. ‘ \. .
7".— ' A ~f...

:3 INIWJIW”WWII”WNW“WHIWINUI

, 31239 02048 8288
:? ‘LI‘O

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE , _ M DATE DUE
.04 mm ET“ W‘-
Nov 0 1 2005
23% W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm mm."

IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING CITIZEN
PERCEPTIONS
OF
POLICE AND COMMUNITY POLICING PRACTICES

By

MichaeI Jon Panetta

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fquiIiment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

2000

y. .
~ ~. ~-
"‘--0. .

a..., I...

-
't p .
I- ~.'. . ~ ~
1., -
d 01-: I..."' —“
no“. V-.J" .
‘--.“_ ”a 4
~ 3-,”
I II "'. ‘

- O A
.- ~P'fi "
. -' ‘ ‘ ‘
.‘. . ’
3' 'P o.._ A-
. " |
. - 5‘
‘v
p h
.c, ,._.
. H‘~
"
.“ O
)- a,“
u _ ‘ P.
.. .—
c ‘ .
'o,
. I
“‘
".' 5‘ I” -
~ " v a
u \‘
K“
I ‘-
' u
I _“ g
I... I ‘ n
c

C O

ABSTRACT
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING CITIZEN
PERCEPTIONS
OF
POLICE AND COMMUNITY POLICING PRACTICES
By

Michael Jon Panetta

The study examined citizen perceptions of the most visible
representatives of the criminal justice system. the police. The specific
objectives of this study was (1) to identify and assess citizen
perceptions of police roles and conlnunity policing practices: (2) to
reduce occupational ambiguity of police roles and decrease agency goal
displacement in terms of citizen expectations: (3) to assess the effects
of age. gender. education, and economic status on citizen perceptions of
police and (4) to assess the effects of home ownership and length of
time in the community on citizen perceptions of police.

The data for the study was collected by means of a survey
questionnaire. which was administered to a randomly selected sample of
600 city of Lansing's residents. Respondents were asked to respond to a

battery of questions and to rate police. integrity. cooperation and

u ‘ ‘ .oo
:"s‘°‘.:’::> T
. luv.

.'....:.'.‘f (an I
:zJ. .. g av.

F,
r ’5'
Ih.'-‘ '

p v’.;';-0
' A u. I.-
p {an-p.

I
i dl‘br'v .

' .P. 'C-
.4
U '5‘ d.
F..‘ P.
P 4 O T
U I ,
9
r {inc-O
‘ ' v 5.

.M .
0 Op»,. -

.Js P ‘rl
.l.‘- ' o—

'-0. ~‘.

.

4 3'3" ‘3'. .

.I .‘I.‘ "
'0

”PI-
91 -
- ~ ' o
a, P {-

-.,‘_ 1‘ .

\
-., Q
"IA '
. :oo._'
o. _.. (. '1
U ' U
Q
U

- , -
v, .‘FJ‘ "
a . I r '- -

3 'f
.t'T'rn
.
.._v, .. t“
-H.
V
,. ‘H
J,‘ "a
i

effectiveness in terms of the following selected factors (for
elaboration see Definition of Terms):

0 Community Policing Leadership

0 Interaction Facilitation

0 Support

0 Work Facilitation

0 Goal Emphasis

In short. the study (1) allowed citizen respondents as consumers
an opportunity to rate police performance in general and. specifically.
community policing leadership and practices: (2) gained infbrmation
about respondent attitudes and perceptions of the police in terms of the
selected factors: (3) identified demographic characteristics of the
respondents which could be of importance in explaining differences in
perceptions: and (4) compared and contrasted responses from citizens
residing in neighborhoods where community policing is in place against

responses from citizens residing in neighborhoods where community

policing was not in place.

COPYRIGHT

BY

MICHAEL JON PANETTA

2000

DEDICATED

TO

THE MEMORY

OF

DR. ROBERT TROJANONICZ

MY SPIRITUAL BROTHER, FRIEND AND MENTOR

Acknowledgments

It is with great and humble appreciation that I acknowledge
the members of my Dissertation Committee: Dr. Christopher
Vanderpool. Dr. Dennis Payne. Dr. Thomas Conner. and Dr.
Steven Gold whose time and assistance were invaluable and
greatly contributed to the final draft and ultimate
completion of this dissertation.

To my parents Frank Anthony and Elizabeth Virginia Panetta
who at a young age challenged my mind and stirred my soul
to search for knowledge.

To my Brother. best friend and mentor Dr. Joel C. Panetta
for his good counsel and patience

To my loving Wife Susan Marie and my family Mary Elizabeth.
Michelina Anne. and Joseph Andrew fbr their encouraging
words and smiles which refreshed and strengthened me to
carry on and fulfill my dream.

To my Grand Children Vincent Michael. Elizabeth Anne, Adam

Matthew. Joseph Andrew and little Justin Patrick just for
being.

vi

,3" 513.5

   
 

7' Pi?
nu " ‘1'
..”.I T Y ”I.
MI“. J . .h-F‘VD'C

l.“. _r. 9‘ art-I .-

. ‘4' ~'- ~
'.,.o-~
. l J' . .
.' "'1 . u

n
' .n- '0- 5
’,pl\'.." :f ”G \

I...- t v v5.1

-‘;.'~Ocnr N; v.1: N
I'- ' ij'

' 1‘ .~ u.
. OOSIQ‘ . 4-,,
’L'. d‘ r >-

.. u .d v a. y

‘ v3 ‘ 'rnn- A
q“ 3 . ‘ o

u )d
A ....Ju’ a - .

Iii? II PEI’IJ

'., ‘ ‘
I, I‘” f N; )1;

n. : ,4]. J .. v
v ..

I! I on.

' fl

‘ '5 o o .

a" 10"}; “"

N
: '. .. may .
...,',_ 0‘.
I. . ’IA
"" '5 .1- . .
., a

9‘ 6
' .r'
'w . V, .. _ .

u
”1-... ‘ g .
" Q

t. .. ‘ Vol."

I . - v. '
'0.

‘3’” I".n..,
o... -\ r
v
'1
lb ‘3: ‘f0.~*
!. ~
. v. _'_- '

 

04 .I a( a P".
‘ ' '
h. u '-
. t
‘\1 ‘rfi ‘
V. ..I:< F;
MD , ‘
:12 ‘59,."
. ~*. d:y£ 5‘
0 -. J'
Jr... A
d 13"“
. ' "J PC,
“u '. .s—
'.‘b' “5““.
',I. '~ . 3‘
'fl -
IV "I P’.‘
I ' J'I ‘
‘ . c
"1"“: "‘ A 1
' dc If”. x'
J' :

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem ....................... 2
Strategy ............................. 6
Purpose of the Study ....................... 7
Definition of Terms ....................... 9
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Study ............. 10
Conceptual Framework ...................... 12
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. 13
Background of the Study .................... 14
The Police ........................... 15
Crime in America ........................ 18
High Visibility ......................... 20
Response Time .......................... 21
Deployment ........................... 22
Traditional Patrol Operations ................. 23
Citizens Assessment of Police Perfbrmance ............ 25
Type of Contact ......................... 25
Frequency of Contact ...................... 26
Location of Contact ....................... 26
Quality of Contact ....................... 26
Ethnic & Racial Attitudes Impact ................ 27
Age & Gender's-Impact on Perception of Police .......... 29
Victims Perceptions of Police Perfbrmance ............ 30
Criticism of the Community Policing Model ............ 30
1986 Lansing Community Questionnaire .............. 33
Citizen Cooperation ....................... 35
The Community .......................... 39
Citizens. Police and Crime in America .............. 41
Community as a Complex Organization ............... 44
The Evolving Strategy of Policing ................ 49
The Emergence of Community Policing ............... 53
Community Oriented Policing Plus ................ 54
Citizen Mobilization/Empowerment ................ 56
Mission. Goals. and Objectives of Community Policing ...... 57
Patterns of Police and Citizen Interaction ........... 58

vii

‘
I. '.o V-
rr . «~
’ .
pr-:
fl. .-
I...Qy "‘f r
up "
_. ov
’ .-O
‘.a‘fl’ 'x'
I C
- .. - 'u .
o

.
.. no.
g" .vs—‘C ‘

0"" .

0"
a

H IV.

I. .
.‘r.’ J m I

-
.l“.. '0
I .-

V u

.‘c. '-'-‘ ‘
.

. O ' I

~:"' ”1" ‘5'

.4“. 2' ‘I

.

o n 0-.
'=- ’r~' -
.'I o '6'

o I -O, h

,. c , :r

D d O ‘ U
c

I I

n-.“ . -

~ 'c‘ .
. l
0‘ Olo‘b .
“.‘ A c-
- - ‘ c,”

u. ._ v
n
.D' 0-.
.. .
. hi . .

a . P
"’\

‘ pl. -- .
I

.., '

b ‘1' '0 I
'u. 0 -r

d V

T ”'1-

- r

.'.‘»
no 1 ""
‘
. a
*‘pé
ID. . ~‘Pf‘
‘
‘
I U
. .
T ’
.‘_,1' “"':~
‘ '0
. d
‘n-‘-’ R:-
. P
I \
'l-r‘I-{ ‘
" a “'A
. .
n
‘

A? o
"h ' .
” h
l
'I
' ‘.
I
o _F'.O-.-
. p . '.
V .
ao_ .
. h"...
"- u.‘
. F
u '5
c
P i“-
A ’n.
-. _ ‘7
o '5
t ~”’-‘ .
.. ~ ,'
h.
‘ .
1' h- ,.
I . ~
H. “I
' f" ‘n.‘.
- ' ~ ‘r
I ‘5
V‘.
‘ ."‘.¢-.‘ .
. u ~ ‘7'
I ‘-
.. ~
.-.fn ‘
‘ ' '2 in
. u UP
‘ .
r a-
I . "~_
U

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (continued)

Community Policing and Community Characteristics ........ 60
Citizen Perceptions of Police .................. 62
Agency Expectations of Community Police Officer ......... 64
Hypotheses Formulation ..................... 66
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ..................... 68
Target Population ........................ 68
Sampling Frame ......................... 68
Hypotheses Formulation ..................... 71
Instrumentation ......................... 74
Validity and Reliability .................... 76
Subject Selection and Survey Administration ........... 77
Callbacks ............................ 77
Data Collection ......................... 77
Confidentiality ......................... 78
Pre Test ............................ 78
Variables ............................ 79
Design of Analysis ....................... 80
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHICS AND SOCIAL
CHARACTERISTICS ................... 83
Summarizing Tables 4.1-4 8 8 .................. 89
Summarizing Tables 4.9-4.12 ................... 93
Summarizing Tables 4.13-4.20 .................. 99
Community Policing Indices ................... 100
Summarizing Tables 4.21-4.24 .................. 114
CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF CORRELATIONS AND
INTERCORRELATIONS ................... 115
Interpreting the Significance of Age .............. 115
Interpreting the Significance of Education ........... 116
Interpreting the Significance of Income ............. 118
Interpreting the Significance of Length of Time
in the Community ....................... 118
Interpreting the Significance of Gender and Race ........ 119
Interpreting the Significance of Home Ownership ......... 119
Personal Protection. Victimization and Exposure
To Crime ........................... 121

viii

I .c'

a ...‘.r -*"
\ '- J".—

. "-

"t"" 3::‘27

.l:~- V J ' '
l h a '

.oOqA' I - w

.l.;- 1‘ J ‘ "

, .
.u'f :- «r
o. .u ‘1 ’

. A
.-,o -’90 D, I:
I. F .

I .U-O . C .

.9 c-Osg' ->;p
,.

.4... a .0 ~-

;f°~-.r - -»;r

uI.-o {1 J . .
.‘ll. po'.r
..'. 43 .5 . .

kWN'o-ifi-J 4
i ~o

- - .. ... I
u
I .
...0..' -._’
-u. u
clwvu a J ..
upO;-r .. ’f
.. 3‘
IO... ' ‘ .
D . '
‘V‘ 0-.
t P
{‘3’ “ r e o

I...,. _ . .-
r. "--..p" D‘

- . V-
. ,

0T ".3' fr -|
h J '1' P '3.

“7"cr -L .,
o v.' '.I . 1 ~.:
. s
:‘;'...r “Q...
.’"' " 3J- ‘:

:f‘up' -“'
0’... u " u

k -

o. ;

"o .l' \ as .-
.4... v . J y:
. .

:".“.' 3 “in!
no... '4' ' ‘A‘

42

0-.‘

’3 ‘-' -o--l
id... .1 J,.,~"
I

‘ o

3"“ (“a

5. . ‘.
"1 .
‘a‘? I .
i. 'v' ~“U-\:-.
U "
a
‘ A
'4. ‘A' -5-
v...
d -. )-
' s. " .
D. n.
. :- gra r.
T“ a I. “T
l L. '
I'“"r .
u‘,_. w.’
v
. . J ‘
'a
' n
‘0-

' '- ‘ 1" Fry.
0 i V." '
’0. .

u..'.'

u“. I: ’5 .
I. ‘-
Q J g
I.‘
2' "M I- ..
v I
n 5 U} 'V

;«:. '

U” - r 9.. .
O l .
J.

N

I:g“-

-s' J -‘ .
. .l k“
'I'. a
"" “r I: .

~.- i ‘ -"
. ‘—

. 4 ~
'I
. L

r; ' P‘ ‘.
I‘ § C
I.Ԥ
\
P
0 ‘J-~\ I" ‘
I D" ‘-
v
I ‘
Ia..“nr ‘

‘ I
‘ vi ‘4‘»;
.; g .
l’ht ’-

T‘ .r I

v ' _ ‘

v- u

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS (Continued)
CORRELATION OF SELECT SURVEY RESPONSE VARIABLES

Question Number 8 ........................ 121
Question Number 9 ........................ 122
Question Number 10 ....................... 122
Question Number 11 ....................... 123
Question Number 12 ....................... 123
Question Number 13 ....................... 124
Conclusion ........................... 124
Perception of Crime ....................... 125
Question Number 14 ....................... 125
Question Number 17 ....................... 125
Conclusion ........................... 126
Neighborhood Visibility and Contact by Police .......... 126
Question Number 19 ....................... 127
Question Number 20 ....................... 127
Conclusion ........................... 127
Assessment of Police Performance and Effectiveness ....... 128
Community Involvement and Police Interaction .......... 128
Question Number 18 ....................... 129
Question Number 21 ....................... 129
Question Number 22 ....................... 129
Question Number 23 ....................... 130
Question Number 24 ....................... 130
Question Number 25 ....................... 131
Conclusion ........................... 131
Safety Assessment ........................ 132
Question Number 26 ....................... 132
Police and Community Review ................... 133
Question Number 27 ....................... 133
Police and Community Partnership ................ 133
Question Number 28 ....................... 134
Treatment by Police ....................... 134
Question Number 29 ....................... 135
Question Number 30 ....................... 135
Question Number 31 ....................... 136
Tax Support of Foot Patrols ................... 136
Attitudes Toward the Nature and Severity of Crime ........ 136
Question Number 32 ....................... 137
Question Number 33 ....................... 137

'
.

o..."'~0 ' f,-

a " _ ._
a u. D " -
n_ ’ ' - '
'| ‘ '." .
o b "a '-

v -0...
r‘:"""_ .
. .. , 5".
' I.-.;
ro:-" ‘

. .. ' v-d.
'”.N,AO~OV
— ’ ‘

. .. . v-Ub

' .0-..
fi;~'fl- .

.u.’ unu-

.”-~'-6~6 .
’ - no ‘

g.-. C...

..,-. -q‘r-
‘ \

h 1. J. . d

’59

.

4:. . . .

c

r .

.'.';°~-p

.-J..... - .

I." A

v.'-'. . .

 

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS (Continued)
Ability to Fairly Assess Police and Police

Performance ......................... 137
Interpreting the Significance of the Indices .......... 138
CPL Survey Indices ....................... 138
Interpretation of CPL Index ................... 139
Interpretation of Content Validity Index ............ 140
Interpretation of Negative Goal Emphasis Index ......... 141
Interpretation of Interaction Facilitation Index ........ 141
Interpretation of Support Facilitation Index .......... 142
Interpretation of Work Facilitation Index ............ 142
Conclusions ........................... 143
Age ............................... 143
Education ............................ 143
Income ............................. 143
Length of Time in the Community ................. 144
Race and Gender ......................... 144
Home Ownership ......................... 144
Citizen Assessments of CPL ................... 144
Personal Protection and Victimization .............. 144
Interpretation of CPL and Leadership Index ........... 145
Interpretation of Content Validity Index ............ 145
Interpretation of Goal Emphasis Index .............. 145
Interpretation of Interaction Facilitation Index ........ 146
Interpretation of Support Facilitation Index .......... 146
Interpretation of Work Facilitation Index ........... 146
Importance of Visibility .................... 147
Importance of Contact ...................... 147
Importance of Exposure ..................... 147
CHAPTER VI COMPARISONS BY GENDER AND ETHNIC ORIGIN ....... 148
Analysis of Respondents Age by Ethnicity ............ 150
Analysis of Respondents Education by Gender

and Ethnicity ......................... 151
Home Ownership by Gender and Ethnicity ............. 152
Length of Time in Community by Gender and Ethnicity ....... 153
Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents by Ethnic Group ...... 154
Gun Ownership by Ethnicity and Gender .............. 155
Dog Ownership by Ethnicity and Gender .............. 156
Property Crime Victimization by Ethnicity and Gender ...... 156
Personal Injury Victimization by Ethnicity and Gender ...... 157

X

:4? VI CJFir

o 0" Prep;

was t
. " .-
n‘.r‘
arc-"3r . .
'Il"
. : {En-J
l;*‘:“":.' : .. ,

‘
I A I s- ‘I
..D- :'"V 5' a. w
..I. V
N "
' . P‘ S" ‘
... _'
-J - r w ,
.‘J. U‘
'c 0
'-~ - ~ c‘ ”‘3
'fl ’ ' 'J-o

..au'v" v‘
p

..~-hA”AF‘A 3‘:

I ' . .

‘ ck 'JVU
a

'<"'= a'c " '*

in! 8'." J

p
" A .T r
I ~fil .'

'I 0::l' V'- J
..4 _,
’°' '5': IE ..

. I r. ‘
:1 \ ".'P‘;“ . '
0‘ Id... .“ . _ ..

::"'.‘.“"a M' F:
V ' v

""" i

.'ll.

."“" .‘n 9P.
- --~"l" ... g
: .

' ' vol.-

.‘l...,.. .h"--
‘. -\.o\ t .—
.I-u hv‘- V» 'v.
“'“Do '
' Q
Il (

_ P

.. 5
.'

l _\
-|._!b...;(
U

“x
1"-

. a

OT... .

Ln." .‘3
'-

..“ .. _( 4",...I
' . -"U I

’n-,.

.. _
I. , ¢._.‘

..- c r. ».
-~-.

0
'V
.‘A‘T‘r‘. A
U}. : 'P'
-h
d b V.
' t.. .
‘1 _:~ ..
. “a |
\v-
. I
'.f‘-._‘ n
.' h‘ C n
. , N. ' .
5‘
0". .
l! D."
".' :3 < r”!
U
V-
o'_.

'.
I
V
4.
J
m
J
I
(W

‘v
...‘.
.1 .
". "“S 1‘ .p
.. .
‘L
- 3‘ |
.h .::‘< VA f‘
. .. ‘- AK 1
a
.'P ,N‘
‘7}... i
5' . '
.IFI.‘. .
‘1'. ”‘38 1?
“ . cg '
2“}? A
' I. ...-V'a‘“
' “a I- _‘
t
.... '
. .‘.
""I. \ ‘a:\ r
‘ I *‘U. ‘~.
._ v_-
. .
"E "‘." I
' n
-' 1“ prr.
I. h

CHAPTER VI COMPARISONS (Continued)

Witness to a Crime by Ethnicity and Gender ........... 158
Perception of Crime by Ethnicity and Gender ........... 158
Perception of the Nature and Severity of Crime ......... 159
Frequency of Police Neighborhood Visibility .......... 160
Frequency of Police Neighborhood Interaction .......... 162
Frequency of Face to Face Contact ................ 163
Neighborhood Safety Assessment ................. 164
Police and Community Commission/Review Board .......... 165
Police and Community Partnership ................ 166
Ever Receive a Break ...................... 167
Sense of Fair Play ....................... 168
Tax Supported Foot Patrols ................... 169
Perspective on Crimes Against People .............. 169
Assessing Police and Police Performance ............. 170
CHAPTER VII ANALYSIS OF THE HYPOTHESES AND INDICES ....... 171
Introduction .......................... 171
Hypotheses Concerning the Factors ................ 173
Hypothesis 1 CPL and Interaction Facilitation ....... 173
Hypothesis 2 CPL and Support Facilitation ......... 174
Hypothesis 3 CPL and Work Facilitation ........... 175
Hypothesis 4 CPL and Negative Goal Emphasis ........ 176
Summary of Findings For Hypotheses Concerning

Factor Data .......................... 177
Hypotheses Concerning the Category Data Set ........... 177
Hypothesis 5 Controlling for Categorical Variables ....... 178
Hypothesis 6 Controlling fOr Age ............... 179
Hypothesis 7 Controlling for Education ............. 179
Hypothesis 8 Controlling for Gender ............... 180
Hypothesis 9 Controlling for Income .............. 180
Hypothesis 10 Controlling for Home Ownership .......... 180
Hypothesis 11 Controlling for Experience as a Victim ...... 180
Hypothesis 12 Controlling for Length of Time in the

Community ........................... 180
Hypothesis 13 Controlling for Prior Experience ......... 180
Partial Correlation Coefficients ................ 181
Statistical Comparison of Demographic Variables ......... 181
Descriptive Presentation of Categorical Data by

CPL Mean ........................... 182

3173:1111 w;

.ran'fi.1.‘ ..F
r “I
. In I "v' '

. v r_
’u.o.r°‘f‘al ,Pf
\ n \ -d' U- P

.d- 0'

-A I ...

=H~ ~
‘ ‘-

rd’V '

‘IM “"7 w
. .
,‘K‘J Mu
pg... '0 g :I
3a 1L ‘
y .45- . '
‘aongnnO‘lhr ‘5‘ ‘
U-o‘lh fl. U' U:
" ' . f. A
p' a '-
U. u. t): )‘J ‘i
A
-r - , r-6 F:
~o 'I-iTJ 5'
a
:"c 'r': l
"C- - :. :

" 8J- '1
'r- .. A‘ A
..‘o ’\ < .

‘ Jr . '1 NJ
' v-u'o. Yr .-
I. ' '

i b v
. -

-
n" In P
'-r "~_< On- I
"J‘

-—. ... “
I
.
.f.
.4!— C
- .' .

'E'T'qx o- r
'h "v w. a
”.20.. n‘ I“...

I I. V" v. .
I

J'S'J‘JDS

Q

I‘M
"' 1* IX m
”up. ‘3...

v‘ ‘.

Jr?!-

- V ‘ “n
' ‘
'sz"v~‘.‘
...; .: a r F
e ” ' "
p
'. V
..‘., ”,rpo.r.
V.
i
'-
'-""r .
C . _ P.“
:~ ‘ I
'H
I. '
I “-‘n‘
5 .~ \ C ':
" ‘V -I
l;‘- .
..w ~rln.‘.
o . 'i '

_-.. u_

L‘,‘-

'- ‘ A V! -

I... ' *-
! ‘I ‘
\‘..> I a 1‘-
II Kb
-"- . 3.
..PA‘.

I, I r p-

. v v. g
L“.
hII'4: -‘
...:i-i" ‘ ‘ I.
, [.|..
L-
h
H
U;-
"
:‘-
.l

CHAPTER VII ANALYSIS (Continued)

Interpretation of Tables 7.1 - 7.8 ............. 182-186
Statistical Comparison of Survey Responses by GP
and NCP Areas ........................ 187

CHAPTER VIII COMPARISON OF CP vs NCP RESPONSES TO DEMOGRAPHIC AND
EXPERIENTIAL QUESTIONS ..................... 189
Description of Survey Area(s) .................. 189
CP Zones. Boundaries and Officer-Block Ratio .......... 190
Non-Community Policing Zones .................. 191
Lansing Area Map of Surveyed CP and NCP Zones ......... 192
Comparison of Responses and Hypotheses ............. 193
Dog and Gun Ownership ...................... 193
Analysis of Questions 8 and 9 ................ 194-195
Victimization and Exposure to Crime ............... 195
Analysis of Questions 10.11.12 and 13 ............ 196-198
Community Involvement and Police Interaction .......... 199
Responses to Question 15 .................... 207
Comments ............................ 208
Responses to Questions 16. 19,20. 26, 27, 32. 33 ....... 209
Summary of Community Policing Efforts in Lansing ........ 213
Conclusions .......................... 217
CHAPTER Ix FINDINGS. EXPLANATIONS and INTERPRETATIONS ...... 221
Introduction .......................... 221
Summary ............................. 221
Normalization of At Risk Neighborhoods ............ 224
Reasonable Expectations ..................... 226
Most Important Finding ..................... 228
Stronger and More Definitive Outcome Data ............ 229
Criticisms of Community Policing ................ 230
Recommendations ......................... 230
Summary and Conclusions ..................... 234
Appendix A The Citizens Survey ................. 235
Appendix B LPD Designated Community Policing Zones ....... 244
Appendix C Community Police Officer's Duties and

Activities ...................... 246
Appendix D LPD Community Police Officer Job

Description ..................... 250
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 256

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8A
4.88

4.9
4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

LIST OF TABLES
Gender of Respondents

Ethnicity of Respondents

Respondents Age

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Respondents Education

Home Ownership of Respondents

Length of Time in the Community

Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents

Exposure to Police in Neighborhood .........

Neighborhood Visibility of Police .........
Frequency of Police Contact and
Involvement

Personal Protection

Victimization 8 Exposure to Crime

Perception of Frequency and Severity
of Crime .....................

Frequency of Police Visibility and
Contact

Community Involvement and Police
Interaction ...................

Neighborhood Safety Assessment ...........

Attitudes Toward Police and Community
Commission or Review Board ............

xiii

87

91

95

96

Alu

 

.-

... .

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

4.16

4.17
4.18

4.19

4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

5.7

5.8

Sense Police and Community Partnership

Exsists ..................... 97
Treatment by the Police .............. 97
Tax Supported Foot Patrols ............. 98
Attitude Toward Nature and Severity

of Crime ..................... 98
Ability to Fairly Assess Police .......... 98
Community Policing Leadership Index ........ 103
Interaction Facilitation Index ........... 107
Support Facilitation Index ............. 110
Work Facilitation Index .............. 111
Negative Goal Emphasis Index ............ 113
Intercorrelations of Background

Variables .................... 115
Intercorrelations of Survey Items ......... 120
Personal Protection and Background

Variables .................... 121
Victimization 8 Exposure to Crime ......... 122
Perception of Crime ................ 125
Police Visibility and Contact ........... 127
Community Involvement and Police

Interaction ................... 128
Safety Assessment ................. 132
Police and Community Review Board ......... 133

xiv

“I. O s l L t r C I C I .l
T. In 9 h VII r: '5'» PL PL L ubk r. 5 rt \ IH. ..lL
cl 6 “/5 Au.v 01‘
«-8 n S a o c A I: A 2 3 l4. .3 ohd ‘77 Pd AQJ \A. u. q. A
rue rul- r‘J the . . . . .
rhv Inn. E rt E .rhv rhv 6 Fe 6 6
It .5. .v. as. uh. an.
Roan on u ... n on .- u ..v. .3» ma». .flub uph- .9". min Ah.- hhb
. .... ..L ”L r» ..... ...g . .. . . . . .. .. t .
O o o O 9 ... .... ~~Ib ...“ ‘unn Val.“

Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

5.9
5.10
5.11

5.12

5.13

5.14

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10

6.11

6.12

Police and Community Partnership .......... 134

Treatment by the Police .............. 135
Tax Support of Foot Patrols ............ 136
Attitudes Toward the Nature and

Severity of Crime ................ 136
Ability to Fairly Assess Police

Perfbrmance ................... 137
Intercorrelations of Background

Variable and Indices ............... 138
Ethnicity and Gender of the Respondents ...... 148
Ethnicity and Age of Male Respondents ....... 149
Ethnicity and Age of Female Respondents ...... 149
Ethnicity and Age of All Respondents ........ 149
Education by Ethnicity ............... 150
Education by Ethnicity and Gender ......... 151
Ethnicity and Home Ownership ............ 151
Home Ownership by Gender and Ethnicity ....... 152
Length of Time in Community by Ethnicity ...... 152
Length of Time in Community by Gender

and Ethnicity .................. 152
Socioeconomic Profile by Respondents

Ethnic Group ................... 153
Socioeconomic Profile by Gender and

Ethnic Group ................... 153

XV

RAVI
.hU
9|.

I...
a

l b
fill
.

Pi.
a/.\

PR?

bl U
at a
‘U
«h.

t .5
\‘U

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19

6.20

6.21
6.22

6.23

6.24

6.25

6.26
6.27

6.28
6.29

6.30

Gun Ownership

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Dog Ownership
Property Crime Victimization ............
Personal Crime Victimization ............
Witness to a Crime .................

Perception of Crime ................
Perception of the Nature and Severity
Of Crime .....................

Frequency of Police Visibility in
Neighborhood ...................

Frequency of Police Contact ............
Frequency of Police Contact by Ethnicity
and Gender ....................

Safety Assessment by Ethnicity and
Gender ......................

Review Board by Ethnicity and Gender ........

Perception of Police and Community
Partnership

Ever Receive a Break from the Police ........

Ever Feel You were not Treated Fair
by Police

Tax Supported Foot Patrols .............

Perspective of Pe0ple Crimes vs
Property Crimes .................
Perceived Ability to Assess Police
PerfOrmance

156
157

157

159

160

163

164

165

167

168

no. a- u
a .v any
3 .u
.... u I
I." ID-
”; a.»
O C

.v «v
9 a A y
a; 0-H
w a .
... nu.
u.“ ”on
o v

3.4

n:

u.»
9

.3
any
¢~.

n s
'9.

Fhv
HRH
.. u

.
... a

Q
\-

AC
.h a.

