2.. .2 35.22 92.8 8.. c. ..a .358 99.9 .999 99.9 9999 an... 2:. n...» :8. n... .2. n... =3 n...~ .22 n... ...o _ 9.2 . $3.. 3.2 :58 n... 2 n..~ : n... S. 8.2 .2. 2.. 2 n... 2 2.2 2. n..... 2. . 22 . .3. 25.9... n... ..n n... .2 n... .2 2.: 32 n... .3 n... 2. no... .3. u... .3 _ 3...... :8... n... .o n..~ 2 n... .2 2.2 2. n... .2 n... .2 3.2 o: 2.... .2 _ 12.32 3.3.3.... n... 2. n... z. n... S. 2.: 22 u... 8. n... 8. no... 8.. n... a.» . 93.33 5......- _ . 23:... a... 2.... n... S. 2.. 2. 2.... 2. 3.: a... n... 2. n... a. 2.2 .2 n... a: . 12 . :2 3:3... n... .2 n... n: no... .3 n1: :2 n... .2 3.. 8. no... .3. 2.. .3 . E: _ :3 .8... 2.. 9. n... 2. no... 3. n...» 8.. no; 3. n... .2 2.2 .2. n... .2 .. a... _ 89 [52 u... 3. n... 3. 5... a: 2.3 as. 2.. .2 n... .2 no.2 3... n... .3 . 12.23 :88 a... 3. n... .2 no... 2. 2.2 a... n... .2 n... 32 no.2 2.. n... ..n . a .2: 5.5. u... 3 n... 3 n.... 3. no.3 2. n... 2 a... 2 2.2 a. n... 2. . ...n . .3. 3... n... .2 n... .2 2... 2n n...» 3.. n... S. n... 2. 2.2 .8 n... .2 . ..3 _ .2. :8... n... 3. n... .2 no... .8. a...» 32 n... 32 n... 2. 2.2 2.. 2.. .3 _ ...n _ 38 13...... n... 8 n... 2. no... 8. 2.2 2. n... S. n... a: :2 .2 n... .2 _. 9.2 . :2 .65.. a... .3 n... .3 n3. 3... 2.2 83 2.. a: n... 2.. no... 22 n... 22 _ n... . .8: .54.... .8... 2.. no; .3 2... 2: an... 88 n... .3 n... a: no.2 :2 n... .2 _ ..2 . 3.... .88.; 2.. as n... 2. no... 3.. n..2 c: n... a: n... .3 no... :2 a... .2 . n... _ 28. .88 no. 2 n... 8 no... .2 n3. ..3. n... a. n... a. 2.2 .2 2.. .2 . Q2 . 88 92...... n... 3 2... 2 no... .2 n...» a. n... 3 n... 2 no.2 .3 n... 2. . ..2 . a... :33 a... .. 2.. 3 nu... a. 3... .8 n... 8. n... 2. no.2 .3 2.. 3. _ 9.2 . 82 5.8.3 n... 3.. n... .2 n9... .8. 2... 22 n... 2... n... as no.2 22 n... o... . 22 . :3. 8.5... . _ 2:33... IIIIIIIIIflflfllflflIII 1 I n . n . n u n u n . n . n . n . . .3. .8. 3 o. 8 2.. o. a... a o. S 3 o. 2 2 a. 2 2 o. a. .. a. a 2. a 3...... _ 3:8... 8.. .999-999IIIIICIIIOIIIIII I | IIIII 4 I 8.. 3 as... S 3...... 2.8:. . .2. 999. .3..a.9.9.9 999 9.159 8.999.): 92 .8— 933-. ..83-34‘u6 98.884: u—gu 8398;: :- augmucs . nanny Goo— : ..u .uua .3... 8... .3... :2. _ 3.... 2... .558 no... ..o u.... ea. _ a... >.c..c.. 5.: .2. 5.: 33 _ 3.. :3... ...3 :2 E... 8.. _ .3. ........i. u.... e... no... ~..~ . ...n co.:.... . ..o¢.... .3. ...... 5... a... 3.: .3. . . 3.. :33... .8... z... u. .3 .3. :8 .8... u... 3 :2 ...S 32 z... .3. 