.A.‘ . , ,. ,4., . .. ‘., .unm ‘1 > , " « , ‘, , “an“...u.........4.. ,,,,. .., ,, A’,','A' .,..n,..,,.v,.....v4,...H,.::-u .... ,. ,,..4..4,,.,,........4... .. ,‘ ' . ,1. w... .,.,...,.. .. .. ',,‘ .,..‘ .m,,, : . .. ;; ”n...’ H. 1 1. . ,,,,,.,,,,,..,,..,,,..,,,,,, .. .,.... ,.‘...... H I ‘ .4 ,’..H;,.... ,... ... H . Hum...” .. . ... .‘....H, ...\,.‘., “u .-,y, “1.. ’ " n... .. ,H ,., . .. Hm... ”H... l ' “H“... ’ “may,“ ”.11....“ W4. ”1,“. .....:1:; r I; .,./..r ,,., 1411441.. »'. .' .'.'.'."" ,1” ,, ..,...,-...,.,, ., . .....,,"' , .' 1,1, , .. ....'.‘..,....,,..4..1..,Hun.“ " . 14"]: [Quilt]! A 4’ ' v.14 '1‘ .-.; " ‘ " ' I'Ivlau‘l. A I‘l"'-»1. ‘ 'V .. . , ‘ S I. , Arty-Ola 1";Ilfll .-mu....,., ,p... . " A141 .‘ . ,, H ,.,....,,...., “Hun” a“... n...’ . .1.....‘_4.J‘ Wu .V -....“. ‘ ‘ , , ' \'.'.'-’o'-'. ,I,u‘p_._-,q.. “‘4. u x.. J.. I. ‘ .. . . 4.,” . . ... x me eats MlWWWWIWIWWWW“ ll lHl 0051 4806 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled CR'I'ME VVI CIIM EVALUATION 1 OF POLICE INVESTIGATIVE PERFORMANCE presented by Steven G. Brand] has been accepted towards fulfillment ‘ of the requirements for M.S. degreein CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1m we Major professor Date—LLLLZiLJBL. 0-7639 MSUi-nn ‘5:...-..-... ‘ ‘ " m ",Irun'tution CRIME VICTIM EVALUATION OF POLICE INVESTIGATIVE PERFORMANCE by Steven G. Brandi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice College of Social Science 1988 ABSTRACT CRIME VICTIM EVALUATION OF POLICE INVESTIGATIVE PERFORMANCE BY Steven G. Brandl The purpose of this study was to assess police investigative performance by analysis of crime victim satisfaction with post-crime investigative activities. The data were derived from self-administered questionnaires returned by a stratified random sample of crime victims in Oshkosh, Wisconsin; of the 685 mailed questionnaires, there were 436 usable responses (64%). Bivariate analyses were conducted on three categories of crime victims: "personal" victims, "property serious" victims, and "property less serious" victims. The major findings of this study are as follows... * The expectation of response time significantly (p < .05) affected "personal" and "property serious" crime victims' satisfaction with police performance. * The officers' degree of professionalism during the initial investigation significantly affected satisfaction in all crime categories. * The officers' investigative effort significantly affected satisfaction in the "property serious" and "property less serious" categories. * A recontact with the investigative status significantly affected satisfaction only in the "property serious" category. These findings are discussed with regard to policy changes which may improve police-crime victim relationships. Copyright by STEVEN GERARD BRANDL 1988 To my parents Arny and Grace Brandl who have instilled upon me the value of hard work iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to the individuals who made this thesis a part of my reality as well their own. My deepest appreciation is given to Dr. Frank Horvath, thesis committee chairman, who provided the guidance, patience, and encouragement I needed to complete this project. Dr. David Carter and Dr. Ken Christian, committee members, also gave of their time and were instrumental in the completion of the thesis. I would like to thank the Oshkosh, Wisconsin Police Department, which absorbed the direct financial expenses of the project. Chief James F. Thome, along with Lt. Harold Graves and Lt. David Erickson enthusiastically accepted the proposal for the project and were a delight to work with. Denise Johnson, Theresa Bakri, and Vickie Blabow, of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, provided much needed and appreciated assistance in the beginning stages of the data collection. My thanks go to the crime victims, the subjects of this study, who shared their often dreadful experiences so that the experiences of others may be a bit more tolerable. Finally, my everlasting gratitude is given to my wife and best friend, Kara, who assisted in so many ways and provided constant encouragement throughout the duration of this project. She must receive much of the credit for the completion of this thesis. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 1 The Problem The Police Mission Support for the Police Support for the Police Research The Purpose of the Study The "Police Investigative Response" Defined Initial Discovery and Notification Response Time Initial Investigation Follow-up Investigation Termination Definitions of Terms Overview of the Study CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 15 Previous Research Public Attitudes Toward the Police Citizen Evaluation of Police Performance Crime Victim Evaluation of Police Performance Gaps in ”Crime Victim Evaluation" Research An Integration of Diffuse and Specific Support Summary Footnotes CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 45 The Study Site Data and Sample Sampling Procedure Mailings Response Rates Crime Category Response Rates Questionnaire Construction Variables Research Questions vii \DmmeWNi-‘H CHAPTER IV Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Research ANALYSIS OF DATA 63 Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Characteristics and Responses of the Crime Victims Analysis of the Research Questions Summary Footnotes CHAPTER V DISCUSSION 91 Satisfaction in Context Victim Characteristics and Satisfaction The Police Investigative Response and Satisfaction Expectation of Response Time Professionalism Investigative Effort Recontact for Questions Recontact with Status Implications and Recommendations for the Police Department Limitations of the Study Recommendations for Future Research Footnote APPENDICES Appendix A Oshkosh P.D. Organizational Chart Appendix B Mailing Identification Card Appendix C First Mailing Letter Appendix D Second Mailing Letter Appendix E Third Mailing Letter Appendix F Questionnaire Appendix G Crime Victim Comments LIST OF REFERENCES 126 viii 113 114 115 116 117 118 121 TABLE 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of the Respondents in each of the Crime Type Samples Responses of the Crime Victims to the Police Investigative Response Variables for each Crime Type Sample Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample Type of Crime by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample ix PAGE 64 66 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample 77 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample 78 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample 79 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample 80 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample 82 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample 82 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample 83 Victim Recontacted with Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample 84 Victim Recontacted with Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample 85 Victim Recontacted with Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample 86 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Chapter I contains a general introduction to the research. The problem and purpose of the study are discussed and the definitions used in the study are presented. Chapter I concludes with an overview of the thesis. The Problem The Police Mission The mission of the police in modern society is broad and complex. Although a simplification, the police mission can be conceptually organized in terms of “order maintenance," "service," and "law enforcement" functions. The "order maintenance" function involves the prevention of “behavior that either disturbs or threatens to disturb the public peace" (Cole, 1986:166). In such instances the police must use discretion in determining if a law has been violated. "A noisy drunk, loud music in the night, [and] a panhandler soliciting in the street are examples of disorder that may require the peacekeeping efforts of the police" (Cole, 1986:166). The ''service" function can be defined as the provision of assistance to the public and typically concerns matters unrelated to crime (Cole, 1986). Such “service" activities would include "providing first aid, rescuing animals, and extending social welfare" (p. 168). The "law enforcement" or I'crime related“ function of the police involves the "[control of] crime by intervening in situations in which it is clear that the law has been violated and only the identity of the guilty needs to be determined" (Cole, 1986:167). Holden (1986) explains that law enforcement l'is a process of coercing individuals into compliance with the legal codes through the use or threat of using formal legal sanctions" (p. 32). Although research has shown that I'police work involves little actual contact with criminals and certainly few arrests" (Manning, 1977:348), the police claim the law enforcement function as their own and therefore, it is this aspect of the police mission which gives legitimacy to the police organization (Manning, 1977). Similarly, since "dealing with crime" is the one aspect which the police organization has in common with the other criminal justice system components, it could be argued that the “crime related" aspect of the police mission constitutes the primary domain, or territory, of the police organization. Support for the Police According to Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) and Thompson (1967), for an organization to be effective in its mission it must depend, to a degree, on support from its environment because the environment supplies the resources the organization needs to survive. As stated by Thompson (1967), "organizations must transact with other elements in their environment to acquire needed resources.... Because organizations import resources from their environments, they depend on their environments" (p. 2; p. 9). For the police organization to be effective in carrying out its mission, it is dependent upon support from the public (Holden, 1986) because the public supplies the police with critical resources -- namely, financial (Trojanowicz, 1986) and informational (Skogan and Antunes, 1979). Therefore, "anything [police] personnel can do to build public trust and confidence in the police is worthwhile. Any action or policy that causes the public to mistrust or dislike the police is detrimental to the mission of the agency and should be changed“ (Holden, 1986:118-19). Support for the Police Research Given the criticality of public support for the police, it is surprising that researchers and police administrators have only recently realized the importance of measuring public support for the police. It was not until the turbulent and riotous 19605 that a need for research to better understand public support for the police emerged. At this time, support for the police was measured by examining public attitudes toward the police. These studies consist of general evaluative questions which measure the respondent's level of "diffuse" support (Easton, 1965) for the police or support for the ideological foundation of the police institution (Dennis, 1976). Such studies have been severely criticized for their limited usefulness in informing policy decisions (Mastrofski, 1984; White and Menke, 1982; Charles, 1980). "Public attitude" studies require the respondents to express an opinion toward the police even if they have little or no experience with or direct knowledge of the police on which to base their opinions. Therefore, in assessing such research it is difficult to determine which factors led to the positive or negative attitudes toward the police and why. As Charles (1980) explains, "it is very difficult to develop policy without specific input" (p. 300). In part because of the disaffection with "public attitude" studies, and in part because of the realization that surveys could be used to obtain more specific evaluations of police performance, l'citizen evaluation of the police'I studies emerged. "Citizen evaluation" studies measure the respondent's level of "specific" support (Easton, 1965) for the police or support for particular role incumbents (Dennis, 1976). To do so, the survey questions require the respondent to refer to a particular incident which involved an actual contact with the police and to render evaluations on the basis of that incident. Mastrofski (1984) explains that, unlike "public attitude" studies, "citizen evaluation" studies can inform policy decision making. Survey research which focuses on the clients‘ perceptions and evaluations of specific encounters can provide more comprehensive, accurate, and interpretable data about the quality of police performance in these encounters than can survey research that asks citizens to render evaluations on all past encounters or impressions of entire programs or routine operations (p. 112). However, a primary problem which reduces the usefulness of ”citizen evaluation" studies is that these studies tend to group all citizens (or "clients") together and, as a result, ignore potentially important differences between the needs and expectations of different types of "clients.“ For example, the "client" who calls to request the police to coax his/her cat from a tree may have different needs and expectations and thus, a different basis on which to judge the performance of the police than a "client" who calls to report that his/her house has been burglarized. Or, for another example, the "client" who is the actual victim of a crime may have different needs and expectations of the police than the "client” who simply reports a crime. A study which neglects to make a distinction between "clients" (victims - non-victims) may not be able to highlight the potential differences between "victims" and "non-victims." The third and final category of research, "crime victim evaluation of police investigative performance," also measures "specific“ support for the police as it requires the victim to evaluate police performance on the basis of a response to a criminal offense. Two factors have contributed to the emergence of this type of research and differentiate it from "citizen evaluation" studies. First, this type of study has developed in response to the limitations of the "citizen evaluation" studies. Unlike “citizen evaluation" studies, "victim evaluation" studies focus on a distinct group of clientele (crime victims) who may possess similar needs and expectations of the police and who therefore base evaluations on similar factors. Hence, such studies provide specific input into policy decisions in order to improve police investigative performance and enhance crime victim support for the police. Second, "victim evaluation" studies serve as an indicator of police performance in their "crime related" mission. Traditionally, such performance has been measured through arrest, clearance, and crime rate indicators (Mastrofski, 1984). By employing a "victim satisfaction" indicator, along with other indicators, a more complete assessment of police "crime related" performance can be obtained. There are however, two major problems with the current state of "crime victim evaluation" research. First, there is a paucity of research on the subject. Three studies (Shapland, 1983; Percy, 1980; and Poister and McDavid, 1978) constitute the totality of "victim evaluation" research. Due to this scant empirical research, conclusions cannot be comfortably made. Second, none of the available studies distinguished between degrees of crime seriousness. As a result, the authors of the previous studies generalize their findings to all crime victims and ignore the possibility that victims of different crime seriousness degrees may have different needs and expectations of the police. For example, a victim of a serious crime, such as rape, may have different needs and expectations and thus, a different basis on which to judge the performance of the police than a victim of a less serious crime, such as larceny theft. A study which does not consider such distinctions may not be able to highlight potential differences between victims. Because of these problems, there is a need to extend and elaborate on ”crime victim evaluation" research. The driving force behind the present study is to fill this need. The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to assess police investigative performance by analysis of crime victim satisfaction with the "police investigative response" (discussed below). In reaching this end, the attributes of victims, police officers, and police - victim contacts, which may contribute to the victims' satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the police, are identified and analyzed. In addition, the study discusses how the findings can be used by police administrators to improve crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response and hence, increase crime victim support for the police. The Police Investigative Response Defined From the victims' point of view, the "investigative response," can be organized into four sequential stages: initial discovery and notification, response time, initial investigation, and the follow—up investigation. Each of these stages is discussed below. Initial Discovery and Notification In order for there to be an "investigative response" the police must discover that a crime has taken place and then notify the victim, or the victim (or witness) must discover that a crime has occurred and notify the police. In the vast majority of cases it is the victim who first discovers that a crime occurred and who contacts the police (Greenwood et a1., 1977). Response Time Typically, the victim notifies the police of the incident with a telephone call to the police department (Spelman and Brown, 1984). Then, in most cases, a patrol W officer is dispatched to the scene of the crime or the location of the victim. The time which elapses between when the victim calls the police until the patrol officer arrives at the desired location is referred to as the "response time." In a few cases "response time" may not be a relevant aspect of the police investigative response because the victim may actually go to the police department and provide all the information concerning the incident; the police may take all of the information about the crime over the phone; or, as mentioned previously, the police may be the first to discover the crime. Initial Investigation The "initial investigation" consists of the immediate post-crime activities of the patrol officer who arrives at the crime scene. Upon arrival, the patrol officer may proceed to gather information concerning the crime by questioning the victim and/or witness(es), searching the crime scene, and examining evidence. All of the information related to the crime would then be placed in an official complainant report completed by the investigating officer. Even if an officer did not respond to the crime scene, an initial investigation can still occur. However, in such relatively rare cases, the post-crime activities of the "initial investigation" (other than gathering information concerning the crime from the victim) may occur in the absence of the victim. Besides the patrol officer's immediate investigative activities, an equally important aspect of the "initial investigation," for purposes of victim satisfaction, may be the conduct of the officer during the investigation (e.g. competent, understanding, courteous, concerned). Follow-up Investigation In some of the more unique or serious crimes, a "follow-up investigation'I may be conducted. A "follow-up investigation" occurs after the case is assigned to a detective and consists most often of the responsible detective recontacting and re-interviewing the victim, and possibly witness(es), for additional information regarding the crime (Greenwood et a1., 1977). At any time during the "investigative response" the perpetrator of the crime may be arrested by the police. If this occurs, the police may contact the victim and inform him/her of the development. At this point, in the view of the victim, primary responsibility for the disposition of the case may shift from the police department to the prosecutor's (district attorney‘s) office. The I'police investigative response" would, in effect, terminate with the arrest of the perpetrator and the notification of the victim. If the perpetrator is not identified and/or arrested after a certain length of time, the police may still contact the victim and inform him/her of the status of the investigation. 