.n»

Table 7.1 Interpretation of Index Factors .......... 172

Table 7.2 Community Policing Leadership (CPL)

Score by Age ................... 182
Table 7.3 CPL Score by Gender ................ 183
Table 7.4 CPL Score by Ethnic Group ............. 183
Table 7.5 CPL Score by Education ............... 184
Table 7.6 CPL Score by Home Ownership ............. 185
Table 7.7 CPL Score by Length of Time in the

Community ..................... 185
Table 7.8 CPL Score by Socioeconomic Status .......... 186
Table 7.9 T-Test Group Statistics by CP and NCP

Neighborhood Areas ................ 187
Table 7.10 Indice Responses. Values and CPL Scores

by Area ...................... 188
Table 7.11 Average Indice CPL Scores by Area .......... 188
Table 8.1 Gun Ownership by Area ................ 194
Table 8.2 Dog Ownership by Area ................ 195
Table 8.3 Property Crime Victimization by Area ........ 196
Table 8.4 Personal Injury Crime Victimization

by Area ...................... 197
Table 8.5 Witness to a Crime by Area ............. 198
Table 8.6 Witness to an Arrest by Area ............ 198

Table 8.7 Knowledge Community Policing Center
by Area ...................... 199

Table 8.8 Currently Active in Neighborhood Watch
by Area ...................... 200

xvii

Pb-

q. I . . ll. 1 1| I ... in ..s E . a .\
.a L. o . L. . ~ a .Lv .-
PW Fur Ia. .u. l~ sh. PDT I». ~ POL
. . o 9/ :14 4‘ Ed 9%. s 7 .mV .1. ...J n i
9 m... u... a-“ . A. i. it . . a; c . q x a: «1..
Cl nlw nnw as. .13. a...- ulv Gnu «iv any Adv ...-4 «Fa
nu. unto new. nu. nu. pus .n. at. gun nu. cu. ch» .5;
I a. D. .- .- n H. a ‘5 ‘L ‘n q. s v b \
I I . Q I I V C Q
on on. ovu o p. c on canh V1“ 9... .... v.5.-

..:u ..
O O O

Table 8.9

Table 8.10

Table 8.11

Table 8.12

Table 8.13

Table 8.14

Table 8.15

Table 8.16

Table 8.17
Table 8.18
Table 8.19

TabTE 8.20

Table 8.21

Table 8.22
Table 8.23

Table 8.24

Table 8.25

Called/Filed Complaint with Police
by Area ......................

Received Feedback/Follow up from
Police by Area

Attended Mtg. where Police Actively
Participated

Received Home Crime Prevention
Assessment by Area

Assessing Crime in Neighborhood by Area .......

Believe a Police and Community Partnership
Exists

Favor Tax Supported Foot Patrols by Area

Assessment of the Nature and Severity
of Crime ......................

Ability to Fairly Assess Police by Area .......
Ever Receive a Break from Police by Area

Believe Police Have Not Been Fair by Area

Visibility of Police in Neighborhood
by Area ......................

Frequency of Face to Face Encounters
by Area ......................

How safe is your Neighborhood by Area ........
Police and Community Commission ...........

Crimes Against PeOple v.s. Property
Crimes

Ability to Fairly Assess Police ...........

xviii

200

202

205

205

210

210
211

211

212

LIST OF FIGURES

Patterns of Police and Citizen Interaction

Figure 1.1 ........................ 59
Community Policing and Community Characteristics

Figure 1.2 ........................ 61
Citizen Perceptions of Police Figure 1.3 ............ 63

Agency Expectations of Community Police Officer
Figure 1.4 ........................ 65

xix

 

...-2..“ ES P;

v\
" ..."
o

IDOAQ’.‘-" ‘
“ . D
.-

"vu'y .

‘4
..""‘- RA. .
b J 4

a... :“rép. 7|
1" d.'__-' ‘
.:~
~- '- ‘.
' I- 1": ..'
I ‘3‘. :‘ ‘.
~
.I'. ..R‘ :'I‘ I
u. iv. U '. I
t r I
~¥ VP ’7’, '
u . _' ~ i
b 'b \
‘ ‘
FA ‘
‘1 -0
u. -‘
I ‘ .
4.4.. “’
sun :\ H';4
'r '
4'4-" .
3' 7 S .
- I
..q ‘.
‘Q
“.:~ ": :’
u. U u
§
:5. A
" \ l P.
VI
t-I,.
" I ' ,
' " n r.
v

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The study dealt with citizen perceptions of the most visible
representatives of the criminal justice system. the Police. The specific
objectives of the study were: (1) to identify and assess citizen
perceptions of police roles and community policing practices: (2) to
reduce occupational ambiguity of police roles and decrease agency goal
displacement in terms of citizen expectations: (3) to assess the effects
of age. gender. education. and economic status on citizen perceptions of
police: and (4) to assess the effects of home ownership and length of
time in the community on citizen perceptions of police.

The data fer the study was collected by means of a questionnaire.
administered to a randomly selected sample~ of’ city of Lansing's
residents. Respondents were be asked to respond to a battery of
questions and rate police integrity. cooperation and effectiveness in
terms of community policing leadership: interaction facilitation:

support: work facilitation: and goal emphasis.

 

Pram of are

our

twins

in: q’r n..“
J ' rEIU' CS

"5

. .
'IPQ' C
A A

v’. * vi “a"

A... ,‘ ‘ ‘7 ~
:2“ -""’P '=
b ., .

I
I D

 

 

'e
M‘.
. r 9 A .
1k; ’ :2.
v . a .
a: A .'
i 59'” 5,18 5
8 .‘ U
‘n ‘
. one '
’TJ . IL;
~I...
J.,~
.‘-‘/t
LFPHQAJ a
‘U‘ r.’

\‘-.*
Pp. .
... ‘.
v . '33 S 3“ F
I a
C 0‘
..‘r
. I“).
b 0 q
. ...“ hi
i O
é.
#, s
'5 J: t.» \

'- r 1 A .
b. l-‘
.‘-’;\‘
u ‘4‘”.
..u] S p;,\”
H‘ul

.v .
J R
vf “2:6 .
‘». c‘“
‘ .7
:‘A.'
., a.
-. _ Pp Ir-
! L'J
.
”‘7‘".-
~ 'yr$,
‘ ‘5, Tr! 1 r.
4'] 1.1

Statement of the Problem

Americans are becoming more aware of crime. Evidence of this is
seen in results of national surveys. which show how crime has affected
the American way of life. One—third of representative Americans feel it
is unsafe to walk the streets alone, at night. in their neighborhood.
More than one-third say they keep firearms in the house for protection
against criminals: and more than one-quarter of Americans keep watch
dogs fer the same reason (Reiss. A.J.. 1967.103: Ennis.. 1967:74). Fear
of crime has become a significant social factor and indicator of
‘community' health in contemporary times (Cordner and Trojanowicz.
1992).

According to the 1993 Federal Bureau of Investigation unifbrmed
crime report (UCR). Michigan ranks fourth in crime in the country. on
the basis of overall crime. Michigan had recorded an increase in every
crime category. except murder and burglary, and was still able to retain
its twelfth place national ranking in homicides. Alabama's rate of 16
murders per 100.000 was the nation’s worst. Crime in the shadow of
Michigan's capital is on the rise at a rate of over 7 percent per year
fer the past eight consecutive years. Michigan's capital city. Lansing.
according to the 1990 census data. had a population of 127,321

residents. In 1996. recorded 18 murders and 24 in 1997 - a ratio between

’6'). a]; P".
v v as v- Lu .

it“

..‘I',. v.

m“. m r,“
I

 

WRIT!” :
‘::. “J .J

.. T A .‘Q' n
'P” “A 'n WA
---. V I» 5 ..

is .45. .3“ .
I . P P a .

' .u:. ‘h‘...
""V A. 4 .
f 1:!” ("r‘
'7' ‘ vvy. .-
3.

I“:

“w.

p
a
g
. 'p'..'q a“.--
' .I ‘,_
o ..l . .---
...
' .‘ ‘
fi.’ 1 ’ “ 1;.-
‘ .
‘U
‘-
ua. p
‘ ‘
...U'I {'h‘.‘
'V II
‘
"
uz“

-.
In " P
. ~,.J :
. 1.. th
A
" 1‘ 4»... ‘
W 0:.
q
K
c. ‘
. 9” “FA-
' c~”;
I
3".-
: 7‘.”
I El'.‘ .9 r
H
u 5'. \f
”'5.

1 7.073 and 1 5.305 residents.(FBI Crime Statistics-February. 1998: A1-
A3 Lansing State Journal).

Over the years.there has been a good deal of discussion in police
circles of crime-fighting effectiveness of foot patrol versus motor
patrol: one officer patrol versus two officer patrol: fixed patrol
versus fluid patrol: whether or not to use detectives on patrol: and
other operational matters (Payne. D.M.and R.C.Trojanowicz.1985). Lack of
knowledge about deterrence has meant that many of these operational
patrol decisions have been made on the basis of speculation rather than
facts.

Social disorganization has been presented as a "cause" of
increased anomie that resulted in increased crime rates (Taylor.B.T. and
Coventon, 1988:26). Implicit in this assertion is that disorganized
communities lack effective informal social control mechanisms. For this
reason. formal control devices are important for' maintaining. or
creating. order (Taylor. B.T. and Coventon, 1988: 4.26.553-590). An
early study feund that. although the police are portrayed “as uniquely
visible as the guardian of the public peace. they are perceived as
barriers to movement toward change. which warrants a re-examination of
law enforcement's philosophy and practices (Police Training and

Performance Study. 1970:1).

:1. b.' N
’1'-‘Z.l“
I G v.

I»6¢,~O o
. u p

' rub-vb .

1:“? I" <

c..- h.

le-oan §..
.- ...;
": us 5‘,

a . .
" A‘..
0‘

..-..-

.::.T l- ‘r
on. ’ ~
F:-.,'-‘o ‘-
I \
.—
~v._ v ‘-
‘ .
c
P'_:O..;..
.'
b :..

if 43:; r. s'

 

 

n
‘5
Y
9‘ ~
‘ I
A;.“
. 'r
U n.
' L.. C
‘w.;'
..
.~ t‘
‘.J
..\ ,;:‘--
." \H
V‘-
I4
'5
U‘ ' ‘
7’-
3 . .
‘
F.
o 5:.

According to a 1976 Justice Administration Report regarding a
study of“ the Lansing Police Department. this perception has not
diminished but intensified. and the image of the police as the defender.
protector. and servant of the people is tarnished and has become a
matter of considerable concern (Trojanowicz and Nicholson.1976). The
degree to which a citizen perceives the police as the defender.
protector. and.servant of the public may be the best predictor of how
readily the public will request the services of the police and how
responsive they will be to police requests for assistance. This is why
investigating citizen perceptions of police is of paramount importance
in defining the primary purpose(s) of police activities.

In a 1992 study. Vernon and Lasley pointed out the importance of
citizen surveys that examine perfbrmance and service priorities. In
their study. the crucial question of “How can you tell whether public
safety is getting better or worse in the nations crime infested cities?”
was raised. Few issues were debated more often and more vociferously.
during mayoral elections in recent years in places like New York City.
Miami. Detroit. and Lansing. Mayors often boast about the number of
police officers on the street. but that says nothing about what those

officers are accomplishing in terms of crime reduction. Looking at the

.‘3. ‘
-.U ‘
'A
h.
’\
_
b g.
$._
A
0- '
d
a
pa.

'-
K-’
T. ya“.-
’ \
‘v
.
...
U h .g‘
C \~ A
'5
‘
I
.‘c-

r 0”}!-
J—‘o.

r“ .1..ng

I l
50*.

pt

0

number of violent crimes reported is a better indicator of crime
reduction and police effectiveness (Vernon and Lasley. 1992).

It is reasonable to assume that people may st0p reporting crimes
altogether if they are convinced that the police are unable to help
them. A decline in reported crimes may actually indicate a heightened
sense of helplessness. What may matter most. in the end. is how safe
citizens feel. and the only way to find out is by asking them (Financial
World Reports. February 1. 1994).

A number of cities. notably Portland. Oregon. now survey their
citizenry in an effbrt to appraise and potentially improve police. fire.
sanitation. and a range of other city programs. Police need to connect
with the citizens. who are recipients of their services. This is
consistent with Trojanowicz's Community Policing Theory (1976). which
was adapted from the Normative Sponsorship Theory advanced by Sower
(1957:317) which asserts:

Change in any complex organization should come from outside
that organization but along existing Normative lines.

Police take an oath to protect and serve the people of their
community: therefore. in a technical and ethical sense. police are
servants of the people. In light of this fact. it is odd that citizens
are seldom consulted about police practices, policies. procedures or

effectiveness.

St'ateqv

I...,a4 ‘1
n H‘ x H)

“vu'd'

W ‘fi. A '
1 ‘ Q.
.. “ ‘r\‘~“’
F.‘ "v. I‘
I.‘
~u‘firp
.

H
I;
‘H
‘
tI'

: ‘Fn
i v" I t‘
. ‘ h
;':;h P
U A
P
"D ~57“:
:an,_‘
I .‘ A-_
v a.-. ‘

53"&d
"I .kA

Strategy

Community policing started in Lansing. the capital city of
Michigan. approximately eight years ago. Since that time. community
policing has sporadically expanded to fOUrteen areas of the city (See
Appendix A).

This study used a survey instrument (See Appendix B) to examine
citizens' perceptions of police. and police practices in general and
community policing as it has evolved in Lansing over the past feur years
in the designated areas.

Neighborhood areas or blocks have been designated as community
policing areas. the oldest designation occurring approximately in 1991
and the most recent occurring in late 1994. Although community policing
areas cover approximately 51 percent of Lansing's total geographic
landscape. slightly less than 20 percent of Lansing's population are
served by community policing.

This study provides a valuable analysis of community policing
effOrts and its impact on citizens' perceptions of police and police
practices. The study compares and contrasts citizen perceptions and
expectations in order to identify differences and similarities both
within and between categories of perceptions. The data could be an

important indicator of citizen frustration or satisfaction with police

3:: x5: WC?

 

IT... If 35‘? 10
::m.*“.,«.
We of rm 3

L;-AO
AC P!

L -‘v
H

‘6’." '"I‘v 9r.
"fix "I ‘J Lg

:IEZN:1 DDT :

u'o‘.~.."

~ C. 35 3"f

dU'b d

 

 

 

2215 of 1:9 ‘

 

22‘;r(>;fi h
..'- v P” \u
(..w-

I.‘ “at...

It "'5

v | on..'.}' a
.

~‘:"IA~.--.“
“m -
P .

" ' Tan!

L-..) l

fr +
L50 a
Tr:‘3nr.
V“ v“
:N.
..F!

and police practices. Hoperlly. through such an analysis the researcher
will be able to capture how community policing transforms a neighborhood
community.
Purpose of the Study

An objective of the study was to allow citizen respondents an
Opportunity to rate police performance in general and. specifically.
community policing leadership and practices. It also will yield
infbrmation about respondent attitudes and perceptions of the police in
terms of the following selected factors of (a) conlnunity policing
leadership. (b) interaction facilitation. (c) support. (d) work
facilitation. and (e) goal emphasis (for elaboration see Definition of
Terms). It identified demographic characteristics of the respondents
which accounted fOr some of the differences in perceptions and facili-
tated a comparison and contrasting of responses from citizens who reside
in neighborhoods where community policing is in place against responses
from citizens who reside in neighborhoods where community policing is
not in place. This study replicated the work of Gross and Herriott
(1965) and Trojanowicz and Nicholson (1976) with the exception of
shifting the emphasis from the police officer to the citizen consumer.

Trojanowicz (1976) identified five factors: (1) leadership (2)

interaction facilitation. (3) support. (4) work facilitation. and (5)

‘ J
' . .1 ‘ . crv
«‘5’ ‘N' C
QCU'VU -

2'21235 sf in:
...,.' ;,. H
I33... .719 ... -..
'1: :35 8.“. ‘I'I:
Ia: 53:2 f",-

"w'

3.23215 were

"' :5] I :0 ,4

' 5; ...) .4

’V-

II‘ I I'- Y'V":

' U. l' I a ‘-
v

or -.“ ..FA‘.
' 'viI I I... 'r‘ I
'.
"I u-
*5: t":
‘9‘. ‘
-.2. J- I} tr“-
"'4.
9
.l“ :’r :-
u I v ::
'V. h
K‘;i\“'¥-
”'flrI:

...: +-._ .
La'~:] 1'
{rfli

goal emphasis as being relevant for rotated factor matrix. Items which
loaded .40 and above were selected for inclusion in a factor. The
process of index correlation insures that the items in the index are
measuring in the same direction along a dimension and at the same time
it gives an indication of the strength of the index. A reliability check
was made from Gross et.al. (1965). in which the responses of 1.303
subjects were put through an item analysis from which a Guttman scale
for EPL was derived. It yielded a coefficient of reproductability of
.978. In Trojanowicz et.al. (1976) the correlation of each item in the
Lansing Police Department Study to the total sum of all potential items
in each index.was computed resulting in a item total index correlation.

For the purpose of the present study. a standard was established
that only those items showing a corrected item total correlation between
.40 and .80 were to be included in any index. The lower level of .40 was
established to insure the strength of each index. The upper limit of .80
was established because any item reaching such a high correlation with
the total index is essentially measuring the same thing and the
inclusion of it would be redundant. thus increasing the probability of
a skewed distribution.

In terms of this study. factor one is Community Policing Leader-

ship (CPL). factor two is Interaction. Support is factor three. factor

{5.4.1 15 ['T F
rates will

”A“; gem TQ‘F I

'7' .0. v -

 

 

3mm of T

 

I

, .
93.393 F
a, z. p... ‘
6 \ '.. A
.:‘;‘,)b a ..J g
p

391: ‘ .'

u . Frag S
H- ‘I
*5 313.1 {
wt ,5)

Y
.“C'aut

5.: ;.
I“? h'
\5‘2 1'
if a» n .

I 8

J 51.4} ‘n p:
172‘ '
‘2 in

U u Cfizifl

four is Work Facilitation and factor five. is Goal Emphasis. These
indices will be used fer comparison purposes (Trojanowicz and
Nicholson.1976:56-60).
Definition of Terms

The following are provided to clarify terms used in this study:

Community PolicingLeadership: the effort of a community police officer
to confbrm to a definition of their role that stresses their obligation
to improve the quality of police services in the community. The process
whereby this is accomplished includes influencing the activities of an
individual or a group and fulfilling their vital needs by integrating
them into the efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation
(Trojanowicz and Noore.1988:No.15).

Expectations: beliefs and demands about what should or ought to be done
and what should not or ought not to be done by role incumbent (Sterling.
1972:7).

Goal Emphasis: behavior that stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting the
group's goal or achieving excellent perfbrmance (Bower and Seashore.
1966:68).

 

Interaction Facilitation: behavior that encourages members of the group
to develop close. mutually satisfying relationships (Bower and Seashore.
1966:66).

Leadership: the process of influencing the activities of an individual
or group in effbrts toward goal achievement in a given situation (Hersey
and Blanchard. 1977:84).

Norm of Distributive Justice: a standard that contains the strong
expectation that the ”investments" one makes should be followed by
returns of value in proportion top the ratio of returns over "invest-
ments" of’ others in similar circumstances (Trojanowicz and
Nicholson.1976:56-60).

19525 or bat.

.‘. (T P-‘r’
M 4 ,‘
:‘fi \Irc'.1...

km of 95‘3"
_____._

I
Ir. I.
0- F‘

I l ’a ‘
3:2. 4L. 1 C...)

aira ‘F I
“0:“ .Z a

,- 1' ;
r t P r A

I I e VH0.
—_
:«-p on f‘"‘
v a: w l..-" ‘

*Iu F. .‘ ..
w I; .‘e L”:

.F
F‘.

, A .,
1.35 33. 3:

. .
-
I 4
\ ~- .
.I“
. l'fl
" in.) ";.-
r. ._

 

lure AC
PM
L»- ‘ .
“21“s-
Lids-4'] ‘
v.
"r‘I
."':e

Norm of Equity: a standard that requires that the exchange between two
persons. or between person and organization. be fair but not necessarily
equal (Trojanowicz and Nicholson.1976 56-60).

Norm of Reciprocity: a standard based on the mutual expectation of a
reasonably equivalent exchange or paying back of what one has received
(Trojanowicz and Moore 1988: No. 15).

 

Police Performance Expectation: citizen perceptions of the police
effbrts to confbrm to a definition of role that stresses the obligation
to improve the quality of performance in terms of citizen expectations
(Gross and Herriott. 1965 22).

Role: the dynamic aspect of positions - what a person does as an
occupant of a specified position/role (Sterling, 1972 6).

Role Conflict: exposure to and awareness of conflicting expectations in
connection with either single or multiple role incumbencies
(Sterling.1972:11).

Role Perception: observations and judgements made by others about the
adequacy of the perfOrmance of a role incumbent (Sterling. 1972:9).

Role Performance: behavior characteristics of an incumbent of one
position toward the incumbent of another position (Sterling. 1972 8).

Suppprt: behavior that enhances someone else's feeling of personal worth
and importance (Bowers and Seashore. 1966:65).

Work Facilitation: behavior that helps achieve goal attainment by such
activities as scheduling. coordinating. planning. and by providing
resources such as tools. materials. and technical knowledge (Bowers and
Seashore. 1966:65).

 

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Study
One of the most neglected subjects in law enfbrcement services are
the citizen consumer: the persons. households. and businesses that the

police are sworn to serve, protect and defend. Specifically. what do

10

:ftizer‘s thin.

181531.13. 03.

If‘Il'fi‘l 3:13;:

 

 

F;(‘Cv'lf1
1"» I».

|
”I. 185‘ 9‘2"?»

N' V' \‘U‘. ‘5

”’2‘“ 5'. ‘

I" ,
.i...:.: j C.-
'1.

a;-
‘.~
1‘ :
" n
ETJ rwg 5"‘5
.. :gn
~
‘Ju..' :fl‘r
U)“
I'-
[\‘e

54‘.
\ i“ .
...Iajn T‘n ‘:
I
x
‘
1“ ,
“‘IHPP“ ‘
i ‘ ‘
I
7‘
P ‘.‘

rC‘-_‘ n
‘41] <2
C‘s
‘3
w ‘ h
a 33;;4,’
‘7‘?)

 

citizen's think about the law enfbrcement services they are currently
receiving. how do they believe these services can be improved or
changed. and what part they envision themselves playing in preventing
criminal activity are often overlooked or ignored.

Historically. police work has increasingly become more reactive
and less proactive. As the social distance increased police became more
reactive and less proactive. because they did not live in the community
they had fewer community anchors and were less likely to be actively
involved with community initiative outside of being pressed into
reactionary service after a call or incident occurs.

Studies critically dealing with comnunity perceptions of the
effectiveness of police are extremely limited as observed by Trojanowicz
and Banas (1985a). Interagency studies such as Sterling's (1972). which
examined the impact on the police officer in the field. do not ade-
quately address the corresponding influence on citizen attitudes
(Sterling.J W.,1972:5-12). The police hold a unique occupational
position in terms of the community. The role of the police officer as an
authority figure involves discretion to use power to influence the
attitudes. expectations and behaviors of citizens. The way in which
individual citizens perceive police. or fbr that matter one another. was

11) a greater or lesser degree influenced by their age. sex. ethnic

11

' ‘ A .A:O
Eryn. 90);“.

'm
( I
"1
{—3
. .
‘3
«1’
u!

n.";fl“ -'

fair-'DAJ" .3
V"

The rec

U ‘V'I

"‘..VI - g
- """fiI DH,
i‘h b‘r _ ‘

vie. "o'.
“ fl‘o r
P "’ 't‘.a ..

”93 5? FE- I:

d .l "' ‘
. -
V ‘
V
r - A-..“
'- H3..—

. II..‘I'~§_“~
W“
‘5
>-
0 ~
~
I:
'p. -
_" fl‘PA
. b':‘
' .
\z‘fip“
‘h'-.\-\-.
”a
.V
t- ‘5‘
‘ 3;. ’2.
in
§.‘
. ..- F‘
b .—
" a

origin. education. and socioeconomic status (Challenge. 1967:92-93).
For this reason. demographic variables are indicators of“ citizen
perception variability.

The results of this study will be used as a comparative measure of
citizen perceptions that may assist the police in redefining the
priorities of their activities. Hopefully. this study will provide a
frame of reference fer a citizen/police partnership. Police must learn
to move beyond simply enforcing the law. Regulating human behavior
within communities through positive examples and substantial community
involvement and interaction will be the hallmark of policing in the
future.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework fbr this study involved a linkage of many
related concepts. in an attempt to address the problem of community
satisfaction and frustrations. These concepts are identified and
elaborated in the review of the literature and serve as the basis for

the development of the hypotheses that were tested.

12

:65“!

‘1‘2'3‘. fut:

. l

\Ii-‘AO ..

‘v. :‘J IT"

Dr‘-

3'33.»
.-...- L

a- .

It, ylhp ‘
.. ._ T...

I. T.”

‘“‘ I; PPF“:

5". >—

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As an outgrowth of the passage of the Omnibus Crime Act of 1966.
federal funds were earmarked, and numerous national public opinion polls
and surveys were undertaken. by the National Opinion Research Center
(NORC) and the Bureau of Social Science Research (BSSR) in an effort to
assess the attitudes of the public regarding crime in the streets.

The most comprehensive study of crime and the criminal justice
system was published in 1967. Its documentation and findings are the
best available source for comparative and valuative purposes. Although
somewhat dated. the famous 1967 study "The Challenge of Crime in a Free
Society” undertaken by President Johnson's Crime Comission on Law
Enforcement was without question the most comprehensive body of work
ever done in this country. and it provides clear evidence of heightened
public concern about crime.

Until recently. police and community relations were given only
peripheral attention and rarely. if ever. considered in terms of their
potential relationships with crime. ”As with disease. so with crime: if
causes are to be understood. if risks are to be evaluated. and if
preventive or remedial actions are to be taken. each kind must be looked

at separately” (McIntyre. Jennie. 1970:383).

13

com“

I" U"

Q:‘AAO
d
5 cut

(... .._
:1. \H

(“F

O'r
54

...--. (

Penna -

\r ~-

v. v,‘
I

Cl".
0‘ (I
c“

m ' .
‘Q.’ . ‘ ‘
fig; ‘

V‘.

r...

\
v-

18;“

v

:1'

T)
N

(.

(I1

(

Background of the Study

In 1976. an evaluative study of the Lansing Police Department was
made in which researchers were allowed to closely scrutinize police
operations and personnel for the purpose of identifying factors that
affect the role of police officers in the organization. This research
focused on the role of the first-line supervisor as perceived by the
sergeants themselves. the officers they supervised. and the persons who
supervised the sergeants. Officers were divided into five groups for the
purpose of analysis: patrol officers: detectives: sergeants:
lieutenants: and comand officers (captains and above). All of the
officers in the department. except three new recruits and two officers
who were ill. were interviewed and filled out a questionnaire. In
addition. the researchers had an opportunity to be participant observers
of the interactions of the officers. of various ranks. as they performed
their duties (Trojanowicz and Nicholson. 1976:56-60). The study was
based on an earlier study by Gross (1965:22). which introduced the
concept of executive professional leadership (EPL). EPL was defined as:

The effort of an executive of a professionally staffed

organization to confbrm to a definition of their role that

stresses an obligation to improve their performance.

Trojanowicz (1976) adapted the EPL concept to a new situation by

applying it to a police organization. From this "parent" study. the

14

- . I' , -"
:‘Jfltrt WH'I‘:J
new ESE

VV'“! .vl‘

any in a 9:3

A‘;;AA . .p
- r
i" it"s '2: E

cries ir t‘e

#4 '
“T.“ (‘- A
l

'
c .l‘. -.J“

5: Ear
'N
...‘+
~i
"’ 31" z i-
.V‘
5
$1.!-
":1

current Community Policing Leadership study emerged. The citizens were
chosen because they were the recipients of police services and. as such.
are in a good position to assess and evaluate the effectiveness and
leadership of police services in their community. The community police
officers were selected as the group to be studied because they perfbrm
duties in the community face-to-face that are most directly associated
with the purpose of a police agency. They are the most visible
governmental representative to the citizen.

In sum. the role of community police officer was selected fOr this
citizen study because it is the central agency position exerting the
most direct intervention over the citizen. The CPL score is a definition
of the conlnunity police officer's (CPO) role. which "stresses the
obligation of the officer to improve the services in the community.”
The CPL index is comprised of a number of questions containing specific
elements. which describe behavior(s) that are indicators of the CPO's
efforts to fulfill these role expectations.

The Police

It is hard to overstate the intimacy of the contact between the
police and the community. Police officers deal with people when they are
both most threatening and most vulnerable: when they are angry: when

they are frightened: when they are desperate: when they are drunk: when

15

Q
l
I

5»

re are no
I“. n A
a. 6C1 we..."
inrl’.;" OAf‘rn‘

).‘-»-J.'C"O

3"?) 10. and

 

(”‘0‘ .

.';.. tr‘cid .
-5“.

4.»

they are violent: or when they are ashamed. Every police action can
affect someone's dignity. self respect. sense of privacy. and
constitutional rights. As a matter of routine. police officers become
privy to. and make judgements about. secrets that most citizens guard
jealously from ‘their' closest friends. Since police action is so
personal. it is inevitable that most people welcome official protection
and resent official interference (Trojanowicz and Carter. 1988).

Police must be vigilant in the performance of their duties to
insure that the actions they take are legal and just. but remain
flexible) in their decision making to allow’ for modification and
compromise: legal in terms of community and individual rights: just in
terms of mediating the situational circumstances with which they are
confronted: and consistent in terms of the application of the spirit and
intent of the law they are sworn to uphold.

Crime does not look the same on the street as it does in the
legislative chamber. How much noise or profanity does it take to make
conduct ”disorderly” within the meaning of the law? When must a quarrel
be treated as a criminal assault. at the threat. or at the first shove.
or at the first blow. or after blood is drawn. or when serious injury is
inflicted? How suspicious must conduct be before there is "probable

cause"- the constitutional basis for an arrest? Every police officer at

16

the mafia t:
In” Extent a

L ..
3! I»? 80:3

‘ I)

:'.1‘.'V; 1”:-
5.-
is 1.:

5‘3 BSE'C‘es

that time is the interpreter of the law (Challenge,1967:10). In short.
the problem confronting the police is that of discretion. How and to
what extent a law will be enfOrced is determined by the police officer
on the scene. This requires an officer who is capable of critical
thinking through a multitude of variables (Berkley. 1969:89-100).

For these reasons. it is imperative that law enfbrcement officials
and agencies reestablish the comunication channels/networks of the
past. The police must actively encourage citizen reporting and provide
comprehensive feedback to citizens and citizen groups.

The fbllowing passage from The Challenge indicates the importance

 

of patrol work to crime reduction. Research by Trojanowicz et. al.
(1987-1988) substantiates the assertions advanced in the first two
paragraphs. Additionally. the research findings by Levine and McEwen
(1985). validate the assertion in the last paragraph. which attempts to
clarify the optimum effective numbers of police officers needed.

The heart of police law enforcement is patrol. the movement
around in an assigned area. on foot or by vehicle. of
unifbrmed police officers. In practically every city police
department at least one-half of the sworn personnel perform
their duties in uniform on the street. Patrol officers are
not. of course. mere sentries who make their rounds at a
fixed paceon a fixed schedule. They stop to check buildings.
to investigate out-of—the-way occurances. to question
suspected persons. to converse with citizens familiar with
local events and personalities. If they are motorized, they
spend much of their time responding to citizen complaints
and the reports that are relayed to them over their radios.

17

There can be no doubt that large numbers of visible police
officers are needed on the streets.

For example. a Commission analysis showed that 61.5 percent
of over 9.000 major crimes against the person including
rapes. robberies. and assaults in Chicago over a six-month
period occurred on the streets or in other public premises.
Crime dramatically declines when police patrol areas on
foot. According to a 1966. study the number of crimes
committed in the New York subways also declined by 36.1
percent as a result of’ a uniformed transit patrolman
assigned to every train during the late night hours.
Although all police experts agree that patrol is an
essential police activity. the problem of how many police
officers. under what orders and using what techniques.
should patrol which beats and when. is a complicated. highly
technical one. Perhaps the best proof is the fact that the
ratios of police officers per thousand residents in cities
over 500.000 population range from 1.07 to 4.04. while the
incidence of reported crime shows no gross difference
(Challenge. 1967:95).