2.: 3: z... .3. an... .3. u.... ~.. no... ... .3... .5. S... 3.. 8: :3... S... .3. 5.: .3. 3.... 13...... _ .83 IS... . _ . . _ z... 2.. an... .3. .32 2...... . _ _ . _ _ _ sue a .008 20¢ Co— .3: so: an... no. 3 on: u. ..v =~o a3: 95.13: no.3 ~30 u~.~v =3 03: use 3005 56¢ an: no.9: can» 2... .9... z... .3. no... .3. .8. 3:2... u... .a 3. n. .3 2. a... .3... S... 3.. 5.3 .3. .3. 5.8.... 5... :2 5.3 32 2.: 8......- _ ...xusao. III...-IIJIIIIIII-...IIQCIIIIICIIIIIII..I...IUIICIII.I..IIIICIIIOI u . u n . . .8. 3.... :3... . .8. 60¢— .8-.3.¢=; nun 2‘59 8393.): as. a: .—8!—¢<&~o 9338‘: p-g 8308;: =- .u-¢‘uus «3qu 000- : u: nougu IIIIIICIIIUIND I I II IIIII n... a. a... .2. u... 3.. _ 9.... .32 :33 u... o. a... n... a... S _ .3. :52... u... 2. u... .3 a... .3 _ ...- :3... a... .n u... .. a... ... . .... ........... n... 8. a... S. n... 2. . .3... .82.... . 32...... a... 3.... a... o. a... z a... 3. _ 3.. ........... u... x u... a. a... 2.. _ :3 .8... a... a a... .2 a... 8. . 8: IS... a... ,3 u... a u... 2. _ a: ...8. a... a n... z a... .3 _ ..3 St... 3.. .. a... a a... z . 3.. 3... u... 3 u... a. u... 3. . .2. ...a... a... a u... S. a... o: _ .3. 13...... u... a a... 3 u... 3. _ 3.. he... 5.. a u... .2 u... .3 _ .8: 33.... u... 3 a... .2 a... .3 _ 3... ...o S... u... 3 5.. on a... .8 _ 3... .2... a... 2 a... 3 a... 2. . 8.. 25.... a... Z a... a. a... 2. . n... ...I... u... a. a... 2 an... 3. . a... 1.8.... a... 3 u... a: n... .3 _ 2.... 5......- _ 2.3.3.. IIIICIII-IIIIIIflflflflfllfllii HI I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HIHIIIIII. u u u u u u . .8. 3 a... 3 8 o. a. : a. 3 . .8. 3c 3 a-«up no :3 nan-us ~ ..¢. 090— .Bza-c-u—o 3‘ p—gu 8:98;: 93 00.080 .0 .828 .0. .. .808... 8.8.... 8...... 8 80o. .808... 2.... .8...» .8 08...... .500 820 050...... .880 8.8.0 8 8... 8.8.080 .088 o... .o 8... 0.2.8 .8 0.8.3 080.8. 9.. 5 8.8... .0... .. .8 :88... 0.... 3.8.8. .8 080.8 0... .68.. 4.80.8 m... 8.880 .0 5.0258. 2.. 5 ...9... .8. .. .08... .o 8.0... .808... 0 .o .8052... 2: .88... .o 8.8.. 9.508.... a 85...... 8.. .2... .08 .0. 8. 5.0.08 $580 8.85.... .0 200.00 0.0. .0 000.000 20.00;; 0000.00 0.5 02.00.00.- 00 0...... 608000.00 .0052 00. 00.0.0.0... 0.00033 08.8: 2...... .8000... 8.5.8.... .o .2... 2... .o 88.80.... .835 o... .88. 8...... 8.80.8. o... 2. 82.85» :82... I: .68: .8 .08.... 0.00 0.880 .80.... 0... .. .8050... 38.8.... .08... .o 22...... .88. 8... .o 08.8 ...88 20. 0.02.808. .0... .8 0.0 .0... 05.8.8 .8... ...5. . 8... .8. 