10 Definition of Terms The following are definitions of terms used in this study. Crime: A crime is "a specific act of commission or omission in violation of the law for which punishment is prescribed" (Cole, 1986:27). More specifically, this study will focus on the crimes of aggravated battery, burglary, forcible rape, larceny-theft, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, and robbery. "Aggravated battery" is defined as an attack with a weapon, irrespective of whether or not there was injury, or an attack without a weapon resulting in serious injury (e.g., broken bones, loss of teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, etc.). Attempted assault with a weapon is also included. "Burglary" is defined as an unlawful or forcible entry into a residence or business establishment, usually, but not necessarily, attended by theft. Attempted burglary is also included. "Forcible rape" is defined as carnal knowledge through the use of force or threat of force, including attempts. "Larceny—theft" is defined as the theft or attempted theft of property or cash without force. "Motor vehicle theft" is defined as the stealing or unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle, including attempts. "Non-aggravated battery" is defined as an attack without a weapon resulting in minor injury (e.g., bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, swelling, etc.). Attempted assaults without a weapon are also included. "Other sexual assault" is defined as sexual contact through the use of force or the threat of force, exclusive of carnal knowledge. Attempts are also included. "Robbery" is defined as completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon. 11 (Except for the inclusion of 'other sexual assaults' and crimes against businesses, the definitions used in this study are parallel to those used by the National Crime Survey.) Detective: A detective holds a specialized position within the police organization -- he/she is concerned primarily with the "law enforcement" function of the police mission. Typically, a detective becomes involved in a criminal investigation only after the initial investigation has been completed by a patrol officer. Official complainant records: Official complainant records are reports produced by the patrol officers which detail the nature of the police - citizen contact and are filed within the police department. Patrol officer: A patrol officer has broad and diverse responsibilities within the police organization. He/she is concerned with the order maintenance, service, and law enforcement functions of the police mission. In the case of a criminal incident, typically a patrol officer responds to the scene of the crime (and/or the location of the victim) and is responsible for conducting the initial investigation. Personal crime: A personal crime involves the victim directly -- the crime is an attack on the individual. Because there is a possibility of greater emotional and physical harm to the victim, a personal crime is viewed as more serious than a property crime (Fattah, 1981). For purposes of this study, the "personal" crime category 12 consists of the following criminal offenses: aggravated battery, forcible rape, robbery, non-aggravated battery and other sexual assaults. The legal offense used in this study was dependent on the responding patrol officer's interpretation of the offense (as defined in the "police report"). Property crime: A property crime is directed toward a victim's property and hence, is an indirect attack on the individual. Because there is a possibility of less emotional and physical harm to the victim, a property crime is viewed as less serious than a personal crime (Fattah, 1981). For purposes of this study, this category is divided into "serious property crimes" (burglary and motor vehicle theft) and "less serious property crimes" (larceny-theft). The distinction between "serious property crimes" and "less serious property crimes" is based on the legislative maximum sentence (Wisconsin Department of Justice, 1981-82) an individual could receive for committing the crime. Victim: For the purposes of this study, a victim is an individual, 18 years old or over, who is the object of a criminal act (listed above) and suffers injuries and/or material losses as a result of the act. Overview of the Study In Chapter II, the previous empirical research on public support for the police is examined. In Chapter III, 13 the community in which the study took place is described, the design and methodology of the study is discussed, and the research questions are presented. In Chapter IV, the results of the study are presented and analyzed. Finally, Chapter V contains the discussion and conclusions. l4 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter II provides a review of previous survey research on public support of the police. Methodologies and pertinent findings of the prior studies are discussed and analyzed. Previous Research Previous survey research on public support of the police can generally be viewed as fitting into three categories -- public attitudes toward the police, citizen evaluation of police performance, and victim evaluation of police investigative performance. Public Attitudes Toward the Police The studies in the first category examine what effect becoming a crime victim has on the respondent's general attitude toward the police, and examine other variables as being contributors to the nature of the respondent's attitude toward the police as well (Koenig, 1980; Thomas and Hyman, 1977; Smith and Hawkins, 1973. Also see Decker, 1981 and Charles, 1980 for a more inclusive summary of "citizen attitudes toward the police" studies). 15 As mentioned in the previous chapter, the studies which focus on general attitudes toward the police measure what White and Menke (1982) refer to as "general" or "diffuse" support. As explained by Dennis (1976), questions of a general nature, which require the respondent to express general attitudes toward an institution, measure support for the ideological foundation of that institution. White and Menke (1982) explain that "values such as order, justice, fairness in procedure, protection under the law, [and] duly constituted authority," form the basis of the police institution ideology (p. 226). According to White and Menke (1982), "one may suggest that there exists a reservoir of support and goodwill for the police as part of the criminal justice institution" (p. 226). In a study by Koenig (1980), a random sample of 1,242 adults was taken from the voter registration list of British Columbia. The author's findings are based on the 907 questionnaires which were returned (a 73% response rate). Attitude toward the police, the dependent variable, was measured by asking "Would you say that in general the police in your area (or neighborhood) are doing a very good job, a good job, a bad job, or a very bad job?" (p. 248). Approximately ninety-three (93) percent of the respondents stated the police were doing a very good or good job while approximately seven (7) percent stated the police were doing a bad or very bad job. 16 Koenig (1980) included in the study the variables of respondent age, income, formal education, sex, marital status, religious preference, ethnicity, and labor union membership. Of these variables, age was found to have the strongest relationship with attitude toward the police, yet the association was only slight. That is, younger respondents were less likely to have favorable attitudes toward the police than older respondents (r = .20). Koenig (1980) also found that respondents who stated their household had been victimized within the past year expressed less favorable attitudes toward the police than did respondents whose households were not victimized (G = -.21). Thomas and Hyman (1977) also conducted a study which focused on general attitudes toward the police. In their study a systematic sample of 9,178 non-business listings was drawn from the Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach, Virginia telephone directories, and a questionnaire was sent to each address. Of this initial sample, approximately twenty—one (21) percent could not be reached through the addresses obtained. Of the respondents who were reached, 3,334 (or 46.12%) returned a completed questionnaire. Thomas and Hyman (1977) used four items to 1 operationalize "attitude toward the police". The authors found that the vast majority of the respondents had 17 favorable attitudes toward the police. For example, in response to the statement "The police in our city are doing an effective job and deserve our thanks," seventy-eight (78) percent of the respondents agreed, while thirty-five (35) percent disagreed or were undecided. Thomas and Hyman (1977) included in their analysis the variables of respondent ethnicity, sex, age, total family income, education, occupational prestige, and place of residence. Of these variables, ethnicity and age were found to have the strongest association with attitudes toward the police. That is, blacks expressed more negative attitudes toward the police than whites and younger respondents expressed more negative attitudes than older respondents. Thomas and Hyman (1977) also found that an actual victimization experience was weakly related to the respondent's general attitude toward the police. The Smith and Hawkins (1973) study was "designed as a community survey of criminal victimization and attitudes toward the police" (p. 136). The data for the study were derived from interviews with a random sample of 1,411 citizens whose names and addresses were obtained from the Seattle, Washington city directory. The dependent variable in the study, attitude toward the police, was operationalized by five items2 which were designed to indicate opinion of police fairness, selective 18 law enforcement, and general feelings about the police. For the analysis, the scores of the five items were combined into an index which had four values -- "most favorable," "more favorable," “less favorable," or "least favorable." The authors found that seventy-two (72) percent of the respondents expressed "most favorable" or "more favorable" attitudes toward the police. Smith and Hawkins (1973) included in their study the variables of respondent age, income, level of education, occupation, sex, and race. Of these variables, the authors found only age and race to significantly affect citizen attitudes toward the police. That is, younger respondents were more likely to express more negative attitudes toward the police than older respondents and non-whites were more likely to express more negative attitudes toward the police than whites. Smith and Hawkins (1973) found that a victimization experience did not alter citizen attitudes toward the police. In sum, the citizen attitudes toward the police studies reviewed here have generally found that: l) the respondent's age and race have an influence on the attitude toward the police; 2) an actual victimization experience does not have an influence on attitude toward the police; and 3) the vast majority of respondents express positive attitudes toward the police. These present findings reflect what has been found in the majority of public 19 attitudes toward the police studies (see Decker, 1981; Charles, 1980). Citizen Evaluation of Police Performance Studies in this category include evaluations from persons who have had any type of contact with the police (Carlson and Sutton, 1979; Kansas City Police Department, 1978; Furstenberg and Wellford, 1973). The development of the 'client satisfaction' goal for police organizations and the realization that police departments can obtain feedback from the community on its level of effectiveness in reaching this goal has encouraged the development of "citizen evaluation" research (Parks, 1975). Whereas studies of a general nature measure support for the ideological foundation of the organization (such as the studies in the previous category), the studies which focus on specific evaluations of the police (such as the studies in this category and the next), measure what Dennis (1976) refers to as "specific" support. In this evaluative type of study, support for the particular role incumbents, rather than the ideological foundation of the institution, is measured. Questions which measure "specific" support are specific in character. That is, the questions require the respondent to refer to a particular incident and require judgments about particular role incumbents. As stated by White and Menke (1982) "measures which are specific in character are more likely to assess the 20 public's judgments regarding the adequacy of performance of particular role incumbents in the police role" and "require judgments about the performances or expected performances" of the incumbents (p. 227). In a study conducted by Carlson and Sutton (1979), a random sample of 217 citizens who initiated contact with the police were asked, via a telephone survey, for their evaluation of how the police officer handled the "call for service." The sample was drawn from the police log books of three unspecified communities and the respondents were interviewed approximately two weeks after the police contact. I "A service call was defined as a call for help from victims of crimes or people in distress" (p. 586; underline added). Even though Carlson and Sutton (1979) realized that they obtained evaluations from people in situations other than criminal incidents, they proceeded to categorize all of the "calls for service" into either "crimes against the person" or "crimes against property." "Crimes against the person" included incidents of "assault, domestic disputes, annoying or threatening phone calls, prowlers, threats by gun or knife, loud parties, neighborhood disturbances and fights, bomb threats, etc." and "crimes against property" included "burglary, commercial burglary, theft, vehicle burglary, stolen vehicles, vandalism, shoplifting, malicious mischief, etc." (p. 586). 21 A seven question "citizen evaluation scale" was used to measure the police officer's interpersonal qualities of "involvement," "perceived success," and "rapport" (the independent variables), along with citizen satisfaction with police performance (the dependent variable). The last question of the interview was open-ended to allow the respondents to describe in their own words the quality of the intervention. A pertinent finding of the Carlson and Sutton (1979) study was that officers who expressed concern about the citizen's problem tended to receive more positive evaluations. As stated by Carlson and Sutton (1979), "if an officer showed concern and took the time to explain necessary police procedures, then the citizen tended to form a favorable opinion of the officer" (p. 590). A study conducted by the Kansas City (MO) Police Department (1978) examined police response time and its relationship with incident outcomes such as arrest, witness availability, frequency and severity of citizen injury, and citizen satisfaction with police response time. Separate analyses were conducted on Part I, Part II (F.B.I. U.C.R. definitions), and non-crime incidents. The study examined citizen satisfaction with police response time rather than overall satisfaction with police performance. Accordingly, the most pertinent findings to 22 be discussed in this literature review are those which relate to satisfaction with police response time. Data for the study were collected via three methods over a ten month time period. First, observers rode with patrol officers and collected data on police “travel time" (the time which elapsed from when an officer received a call from the communications unit to when the officer arrived at the scene). Second, tape recordings of citizen calls to the police department (communications unit) were reviewed and "dispatch time" (the time from when a call was received by a dispatcher to when a car was dispatched) was determined. Third, follow-up interviews were conducted with citizens who requested police assistance. In the interviews, citizens were asked how much time elapsed from when they were actually free to call the police until they actually called ("reporting time"). Social characteristics of the citizens were also obtained.3 Citizens were asked about their expectations and perceptions of police response time, their perception of how important it was for the police to respond rapidly to their call (the preceding were independent variables), and their satisfaction with response time (an outcome, or dependent variable). Expectation of response time was measured by asking: "About how long did you expect it to take the police to arrive after the call was made?" The answers were in terms of actual minutes. Perception of response time was 23 measured by asking: "About how long did it take the police to arrive after the call was made?" Again, answers were in minutes. Perception of response time importance was measured by asking: "If the police had arrived more quickly do you think it would have made a difference in the outcome of the incident?" The possible answers were yes or no. The dependent variable, citizen satisfaction with response time, was measured by asking: "How satisfied were you with the time it took the police officer to arrive after you called?" The possible answers were: very satisfied, moderately satisfied, slightly satisfied, slightly dissatisfied, moderately dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The Part I crime analysis consisted of 949 incidents which were reported to the police. Out of this figure however, interview data were available in 826 of the cases. In the Part I crime analysis, approximately eighty-seven (87) percent of the respondents expressed some degree of satisfaction with police response time. It was found that the strongest predictor of citizen satisfaction with police response time was the difference between perceived and expected response time. If a citizen perceived the response to take longer than expected, the citizen was more likely to be dissatisfied with police response time. The second most influential factor was the citizen's perception of response time importance. If the citizen felt that a faster response time could have improved the outcome of the 24 incident (an arrest could have been made, for example), the citizen was more likely to be dissatisfied. Dispatch and travel times were also found to be related to response time satisfaction. Longer delays in police arrival led to greater dissatisfaction. Finally, it was found that people who reported a burglary were more likely to be dissatisfied with police response time. i In the Part II crime analysis 211 out of 359 eligible crimes were available for response time satisfaction analysis. The findings of the Part II crime analysis are similar to those of the Part I analysis. In Part II crime analysis, approximately eighty-eight (88) percent of the respondents expressed some degree of satisfaction with police response time. The strongest predictor of citizen satisfaction with police response time was, again, the difference between expected and perceived response time. The second strongest predictor was whether citizens thought a faster response time could have improved the outcome of the incident. The third factor which had an affect on satisfaction with police response time was the reporting time. Citizens who took longer to report the crime were more likely to be satisfied with police response time. The final analyses were conducted on non-crime related calls for service. Included in this category were reports of prowlers, suspicious activities, disturbance calls, traffic accidents, etc. Of the 5,793 non-crime calls for service, completed data were available for 1,104. 25 Approximately eighty-seven (87) percent of the respondents who reported a "non-crime related" incident expressed some degree of satisfaction with police response time. As with the previous analyses, the most important factor affecting citizen satisfaction with response time was the difference in expectations and perceptions of response time. Citizens were most likely to be satisfied when they perceived the police to arrive sooner than they expected. Again, the second most important factor in explaining satisfaction with police response time was whether or not citizens thought a faster response could have made a difference in the outcome of the incident. Finally, it was found that citizens were less satisfied with response time in confrontation disturbances and involvement traffic accidents than in any other type of call. The Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) study is described as an attempt to develop a method of evaluating police performance. A systematic sample of all calls received by the Baltimore Police Department during a one month time period was selected for inclusion in the study. The sample was stratified to give equal representation to blacks and whites, and to persons reporting serious and non-serious incidents. The sample members were then interviewed by either a trained civilian or a police officer. The interview itself focused on the respondent's description and evaluation of the police response to their call for 26 assistance. A total of 819 interviews was completed, which ' represented a response rate of approximately sixty-seven (67) percent. Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) operationalized their measure of satisfaction, the dependent variable, by employing two indicators. The first was a single question designed to measure overall satisfaction with police performance; the second was a performance index constructed from questions designed to examine police courtesy, understanding, capability, and concern with the problem of the respondent. Seventy-five (75) percent of the respondents were very satisfied with overall police performance and only twelve (12) percent indicated a low level of satisfaction (the first indicator). Seventy-five (75) percent of the respondents also gave the police the highest possible rating on the "performance" index (the second indicator). Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) included the variable of respondent "race" in examining patterns of citizen satisfaction with police performance. The authors found that blacks were more critical of police services and tended to be less satisfied with police performance even though the services they received were comparable to those provided to whites. Although not tested conclusively, Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) explain that "blacks may have more negative feelings toward the police because they have experienced racial discrimination in the past, 27 suffered higher rates of crime in their neighborhoods, or witnessed abuses of police authority" (p. 400). Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) found "the time it takes a police car to respond to a call for assistance" to be related to overall satisfaction with police performance. That is, the longer the response time, the less satisfied the citizen was with police performance. The authors also found "that when the police took the time to explain what they were doing or what they would do to handle the complaint, respondents were generally more satisfied with the job the police did" (p. 402). Finally, Furstenberg and Wellford (1973) found that "when the police followed up the complaint by some further action (either by a second call or an investigation) respondents were more pleased with the service they received" (p. 402). All of the findings and conclusions presented by Furstenburg and Wellford (1973) were based on comparisons of categorical frequencies and percentages -- no significance tests were used to interpret the data. Therefore, in assessing the validity and usefulness of their conclusions, the lack of statistical significance needs to be considered. Crime Victim Evaluation of Police Investigative Performance Research in the final category focuses on crime victims' evaluation of how the police handled a criminal incident (Shapland, 1983; Percy, 1980; Poister and 28 McDavid,1978). The research in this final category most closely relates to the present study. The Shapland (1983) study involved a series of interviews with 287 victims of violent crime from two unspecified towns in England as they progressed through the criminal justice system. The first interview was conducted approximately two weeks after the initial cOntact with the police ("the first time victims encountered the police"). At this stage, over seventy (70) percent of the victims were satisfied or very satisfied with how the police handled the incident (method of operationalizing "satisfaction" was unspecified). Shapland (1983) found that "the major determinant of satisfaction was not so much the performance of the police but their attitude toward the victim. Those police officers who appeared to be interested in what the victim said, took the time to listen to them and seemed to take them seriously, promoted feelings of satisfaction in the victims" (p. 235). As the investigation progressed "victims were becoming dissatisfied with their lack of information about the progress of their cases" (p. 235). Shapland (1983) continues to explain that "during the police investigation [the victims] were not in general critical of the procedures in which they participated, nor dissatisfied if the police did not catch the offender, unless they perceived the police as uninterested in the case" (p. 235). 