Crime in America

Crime in America has historically been fOund to be associated with
two powerful social trends: increasing urbanization and the increasing
numerousness, restlessness. and resistiveness of American youth. These
trends are interrelated in many ways. and intertwined with yet another
trend that appears to be intimately associated with crime. increasing
affluence. an abundance of material goods provides an abundance of
motives and opportunities fer stealing. and stealing is the fastest

growing type of crime in America (Challenge. 1967:5).

18

Corst‘Tt.

54“"! fin
U (Illu‘r; C) 'h
ram-“1a a

'ioo

$5.951 COT

' N
‘b ‘
h“'
d“!
‘.
"‘9’;
.. .
,. .
’- ‘30‘

Constituents from every legislative districts across the country
have expressed their concerns to Washington about gang and drug-related
violence and street crime and. as a result. fueled the passage of a $30
billion crime package in 1996 designed to add 100.000 police officers
nationwide. assist prison expansion, finance anti-crime strategies. and
select "community service" programs. Hopefully. some of these funds will
eventually find their way into the community policing program. which is
a community service program and an anti-crime strategy.

Since the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill. approximately $300
million has been pumped into Michigan's law enfbrcement efforts. with
some of the local governments coming up with their 25 percent match
through questionable revenue raising activities. At least $40 million
has been used to combat domestic violence and assist its victims.
Approximately $28 million has gone to "beef up" law enforcement efforts
on domestic violence. and another $12 million has gone for shelters fOr
battered women. The remaining $260 million has been used to increase the
blue line by approximately 3.400 officers. In addition. another $150—200
million has been expended on prison construction. In spite of all this.
Michigan still has not met the "truth-in-sentencing target" of second-

time violent offenders serving at least 85 percent of their sentences.

19

 

Hi9) 051001:

AS 009'
grammar; r»;
in: range"
:l's. barking

‘IT‘EESES Cl:

in.

lbs-T: I
'Mlve .

I'-

'1” A,
“El! 19.“

 

Him Visibility

As one of the founders of community policing points out.
preliminary research on community demands for police service indicate
that responding to community needs on minor calls. such as abandoned
cars. barking dogs. juvenile vandals and trespassers. significantly
increases citizen satisfaction of police performance and perception of
confidence (Trojanowicz. 1988). If responding to community demands such
as these reassures laweabiding citizens. then the physical appearance of
a police officer walking through the neighborhoods of the community and
touching base with school officials. parents. counselors. peers and
neighbors in a manner similar to that of the postal service should have
an even greater impact. First of all. police must recognize that they
empowered by and receive their mandate from the community. and are
responsible to the community in the perfbrmance of their task. In short,
the authority that the police exercise is granted by the people
(Community Relations Report. 1987). Second. community relations must be
a product of total police Operations involving all personnel - it is the
interactive effect of departmental programing and officer behavior

(Carter. 1986).

20

 

 

£8st TIN.

A (a. 5
13751591) :
y fo‘ICE-r I”.
are??? .-
jg no rel-at
5;;retersfc"
§f"‘3 by 156
regain the :
33333 City.
the other *

fi‘nd-zaI‘

lb-i‘u". HE b:

 

Response Time

.A Law Enfbrcement Assistance Administration project called the
“Kansas City Response Time Study” tested the assumption that the fpgtgp
an officer responds to a crime scene. the pjgppp the probability of
apprehending the criminal. The results of the study indicated that there
is no relationship between a rapid crime scene response and the
apprehension of criminal perpetrators. Typically. the perpetrator was
gone by the time the victim or witness called the police. hence.
negating the possibility of apprehending the criminal at the crime scene
(Kansas City. Missouri Response Time Analysis Study. 1977). However. on
the other hand. a 1976 survey of 4.000 St. Louis area residents.
conducted by Roger B. Parks. found that victims who were dissatisfied
with how police responded to their own situation were much more negative
in their evaluations than non victims. Efforts that enhanced
satisfaction included: filling out reports. questioning subject.
checking premises. and recovering property (Parks. 1976:89-104). One
survey examined police contact of 1.676 citizens. who had recent
contacts with police. found that comfbrting or reassuring citizens had
a strong positive impact on satisfaction (Percy.1980.8(1)). Approximate-
ly 4.000 St. Louis residents were interviewed concerning police perfor-

mance in 1972. and of those who had been victims. there was a negative

21

iSSJCfdtTS.

 

car-related s‘.
m In ass:
isszr‘qsrt l '.

UbyU'

sways dc“:

lii'lr‘lty of

 

 

N;“-
i,‘ I .-‘
'3' a-‘
l ~k‘a
. r“
s p.
{
‘3' One-
.“ a.

association with police performance. Quick response time. again.
correlated significantly with increased satisfaction. Citizen evaluation
had low association with the clearance rate and with the size of the
department (Parks. 1975). A specific study of response time from fOur
surveys done in Kansas City during 1972 and 1973 showed that the
majority of citizens were satisfied with police response time. with
whites more satisfied than blacks and older people more satisfied than
the young. In addition. whites and older respondents overall expressed
more general satisfaction with police (Pate. 1976). A later National
Institute of Justice replication of the study in Peoria, San Diego.
Rochester. and Jacksonville supports the Kansas City findings (Spelman
and Brown. 1984). However, to imply that response time is not an
important element in patrol management is inaccurate as indicated by the
fact that the Kansas study f0und that citizens use response time as a
measure of satisfaction with police and. indirectly. a measure of police
competence.
lkflfltxwment

There is no single factor which can be used to determine the
"ideal” police strength for a given area. While certain quantitative
variables can be programmed into a comprehensive model for determination

0f oDtimum patrol officer deployment. the most fundamental variable is

22

 

am haw effl

CE fifty e}!

 

Traditional I

k‘flMJ

vb‘. d:
N‘P»._ ‘
. b6 0
k i» :‘ Jf a
. ,
v.5. 'h’ts.
h".

”5 rttfr

rcfli:nd-
.10. .. it

«Hi

53” 0f t?

P
" F‘LH
‘~~‘
{ .
C9».
"~.r +:
£1“
‘FPk‘r
‘U. “ '(-. o
-‘h‘lqlm‘ r.“
3
.
Pa.
F 3'5"“
5:1 ‘
-."E
P31"). \

available resources how many police officers are available fOr
deployment. Of course. more important is the type of activities officers
do and are expected to do. The number of personnel available. the types
of calls and demands for police will influence the deployment pattern
and how effectively the department can perform the functions the
community expects (Levine. and McEwen. 1985).
Traditional Patrol Operations

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). less than 10
percent of a patrol officer's on-duty time is spent on crime-related
activities. This includes answering crime calls. conducting investiga-
tions. writing reports. booking arrestee's. and testifying in court. The
remainder of the time is spent on handling service calls (admittedly.
some of these calls can evolve into arrest situations). traffic
enforcement and control. information gathering. and uncomnitted patrol

time (BJS. 1983). Trojanowicz and Carter (1988) assert that this data

 

implies that traditional patrol operations are inefficient and perhaps
misdirected. That is.there is a significant” amount of wasted patrol
officer time organized for crime control duties. 'which' are not
forthcoming. In traditional patrol. unconmitted time is designated as
”preventive patrol ." wherein the officer in a marked patrol car drives

r‘ilfldomly through the patrol district as a crime prevention activity. The

23

“f!

‘1"

s .
g...

D.-
.‘ v
'd-\.

‘I-
v".
"5 a

IQ.
.

IB-

.1

6»

QF.

Iv.

if

t):
O

(’1

‘4 .l
1 I'!

Police Foundation's Kansas City Preventive Patrol Study challenged the
preventive patrol assumption through a year-long quasi-experimental
design study. The findings clearly indicated that preventive patrol
(which is uncommitted and undefined) had no significant effect on crime
rates (Trojanowicz and Carter. 1988). Essentially. in the most basic
tenms. the study fOund that in traditional patrol operations ”preventive
patrol" was not only uncommitted time. it was also nonproductive time
(because it was undefined and undirected).

When viewed in conjunction with the staffing issues described
above. one may assume that traditional approaches to police patrol may
be iiawed. If little time is devoted to crime-related duties and a
significant amount of time is devoted to uncommitted patrol. which does
not prevent crime. how can police resources be better utilized (Kelling.
et.al.. 1974). The findings of this study are problematic because it
attempts to identify ‘unconlnitted' time and then defines uncommitted
time as ‘unproductive' in order to ”solve" staffing problems. Police
agencies are obligated to provide leadership for officers. In a
technical sense. the issue here is quantity versus quality. For example.
is using ”unconmitted time" to establish inroads in the comunity.
99ttln9 to know the residents of a specific neighborhood or area of the

cOlllllunity. and generally building mutual trust and respect between the

24

 

officer ar:

‘ .
matey :
bars and 5'.

Citizens Ass

flFrA.

..‘ M ‘_

3:”? Sigrfi‘i»

'lb

4)

 

officer: and the~ community they serve nonproductive? In order to
accurately and effectively assess this requires well-defined expecta-
tions and strategies.
Citizens Assessment of Police Performance

The research on the subject of police perfbrmance. notably that
done by Whitaker (1982). infers that police agencies should strive fOr
a balance between qualitative and quantitative measures.

Vernon and Lasley (1992). point out in their article that their
research revealed that the fOllowing types of police citizen contacts
are significant:

1) Type of contact (visual or physical):

2) Frequency of contact (number of visual and face-to-face
contacts between police and citizens):

3) Location of contact (home. street. or both): and

4) Quality of the contact such as officer demeanor/politeness.
Officer helpfulness. officer understanding. and officer
caring.

Residents were asked to respond to the statement "I will do
anything possible to work with the police to make my neighborhood a
better place to live.”

Type of Contact
Residents who claimed only visual contact with Operation cul-de-

sac (0CDS) officers improved their outlook toward police/citizen

25

nr‘ .r’hl'
£1116) ,.

b¢~ .ql
:O'Uabt "

wriggclt:

’Pc;r A"..‘
vuyal \‘ly

)9 lift:

...
’1"‘A",
b‘ ""

"5‘.|

(P
(A
‘I

‘F.
L.‘

so»
~-"" Pr
’ x.

K I
wfi—Fa_
H2.

(Q‘-

.-Q
l‘:~ ‘
V‘l

A".
'5

partnerships. Residents who claimed to have at least one face-to-face
contact with 0CDS officers reported improved attitudes toward
police/citizen partnerships.
Frequency of Contact

Those claiming to see an officer once daily significantly improved
their opinion more than those seeing an officer once per week or once
per month. respectively. The impact of face-to-face contact between
citizens and police was nearly two times higher than that observed fOr
visual contact only. supporting the postal face-to-face model.
Location of Contact

Contacts in the home improved partnership attitudes, to a much
larger extent. Those having contact with police. both in homes and in
the streets. also reported a significant improvement in their attitude
toward police/citizen partnership.
Quality of Contact

Demeanor and politeness. helpfulness. understanding and caring
were characteristics in patrolling that affected positive attitudes
towards policing of these ”caring” was the most important. Benson
(1981)fbund that regardless of race. social class. degree of political
alienation. or belief in police integrity. citizens who believe that the

crime rate is increasing were more critical of police service than those

26

 

he did rt:

tented to r

fies be

“Wally

buy...

 

 

 

treaty Hz,
on.-. U .

“v-

Krfi
$389!] hr.-
...

’F‘A

‘
1‘» LVFS SJ"

1‘ ‘
re93-65 to

‘.
PI;.,‘
N

(of

(Pt we 0‘

Ni

who did not. Benson also found lower socioeconomic class respondents
tended to rate police negatively more often than those who are in the
middle or upper socioeconomic classes. regardless of other factors. Non-
whites were more likely to be critical of police perfbrmance.
especially if they also believed police were dishonest or unequal in
their treatment of citizens.

Jacobs (1971) research fOund that approximately nine out of ten
respondents said most Detroit policemen were not totally honest in the
performance of their duties. Slightly more than half also said police
treated blacks and whites differently. A third said police discriminated
between homeowners and renters. Police performance is measured by
factors such as an officer's conlnunication skills. how the officer
relates to the public. how the officer evaluates situations. and the
quality of the officer's decisions. all tell us more about the type of
work the officer does as well as his/her effectiveness (Whitaker. 1984).
Ethnic and Racial Attitudes Impact

Many surveys have shown a high correlation between race and
attitudes toward police. Notably. Blacks and Hispanics are less
supportive of the police in general and are particularly more likely to
feel that the police are discriminatory and use excessive force (Radlet.

1986). Furthermore. Blacks indicate the belief that they receive poorer

27

 

service fr:

   

7.639335? 3'
I ..V r
“YB-Ch}
hrnr
53C (aw);

" . u .
sn- .§..
i‘kt'clt .

“£115 of

service from police than Whites. and Hispanics feel they receive
inadequate police protection (Carter. 1983). In a recent article in the
FBI Law Enfbrcement Bulletin (1992:2). Vernon and Lasley state that in
inner-city neighborhoods. such as the one targeted in Operation cul-de-
sac (0CDS). several obstacles stand in the way of creating strong
police/citizen partnerships. 0n the one hand. extreme fear of becoming
victims of street violence causes most inner-city residents to ignore
their crime prevention duties and to focus their efforts on sheer
survival. Additionally. many inner city residents fear or distrust the
police. This fear and distrust may stem from their personal experiences
with police corruption in their native countries.

A 1967 survey of 511 randomly selected adults in the District of
Columbia not only confirmed a correlation between perceived police
performance and race. but the study also determined that pro-police
sentiment was more comon among females than males (Biderman et
al..1967). In 1975. a major survey of half of the 10,000 households
contacted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 13 large cities was done by
Wesley G. Skogan. These findings reveal that the strongest individual
determinant of how people assess police perfbrmance was race: cities
with more Blacks were routinely less favorable toward police. For

instance. in Chicago the racial gap is marginal. but in Los Angeles. St.

28

".
We.

t?:’ Pfiha

Ԥ Davy

Louis. Philadelphia and the other cities involved the gap was markedly
significant. Skogan fbund that the more Blacks in any city. the more
likely the overall results will show less satisfaction with police
(Skogan. W.G.. 1981.6(2): 183-194).

According to Bayley. (1969) while only 5 percent of Whites said
that cooperating with police was ”just asking fOr trouble.” 21 percent
of Blacks and 22 percent of Spanish-surnamed citizens agreed with that
statement. A 1976 survey of 800 local voters in the city and county of
Denver confirmed these findings (Lovrich et al.. 1976. 12 (2): 197-222).
Three separate studies examined the attitudes of Hispanics toward
police. Carter (1985) conducted two surveys in Texas. one in 1983
involving 312 Hispanics and another in 1985 of 500 Hispanics. In
essence. the 1983 study showed that Hispanics do not believe that the
police can significantly affect criminal incidents. The latter study
showed any contact tended to lower the rating of police performance.
Age and Gender's Impact on Perception of Police

A 1977 Canadian survey of 1.816 households showed that age and sex
were both correlated with satisfaction toward police perfbrmance. with
younger people and males more likely to rate police lower. In addition.
the survey examined personal experience and determined that those who

had negative contacts with police. or heard about such experiences from

29

wars rm'
vww v . vr -

I‘l
Lyn

(1"

3).

lictils Pei
In I

vict‘m. wt.

survey 3%

 

cfssaf's‘:

" d

CF'Fc?-&

. ..c :3.—
v“

(we

r

"L I
7:
' .‘
.Ji" Cr,
" by 1
d O
I
werlgd C
’\
...;-
:t“B\-‘
‘4 .3 5"
ll,
\

others reported less satisfaction with police (Kleih et al .1978. 3(4):
441-456).
Victims Perceptions of Police Performance

In 1979. half of the 858 residents of London. England. were
victims. while the other half were not. Looking only at the victims. the
survey showed that victimization was associated with expressed
dissatisfaction with local police. Victims were more likely than non
victims to think the police did only a fair job. were unfair. and that
they should spend more time on serious crimes and community relations.
Of 131 respondents who said they had reported a crime. slightly more
than one in feur. expressed dissatisfaction because they never heard
from the police again. Dissatisfaction with their specific situation
correlated with disapproval of police in general. according to this
survey (Sparks et al.. 1977).
Criticism of the Community Policing Model

According to David Bayley. ”community policing is more rhetoric
than reality. It is a trendy phase Spread thinly over customary reality"
(Bayley. 1987 5). Furthermore. he comments that ”Community policing over
a period of years may become unevenly distributed socially and. hence.
geographically. It could become the mode for the affluent. educated

middle-class. while traditional. reactive policing remained the mode fOr

30

the poor and undereducated underclass" (Bayley. 1987:22). Bayley feels
that ”coumunity policing provides a new and less demanding rationale for
the police at the very moment when the traditional justification is
failing” (Bayley. 1987:10). Furthermore. he asks if the police should
"... mediate quarrels. overcome the isolation of marginal groups
organize social services. and generally assist in developing comnunity”
(Bayley. 1987:11). He goes on to say that he is concerned that
”community policing will increase the power of the police relatively
among government agencies” (Bayley. 1987:13). Conmunity policing is
not. as Bayley states. ”old wine in new bottles" or "neighborhood
policing reborn” (Bayley. 1987:5.9). Trojanowicz and Carter (1988)
assert that foot patrol officers of the past Operated in a different
environmental context and had different informal resources. like the
extended family. churches. and ethnic organizations. Present comunity
policing officers must rely more on formal. private. and public agen-
cies. thus. the necessity to be a neighborhood diagnostician and a link
to comnunity agencies. While this is all well and good. the fact of the
matter is that the effectiveness of old time foot patrols was primarily
attributable to the fact that officers had an identity in the
comnunity/neighborhood they served. They resided. worshiped. and raised

their children in the communities they served: they were anchored.

31

Bayley has stated that "as a public relations strategy. community
policing is exceedingly clever" (Bayley. 1987 12).

Bayley feels that. community policing "may undermine profes-
sionalism” (Bayley. 1987 26). Bayley also asks. ”can police put on a
velvet glove and keep their iron hand in shape?” (Bayley. 1987 9).
Bayley's greatest concern is that community policing ”legitimizes the
penetration of communities by fOrceful enforcement agents of government
... the bottom line is that police officers are now being assigned and
welcomed to watch. probe.and penetrate social processes and institutions
that have previously been out of bounds... so the public's fear of crime
may impel the police to play an interventionist role in social life."
(Bayley.1987:16). Although. as Bayley points out. the ”police
organizations may be less accountable fOr the character of operations or
the conduct of the individual officers because the community policing
officer will have greater freedom of action" (Bayley.1987 24). However.
not only is the officer monitored by the fermal supervisory process.
over time the community residents will become involved not only as the
”eyes and ears" to prevent and solve crime but also the eyes and ears to
prevent and control deviant behavior by the police. Lastly. Bayley
states "Evidence about the shortcomings of customary policing is much

greater than evidence about community policing"(Bayley. 19B7:27.28).

32

1985 Lansing Com-unity Questionnaire

In 1986. a total of 2.328 Lansing residents completed and returned
a community questionnaire developed by the Lansing Police Department and
the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center to help the Lansing Police
Department prioritize its functions and services. The purpose of this
survey was to solicit direct input from citizens of Lansing concerning
what they want from their police department. The survey asked residents
' to prioritize the specific crimes upon which they felt the department
should concentrate its investigative efforts. what community oriented
police services deserve highest priorities. what role citizens should
play in assisting police. and whether or not they were willing to vote
fbr a tax increase to maintain foot patrol program. It is noted by the
researchers that in light of the fact that the illiteracy rate in the
United States falls somewhere between 20-30 percent. the findings of
this survey may not accurately reflect the attitudes and opinions of all
the residents. Furthermore it is also noted that the survey itself
demanded a high level of reading skill and a high degree of confusion to
prioritization of as many as 13 variables (Trojanowicz. Gleason. Pollard
and Sinclair 1987). In the survey questions. a choice is suggested to
the potential respondents and there is no consistency or continuity

between the nine types of problems specified in survey question #1 and

33

be 10 t3:-

 

5mm“

p—_o
v

A)
y,

 

the 10 types of crimes identified in survey question #2. In spite of its
shortcomings. the findings of the 1986 Lansing survey are interesting.1

According to the researchers. when considering the comments as a
whole. 55 (17 percent) were positive. 89 (28 percent) were negative. and
173 (55 percent) were "neutral.”

In viewing only the positive and negative comments. we find that
the N is dramatically reduced from 14 percent of the respondents (317 of
2.328) to 6 percent (144/2.328). with negative ‘written responses
representing 62 percent (89/144) and positive written responses (55 of
144) representing only 38 percent.

The positive comments were mainly good job (21 comments). thank
you (11). good response time (3). keep the helicopter (3) and good
project (8). Thirty-two of the alleged positive comments of ”good job"
(21) and ”thank you” (11) were interpreted by the researchers as the
respondents saying ”Good job. your finally asking the taxpayers what

they think! Or ”Thanks. fer including citizens' input!"

 

1 1) The majority of the respondents indicated hey were more concerned about
crimes that hurt people than property crimes.

2) Evenly divided over tax supported foot patrols.

3) Seventy three percent (1.704/2.328)indicated they have not been a
victim of a crime within the past two years.

4) Less than 14 percent(317/2.328) provided comments.

34

‘i-f-Mnh
(up: a C _:

 

tw-
dayt'z‘
'5

in;
“1'! r6:

*1

A!

‘A’

[h

On the other hand. the negative comments from the 1986 Lansing
survey fell into six major categories/areas and leave no room for
interpretation.’

Negative comments reported by fewer than five residents included:
officers are racist (1). officers harass citizens (2). need more fOOt
patrol officers (3).need more drug enfbrcement (1). officers should be
city residents (2). need a new chief (1). enforce noise ordinance
(2).use more civilians (2). and eliminate motorcycles (1). Negative
complaints about the helicopter being too noisy. intrusive and
impersonal were the largest single category of negative comments (18).
Citizen Cooperation

Overall. what is clear is that the citizens of Lansing are
cooperative: they like being included and asked fOr their input. but

they resent being spied on (helicopter) or threatened with increased

 

The negative comments from the 1986 Lansing survey fell into the following
six major categories:

1) Helicopter is too noisy. Big Brother. Spy in the Sky (18 comments)

2) Questionnaire construction: Bad questions. not understandable. not
in-depth enough (9 comments)

3) Slow Response Time (8 comments)
4) Never see police patrolling neighborhoods (7 comments)
5) Don't need Foot Officers if police would patrol (6 comments)

6) Not Enough Traffic and Noise EnfOrcement (6 comments)

35

taxes. Citizens are more likely to cooperate. support. report and
confide in police officers. who are known by themselves and residents of
their neighborhood. due to a high frequency of positive interaction. To
insure high visibility a model similar to postal service workers could
be used.

Vernon and Lasley’s 1992 research supports this assertion. Their
study indicates that daily face-to-face contact with police officers
dramatically increased positive citizen perceptions. Further support can
be found in Laniers 1993 Lansing Study. in which he indicates that
collaboration with the mail carriers was crucial and beneficial to his
initiating neighborhood contacts and eliciting citizen responses.
Programs and services which provide citizens with access to the police
and offer positive interaction opportunities are necessary. Through the
implementation of these programs. guidelines for acceptable behavior can
be demonstrated by the police through example. illustration. discussion
etc. TOday's youths are tomorrow's adults and if a young person does
not have guide posts to assess their own and others behavior they are
adrift. If police are perceived negatively by youth. these perceptions
will be carried into adulthood and generalized to the overall judicial
system. The ability to earn one's own living is. without question. one

of the most important factors in making a person independent and

36

 

*‘flhpnn ‘
1:}. ’4 Ilia 3"

Re'nc' :‘

A“ y» “a.

- .
kw. '7‘
' .a..

responsible. However. today education is a prerequisite fOr all but the
menial jobs: a great deal of education is a prerequisite for really
promising ones (Challenge.1967:6). In short. the professionalism and
technical specialization of the employment market. in many ways. have
perpetuated a sense of hopelessness in many young people. who do not
envision themselves either with the ability or opportunity to
realistically achieve these goals. The greatest step toward crime
deterrence in the community would be to develop a trust relationship or
mutuality with parents. teachers. peers. neighbors and school
counselors. who come into direct contact with young people in the
community (Challenge. 1967 93-97).

Chiricos (1987).is an analysis of research evidence on rates of
unemployment and crime (U-C). found a significant relationship between
rates of unemployment and crime. He examined the findings of 63 studies
published since 1960 (59 since 1970) that report some measure of the
relationship between rates of unemployment and crime and concluded that.
for the present. it is appropriate to argue that evidence favors the
existence of a positive frequently significant U-C relationship. This is
especially true since 1970 fbr those property crimes making up about 90
percent of the U-C Index totals. This suggests that rational policy

addressing the problems of ”street crime" should recognize that work

37

and crime are principal alternatives fOr most people to generate income.
While the value of mrk and the value of crime are independently
affected by a variety of factors. their relative interdependence as
alternative choices has clear policy implications. That is. effOrts to
increase the availability and value of work can be expected to have some
depressing effect on the value of property crime as an alternative. And.
while the relationship between unemployment and crime rates is far from
perfect. it is sufficient to put jobs back on the agenda fOr dealing
with crime.

An effective and efficient system of justice could be enhanced by
community awareness and support. The merit of an open system of informa-
tion sharing and citizen involvement in crime deterrence and detection
is evidenced by the unparalleled success of popular televisions programs
such as Unsolved Mysteries. Crime Stoppers and Case Closed. The criminal
justice system is an apparatus society uses to enforce the standards of
conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community. It operates
by apprehending. prosecuting. convicting. and sentencing those members
of the comnunity who violate the basic rules of group existence
(Challenge. 1967:7).

Clearly then. warring on poverty. inadequate housing and

unemployment. is warring on crime. A civil rights law is a

law'against crime. Money fbr schools is money against crime.
Medical. psychiatric. and family-counseling services are

38

services against crime. More broadly and more importantly.

every effbrt to improve life in America's "inner cities" is

an effbrt against crime. A community's most enduring

protection against crime is right the wrongs and cure the

illness that tempt men to harm their neighbors (Challenge.

1967z6).
The Community

A closer examination of community life is of utmost importance in
curtailing undesirable behavior and achieving an integrated America. A
community is comprised of more than belief systems. A community is a
group of people who share the same basic beliefs. values and goals. and
have a mutual consciousness of being a part of a larger social
organization (Trojanowicz. Trojanowicz and Moss. 1975). The social
environment of the community includes internal agencies such as schools.
business establishments. homes and. of course. a variety of different
types of racial and ethnic groupings of people. The struggle to
maintain a proper balance between effective law enforcement and fairness
to individuals pervades the entire criminal justice system. It is
particularly crucial and apparent in police work because. as has been
noted. every police action can impinge directly. and perhaps hurtfully.
on a citizens freedom of action (Wittlock.1984:288).

The old communication networks and infbrmation feedback loops.

which existed back when the police walked the beat. must be

reestablished if community policing is going to make a ongoing impact.

39

oy-
g.

n-
L in

(a

‘-

C.

0?
O.
‘G

heng~
'Ju:

Police have a tough job and their exposure is limited and usually
negative. The fact is citizens have more exposure to their mail carriers
then they do to police officers. and the researcher believes that the
postal system model. with some modifications. is worth investigating and
possibly adopting by the police.

Crime cannot be controlled without the interest and partici-

pation of schools. businesses. social agencies. private

groups. and individual citizens (Challenge. 1967: V).

Community input is an indispensable component of effective
community policing. Police work will always involve taking charge of
confused situations which require quick reflexes and/or thoughtful
reactions and devotion to duty. This is why law enfbrcement officers
are poorly equipped fOr their job if they do not understand the legal
issues involved in their everyday work. the nature of the social
problems they constantly encounter, and the psychology of the people
whose attitudes toward law enfbrcement differ from their own (Challenge.
1967).

Public concern about crime is neither new nor surprising. An
interest that was once manifested in attendance at the public punishment

of offenders is now expressed in reaction to news media's reports of

crime in the local community.and nation (McIntyre: 1970 381).

40

Citizens. Police and Crime in America

In the past. law enfbrcement in this country responded to concerns
of citizen's. rather than political considerations and media hype and
pressures. In 1965. during the peak of the post World War 11 population
boom, the United States recorded a record high 10.000 willful homicides.
Top law enfbrcement officials across this great land were outraged and
called fbr the establishment of the National Crime Commission of 1966 to
investigate the causes of ‘Crime in a Free Society’ (Challenge.1967 3).
deay. however. in spite of the fact that the rate of population growth
in the United States has substantially declined. the rate of willful
homicides has substantially increased. and there has been no outcry on
the part of'law enfbrcement officials to establish a National Commission
on law enfbrcement to examine what's going wrong and why there so much
crime in a free society. This apparent lack of concern on the part of
the law enfbrcement is a source/cause growing concern to citizens who
find themselves continually questioning the motives of law enfOrcement
in this country.

McIntyre indicates that the importance) of’ understanding the
attitudes of the public regarding crime is. for some purposes. as much
a consequence as an understanding of the nature and extent of crime

itself. Public attitudes regarding crime. to some extent. determine the

41

‘94de

I5... ..., i
F1. Ti
ht‘Li“ {- ‘1‘

SUF’IEJ’S

pubTi’c

 

feasibility of alternative methods of crime prevention and law enforce-
ment. The National Crime Commission. in 1966. undertook to assess these
attitudes through an analysis of national public opinion polls and
surveys conducted fer the Commission (McIntyre. 1970:382). The national
public opinion polls in years past provide some evidence of the
heightened concern about crime. Of the citizens in Washington and those
in the districts surveyed in Boston and Chicago by the University of
Michigan. five out of every eight respondents said they had changed
' their habits because of the fear of crime. They stated they avoided the
danger on the streets by staying home at night. or using taxis. or
avoided talking to strangers. In addition. they stated they kept
firearms or watchdogs. or put stronger locks on the doors and windows
(Reiss. 1967). Whether more concerned about adult or juvenile crime.
most people think that the crime situation in their own community is
getting worse. and while substantial numbers think the situation is
staying about the same. hardly anyone sees improvement
(Erikson.1962:307-314).
In 1651. Hobbes (1651:186) wrote that the fundamental purpose of
civil government is to establish order and protect citizens from a fear
of criminal attack. which can make life "nasty. brutish. and short."

Moore and Trojanowicz (1982) point out that from this Hobbesian

42

min"

irii

irrm'

'yv‘ vu

 

RIM-1‘“
31',

' N

(57

KI’

."-~,.
e2” 5.
‘r
[it"s
"...