5.... .80.... .0 88.82... .88... o... 2.... 0.055» ...380 .8 85.5.. 3.8.8.. .88.... .8 8.8 .8088. o... 5...... 8.8.... .8... ...5. . 8... .8. 8.. 8.0.88 o... .o .82... 0.. ...8 8.5 .8 08.. ...0. 8. 8......8. 08.0 .5855 o... 5......) .082... 0.... 0.88.2 .8 :82... 0.... 2...... .5 88.... .080... 0.0.. .5... .. ...800 8.855 .5. .08.... 0.8. .88. 5 ...800 000.500 0000.00 0.3. 20000 3000.503 0. 0000.00 .5 .0006 300.0. 00. 0. 00.6200 0. .052 .0 00.000 0.8.0003 0 .o .8550... 2.» 8...... .o 8.88... .88. 8... .80.... 0.... 5.; 08.0 398.80.... 0. ...S .88. .. .8 0.8.... a... 05...... .8 .80.... 0.... 08.5.0 .80.... 0.2 0.88.2. .88.... 0.2.80 5...... 8.5.8 .8... 5 80.08.... 9.. 8... 8.8.. 0 88... .o 8.88... .88.. 8... .o .08.... 0...... 0.: .0828 0...: 8.0... .808... . ..8. .. 0.... .26 000 0.00.. mm 0000.00 .0 2.00.00 .000... 0 000 0000.00 0.08 200.0300 20000.0 .0000. 00.0 0 .000. .0 0...... 0000.00 .0 .000.00 000— .000... 0 00.. 20000 02.055 60.000 0.0.0 0. 080000.00 0. 60.000 0.8.0003 0 .000. .0 00.. .00080 0.5 000 00.00080 .0000. 00.0 .000. .0 0.0.... 200.00 0.0.. .0000 00.6 000 0.00» mm 0000 02.0.0000 0.000.035. 00002 .080... .0. .8... ..8 5:8 083...... 0... 0. 0000.08.00 .000.0_0=0 000300 0002000 0000.050 3020.83 00 00.... 0.00» 0000.00 00. 000.00 .0 23> 0.0.0 .0 .8. 8.298. 8.. .2. .808 .8 8.. .0. o. .0 .0 08.828 .88... o... 8.. 8... 5 .2. ...88 o... .o 8.8. o... 8... m. 08...... o... .2898 0.8. .8: o... .8 . .828 00.. 5:8 o... 5 8.8. .288. a. ..8 0.8.8 0...... .832... .8 =82... v.0... .82.... o... 5 .88... a. ...o 28.. 00 o. m... .802. .o. 8.8.. .88. 8... 0 .o .8050... 0... .000. 0. 000.050.? 30300000 0. 000000.. 302000000 0.00... 0. 0.0.: .00. 0000. 000 000000 0.: .0 0005a 00h 000000 .0 0.00.» 0.00. .0 .00. 00.0.0500 000 0000.00 0.3. 000.000 .000 000 0.00. .0 .0000. 00... .0 800.. .00. 00.0.0800 00.. 0000.00 0...... 2000.020. .03 .000. .5 602.00 .0 0.00.. 0.00. .0 .00. 00.0.0800 00.. 200.... 0. 000 000 40300000 0.00. .0. .0000. 00... 00.0.0800 000 .000 000 0.0 0.00» 00 0000.00 ..0 .0 0000.000 .000. 0. 5.0000890 0000000 000 0.0000 0000002 0... .0 2050.000 .000..00000 0.: 0.00» >0... .00. 00. 0. ¢w>0 02¢ m¢ mu 906930 20... hzufizztk Jh2=OO Zchmozg... 94 ~00- pdt. .pulpdgu. g.sg :3 830:»: a». 3:00: 0:003 00: (n :0 03a .0... .8. 3.. .0... 8.. .2... 3... 2.. .3. . 3... .2... 0...... .0... 3 .0. .0... a 0.. ..n n. a . a. 85...... 0.... .3 8... .0... 8. :2 8.. .0. 3. . 2.. :2... u... 3 8 ...o. .0. 2. 3. ..0 8. . 3.. 3.0.8.... 