29 The study by Percy (1980) is also an examination of victims' evaluation of police performance. However, the study is limited in scope in that it focuses primarily on the influence of response time on evaluation of the police. The data for the study were obtained from two separate data sets - responses to certain questions in a community survey and responses in interviews with a group of crime victims who had recent contact with the police. A separate analysis was conducted on each data set. The community survey contained questions concerning general perceptions of the police in the community as well as a series of questions regarding whether or not anyone in the respondent's household was a victim of a crime within the past twelve months. The survey sample consisted of 12,000 random telephone interviews in three metropolitan areas -- Rochester, Tampa - St. Petersburg, and St. Louis. About 5,000 victimization incidents were reported to the interviewers and 2,100 out of the 5,000 victimization incidents were reported to the police and could be used in the analysis. The respondents who reported the incident to the police were asked about the nature of the victimization incident, their satisfaction with the performance of the police, how long it took for the police to arrive, and whether this was faster, slower, or about the same as expected. The victim's overall satisfaction, the dependent variable, was measured by asking: "How satisfied were you 30 with what the police did?" The possible answers were: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Sixty-two (62) percent of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with what the police did, eleven (11) percent were neutral, and twenty-four (24) percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Percy (1980) included in the study the variables of victim race, sex, education, age, and family income. Of these variables, it was found that age, and to a lesser extent, race and sex were associated with the victim's evaluation of the police. That is, the author found that older respondents tended to be more satisfied with the police than younger respondents, whites more satisfied than non-whites, and females more satisfied than males. In regard to "response time," thirty (30) percent of the respondents stated that the police arrived faster than expected, sixteen (16) percent slower than expected, and fifty-two (52) percent stated that the police arrived about the same as expected. Percy (1980) found that the expectation of response time had a strong influence on overall evaluation of police performance. Respondents who reported a slower than expected response time rated the police less favorably than those who reported a same as expected response time. Additionally, victims who stated that the police arrived faster than expected were more satisfied with the police than those who reported a same as expected response time. 31 The second data set used by Percy (1980) consisted of responses to telephone interviews with crime victims who had a recent contact with the police. The names of 474 victims were obtained from dispatch and patrol records and were contacted a few days after their contact with the police. As in the first data set, Percy (1980) found that the variables of victim age, sex, and race were associated with victim evaluation of police performance. Again, expectation of response time had a strong influence on overall satisfaction with police performance. Respondents who reported a slower than expected response time evaluated the police less favorably than those who stated that the response time was about the same as expected. Respondents who reported a faster than expected response time evaluated the police more favorably than those who stated that the response time was about the same as expected. Finally, it was found that if, during the contact with the victim, the officer arrested someone, provided crime prevention information, or comforted or reassured someone, the victim evaluated the police more favorably than if these activities did not take place. The officer activities of taking a report, searching the area, providing physical assistance, or questioning persons at the scene did not have an impact on satisfaction with the police. 32 Poister and McDavid (1978) also focused exclusively on victims' evaluation of police performance. In their study, personal interviews were conducted with a random sample of 423 households in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.4 Of the 154 victimization incidents reported by the respondents, 111 were reported to the police. The analysis presented by Poister and McDavid (1978) is based on these 111 incidents that actually involved interactions between the police and the victim. Overall satisfaction, the dependent variable, was measured by a single question -- respondents were asked: "Overall, were you satisfied with what the police did?" The possible responses were: yes, no, or uncertain. Forty-six (46) percent of all the respondents reported being satisfied, forty-four (44) percent dissatisfied, and ten (10) percent reported being uncertain. Poister and McDavid (1978) included in their study the variables of victim sex, race, position in household, number of years in neighborhood, age, marital status, level of education, housing structure, housing tenure, number of persons in household, family income, number of household members between the ages five and eighteen, number less than five years old, number of licensed drivers, and number of automobiles owned by the household members.5 Of these variables, only 'total family income' was found to significantly influence victims' evaluations of the police, but the association was weak. That is, "the proportion of 33 respondents expressing overall satisfaction with the police handling of victimization incidents declined with higher levels of income". Poister and McDavid (1978) state that this finding may be explained in part by the fact that “the lower income group reported quicker response times and greater frequency of follow-up investigations" (p. 141). The authors continue to explain however, that an alternative reason for the lower income groups expressing more favorable evaluations of the police is that upper income respondents may have greater expectations as to what the police performance should be. Poister and McDavid (1978) also included in their study the variables of: type of crime, perceived response time (in minutes), substance of the initial investigation, existence of follow—up investigation, knowledge of an arrest or arrests related to the incident, and knowledge of a court conviction if an arrest was made. Poister and McDavid (1978) found that respondents who reported being a victim of a Part I person crime (assault, rape, and robbery) were significantly more likely to be satisfied with police performance than those respondents who were victims of other types of crimes. They explain that a probable reason for this finding is that police expend more effort with more serious crimes and this may have an affect on the respondent's overall satisfaction with police performance. Perceived response time was also found to have a significant influence on overall 34 satisfaction with police performance. That is, the longer the response time, the less satisfied the respondent was with police performance. What the police do upon arrival (substance of initial investigation), the existence of a follow-up investigation, and the knowledge of an arrest or arrests related to the incident were found to be modestly associated with overall satisfaction; however, none of the associations were significant. Only a slight association was found between overall satisfaction and whether or not the respondent knew that a suspect had been convicted of the crime. There is too little research on crime victim evaluation of police investigative performance to draw valid conclusions. Therefore, an integrated discussion of the "victim evaluation" studies is presented below. The Shapland (1983), Percy (1980), and Poister and McDavid (1978) studies, which constitute the totality of "victim evaluation" studies, found respectively that seventy (70) percent, sixty-two (62) percent, and forty-six (46) percent of the responding victims expressed overall satisfaction with police performance. While differences in methodology, operationalization, and study site may account for some of the variation in satisfaction levels found by these studies, one could also argue that the degree of variability reflects the potential for critical evaluations from crime victims. It follows then that the levels of 35 satisfaction expressed by victims are indeed indicative of the quality of I'services" provided to them. Percy (1980) found 'age,‘ 'race,‘ and 'sex' of the victim to be associated with evaluations of police performance, while Poister and McDavid (1978) found that only 'total family income' was associated with evaluations of the police. These inconsistent findings highlight the need for further examination of background variables in "victim evaluation" research. Poister and McDavid (1978) found that the seriousness of the reported crime had a significant influence on overall satisfaction with police investigative performance. This is a critical finding because it suggests that there may be other important differences between victims of different crime seriousness types. Poister and McDavid (1978) found that response time of the police had a significant influence on victim satisfaction with police performance. Percy (1980) however, found that the victim's expectation of police response time had a significant influence on victim satisfaction with police performance. Since there are validity problems with accurate estimations of actual response time (Schneider, 1978), and since expectations of response time have been found to be more important in determining overall satisfaction than actual response time (Kansas City Police Department, 1977; Pate et a1., 1976), 36 expectation of response time seems to be the most appropriate measurement for victim evaluation studies. In regard to the activities of the police officer during the initial investigation, Poister and McDavid (1978) found that the substance of the initial investigation did not have a significant impact on crime victim satisfaction levels. Percy (1980) found that some activities of the initial investigation had an impact on satisfaction (making an arrest, comforting someone, providing crime prevention information) while others did not (questioning witnesses, making out a report). Again the literature is faced with inconsistent findings. Shapland (1982) examined the effect of a variable not included byany of the other "victim evaluation" research - the attitude of the police officer conducting the initial investigation. Shapland (1982) found that police officer attitude did have an impact on the victim's degree of satisfaction. Poister and McDavid (1978) was the only study which examined the influence a follow-up investigation had on victim satisfaction. This study found that a follow-up investigation did not have an impact on satisfaction levels of crime victims. Concerning feedback to the victim on the investigation, Poister and McDavid (1978) found that the victim's knowledge of an arrest in relation to the incident did not have a significant impact on crime victim satisfaction. 37 Shapland (1982) found that the receipt of feedback from the police on the status of the case did have an impact on satisfaction levels of violent (personal) crime victims. Once again, the inconsistency of the previous research findings is illustrated. Gaps in "Crime Victim Evaluation" Research As mentioned in Chapter One, there are two major problems with the current state of "victim evaluation" research. First, there is a general lack of empirical inquiry into the assessment of police investigative performance through analysis of crime victim satisfaction. As illustrated above, it seems that there are many inconsistent and incomplete findings in the previous research. Hence, conclusions concerning the subject cannot be comfortably made. More specifically, the influence of background variables (such as age, sex, ethnicity, education, and family income) on crime victim satisfaction has not yet been empirically validated or explained. As discussed earlier in this chapter, it seems that these "subgroup" distinctions should be included in the analysis because these "subgroups" may have different needs, expectations, experiences, and thus, evaluations of the police. The findings which result from the inclusion of these variables may provide valuable input into policy which may enhance crime victim support of the police. In addition, none of 38 the previous studies have examined crimes against business establishments. In this study, crimes against businesses are included. Businesses are an integral part of the community and provide indispensable political support to the police department. Therefore, the police may find it beneficial to monitor and improve their performance in serving the businesses of the community. Additionally, the few studies which have focused on victim evaluations of the police have generally neglected to include and analyze a complete and systematic set of variables which reflect the entirety of the "police response" to the criminal incident. The "police response" variables included in this study, but not in any of the previous studies are: the manner in which the crime was reported and the police officer's conduct during the initial investigation. The second major problem with the current state of "victim evaluation" research is that the available studies have neglected to consider that the seriousness of the crime may affect the victim's needs and expectations of the police. As a result, the previous studies generalize their findings to all crime victims, regardless of the crime's severity. In order to make distinctions between crime victims in this study, victims are stratified into three "crime type" samples which reflect varying degrees of crime seriousness. A separate analysis is then conducted on each crime type sample. By filling these identified research 39 gaps, a more complete assessment of crime victim evaluation of police investigative performance can be undertaken and the current state of knowledge in "victim evaluation" research can be enhanced. An Integration of Diffuse and Specific Support Studies which examine public attitudes toward the police, citizen evaluation of police performance, and victim evaluation of police investigative performance have been presented as the three categories of previous survey research on "public support of the police." It was explained that the studies in the first category, "public attitudes toward the police," measure "diffuse" support, or support for the ideological foundation of the police organization. The studies in the two remaining categories, "citizen evaluation of police performance" and "victim evaluation of police investigative performance," measure "specific" support, or support for the particular role incumbents in the police organization. In general, evidence from this review of the literature supports the claim by White and Menke (1982) that studies which measure "diffuse" support reflect the public as quite positive toward the police, while studies which measure "specific" support reflect the "public" as more negative toward the police. White and Menke (1982) explain that the disparity in support levels is evident because of the degree of specificity in the questions which measure 40 support. Simply stated, general questions indicate higher support levels while specific questions indicate lower support levels. However, the disparity in support levels may also be explained in part by the fact that the questions are directed toward different "publics." One "public" had contact with the police ("specific" support) while the other public may not have had contact with the police ("diffuse" support). Thus, each "public" has a different basis on which to judge the "performance" of the police. Even though there is a disparity between support levels, it seems possible that in some instances "diffuse" support may influence "specific" support. For example, "public attitudes" studies have generally found that non-white and younger respondents express lower levels of "diffuse" support for the police than white and older respondents. A possible explanation for this finding is that non-whites and younger respondents may be more critical of authority or have experienced some form of police discrimination in the past. 80, when rendering an evaluation of police performance in reference to a specific incident, this critical "diffuse" sentiment may manifest itself in the respondent's expressed level of "specific" support for the police. Although this proposition may seem plausible, the paucity of "specific" support research has contributed to the lack of an emergent theoretical framework in which to confirm or deny the validity of the proposition. 41 The proposition that "diffuse" support may influence specific support has important implications for the police department that wishes to improve crime victim satisfaction with police performance. If, for example, it is found that younger respondents are less satisfied with the performance of the police ("specific" support) than older respondents, it may not imply that in some way police performance is deficient. Rather, the finding may indicate a more deeply rooted problem between the police and the younger population. The police department may not be able to improve satisfaction with police performance ("specific" support) without first addressing the issue of general sentiment ("diffuse" support) toward the police. Summary In this chapter an overview of the previous empirical research on public support of the police has been presented. Public attitudes toward the police, citizen evaluations of police performance, and victim evaluation of police investigative performance were outlined as the three categories of survey research on the topic. The gaps in victim evaluation of police performance research, which this present study will attempt to fill, were then highlighted and discussed. Finally, "diffuse" and "specific" support were defined as two distinct forms of support for the police and their possible relationship with one another was discussed. 42 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER II 1 The four items used by Thomas and Hyman (1977) to operationalize "attitude toward the police" were as follows: 1.) The police in our city are doing an effective job and deserve our thanks. 2.) The police in my community are guilty of discrimination against people like the poor and minority groups. 3.) The police don't show proper respect for citizens. 4.) The police here are too willing to use force and violence. For each of these statements the respondent was to indicate strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree. 2 The five items used by Smith and Hawkins (1973) to operationalize "attitude toward the police" were: 1.) People who know the ropes and have money to afford good lawyers don't really have anything to worry about from the police. 2.) Generally speaking, all people are treated the same by the police regardless of race or color. 3.) Negroes tend to get harder treatment from the police than most other people get. 4.) Policemen try to give teenagers an even break in most cases. 5.) The way you are treated by the police depends pretty much on who you are and who you know. The respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each item. Uncertainty or neutrality on the part of the respondent was coded as "undecided" by the interviewer. 43 3The social characteristic variables included in the Kansas City Police Department (1978) study were: length of residency in Kansas City, length of time at current address, population of the community in which the citizen lived most of his or her life, stability of the citizen's living arrangements, socioeconomic status, education, income, age, marital status, position in household, race, and sex. 4 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the research site in the Poister and McDavid (1978) study, has a population of approximately 50,000 people. Harrisburg then, is similar in size to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the research site for the present study. 5 The inclusion of the numerous "demographic" variables in the Poister and McDavid (1978) study was a result of the study evolving from a more comprehensive community survey. 44 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Chapter III contains a description of the study site, research design, and methodological procedures. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the variables included in the study and a presentation of the research questions to be addressed. The Study Site The City of Oshkosh is located on 16 square miles of land in east-central Wisconsin. The city is administered by a council-manager form of government. In 1985 the City of Oshkosh had a population of 50,889. Not included in this figure is the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh which has an approximate enrollment of 12,000 students. Oshkosh is largely a racially homogeneous community -- 98.4% of the population is white. The median age of the population is 29. According to the 1985 census there are 18,766 households in the City. Oshkosh is primarily a manufacturing and industrial city. The major employers in the area are Oshkosh Truck Company, Leach Company (both of which are heavy truck manufacturing and assembly plants), and Oshkosh B'Gosh 45 Company (clothing manufacturing). The Oshkosh Police Department currently employs 84 full-time sworn officers, 7 Community Service Officers, 5 civilian clerks, and 23 crossing guards. Of the 84 sworn officers, 54 are patrol officers and 9 are detectives. The budget for the police department in 1986 was $2.8 million. The divisions within the police department are: motorized patrol, detective, crime prevention, training, and central services (see Appendix A for the organizational chart of the police department). Data and Sample The data for this study came from responses to self-administered questionnaires mailed to crime victims whose names were obtained from official complainant records of the Oshkosh, Wisconsin Police Department. Complainant records which identified: 1) an aggravated battery, burglary, forcible rape, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, or robbery; 2) the victim as being 18 years old or over at the time of the offense; and 3) the crime as having occurred between June 6, 1986 and June 6, 1987 were included in the population. Crimes against businesses and organizations are included in this study with two exceptions. First, since this study is incident-specific and a few select retail stores account for the vast majority of the approximate 600 46 "shoplifting" complaints, "shoplifting" crimes (a type of larceny-theft) are excluded. Second, a robbery or assault of a person in the course of his/her work is viewed primarily as an attack on the individual, rather than on the victim's property, because the physical security of the individual is directly threatened. Accordingly, such crimes are not viewed as crimes against property, but rather crimes against the person. In cases where a crime was directed toward a business, the identified manager or owner of the business was viewed as the victim and the questionnaire was sent to this individual (in nearly all of the cases the owner or manager was the reporting person). Victims who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense had to be excluded from the population so as to not violate the confidentiality standard of the police department. The categories of sexual assault and larceny-theft had the greatest proportions of victims under the age of 18. Criminal incidents which occurred between June 6, 1986 and June 6, 1987 were used for analysis in this study because the twelve month time frame balanced the need for adequate frequencies with reliable respondent memory recall of the police response. Because the amount of effort the police expend on investigating a crime depends on the seriousness of the offense and since greater effort may affect victim satisfaction with police performance (Poister and McDavid, 1978:139), it was seen as necessary to employ "crime 47 categories" in the collection and analysis of data. The categories used in this study are: "personal" (aggravated battery, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, rape, and robbery,); "property serious" (burglary, motor vehicle theft); and "property less serious" (larceny-theft). The sample was stratified on the basis of these three crime categories. Sampling Procedure Complainant records maintained within the detective bureau were used as the source of information for the sample selection and mailings. Complainant records were filed by type of crime and were in chronological order within this filing system. The sample selection procedure consisted of six steps. The first step in the process was to gather all of the records which identified an aggravated battery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, rape, or a robbery as having occurred between June 6, 1986 and June 6, 1987. There were 29 aggravated battery reports, 442 burglary reports, 2,515 larceny-theft reports, 90 motor vehicle theft reports, 129 non-aggravated battery reports, 32 other sexual assault reports, 7 rape reports, and 17 robbery reports. The total number of reports gathered was 3,261. Second, all of the reports which identified the victim as being under 18 years of age were excluded from each of 48 the files. As there were no aggravated battery, burglary, or motor vehicle theft victims under the age of 18, no reports in these categories had to be excluded. However, 579 larceny-theft reports, 41 non—aggravated battery reports, 28 other sexual assault reports, and 3 robbery reports had to be excluded because of the age requirement. The total number of reports excluded as a result of the victim being under 18 years of age was 651. Third, as explained in Chapter I, the reports were grouped into either "personal" (aggravated battery, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, rape, and robbery), "property serious" (burglary and motor vehicle theft), or "property less serious" (larceny-theft) crime categories. Fourth, a mailing identification card (see Appendix B) was completed for each of the "personal" crimes (aggravated battery, non-aggravated battery, other sexual assault, rape, and robbery). In this category there were 142 crimes which met the age and date requirements for sampling. Due to the relatively small number of "personal" crimes available, the entire population (N = 142) was included in the initial sample. Fifth, a mailing identification card was completed on every second “property serious" crime (burglary and motor vehicle theft) in the sampling frame. This systematic sampling procedure resulted in a sample of 266 crimes out of the possible 532 which met the age and date requirements 49 of the study. The selection of every other crime in this category insured adequate frequencies for statistical analysis yet was considerate of the resource constraints on this project. Finally, all of the 551 "shoplifting" crimes were excluded from the "property less serious" (larceny theft) crime category. A mailing identification card was then completed on every fifth larceny-theft crime. This systematic sampling procedure resulted in a sample of 277 crimes out of the possible 1,385 which met the age and date requirements of the study. Again, as with the "property serious" sample, the selection of every fifth "property less serious" crime insured adequate frequencies for analysis, but yet was considerate of the limited resources of this project. The stratified, disproportionate sampling procedure resulted in the selection of 685 cases (N = 685). Mailings Three mailings were conducted for this study. The first consisted of a letter of introduction from the Chief of Police and the author (see Appendix C), a questionnaire, and a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope. The second mailing consisted of a reminder letter (see Appendix D), another questionnaire, and a postage paid return envelope. The final mailing once again consisted of a reminder letter (see Appendix E), a questionnaire, and a 50 postage paid return envelope. Police department letterhead and envelopes were used for each mailing. The mailings were spaced approximately three weeks apart and each mailing was addressed and sent to the individual who was identified as the victim in the complainant record. The return envelope included in each mailing was addressed to a post office box in East Lansing, Michigan in care of the project director (the author). Each mailed questionnaire had a mailing identification number printed on it which corresponded to the mailing identification card that identified the type of crime reported, the police department's complaint number, the victim's name, address, age, sex, and ethnicity, and whether or not the reporting victim represented a business. The mailing identification number was also used to monitor the returns and identify the non-responding individuals for the follow—up mailings. The second and final mailings were sent only to the non-respondents. Response Rates As a result of the first mailing, 256 (37.4%) of the 685 questionnaires were returned and were usable. Six more questionnaires were returned but were not usable because either they were not filled out or the victim was under the age of 18 (the victim was inadvertently included in the initial sample). Additionally, 66 of the original 685 questionnaires could not be delivered by the U.S. Post Office. 51 The second mailing consisted of 357 questionnaires sent to those victims who were not yet accounted for. Of the 357 questionnaires sent, 127 were returned and were usable. Eight more questionnaires were returned but were not usable and 13 questionnaires could not be delivered by the Post Office. The 127 questionnaires which were returned accounted for an 18.5% increase in the response rate. The third and final mailing consisted of 209 questionnaires sent to those victims who were not yet accounted for. This mailing resulted in 53 usable questionnaires being returned. In addition, four questionnaires were returned but were not usable and two could not be delivered by the Post Office. The 53 usable questionnaires which were returned accounted for a 7.7% increase in the response rate. Overall, 436 usable questionnaires were returned. This figure represents a "usable response rate" of 63.64%. As a result of the three mailings, 539 of the initial 685 sampled victims were accounted for (their questionnaires were either returned as usable, not usable, or not deliverable). This figure represents an "overall response rate" of 78.68%. Crime Category Response Rates In the "personal" crime sample, 79 of the 142 questionnaires were returned and were usable (a 55.6% 52 response rate). In the "property serious" crime sample, 165 out of 266 questionnaires were returned and usable (a 62.03% response rate). Finally, 192 of the 277 "property less serious" questionnaires were returned and usable (a 69.3% response rate). Questionnaire Construction The questionnaire used in this study was developed after an extensive review of citizens' and crime victims' evaluation of police performance research. After several drafts of the instrument were made, a pretest was conducted to highlight any ambiguous instructions or wording, or any problems with the substance of the questionnaire. This pretest sample consisted of sixteen people (three of whom were police officers) whose ages ranged from twenty-two years to sixty-eight years and years of education from eight to eighteen. Based on the comments of the pretest sample changes in the questionnaire were made. The questionnaire was then pretested again with a different sample of twelve people (one of whom was a police officer). This sample ranged from fifteen to sixty years of age and from ten to sixteen years of education. No problems or difficulties were encountered by the pretest sample in completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then drafted into its final form (see Appendix F). 53 Variables The primary dependent variable in this study is a single measure of overall satisfaction with the police response to the particular victimization incident -- the respondent was asked, "Overall, how satisfied were you with how the police Officer(s) handled the incident?" The answer choices were: "very satisfied", "satisfied", "uncertain", "dissatisfied", and "very dissatisfied". The data for this variable were initially collected in the Likert scale format; however, for the statistical analysis the variable was dichotomized into "not satisfied" (the 'uncertain,‘ 'dissatisfied,‘ and 'very dissatisfied' responses combined) and "satisfied" (the 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' responses combined). The "uncertain" responses were grouped into the "not satisfied" category because, based on an examination of the victim comments (see Appendix G) it seemed that "uncertain" victims had a tendency to express more negative (not satisfied) comments than positive (satisfied) comments as to the performance of the police. As explained in the previous chapter, the variables of victim age, race, gender, education, total family income, and type of victim (individual or business) were included in this study. The variable of total family income was initially collected on the basis of six standard U.S. census data income categories, ranging from "less than $5,000" to "$25,000 or more"; however, for analysis 54 purposes these categories were collapsed into "lower income" ($14,999 or less), "middle income" ($15,000 - $24,999), and "higher income" ($25,000 or more). Although this classification scheme may appear to be rather compressed (i.e. the "lower income" limit may seem high, and the "higher income" limit may seem low), these divisions seem appropriate for three reasons. First, since these figures represent total family income rather than just the victim's income and since total family income may be expected to be greater, the "lower income" limit may not seem as skewed as at first thought. Second, since Oshkosh is a very homogenous community, there are relatively few citizens who are "poor" or "rich." The three category scheme reflects this consideration. Finally, and possibly most importantly, these divisions insured adequate frequencies throughout the analysis. The variable of 'victim education' was initially collected in four standard categories, ranging from "less than high school" to "college graduate"; however, this variable was dichotomized into "high school or less" and "some college or more" distinctions for the analysis. The variable of victim ethnicity was collected and analyzed in the "white - non-white" dichotomy. Finally, the variable of victim age was initially collected as interval level data but was dichotomized into "young" (24 years of age or less) and "old" (25 years old or over) for the analysis. As explained in Chapter II, this study includes a 55 systematic set of variables which reflect consideration of the entire "police investigative response." The variables in this set are: the manner in which the crime was reported, expected response time, professionalism of the police officer conducting the initial investigation, investigative effort of the police officer conducting the initial investigation, existence of a re-contact for further questioning, and the existence of a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation. The manner in which the crime was reported was initially coded on the basis of four categories: "police were called and responded to the victim's location," "all of the information concerning the crime was taken over the phone," "victim went directly to the police department," and "police discovered the crime." Then, for the analysis, these categories were divided first into "victim initiated" (police were called and responded, phone report, and victim went to police department) vs. "police initiated" (police discovered the crime). Second, the initial categories were divided into "face-to-face contact" (police were called and responded, victim went directly to police department, and police discovered the crime) and "no face-to-face contact" (all of the information concerning the crime was taken over the phone). The rationale for the "victim vs. police initiated" dichotomy stems from the assumption that when the police discover that a crime occurred, the corresponding victim 56 may have the perception that the capability and omnipresence of the police is much greater than the victim who must request the "attention" of the police. This perception may, in turn, influence evaluation of the police. The rationale for the second dichotomy, "face-to-face contact vs. no face-to-face contact," stems from the assumption that the victim may perceive that he/she is receiving more attention and effort from the police and may view the police as taking the incident more seriously if there is actual "face-to-face" contact between the police and the victim. Again, it may be expected that this perception may influence evaluations of the police. Expected response time was collected and analyzed on the basis of three categories: "slower than expected," "about the same as expected," or "faster than expected." The professionalism of the police Officer(s) conducting the initial investigation and the investigative effort of the police Officer(s) conducting the initial investigation were indexes -- the construction of which are explained below. The existence of a recontact for further questioning was initially categorized by the responses of: "yes," "no," or "uncertain;" however, for the analysis the "uncertain" responses were excluded because "uncertain," in this context, seemed to imply "I can't remember." The existence of a contact to inform the victim of the status in the investigation was also collected in the "yes, no, uncertain" format. As with the previous variable, the 57 "uncertain" responses were excluded from the analysis because "uncertain" in this context seemed to connote "I can't remember." Since the amount of effort the police expend on investigating a crime may depend on the seriousness of the offense, and since greater effort may affect victim satisfaction with police performance (Poister and McDavid, 1978:139), in this study the variable "type of crime reported" was viewed as an independent variable on which the samples for the study were based. The "crime type" samples consisted of "personal," "property serious," and "property less serious." The index which represented the professionalism of the police Officer(s) who conducted the initial investigation was created through the combination of four items which examined the police officer(s)' attitude and competence. The respondents were asked to respond either "yes," "no," or "uncertain" as to whether the police Officer(s) were courteous, understanding, concerned, and competent. In creating the index, the "no" and "uncertain" responses to each item were grouped together while the "yes" responses were unchanged. The "uncertain" responses were combined with the "no" responses because, in this context, an "uncertain" response seemed to imply that the victim was unable to ascertain (or was undecided as to the degree of) the police officer(s)' competence or attitude. This manner of response seems then to indicate a more negative than 58 positive evaluation of the police officer(s). If the respondent failed to complete any of the four "professionalism" items, the entire index was coded as "missing." The scoring of the index was arranged so that a score of one (1) indicated that for all four of the "profession- alism" items, the victim responded negatively ("no" or "uncertain") to each. A score of two (2) indicated one positive ("yes") response and three negative responses. A score of three (3) indicated two positive and two negative responses. A score of four (4) indicated three positive and one negative response. Finally, a score of five (5) indicated that the victim responded positively to all four of the "professionalism" items. For the analysis the "professionalism" variable was dichotomized into "not professional" and "professional." The "not professional" category consisted of the scores of one (1), two (2), and three (3), while the "professional" category consisted of the scores of four (4) and five (5). In other words, in order for the officer to be "professional" the victim had to respond affirmatively to a majority of the index items. The combination of the categories into a simple dichotomy insured adequate frequencies for statistical tests. The index which represents the investigative effort of the police officer(s) who conducted the initial investigation was created through the combination of four 59 items which examined the investigative activities of the police officers who conducted the initial investigation. The respondents were asked to respond either "yes," "no," or "uncertain" as to whether the police officer(s) searched or looked around the crime scene, examined any evidence, attempted to locate and/or question witnesses, or made out a report -- all of which could be conducted in investigating any criminal occurrence. In creating the index, the "no" and "uncertain" responses for each item were grouped together while the "yes" responses remained unchanged. The "uncertain" responses were grouped with the "no" responses because, in this context, an "uncertain" response seemed to imply that the victim was unsure if the police officer(s) performed the activity because he/she was not informed that the police conducted the activity. It is argued that if the victim was unaware of a police officer(s)' activities, then, from the victim's viewpoint, it is as if the activity was not done. As with the "professionalism" index, the scoring of the "investigative effort" index was arranged so that a score of one (1) indicated that all four of the "investigative effort" items, the victim responded negatively ("no" or "uncertain") to each. A score of two (2) indicated one affirmative ("yes") and three negative responses. A score of three (3) indicated two affirmative and two negative responses. A score of four (4) indicated three affirmative and one negative responses. Finally, a score of five (5) 60 indicated that the victim responded affirmatively to all four of the "investigative effort" items. For the analysis the "investigative effort" variable was dichotomized into "much investigative effort" and "little investigative effort." The "little effort" category consisted of the scores of one (1), two (2), and three (3), while the "much effort" category consisted of the scores of four (4) and five (5). In other words, the victim had to indicate affirmatively to a majority of the index items in order for the police officer to be viewed as exhibiting "much investigative effort." The combination of categories into a simple dichotomy insured adequate frequencies for statistical techniques. The formation and use of the "professionalism" and "investigative effort" indexes served an important methodological purpose. Unlike a single indicator, the indexes were able to measure complex concepts such as "professionalism" and "investigative effort." By considering several data items, the indexes were more likely to provide a comprehensive and accurate indication of the concepts under inquiry. Research Questions The general question addressed in this study is as follows: What variables contribute to victims' overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? (This question, and the more specific questions presented below, are addressed in the following chapter.) 