“NJ
3'1 ._
U f._

perspective. "the current level and distribution of fear indicates an
important government failure.” They recall the policing style
envisioned by Sir Robert Peel. Peel wanted officers to be assigned to
foot beats in the neighborhoods. which would enable them to interact
with the citizenry and. as minions of the law. to maintain order.
Controlling the fear of crime is also an important goal of community-
oriented policing. Immersing officers into the community is one of many
strategies fer controlling fear: studies have shown that increased f00t
patrol reduces citizens' fears. A major premise underlying foot patrol
and fear reduction experiments is that closer contact reduces citizen
fear of crime (Moore and Trojanowicz. 1988 2).
According to Weatheritt (1988:154):

Community policing is about changing the ethos of policing

to include notions of service, conciliation, and

negotiation. However. the conflictual and coercive aspects

of policing will remain.
As Walker and Richardson noted (1974:10):

Police officers are out in the world - on the side walks and

in the streets and shopping malls. cruising. strolling.

watching. as both state protectors and state repressors.
They also indicate that whatever the citizen thinks of the police. they
can hardly be ignored. The importance of surveying community needs

cannot be overstated. Public opinion surveys provide vital information

and feedback regarding the public's perception of officer perfOrmance.

43

and they can help in assessments of the effectiveness of police
department communication with the public. The mood of the public should
be a vital consideration when police make public policy decisions (White
and Menke. 1982).

Community as a Complex Organization

As H. Goldstein notes (1990:200):

Radical changes are required in the organization.

management. staffing. and leadership of police agencies in

order to support community policing.

Principles of organizational science that have been developed from
more than a decade of experimental research indicate how to keep
organizations and communities updated and adjusted to changing
conditions. The research was based upon the proposition that
organizational science is approaching an advanced state where it has the
capability of producing predictable change(s) in the phenomena which it
studies. So. within certain levels of probability. it can produce
effective organizations and can prevent pathological states of develop-
ment fOr these phenomena.

The piecemeal transition toward comnunity policing across the

country started with raising interest in police and community relations

and funding of f00t patrol programs in the 19805. Trojanowicz selected

 

fi:Efi—fi

g...

..J.‘

A."
a.

U

4.
fl

(
l

Dr. Christopher Sowers’ Normative Sponsorship Theory as a basis for
implementing the community policing concept.

Sower (1957) provides the knowledge base for the Normative
Sponsorship Theory of Keeping Organizations Updated. It states the
prediction that either present or future leaders of any human
organization will sponsor innovations. which they perceive will keep it
adjusted to changing needs and conditions. The task of the model is to
design sponsor able innovations that are so normative (fit the norms) to
organizations and communities they will be embraced and sponsored by
their leadership. Observation shows that it is normative to most
organizations to take action to prevent their decline. For communities.
it is normative to make them better places to live and rear children.
Frequently. external forces are needed to sufficiently disturb old
equilibriums to make such decisions possible within the existing power
alignments (Sower. 1957).

Trojanowicz (1976) used Sower's model as a basis for developing
his own theory of Community Policing and Crime Stoppers as an alternate
citizen mobilization theory based upon cooperation and challenge. The
underlying assumptions of this theory are that almost all people have a
stake in community ownership. and an emotional attachment to cooperation

and challenge. As Trojanowicz (1980) points out. almost all people hold

45

goodwill toward one another and are motivated to increase the quality of
life in their community. Community spirit and pride is the sum of all
its respective parts and. as such. is directly related to the citizen.
Evidence of this is the fact that most of the successful social action
programs designed to prevent/reduce crime. take back and clean up
neighborhoods. streets. schools. parks. and playgrounds emerged out of
the individual citizens desire to improve their own environment and
family situation (Trojanowicz. 1980).

Viewing the comnunity as a complex organization is consistent
with Parson's (1956). "Sociological Approach to the Theory of
Organizations” in that the "input" of the agency is viewed as the
community need for the "output” of the services that the agency
provides. The depth of the agency layers are determined by these two
anchor points. and it is apparent the problem is not to be feund in
these areas. The actual need (input) for police services and the
provision of police services (output) are given. Something will be done
in response to the community need. The problem generally arises as a
result of the manner in which the services are provided or rendered. In
other words. services must be provided as a result of community needs.
This requires an open channel of communication. which Parsons calls the

"through put." The "through put" is the problem point. and it is at

46

ms p.
are”:

err" ~' A
‘vé‘ : '4

iron

‘UV' H

“1':‘
9’" "-0

(.7'

i!‘

n!
l

this point where the first signs of possible consequences can be
detected and also where available alternatives to the problem must be
considered. Therefore. a system model of analysis. which examines
interagency communication channels and networks, must be used to assess
the criminal justice systems components effectiveness. For this reason.
an examination of the primary function of police activities is of
paramount importance. As Vollmer (1959 444). points out:

If the primary function of the police is law enfbrcement.
the physical activities. i.e.. chasing felons. subduing
prisoners. making arrests. crowd control require the
attributes of physical strength. certain motor skills. and
stamina. On the other hand. if police work is seen as
largely a community service fUnction or ”peace keeping."
then verbal skills. interpersonal skills. tact. discretion.
human relations expertise. compassion. and abstract
intelligence may be more appropriate.

The struggle to maintain a proper balance between effective law
enforcement and fairness to individuals pervades the entire criminal
justice system. It is particularly crucial and apparent in police work
because. as has been noted. every police action can impinge directly.
and perhaps hurtfully. on a citizen's freedom of action.

America's fOrm of government, its laws and its Constitution.

all express the desire to maintain the maximum degree of

individual liberty consistent with maintenance of social

order. The process of striking this balance is complex and
delicate. An example is the "probable cause" standard that
governs arrest. Probable cause does not insure that no

innocent individual ever will be arrested. but it does
restrict police actions that are arbitrary. discriminatory

47

or intuitive. Although courts review police actions. and do

review more than they once did. most police actions are not

reviewed. Those that do not lead to arrest and prosecution
almost never are reviewed for the simple reason that. short

of a civil suit against the police by a citizen. there is no

court machinery fOr reviewing them. Ideally the intent of

Community Policing is to balance the police enforcement

concept with the peace officer concept in order to ally

community support. Community input is necessary fOr this to
occur. This study provides a mechanism and a measure whereby
citizens perceptions can be gathered and analyzed in order

to determine the extent to which this is occurring

(Challenge. 1967 93-94).

In a study on the role of the patrolman. Wilson fbund that an
officer's role is defined more by responsibility for maintaining order
than by responsibility for enforcing the law (Wilson.1968).
Historically. the public's perceptions of police have not been
considered as important and have not been adequately addressed. A survey
of New York police officers indicated that most police officers felt
that they would receive little or no help from the public if their lives
were in danger (McManus.National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice.
Police Training and Performance Report: 1970:21). In recent years.
public confidence in government in general. and specifically the
criminal justice system. is at an all time low because of
inaccessibility and inconsistency in the application of justice.
Officers generally are viewed as not being in touch with or assessable

to the community they are sworn to serve (Kelling and Moore. 1988).

48

 

3')” n-
"U I
..r+V.A‘
v .l-

(I!

The Evolving Strategy of Policing

According to Kelling and Moore (1988). there are three stages or
era's of police development in the United States: the Political Era. the
Reform/Professional Era and the Community Policing Era. The Political
Era began in the late 19th century and. to varying degrees. was
prevalent until the late 1930's. During this Era police were legitimized
and empowered by local political leaders. In many ways. this was a
particularly corrupt era in law enforcement. However. this was also the
most community-oriented and active era in that during this period police
ran soup kitchens. offered lodging to immigrants. and fOund employment
for immigrants in law enfbrcement and other areas in order to promote
and advance their candidate. Although. during this era. the police were
directed by the motives of local politicians. they to some extent
reflected the dominant culture of their community. Law enfbrcement was
an open system based upon infOrmation sharing with the community and
fbot patrols/beat cops who were anchored in the communities. areas. and
neighborhoods they policed. Foot patrol officers were community
activists because they lived. worshiped. and raised their children in
the conlnunities they served and. for obvious reasons. were deeply

concerned about the state of local politics. economy. and the school

system. The primary strategy of policing during this era was foot

49

 

v 3‘:

l353

( I‘l

patrol: officers walked the beats and dealt with crime. disorder. and
other social problems face-to—face. Technology offered nothing more than
call boxes. which were used as monitoring and supervisory tools for
police administrators. The first automobiles were used only to transport
officers to their beats or fer transportation of criminals and suspects
(Kelling & Moore. 1988). The importance of this era for the current
study is the techniques and strategies used to involve the public as
well as. the role of leadership and ways to induce its sponsorship of
citizen involvement. The ways of involving communities and the benefits
from it are well known. Making leadership responsible for comnunity
involvement is necessary.

The Professional Era emerged in the mid to late 19305 and ran
until the late 19705. August Vollmer, Chief of Police of Berkley.
proposed a reform based on the concept that the police role was to
remind citizens and institutions of their noble mission to uphold the
moral vision that made America great (Vollmer. 1936). During this era.
foot patrols were gradually replaced by motor patrols as automobiles
became available. Requests fOr f00t patrols were called outdated and
expensive. Over a period of time. citizens no longer had access to their
neighborhood police officer. The Motor patrol eventually lead to the

"Modern/Conventional" approach to law enforcement that encouraged

50

citizens to call 911 because it was assumed that rapid response by motor
patrols to calls were more efficient and effective crime control than
any neighborhood officer response might be (Kelling and Moore. 1988).
CW Wilson emerged as perhaps the most influential reformer
during this era. authoring a series of text books on Police
Administration. Wilson's assertion that the "high visibility" of patrol
cars driving through areas of the city. particularly high crime areas.
at random times. deters criminals and reassures law-abiding citizens is
based on the concept of the "omnipresence of police” advanced by Sir
Robert Peel in 1829 (Cole. 1989). This scientific approach by police
administrators resulted in routinizing and standardizing police work.
especially patrol. Police work was crime fighting. Discretion in police
was limited. Police now came to view themselves as law enfbrcers. The
police officer's role changed from generalists to specialists as special
units were established to deal with the special problems of juveniles.
drugs. vice. traffic. tactical. fbrensic science and investigations.
During this era. the relationship between officers and citizen's was
redefined by the reformers. Historically. under the political era.
police had been intimately connected to the citizens of a community:
now. police were deliberately being separated from the community that

the officer served in order to eliminate familiarity, diminish

51

 

FESSC "

 

firs‘"

"aw-E

subjectivity. and force objectivity. The arms length ”just the facts
Ma'am" was the typical approach of an officer to a citizen. The
Professional Model also redefined the police perception of citizens
responsibility in crime control and deterrence. Citizens were to be
passive and leave crime control up to the specialist/expert. the police
officer. Citizens were to call police. report crime. and give witness
in court. Any citizen action in their own behalf was viewed by police as
vigilantism and inappropriate (Kelling & Moore. 1988:230-236).

As police work became more 50phisticated. police officers became
more distant from the community and less sensitive to the citizens needs
and. after a while. lost touch with the community they were sworn to
serve (Kelling 8 Moore. 1988). As the community grew and the police
force went through one political facelift after another. the system
gradually became more and more closed. Foot patrols did not quite fit
the image of a ”modern police fOrce" so patrolmen were taken off the
streets and ”mobilized" -- thus the emergence of mobile patrols. Once
this occurred. the social distance between the police and the community
they swore to serve intensified and gradually became adversarial.
resulting in the isolation and alienation of the average citizen and the

community at large.

52

In sum. the Professional Era of policing attempted to utilize the
new technologies to their maximum. namely the automobile and radio
communications. While this moved police out of the subjective role of
face-to-face involvement in the community. there was a loss of genuine
communication. which includes verbal. nonverbal and an infbrmation basis
of the person. and culture/sub groups. etc. which only occurs as a
result of consistent face-to-face interactions over a broad variety of
circumstances and experiences. Feeling these losses. most Police
Departments started under cover operations. since the ”beat cop” was a
thing of the past and no longer available as an ongoing infbrmation
source. While the Professional Era seemed to depoliticize and modernize
police methods. it failed to keep the positive aspects of the prior
Political Era. Although many authoritative spokespersons in the field
made them known. the momentum of the pendulum swinging from one extreme
to the other seems difficult to slow down. The Professional Era then is
most easily identified by its depersonalization of law enforcement and
the losses of community involvement.

The Emergence of Community Policing

The Community Policing Era began in the mid 19705 when there was

a growing recognition of how socially distant and isolated the police

had become from communities. According to the Challenge and Trojanowicz'

53

subsequent research. social distance kept valuable sources of
information from the police. not to mention the prevention aspects of
police community involvement. Police isolation had an impact on officers
and departments that was detrimental to them. personally and
professionally (Challenge. 1967 98). Community policing emerged as a
mechanism whereby law enforcement is attempting to balance the law
enfbrcement officer image with the peace officer image and return to
some of its origins or roots. It purposes to make police work proactive
by making the police officer a functionally active part of 'the
community. The increased involvement should improve the image of police.
elicit community input. and. hopefully. deter crime from occurring in
the community/neighborhood (Panetta. Joel C.,1984).
Community Oriented Policing Plus

A recent project in Reno Nevada. Community Oriented Policing plus
(COP+). surveyed the entire city (Peak. Bradshaw and Glensor. 1992) by
dividing it into three geographical command areas (zones). COP+
deviated from the traditional shift structure where a Commander had
responsibility fOr the entire city on three 8 hour shifts. In COP+ each
of the three geographical command areas of the city had a captain with
24 hour responsibility for his area. Another interesting element which

emerged from Reno's COP+ study was the fact that the area captains

54

 

Citize

 

succeei

 

fbrmed and periodically met with each Neighborhood Advisory Group with
the appropriate acronym of ”NAG” comprised of citizens representing
their respective city area. NAG facilitated police accessibility to
citizens. which is of utmost importance for conmunity policing to
succeed (Couper. 1983). Citizens could speak directly with "their” area
captain. who was accessible 24 hours a day. The NAG groups were not
created to dictate policy. They were volunteer citizen groups designed
to keep the police department "in tune” with the community through
exchanges of infbrmation. "Quality Assurance" was the "plus” in COP+:
community surveys were conducted biannually to determine the
effectiveness of each department section. Prior to the program (COP+).
police community relations were poor. and morale in the RPD (Reno Police
Department) was low. The RPD had suffered budget cuts. reduced staffing.
and increased responsibilities due to rapid p0pulation growth. The
theory underlying COP+ is simple: Police no longer attempted to deal
with their problems unilaterally without community input but actively
encouraged and solicited community input. This study clearly
demonstrated that citizen perceptions of the police can be significantly
improved. resulting in positive collaboration and problem solving
through a well-conceived community policing effort (Peak. Bradshaw and

Glensor 1992). Vernon and Lasley. in the findings of their 1992 study.

55

PECCE!’

‘fw'nr

it it):

win}.

. i

Sigkpv

 

C):
t n

( I)

recommend that police departments should structure job designs of
officers assigned to build community partnerships in such a way as to
maximize the potential for: quality police/citizen contacts. On a
supervisory level. the quality of police contact should be emphasized in
perfbrmance evaluation criteria.

In the mid 19705. the City of Lansing. like most of metropolitan
areas across the country. eliminated its residency requirements fOr
police officers. As police officers moved out of the Lansing area. they
became physically. and in many respects emotionally. detached from the
people and the area they are sworn to serve. Evidence of this erosion of
community identity and increased social distance between the police and
the comunity was reported in the February 14. 1994. Lansing State
Journal Report on Crime. which indicated that according to LPD records
70-80 percent of Lansing Police Department's 356 plus personnel live
outside the City of Lansing (Lansing State Journal. Feb. 14. 1994).
Citizen Mobilization/Empowerment

Community policing is. to a large extent. based on the following
assumptions of the Normative Sponsorship Theory:

1. Most people are more willing to c00perate than to deal with
conflict and most people are willing to cooperate in order to

accept a challenge. solve a problem, and improve their situation.

2. Most people are motivated to work toward improving the quality of
life in their community and neighborhood (Sower. 1957:317-327).

56

As Ir:

 

As Trojanowicz puts it.

Pe0ple~ welcome the opportunity to be independent and

construct alternatives and implement actions over which they

have control. They are happiest when they are contributing

to their social existence. whether in the family. their

corporation or their comnunity environment (Trojanowicz.

Trojanowicz and Moss. 1975:135).

Commitment to community improvement is necessary at the political
and departmental levels of government if community policing is going to
succeed (Trojanowicz. Gleason et.al..1987). By adopting community
policing practices police agencies seem to recognize the need for more
citizen involvement. increased conmunication between the police and
citizens. Hopefully. this study will serve as a comparative measure of
citizen perceptions and provide a frame of reference for citizen/police
partnership. Community policing redefines police work from enfbrcing the
law to regulating human behavior within communities through positive
examples and substantial community involvement and interaction.
Mission. Goals and Objectives of Community Policing

According to Trojanowicz' et.al. 1986 study of the Lansing Police
Department (published in 1987). the mission. goals and objectives of an
agency necessarily influence officer performance by establishing
codified agency expectations or agendas by which the officer is expected

to perform/act. Agency goals are derived from the agency's overall

mission statement. in this instance ”To Protect and Serve.” The

57

‘Mission’ of the police agency remains constant: however. the goals.
which are reflected in the objectives and activities. are flexible and
shift to stay synchronized with the community characteristics that are
in flux. The ‘goals' of the agency. over time. are internalized by the
officers and translated into performance. The importance of feedback
from the community to the agency is an integral part of goal development
and implementation. ‘Objectives' are the elements of a specific goal.
‘Activities' are the specific tasks. methods or strategies instituted by
the agency in order to accomplish a particular objective.
Patterns of Police and Citizen Interaction

A conceptualized graphic elaboration of patterns of police and
citizen interaction is provided in Figure 1.1. It indicates the points
of difference between non-community enfbrcement/adversarial policing and
community prevention/cooperative policing. Although the mission and
formal rules and regulations remain constant in both scenarios. the
goals and process of' implementation are» modified. This leads to
different types of interaction with citizens and an altered social

climate in the community.

58

POLICE AGENCY MISSION
‘To Protect and Serve’

FORMAL RULES
and
REGULATIONS
MIN-CMNITY NITY
POLICING POLICING
GOALS GOALS
POLICE OFFICER COI’MJNITY POLICE OFFICER
ENFORCEMENT /ADVERSARIAL PREVENT ION/ COOPERATIVE
Interaction Interaction
Work Facilitation Work Facilitation
Goal Emphasis Goal Emphasis
Support Support
CITIZEN nPERCEPTIONS CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS
a a
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Age Age
Gender Gender
Education Education
Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic Status
COWNITY CHARACTERISTICS NEIG-BGIHOCD CHARACTERISTICS

FIGURE 1.1 - PATTERNS OF POLICE CITIZEN INTERACTION

59

if

445'
an.

.2.—

ti

Community Policing and Community Characteristics

The success or failure of community policing is dependant upon the
extent to which police agency goals foster and encourage community
police officers to: 1) invest in the community. 2) interact with the
citizen's of the community. 3) provide support to the citizen's of the
community. 4) work with the citizens to facilitate improved conditions
within the community. and 5) assist citizens in defining community goals
and activities which to some degree determine how they perform their
duties and responsibilities.

The Agency. by means of a one way communication link imposes its
mission fbrmal rules and regulations upon the Community Police Officer
(CPO). This is accomplished by establishing community policing goals and
defining the parameters of the CPO’s duties and responsibilities. This
translates into performance within the community and toward the
citizens. A citizen's perception of police is influenced by the way
police relate to them as indicated in Figure 1.4. This interaction is
altered in the community policing model. Community officer training and
modified goals all aim at revising the patterns of interaction between
the police. community. and citizen. Citizens perceptions of police are
also mediated by the unique characteristics of the environment in which

the interaction occurs. Common attributes that have been historically

60

influence individual perceptions and attitudesare age. gender. ethnic
origin. education. and socioeconomic status. A conceptualized graphic
elaboration of how community policing goals impact community police
officer performance and the corresponding influence of background
characteristics on citizen perceptions is provided in Figure 1.2.

POLICE AGENCY MISSION
FORMAL RULES

and

REGULATIONS

i

COMMUNITY POLICING GOALS 3

COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICERS ‘

PERFORMANCE
Interaction
Work Facilitation
Goal Emphasis
Support

CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS
and

CHARACTERISTICS
Age
Gender
Education
Socioeconomic Status

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS

FIGURE 1.2 - COMMUNITY POLICING GOALS and COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS

 

This indicates a one way comunication flow that impacts . guides and directs
the role performance of Community Police Officers's which serves to alter the
social climate and possibly the perceptions of citizen’s.

This indicates two way communication and reciprocal interaction that occurs
between comunity police and citizen’s which is the focus of this study.

61

Citizen Perceptions of Police

In this study the researcher attempted to encompass variables that
typically influence an individual's perception. Citizen perceptions of
police have historically been fOund to be influenced by the following
attributes. which serve as the variables of this study: age. gender.
ethnic origin. education. socioeconomic status. experience being a
victim. experience with the criminal justice system. and length of time
in the community. The perceptual field of citizens. therefore. appears
to be influenced by the above variables in addition to conlnunity
characteristics. A conceptualized graphic elaboration of Citizen

Perception's of Police is provided in Figure 1.3.

62

FIGURE 1.3 ATTRIBUTES OF CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE 5

 

S“
OCfoecO
MIC S
tat”:
Eda
l
a?
(3’
B)! 13
S‘ 75
99° .é, E
>. g g '4;
I? 2; :3.
I
5. ° 3
O.
33110:!
’5;
as»).
'3
WWW
mgFSIC‘O
($99“ agnfla
6563‘)
52
U§”J\‘;5£3

 

 

Citizen perceptions of police are impacted by the attributes extending from
the circle of intervention. Superimposed on this diagram is Figure 1.4 Agency
Expectations of Community Police officers which indicates the role behaviors

(CPL score expected . by which citizens perceptions may be affected.

63

Agency Expectations of Community Police Officers

The agency mission. fOrmal rules and regulations remain constant
in the community policing model: however. the specific goals.
objectives. activities and actions of the police officer are altered
from a reactive law enfOrcement agent to a proactive community advocate.
This is accomplished by’ community police officer training. which
emphasizes the frequency and types of contact by establishing leadership
factors (Support. Interaction. Goal Emphasis and Work Facilitation).
Community police officers are expected to §pppppt community interests.
interact with citizens of the community in a positive manner. emphasize
the go_al_s of the comnunity. and M with citizens and community
organizations to facilitate community improvements.

Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1992:21-23) provide a detailed
operational definition of Community Police Officers duties.
responsibilities. and activities and on pages 33-35 furnish a sample Job
Description of a Lansing Community Police Officer.

The above factors. when transtrmed into observable behaviors.
should be perceived and favorably responded to by citizens as Community

Police Leadership (CPL score).

 

   
   
    
     
     
  
  
  

GOALS
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES

ACTIONS

POLICE OFFICER

AGENCY
MISSION

PERFORMANCE

dIHSUHOVET

SUPPORT
INTERACTION
GOAL EMPHASIS

NORK FACILITATION

 

CPL SCORE

FIGURE 1.4 AGENCY EXPECTATIONS OF COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICERS

65

Hypotheses Formulation

The questions to be addressed in this study involve exploration of
citizen perceptions of police role activities. The purpose is to
determine if there are significant difference and. if there are. if they
can be attributed to the demographic variables of the respondents age.
gender. education. ethnic origin. and socioeconomic status. In addition.
selected experiential variables such as home ownership.length of time
in the community. experience as a victim. experience with
police/criminal justice system were also measured.

The following hypotheses have been formulated to address the
aforementioned variables and are expressed in terms of the
expected/anticipated outcomes:

1. There is a positive correlation between the Community Police

Leadership (CPL) score and the Interaction Facilitation Factor

category of citizen responses.

11. There is a positive correlation between the CPL score and the
Support Factor category of citizen responses.

III. There is a positive correlation between the CPL score and the Work
Facilitation Factor category of citizen responses.

IV. There is a negative correlation between the CPL score and the Goal
Emphasis Factor of citizen responses.

V. No difference exists between the stated correlations I through IV
when controlling for the respondents age. sex. education.
socioeconomic status. home ownership status. experience as a
victim. length of time in the community. and experience with the
police or criminal justice system.

66

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents
police and the age of the respondent.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents
police and the education of the respondent.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents
police and the gender of the respondent.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents
police and the socioeconomic status of the respondent.

There is positive correlation between the respondents
police and home ownership.

There is a negative correlation between the respondents
police and experience being a victim.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents
police and length of time in the community.

There is a positive correlation between the respondents

rating of

rating of

rating of

rating of

rating of

rating of

rating of

rating of

police and prior experience with the police/criminal justice

system.

67

 

lad.

mac

Slt

:r.

*F
51.

12

CHAPTER III
METHODLOGY
Target Population
The Greater Lansing Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
was selected as the case/target area for this study. The SMSA is
situated slightly south of the geographic center of Michigan's lower
peninsula. Lansing. which is centrally situated and serves as the hub of
the Greater Lansing SMSA. has been selected as the target population fOr
this study and is distinguished by the following characteristics
1. Industrialized Metropolitan Area.
2. Highly urbanized area with a population of more than 100,000.
3. Increasing homicide and violent crime rates.
4. Law enforcement agency in place and operant.
Sampling Frame
The Polk Directory fOr the City of Lansing was chosen as the basis
of sample selection because of its accessibility. relative stability.
and reliability as a source of population infOrmation.
The 14 designated community policing neighborhoods are defined
only in terms of geographic parameters. which coincided with

Neighborhood Watch or community associations and, therefore. are not

unifOrm in terms of size or dimension. (i e.. households or population).

68

For comparison purposes. fOur (4) community policing areas or
zones were selected (Sparrow Estates Corridor. South Central
Neighborhood Organization. Westside Neighborhood Association and Cristo
Rey Community' Association). In two (2) of the areas the ethnic
representation of the residents is expected to be heterogeneous or mixed
(Sectors F12 CP and F19 CP) and in the remaining two (2) areas the
ethnic representation of the residents is expected to be more
homogeneous: that is. one will be African American (F22 CP). and one
Hispanic American (F20 CP). In addition two (2) areas of the city where
community policing is not prevalent were also chosen fOr comparison,
both are heterogeneous<ENO-F1 NCP and NSNO-F2 NCP).

After identifying the streets which are encompassed within the
boundaries designated community policing zone. the Polk Directory was
used to randomly select potential respondents from residents residing
within the boundaries of each respective community policing zone that
was identified for inclusion in this study. One hundred potential
respondents were identified fOr inclusion in each of the six areas under
investigation. The Lansing Police Department (LPD) was asked if it kept
track of the number of residents or households situated within each of

the respective community policing zones and advised that they did not.

69

A sample size of 600 was used based upon the application of the
"law of diminishing returns"(Rossi. 1983:145-194) using a middling
proportion around .50 of base 1.0 fOr a Simple Random Sample with a
standard deviation of .018 and an acceptable sigma level of .004. A
sample of this magnitude provides a sufficient number of units for each
of the major and minor analytic breakdowns. The responses from the
respondents who reside within the four (4) selected community policing
areas were compared and contrasted with one another. and with the
responses of respondents who reside in the two (2) selected areas
currently not receiving community policing services.

Respondents were chosen by means of a Simple Random Sample
technique from the Polk Lansing Directory by two systematic selections.
taking every fortieth and every sixtieth resident listed in each
selected area of the City of Lansing. In order to validate respondents'
responses. a mini sample sub group was extracted from a neighboring
community which had not been exposed to Community Policing techniques or
involved with Community Policing activities. The sample was surveyed
using a questionnaire consisting of a series of questions. indexes. and
control items. most of which were originally used and developed by Gross

et. al. (1965). The questionnaire was primarily composed of questions

70

with ordinal categories in which respondents rate police according to
their perceptions (see Appendix A).

According to 1993 census information. the total population of the
City of Lansing is 127,321 residents: slightly greater than 12 percent
(15.790) of the population is under school age: and according to the
Lansing City Clerk’s office. 87,648 residents are currently registered
to vote. Because a mailing address is required for voter registration.
these residents were listed in the Polk Directory. The 1995 Polk
Directory for the City of Lansing lists 9.749 businesses
households/homeowners and 31.908 residers/renters (109,696). In
addition. according to the Lansing School District and Parochial School
records. 22,786 students are enrolled in grades K-12. Therefore. a
maximum of 1.097 potential respondents ‘pyeg the age of 18 may
unintentionally be excluded from this study. In light of the fact that
this represents less than 1 percent of the population and only 1.25 per
cent of the total potential voters’ population. the problem of sampling
frame bias and non representatives should be relatively marginal and.
therefOre. tolerable.
Hypotheses Formulation

The null hypotheses symbolized by the prefix N are trial

hypotheses which assert no difference exists between two population

71

means and two population parameters. The null and alternate hypotheses
have therefore been presented. Questions addressed in this study
involved the exploration of role perceptions of the police by citizens.
The purpose was to determine if significant differences existed and are
attributable to the background variables. selected experiential/status
variables and to the intervention of comnunity policing. Background
variables include age. gender. education and socioeconomic status of the
individuals responding to the survey questionnaire.

Selected experiential/status variables include gun. dog and home
ownership. experience being a victims. length of time in the community
and experience with the police/criminal justice system of the
individuals responding to the survey questionnaire.

A comparison of residents responses regarding accessibility.
frequency and visibility of police. police activities and services
between respondents from neighborhood zones that have community policing
as opposed to respondents from neighborhood zones that do not have
community policing. The following hypotheses were formulated to address
the above variables:

H1 There is a positive correlation between Community Police
Leadership (CPL) and interaction facilitation of citizens.

H2 There is a positive correlation between CPL and support
facilitation of citizens.

72

H3

H5

There is a positive correlation between CPL and work facilitation
of citizens.

There is a negative correlation between CPL and negative goal
emphasis of citizens.

No difference exists between the stated correlations H1 through H4
when controlling for the respondents age. gender. education.
socioeconomic status. home ownership status. experience as a
victim. length of time in the comnunity. and experience with
police/criminal justice system.

When controlling for all of the variables except the one under

investigation:

H6 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the age of the
respondent increases.

H7 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the education
of the respondent increases.

H8 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the gender of
the respondent changes.

H9 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the household
income of the respondent increases.

H10 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the home
ownership of the respondent increases.

H11 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the experience
as a victim of the respondent increases.

H12 Respondents ratings of police will not increase as the length of
time in the community of the respondent increases.

H13 Respondents ratings of police will nOt increase as the experience
with the police/criminal justice system increases.

H14 Frequency of respondent dog and gun ownership will not

significantly vary between designated community policing and non
community policing zones.

73

H17

H18

H21

IOS‘

CCr
Itp
05,.
CIT

O
r. .
UL

 

 

H15 Amount of respondent victimization and exposure to crime will not
change in designated C.P. zones as compared to non C.P. zones.

H16 Respondent community involvement and police interaction will not
change in designated community policing zones as compared to non
community policing zones.

H17 Respondents assessment of neighborhood safety will not markedly
change in designated community policing zones as compared to non
community policing zones.

H18 Respondents sense of police and community partnership will not
substantially change in designated community policing zones as
compared to non community policing zones.

H19 Respondents support of tax-funded fOot patrols will not change in
designated community policing zones as compared to non community
policing zones.

H20 Respondents assessment of the nature and severity of crime will
not be markedly altered in designated community policing zones as
compared to non community policing zones.