0.... .2 3. ...8 z. .3. 0... a. .3 . a... . 8...... _ .83.... 2.. 2.... .0... 3 3. ...c 2. a: 3. a. 2. . 9.. :08... .0... .3 0.... .5... .3 a... .2. ..n .0. . a... .82.. .0... .0. 3. a... 3. z. a: .3 0.. _ .5 8...... .0... 0.. .3 5... :0 2. S... :0 3 . :8 :8... S... 0. 9. .8... z. 3. a. 0.. S. . o... 8.... z... .. 8 fl... 3 2. a: .2 u. _ .3 8... .3... a. 8. c... 0.. z. .8. .8 a. . .20 0...... .5... .2 a... 2.... 0.. 3.. a: .8 o. _ .00. .80.... u... 8 z. 3... .3 2. .2. 3.. a: _ .8. 0...... .3... .8 .3. .3... a. 3.. .3. .0... 2. _ :0. .50.... .0... .3 .2. no... 2. 0... 3: on 2. . 30. .8 0.... 0.... .3 .8. .0... 2. 8.. 0.8 0.. 30 _ 0.0. 8.... .0... .2 0: no... a... .3 3. 30 0. _ 0.0. 07...... .3... 8 2 no... 3 :0 3. 3. .. . 0.: .28. u... a 2 ...8 2. .3 2.. .2 a. _ .3. 8.8.... a... .0. 3.. a... .2 .9. .50 S. .8 _ .8. 8...... _ 0.0.0.5... IIIIIIIIIIIOIIII'IIDI IDIII D | ”II-IIIIUIIIIIIIIDIG-IIDI HIflIII lllllllll IIIIIII I || | D IUIIUIIIIIIIIUII. 3...... 00.00. 00...... .0 00.0.. 0.. .08.... 0.. _ .0... a... c: :33 0030-30300 :3: 0.03003 0033 30.89 2550-9 and: 000-0— aa¢up nu 0.8.0.800 u 8 0.03003 0.8.0.30- gzuuxc... u 20.8000 0.80 #589080... 8.2 . a; a; 0- 0.50.00 .03. IllflunrMDuII‘D...III!III.III.IIIII.IIUIIIIIIUIIIIIII-IIUUIFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIUIIUIII...IICUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIIIIIOII...OIIIIOIODIIIIIIIIIIIIIIh. coop "cg g< 03¢: mm 030-: 8. pug-«:1 «(szgu :gu 8308;: 9S N00— »: JIU3-dsua 08.3: bug 8303;: up. augsucg «333 8: : .3 «my; 2o. 3.. a... ...u 8.. .n. . .3... .22 :38 S .u 3 2. c .o . c. :52... .2 .2 o: .8 3 .3 . «8. :8... 3 c 8. 2. .. .z . .2. 2.3.2.... 8 8 .2 2. . z. . o.o~ 5......- _ .83.... a... 3.... 3 3 a. ... .. .2 _ ..2 2:35 8. 2. ..~ 3. z 2. _ a... .5... 8. 2. 2. 8. 3 a. _ .2. IS... 8 2. .2 2. a. .2 . .3... :88 8 .2 2. 2. a .2 . .2. 8t... z 3 .. z. .. 3 . E 3:. a 2 .2 3. 2 .8 . 8.. :3... 2. 8. .2 a. a. 8. . .... 1.2:... 2 2. ... 2. 8 3. _ .2. 2...... 8. 8. 3. .3. .o 3. . :3 23.... 2. 3. .2 .8 .. ... . .2. .8 S... 3. .2 .3 2. 8 .3 _ .8. .88 .. 2 8. 8. o. .2 _ «.2 3......- 3 3 .o 3. 2 .- _ ..n .35. 2 o. 3. 3. .. z. _ 8.. 1.8.3 S. .2 3. .2. 2 2. . .3. 5......- _ 2......3. .38.: a... .98 2.8.. 2.283... . 2:... . .28 3...... . 3.33.8.3... a... .22 63...... .23.... .23.... u «3.2.... .8288: .238. 8...... 2 28.... ...au .3393: 8:31:31: «83:8 .3; 3.933: .0333: _ II... IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIDIIUIIIII N =