61 Specifically, the study addresses the following questions: 1.) Is the type of victim (individual or business) or any of the background variables of the victim (age, gender, education, income, race) associated with overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 2.) Does the type of crime reported (personal, property serious, or property less serious) influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 3.) Does the manner in which the crime was reported influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 4.) Does the victim's expectation of response time influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 5.) Does the responding police officer's exhibited degree of professionalism influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 6.) Does the responding police officer's exhibited degree of investigative effort influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 7.) Does the existence of a follow-up investigation influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 8.) Does a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? *‘k'k 62 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA In this chapter the data are analyzed as they apply to the research questions presented in Chapter III. The results of the study are organized and presented in two sections -- characteristics and responses of the crime victims and bivariate analysis of the research questions. Separate analyses are presented for each of the three crime type samples. The first sample consists of "personal" crimes (N = 79). The second sample consists of "property serious" crimes (N = 165). The third sample consists of "property less serious" crimes (N = 192). Again, a proportionate sampling procedure was not employed in obtaining these three samples. Therefore, it is methodologically necessary to conduct separate analyses on each of the crime types (Hagen, 1982). Characteristics and Responses of the Crime Victims A description of the characteristics of the "personal," "property serious," and "property less serious" crime victim respondents is presented in Table 4.1.1 63 TABLE 4.]. Characteristics of the Respondents in each of the Crime Type Samples "PERSONAL" "PROPERTY SERIOUS" "PROPERTY LESS VARIABLES VICTIMS VICTIMS SERIOUS" VICTIMS f t f 8 f 8 me or Victim, Individual 79 100.0 118 71.5 181 94.3 Business -- -- 47 28.5 11 5.7 Sex of Victim ‘ Male 44 55.7 105 63.6 110 57.3 Female . 35 44.3 60 36.4 82 42.7 Race of Victim. White 78 98.7 163 98.8 186 96.9 Ion-white l 1.3 2 1.2 6 3.1 Age of Victim Young 36 45.6 24 14.5 40 20.8 Old 43 54.4 141 85.5 152 79.2 Education of Victhl High Schl / less 41 56.2 76 48.1 77 42.3 Sm College / more 32 43.8 82 51.9 105 57.7 Income of Family ' Lower Income 33 59.9 43 34.7 49 31.4 Middle Income 12 20.7 21 16.9 39 25.0 Higher Income 13 22.4 60 48.4 68 43.6 A (t) sign beside a variable in Table 4.1 indicates that the frequency for a value of that variable is not I large enough to accommodate bivariate statistical analyses. Although, as explained in Chapter II, for theoretical reasons these variables should be included in an assessment of crime victim satisfaction with the police 64 response, in certain instances of this study these variables simply cannot be included. For example, due to the absence of businesses in the "personal" crime sample and the relatively small number of businesses in the "property less serious" crime sample, the "business - individual" distinction ("type of victim" variable) can only be made in the "property serious" crime type sample analysis. Similarly, since less than three (3) percent (N = 9) of the respondents in the three samples combined were "non-white," and since meaningful statistical analysis cannot be conducted on such a small N, the distinction between "white" and "non-white" respondents cannot be made in the analyses. For purposes of this study, the "white" and "non-white" respondents are grouped together so as to provide the greatest frequency throughout the entire analysis. The responses of the "personal," "property serious," and "property less serious" crime Victim respondents are illustrated in Table 4.2. 65 TABLE 4.2 Responses of the Crime Victims to the Police Investigative Response Variables for each Crime Type Sample "PERSONAL" "PROPERTY SERIOUS" "PROPERTY LESS VARIABLES VICTIMS VICTIMS SERIOUS" VICTIMS f t f 8 f 8 Crime Report. Victim Initiated 65 94.2 152 96.8 186 98.4 Police Initiated 4 5.8 5 3.2 3 1.6 Pace-to-face 69 100.0 155 98.7 172 91.0 No Pace-to-face 0 0.0 2 1.3 17 9.0 Expectation of Response Time Slower 9 17.0 20 13.6 17 11.3 Same 32 60.4 99 67.3 96 63.6 raster 12 22.6 28 19.0 38 25.2 Professionalism Not Professional 28 35.9 43 26.5 44 23.2 Professional 50 64.1 119 73.5 146 76.8 Investigative Effort Little 48 62.3 75 46.6 134 71.3 Much 29 37.7 86 53.4 54 28.7 Recontacted for Questions ' No 46 60.5 93 59.2 150 81.1 Yes 30 39.5 64 40.8 35 18.9 Recontacted with Status of Investigation No 57 75.0 121 77.6 155 84.2 Yes 19 25.0 35 22.4 29 15.8 In Table 4.2 it is seen that the "crime report" variable also had to be excluded from the analysis due to the lack of sufficient variation in the variable. The overwhelming majority of victims initiated the crime report in each of the three crime type samples (N a 403), and the vast majority of the victims had face-to-face contact with 66 the police officer (N = 396). Again, there was not enough variation in the "crime report" variable to render meaningful statistical results. Analysis of the Research Questions In this section of the chapter the research questions are addressed and through the use of bivariate statistical techniques (Chi Square, x2, for statistical significance and Gamma, G, for measures of associationz) responses to the questions are presented. For purposes of this study, a relationship is considered significant if it attains a probability level of .05 or less. As explained in Chapter III, due to the dispropor- tionate stratified sampling procedure used in this study, each "crime type" is treated as an independent and separate sample in the analysis. Accordingly, the research questions are addressed to each crime type sample separately. In addition, the crime type samples are not large enough to accommodate the introduction of control variables into the analysis. Finally, the order in which the research questions are presented reflects the same order in which the stages of the "police investigative response" occur (except for the first two questions which are not concerned with the "police response"). Research Question #1: Is the type of victim (individual or business) or any of the background variables of the victim (age, sex, education, income, race) associated with overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? 67 The bivariate relationships between victim characteristics and overall satisfaction with the police investigative response are presented in Tables 4.3 through 4.5 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis for the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.3. TABLE 4 . 3 Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Victim Sex 3.000 .39 Male 44 47.7% 52.3% Female 35 28.6% 71.4% Victim Age .163 .09 Young 36 41.7% 58.3% Old 43 37.2% 62.8% Victim Education 2.512 -.37 H Schl/less 41 31.7% 68.3% Some Col/more 32 50.0% 50.0% Family Income .467 -.04 Lower Income 33 39.4% 60.6% Middle Income 12 50.0% 50.0% Higher Income 13 38.5% 61.5% Apparent from these data is the absence of statistical significance between the characteristics of the personal crime type sample members and overall satisfaction with the police investigative response. The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.4.3 68 TABLE 4 . 4 Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample 2 x G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Victim Type 1.545 —.23 Business 47 25.5% 74.5% Individual 118 35.6% 64.4% Victim Sex .016 -.02 Male 105 32.4% 67.6% Female 60 33.3% 66.7% Victim Age* 4.779 .48 Young 24 54.2% 45.8% Old 141 29.1% 70.9% Victim Education 2.382 -.26 H Schl/less 76 26.3% 73.7% Some Col/more 82 37.8% 62.2% Family Income 2.420 .03 Lower Income 43 30.2% 69.8% Middle Income 21 47.6% 52.4% Higher Income 60 30.0% 70.0% * p<.05 As observed from Table 4.4, the only victim characteristic in the "property serious" crime type sample which attained statistical significance was that of victim age (p < .05). That is, "old" victims were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than "young" victims. The strength of the relationship between age and overall satisfaction is fair (G = .48). The results of the analysis for the "property less serious" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.5. 69 TABLE 4.5 Victim Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample 2 X G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Victim Sex .046 -.04 Male 110 25.5% 74.5% Female 82 26.8% 73.2% Victim Age 1.094 .20 Young 40 32.5% 67.5% Old 152 24.3% 75.7% Victim ‘ Education .198 —.08 H Schl/less 77 24.7% 75.3% Some Col/more 105 27.6% 72.4% Family Income 2.794 .25 Lower Income _ 49 32.7% 67.3% Middle Income 39 25.6% 74.4% Higher Income 68 19.1% 80.9% As with the "personal" crime type sample, none of the victim characteristic variables in the "property less serious" crime type sample attained statistical significance with overall satisfaction. In sum, the only victim characteristic which is associated with overall satisfaction with the police investigative response is 'age,‘ and this variable is only significant in the "property serious" crime type sample. In the "property serious" sample "old" victims were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than "young" victims (p < .05; G = .48). 7O Research Question #2: Does the type of crime reported influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between the "personal," "property serious," and "property less serious" crime types and overall satisfaction with the police response are presented in Table 4.6. TABLE 4 . 6 Type of Crime by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Type of Crime 4.948 -.19 Prop Less Ser 192 26.0% 74.0% Prop Serious 165 32.7% 67.3% Personal 79 39.2% 60.8% This cross-tabulation does not display statistical significance and the relationship is weak (G = -.l9). Research Question #3: Does the manner in which the crime was reported influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? As mentioned previously, due to lack of variation in the "police vs. victim initiated crime report" and "face-to-face vs. no face-to-face contact during the crime report" distinctions, this question could not be addressed in this research study. 71 Research Question #4: Does the victim's expectation of response time influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between expectation of response time and overall satisfaction with the police response are presented in Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis for the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.7.4 TABLE 4 . 7 Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Exp'n ** of R Time 13.624 .88 Slower 9 77.8% 22.2% Same 32 37.5% 62.5% Faster 12 00.0% 100.0% ** p<.01 As displayed in Table 4.7, a strong and significant relationship is found between expectation of response time and overall satisfaction with the police investigative response for the "personal" crime type sample (G = .88; p < .01). Victims of a personal crime who reported a faster than expected response time were most likely to be satisfied with the police response while victims who 72 reported a slower than expected response time were least likely to be satisfied. The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.8. TABLE 4 . 8 Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Exp'n * ** of R Time *24.676 .76 Slower 20 75.0% 25.0% Same 99 31.3% 68.7% Faster 28 7.1% 92.9% **** p<.0001 Similar to the "personal" crime type sample, a moderate and significant relationship was found between the expectation of response time and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property serious" crime type sample (G = .76; p < .0001). Again, victims who reported a faster than expected response time were most likely to be satisfied with the police response while victims who reported a slower than expected response time were the least likely to be satisfied with the police response. The bivariate relationship between expectation of response time and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample is presented in Table 4.9. 73 TABLE 4.9 Expectation of Response Time by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Exp'n of R Time 4.609 .37 Slower 17 29.4% 70.6% Same 96 27.1% 72.9% Faster 38 10.5% 89.5% Apparent from Table 4.9 is the lack of statistical significance between expectation of response time and the expressed level of overall satisfaction for the "property less serious" sample. In sum, expectation of response time does seem to influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response in the "personal" and "property serious" crime type samples. Victims who reported a faster than expected response time were most likely to be satisfied with the police response while victims who reported a slower than expected response time were the least likely to be satisfied. The correlation between the two variables was stronger in the "personal" crime type sample (G = .88) than in the "property serious" crime type sample (G .76). Although the same pattern that was found in the "personal" and "property serious" crime type samples was found in the "property less serious" sample, the relationship was slight (G = .37) and non-significant. 74 Research Question #5: Does the responding police officer‘s exhibited degree of professionalism influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between the police officer's exhibited degree of professionalism and the victim's overall satisfaction with the police response are presented in Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis conducted on the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.10. TABLE 4 . 10 Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample 2 X G N Not Satisfied Satisfied **** Prof‘lism 32.789 .92 Not Prof'l 28 82.1% 17.9% Prof‘l 50 16.0% 84.0% **** p<.0001 Based on the results presented in Table 4.10 it is apparent that there is a strong and significant relationship between the perceived professionalism of the responding police officer(s) and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "personal" crime type sample (G = .92; p < .0001). That is, victims of a "personal" crime who perceive the police officer(s) to be "professional" are 75 significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than victims who perceive the police officer(s) to not be professional. The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are displayed in Table 4.11. TABLE 4 . ll Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied **** Prof'lism 73.196 .95 Not Prof'l 43 86.0% 14.0% Prof'l 119 14.3% 85.7% **** p<.0001 As with the "personal" crime type sample, the relationship between professionalism of the responding police officer(s) and overall satisfaction for the "property serious" crime type sample appears to be strong and significant (G = .95; p < .0001). Victims of a "property serious" crime who perceive the police officer(s) as "professional" are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than those victims who perceive the police officer(s) to not be professional. The bivariate relationship between professionalism of the police officer(s) and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample is presented in Table 4.12. 76 TABLE 4 . 12 Professionalism of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample X2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied **** Prof'lism 42.855 .82 Not Prof'l 44 63.6% 36.4% Prof'l 146 14.4% 85.6% **** p<.0001 No different than the "personal" and "property serious" crime type samples, the "property less serious" crime type sample also displays a strong and significant relationship between "professionalism" and overall satisfaction (G = .82; p < .0001). Victims of a "property less serious" crime who perceive the police officers as "professional" are once again significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than those victims who perceive the police officer(s) to not be professional. In sum, in each of the crime types it appears that the police officer(s)' exhibited degree of professionalism has an influence on the victim's overall satisfaction with the police investigative response. For each of the crime type samples, there was a strong and significant relationship between the professionalism and satisfaction variables. Victims who perceive the police officer(s) as professional were more likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response than victims who perceive the police officer(s) as not professional. 77 Research Question #6: Does the responding police officer(s)' exhibited degree of investigative effort influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between the police officer(s)' exhibited degree of investigative effort and the victim's overall satisfaction with the police response are presented in Tables 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis for the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.13. TABLE 4.13 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample X2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Investigative Effort 2.531 .38 Little Effort 48 45.8% 54.2% Much Effort 29 27.6% 72.4% Apparent from Table 4.13 is the lack of statistical significance between the degree of investigative effort and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "personal" crime type sample. It is also interesting to note that none of the comments from the "personal" crime victims mention anything to do with the police officer(s)' amount of investigative effort (Appendix G). 78 The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are displayed in Table 4.14. TABLE 4 . 14 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample X2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Investigative Effort**** 28.113 .74 Little Effort 75 54.7% 45.3% Much Effort 86 15.1% 84.9% **** p<.0001 Based on the results presented in Table 4.14, it is apparent that there is a moderate and significant relationship between the exhibited degree of investigative effort and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property serious" crime type sample (G = .74; p < .0001). Victims of a "property serious" crime who perceive the responding police officer(s) as exhibiting "much investigative effort" are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than victims who perceive "little investigative effort" by the police officer(s). It is interesting to note the frequency of "property serious" crime victims mentioning that they thought fingerprints should have been taken by the responding police officer(s) (Appendix G). The bivariate relationship between the exhibited degree of investigative effort and overall satisfaction with the 79 police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample is presented in Table 4.15. TABLE 4. 15 Investigative Effort of the Police Officer(s) by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied A; Investigative Effort * 6.295 .49 Little Effort 134 30.6% 69.4% Much Effort 54 13.0% 87.0% * p<.05; A significant and fair relationship appears between the investigative effort of the police officer(s) and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample (p < .05; G = .49). Victims of a "property less serious" crime who perceive the responding police officer(s) as exhibiting "much investigative effort" are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than victims who perceive "little investigative effort" by the police officer(s). In sum, the perceived investigative effort does seem to have an affect on overall satisfaction with the police investigative response for the "property serious" and "property less serious" crime type samples. More specifically, victims of a "property serious" or a "property less serious" crime who reported "much 80 investigative effort" from the responding officer(s) were significantly more satisfied with the police response than victims who reported "little investigative effort." The relationship was stronger in the "property serious" crime type sample (G = .74; p < .0001) than in the "property less serious" sample (G = .49; p < .05). Although the same pattern that was found in the "property serious" and "property less serious" crime type samples was also found in the "personal" crime sample, the relationship in this sample was slight (G = .38) and non-significant. Before proceeding to the next research question it is important to note that it was realized that the "professionalism" and "investigative effort" indexes may, measure the same thing and therefore, be strongly related to one another. To test this assumption, Pearson's r was used to test the strength of the relationship between the indexes (in interval form). It was found that the indexes were only slightly related to one another (r = .33). Therefore, the indexes were viewed as distinct measures of two separate concepts. Research Question #7: Does the existence of a recontact for further questioning influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between a contact for further questioning and overall satisfaction with the police investigative response are presented in Tables 4.16, 81 4.17, and 4.18 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis for the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.16. TABLE 4.16 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted for Questions 3.403 .43 No 46 47.8% 52.2% Yes 30 26.7% 73.3% Apparent from Table 4.16 is the lack of statistical significance between "further questioning" and overall satisfaction for the "personal" crime type sample. The relationship between the variables is fair (G = .43). The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are displayed in Table 4.17. TABLE 4.17 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample 2 x G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted for Questions 3.706 .33 No 93 39.8% 60.2% Yes 64 25.0% 75.0% 82 As with the "personal" sample, a greater proportion of "property serious" victims who were recontacted for further questions were satisfied with the police response than those who were not recontacted. However, again there is a lack of statistical significance between further questioning and overall satisfaction and the relationship is only slight (G = .33). The bivariate relationship between further questioning and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample is presented in Table 4.18.5 TABLE 4.18 Victim Recontacted for Further Questions by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample X2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted for Questions .458 .20 No 150 27.3% 72.7% Yes 35 20.0% 80.0% Like the "personal" and "property serious" crime type samples, the "property less serious" sample does not display statistical significance between further questioning and overall satisfaction. Additionally, the relationship between the two variables is slight (G = .20). In sum, there is a lack of statistical significance between further questioning and overall satisfaction with 83 the police investigative response in each of the crime type samples. However, in each of the samples it appears that victims who reported a recontact for further questions had higher levels of satisfaction with the police response than did victims who reported that they were not re-contacted. Research Question #8: Does a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation influence overall satisfaction with the police investigative response? The bivariate relationships between the contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation and overall satisfaction with the police response are presented in Tables 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21 for each of the crime type samples. The results of the analysis for the "personal" crime type sample are presented in Table 4.19. TABLE 4.19 Victim Recontacted with the Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Personal Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted / Status .911 .34 No 57 42.1% 57.9% Yes 19 26.3% 73.7% As displayed in 4.19, the cross-tabulation between the contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation and overall satisfaction with the police 84 response did not attain a standard level of significance. Additionally, the strength of the correlation is slight (G = .34). The results of the analysis for the "property serious" crime type sample are displayed in Table 4.20. TABLE 4.20 Victim Recontacted with the Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Serious Crime Type Sample X2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted / Status * 5.699 .51 No 121 38.8% 61.2% Yes 35 17.1% 82.9% * p<.05 The relationship between a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property serious" crime type sample is significant and fair (p < .05; G = .51). Victims of a "property serious" crime who were recontacted and informed of the status of the investigation were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than those victims who were not recontacted and informed of the status of the investigation. The bivariate relationship between the existence of a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation and overall satisfaction with the police 85 response for the "property less serious" crime type sample is presented in Table 4.21. TABLE 4 . 