H21 Assessment of police and police services will not significantly
vary between respondents from designated community policing zones
will not assess of police will not change in as compared to
respondents from non community policing zones.

Instrumentation
The instrument which was used to obtain the data fOr this study

consisted of a questionnaire comprised questions. indexes and control

items. A series of questions 1-33 most of which were originally
developed and used by Trojanowicz. and Gleason in the 1986 Lansing

Community Questionnaire addressed demographic and experiential data

about respondents. The Indexes and control items were originally used

74

/—

   

 

 

A A H A A A
(Ti (H .2. CA.) A) l-J

Uri.

and developed by Gross et.al..(1965). The present study was mainly
concerned with three types of information derived from the instrument:
(1) a measure of community policing leadership effectiveness (CPL): (2)
an assessment of perfOrmance in interaction facilitation. support. work
facilitation. and community goal emphasis roles. and (3) a comparison of
responses from residents of designated community policing neighborhood
zones with residents of non-community policing neighborhood zones.
Special indices fOr this study were constructed because few scales
were available that would tap the infOrmation needed fOr testing the
hypotheses. The indices used in the study combined several items into a
composite measure. In general. the indices are used to gauge an
underlying continuum which cannot be measured by any single item (Reiss.
Nye et al.. 1970). Indices contained between three to eight items.
Indices required the respondent to select an answer from the fOllowing
responses:
(1) always
(2) almost always
(3) frequently
(4) occasionally
(5) almost never
(6) never
A procedure of index construction was selected and patterned after

Waisanen and Durlack. 1966:101-115. who listed several assumptions

underlying the use of this procedure:

75

1. Several questions designed to measure a variable are better for
the purpose than a single question:

2. The degree to which these questions correlate with one another
provides some tentative evidence that there may be such a variable
”at work in the social world”:

3. The summed values of these interrelated items can function as the
measure of that variable: and

4. The degree to which these measurements relate to other
measurements beyond the reasonable limits of chance - provides
further basis fOr confidence that a variable has been identified
and that it has some interpretative value. Factor analysis was
used in this study to reduce the data set and to be certain that
CPL is one factor.

Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability rested upon three methods to insure

the instrument measured what it purported to measure. First. the items

were constructed and selected on the basis of face validity. That is.

did the item appear to measure the dimension stated. The indices

constructed in the Gross et al. (1965). and Trojanowicz (1976). studies

had been subjected to pretests and in-depth interviews with subjects.

Second. content validity was established in previous studies by Gross

et.al. (1961) and Trojanowicz (1976). In the present study. factor

analysis of items were used to assure continued validity. Third. the
indices were subjected to the process of item total index correlation.

which required all the items in an index to measure along the same

dimension.

76

SUI

 

Subject Selection and Survey Administration

All companies. corporations and business firms were excluded from
the survey. The starting point for each selection was randomly chosen
from a table of random numbers. The first starting point was number 28
(every fortieth name thereafter) and the second starting point was
number 51 (every sixtieth name thereafter).
Callbacks

Callbacks were made whenever possible to either set second
appointments for subjects not available at the time of the first
appointment or to obtain and record subjects’ responses over the phone.
If no callbacks were made. the sample would disproportionately reflect
perceptions of people who were home most of the time. such as housewives
and retired persons. To acquire a number of men and women with a variety
of ages. incomes and educational levels. callbacks were made. Callbacks.
of course. greatly increase the cost of interviewing. so only two were
allowed in an effort to complete the interview process.
Data Collection

A questionnaire consisting of 54 multiple choice questions and 28
general infOrmation questions were developed to collect the desired
data. The questions were designed to measure specific citizen

perceptions of local law enforcement officials and the Criminal Justice

77

 

I”.

m

system at large. The questionnaire took approximately twenty-five
minutes to complete. Each respondent scored their answers on the
questionnaire using a one-to-six continuum as previously indicated (one
- always to six - never).
Confidentiality

A numeric code system was used to protect the confidentiality of
all respondent(s). Subjects’ identities were kept. Confidential and
reports of research findings does not permit associating subjects with
specific responses or findings. Identities of subjects were secured by
the researcher.
Pretest

Two pretests were conducted. Ten subjects selected from the East
Lansing telephone directory completed the questionnaire. TWO days later.
the same subjects responded to the same set of questions. The
percentages of the first responses were tabulated and compared with the
second responses. The percentage of differences between the first and
second pretests were relatively small: therefore. the questionnaire
proved to be valid. Questions which showed large percentages differences

were revised fOr poor wording and misinterpretation or discarded.

78

 

Variables

The variables in this study focused on two categories: (1)
Community Policing Leadership serving as the dependant variable of this
study and was gathered through the use of a survey questionnaire and (2)
Background variables such as the respondents gender. age. educational
level. and economic status serving as the independent variables of this
study. whose effect the study attempted to measure. In addition.
status/mediating variables such as home ownership. length of time in the
community. experience as a victim. and experience with police or the
criminal justice system *were also examined. Performance measures
consisted of survey items that were constructed into the following
factors:
(1) Community Policing Leadership
(2) Interaction Facilitation
(3) Support Facilitation
(4) Work Facilitation and.
(5) Negative Goal Emphasis

These measures were selected because they appeared to be the best
available indicators of citizens knowledge and judgement of the police.
This conclusion was based on a review of the relevant literature.

Background variables consisted of demographic information regarding the

respondents age. gender. education. and economic status.

79

Design of the Analysis

The present study is descriptive in that it attempts to identify
significant relationships and differences between variables. The study
provides infOrmation that can illuminate agency functioning by
indicating how central agency priorities. techniques. and procedures
specifically as they relate to community policing are perceived by the
citizenry. The choice of the proper data analysis techniques was
governed by time. money. and level of conceptual understanding of the
statistical techniques used. as well as the appropriateness of the
techniques in relation to the data (Weikert. 1979:72).

! In this study. the purposes of the research were best met by the
use of a variety of statistical tests: chi-square contingency
procedures. correlation analysis (zero-order and partials). T-tests.
analysis of variance. and factor analysis. These techniques provide
measures of statistical significance. strength of association. between
and within group variance. variance accounted fOr. contrasts between
groups. and the grouping of individuals from predictor variables. All of
these procedures were essential to the full analysis of the data. An
alpha of .05 was the level of retention for all hypotheses.

This research investigated citizen perceptions of the police in

community and non-community policing roles. This was accomplished by

80

'H

surveyim
western l
evaluate
roles.

SOC lOE‘Ci
tsunami
The pu
WED‘En
furthe‘
Del ice
MWOQE
0f the
SUE-Do r
fTom .
What:
Exami n

ace
LOFC

surveying a representative sampling of citizens of a medium-sized mid-
western metropolitan city. Lansing. Michigan. The survey was designed to
evaluate police performance in community and non-community policing
roles. The demographic variables of age. gender. education.
socioeconomic status. gun ownership. dog ownership. length of time in
community. home ownership and victimization were used fOr comparison.
The purpose was to explore citizen perceptions according to these
independent variables in such a manner that insight could be utilized to
further clarify agency goals and to estimate the effectiveness of the
police. The specific objectives of this study was (1) to gain
infOrmation from citizen responses regarding police performance in terms
of the fOllowing selected factors: (a) interaction facilitation. (b)
support. (C) work facilitation. and (d) goal emphasis: (2) to identify
from citizen responses the differences in police performance in
community policing and non-community policing neighborhood zones: (3) to
examine differences in citizen responses from different groups.
according to (a) age. (b) gender.(c) ethnic group. (d) education. (e)
socioeconomic status. (f) home ownership status. (9) experience as a
victim. (h) length of time in the community. (i) experience with the
police or criminal justice system: and (4) to test the relationships

proposed in the hypotheses. Citizen responses from community and non-

81

community policing neighborhood zones in terms of the selected factors
were analyzed and compared for the purpose of clarifying agency goals
and estimate the effectiveness of community policing.

As discussed previously the police hold a unique occupational
position in terms of the community and its citizenry. The role of the
police as an authority figure possesses within its discretion the power
to influence the attitudes. expectations and in many respects the
ultimate behavior of the citizens. Background variables have for this
reason been viewed as indicators of citizen perception variability. This
study' measured citizen perceptions and expectations of' police in
community policing and non community policing neighborhood zones
defining the primary purpose of police activities. This orientation
provides a frame of reference for decision-making about the diverse.
roles activities of the police and where. and how. they can be best

utilized and if necessary improved.

82

ta
Questio
gender.
Cthni'
lntera

Demogr

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Each of the demographic and social characteristics found in
questions 1-33 are descriptively analyzed. This section includes age.
gender. ethnic group. education home ownership. length of time in the
community. socioeconomic status and a total summary that highlight the
interaction effects of these variables.
Demographics and Social Characteristics

Tables 4.1 - 4.7 provide us with a description of the respondents
in terms of gender. ethnic origin. age. education. home ownership.
length of time in the community and socioeconomic status.

Table 4.1 Gender of Respondents

 

 

 

Gender Respondents X

Male 89 47%
Female 101 532
Totals 190 100%

Table 4.2 Ethnicity of Respondents

 

 

 

Ethnicity Respondents z

Caucasian 144 76%
African Am. 23 12%
Hispanic 23 12%
Totals 190 100%

83

Cauc.‘
pool
for 1

Table
Age

18-24
25-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-59
60+

Th
399- win

Gender 8 Ethnic Origin Profile of Respondents

As Table 4.1 indicates 53 percent of the respondents were female
and 47 percent were male. Ethnic origin responses were consolidated into
the three ethnic categories cited in Table 4.2 in order to facilitate
and aid analysis. The overall ethnic representation of the respondents
is representative of the racial make up of the Lansing Area with
Caucasian respondents’ accounting fOr 76 percent of the total respondent
pool and African American and Hispanic American respondents' accounting
for 12 percent respectively.

Table 4.3 Respondents' Age

 

 

 

Age Respondents %

18-24 13 7%
25-34 42 22%
35-39 12 6%
40-44 27 14%
45-49 25 13%
50-59 24 13%

60+ 47 25%
Total 190 100.00%

Age Profile of Respondents

The mean age of the respondents was between 40-44 (42) years of
age. with approximately 38 percent reporting they were more than fifty
years of age and only 7 percent claiming to be less than twenty-five

years of age.

 

Table 4.4

 

Education:

 

< ' H. S.
Tech. Cm
Bi / BS

Grad/Po:

\

Totals

Educatic

II
1"We to
the mea

percent

they .

rest.

Table 4.4 Respondents’ Education

 

 

 

Educational Level Respondents %

< - H. S. 61 31%
Tech. Courses 55 29%
BA / BS 44 24%
Grad./Post 30 16%
Totals 190 100%

Education Profile of Respondents

In order to facilitate analysis. the seven educational categories
were consolidated into fOur categories as cited in Table 4.4. Overall.
the mean educational level of the respondents was 14.65 years. with 40
percent reporting they had completed a bachelor's degree or better: 31
percent reporting they had less than or equal to a high school diploma:
and the remaining 29 percent reported they had technical training.

Table 4.5 Home Ownership of Respondents

 

 

 

Home Ownership Respondents %

Own 141 75%
Rent 49 25%
Totals 190 100%

Home Ownership Profile of Respondents
According to Table 4.5. 75 percent of all the respondents reported
they owned their homes. while only 25 percent identified themselves as

renters. The respondent pool is stable and grounded in the community.

85

Table 4.6 Length of Time in the Community

 

 

 

Length of Time Respondents %

> 1 Year 11 6%
1 - 5 Years 34 17%
6 - 10 Years 18 11%
11 - More 127 66%
Totals 190 100%

Length of time in the Community Profile of Respondents

Table 4.6 provides an analysis of the length of time in the
community and indicates that 77 percent of the respondents have lived in
the community for six (6) or more years. and 66 percent of that group
have lived in the community eleven (11) or more years. The mean number
of years respondents have resided in the community is 6-10 years.

Table 4.7 Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents

 

 

 

Income Respondents %

20.000- less 65 34%
20.001-40.000 71 37%
40.001-50.000 19 10%
50.001-60.000 19 10%
60.001 - OVER 16 9%
Totals 190 100%

Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents
The socioeconomic status as reported by the respondents is
presented in Table 4.7. The mean household income of the respondents is

between 526,475-534,474 per year. with 71 percent reporting a household

86

income of $40,000 or less and 29 percent reporting a household income
greater than $40,000. A socioeconomic profile of the survey respondents
reveals that 34 percent indicate that they have a household income of
$20,000 or less. Thirty seven percent indicate an annual household
income of between $20.001-S40.000. and 10 percent respective indicate
household incomes of between 340,000-550,000 and $50.000-S60.000. Only
9 percent of the survey respondents indicated an annual household

income of greater than $60,000.

Table 4.8 Exposure to Police in Neighborhood

 

Exposure to Police

 

 

in Neighborhood Respondents %

Weekly-Monthly 19 10%
Rarely-Never 171 90%
Totals 190 100%

Exposure is defined as social interaction between citizens and
police as concerned members of the community at neighborhood gatherings
Although neighborhood exposure and familiarity with citizen residents
are an integral part of the definition and job description of a
community Police officer as outlined by Trojanowicz and Buquevax.1992
(Attachment C) 90 percent of the survey respondents indicated that they

are rarely exposed to police in their neighborhoods.

87

Table 4.8A Neighborhood Visibility of Police

 

Neighborhood Visibility

 

 

of Police Respondents %

Daily - Weekly 79 42%
Mont ly - Occas. 53 28%
Rarely - Never 58 30%
Totals 190 100%

Neighborhood Visibility is defined as the awareness of ‘the
physical presence of police as a result of visually observing them in
the neighborhood. Forty two percent of the respondents indicated they
see police patrolling in their neighborhood on a daily/weekly basis. 28
percent indicated they see police patrolling on a monthly basis and 30
percent indicated they rarely see police patrolling in their
neighborhood.

Table 4.88 Frequency of Police Contact and Involvement

 

Frequenc of Police

 

 

Contact/ nvolvement Respondents %

Dail%-Weekly 5 3%
Mont ly - Occas 20 10%
Rarely-Never 165 87%
Totals 190 100%

Frequency of Contact and Involvement is defined as interaction
where citizens come into face-to-face contact with the police either as

a victim. as a witness or as a team member on a community activity. The

88

majorit
contat‘
Summer

Gender

iemal
ethn‘
reasc

Educ

mix:

Home

the

EXD

D01

majority of the respondents. reported they rarely come into face-to-face
contact with police in their neighborhood.
Summarizing'Tables 4.1 - 4.88
Gender. Ethnicity and Age Representation

The respondent pool was almost equally divided between males and
females: ethnic representation was fairly representative of Lansing's
ethnic population and in terms of age. the respondent pool provided a
reasonable and well-rounded mixture of all age groupings.
Educational Level Mixture

The sample was well distributed and was a fairly representative
mixture of varying levels of training and educational experiences.
Home Ownership

Most respondents indicated they own their home. and on the
average. they have lived in the community between eight to nine years.
Socioeconomic Distribution

In terms of socioeconomic level. the respondents report that. on
the average. they have a household income ranging from $26,475-s34.474.
Exposure to Police in Neighborhood

The majority of Survey respondents indicated that exposure to

police in their neighborhood was rare and infrequent.

89

Neighl

F reqi

had

Encc

Neighborhood Visibility of Police

Less than 50 percent of the survey respondents indicated that on
a weekly-monthly basis they see police patrolling in their neighborhood.
Frequency of Face-Face Contact with Police

The majority of the survey respondents indicated that they rarely
had a face-to-face contact with police in their neighborhood.
Encounters With and Perceptions of Crime and Police

Some very interesting insights and conclusions can be drawn from
the respondents’ perceived sense of personal safety. victimization and
exposure to crime. frequency and severity of crime and visibility and
face-to-face contact with police. The following tables represent a
descriptive analysis of the respondent’s responses to these inquiries.

Table 4.9 Personal Protection

 

 

Type of Yes No Total
Protection N % N % N %
Own Gun: 45 24% 145 76% 190 100%
Own Dog: 75 39% 115 61% 190 100%

 

Dog and Gun Ownership

One out of every fOur respondents identified themselves as gun
owners and nearly four out of every ten respondents identified
themselves as dog owners. Gun and Dog ownership are generally viewed as

related to an individual’s sense of safety because guns are a line of

90

persor
guard

deiens

Table

‘

Victi
and I

~

Crim:
Pers<

CPI”?
”'r
M LT]

Exp.

Crin
to I

Crii

.ni
and

35p,

personal defense. and dogs. whether they are small lap dogs or large
guard dogs. are natural alarm systems and often the first line of

defense.

Table 4.10 Victimization and Exposure to Crime

 

 

 

 

Victimization Yes No Total

and Exposure N % N % N %
Crime Victimization

Propert crime: 125 66% 65 34% 190 100%
Persona Injury: 58 31% 132 69% 190 100%
Crime Exposure

Witness Crime: 82 43% 108 57% 190 100%
Exp. Arrest: 58 31% 132 69% 190 100%

 

Crime Victimization and Exposure

The majority of the respondents indicated they have been exposed
to property crime (66 percent). have not been exposed to personal injury
crime (69 percent). have not personally witnessed a crime (57 percent)
and have no personal experience with an arrest (69 percent). As will be
seen later in this Chapter crime victimization. exposure and contact
with police happens most often among the poor and minorities.

Table 4.11 Perception of Frequency and Severity of Crime

 

 

Perception Increase Decrease Neither Total

of Crime N % N % N % N %
Frequency 127 67% 20 10% 43 23% 190 100%
Severity 164 86% 12 6% 14 8% 190 100%

 

91

Assessing the Frequency and Severity of Crime
The majority of the respondents believe that in recent years crime

has increased in frequency (67 percent) and in severity (86 percent).

Table 4.12 Frequency of Police Visibility and Contact

 

ViSibiIity
and Contact Daily/Weekly Monthly/Occas. Rarely/Never Total
N X N X N X N 2

 

Visibility? 81 43% 52 27% 57 30% 190 100%
Contact? 5 3% 12 6% 173 91% 190 100%

 

Assessing the Visibility and Frequency of Contact with Police

While 43 percent of the respondents claimed that police patrol
their neighborhood on a regular basis (daily/weekly). 27 percent
responded that police only occasionally patrol their neighborhood. and
another 30 percent reported that police rarely. if ever. patrol their
neighborhood. The overwhelming majority 91 percent indicated that they
rarely. come into face-to-face contact with police in their
neighborhood. 6 percent reported they occasionally come into contact
with police and only 3 percent stated that they come into contact with

police on a daily/weekly basis.

92

Somorizir
Personal l
Hos
and ioerti
the other
1mm as
crime, an:
In
what is e
Generally
their ne
Derteht
”elohoon
majOl‘lty
their n9
ethnicit'.
neighborl
M88531“
Th

freq UE‘UCT

Summarizing Tables 4.9-4.12
Personal Protection. Victimization and Exposure

Most of the respondents indicated they do not own a gun or a dog
and identified themselves as having been victims of property crimes. 0n
the other hand. most indicated that they have not suffered any personal
injury as a result of a criminal act. have not personally witnessed a
crime. and have no personal experience with an arrest or being arrested.

In terms of crime victimization. exposure and contact with police.
what is evident is that it happens most among the poor and minorities.
Generally. respondents indicated that police are somewhat visible in
their neighborhoods on a regular basis (daily/weekly). but about 30
percent indicated that the police are rarely visible in their
neighborhood. In terms of neighborhood exposure to police. the vast
majority indicated that they rarely come into contact with police in
their neighborhood. Moreover. most respondents regardless of race or
ethnicity indicated that rarely come into contact with police in their
neighborhoods.
Assessing the Frequency and Severity of Crime

The majority believe that in recent years crime has increased in

frequency and severity. Less than half of the respondents stated that on

93

a regular basis police patrol their neighborhood. the majority indicated
the police rarely patrol their neighborhood.

Perceptions of Community Involvement and Police Interaction

Table 4.13 Community Involvement and Police Interaction

 

 

Community Yes No Total
Involvement N % N % N %
Comm. Police Station

in neighborhood? 75 39% 115 61% 190 100%
Members of the

Neighborhood Watch? 55 29% 135 71% 190 100%
Ever filed a complaint

with the police? 132 69% 58 31% 190 100%
Receive any fOllow up

to your complaint? 52 27% 138 73% 190 100%
Ever see police at

neighborhood meetings? 52 27% 138 73% 190 100%
Ever receive a crime

prevention assessment? 20 11% 170 89% 190 100%

 

Community Involvement and Police Interaction

Although Community Police Stations are geographically designated
in over 75 percent of the neighborhoods surveyed. less than fOur out of
ten respondents (39 percent) were aware of the fact that a Community
Police Station was in their neighborhood. TWenty nine percent claimed to
be affiliated with a neighborhood watch.

On the other hand. while 69 percent identified themselves as

having filed a complaint or inquiry with the police. 73 percent

94

indicated they have never received any follow up to their
complaints/inquiries. Almost nine out of ten indicated they have never
received a crime prevention assessment. According to the Mission
statement of the Lansing Police Department the police are user friendly.
respond to citizens' calls fOr assistance. and provide feed back and
fOllow up to citizens complaints and inquiries. Providing community and
residential crime assessments and fOllow up and feed back to complaining
or inquiring citizens is part of the defined duties and responsibilities
of community police officers.

Table 4.14 Neighborhood Safety Assessment

 

Question Safer % Same % Worse % Total %

 

Compared to
other areas? 55 29% 94 49% 41 22% 190 100%

 

Totals 55 29% 94 49% 41 22% 190 100%
Neighborhood Safety Assessment

A comparative sense of how safe an individual feels about their
neighborhood was obtained by the respondents self assessment safety
comparison with other areas of the community in which they live. When
asked to compare their neighborhood with other areas of the community in
which they live. only 29 percent of the respondents indicated. that

compared to other areas of the city. their neighborhood is safer. On the

95

other hand 49 percent claimed their neighborhood is the same as other

 

areas and 22 percent responded that their neighborhood was worse than

 

other areas. Discounting respondents perception that their neighborhood
is ‘the same as other areas’ as synonymous with ‘as safe as’ or even
neutral ignores the fact that the same respondents overwhelming
indicated that they perceive the frequency and severity of crime in
their neighborhoods as having significantly increased in recent years.

Table 4.15 éttiétudes Toward Police and Community Commission/Review
oar

 

Question Favor Oppose Unsure Total
N X N X N X N 2

 

Commission
Review Board? 100 53% 2 1% 88 46% 190 100%

 

Attitudes Toward Police and Community Commission/Review Board

Whether or not respondents favor or oppose a Police and Community
Commission or Review Board was revealed by the responses to the
fOllowing inquiry. When asked 53 percent of the respondents indicated
that they favored the creation of a Police and Community
Commission/Review Board. On the other hand. 46 percent were unsure and
one percent indicated they were opposed. In other words. it was about

evenly divided.

96

Table 4.16 Sense Police and Community Partnership Exists

 

Question Yes No Total
N X N X N X

 

Police 8 Community
Partnership? 73 38% 117 62% 190 100%

 

Police and Community Partnership

An analysis of respondents’ perceptions of whether or not they
sense a Police and Community partnership exists revealed that 62 percent
of the respondents do not believe such a partnership exists.

Police efforts at cultivating community ties appear to have
failed. They may not have been able to encourage a spirit of
cooperation.

Table 4.17 Treatment by the Police

 

 

Yes No Total
Question N % N % N %
Ever:
Receive a Break'? 48 25% 142 75% 190 100%
Feel you were not
‘treated fair'? 69 36% 121 64% 190 100%

 

Treatment by the Police
While 75 percent of the respondents believed they were not given
a break by the police. 64 percent indicated they did not feel they were

treated unfairly by the police.

97

Table

lloes‘

Table 4.18 Tax Supported Foot Patrols

 

Question Yes No Total
N X N X N X

 

Tax supported
foot patrols? 116 61% 74 29% 190 100%

 

Tax Supported Foot Patrols

An analysis of whether or not respondents support or oppose tax-
funded fOot patrols revealed 61 percent favored tax support for foot
patrols.

Table 4.19 Attitudes Toward Nature and Severity of Crime

 

Question Yes No Total
N X N X N X

 

Crimes against people
more important then
Property crimes? 171 90% 19 10% 190 100%

 

Attitudes Toward Nature and Severity of Crime
Ninety percent of the respondents stated they believe crimes

against people are more important than crimes against property.

Table 4.20 Ability to fairly assess police and police performance

 

 

Question Yes No Total

N X N X N X
Can fairl
Assess po ice 160 84% 30 16% 190 100%

 

98

Ability to fairly assess police and police performance

Eighty fOur percent of the survey respondents indicated that they
felt they could fairly assess police and police perfOrmance.
Summarizing Tables 4.13 - 4.20

In terms of the respondent's knowledge of whether or not a
Community Police Station existed in their neighborhood. the majority of
the respondents did not know despite the fact that Community Police
Stations exist in over 75 percent of the areas surveyed. This implies
that the visibility of the community police and the community policing
neighborhood publicity campaign was not as successful as it should have
been or the citizens in these neighborhood communities were oblivious to
the publicity.

Most of the respondents indicated that they have filed complaints
or inquiries with the Lansing Police Department but had never received
any fOllow up. and most had never received a crime prevention assessment
despite the fact that community policing is suppose to foster and
promote police and community relations through enhanced communication.

In terms of their sense of safety. almost half claimed their
neighborhood was about the same as other areas of the city while the
remainder was equally divided between safer and worse than other areas

of the city. The majority favored a Community Police Review Board and do

99

majc
aga'
per

Com

L86

not believe that a Police and Community Partnership exists. The majority
of the respondents do not feel they have ever received a break from
police. but they do not believe they have been treated unfairly by the
police.

The majority favored tax supported fOot patrols. The overwhelming
majority feel crimes against people are more important than crimes
against property and believe they can fairly assess police and police
performance.

Community Policing Indices

There are five indices which comprise Community Policing
Leadership. Tables 4.21 - 4.24 provides a detailed analysis of the
Community Policing Indices under investigation in this study. which are
defined as follows:

Community PolicingLeadership: defined as positive mutually beneficial
activities and effOrts to improve the quality of police services in the
community as an outgrowth of the leadership and influence of the
community police officer.

Interaction Facilitation: defined as positive interpersonal interaction
which binds the officer to the community by the development of a close.

mutually satisfying relationship.

Support Facilitation: defined as behavior that enhances the individual
citizens and community's sense of worth and importance.

Work Facilitation: defined as behavior that helps achieve the goals of

the community by becoming actively involved in activities and by
providing resources and technical knowledge.

100

Mative Goal Emphasis: defined as behavior of the community police
officer that complicates rather than simplifies the legal process for
individuals and the community at large. The index consists of negative
assertions which if responded to favorably indicate support of the
negative assertion.

Respondents were presented a battery of statements and asked to
indicate which of the following best described their perception of
Lansing police officers.

Always
Almost always
Frequently
Occasionally
Almost never
Never

"firm-icons)

Nearly 84 percent (159) of the one hundred and ninety respondents
responded to questions 34-79.

In order to better manage the data and facilitate an efficient and
understandable analysis. the following analytical decisions were made.
The affirmative response‘s - Always. Almost Always and Frequently - were
collapsed into the analytical category “Most of the Time.” The response
“Occasionally" was retained as an analytical category by itself but is
viewed as “less than frequent.”

Community policing by design is supposed to increase the
involvement of police in the communities they serve. Therefore.
responses indicating less than frequent involvement of the police with

the community may be/are necessarily viewed as contrary to the

101

reasonable expectation of community policing except in terms of Negative
Goal Emphasis where it is viewed as a positive. The negative responses -
Almost Never and Never-were collapsed into the analytical category
Never.
Community Policing Leadership

The Community Policing Index is a measurement tool designed to
measure the degree to which the individual respondent perceives the
police as providing leadership and involving themselves in positive and
mutually beneficial activities and efforts to improve the quality of

police services in the Community.

102

Table 4.21 Community Policing Leadership Index (Question 34-53)

 

Question Always Occas. Never Total
N % N % N % N

 

Lansing Police Officers:

Are concerned professionals. 108 68% 36 23% 15 9% 159
Are responsive and sensitive. 99 62% 38 24% 22 14% 159
Convey impression of trust. 92 58% 44 28% 23 14% 159
Are ready to talk and help 97 61% 42 26% 20 13% 159

Are personable 100 63% 37 23% 22 14% 159
Are open and positive 81 51% 51 32% 27 17% 159
Seek citizens' input 67 42% 44 28% 48 30% 159
Are visible and accessible 62 39% 47 30% 50 31% 159
Reduce ”red tape" 67 42% 44 28% 48 30% 159

Effectively communicate LPD's
mission. goals 8 objectives 64 40% 41 26% 54 34% 159

Are good role models. 108 68% 27 17% 24 15% 159
Are receptive to citizens 90 56% 36 23% 33 21% 159
Are fair and reasonable 91 57% 31 20% 37 23% 159
Are positive and upbeat 85 54% 37 23% 37 23% 159
Are flexible. 76 48% 42 26% 41 26% 159
Know the community. 95 60% 34 21% 30 19% 159
Cooperative and supportive

of community activities. 87 55% 41 26% 31 19% 159
Are Considerate. 88 55% 35 22% 36 23% 159
Are community advocates. 74 47% 42 26% 43 27% 159
Are citizen advocates. 55 35% 39 24% 65 41% 159

 

103

ques
Inde
SDEE
Char

iter

OCCT

Cit‘

Thii
OCCT

aCCi

ind-
tape

Peg

Community Policing Leadership Index
As indicated most (159) of the 190 respondents. responded to

questions 34 through 79. On 13 of the 20 Community Policing Leadership
Index items. over 50 percent of the respondents claimed that. generally
speaking. the police were courteous. professional. demonstrated good
character and leadership qualities but in terms of the remaining seven
items the fOllowing concerns were noted. Forty two percent stated that
police always seek citizen input while 28 percent indicated police only
occasionally seek citizen input and 30 percent said police never seek
citizen input.

Police visibility and accessibility received low marks with only
39 percent indicating the police are always visible and accessible.
Thirty percent contended that police are occasionally visible and
accessible and 31 percent asserted police are rarely visible or
accessible.

As far as reducing red tape. 42 percent responded they believe
police always attempt to ”reduce red tape" for the citizen. 28 percent
indicated that they felt police occasionally attempt to "reduce red
tape” and 30 percent stated they believe police never attempt to "reduce

red tape" fOr the citizen.

104

In terms of effectively communicating or conveying the Lansing
Police Department's mission. goals and objectives to the citizenry. 40
percent said the police always communicate. 26 percent said the police
occasionally communicate and 34 percent stated that the police never
make an effOrt to communicate LPD's mission. goals and objectives to the
citizenry.

In terms of flexibility. 48 percent of the respondents claimed the
police are always flexible. 26 percent claimed police are occasionally
flexible. and 26 percent stated the police are inflexible.

Forty seven percent of responded that they believed the police
are community advocates while 26 percent indicated the police
occasionally serve as advocates of the community they serve and 27
percent stated the police never act as advocate for the community they
serve.

Thirty five percent indicated they believe police are always
citizen advocates. while 24 percent indicated police are occasionally
citizen advocates and 41 percent stated police are never citizen
advocates.

Summary of Community Policing Leadership Index
As Table 4.21 indicates the majority of respondents believe

Lansing police officers are concerned professionals. are visible and

105

accessible. are considerate. are community and citizen advocates. and
are generally good role models. On the other hand. a unorthodox
number/surprisingly percentage of the respondents indicated that they
believe Lansing police officers are not concerned professionals (9
percent). are not visible or accessible (31 percent). are not
considerate (23 percent) are not community advocates (27 percent) are
not citizen advocates (41 percent). and generally are not good role
models (15 percent).

Furthermore. in terms of the Lansing police officers face-to-face
encounters or experiences with the citizen's of Lansing. are rare and
when they do occur. the experience is usually viewed as negative. One
respondent summed it up by saying that:

“Lansing police officers do not seem to care about

developing a sense of cooperation and are not concerned

about fostering community activities. eliciting citizen
input or conducting themselves in an egalitarian or
impartial manner.”

Interaction Facilitation Index

The Interaction Facilitation Index measures the degree to which
the individual perceives the police as involving themselves in positive

interpersonal interaction. which binds the officer to the community by

the development of a close. mutually satisfying relationship.

106

Table 4.22 Interaction Facilitation Index (Questions 54 - 62)

 

Question Always Occas. Never Total
N % N % N % N %

 

Lansing Police Officers:
Are concerned about

Community. 81 51X 41 26X 37 23X 159 100X
Promote crime
awareness. 92 58X 39 24X 28 18X 159 100X

Seek citizen input. 61 38% 47 30% 51 32% 159 100%
Provide support and

encouragement 81 51% 45 28% 33 21% 159 100%
Offer constructive
suggestions. 85 53% 38 24% 36 23% 159 100%
Develop a sense
of " ‘ 80 50% 28 17% 51 33% 159 100%
Ex xplain rights and

ions 92 58% 31 20% 36 22% 159 100%
Act impartially. 85 53% 35 22% 39 25% 159 100%
Do not play
favorites. 78 49% 35 22% 46 29% 159 100%

 

Interaction Facilitation Index (Questions 54-62)

Responses to fOur of the nine Interaction Facilitation Index items
revealed that the majority view the Lansing police as interacting
reasonably well with the community and the citizens at large. However.
responses as to whether or not they seek citizen input or provide
support and encouragement are not conclusive. In addition. responses as
to whether or not Lansing police officers: “Seek citizen input”.
“Develop a sense of “we" or “Do not play favorites” seems to indicates

a degree of dissatisfaction with Lansing police officers' ability to

107

interact with the community and the citizens. Twenty-six (26) percent of
the 159 respondents indicated that police only occasionally demonstrate
concern fOr the community they serve. and 23 percent said police never
demonstrate concern for the community they serve.

Thirty (30) percent responded that police only occasionally seek
citizen input and 32 percent indicated that police never seek citizen
input. This marks the second occasion this element has emerged as a
problem area between the community and the police. Twenty-eight (28)
percent responded that police only occasionally provide support and
encouragement to citizens and 21 percent indicated that police never
provide support and encouragement to citizens. Seventeen (17) percent
responded that police occasionally attempt to develop a sense of "we"
with the citizens and community and 33 percent indicated police never
attempt to develop a sense of ”we” with the citizens or community.
Twenty-two (22) percent indicated that occasionally the police play
favorites and 29 percent responded that police always play favorites.
Summary of Interaction Facilitation Index

In summary. overall respondents are almost evenly split on whether
or not they perceive Lansing police officers as frequently interacting
well with citizens. Of that group. 51 percent responded that Lansing

police are concerned about the community. 58 percent indicated that

108

Lansing police promote crime awareness. 51 percent said they provide
support and encouragement. 53 percent said they offer constructive
suggestions. 50 percent said they promote the sense of we. 58 percent
said they explained rights and options. 53 percent said they act
impartially. 49 percent said they do not play favorites. and 38 percent
said they seek citizen input.

The respondents said that Lansing police officers do not seem to
care about developing a feeling/sense of ‘we‘ and are definitely not
concerned about community activities. eliciting citizens’ input or
conducting themselves in an egalitarian or impartial manner. Lansing
residents are almost split in their beliefs as to whether or not police
are concerned about the community. provide support and encouragement.
offer constructive suggestions. foster or promote the sense of we. act
impartially and play favorites. A majority. however. believe that police
do not explain rights and options to citizens. seek citizen input. or
promote crime awareness.

Support Facilitation Index

The Support Index is a measurement tool designed to measure the
degree to which the individual respondent perceives the police (as
enhancing the individual citizen’s and community‘s sense of worth and

importance) as being interested in and supportive of them as citizens.

109

Table

Questi

——

Lansii
Are i

Are_i
Citni

Eial

\

rev.
dl‘e
Iii‘
in‘
Do

tti

.SL

ir

ti

ti

"6

Table 4.23 Support Facilitation Index (Questions 63 - 65)

 

Question Always % Occas. % Never % Total

 

Lansing Police Officers:
Are interested in citizens. 84 53% 35 22% 40 25% 159

Are interested in
citizens welfare. 76 48% 42 26% 41 26% 159

Evaluate fairIy. 89 56X 38 24X 32 20X 159

 

Responses to two of the three Support Facilitation Index items
reveals the majority of respondents believe that Lansing police officers
are always interested in and include citizens. and evaluate citizens
fairly. But when asked if they believed Lansing police officers are
interested in citizens' welfare. 26 percent responded that occasionally
police are interested in the citizens welfare and 26 percent responded
that police are never interested in the citizens welfare.

Summary of Support Facilitation Index

Generally speaking. Lansing's residents appear to be equally split
in terms of their views of police support. Many (52 percent) believe
that Lansing police officers provide them with support. include them in
their decision making processes. evaluate them fairly. and are
legitimately interested in their welfare. Yet an almost equal number of

respondents believe that Lansing police officers rarely. if ever.

110

provide support fOr citizens and do not include them in decision making
and do not seem to be concerned about their welfare or ‘justice‘ or even
‘fairness' as indicated by the fact that in identical circumstances they
do not use the same measuring rod or evaluate citizens fairly.
Work Facilitation Index

The Work Facilitation Index is a measurement tool designed to
measures the degree to which the respondent perceives the police as
helping to achieve the goals of the community by becoming actively
involved in activities and by providing resources and technical
knowledge.

Table 4.24 Work Facilitation Index (Question 69 - 71)

 

Question Always% Occas % Never% Total

 

Lansing Police Officers:
Maximize resources. 78 49% 50 31% 31 20% 159 100%
Alert citizens

to dangers. 80 50% 38 24% 41 26% 159 100%
Are interested in
the community. 93 58% 36 23% 30 19% 159 100%

 

Work Facilitation Index
Responses to two of the three Work Facilitation Index items seem
to indicate that the majority of respondents believe that Lansing police

officers always alert citizens to danger and always are interested in

111

the community. On the other hand. 31 percent indicated Lansing police
officers occasionally effectively utilize/maximize the community
resources at their disposal and 20 percent indicated that they never
effectively utilize/maximize the community resources at their disposal.
Summary of Work Facilitation Index

More than half of the respondents expressed that they believe
Lansing police officers always work to facilitate and maximize the
community resources at their disposal. alert citizens to dangers. and
are interested in the community they serve. On the other hand. over a
quarter indicated that Lansing police officers only occasionally tap
into community resources at their disposal. alert citizens to dangers.
or express an interest in the community they serve. and over one fifth
indicated that they never tap into community resources at their
disposal. alert citizens to dangers. or show an interested in the
community.
Negative Goal Emphasis Index

The Negative Goal Emphasis Index is a measurement tool designed to
measures the degree to which the individual respondent perceives the
police as complicating rather than simplifying the legal process fOr
individuals and the community at large. Statements are presented in the

negative so the meaning is reversed.

112

Table

M

Tan?

pape
Are

Igor

Sum

64

di:
Cl‘
in

Da

ar
Ci

Ge

lr

li

Table 4.25 Negative Goal Emphasis Index

 

Question Always% Occas. % Never % Total %

 

Lansing Police Officers:

Require unnecessary
paper work of citizens. 48 30% 47 30% 64 48% 159 100%

Are inconsistent. 47 30% 56 35% 56 35% 159 100%
Ignore cit concerns. 72 45% 35 22% 52 33% 159 100%

 

Summary of Negative Goal Emphasis Index

Responses to the Negative Goal Emphasis Index items indicate that
64 percent of the respondents believe that Lansing Police Officers
(always - occasionally) require citizens to do unnecessary paperwork.
display inconsistency in their decision making. and generally ignore
citizens’ concerns. Forty eight (48) percent of the respondents
indicated that Lansing police officers never require unnecessary
paperwork of citizens. On the other hand. 30 percent stated that Lansing
police officers occasionally require unnecessary paperwork of citizens.
and 30 percent said they always require unnecessary paperwork of
citizens. Thirty five (35) percent of the respondents indicated the
decisions made by Lansing police officers were never inconsistent. On
the other hand. 35 percent stated that their decisions are occasionally
inconsistent and 30 percent stated that their decisions are always

inconsistent. Thirty three (33) percent of the respondents indicated

113

that

other
conce
conce

Somme

imag
will
how
DOli
of t
beta
beta

Mira

onl;
Nari
the
Si].
The

P814

that the Lansing police officers never ignore citizen concerns. On the
other hand. 22 percent stated that they occasionally ignore citizens
concerns and .45 percent stated that they always ignore~ citizens
concerns.
Summarizng Tables 4.21 - 4.24

It is important that police understand and accept that the public
image they project directly influences how they are viewed. Citizens
will either view police in a positive or negative light depending upon
how they are perceived as interacting with others. For example. if
police are viewed as using excessive fOrce or failing to advise suspects
of their constitutional rights they will be viewed as cruel and unfair
because they have lost their objectivity. Miranda warnings evolved
because a police officer in the process of arresting a suspect named
Miranda failed to advise him of his constitutional rights. Upon analysis
it was fOund that police routinely fail to explain or communicate not
only to potential suspects but the citizenry at large. The Miranda
warning was established as a standardized method whereby police advise
the accused of their constitutional rights. Namely the right to remain
silent. and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
The Miranda warnings serves to keep the police in an objective posture

relative to the rights of the citizen.

114

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF CORRELATIONS AND INTERCORRELATIONS OF DATA ELEMENTS
This chapter presents correlations and intercorrelations of the
respondents' background characteristics. Asterisks indicate significance

at the corresponding product moment significance levels * = p >- .05 and

 

 

** - p > - .01.
Table 5.0 Intercorrelations by Background Variables

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
AGE 1.000 ......................... ----
ED -.228** 1 000 -------------------- ----
INCOME -.203** .313** 1.000 ............... ----
LTIC .459** -.201** - .099 1.000 .......... ----
RACE -.092 -.073 -.140 .025 1 000 ----- ----
SEX -.026 - 070 - 108 .003 -.026 1.000 ----
HOME -.212** - 252** -.278** -.054 -.161*' .047 1 000

Interpreting the Significance of Age

As Table 5.0 indicates. at the .01 significance level age is
positively correlated with length of time in the community (.459**) and
is negatively correlated with education (-.228**).income (-.203**). home
ownership (-.212**).(Ql4) assessing crime as having increased (- 249).
(Q33) belief they cannot fairly assess police (-.227).

In other words. older respondents tend to have lower levels of
education. income. home ownership. perception of crime. and critical
assessment of police and police perfOrmance. Older respondents appear to
become more secure. less critical of traditional lines of authority and

tend to view themselves as an integral part of the chain of authority.

115

At the .05 significance level age was found to be negatively correlated
with (Q32) assessing crimes against people as being more than crimes
against property (-.179*). and (017) assessing the nature and severity
of crime as having increased in recent years (-.169*). Older respondents
were found to be less likely to believe crimes against people are more
severe than crimes against property. more likely to have a
depersonalized view toward crime. believe crime is preventable. and the
victim is somehow responsible by being careless or running with the
wrong crowd. The data also indicates older respondents are less likely
to believe the nature and severity of crime in their neighborhood has
increased. tend to minimize rather than maximize concerns. and generally
are less critical Of traditional lines of authority. Older respondents
were also fOund to attend neighborhood meetings more frequently than
their younger counterparts.
Interpreting the Significance of Education

At the .01 significance level education was fOund to be positively
correlated with income (07) and assessing crime as having increased
during the past 12 months (014). Higher educated respondents generally
had higher annual income (.313**) and tended to believe that crime in
their neighborhood had increased during the past 12 months (.218**). At

the .01 significance level education is negatively correlated with age

116

(- 228**).length of time in the community (-.201**). home ownership
(-.252**).(024) having attended neighborhood watch where police
participated (-203**).and (Q25) received a crime assessment (-202**).

In other words. higher educated respondents were generally
younger. less likely to have resided in the community fOr a long period
of time. more apt to rent then own a home. less likely to have attended
a neighborhood watch meeting where police participated (024). and less
likely to have received a crime prevention assessment (025).

At the .05 significance level education was positively correlated
with (017) the assessment that the nature and severity of crime in
recent years has increased and negatively correlated with (018)
knowledge of a community policing center in their neighborhood (-179*)
and (028) the respondents' feeling that a partnership between the
community and the police exists (-176*).

In other words. higher educated respondents were more likely to
describe the nature and severity of crime in their neighborhood as
having significantly increased during the past 12 months (.180*). were
comparatively younger. less likely to trust traditional authority.
believe they are directly affected by the activities of the police. less
involved in community activities. and not as self assured as their Older

counterparts. Higher educated respondents were less likely to know if a

117

community policing center existed in their neighborhood (018). or
believe a police and community partnership exists (028).
Interpreting the Significance of Income

At the .01 significance level income was positively correlated
with education (.313**) and negatively correlated with age (-.203**).
and home ownership (-.278**).
Interpreting the Significance of Length of Time in the Community

At the .01 significance level length of time in the community was
positively correlated with age (.459**). negatively correlated with
education (04). gun ownership (08). witness to an arrest (013).
assessment of crime as having increased (014). assessment of the nature
and severity of crime as having increased (017). assessment of crimes
against people as more important than crime against property (032).
Respondents who resided in the community for a longer period of time
tended to be older.but generally had less fOrmal education (-.201**). On
the other hand. respondents who lived in the community longer were less
likely to own a gun (-.200**). have witnessed an arrest (-257**). assess
crime as having increased (-.210**). assess the nature and severity of
crime as having significantly increased (-.334**).and assess people

crimes as more important than property crimes (-.199**).

118

DDS?
031
tin
a v
fee
so;

Int

an;

Oti

Ini

Dos
10V
Wit
WOT‘T
WT ti
OWn

WGPQ

At the .05 significance level length of time in community is
positively correlated with the following variables: 011. 012. 030. and
Q31 and negatively correlated with 09. In addition. as the length of
time in the community increased respondents were more prone to have been
a victim of a personal injury crime (.159*). witnessed a crime (.186*).
feel they have been treated unfairly by police (.144*). favor tax
supported foot patrols (.158*). and less likely to own a dog (-.167*).
Interpreting the Significance of Gender and Race

Gender was not significantly correlated or intercorrelated with
any of the other variables under investigations in this study. On the
other hand. at the .01 level of significance race was found to be
negatively correlated with home ownership (- 161*).

Interpreting the Significance of Home Ownership

At the .01 significance level. home ownership was fOund to be
positively correlated with respondents who were (021). currently
involved with the neighborhood watch (.259*) and negatively correlated
with age (-.212**). education (-.252**). and income (-.278**). In other
words. respondents who owned their home were more likely to be involved
with the neighborhood watch (.259*). whereas. respondents who did not
own their home tended to be younger. have more fOrmal education. and

were more affluent then their counterparts.

119

 

Table 5.1 Intercorrelations of Survey Items. Personal Protection. Crime
Victimization. Crime Perception and Police Interaction

 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

120

 

 

 

 

follwi'
Perso
l
have be
have a
time.
promote
pl‘OtE‘C‘
Signif‘

Table 5.

by the

According to Table 5.1. Intercorrelations of the Survey Items. the
fOllwing tables compare survey items by the background variables.
Personal Protection. Victimization and Exposure to Crime

Questions 8 through 13 examined the degree to which respondents
have been exposed to or victimized by crime because it was felt this may
have an impact upon how the respondent views the police. At the same
time. we were interested in whether or not exposure or victimization
prompted the individual to purchase a gun or a dog for personal
protection. All findings reported were significant at the .05

significance level.**

 

 

Table 5.2 Personal Protection and Background Variables

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
08 Own Gun -.137 .121 .015 -.200** .036 .060 .067
09 Own Dog .080 - 028 -.167* .004 .009 -.034 .038
:* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance

Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 8 Respondents who own a gun.

As Tables 5.1 and 5.2 indicate. at the .05 significance level
respondents who are gun owners (08) were found to predominantly be dog
owners (09). have been victims of property crimes (010). have witnessed
a crime (012). have witnessed an arrest (013). have been a victim of a
personal injury crime (011). and believed they have been given a break

by the police (029). On the other hand. they had not lived in the

121

commur
with r
W08 3‘

Quest

TdCE

O C

community fOr a long period of time (06). were not currently involved
with neighborhood watch (021). and did not believe their neighborhood
was safe (026).

Question: 9 Respondents who own a dog.

Respondents who are dog owners were fOund to have had frequent
face-to-face contact with police (020). own a gun (08). have witnessed
a crime (012). and have received feedback from police on complaints
(023). On the other hand. respondents who are dog owners did not believe
that crimes against people were more important than crimes against

property (032). and generally were not from the higher income (07).

Table 5.3 Victimization and Exposure to Crime

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
010 -.107 -.075 -.063 -.062 -.062 .011 .069
011 .133 -.107 .089 .159* -.142 .016 -.109
012 .224** -.040 -.050 .186* .002 .066 -.136
013 .043 .112 .078 -.257** -.022 .007 -.139

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 10 Respondents who have been victims of property crimes.

At the .05 significance level. respondents who have been victims
of property crimes were found to be gun owners (08). have been a victim
of a personal injury crime (011). have had frequent face-to-face
encounters with police (020). have called in a complaint to the police

(022). have received feedback from police (023). believe they have

122

received a break from police (029). have witnessed a crime (012).
believed the nature and severity of crime in their neighborhood had
increased (017). and know if a community policing center is in their
neighborhood (018). On the other hand. respondents who have been victims
of property crimes believed they can fairly assess the police (033). and
believed their neighborhood to be comparatively safe (026).

Question: 11 Respondents who are victim of a personal injury crime.

Respondents who identified themselves as having been victims of
personal injury crimes were found to have been victims of property
crimes (010). have witnessed a crime (012). have witnessed an arrest
(013). have lived in the community for a long period of time (06). own
a gun (08). have received feed back from police (023). and believe that
they have been treated unfairly by the police (030). In addition. they
did not believe their neighborhood was safe (026). and did not believe
a police and community partnership existed (028).

Question: 12 Respondents who have witnessed a crime.

Respondents who have witnessed a crime were found to generally be
older (03). own a gun (08). have been a victim of a personal injury
crime (011). have witnessed an arrest (013). feel they have been treated
unfairly by the police (030). have lived in the community for a long

period of time (06). own a dog (09). and have been a victim of a

123

property crime (010). On the other hand. they did not believe that a
police and community partnership exists (028). did not believe crimes
against people were more important than crimes against property (032).
assess their neighborhood as being safe (026). and believe that they can
fairly assess the police (033).

Question: 13 Respondents who have witnessed an arrest.

Respondents who identified themselves as having witnessed an
arrest were found to own a gun (08). have been a victim of a personal
injury crime (011). and believe they have been treated unfairly by the
police (030). On the other hand. they had not lived in the community for
a long period of time (06). were not involved with the Neighborhood
Watch (021). had not attended a meeting where police played an active
role (024). did not assess their neighborhood as being safe (026). and
believe they can fairly assess police (033).

Conclusion

Given these findings. one could assert that personal experience is
the bridge of perception. As crime increases. the more likely
individuals are to experience or be exposed to crime. Individuals who
have experienced or been exposed to crime tend to be more cautious and
proactive and more apt to purchase self-defense and first-alarm devices

such as guns and dogs.

124

Perception of Crime

Questions 14 and 17 examined respondents assessment of crime and
the nature and severity of criminal activity. It was felt that how
respondents view crime may have an impact on how they view police. All

findings reported were significant at the .05 significance level.**

 

 

Table 5.4 Perception of Crime

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
014 -.249** .218** .223** -.210** - 076 -.057 - 051
017 -.169* .180* .250** -.334** - 088 -.037 -.128

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 14 Respondents who assess crime as having increased.
Respondents who assessed crime as having increased during the past
12 months were from the upper educational strata (Q4).upper annual
income brackets (07). and believed the nature and severity of crime had
increased (017). On the other hand. they were not senior Citizens (03).
had not lived in the community fOr a long period Of time (06), and
generally did not assess their neighborhood as being safe (026).

Question: 17 Respondents who believe the nature & severity of crime in
their neighborhood has increased.

Respondents who believed that in recent years the nature and
severity of crime has increased were fOund to be in the upper annual

income brackets (07). be from the upper educational strata (Q4). and had

125

been a victim of a property crime (010). On the other hand. they had not
lived in the community fOr a long period of time (06). were
comparatively young (03). and did not believe crimes against people were
more important than crimes against property (032).
Conclusion

Given these findings. one could assert that there is a
relationship between an individual‘s perception of crime and their
assessment of police perfOrmance and effectiveness. As an individual's
perception of crime increases their assessment of police performance and
overall effectiveness decreases. Gradually. they will become distrustful
of law enfOrcement and eventually apathetic. Individuals who believe
crime has increased are more apt to be young. in the upper annual income
bracket. in the upper educational strata.have been a victim of a
property crime. and more apt to believe the nature and severity of crime
has increased than their older counterparts. have not lived in the
community very long. and believe their neighborhood is safe.
Neighborhood Visibility and Contact by Police

Questions 19 and 20 examined the frequency with which the
respondents see police in their neighborhood and come into face-to-face
contact with police. All findings reported were significant at the .05

significance level.**

126

Table 5.5 Police Visibility and Contact

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
019 .055 -.014 -.037 .063 .040 .031 .148*
020 -.109 -.031 .015 .118 .142 .051 .025

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 19 Respondents who frequently see police in neighborhood

Respondents who indicated they frequently see police in their
neighborhood had frequent face-to-face encounters with the police (020).
had received feedback (023). believed a police and community partnership
existed (028). and were homeowners (05).
Question: 20 Frequent face to face contact with police.

Respondents who indicated they have frequent face-to-face contact
with police were found to be dog owners (09). have been a victim of a
property crime (010), frequently see police in their neighborhood (019).
had called in a complaint (022). had attended a neighborhood meeting
where police actively participated (024). favored a joint police and
community commission or board (027). favored tax supported foot patrols
(031). and believe they can fairly assess the police (033).
Conclusion

There is a relationship between visibility. availability and
frequency of contact with police. The more visible police are in a

neighborhood the more accessible they are to citizens and the greater

127

 

W Mth——.~ ..—
41 .

the op;
that c
oeigh

into

AS SQ

wi t
dec
En

Cc

the opportunity of face-to-face contact. Therefiore. it is not surprising
that dog owners. former victims. citizens who complain. and members of
neighborhood watch are disporportionantly more likely to see and come
into face-to-face contact with police.
Assessment of Police Performance and Effectiveness
As an individual’s exposure to crime is increased either as a

witness or victim. their assessment of police performance/effectiveness
decreases. Gradually. they will become increasingly distrustful of law
enforcement and eventually apathetic if conditions do not improve.
Community Involvement and Police Interaction

Questions 18 and 21 through 25 examined the respondents’
perception of community and police interaction and neighborhood
awareness. Community involvement is an integral component of community
policing which fosters good community police relations and promotes
trust and confidence in law enfOrcement. All findings reported were

significant at the .05 significance level.**

 

 

Table 5.6 Community Involvement and Police Interaction
AGE ED. INCO‘IE LTIC RACE SEX HOME

018 -.017 -.179* -.202** -.104 - 175* .094 .076
021 -.045 -.138 -.134 -.O75 .021 .004 .259**
022 -.126 - 082 -.137 -.058 .049 .034 .112
023 -.139 -.070 .023 - 082 .095 .040 .131
024 -.085 -.203** - 080 .046 -.013 .028 .125
025 -.051 -.202** -.151* -.159* .040 .039 .016

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

128

 

 

Questi:

their
((00
pol i
we ri
Edd
Ia\

OUT

WE

Qi

WT
ff‘E

be]

Question: 18 Respondents who know if there is a Community Policing
Center in their neighborhood

Respondents who knew there was a community policing center in
their neighborhood were found to: have been victims of a property crime
(010). had filed a complaint with the police (0 22). and believed a
police and community partnership existed (028). On the other hand. they
were not in the upper annual income brackets. were not in the upper
educational strata. were not members of an ethnic minority. and did not
favor tax support of foot patrols.

Question: 21 Respondents who are currently involved with the
Neighborhood Watch Program.

Respondents who were currently involved with the neighborhood
watch program were fOund to have received feedback. were home owners.
attended a meeting where police played an active role. believed a police
and community partnership existed. and believed they can fairly assess
police perfOrmance. On the other hand. they had not witnessed an arrest.
and they did not assess their neighborhood as being safe.

Question: 22 Respondents who have called for assistance or filed a
complaint with the police.

Respondents who had called fOr assistance or had filed a complaint
with the police were fOund to have been victim of a property crime. had
frequent face-to-face encounters with the police. had received feedback.

believed they have been given a break. knew if a community policing

129

center was in their neighborhood. attended a neighborhood meeting where
the police actively participated. and believed they can fairly assess
police.

Question: 23 Respondents who have received feed back to calls for
assistance or complaints.

Respondents who had received feedback to calls for assistance or
complaints filed with the police were found to have been victims of a
property crime. frequently saw police in their neighborhood. had
frequent face-to-face encounters with the police. had filed a complaint.
had received feedback. had attended a meeting where police participated.
owned a dog. had been a victim of a personal injury crime. and were
currently involved with Neighborhood Watch.

Question: 24 Respondents who have attended a neighborhood meeting where
police actively participated.

Respondents who attended a neighborhood meeting where police
actively participated had frequent face-to-face encounters with the
police. were currently involved with neighborhood watch. received a
crime prevention assessment. had called for assistance or filed a
complaint, had received feedback and favored tax supported foot patrols.
On the other hand. they were not in the upper educational strata and had

not witnessed an arrest.

130

Question: 25 Respondents who have received a crime prevention
assessment.

Respondents who had received a crime prevention assessment
attended a neighborhood meeting where police actively participated.
assessed their neighborhood as being safe. and had lived in the
community fOr a long period of time. On the other hand they were not in
the upper educational or annual income strata.

Conclusion

Respondents who are aware of the existence of community policing
center in their neighborhood were found to have less formal education,
were not prone to be from any ethnic group and had lower annual incomes
than respondents who were unaware.

In other words. less educated. lower income individuals regardless
of ethnic origin are more neighborhood bound and less larger community
oriented than individuals with more education and higher income. Their
mobility and horizons are limited as are their opportunities.

Respondents currently involved with neighborhood policing were
positively correlated with home ownership or home owners. Respondents
who have attended a neighborhood meeting where police actively
participated were fOund to be negatively correlated with education. in

short less educated.

131

Respondents who received a crime prevention assessment were fOund
to be negatively correlated with education. income and length of time in
the community. In other words. less educated. lower income and shorter
length of time in the neighborhood zone.

Safety.Assessment

Question 26 examined respondents’ assessment of the safety of

their own neighborhood as compared to other neighborhoods throughout the

city. All findings reported were significant at the .05 significance

 

 

level.**
Table 5.7 Safety Assessment

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
026 -.040 -1.22 -.055 .116 .226** -.013 .134

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 26 Respondents who compared to other areas believe their
neighborhood is safe.

Respondents who believed their neighborhood was safe were fOund to
have received a crime prevention assessment. were currently involved
with neighborhood watch. and favored a joint police and community
commission or review board. On the other hand. they were not ethnic
minorities. had not been a victim of a personal injury crime. had not
been a victim of a property crime. had not witnessed a crime. had not

witnessed an arrest. did not believe the nature and severity of crime

132

had increased in recent years and did not believe they had been treated
unfairly by police.
Police and Community Review Board

Question 27 examined whether or not the respondent supports a
police and community commission or review board. All findings reported

were significant at the .05 significance level.**

 

 

Table 5.8 Police and Community Review Board

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
027 - .054 - . O99 - .015 - .001 . 152* .011 .067
** Indicates that the Correlation is sigiificant at the .01 level of simificance
* Indicates that the Correlation is sigiificant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 27 Respondents who favor a Joint Police a Community
Commission/Review Board.

Respondents who favored a joint police and community commission or
review board had frequent face-to-face contact with police. assessed
their neighborhood as being safe and believed a police and community
partnership existed. On the other hand. they were not ethnic minorities.
All findings reported were significant at the .05 significance level.**
Police and Community Partnership

Question 28 examined whether or not respondents feel that a police
and community partnership exists. All findings reported were significant

at the .05 significance level.**

133

Table 5.9 Police and Community Partnership

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOTE
028 .110 -.176* -.185* -.023 .050 -.016 .138
** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is sigiificant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 28 Respondents who believe that a Police a Community
Partnership exist.

Respondents who believed a police and community partnership
existed were fOund to frequently have seen police in their neighborhood.
were currently involved in neighborhood watch. favored a joint police
and community commission or review board. and favored tax supported foot
patrols. On the other hand. they had not witnessed a crime. were not
from the upper educational or annual income brackets. had not been a
victim of a personal injury crime. did not assess crime as having
increased during the past year. and did not feel they have been treated
unfairly by the police.

Treatment by Police

Questions 29 and 30 examined respondents perception of how they

feel they have been treated by the police. All findings reported were

significant at the .05 significance level.**

134

Table 5.10 Treatment by the Police

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
029 .101 .022 -.090 .128 .031 .025 -.010
030 .073 .035 -.035 .144* .017 .168* .020

** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 29 Respondents who believe that they have been given a break
by the police.

Respondents who believed they had been given a break by the police
were fOund to have been victims of a property crime. had witnessed a
crime. called police fOr assistance or filed a complaint. believed they
had been treated unfairly by police. owned a gun. had received feedback
from police. favored tax supported foot patrols and believed they could
fairly assess police perfOrmance.

Question: 30 Respondents who felt they have not been treated fairly by
the police.

Respondents who felt they had not been treated fairly by the
police were fOund to be gun owners. had witnessed a crime. had witnessed
an arrest. felt they had been given a break by police. were male rather
than female. had lived in the community for a long period of time. and
had been a victim of a personal injury crime. On the other hand, they
were not currently involved with neighborhood watch. did not assess
their neighborhood as being safe. and did not believe a police and

community partnership existed.

135

Tax Support of Foot Patrols
Question 31 examined whether or not the respondent favored tax
supported fOot patrols. All findings reported were significant at the

.05 significance level.**

Table 5.11 Tax Support of Foot Patrols

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
031 .011 - 023 -.067 .158* .029 .059 -.088
** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 31 Respondents who support foot patrols.