21 Victim Recontacted with Status of the Investigation by Overall Satisfaction with the Police Response for the Property Less Serious Crime Type Sample x2 G N Not Satisfied Satisfied Recontacted / Status .905 .30 No 155 27.7% 72.3% Yes 29 17.2% 82.8% Based on the results presented in Table 4.21, it is apparent that there is a lack of statistical significance between the existence of a contact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation and overall satisfaction with the police response for the "property less serious" crime type sample. Not only does the relationship lack statistical significance, but the strength of the correlation is slight (G = .30). In sum, for each of the crime type samples, victims who reported.that they were recontacted about the status of the investigation expressed a higher level of satisfaction with the police investigative response than victims who were not recontacted about the status of the investigation. However, the relationship was significant only in the "property serious" crime type sample (p < .05; G = .51). That is, victims of a "property serious" crime 86 were more likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response if they were recontacted about the status of the investigation. Summary The major findings are listed below. 1) The only victim characteristic which has a significant relationship with overall satisfaction is age, and this variable is significant only in the "property serious" crime type sample (p < .05; G = .48). That is, "young" victims (those under 25 years of age) of a "property serious" crime are less likely to be satisfied with the police response than "old" victims of a "property serious" crime. 2) The expectation of response time has an influence on overall satisfaction in the "personal" crime type sample (G = .88; p < .01) and in the "property serious" sample (G = .76; p < .0001) but not in the "property less serious" sample. Victims of a "personal" or "property serious" crime who reported a faster than expected response time were the most likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response, while victims who reported a slower than expected response time were least likely to be satisfied. 3) The police officer(s)' exhibited degree of professionalism during the initial contact has a strong influence on overall satisfaction in the "personal" (p < 87 .0001; G = .92), "property serious" (p < .0001; G = .95), and "property less serious" (p < .0001; G = .82) crime type samples. Victims, no matter the crime type, who perceive the police officer to be "professional," are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response than victims who perceive the police officer as "not professional." 4) The "investigative effort" of the responding police officer has an influence on overall satisfaction in the "property serious" crime type category (G = .74; p < .0001) and in the "property less serious" crime type category ( G = .49; p < .05). Victims in these two samples who indicate that the police officer exhibited "much investigative effort" are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than those victims who indicated that the police officer did not exhibit "much investigative effort." 5) The existence of a recontact for further questioning does not appear to have an influence on the satisfaction levels of any crime victims, regardless of the crime type. 6) A recontact to inform the victim of the status of the investigation has an influence on overall satisfaction only in the "property serious" crime type category (G = .51; p < .05). Victims of a "property serious" crime are more likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response if they were recontacted with the status of the investigation. *** 88 FOOTNOTES -- CHAPTER FOUR 1 Missing data are excluded from all of the tables in this chapter. As a result, in Tables 4.1 through 4.5, the N for each variable may be may not be the same. 2 Chi Square (x2) is used in inferential statistics as a basis for a test of significance called the "chi-square test." By applying the chi square test to a cross-tabulation, a measure of the independence between the expected and observed scores can be obtained. (See Anderson and Zelditch, 1968 for an excellent discussion of the Chi Square statistic.) Gamma (G) is a measure of association for ordinal data which always has fixed limits (-l.00 to +1.00) where 1 indicates perfect association. The value of fixed limits lies in the fact that the resulting levels of association can be validly compared no matter of the size of the N. Furthermore, Gamma is appropriate for any size table. Finally, the meaning of a perfect association for Gamma is less restrictive than in some other measures of association. (See Loether and McTavish, 1974 for a more inclusive discussion of Gamma and other measures of association.) 89 For purposes of this study the following scale is used in referring to the strength of a given association (positive as well as negative): .8 - 1.00 = strong relationship .6 - .79 = moderate relationship .4 - .59 = fair relationship .2 - .39 = slight relationship .0 - .19 = weak relationship 3 The Chi Square value for victim age in Table 4.4 has been determined by the Yates Correction formula -- a formula used when expected frequencies are less than ten in a 2 x 2 table. 4 It is realized that applying the Chi Square statistic to such a small distribution violates certain rules of the Chi Square Test. Therefore, the reader is advised to interpret the validity of the statistic with caution. Nevertheless, a strong relationship does appear between expectation of response time and overall satisfaction. 5 The Yates Correction formula has been used in Tables 4.18, 4.19, and 4.21. *** 9O CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This final chapter contains a discussion based on the results of the study. The discussion is divided into three sections -- satisfaction in context, victim characteristics and satisfaction, and the police response and satisfaction. The policy implications for the police department are also discussed. Chapter V closes with a discussion of the study's limitations and recommendations for future research. Satisfaction in Context A judgment as to the quality of police "crime related" performance, as measured through crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response, is dependent upon some standard of comparison. As explained by Davis (1971), "something is judged good or bad relative to some standard of good or bad._ Change the standard of comparison and the evaluation of the phenomenon is also likely to change" (p. 321). A pragmatic evaluation standard involves a comparison between "phenomena of the same logical type" (p. 321). Since the present study measures crime victims' "specific" support for the police, an appropriate standard of comparison is the level of "specific" support from crime 91 victims as reported by previous research. Although variations in methodology, operationalization, and study site preclude an exact comparison of support levels between studies, prior research can provide a general context in which to interpret the current findings. Recall that Shapland (1983) found that 70% of victims reported being satisfied or very satisfied with police performance; Percy (1980) found 62% percent to be satisfied, or very satisfied; and Poister and McDavid (1978) found 46% of the victims to be satisfied with police performance. The present study found that satisfaction levels (victims who reported being satisfied or very satisfied) varied from 60.8% to 67.3% to 74.0% for the personal, property serious, and property less serious samples, respectively. In general, therefore, the level of satisfaction found here is somewhat higher than that reported by previous "victim evaluation" research. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the level of support in this study is generally lower than that reported in "diffuse" support studies (Koenig, 1980 [93%]; Thomas and Hyman, 1977 [78%]; and Smith and Hawkins, 1973 [72%]). Accordingly, these results seem to support the claim of White and Menke (1978) that "specific" support studies reflect the public as more negative toward the police than "diffuse" support studies. 92 Victim Characteristics and Satisfaction This study found that young victims were less likely to be satisfied with the police investigative response than were older victims. This was true, however, only in the "property serious" crime category. Unfortunately, since control variables could not be introduced into the analysis, this finding remains largely unexplained. Additionally, evidence to support or deny the proposition (outlined in Chapter II) that diffuse support may influence specific support cannot be provided. The Police Investigative Response and Satisfaction In an assessment of the important aspects of the police investigative response, there seems to be a lack of consistency across the crime types. That is, in satisfying "personal," "property serious," and "property less serious" crime victims, different sets of factors may need to be considered. This study is the first to look for such differences and find evidence to support the above claim. Expectation of Response Time It was found that the victims' expectation of police response time has an impact on the victims' evaluation of police performance in the "personal" and "property serious" crime type sample, but not the "property less serious" sample. Percy (1980), the only other "victim evaluation" study which examined expectation of response time, did not 93 look at distinctions in crime seriousness and concluded that the expectation of response time had an ["across the board"] influence on overall satisfaction. It is not surprising that expectation of response time would have an impact on satisfaction levels of "personal" crime victims because the incident may literally involve a "life or death" matter -- and the police may have been called to provide immediate "life-saving" assistance. Similarly, common sense would suggest that expectation of response time would not have an impact on satisfaction levels of "property less serious" crime victims because the crime does not usually occur in a context of exigent circumstances. For the "property serious" crimes, however, the victim apparently suffers an emotionally traumatic experience and as a result, may feel a need for immediate police attention. Professionalism The responding police officer(s)' exhibited degree of professionalism is the one aspect of the police response which, no matter the crime type, seems to exert a great deal of influence on the victims' level of satisfaction. (Recall that "professionalism" was made up of indicators which measured police officer attitude and competence.) It appears as though, at a minimum, all crime victims expect "proper conduct" (i.e. courtesy, understanding, concern, and competency) from the responding police officer(s). 94 This conclusion is consistent with, and supplementary to, the research of Shapland (1983), which indicates that the attitude of the responding police officers has an impact on violent crime victims' degree of satisfaction with police performance. It is not surprising that the police officer(s)' exhibited degree of "professionalism" exerts a great deal of influence on victims' level of overall satisfaction with the police response. Because the police department is an agency designed to "serve the public," victims apparently expect "proper conduct" from the police. InveStigative Effort In this study it was found that the "investigative effort" of the responding police officer(s) had an impact on victims' evaluation of police "crime related" performance in the "property serious" and the "property less serious" crime type samples, but not the "personal" crime type sample. These results are somewhat at odds with previous research (Percy, 1980; Poister and McDavid, 1978) which found that the "investigative effort" of the responding police officer(s) did not make a difference on crime victims' evaluation of police performance. "Investigative effort" may not have made a difference for the "personal" crime victims because there is likely to be little physical evidence left behind at the crime scene (even from the victim's viewpoint) and it is this kind of 95 evidence a victim is most likely to expect the police to gather (see Appendix G). A robbery, for example, takes only seconds to complete and usually the only "evidence" available is a victim's (or witness's) description of the perpetrator (Skogan and Antunes, 1979). Apparently, from the victim's viewpoint, there is little a patrol officer can do at the crime scene to increase the probability of apprehending the perpetrator. Another possible reason for the finding that "investigative effort" does not make a difference on satisfaction levels of "personal" crime victims is that the offender is often known by the victim. For example, numerous crimes in the "personal" crime category occurred between boyfriend and girlfriend or husband and wife. In such incidents there may be little need for "investigative effort" (which would lead to the identification of the perpetrator) because the identity of the perpetrator has been already provided by the victim. "Investigative effort" did have an effect on satisfaction levels of the "property serious" and, to a lesser extent, "property less serious" crime victims. Although, in reality, there is often little the police can do to solve such crimes (Wilson, 1968), victims seem to "expect the police to take an intense interest in the incident... and employ all the techniques that citizens have come to associate with [police] work" (Goldstein, 1977:57). It is noteworthy to draw attention to the 96 frequency of comments by "property serious" and "property less serious" crime victims concerning the amount of exhibited investigative effort and the victim's desire/expectation for increased effort. Particularly striking is the frequency of comments by "property serious" crime victims concerning the neglect of fingerprint gathering (Appendix G). Given the influence of investigative effort on crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response, one could argue that the entertainment media creates unrealistic expectations of police investigative capabilities. And this, in turn, influences victim perceptions of appropriate police behavior (see Garofalo, 1981). Recontact for Questions A recontact by the police to ask further questions of the victim was the one aspect of the police response which, no matter the crime category, did not seem to influence the victim's level of overall satisfaction with the police response. This finding is consistent with, and supplementary to, the research of Poister and McDavid (1978), the only other crime victim evaluation study to examine the effect of further questioning on level of satisfaction. They concluded that a recontact for questioning was an insignificant factor in explaining crime victim satisfaction. However, these researchers did not examine the differences in satisfaction levels between categories of crime seriousness. 97 The finding that a recontact for further questioning did not affect satisfaction levels of victims in any of the crime categories is difficult to explain. One possibility which cannot be discounted is that it is a result of a deficiency in this present study as well as in the study by Poister and McDavid (1978). Both studies inquired only to the extent of asking the victim whether or not a recontact for questioning occurred. Neither study attempted to measure the "quality" of the recontact. Although the mere occurrence of a recontact for further questions does not have an influence on satisfaction levels, the quality of the recontact may. As one dissatisfied victim explained, "My dissatisfaction occurred not with the officer who initially came to my home, but with the detective who followed-up on the case." Apparently, in this case a recontact was made but the quality of the recontact was lacking. Recontact with Status Shapland (1983) has suggested that when the police recontact a victim of a violent crime as to the status of the investigation, the victim is more likely to be satisfied with police performance. This study provides contrary as well as supplementary evidence to the Shapland (1983) study. In the present study, it was demonstrated that a recontact to inform the victim of the investigation's status did not have an influence on the 98 "personal" or "property less serious" crime victims, but did on the "property serious" crime victims. The fact that a "recontact with status" did not affect satisfaction levels of the "personal" crime victims could possibly be explained as an indirect result of the common familiarity between the victim and offender in such crimes. That is, the victim often knows who committed the crime and is often able to provide the name of the perpetrator. As a result, in such crimes, there may be little need or desire for the police to recontact the victim with the status of the investigation. For the "property less serious" crime type sample, evidence was provided to suggest that, unlike the findings concerning "investigative effort" and satisfaction, a recontact with the status of the investigation does not affect satisfaction levels. Since the crime usually involves a minor infringement on the victim's privacy and a small dollar loss, the emotional trauma experienced by the victim may subside after a relatively short period of time. Accordingly, many "property less serious" victims apparently do not expect the police to expend effort on recontacting him/her as to the status of the investigation. A different picture emerges from the "property serious" crime type sample however. This study suggests that a recontact with the status of the investigation has an influence on "property serious" crime victims' degree of satisfaction with the police response. Apparently, not 99 only do "property serious" victims expect "much investigative effort" from the officer conducting the initial investigation they also expect to be contacted and informed of the status of the investigation. These victims may hold such expectations because the crime is a serious one which often results in great emotional trauma. Additionally, from the victims' perspective, there is usually evidence available (fingerprints, for example) which warrants the investigation to receive continual police effort and attention. Therefore, it may seem plausible that the victim would expect to be notified of the status of the "continual" investigation. Implications and Recommendations for the Police Department In general, the results of this study suggest that the police may be able to affect victim satisfaction through changes in the following aspects of the police investigative response: response time, professionalism, investigative effort, and recontacts. Expectation of Response Time Spelman and Brown (1984) and the Kansas City Police Department (1977) study found that, in general terms, there is no relationship between a rapid police response to a criminal occurrence and the probability of apprehending a perpetrator. It was found that the time which elapsed between when the citizen discovered the crime until when the police where actually called was more critical to the apprehension of a perpetrator than the time which elapsed between when the police department was notified until a police officer arrived at the scene. On the basis of these studies and in light of the police objective of apprehending criminals, rapid police response to a criminal incident does not seem to be an important element of police department operations. However, this study, along with the Kansas City Police Department (1977) study, suggests that response time does have an impact on victim/citizen satisfaction - another important objective of the police department - and should not be ignored. In regard to police response time, the police appear to have two options for improving crime victim satisfaction with the police response. First, the police could reduce the actual time it takes to respond, thereby making police response time more congruent with crime victim expectations. Or, second, the police could affect victim expectations of response time to make expectations more congruent with police response time capabilities. The first option would involve "assigning more officers to the field, redistributing manpower to high crime areas, [and/or] reducing the area covered by each officer" (Percy, 1980:85). Each of these methods would entail a considerable expenditure of resources. The second and more feasible option would involve the 101 police dispatchers and desk personnel providing crime victims with an estimate of how long it will take for the police to arrive. As the Kansas City study suggests, "public relations could further be enhanced by ensuring that officers always arrive before expected" (p. 28). This option has also been found to be quite effective (Tein, et a1., 1977) Professionalism Elias (1986) explains that there is a tendency for the police, as bureaucrats, to see each case as looking like every other one, "making it difficult to react sensitively to each victim they confront" (p. 142). Holden (1986) adds "rudeness and arrogance are major problems in most large organizations, especially monopolies and public service agencies" (p. 136). Furthermore, when a police officer conducts an initial investigation, he/she must typically reconstruct the incident and determine the legitimacy of the complaint (Ericson, 1981). However, police conduct in this situation may be interpreted by the victim as a disregard for objectivity and "professionalism." As Wilson (1968) explains... A genuine victim... is irritated because the police do not instantly and fully accept his version of what happened. To him, a serious matter is being mishandled or even lightly dismissed (p. 25). 102 One very dissatisfied victim stated "The police officers who came to the scene were unfriendly, rude, and very uncaring. They treated me like I was the criminal..." Apparently, the police need to be aware of how their conduct in interactions with crime victims can be interpreted by victims and must become more sensitive to the emotional state of victims. To reach these ends, "police departments should develop and implement [in-service] training programs to ensure that police officers are sensitive to the needs of victims" (President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 1982:57). Investigative Effort Previous research has shown that in many criminal investigations there is no relationship between police activities and the probability of apprehending the perpetrator (Skogan and Antunes, 1979; Block and Bell, 1976; and Conklin and Bittner, 1973). As explained by Skogan and Antunes (1979)... The fact of policing... is that investigatory follow-up work, the gathering of physical evidence, and the ferreting out of criminals through detective work, play a relatively unimportant role in identifying and apprehending offenders (p. 223). On the basis of previous research and in light of the police objective of criminal apprehension, the investigative effort of the police in investigating certain types of incidents (for example, "cold" burglaries) does not seem to be an important aspect of criminal 103 investigation management. However, this study suggests that the police officer's amount of investigative effort does have an impact on victim (especially property crime victim) satisfaction - another important objective of the police department. As a result, the overall importance of investigative effort in a criminal incident cannot be underestimated. In order to enhance crime victims' perceptions of the responding police officer(s)' amount of investigative effort, and hence, overall satisfaction with the police response, there appears to be several cost-effective practices the police department could employ. First, for each crime a thorough crime scene search could be conducted. This action by itself could be the most appropriate and effective "investigative activity" for appeasing victims of the "less serious property" crimes. Second, when an "investigative activity" (e.g. questioning witnesses, making out a report, etc.) is done, the victim could be made aware that it was done. This will ensure that the victim has a true perception of the investigative effort expended by the police officer(s). Additionally, a copy of the initial investigation report could be furnished to the victim. This may serve to further impress upon the victim the attention the police department is giving to the matter. The officer could also explain the process the complaint goes through after the initial report is made (i.e. early case closure, assignment to detective(s), etc.). 104 Third, "organizations facing a difficult or impossible mandate must establish ways of manipulating appearances in order to perpetuate the image that they are doing what it is that people think they do" (Ericson, 1981:240). Accordingly, the influence and importance of "symbolic" investigative effort cannot be underestimated. As Greenwood et a1. (1977) explain... Some current investigative practices appear mainly as a means to preserve a media like image or to give a victim the kind of services he expects largely because of that image. That is, fingerprint dusting, mug shot showing, or questioning of witnesses are often done without any hope of developing leads, but simply for public relations (p. 9). Goldstein (1977) adds, "one cannot dismiss lightly the public-relations value of [police] work. _It may fully justify the police resources that are invested" (p. 57). In this light, it may well be advisable to have police officers take fingerprints (if available) in any of the more serious crimes especially burglary and auto theft ("property serious") crimes, where some victims have expressed their concern over the apparent neglect of fingerprint gathering. Yet, it seems that a delicate balance must be struck between "symbolic" investigative activities and a realistic assessment of police investigative capabilities. If a balance is not obtained, the police, while meeting one set of victim expectations (i.e. "the police should thoroughly investigate the crime"), may be creating another set (i.e. "the police 105 should be able to solve the crime"). In creating the balance, the officer could provide a realistic but optimistic assessment of the worth of fingerprints and explain to the victim that they are more useful in proving guilt than in identifying the perpetrator (Eck, 1983). "Police departments must convince the public that the realities of policing differ from the sometimes flattering images depicted in the mass media" (Skogan and Antunes, 1979:233). Recontact with Information In regard to victim recontacts,.there seems to be several factors the police may need to be cognizant of when attempting to improve crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response. First, comments from crime victims (Appendix G) seem to suggest that recontacts to inform victims of the status of the investigation would improve crime victims' satisfaction with the police response. The police department could initiate a recontact to inform the victim of the investigation's status in any case where the crime is "solved," in burglary and vehicle theft ("property serious") crimes, and rape, robbery, and aggravated assault ("serious personal") crimes. Second, along with the initial investigation report, crime victims could be provided with a card which would contain the responding police officer(s)' name, the complaint number for the incident, and the telephone number 106 of the police department. Any victim who wished to receive or provide further information on the investigation would then have the necessary information to do so. The police department would then need to ensure that there are personnel available to comply with the victims request in a prompt and courteous manner. This study has suggested methods which could possibly enhance crime victim satisfaction with police performance. Yet the decision to pursue the "victim satisfaction" goal lies with the top administration of the police department and ultimately with the "line" workers (namely, police officers and detectives) themselves. If it is the desire of the chief administrator to pursue such a goal and ensure greater accountability to crime victims, then the line workers should be evaluated and rewarded on the basis of this goal. As such, a victim questionnaire should become an institutionalized practice of the department and used as another measure of police officer "crime related" performance. Limitations of the Study Several limitations of this study resulted from the small sample sizes of the three crime type categories. First, the sizes of the samples precluded the use of control variables in the data analysis -— only zero-order correlations could be examined. Therefore, the existence 107 of possible interaction between variables may taint the validity of the findings and conclusions. Second, due to the lack of categorical frequencies, some of the variables originally intended for the analysis (e.g. "crime report," "crimes against businesses," etc.) could not be included. It is also evident that the questionnaire may have produced limitations in the usefulness of the study. First, it is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the "uncertain" response in the questionnaire. Was the respondent "uncertain" because he/she couldn't remember? or was he/she undecided? Although one can infer the meaning of the response, there is a possibility of error. Second, the questionnaire did contain questions regarding the quality of interaction between the victim and patrol officer(s) but it did not contain any questions regarding the quality of the interaction between the victim and detective. Third, as illustrated by the comments of the victims (Appendix G), having the crime solved seems to be one of their major concerns. However, the effect of having the crime solved on victim satisfaction was not examined in this study. As a result, further evidence to explain victim satisfaction with the police response may have been neglected. Finally, beside the limitations specific to this particular study, there are also limitations inherent in the survey method. First, survey researchers are confronted with the question "who responded?" There is 108 always the possibility of bias in comparing those respondents who returned their questionnaires and those who did not. Although this study had a generally higher response rate than other research on the topic,1 questionnaires could not be obtained from roughly thirty-five (35) percent of the victims initially sampled. This factor may also have to be considered in judging the validity of the findings. Lastly, survey research is somewhat "artificial" in that a standardized structure is imposed upon the phenomenon under inquiry. As a result, surveys have a tendency to miss peculiarities of individual circumstances. Therefore, survey research may ignore important aspects which would contribute to an understanding of the phenomenon. By considering the limitations discussed above, a realistic assessment of the validity and usefulness of the study can be made. Recommendations for Future Research This study of crime victims' evaluation of the police response has indicated that different aspects of the police response may need to be considered in satisfying different crime type victims. Further, it suggests several research recommendations to further the understanding of crime victims' satisfaction with the police response. In order to improve upon the present study, future research should first increase the sample sizes of the crime type categories. A substantial increase in the 109 sample sizes would ensure adequate frequencies for "elaboration analysis" and provide enough frequencies for inclusion of all intended variables. In order to "substantially increase" the size of the "personal" crime type sample however, the researcher must either expand the time frame in which criminal incidents will be included (from one year, as in this study, to two years, for example), or conduct the research in a community which has more "personal" crimes. Additionally, in order to include "victim ethnicity" as a variable, a more heterogeneous community than Oshkosh needs to be selected for the research setting. Second, the questionnaire could be improved by replacing the "uncertain" question responses with more interpretable responses. For example, in ascertaining the level of satisfaction the "uncertain" response should be replaced with "neutral." Further, for the "professionalism" and "investigative effort" questions, the "uncertain" responses should be replaced with "I can't remember" and "I was unable to tell." For the remainder of the questions which have "uncertain" as a possible response, "uncertain" should be replaced by "I can't remember." More importantly, questions which examine the quality of interaction between crime victims and detectives (if interaction did occur) should be included in the questionnaire. Additionally, a question which addresses whether or not the victim is aware if the crime was solved 110 should be included in the questionnaire. With such a question, the influence of having the crime solved on victim satisfaction could be examined. The findings which result from the examination may contribute to a more complete understanding of crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response. Finally, it may be beneficial to actually observe interactions between police officers and crime victims and detectives and crime victims. Peculiarities of the criminal incident and the police response, which are not obtainable through survey research and not amenable to statistical analysis, but may provide insight to the phenomenon of crime victim satisfaction with the police investigative response, may become evident. Therefore, a future study of crime victims' evaluation of the police response should employ qualitative techniques such as observational measures (e.g. patrol ride-along) in addition to quantitative analysis. *** 111 FOOTNOTE -- CHAPTER FIVE 1According to Norton (1983), when surveying crime victims or witnesses, the expected response rate is about forty (40) to fifty (50) percent. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Oshkosh Police Department Organizational Chart Oshkosh Police Department Organizational Chart Oshkosh, Wisconsin Police Department C/ty Manager l Field Operations Servlces Asst Deb Chief Dan Cnie' I l Petrol Detect/vs: Cflm. TIE/fling Central Prevention Se! was: 1 7:! 2nd 3rd Over/ca JUVOni/a smn 5’11” Sn!!! Sn!!! Eulogy 113 APPENDIX B Mailing Identification Card Mailing Identification Card MAILING ID 5 VICTIM'S NAME ADDRESS AGE RACE BUSINESS CRIME REPORTED COMPLAINT 5 lST MAILING RESPONSE [ ] 'FOLLOW-UP #1 SENT [ ] RESPONSE [ ] FOLLOW-UP #2 SENT [ ] RESPONSE [ ] POST OFFICE UNABLE TO DELIVER [ ] COMPUTER ID NUMBER: 114 APPENDIX C First Mailing Letter First Mailing Letter City of Oshkosh Police Department July 13, 1987 Dear City of Oshkosh Resident, The City of Oshkosh Police Department and myself, a criminal justice graduate student at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, have initiated a research study designed to provide feedback to the Oshkosh Police Department on their level of effectiveness in responding to the needs of crime victims. We understand that in the past year the police were notified of a burglary that occurred against you, and we are now interested in your evaluation of how the police handled that incident. Please take a few minutes and complete the enclosed questionnaire. After you have completed the questionnaire, you can mail it in the self-addressed, postage paid envelope provided. - Your name has been drawn in a random sample of persons who have reported a crime to the Oshkosh Police Department. Because you are one of a small number of Oshkosh residents who have been selected, it is important that your questionnaire be completed and returned so the results will truly represent the opinions of the people in Oshkosh. We wish to emphasize that no individual involved in the survey will ever be named or otherwise be identified with the results of the survey. The mailing number on the questionnaire is being used to monitor the responses to the survey. Again, all responses are strictly confidential. We would like to thank you in advance for your help and cooperation. We look forward.to the return of your questionnaire shortly. Sincerely, Oshkosh Police Department 927 7'? ”I" 2% firm! Games F. Thome Chief of Police flew/5.42 Steven G. Brandl Project Director 115 APPENDIX D Second Mailing Letter Second Mailing Letter WISCONSIN POLICE DEPARTMENT 420 JACKSON STREET PO. BOX 1130 OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54902 August 3, 1987 Dear City of Oshkosh Resident, About three weeks ago we wrote to you seeking your evaluation of how the Oshkosh Police Department handled the burglary complaint that was reported in the past year. As of today we have not received your completed questionnaire. We have undertaken this study to provide feedback on the Oshkosh Police Department's level of effectiveness in responding to the needs of crime victims. We are writing to you again because of the significance each questionnaire has to the usefulness of this study. Your name was drawn through a scientific sampling procedure in which every person who reported a crime had an equal chance of being selected. In order for the , results of this study to be truly representative, it is essential that each person in the sample return his or her questionnaire. Another copy of the questionnaire is enclosed. After you complete the questionnaire, please enclose and mail it in the self-addressed, postage paid envelope provided. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Oshkosh Police Department “W nevi. J mes F. Thome Chief of Police yew/W Steven G. Brandl Project Director 116 APPENDIX E Third Mailing Letter Third Mailing Letter CCUN‘CIL- .‘.’.ANAGE.: ADI-JINiSTF-KATDN POLICE DEPARTMENT 420 JACKSON STREET P.D. BOX 1130 OSHKOSH. WISCONSIN 54902 August 24, 1987 Dear City of Oshkosh Resident, We are writing to you about the crime victims' evaluation of the police study. We have not yet received your completed questionnaire which asked you to describe and evaluate the police response to the burglary that was reported in the past year. The large number of questionnaires that have been returned is very encouraging. However, in order to accurately assess how the police are responding to the needs of crime victims we need you to send back your completed questionnaire. This is the first study of this type to be done in Oshkosh. Therefore, the results are of particular importance to the police department which desires feedback on its level of performance in this area. Please complete and return the questionnaire in the self-addressed, postage paid envelope provided. Your contribution to the success of this study is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Oshkosh Police Department .0, .. .29 7%: {Orv ames F. Thome Chief of Police /£¢, $45,417 Steven G. Brandl Project Director 117 APPENDIX F Questionnaire Questionnaire GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: lither a pen or a pencil may be uaed to complete the questionnaire. All of the queationa can be anawered by placing an 'x' in the appropriate box. TIE QUESTIONS IIICE POLLOH ASK YOU TO DESCRIBE AflD EVALUATE THE POLICE IESPONSE TO TIE IICIDENT. ' 1. low were the police notified of the crime? (check the box that appliea) I l the police department waa chlled and then the police officer(a) came to your location (ii thia anawer appliea‘ anawer gueationa g and 2 below) a. Did the police officer(a) arrive... I ] faster than you expected I ] alower than you expected I I about the aame that you expected b. low aatiafied were you with the time it took for the police officer(a) to arrive? I very aatiafied aatiefied uncertain diraatiafied very diaaatiafied FOG—HF.— I l the police department waa called and a police officer took all of the'information concerning the crime over the phone I ] uncertain of how the police were notified I 1 other - pleaae explain 2. During your initial contact with the police officer(a) were they... a.) courteoua? [1 YO! no I ] uncertain h.) underatanding? I I YCI I] no I ] uncertain c.) concerned? [1 ye- ] no I ] uncertain d.) competent? yea I] n o I ] uncertain 3. low aatialied were you with the attitude of the police officer(a) during the initial contact? very eatiafied eatiafied uncertain diaaatiafied very diaaatiafied HRH—Q Han—deed 118 d. During your initial contact with the police officer(s) did they... 7. a.) search or look around the crime scene? yea no uncertain e-ee-ee-e . ‘he—ee-e b.) examin any evidence? yes no uncertain to locate and/or question witnesses? yes no uncertain a e-aa—e-e Hue-e n Huh-e c.) atte d.) make out a report? l 30' [loo I I uncertain how satisfied were you with the activities of the police officer(s) during the initial contact? very satisfied satisfied uncertain dissatisfied very dissatisfied Hens-e Hume-wens Did anyone from the police department re-contect you in order to ask you any further questions about the crime? I l 200 (Inc I I uncertain has anyone from the police department contacted you to tell you about any progress made in the investigation of the crime? 44 I I no (skip _tg Question 3) I I uncertain (ship 93 Question _8_) a. What were you told the progress in the investigation was? (Check the box that most closely applies) I I the personIs) who committed the crime have been identified and/or arrested I I progress has been made but the personIs) who committed the cries have not yet been identified and/or arrested I I no progress has been made in the invest- igation and it has been discontinued I I other - please explain b. were you glad that the police told you about the progress made in the investigation? I 1 YO! [Inc I I uncertain IIIQ 9. Overall, how satisfied were you with how the police officer(s) handled the Incident? I "H". HHHHH very satisfied satisfied uncertain dissatisfied very dissatisfied TIE PINAL THREE QUESTIONS CONCERN YOUR BACKGROUND. PLEASE PILL IN THE ELAN! OR PLACE AN '2' IN THE APPROPRIATE DOE. 10. 11. 