Respondents who favored tax supported fOot patrols had frequent
face-to-face encounters with police. attended a neighborhood meeting
where police actively participated. and believe a police and community
partnership does exist. On the other hand. they did not know if there
was a community policing center in their neighborhood.

Attitudes Toward the Nature and Severity of Crime

Question 32 examined whether or not respondents felt the nature

and severity of crime had increased in recent years. All findings

reported were significant at the .05 significance level.**

Table 5.12 Attitudes Toward the Nature and Severity of Crime

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
032 -.179* .055 .107 -.199** -.O66 -.020 .138
** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance

* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

136

Question: 32 Respondents who believe crimes against peOple are more
important than crimes against property.

Respondents who believed crimes against people were more important
than crimes against property had been a victim of a property crime.
witnessed a crime. witnessed an arrest. assessed crime as having
increased and believed they have not been treated fairly by the police.
On the other hand. they had not lived in the community very long. did
not own a dog. were comparatively young and did not describe the nature
and severity of crime as having increased.

Ability to Fairly Assess Police and Police Performance

Question 33 examined whether or not the respondent felt they were

able to fairly assess police and police performance. All findings

reported were significant at the .05 significance level.**

Table 5.13 Ability to Fairly Assess Police and Police Performance

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
033 -.227** -.015 .068 .013 .118 -.017 .083
** Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .01 level of significance
* Indicates that the Correlation is significant at the .05 level of significance

Question: 33 Respondents who say they cannot fairly assess.
Respondents who believed they could not fairly assess police or
police perfOrmance had been victims of a property crime. had frequent

face-tO-face encounters with the police, were currently involved with

137

neighborhood watch. believed they have been given a break by the
police.witnessed a crime. and witnessed an arrest.
CPL Survey Indices

Question 34 through 79 was comprised of six batteries of questions
ranging from three to eight questions each known as indices. The
aggregate of these indices yields a score known as the Community
Policing Leadership (CPL) score that examines the interrelationship of
these indices and the characteristics of the respondents. All findings
reported were significant at the .05 significance level. **

Table 5.14 Intercorrelations of Background Variables and Indices

 

 

AGE ED. INCOME LTIC RACE SEX HOME
CPLI -.217** - 067 .040 .015 .132 -.034 .208**
CVI -.260** .063 .026 .010 .148* -.O45 .155*
GEI -.330** .017 .040 -.022 .084 -.021 .049
IFI -.218** -.015 .067 - 013 .116 -.030 .186*
SFI -.197** .020 .036 .029 .127 -.032 .180*
WFI -.272** -.004 .059 .003 .053 -.O41 .152*
** Indicates that the Correlation is sigiificant at the .01 level of sigiificance
* Indicates that the Correlation is Sigiificant at the .05 level of simificance

Interpreting the Significance of the Indices

As Table 5.14 indicates in terms of age at the .01 significance
level. the fOllowing were fOund to be significant: Community Policing
Leadership Index (-.217**). Content Validity Index (-.260**). Negative
Goal Emphasis Index (-.330**). Interaction Facilitation (-.218**).

Support Facilitation (-.197**). and Work Facilitation Index (-.272**).

138

In other words. younger respondents were fOund to be more likely to view
police negatively (-.217**). question the consistency and continuity of
law enfOrcement (-.260**). believe police make them go through
unnecessarily red tape (-.330**). and believe police do not
constructively interact (-.218**). support (-.197**) or work (- 272**)
with the community.

At the .01 significance level home owners were found to view
police in the community more positively (.208**) than non home owners
(CPL score). At the .05 significance level. the following variables are
positively correlated with home ownership: 02 race (.161*). 019 had seen
police more frequently in their neighborhoods. Respondents who indicated
they owned their home ownership were predominantly Caucasian (.161*).
saw police more frequently in their neighborhoods (.148*). perceived
Interaction Facilitation Index (.186*): Support Facilitation Index
(.180*). and Work Facilitation Index (.152*) in a positive light. In
other words. home owners tend to interact (.186*). support (.180*). and
be more involved (.152*) with their neighborhood and the community at
large than non-home owners.

Interpretation of Community Policing Leadership Index
Respondents were less apt to be young (03). had been a victim of

a personal injury crime (011). witnessed a crime (012). witnessed an

139

arrest. (013). believe they’ve received a break (029).feel they were

treated unfairly (030).had been a victim of a property crime (010). knew

if a community policing center was in their neighborhood (018). and had

frequent face-to-face encounters with police (020).

On the other hand. respondents were found to be more apt to:

0000000000

Own their home. (05)

Assess their neighborhood as being safe. (026)

Feel that a Police and Community partnership exists
Favor a tax increase to support foot patrols. (Q31)
Believe they cannot fairly assess police. (033)
Content Validity Index (CVI)

Negative Goal Emphasis Index (GEI)

Interaction Facilitation Index (IFI)

Support Facilitation Index (SFI)

Work Facilitation Index (WFI)

Interpretation of Content Validity Index

Respondents
0

0000000

Respondents
0

000000000

were fOund to be less apt to:

Be young. (03)

Have been a victim of a property crime. (010)

Have been a victim of a personal injury crime. (011
Have witnessed a crime. (012)

Believe they cannot fairly assess police performance
Own a gun. (08)

Have witnessed an arrest. (013)

Believe that the have been given break by the police

were fOund to be more apt to:

Assess their neighborhood as being safe. (Q26)
Favor a tax increase to support foot patrols. (031)
Believe they cannot fairly assess police. (033)
Community Policing Leadership Index. (CPLI)
Negative Goal Emphasis Index. (GEI)

Interaction Facilitation Index. (IFI)

Support Facilitation Index. (SFI)

Work Facilitation Index. (WFI)

Own their home. (05)

Feel that a Police and Community partnership exists

140

. (028)

)
. (Q33)

. (029)

. (028)

Interpretation of Negative Goal Emphasis Index

Respondents were found to be less apt to:

0
0

Be young. (03)
Currently be involved with Neighborhood Watch. (021)

Respondents were found to be more apt to:

0

00000

Believe they cannot fairly assess police. (033)
Community Policing Leadership Index. (CPLI)
Content Validity Index (CVI)

Interaction Facilitation Index. (IFI)

Support Facilitation Index. (SFI)

Work Facilitation Index. (WFI)

Interpretation of Positive Interaction Facilitation Index

Respondents were found to be less apt to:

0

000000

Be Young.

Have been a victim of a personal injury ‘Crime'. (011)
Have witnessed a ‘Crime'. (012)

Ever have been given a ‘Break' by the police. (029)
Feel they have been treated unfairly by police. (030)
Have been a victim of a property crime. (010)

Have witnessed an ‘Arrest’. (013)

Respondents were found to be more apt to:

0

0000000000

Have ever received a crime prevention assessment. (026)
Feel that a Police and Community partnership exists. (028)
Favor a tax increase to support foot patrols. (Q31)
Believe they cannot fairly assess police perfOrmance. (033)
Community Policing Leadership Index. (CPLI)

Content Validity Index. (CVI)

Negative Goal Emphasis Index. (GEI)

Support Facilitation Index. (SFI)

Work Facilitation Index. (WFI)

Own their home. (05)

Frequently see police in their neighborhood. (019)

141

Interpretation of the Positive Support Facilitation Index

Respondents were found to be less apt to:

0000000

Be Young.

Have been a victim of a personal injury ‘Crime’. (011)
Have witnessed a ‘Crime'. (012)

Have witnessed an ‘Arrest'. (013)

Ever have been given a ‘Break’ by the police. (029)
Feel they have been treated unfairly by police. (030)
Have been a victim of a property crime. (010)

Respondents were found to be more apt to:

000000000000

Have ever received a crime prevention assessment. (026)
Feel that a Police and Community partnership exists. (028)
Favor a tax increase to support foot patrols. (031)
Believe they cannot fairly assess police. (033)

Community Policing Leadership Index. (CPLI)

Content Validity Index. (CVI)

Negative Goal Emphasis Index. (GEI)

Interaction Facilitation Index. (IFI)

Work Facilitation Index. (WFI)

Have frequent face to face encounters with police. (020)
Have attended a meeting where police participated. (024)
Feel that a Police and Community Partnership exists. (028)

Interpretation of the Positive Work Facilitation Index

Respondents were found to be less apt to:

0

0000000

Be young. (03)

Have been a victim of a personal injury crime. (011)
Have witnessed a crime. (012)

Have witnessed an arrest. (013)

Have been given a ‘Break' by the police. (029)

Feel they were treated unfairly by the police. (030)
Own a gun. (08)

Have been a victim of a property crime. (010)

Respondents were found to be more apt to:

O

O
O
O
0

Feel that a Police and Community partnership exists. (028)
Favor a tax increase to support foot patrols. (Q31)
Believe they cannot fairly assess police. (033)

Community Policing Leadership Index (CPLI)

Content Validity Index (CVI)

142

o Negative Goal Emphasis Index (GEI)

0 Interaction Facilitation Index (IFI)

0 Support Facilitation Index (SFI)

0 Own a dog. (09)

0 Assess their neighborhood as being safe. (026)
CONCLUSIONS

Age
Generally. as age increased. so did education. income. and home

ownership: but the perception of crime and critical assessment of police
decreased. Older respondents tended to be more secure and less critical
of traditional lines of authority than their younger counterparts.

It should be noted that most of the African American respondents
were Older than 35 years of age. Their positive attitudes toward
community policing and authority are not necessarily shared by younger
African Americans. In fact. there is a body of evidence which suggests
that younger African Americans are more likely to be hostile toward
police. Moreover. among Hispanics there might be an element of fear of
exposure operating related to immigration issues.

Education

As education increased so did income. awareness of crime, and
assessment of the nature and severity of crime.
Income

As income increased. so did education and home ownership.

143

Length of Time in the Community

As the length of time in the community increased so did age: but
education. gun and dog ownership as well as perception of crime and
critical assessment of police decreased.
Race and Gender

Race and gender were not fOund to be significantly correlated or
intercorrelated with any of the other variables under investigation.
Home Ownership

As home ownership increased so did involvement with community
action groups such as Neighborhood Watch. but age. education and income
tended to decrease.
Citizen Assessments of Community Policing Leadership

As the assessment of Community Policing Leadership increased so
did the respondents age. home ownership. and frequency of visibility of
the police in their neighborhood.
Personal Protection and Victimization

As crime victimization increased so did gun and dog ownership. Gun
and dog owners were generally fOund not to be involved with community
action groups. tended not to believe a partnership existed between the
police and the community. and did not feel their neighborhood was any

safer than other neighborhoods. On the other hand. generally. they knew

144

if community policing was in their neighborhood. were not satisfied with
the way they had been treated by the police. but believed they could
offer an impartial and fair assessment of police and police perfOrmance.
Interpretation of Community Policing Leadership Index

At the .01 level of significance. community policing leadership is
negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with home
ownership. In other words. respondents ratings of overall community
policing leadership will decrease as the age of the respondent
decreases. but increase as the respondents home ownership increases.
Interpretation of Content Validity Index

At the .01 level of significance. content validity is negatively
correlated with age. and at the .05 level of significance. positively
correlated with the respondents race and home ownership. In other words.
ratings of overall community policing leadership decreased as the age of
the respondent decreased but increased as home ownership increased.
Interpretation of Goal Emphasis Index

Due to the fact that the Goal Emphasis Index questions were
negatively stated. the direction is reversed thereby making it. at the
.01 level of significance. positively correlated with the respondents
age. In other words. as the age of the respondent increases so will the

favorable rating of goal emphasis.

145

Interpretation of Positive Interaction Facilitation Index

At the .01 level of significance. Interaction Facilitation is
negatively correlated with age. and at the .05 level of significance.
positively correlated with home ownership. In other words. respondents
ratings of police interaction with Citizens and the community will
decrease as the age of the respondent decreases but increase as the
respondents home ownership increases.
Interpretation of Positive Support Facilitation Index

At the .01 level of significance. Support Facilitation is
negatively correlated with age. and at the .05 level of significance.
positively correlated with home ownership. In other words. respondents
rating of police concern and support of the community and citizens will
decrease as the age of the respondent decreases but increase as the
respondents home ownership increases.
Interpretation of Positive Work Facilitation Index

At the .01 level of significance. Work Facilitation is negatively
correlated with age. and at the .05 level of significance, positively
correlated with home ownership. In other words. respondents rating of
the police working with community resources and citizens to facilitate
improvements will decrease as the age of the respondent decreases but

increase as the respondents home ownership increases.

146

Visibility

The frequency of visibility of police is addressed in question #19
which directly asks respondents how often they see police patrolling in
their in their neighborhood.
Contact

The frequency of face-to-face contact with police is addressed in
question 20. which directly asks respondents how often do they come into
face-to-face contact with police in their neighborhood.
Exposure

The frequency of exposure to police is addressed by face-to-face

contact with police.

147

CHAPTER VI

COMPARISON OF ISSUES BY GENDER AND ETHNIC ORIGIN OF RESPONDENT

An initial observation of community policing neighborhood zones
seemed to indicate that the selection of community policing zones took
into account areas primarily with high ethnic/racial composite
populations. These are predominantly older areas of the city of Lansing
where rent is lower and more affOrdable fOr low income families. welfare
mothers and ADC recipients. For these reasons. this chapter takes a
closer examination of gender and ethnicity of the respondents
perceptions of police and police performance.

Table 6.1 Ethnicity and Gender of the Respondents

 

Gender of Respondents

 

 

Ethnicity Male % Female % Total %
Caucasian 66 74% 78 77% 144 76%
.Afr-Am. 12 13% 11 11% 23 12%
Hispanic 11 13% 12 12% 23 12%
'Totals 89 100% 101 100% 190 100%

Of the eighty-nine male respondents. African Americans accounted
for 13 percent. Hispanics accounted for 13 percent. and Caucasians
accounted fOr the remaining 74 percent. On the other hand. of the one
hundred and one (101) female respondents. African Americans represented

11 percent. Hispanics 12 percent. and Caucasians 77 percent.

148

Table 6.2 Ethnicity and Age of Male Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %
18-24 1 1.52% 1 8 33% 3 27.27% 5 5.62%
25-34 15 22.73% 0 0.00% 3 27.27% 18 20.22%
35-39 5 7.57% 0 0.00% 2 18.18% 7 7.86%
40-44 10 15.15% 1 8.33% 0 00.00% 11 12.36%
45-49 11 16.67% 1 8.33% 1 9.10% 13 14.61%
50-+ 24 36.36% 9 75.00% 2 18.18% 35 39.33%
Totals 66 100% 12 100% 11 100% 89 100%
Table 6.3 Ethnicity and Age of Female Respondents

Age Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %
18-24 5 6.41% 1 9.09% 2 16.68% 8 7.92%
25-34 20 25.64% 0 0.00% 4 33.33% 24 23.76%
35-39 4 5.13% 0 0.00% 1 8.33% 5 4.95%
40-44 14 17.95% 1 9.09% 1 8.33% 16 15.84%
45-49 10 12.82% 1 9.09% 1 8.33% 12 11.88%
50-+ 25 32.05% 8 72.73% 3 25.00% 36 35.65%
Totals 78 100% 11 100% 12 100% 101 100%
Table 6.4 Ethnicity and Age of All Respondents

Age Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %
18-24 6 4.17% 2 8.70% 5 21.74% 13 6.84%
25-34. 35 24.30% 0 0.00% 7 30.43% 42 22.10%
35-39 9 6.25% 0 0.00% 3 13.04% 12 6.32%
40-44 24 16.67% 2 8.70% 1 4.35% 27 14.21%
45-49 21 14.58% 2 8.70% 2 8.70% 25 13.16%
50-+ 49 34.03% 1 73.90% 5 21.74% 71 37.37%
Totals 144 100% 23 100% 23 100% 190 100%

149

Analysis of Respondents Age by Ethnicity

Analyzing age as reported by the survey respondents we find that
73.90 percent of the African American respondents are 50 years of age or
older. There were no African Americans in the 25-34 years of age. Of the
total Hispanic respondents.52.17 percent were under 35 years of age,

In terms of the Caucasian respondents.34 03 percent were over 50
years of age and 28.47 percent were under 35 years of age. Therefore,
African American respondents were generally older than their Caucasian

and Hispanic counterparts.

Table 6.5 Education by Ethnicity

 

Education Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %

 

H.S.Or Less 43 29.86X 8 34.78X 8 34.78 X 59 31.05X

Technical
Training 40 27.78% 9 39.13% 6 26.09% 55 28.95%

BA/Greater 61 42.36X 6 26.09X 9 39.13X 76 40.00X

 

Totals 144 100X 23 100X 23 100X 190 100X

150

Table 6.6 Education by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Education Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

HS/Less 14 21X 29 37X 5 42X 3 27X 2 18X 6 50X 21 24X 38 38X

Technical
Trahnng 19 29X 21 27X 4 33% 5 46X 5 46X 1 8X 28 31X 27 27X

Bachelors/
Greater 33 50% 28 36% 3 25% 3 27% 4 36% 5 42% 40 45% 36 35%

 

Total 66 100% 78 100% 12 100% 11 100% 11 100% 12 100% 89 100% 101 100%
Analysis of Respondents Education by Gender and Ethnicity

Caucasian and Hispanics were fOund to be more likely than their
African American counterparts to have a Bachelors degree or greater.
African Americans were found to be more likely to be technically
trained, and African Americans and Hispanics were found to be more
likely to have less than or equal to a high school education than their
Caucasian counterparts. The respondent’s gender accounted for no
significant differences in educational prowess/achievement.

Table 6.7 Ethnicity and Home Ownership

 

 

Home Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %

Own 111 77% 17 74% 13 57% 141 74%
Rent 33 23% 6 26% 10 43% 49 26%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

 

Totals 144 100X 23 100X 23 100X 190 100X

151

Table 6.8 Home Ownership by Gender 8 Ethnicity

 

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Home Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

own 53 80X 58 74X 9 75X 8 73X 6 55X 7 58X 68 76X 73 72X
Rent 13 20X 20 26X 3 25X 3 27X 5 45X 5 42X 2124X 28 28X

 

Total 66 100% 78 100% 12 100% 11 100% 11 100% 12 100% 89 100% 101 100%
Home Ownership by Gender and Ethnicity

Caucasians and African American respondents were found to be more
likely to own their homes than their Hispanic counterparts. The
respondents gender accounted for no significant differences in home
ownership.

Table 6.9 Length of Time in the Community by Ethnicity

 

 

Years Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
1-5 37 26% 1 4% 7 30% 45 24%
6-10 14 10% O 0% 4 18% 18 9%

11-More 93 64X 22 96X 12 52X 127 67X

 

Totals 144 100% 23 100% 23 100% 190 100%
Table 6.10 Length of Time in the Community by Gender and Ethnicity

 

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Years Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

1-5 18 27X 19 24X 0 0X 1 9X 4 36X 3 25X 22 25X 23 23X
6-10 6 9X 8 10X 0 0X 10 91X 2 18X 2 17X 8 9X 20 20X
11+ 42 64X 51 66X 12 100X 0 0X 5 46X 7 58X 59 66X 58 57X

 

Total 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

152

Length of Time in Community by Gender and Ethnicity
According to Table 6.10 African American respondents resided in

the community longer than their Caucasian or Hispanic counterparts. The
respondents gender accounted for no significant differences.

Table 6.11 Socioeconomic Strata by Ethnicity

 

 

 

Income Caucasian % African Am. % Hispanic % Total %
520.000

or Less 49 34s 4 18% 12 52% 65 342
520.001

540.000 51 35a 17 74% 7 312 75 402
540.001

550.000 16 11: 0 oz 3 13: 19 10%
550.001

560.000 14 10a 1 4x 1 4x 16 82
560.001

Over 14 102 1 4x 0 oz 15 ex
Totals 144 100% 23 100% 23 100% 190 100%

Table 6.12 Socioeconomic Strata by Gender and Ethnicity

 

 

Income Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

$20,000

or Less 17 26% 32 41% 3 25% 1 9% 6 55% 6 50% 26 29% 39 39%
$20,001

$40,000 25 38% 23 29% 8 67% 9 82% 4 36% 3 25% 37 42% 35 35%
$40,001

$50,000 9 14% 7 9% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 25% 9 10% 10 10%
$50,001

$60,000 7 10% 10 13% 0 0% 1 9% 1 9% 0 0% 8 9% 11 11%
$60,001

Over 8 12X 6 8X 1 8X 0 0X 0 0X 0 0X 9 10X 6 5X

 

Total 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

15K}

Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents by Ethnic Group

Table 6.11 presents a socioeconomic profile of survey respondents
by ethnic grouping. At the $20,000 or less annual household income level
we find 18 percent of the African American respondents as compared to 52
percent of the Hispanic respondents and 35 percent of the Caucasian
respondents. Whereas. at the 620,001-540,000 annual household income
level we find 74 percent of the African American respondents as compared
to 31 percent of the Hispanic respondents and 35 percent of the
Caucasian respondents. On the other hand. at the $40,000 and over annual
household income level we find 8 percent of the African American
respondents as compared to 17 percent of the Hispanic respondents and 31
percent of the Caucasian respondents.

In other words. Hispanic respondents are more likely than their
Caucasian or African American counterparts to report an annual household
income of 20.000 or less. 0n the other hand. African American
respondents are more likely than their Hispanic or Caucasian
counterparts to report an annual household income of 520,001-340,000.
Caucasian respondents are more likely than their African American or
Hispanic counterparts to report an annual household income of between
550,001-560,000 and an annual household income of over $60,000. In other

words. Caucasian respondents are over 2.5 times more likely than their

154

African American and 10 times more likely than their Hispanic
counterparts to report an annual household income of over $60,001.

Table 6.13 Gun Ownership by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Own Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Gun Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

Yes 17 26X 16 21X 5 42X 5 45X 1 9X 1 8X 23 26X 22 22X
No 49 74X 62 79X 7 58X 6 55X 10 91X 11 92X 66 74X 79 78X

 

Total 66 100% 78 100% 12 100% 11 100% 11 100% 12 100% 89 100% 101 100%
Gun Ownership
As Table 6.13 indicates. most respondents reported that they do

not own a gun. However. African American respondents were more likely to
own a gun than their Hispanic or Caucasian counterparts. Gender
accounted fOr no significant differences in gun ownership. Fifty-eight
percent of African American males and 55 percent of females indicated
they do not own a gun compared to 91 percent of Hispanic males and 92
percent of females. and 74 percent of Caucasian males and 79 percent of
females.

Table 6.14 Dog Ownership by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Own Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Dog Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

Yes 27 41X 31 40X 3 25X 4 36X 4 36X 5 42X 34 38X 40 40X
NO 39 59X 47 60X 9 75X 7 64X 7 64X 7 58X 55 62X 61 60X

 

'Totals 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

155

Dog Ownership

Caucasians are more likely to own a dog than any other group. The
gender of the respondent was found to account for no significant
differences in dog ownership. Seventy-five percent of African American
males and 64 percent of females identified themselves as not being dog
owners as compared to 64 percent of Hispanic males and 58 percent of
females. and 59 percent of Caucasian males and 60 percent of females.

Due to the fact that a dog or gun may not necessarily be the sole
property of the respondent but may be owned by another member of the
household. these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Table 6.15 Property Crime Victimization by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Property Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Crimes Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female %

 

Yes 43 65X 49 63X 10 73X 10 91% 7 64% 7 58X 60 67X 66 65X
NO 23 35X 29 37X 2 17X 1 9X 4 36X 5 42% 29 33% 35 35%

 

‘Totals 66 100% 78 100% 12 100X 11 100% 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100%

Property Crime Victimization

As Table 6.15 demonstrates. 73 percent of African American males
and 91 percent of the females identified themselves as having been a
victim of a property crime. as compared to 64 percent of the Hispanic
Imales and 58 percent of the females. and 65 percent of Caucasian males

and 63 percent of the females.

156

Table 6.16 Personal Crime Victimization by Ethnicity and Gender

 

 

 

Personal Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total

Injury Male 5 Female% Male: Female% Male: Female: Male% Female%
Yes 18 27: 23 63% 217% 2 82% 6 55% 6 50% 26 29% 31 31%
No 48 73% 55 37: 10 73% 9 18% 5 45% 6 50% 63 71% 70 69%
Totals 66 100% 78 100% 121001: 11 1001111003 12 100% 89 100% 101100%

Personal Crime Victimization

Caucasian and Hispanics were found to be more apt to have
experienced personal injury than their African American counterparts.
The gender of the respondent was fOund to account for no significant
difference in personal injury victimization. According to Table 6.16.
17 percent of the African American males and 82 percent of the females
identified themselves as having been a victim of a personal injury
offense. as compared to 55 percent of the Hispanic males and 50 percent
of the females. and 27 percent of the Caucasian males and 63 percent of
the females.

Table 6.17 Witness to a Crime by Ethnicity and Gender

 

 

 

Witness Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total

Crime Male 5 Female 5 Male 5 Female 5 Male 5 Female 7: Male 2 Female 3
Yes 33 so: 32 41: 3 25: 3 27: 6 55: s 423 42 47: 40 402
No 33 so: 46 59: 9 7s: 8 732 5 45: 7 58% 47 532 61 60%
Totals 66 100: 78 1002 12 1004 11 100: 11 100% 12 100% 89 1003 101 1002

157

Witness to a Crime

Caucasians and Hispanics are more likely than their African
American counterparts to have witnessed a crime. The gender of the
respondent was fOund to account fOr no significant differences. As Table
6.17 indicates. 75 percent of the African American males and 73 percent
of the females identified themselves as never having witnessed the
commission of a crime as compared to 45 percent of the Hispanic males
and 58 percent of the females. and 50 percent of the Caucasian males and
59 percent of the females.

Table 6.18 Perception of Crime by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Perception

of Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Crime Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female % Male % Female X

 

Increase 38 57% 51 65% 8 67% 8 73% 9 82% 9 75% 55 62% 68 67%
Decrease 11 17% 9 12% 1 8% 0 0% 1 9% 2 17% 13 15% 1111%
Neither 17 26% 18 23% 3 25% 3 27% 1 9% 1 8% 21 23% 22 22%

 

Totals 66 100: 78 1002 12 100% 11 1002 11 100% 12 1002 89 100: 101 100%
Perception of Crime

The majority of the respondents indicated they perceived crime in
their neighborhood. in the past twelve~ months. had significantly
increased. Gender was found to account for no significant differences.
As Table 6.18 indicates. 67 percent of the African American males and 73
percent of the females indicate they believed. during the past twelve

months. crime in their neighborhood had increased. with 88 percent of

158

that figure describing the increase as being significant. Eighty-two
percent of the Hispanic males and 75 percent of females indicated that
they believe. during the past twelve months. crime in their neighborhood
has increased. with 56 percent of that figure describing the increase as
being significant. and 57 percent of the Caucasian males and 65 percent
of the females indicated they believe that. during the past twelve
months. crime in their neighborhood has increased. with 60 percent of
that figure describing the increase as significant.

Table 6.19 Sergeption of Nature and Severity of Crime by Ethnicity and
en er

 

Severity
of Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Crime Male% Female% Male% Female% Male% Female% Male% Female%

 

Increase 56 84% 66 85% 10 84% 10 91% 11 100% 11 92% 77 86% 87 86%
Decrease 5 8% 4 5% 1 8% 1 9% 0 0% 1 8% 6 7% 6 6%
Neither 5 8% 8 10% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 7% 8 8%

 

Totals 66 1002 78 1002 12 100: 11 100% 11 100% 12 100% 89 100% 101 1002
Perception of the Nature and Severity of Crime

The majority of the respondents reported that they perceived the
nature and severity of crime as having increased in recent years. No
significant differences were fOund between gender or ethnic groups.
According to Table 6.19. 84 percent of the African American males and 91
percent of the females indicated that they believe, in recent years. the

nature and severity of crime has increased. with 75 percent of that

159

figure describing the increase as being significant. One hundred percent
of the Hispanic males and 92 percent of the females indicated they
believe that. in recent years. the nature and severity of crime had
increased. with 59 percent of that figure describing the increase as
significant: and 84 percent of the Caucasian males and 85 percent of the
females indicated they believe that. in recent years. the nature and
severity of crime had increased. with 76 percent of that figure
describing the increase as significant.

Table 6.20 Frequency of Police Visibility by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Visibility _ . . .
of CaucaSlan African Am. Hispanic Total
Pol ice Mal e% Femal e% Mal e% Femal e% Mal e% Femal e% Mal e% Femal e%

 

Weekly 28 42X 26 33X 7 58X 6 55X 6 55X 6 50X 41 46X 38 37X
Monthly 17 26X 24 31X 5 42X 5 45X 1 9X 1 8X 23 26X 30 30X
Rarely 21 32X 28 36X 0 0X 0 0X 4 36X 5 42X 25 28X 33 33X

 

Totals 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

Frequency of Police Neighborhood Visibility

African American and Hispanic respondents are more likely to see
police in their neighborhoods than their Caucasian counterparts. The
gender of the respondent was found to account for no significant

differences.

160

According to Table 6.20. 58 percent of the African American males
and 55 percent of the females stated that they see police patrolling in
their neighborhood on a daily or weekly basis. Of the remaining
percentages. 42 percent of the males and 45 percent of the females
indicated they see police patrolling in their neighborhood occasionally.
on a monthly basis.

Fifty-five percent of the Hispanic males and 50 percent of the
females stated that they see police patrolling in their neighborhood on
a daily or weekly basis. Of the remaining percentage. 9 percent of the
males and 8 percent of the females indicated they see police patrolling
in their neighborhood on a monthly basis. and 36 percent of the males
and 42 percent of the females stated that they rarely see police
patrolling in their neighborhood.

Forty-two percent of the Caucasian males and 33 percent of the
females indicated that they see police patrolling in their neighborhood
on a daily or weekly basis. Of the remaining percentage. 26 percent of
the males and 31 percent of the females indicated that they see police
patrolling in their neighborhood on a monthly basis. and 32 percent of
the males and 36 percent of the females stated that they rarely see

police patrolling in their neighborhood.

161

Table 6.21 Frequency of Police Neighborhood Interaction by Ethnicity
and Gender

 

Frequency
of African Am. Hispanic Caucasian Total
Contact Male X Female X Male % Female X Male X Female X Male X Female X

 

Daily/
Week y 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 3 4% 2 2% 3 3%

Monthly/
Occas. 650% 1 9% 19% 2 17% 6 9% 4 5% 1315% 7 7%

Rarely 6 50X 10 91X 10 91X 10 83X 58 88X 71 91X 74 83X 91 90X

 

Total 12 100X 11 100% 11 100X 12 100X 66 100X 78 100X 89 100X 190 100X

Frequency of Police Neighborhood Interaction
According to Table 6.21. 50 percent of the African American males

and 9 percent of the females indicated that they come into contact with
police in their neighborhood on a weekly-monthly basis. while 50 percent
of the males and 91 percent of the females stated they rarely. if ever.
had come into contact with police in their neighborhood. As for Hispanic
respondents. 9 percent of the males and 17 percent of the females
indicated that. on a weekly-monthly. basis they come into contact with
the police in their neighborhood. while 91 percent of the males and 83
percent of the females stated that they rarely. if ever. had come into
contact with police in their neighborhood. As for Caucasian respondents.
3 percent of the males and 4 percent of the females indicated that. on
a weekly basis. they come into contact with the police in their

neighborhood, while another 9 percent of the males and 5 percent of the

162

females indicated that they occasionally come into contact with the
police in their neighborhood. and 88 percent of the males and 91 percent
of the females stated that they rarely, if ever. had come into contact

with police in their neighborhood.