12. What is your age? What is your level of education? “Hug“ less than high school high school graduate some college college graduate do not wish to answer What Is the approximate annual income of your household? e-se-shsh-d—HH less than $5,000 5,000 - 9,999 10,000 - ld,999 15,000 - 19,999 20,000 - 2d,999 25,000 or more do not wish to answer You may use the space below to provide any additional comments. THIS CONCLUDES TEE SURVEY. PLEASE ENCLOSE AND NAIL TIE QUESTIONNAIRE IN TEE ENVELOPE PROVIDED. AGAIN, THANK YOU POR IOUR COOPERATION. 120 APPENDIX G Crime Victim Comments Crime Victim Comments COMMENTS FROM "PERSONAL" CRIME VICTIMS "The police handled the incident very well. The only problem was... I was not notified...” (satisfied) “Wish they would find the person." (satisfied) "The officers that sit at the front desk are rude, uncaring and ignore the people who come in with problems. The officers who respond to a crime or accident scene are very concerned and seem sincere... The officer at the desk made me feel like just leaving..." (uncertain) ”I feel that the officer who came to the hospital to question me was not understanding...” (uncertain) ”There was no follow-up." (satisfied) ”I came away from my experience dissatisfied and wondering why I had bothered to report the incident to the police at all." (dissatisfied) "We were satisfied with the police and the detective who took all the statements but once it was handed over to the D.A.'s office nothing has been done." (satisfied) ”I felt as if the officer didn't believe me, because of the way he was talking to the other officer who showed up." (dissatisfied) "Get after him." (satisfied) "I waited there at the desk 45 minutes without any response, all [the officer] said was [the detective] would be right with you... I left without seeing anyone. I wish I wouldn't have gotten such a run around." (satisfied) "...The court date came and went and I was never notified of anything. As far as I know, this man had all charges dropped against him because I was never summoned. I would very much like to know the circumstances." (satisfied) "Very competent and professional..." (satisfied) "The police officers who came to the scene were unfriendly, rude, and very uncaring. They treated me like I was the criminal. I would never call them for help again.” (very dissatisfied) "I felt that the Oshkosh Police were very good in everything that they did." (very satisfied) 121 Comments from "Personal" Crime Victims (continued) "In this particular incident I was very pleased with the treatment and concern of the two officers that answered my distress call. They seemed professional and experienced instead of cocky and opinionated." (very satisfied) "I felt the police department was very helpful and they were very friendly." (very satisfied) "I was never contacted about when the court case took place or what came out of it... I did go and make my report and the detective was very understanding but he also said that I would be notified, I wasn't." (dissatisfied) ”Several incidents happened and [suspect's name] was never asked to vacate our joint apartment. As the victim, I resent also being made to leave my home at late hours and infringing on friends and family." (very dissatisfied) "Any information I received I obtained by calling the police department long distance, or by driving to Oshkosh to find out what was taking place. I was never notified if the person that hit me was finally arrested, if he went to court, or if he was found guilty..." (very dissatisfied) ”The police officers were very rude." (very dissatisfied) COMMENTS FROM "PROPERTY SERIOUS" CRIME VICTIMS "I cannot understand why we weren't informed that the person who took our vehicle had been found.“ (dissatisfied) "The three officers handling the case directly... were very calm, well organized, and professional in all aspects of the operation I witnessed." (very satisfied) "It seemed to me more should have been done at the time I reported it..." (uncertain) - "...an officer picked up the registration and I never heard anything about the results. There were fingerprints all over the dashboard and nothing was done about that either." (dissatisfied) "I received no further comment from the police department other than a comment about it being impossible to find out who took the car... I don't feel any real effort was made to find out who stole my car." (dissatisfied) "We have been dissatisfied with the relaxed attitude of the detective." (uncertain) 122 Comments from “Property Serious“ Crime Victims (continued) ”I was especially happy with the follow-up. The information I was given at that time was very helpful." (very satisfied) "My dissatisfaction occurred not with the officer who initially came to my home, but with the detective who followed-up on the case.” (dissatisfied) “I figured the window used to gain entry should have been dusted for fingerprints..." (dissatisfied) "The burglars were arrested at the scene. Their [the police] performance was admirable. I attended court proceedings and the department did its homework.” (satisfied) "The police officers were very helpful. They even put the lock back on the door with the tools I provided. They have always been very courteous, kind and even wiped their feet before entering..." (very satisfied) '...They could have taken fingerprints but did not until two days later and only because I complained to the department." (very dissatisfied) ~ "When the police officer came, I told,him who committed the crime. I told him of the witness. He did not contact the witness as far as I know. I have never been recontacted by the police department." (uncertain) "...My children asked why the police didn't take fingerprints... I explained to them that we were not important enough..." (very dissatisfied) "I felt that a more thorough investigation including taking fingerprints would possibly have helped solve the crime." (dissatisfied) "...And we talked to a detective twice and have not heard a word since!‘I (very dissatisfied) "The only thing that bothered me was not being notified if any progress was made about the crime." (uncertain) "They did an overall good job, but I was a little disappointed in their follow-up..." (satisfied) “Thank you for caring about how we view your service!" (satisfied) 123 Comments from "Property Serious" Crime Victims (continued) "The detective on our case has not been helpful at all. It seems like the department just takes all this with a grain of salt. One more robbery [burglary] - who cares!!' (uncertain) ”...the officer kept me informed... Good Job!" (very satisfied) "I feel the police handled it good. I only wish I knew if they caught the person or who they suspect so I could watch for them." (very satisfied) “The officer had a very bored attitude. It seemed that he felt dissatisfied by having to 'stoop' so low as to write down anything about a 'minor burglary'." (dissatisfied) "The police officer who responded to the call was very nice and courteous. However, when asked if they could take fingerprints, I was told no..." (dissatisfied) "I'm pleased to know you take the time to find out how we feel about you..." (very satisfied) "I feel the police did an excellent job all the way from discovering the break-in through solving the crime.“ (very satisfied) "I was never contacted by the police - I read about it in the paper." (uncertain) COMMENTS FROM "PROPERTY LESS SERIOUS" CRIME VICTIMS "The officer was very understanding and even though it was not a huge value loss he treated it, I felt, the same way he would have if it was a large theft." (satisfied) ”I was very satisfied with the police department. There really wasn't much they could do." (very satisfied) "A more concerned attitude would leave a good feeling about the Police Department here in Oshkosh." (uncertain) "...no follow-up call is very unprofessional. I feel that I became a bigger victim after getting no service from the police department." (very dissatisfied) ”I was disappointed because there was no follow-up..." (dissatisfied) 124 Comments from "Property Less Serious" Crime Victims (cont.) 'I didn't hear anything about my purse. I don't even think they looked for it.” (dissatisfied) “I believe the officer did all he could. I can't thank the officer enough for solving the crime." (very satisfied) '...the officer sounded so bored over the phone...” (dissatisfied) "The police handled the situation as well as could be expected, since fortunately it was a very minor theft." (very satisfied) "Very nice police men. Office cops when I went to the station don't know nothing, don't really care." (uncertain) "I would be more satisfied if I could see, or was notified of at least some effort to recover my stolen property." (very dissatisfied) "I was never contacted as to the result of the such crime, as in fine and/or punishment or confinement of the individual who committed the crime against me." (uncertain) "I felt that the officers had a poor attitude..." (very dissatisfied) 'I thought the officer that handled my case was very friendly and concerned." (satisfied) "The manner in which my incident was handled was very commendable, I think your staff is very proficient and professional." (very satisfied) ”The police were very courteous and tried to be helpful. Under the circumstances there wasn't much they could do..." (satisfied) '...it would have been nice to have been informed by the department after a week or so that nothing had turned up.“ (satisfied) *** 125 L IST OF REFERENCES LIST 913 REFERENCES Books Anderson, Theodore R. and Morris Zelditch, Jr. (1968), A Basic Course i2 Statistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York. Angell, John E., et a1. (1967), A National Survey_ of Police Community Relations. GPO. _Washington, D. C. ' Biderman, Albert D., et a1. (1967), Report on a Pilot Study_ in the District of Columbia on V1ctimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc. Washington, D.C. Black, Donald (1980), The Manners and Customs of the Police. Academic Press. New York. Block, Peter and James Bell (1976), Managing Investigations: The Rochester System. Police Foundation. Washington, D.C. Bottomley, A.K. and C.A. Coleman (1980), Police Effectiveness and the Public: The Limitations of Official Crime Rates, in The Effectiveness g; Policing, R.V.G. Clarke and J.M. Hough, eds. pp. 70-97. Gower. Westmead. Chelimski, Eleanor (1981), Serving Victims: Agency Incentives and Individual Needs, in Evaluating Victim Services, Susan E. Salasin, ed. pp. 73-97. Sage. Beverly Hills. Cole, George (1986), The American System of Criminal Justice. Brooks/Cole. Monterey. Dillman, Don A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Easton, D. (1965),A Framework for Political Analysis. Prentice Hall. Englewood_ Cliffs. Eck, John E. (1983), Solving Crimes: The Investigation g: Burglary and Robbery. Police Executive Research Forum. Washington, D.C. 126 Ericson, Richard V. (1982), Reproducing Order: §_Study pg Police Patrol Work. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. -------------- - (1981), Making Crime: g Study pg Detective Work. Butterworths. Toronto. Ennis, Philip H. (1967), Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Report of a National Survey. U. S. Government Printing Office. -Washington D. C. Fattah, Ezzat A. (1986), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System. St. MartinTs. New York. Goldstein, Herman (1977), Policing 3 Free Society. Ballinger. Cambridge. Greenwood, Peter W., et al. (1977), The Criminal Investigation Process. D.C. Heath. Lexington. Hagen, Frank E. (1982), Research Methods ip Criminal Justice and Criminology. Mcmillan. New York. Hahn, Harlan (1971), The Public and the Police: A Theoretical Perspective, in Police in Urban Society, Harlan Hahn, ed. pp. 9- 33. Sage. Beverly Hills. Hastings, Thomas F. (1982), Criminal Investigation, in Local Government Police Management, Bernard L. Garmire, ed. pp. 160- 80. International City Management Association. Washington, D. C. Hatry, Harry P. (1975), Wrestling with Police Crime Control Productivity Measurement, in Readings Ln Productivity in Policing, Jonh L. Wolfle and John F. Heaphy, ed. pp.86- -128. Police Foundation. Washington D. C. Hindelang, Michael J. and Michael Gottfredson (1976), The Victim's Decision Not to Invoke the Criminal Justice Process, in Criminal Justice and the Victim, William F. McDonald, ed. pp. 57-78. Sage. Beverly Hills. Holden, Richard (1986), Modern Police Management. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. Kansas City Police Department (1977), Response Time Analysis: Volume II, III and IV. Board of Police Commissioners. Kansas C1ty. Karmen, Andrew (1984), Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Brooks/Cole. Monterey. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn (1966), The Social Psychology pf Organizations. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Kelling, George L., et a1. (1980), Policing: A Research Agenda for Rational Policy Making, in Effectiveness Lf Policing, R. V. G. Clarke and J. M. Hough, eds. pp. 44- 69. Gower. Westmead. Loether, Herman J. and Donald G. McTavish (1974), Descriptive Statistics for Sociologists. Allyn and Bacon. Boston. Lynch, Richard P. (1976), Improving the Treatment of Victims: Some Guides for Action, in Criminal Justice and the Victim, William F. McDonald, ed. pp. 165-76. Sage. Beverly Hills. Manning, Peter K. (1977), Police Work: The Social Organization Lf Policing. MIT Press. Cambridge. Mastrofski, Stephen (1984), Surveying Clients to Assess Police Performance: Focusing on the Police-Citizen Encounter, in Understanding Police Agency ' Performance, Gordon P. Whitaker, ed. pp. 111-120. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1983), Criminal Justice System. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. Parks, Roger B. (1984), Comparing Citizen and Observer Perceptions of Police-Citizen Encounters, in Understanding Police Agency Performance, Gordon P. Whitaker, ed. pp. 121-135. U. S. Department of Justice. Washington, D. C. ---------- - (1984b), Citizen Surveys for Police Performance Assessments: Some Issues in the Use, in Upderstanding Police Agency Performance, Gordon P. Whitaker, ed. pp. 121-135. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. ---------- - (1976), Police Response to Victimization: Effects on Citizen Attitudes and Perceptions, in Sample Surveys Lf the Victims Lf Crime, Westley Skogan, ed. pp. 89-104.Ba11inger. Cambridge. ---------- - (1975), Complementary Measures of Police Performance, in Public Poligy Evaluation, Kenneth M. Dolbeare, ed. pp. 185- 218. Sage. Beverly Hills. Pate, Tony et al. (1976), Police Response Time: Its Determinants and Effects. Police Foundation. Washington, D.C. 172 .. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salanicik (1978), The External Control pf Organizations. Harper and Row. New York. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967), Task Force Report: The Police. GPO. Washington, D.C. President's Task Force on Victims Of Crime (1982), Final Report. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. Reiman, Jeffrey H. (1974), Victims, Harm, and Justice, in Victimology: A New Focus, Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano, eds. pp. 77- 92. D. C. Heath and Company. Lexington. Reiss, Albert J. (1971), The Police and the Public. Yale University. New Haven. Schneider, Anne L. (1978), Portland Forward Records Check of Crime Victims. U. S. Department of Justice.— Washington, D. C. Scott, W. Richard (1987), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey. Sparks, Richard F., et a1. (1977), Surveying Victims. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Spelman, William and Dale K. Brown (1984), Callin the Police: Citizen Reporting of Serious Crime. U. S. Department of Justice. Washington, D. C. Stuebing, William K. (1984), Victims and Witnesses: Experiences, Needs, and Commun1ty/Criminal Justice Response. Canadian Department of Justice. Thompson, James (1967), Organizations ip Action. McGraw Hill. New York. Tien, James M., et a1. (1977), An Evaluation Report of an Alternative Approach to Pol1ce Patrol: The W1lmington Split Force _Experiment. Publ1c Systems Evaluation, Inc. Cambridge. Trojanowicz, Robert et a1. (1986), Community Policing: A Taxpayer's Perspective. Michigan State University. East Lansing. U.S. Department of Justice (1984), Criminal Victimization $3 the United States, 1982. Washington, D.C. — - ------------------- (1983), Crime E the U05. Washington, D.C. 129 Wilson, James Q. (1983), Thinking About Crime. Basic Books. New York. ----------- - (1968), Varieties of Police Behavior. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Wisconsin Department of Justice (1981-82), Selected Excerpts from the Wisconsin Statutes. Madison, Wisconsin. Wycoff, Mary Ann and Peter K. Manning (1983), The Police and Crime Control, in Evaluating Performance of Criminal Justice Agenc1es, Gordon‘ P. Whitaker and C. D. Phillips, eds. pp. 15- 32. Sage. Beverly Hills. Ziegenhagen, Eduard A. (1977), Victims, Crime, and Social Control. Praeger. New York. Journal Articles Bell, Daniel J. (1979), Police and Public Opinion. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7:196-205 Bercal, Thomas E. (1970), Calls for Police Assistance: Consumer Demands for Governmental Service. American Behavioral Scientist, 13:681-691. Black, Donald, J. (1971), Production of Crime Rates. American Sociological Review, 35:733-748. Block, Carolyn R. and Richard L. Block (1984), Crime Definition, Crime Measurement, and Victim Surveys. Journal 2; Social Issues, 40:137-160. Brown, Karin and Philip B. Coulter (1983), Subjective and Objective Measures of Police Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, 43:50-58. Bynum, Tim S., et al. (1982), Victim and Offense Characteristics: Impact on Police Investigative Decision-Making. Criminology, 20:301-318. Carlson, Helena M. and Markley S. Sutton (1981), A Multimethod Approach to Community Evaluation of Police Performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9:227-234. ------------- - --- ------- - ------ (1979), Some Factors in Community Evaluation of Police Street Performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7:583-591. 130 Charles, Michael T. (1980), The Utilization of Attitude Surveys in the Police Decision-Making Process. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8:294-303. Conklin John E. and Egon Bittner (1973), Burglary in a Suburb. Criminology, 11:206-232. Davis, Murray S. (1971), That's Interesting: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1:309-344. Davis, Robert C. (1987), Crime Victims: Learning How to Help Them. NIJ Reports, 203:2-7. Decker, Scott H. (1981), Citizen Attitudes Toward the Police: A Review of Past Findings and Suggestions Administration, 9:80-87. Dennis, Jack (1976), Who Supports the Presidency?. Society, 13:48-53. Fattah, Ezzat A. (1983), Becoming a Victim: The Victimization Experiences and its Aftermath. Victimology, 6:26—47. Furstenberg, Frank F. and Charles F. Wellford (1973), Calling the Police: The Evaluation of Police Services. Law and Society Review, 7:393-406. Garofalo, James (1981), Crime and the Mass Media: A Selective Review of Research. Journal 9: Research in Crime and Delinguency, 18:319-50. Gutek, Barbara A. (1978), Strategies for Studying Client Satisfaction. Journal 2; Social Issues, 43:44-55. Homant, Robert J., et al. (1984), The Effect of Victimization and the Police Response on Citizens' Attitude Toward the Police. Journal 9: Police Science and Administration, 12:323—332. Hero, Rodney E. and Roger Durand (1985), Explaining Citizen Evaluations of Urban Services: A Comparison of Some Alternative Models. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20:344-354. Johnson, Kirk Alan and Patricia L. Wasielewski (1982), A Commentary on Victimization Research and the Importance of Meaning Structures. Criminology, 20:205-222. Kelling, George L. (1978), Police Field Services and Crime: The Presumed Effects of a Capacity. Crime and Delinquengy, 24:173-184. Klein, John F., et a1. (1978), Experience with the Police and Attitude Toward the Police. Canadian Journal 2; Sociology, 3:441-456. Koenig, Daniel J. (1980), The Effects of Criminal Victimization and Judicial or Police Contacts on Public Attitudes Toward Local Police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8:243-249. Lovrich, Nicholas P. Jr. and G. Thomas Taylor Jr. (1976), Neighborhood Evaluation of Local Government Services: A Citizen Survey Approach. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 12:197-222. Norton, Lee (1983), Witness Involvement in the Criminal Justice System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions. Journal 3: Criminal Justice, 11:143-152. O'Neill, Michael W., et al. (1980), Appraising the Performance of Police Agencies: The PPPM System. Journal of Police Science and Administration, F——: 253-2617 —" Parks, Roger B. (1984c), Linking Objective and Subjective Measures of Performance. Public Administration Review, 44:118-127. Percy, Stephen L. (1980), Response Time and Citizen Evaluation of Police. Journal gf Police Science and Administration, 8:75-86. Poister, Theodore H. and James C. McDavid (1978), Victims' Evaluation of Police Performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6:133-149. Schmidt, Stuart M. (1977), Client-Oriented Evaluation of Public Agency Effectiveness. Administration and Society, 8:403-422. Shapland, Joanna (1983), Victim-Witness Services and the Needs of the Victim. Victimology, 8:233-237. Skogan, Westley G. and Gearge E. Antunes (1979), Information, Apprehension, and Deterrence: Exploring the Limits of Police Productivity. Journal 2: Criminal Justice, 7:217-241. Smith, Paul E. and Richard O. Hawkins (1973), Victimization, Types of Citizen-Police Contacts, and Attitudes Toward the Police. Law and Society Review, 8:135-152. 132 Stipak, Brian (1979), Citizen Satisfaction with Urban Services: Potential Misuse as a Performance Indicator. Public Administration Review, 39:46-52. Thomas, Charles W. and Jeffrey M. Hyman (1977), Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police Performance. Journal 2; Police Science and Administration, 5:305-317. Waegel, William B. (1982), Patterns of Police Investigation of Urban Crimes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10:452-465. ------------- - (1981), Case Routinization in Investigative Police Work. Social Problems, 28:263-275. White, Mervin F. and Ben A. Menke (1982), On Assessing the Mood of the Public Toward the Police: Some Conceptual Issues. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10:211-230. ----------- - --- --- - ----- (1978), A Critical Analysis of Surveys on Public Opinion Toward Police Agencies. Journal gf Police Science and Administration, 6:204-218. *** 133 ”IiiiTiLJ‘EMMMlflM