Table 6.22 Frequency of Face-to-Face Contact with Police by Ethnicity

 

 

 

Police African Am. Hispanic Caucasian Total
Contact N X N % N % N %
Daily

Week y 0 0% 0 0% 5 3% 5 3%
Monthly

Occas. 7 30% 3 13% 10 7% 20 10%
Rarely 16 70% 20 87% 129 90% 165 87%
Totals 23 100% 23 100% 144 100% 190 100%

Frequency of Face to Face Contact

Frequency of face-to-face contact with the police in one's own
neighborhood was found to be unrelated to the respondents gender or
ethnic group. but in all cases contact with police was infrequent/rare.

Table 6.23 Neighborhood Safety Assessment by Ethnicity and Gender

 

African Am. Hispanic Caucasian Total
Safety Male% Female X Male % Female X Male % Female % Male % Female X

 

Worse 4 3X 5 46X 6 55X 4 33X 10 15X 11 14X 20 22X 20 20X
Same 6 50X 4 36X 3 27X 6 50X 35 53X 42 54X 44 50X 52 51X
Safer 2 17X 2 18X 2 18X 2 17X 21 32X 25 32X 25 28X 29 29X

 

Totals 12 100X 11 100X 11100X 12100X 66100X 78 100X 89100X101100X

163

Neighborhood Safety Assessment by Ethnicity and Gender

Caucasians are fOur times more likely to assess their neighborhood
as being the same or safer than other neighborhoods in the community. On
the other hand. African American and Hispanic respondents are more
likely to assess their neighborhood as being worse than other
neighborhoods in the community.

Seventeen percent of the African American males. 18 percent of
African American females. 18 percent of Hispanic males and 18 percent of
Hispanic females indicated they believed. compared to other areas of the
city. their neighborhood is safer. 0n the other hand. 50 percent of
African American males. 36 percent of the African American females. 27
percent of Hispanic males and 50 percent of Hispanic females said that.
compared to other areas. they believed their neighborhood was about the
same. and 33 percent of African American males. 46 percent of African
American females. 55 percent of Hispanic males and 33 percent of
Hispanic females said they believed that. compared to other areas, their
neighborhood was worse.

As for Caucasian respondents. 32 percent of the males and 32
percent of the females stated that they believed. compared to other
areas of the city their neighborhood was safer: 53 percent of the males

and 54 percent of the females indicated they believed that. compared to

164

other areas. their neighborhood was about the same. and 15 percent of
the males and 14 percent of the females stated that. compared to other
areas. they believed their neighborhood was worse. when considering the
fact that the majority of the respondents indicated they perceived crime
as having significantly increased in their neighborhood in recent years
claiming that their neighborhood ‘is about the same as other
neighborhoods' cannot necessarily be construed as a positive.

Table 6.24 Attitudes Toward Police and Community Commission/Review
Board by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Review African Am. Hispanic Caucasian Total
Board Male% FemaleX Male% Female% MaleX FemaleX Male% Female%

 

Favor 6 50% 5 45% 3 27X 4 33% 39 59% 43 55% 48 54% 52 52%
OpposeOOXOOXOOXOOX12%11X11X11X

Unsure 6 50X 6 55% 8 73X 8 67X 26 39X 34 44X 40 46X 48 47X

 

Totals 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 66 100X 78 100X 89 100X 101 100X

Police and Community Commission/Review Board

The Police and Community Commission or Review Board issue was too
evenly divided to make a call either way. No significant differences
were fbund between gender or ethnic groups. According to Table 6.24. 50
percent of the African American males and 45 percent of the females. 27
percent of the Hispanic males and 33 percent of the females. and 59
percent of the Caucasian males and 55 percent of the females favored the

creation of a Police and Community Commission or Review Board.

165

Conversely. 50 percent of the African American males and 55
percent of the females. 73 percent of the Hispanic males and 67 percent
of the females. and 39 percent of the Caucasian males and 44 percent of
the females indicated that they were unsure about a Police and
Community Commission or Review Board. Gender was not found to account
for any significant differences.

Table 6.25 Police and Community Partnership by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Do You Feel a Police and Community Partnership Exists?

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X FemaleX

 

Yes 27 41X 30 38X 4 33X 5 45X 3 27X 4 33X 34 38X 39 39X
No 39 59X 48 62X 8 67X 6 55X 8 73X 8 67X 55 62X 62 61X

 

Total 66 100X 89 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

Police and Community Partnership

As Table 6.25 indicates. the overwhelming majority of the
respondents. regardless of gender or ethnic origin. did not believe a
partnership exists between the Lansing Police Department and the
Community. Thirty-eight percent of all the males respondents and 39
percent of all the females respondents indicated they believe a Police
and Community partnership exists. Conversely. 62 percent of the male
respondents and 61 percent of all the female respondents indicated that

they did not believe a Police and Community partnership exists.

166

Table 6.26 Ever Receive a Break from Police by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Have You Ever Received a Break from the Police?

Caucasian African American Hispanic Total
Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X FemaleX

 

Yes 16 24X 21 27X 4 33X 3 27X 2 18X 8 67X 22 25X 32 32X
N0 50 76X 57 73X 8 67X 8 73X 9 82X 4 33X 67 75X 69 68X

 

Total 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

Ever Receive a Break

In terms of the respondents perception as to whether or not they
felt they had ever received a break from the police. as Table 6.26
indicates the ethnic group and gender of the respondent was found to
account for no significant difference.

Twenty-five percent of all male respondents and 32 percent of all
female respondents indicated that they felt that they had received a
break from the police. 0n the other hand. 75 percent of all male
respondents and 68 percent of all female respondents indicated they did
not believe they had ever received a break from the police.

Table 6.27 Ever Feel You Here Not Treated Fair by Police

 

Have You Ever Felt You Here Not Treated Fair by Police

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Male X FemaleX Male X FemaleX Male X FemaleX Male X Female X

 

Yes 30 45X 25 32X 3 25X 1 9X 6 55X 4 33X 39 44X 30 30X
N0 36 55X 53 68X 9 75X 10 91X 5 45X 8 67X 50 56X 71 70X

 

Totals 89 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

167

Sense of Fair Play

In terms of the respondents perception as to whether or not they
felt they had not been related to in a fair manner by the police. the
majority indicated they believed police had been fair. The ethnic group
and gender of the respondent was found to account for no significant
differences.

As Table 6.27 indicates. 44 percent of all male respondents and 30
percent of all female respondents indicated they felt they had not been
treated fair by the police. Conversely. 56 percent of all male
respondents and 70 percent of all female respondents indicated they felt
they had been treated fair by the police. However. it is interesting
that Caucasian females. Hispanic females and African American females
and males gave comparatively high marks to Lansing police fOr fairness
and Caucasian and Hispanic males gave them low marks.

Table 6.28 Tax Supported Foot Patrols by Ethnic Group and Gender

 

Do You Favor Tax Supported Foot Patrols?

Caucasian African Am. His anic Total
Male X FemaleX Male X FemaleX Male FemaleX Male X Female X

 

Yes 43 65X 45 58X 10 83X 8 73X 6 55X 5 42X 59 66X 58 57X
No 23 35X 33 42X 2 17X 3 27X 5 45X 7 58X 30 34X 43 43X

 

‘Totals 66 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

168

Tax Supported Foot Patrols

An analysis of survey respondents' responses revealed that the
majority of favored tax-funded fOot patrols. The respondents gender was
found to account for no significant differences. As Table 6.28
indicates. 66 percent of all male respondents and 57 percent of all
female respondents indicated that they favored tax supported foot
patrols. Although the ethnic group of the respondent was not fOund to
account fbr any significant differences. it is interesting that African
American and Caucasian respondents. compared to Hispanic respondents.
are the strongest supporters of tax-funded fOot patrols.

Table 6.29 Perspective on crimes against peo le versus crimes
against property by Ethnicity and ender

 

Are crimes against people more serious than property crimeS?
Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X Female X Male X Female X

 

Yes 58 88X 70 90X 12 100X 11 100X 10 91X 11 92X 80 90X 92 91X
No 8 12X 8 10X 0 0X 0 0X 1 9X 1 8X 9 10X 9 9X

 

Total 89 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100% 11 100X 12 100% 89 100X 101 100X
Perspective on Crimes Against People

Although the gender of the respondent was not found to account fbr
any significant differences. as Table 6.29 indicates. 100 percent of the
African American male and female respondents and 91 percent of the

Hispanic males and 92 percent of females indicated they believe crimes

169

against people are more important than crimes against property. Eighty-
eight percent of Caucasian males and 90 percent of the females agreed.

Table 6.30 Perceived ability to fairly assess police & police
performance by Ethnicity and Gender

 

Do you feel you can fairly assess police and police performance?

Caucasian African Am. Hispanic Total
Male X FemaleX Male X FemaleX Male X FemaleX Male X Female X

 

Yes 56 85X 6178X 10 83X 10 91X 11100X 12 100X 77 87X 83 82X
N0 10 15X 17 22X 2 17X 19X 0 0X 0 OX 1213X 18 18X

 

Totals 89 100X 78 100X 12 100X 11 100X 11 100X 12 100X 89 100X 101 100X

Assessing Police and Police Perfbrmance

In terms of the respondents self perception as to whether or not
they felt they could fairly assess police and police performance
revealed that the gender of the respondent was not found to account fOr
any significant differences. As indicated in Table 6.30. 87 percent of
the African American respondents. 100 percent of the Hispanic
respondents and 81 percent of the Caucasian respondents stated that they
believed they could fairly assess police and police performance. On the
other, hand only 13 percent of the African American respondents. none of
the Hispanic respondents. and 19 percent of the Caucasian respondents
indicated they did not feel they could fairly assess police or police

performance and recused themselves from survey questions 34-79.

170

CHAPTER VII
ANALYSIS OF THE HYPOTHESES AND INDICES
Introduction
The analysis of the data will be presented in four parts. In the
first part. the hypotheses concerning the factor data set will be
presented. Items 'which made up the factors being tested in the
individual hypotheses are presented. The Pearson Product Moment

Correlation is used to test the significance of these hypotheses and is
expressed as fellows: r - or rxy = indicating the degree of relationship

between x and y. Measures of correlation take positive values (+) where
the relation is positive and negative values (-) where the relation is
negative.

In the second part. a descriptive analysis of the category data
set is presented. It offers a general view of the perceptions and
characteristics of specific data sets by using contingency and frequency
tables. From this presentation it is hoped that the reader will become
familiar with the data set. especially where similarities and
differences exist between the variables.

The third part examines individual hypotheses derived from the
categorical data. The Pearson Correlation. partial correlation. one way

analysis of variance. and analysis of co-variance are used in testing

171

these hypotheses. For retention. all hypotheses will be considered
significant at the .01/.05 level and always in the predicted direction.
In the feurth part. the summary. a short recounting of the main findings
of the study. will be presented and a profile of the citizen respondents
through the medial response of perceptions or characteristics of each
specific category or group. The first fOur hypotheses were developed to
check the validity of the Indicators and further validate and reaffirm
the application of Neil Gross‘ research by Robert Trojanowicz (1976.
1986,1993) and Joel Panetta (1980). A two-tailed Pearson correlation was
done for each of the indices and revealed the following. The double
asterisks indicates that the correlation is siginifcant at the 0.01
significance level. The following is a Legend of the Indices codes.

LEGEND
CPLI - Community Policing Leadership Index

CVI - Cross Validation Index
NGEI - Negative Goal Emphasis Index
IFI - Interaction Facilitation Index
SFI - Support Facilitation Index

NFI - Work Facilitation Index

Table 7.1 Intercorrelation of Index Factors

 

 

CPLI cv1 NGEI IFI SFI NFI
CPLI 1.000 .........................
CVI .896** 1.000 ....................
NGEI .507** .523** 1 000 ...............
IFI .948** .917** .438** 1.000 ----------
SFI .933** .911** .452** .944** 1.000 -----
NFI .869** .896** .544** .884** .886** 1.000

 

Table 7.1 indicates the degree to which the indices are correlated
with one another. The intercorrelations are high by design and a
detailed explanation is provided on page 7 and 8 of Chapter 1.
Hypotheses Concerning the Factors

Hypotheses 1 through 5 are concerned with the relationship between
CPL (Community Policing Leadership) scores and factors. To analyze this
relationship. the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients are
computed for pairs of variables. The Pearson correlation serves a dual
purpose: besides indicating how well the linear regression fits it is a
measure of association indicating the strength of the linear
relationship between the two variables. Zero order correlations are
produced when no controls are made for the influence of other variables.
This statistic is used in this research when the strength of the
relationship between two interval level variables are measured. Higher
order partial correlations are used when the researcher wants a single
measure of association describing the relationship between two variables
while adjusting for the effects of one or more additional variables.

H1 There is a positive correlation between CPL and
Interaction Facilitation.

The respondents responses to eight questions about the police
interaction facilitation skills in dealing with them comprised the data

for testing this hypothesis. Respondents were asked to report to what

173

extent they perceived police shared with them the fbllowing

interactions.

54.

55.

56.
57.
58.
59.

60.

61.

62.

Gives citizens the feeling that community activities are
‘important’.

Encourage citizens to upgrade their crime awareness and
report criminal activities.

Seek citizen input when making decisions
Give support and encouragement to citizens
Offer constructive suggestions to citizens

Develop a partnership/sense of "we” when working out
problems with citizens.

Make sure each citizen understands their rights and options
as they relate to particular incidents.

Act impartially and without bias or favoritism.

Disciplines all offenders using the same standards.

It was hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between

CPL and Interaction Facilitation skills of the police. That is. the

greater the ability of the police to communicate with citizens. the

higher the citizen's perception of the police as a community leader.

This relationship was in the predicted direction and was fOund to be

significant at 0.01 level. Therefbre. the hypothesis was retained r =

+.948.

H2 There is a positive correlation between CPL and
Support.

174

To test hypothesis 2. the factor support was used. Data upon which
the factor is based were obtained from responses of the citizen's to
three questions about how they perceive police perfOrm in these areas.

63. Take a strong interest in improving citizen awareness and
involvement.

64. Take an interest in the personal welfare of the average
citizen.

65. Evaluate citizens fairly.

The factor scores of the citizens for the police were averaged to
obtain the best estimate of their perceived interpersonal support. The
extent to which this index measures the police's relationship with the
citizens and community at large is tested with the CPL score.

Hypothesis 2 states that citizen respondents who rated police high
in leadership also rated them high in giving support. This relationship
was in the direction anticipated and was fbund to be significant at 0.01
level r - +.933. and the hypothesis was therefore retained.

H3 There is a positive correlation between CPL and good
work facilitation by the police.

Hypothesis 3 is tested with the factor Work Facilitation. which
relates the degree to which police effectively work with. communicate or
convey to the citizen's the agency's goals. Respondents were asked three

questions about how they perceive the police perfbrm these functions.

175

69. Maximize the use of citizen and community resources.
70. Help citizens understand the dangers of their community.

71. Display a strong interest in improving the quality of life
in the community.

The scale scores of the citizen respondents were averaged to
obtain the best estimate of the work facilitation skills of the police.
Hypothesis 3 posits that those respondents who perceive the police as
high in leadership would also perceive them as good work facilitators of
the agency goals. The correlation is in the direction anticipated and it
is significant at 0.01 level r - +.869

H4 There is a negative correlation between CPL and
Negative goal emphasis of the police.

Hypothesis 4 was based on the responses of the respondents to
three questions. Citizens were asked if they believe police

66. Require citizens to engage in unnecessary paper work.

67. Display inconsistency in their decision making.

68. Ignore citizens whose ideas don't agree with their views.

Again. the factor score of the respondents were averaged to obtain
the best estimate of the perceived police's negative goal emphasis.
Hypothesis 4 states that those respondents who view the police as high
in leadership ability will rate them low in negative goal emphasis. That

is. if the police lack clarity in their leadership roles they will be

176

rated low in CPL. The correlation is in the direction anticipated and it
was fOund to be significant at 0.01 level. r = +.507 and the hypothesis
was retained.
Summary of Findings for Hypotheses Concerning Factor Data

The main findings of the factor data set analysis are as fellows:

1. There is a positive and significant relationship between CPL and
the Interaction Facilitation skills of the police.

2. There is a positive and significant relationship between CPL and
the Support of the police.

3. There is a positive and significant relationship between CPL and
the Work Facilitation of the police.

4. There is a negative but non significant relationship between CPL
and Goal Emphasis of the police.

5. The relationship of the factor data set to CPL remains constant
regardless of the respondents age. gender. ethnic group.
education. socioeconomic status. home ownership status. experience
as a victim. length of time in the community. and experience with
the police or criminal justice system.

Hypotheses Concerning the Category Data Set
Each category is stated as a hypothesis or set of hypotheses and

tested fer statistical significance.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with contrasts was performed
fbr most of the hypotheses concerning the categorical data set. In these

hypotheses the researcher tested the relationship between the subjects

CPL score and the specific category being analyzed. One-way analysis of

177

variance was selected because the output from it provides the fOllowing
three types of infbrmation: (1) decomposition of sum of squares and eta
2 which can be used as a descriptive indicator of 'the overall
relationship between the criteria and experimental variables: (2) F
ratio and other statistics that test statistical significance: and (3)
estimates of effects of differences among category means which can be
used in interpreting the pattern of the experimental variable.
Assumptions fbr all of the hypotheses using this (ANOVA) statistical
treatment are that the level of measurement - CPL score is an interval
scale and years of education and length of time in the community are
nominal scales.

The model used is independent random sampling. with normal
populations fOr each category of the variable level. The population
variances are assumed to be equal. Hypotheses are stated in the
alternate fbrm and will assume that the population means are unequal.
The f value is used as a measure in ANOVA and is the ratio of the
between and within estimates: it can be viewed as an extension of the
difference of means.

H5 No difference exists in the stated correlations of H1

through H4 when controlling fer respondents age. gender.
education. socioeconomic status. home ownership status.

experience as a victim. length of time in the community. and
experience with the police or criminal justice system.

178

Hypothesis 5 indicates that no significant differences will exist
in the stated relationships of H1 through H4 when controlling fer all of
the aforementioned variables. When simultaneously controlling for all

of the stated variables the partial correlation is in the direction
anticipated. and it is significant at 0.01 level with an r X” - +.8921.

Additional partial correlations were performed using these
variables and fOur factors: 1) interaction facilitation: 2) support: 3)
work facilitation: and 4) negative goal emphasis. Partial correlation
coefficients express the degree to which x and y are related to one
another while 2 is held in abeyance/constant and is expressed as fOllows

r z - indicating the degree of relationship between x and y. Measures

)0.

of correlation take positive values (+) where the relation is positive

and negative values (-) where the relation is negative.

Age
H6 When controlling for the respondents' age the correlation
was fOund to be in the direction anticipated and significant

at the 0.01 level. rm,"z - .9455.

Education
H7 When controlling fer the respondents' education the
correlation was fOund to be in the direction anticipated and

significant at the 0.01 level. rxy“z - .9493.

179

H8

H9

H10

H11

H12

H13

Gender
When controlling for the respondents' gender the correlation
was found to be in the direction anticipated and significant

at the 0.01 level. r,“ - .9480.

Income
When controlling for the respondents’ income the correlation
was found to be in the direction anticipated and significant

at the 0.01level. rm - .9483.

Home Ownership
When controlling for the respondents’ home ownership the
correlation was found to be in the direction anticipated and

significant at the 0.01 level. r W - .9455

Experience as a Victim
When controlling for the respondents' experience as a victim
the correlation was found to be in the direction anticipated

and significant at the 0.01 level. r x“ - .9447

Length of Time in the Community
When controlling for the respondents’ length of time in the
community the correlation was fOund to be in the direction
anticipated and significant at the 0.01 level. r m -
.9485.

Prior Experience
When controlling for the respondents’ prior experience with
police the correlation was found to be in the direction

anticipated and significant at the 0.01 level. r x” .
.8942.

In addition. Hypothesis 5 was also retained on the basis of the

data from partial correlations which indicated no significant change

from the findings of the Pearson correlation that were performed on

Hypothesis l-Hypothesis 4.

180

Partial Correlation Coefficients

Partial Correlation coefficients were then prefOrmed controlling
for specific variables in order to determine whether or not the
variable(s) impacted the correlation. The fOllowing is the results.
Statistical Comparison of Demographic Variables

Partial correlations ‘were' done for each of these variables
controlling for the intervening influences of the respondents age.
gender. education. socioeconomic status. home ownership status.
experience as a victim. length of time in the community. and experience
with the police or criminal justice system. No differences were fbund to
exist in the correlations stated in H1 - H4. The partial correlation

coefficient was fOund to be in the direction anticipated and significant

at 0.01 level with an r x” - +8921 and no significant differences

were fOund to exist in the stated relationships of H1 through H4.In
addition. partial correlations were performed using these variables and
the four CPL factors: 1) interaction facilitation: 2) support: 3) work
facilitation: and 4) negative goal emphasis and revealed the fOllowing

results.

181

The CPL score and the Interaction Facilitation skill factor are
positive with a significant relationship. The remaining three factors
are nonsignificant but are positively related to the CPL score.
Descriptive Presentation of the Categorical Data Set by CPL Mean

Each category is descriptively analyzed by CPL Mean score. This
particular section includes age. gender. ethnic group. education home
ownership. length of time in the community. socioeconomic status and a
total summary that highlights the interaction effects of these
variables.

Table 7.2 Community Policing Leadership score by Age

 

 

 

 

Age Respondents X CPL Mean
18-24 13 7X 3.54
25-34 42 23X 3.19
35-39 12 7X 3.08
40-44 27 14X 3.20
45-49 25 13X 3.56
50-59 24 12X ' 2.95
60+ 47 25X 2.02
Totals 190 100X
Interpretation

The lower the CPL the Mean score the greater the sense of
confidence in Community Policing Leadership: the lower the CPL the Mean
score the lower the sense of confidence. As the respondents age

increases up to age 39. their CPL mean score steadily decreases

182

indicating an increasing sense of confidence in comnunity policing
leadership. Then. between age 40 and 49. the CPL mean score increases
slightly indicating a declining sense of confidence in community police
leadership. and when respondents attain the age of 50 and over. the CPL
means score dramatically decline indicating a renewed and increased
confidence in community police leadership ability. Therefore. as age
increases. generally confidence in CPL Indices increases.

Table 7.3 CPL score by Gender

 

 

 

Gender Respondents X CPL Mean
Male 89 47X 2.99
Female 101 53X 2.89
Totals 190 100X
Interpretation

The CPL means score fbr Male and Female respondents are remarkably
similar, with virtually no note worthy differences. and indicates that
they frequently view of community police leadership as being positive.

Table 7.4 CPL score by Ethnic Group

 

 

 

Ethnic

Origin Respondents X CPL Mean
Caucasian 144 76X 2.92
African Am. 23 12% 2.21
Hispanic Am. 23 12X 3.78
Totals 190 100X

183

Interpretation

African American respondents CPL mean scores are extremely low
indicating a remarkably high degree of confidence in community policing
leadership. whereas their Caucasian American counter parts CPL mean
scores are mid range indicating only a moderate degree of confidence.
and Hispanic Americans respondents CPL mean scores are in the upper
ranges indicating very little confidence in community policing
leadership abilities.

Table 7.5 CPL score by Education

 

 

 

Education

Level Respondents X CPL Mean
> - Hi h School 61 31X 2.91
Tech. ourses 55 29X 3.06
BA / BS 44 24% 2.87
Grad./Post Degree 30 16X 2.89
Totals 190 100X
Interpretation

Although there are minor fluctuations in the CPL mean score for
the varying degrees of education achievement. all are mid range scores.
The differences are marginal. and they all indicate a moderate degree of

confidence in community policing leadership.

184

Table 7.6 CPL score by Home Ownership

 

 

 

Home

Ownership Respondents X CPL Mean
Own 141 75X 2.79
Rent 49 25X 3.36
Totals 190 100X
Interpretation

The CPL mean score fOr respondents who are home owners is mid
range and indicates a moderate degree of confidence in community
policing. whereas respondents who are renters. the CPL mean score is in
the upper ranges indicating little confidence in community policing.

Table 7.7 CPL score by Length of time in the Community

 

Length of time

 

 

in the Community Respondents X CPL Mean
> 1 Year 11 6X 3.16
1 - 5 Years 34 17X 2.87
6 - 10 Years 18 11X 2.77
11 - More 127 66X 2.96
Totals 190 100%
Interpretation

As the respondents length of time in the community increases from
1-10 years their CPL mean score steadily decreases indicating an

increasing sense of confidence in community policing leadership ability.

185

However. all of the CPL mean scores are mid range indicating only a
moderate degree of confidence in community policing leadership.
Interestingly. after ten years. the CPL mean score increases slightly
indicating declining sense of safety and confidence over the long run.

Table 7.8 CPL score by Socioeconomic Status

 

 

 

Socioeconomic

Status Respondents X CPL Mean
> 10.000 23 12X 3.2
10.001 - 20.000 41 22% 2.6
20,001 - 30.000 38 20% 2.8
30.001 - 40.000 38 20X 2.9
40,001 - 50.000 16 8X 3.2
50.001 - 60.000 19 10X 3.3
60.001 - OVER 15 8X 3.0
Totals 190 100X
Interpretation

Respondents reporting annual household incomes of less than
$10,000 have a CPL mean of 3.2. and respondents with annual household
incomes of between $40.001-$60.000 and over achieved CPL mean scores
between 3.0-3.3 in the upper ranges indicating that they have less
confidence in community policing. On the other hand. respondents
reporting annual household incomes of $10.001-$40.000 achieved CPL mean
scores of less than 3.0 indicating a moderate degree of confidence in

community policing leadership.

186

Statistical Comparison of Survey Responses by Community Policing and Non
Community Policing Neighborhood Zones

Community Policing Leadership (CPL) Scores of respondents who
reside in neighborhood zones where community policing is in place were
compared with the CPL Scores of respondents who reside in neighborhood
zones where community policing is not in place. A T-test was prefbrmed
to determine if any differences existed between the CPL Scores of
respondents residing in a community policing neighborhood zones as
compared to the CPL scores of respondents who reside in neighborhood
zones that were not served by community policing. The results of the
tests revealed that virtually no difference existed between the CPL
Scores of respondents residing in a community policing neighborhood
zones as compared to other respondents not residing in community
policing neighborhood zones.

Table 7.9 T-Test Group Statistics

 

 

N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Mean
NCP 61 2.9307 1.4770 .1891
CP 129 2.9416 1.4615 .1287
Difference 0.0109 0.0155 0.0604

187

Table 7.10 Compilation of Indice Responses. Values and CPL Score by

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area/Zone
CPL Community Policing Non-Community Policing
Indice Responses Value Responses Value
Comm. Police Leadership 1.060 3.473 2.089 6.832
Interaction Facilitation 473 1.576 958 3.242
Support Facilitation 160 526 357 1.117
Neg. Goal Emphasis 159 517 318 .979
Work Facilitation 158 530 329 1.121
2.010 6.622 4.051 13.291
CPL Score 3.29 3.28
Table 7.11 Average Indice and CPL Scores by Area/Zone
Indice Community Policing Non-Community Policing
Comm. Police Leadership 3.28 3.27
Interaction Facilitation 3.33 3.38
Support Facilitation 3.29 3.13
Neg. Goal Emphasis 3.25 3.08
Work Facilitation 3.35 3.41
CPL Score 3.30 3.25

188

CHAPTER VIII

COMPARISON OF RESIDENT RESPONSES TO DEMOGRAPHIC AND EXPERIENTIAL
QUESTIONS
COMMUNITY POLICING ZONES VERSUS NON-COMMUNITY POLICING ZONES

Description of Survey Area(s)

The areas surveyed which were covered by community policing
services can be separated into two distinct groupings by officer ratio
to city block/geographic area. Since police interaction is an integral
part of community policing efforts. the impact of officer to area ratio
is an important consideration. These groups were examined separately to
determine the corresponding effect of officer ratio upon the delivery of
community policing services.

The fOllowing Community Policing Areas were excluded because:
Area 2 North Lansing Community Association
This is an extremely large area with relatively few officers and would

not provide an fair assessment.

Area 5 Genessee Neighborhood Association
Area 6 Downtown Neighborhood Association
Area 7 Cherry Hill Neighborhood Association and
Area 8 Cedar/Larch/Pennsylvania Corridor

In these areas in addition to Lansing police officers, private security
and Lansing Community College public safety officers are available

which could confuse citizen perceptions and skew responses.

189

The following four community policing areas and the two non-
community policing areas described on page 57 of Chapter 3 were selected

because they provide a reasonable and representative sample for

analysis.

Area 13 South Central Neighborhood Assoc. Zone F-19
Area 09 Sparrow Estates (Sparrow Hospital Area) Zone F-12
Area 04 West Side Neighborhood Assoc. Zone F-22
Area 14 Cristo Rey Community Association Zone F-20

The officer to area ratio and the neighborhood make up/composition
was considered in the selection process of these areas.

Westside and
South Central - Predominantly residential area with heavy population
density and light traffic.

 

 

 

Sparrow - Relatively small residential population with heavy
traffic.

Cristo Rey - Commercial. Industrial area with small residential
population and moderate traffic.

Community Policing Zone Center/Boundaries Officer/Block Ratio

F19 South Central Center: 111 S. Washington 1/10

Boundaries: North to the Grand River
South Baker and W. Mt. Hope

East to Red Cedar RR Tracks
and S. Washington Ave.
West Grand River and Davis
F22 West Side Center: 1220 W.Kalamazoo St. 1/12-15
Boundaries: North Shiawassee St.
South W. St. Joseph St.
East M.L. King Blvd.
West Jenison St.

190

F12 Sparrow Center: 735 E. Michigan Ave 1/3-5

Boundaries: North
South
East
West

F20 Cristo Rey Center: 1315 Ballard St.
Boundaries: North
South
East
West

Non-Community Policing Zones

Shiawassee St.
Kalamazoo St.
Pennsylvania Ave.
Railroad Tracks

1/3-5
North St.
Porter Street
Vermont and Cleveland
Railroad Tracks

The following two non-community policing zones were selected for

inclusion:

F-l East Side Neighborhood Organization
Boundaries: North

South

East

West

F-2 North Side Neighborhood Organization
Boundaries: North
South
East
West

191

Grand River Avenue
Mt. Hope Avenue
Homer Street
Pennsylvania Ave.

Sheridan Road
Saginaw Street
Wood Road
Turner Street

 

 

2...: a:
in
:3
23:. So!
I: . 5. 8515...: ®
3. agn-
.‘
i‘
F. 3.2 ..n
:Poc an.
2.3:;
.190.
6 is m 3
>2. —
1.Nm
SE 9
pg 3

noaaczidk 80840438 Noamm

mpm MUmwwoz zm383c03300a

mpg mocfi: nmaawmd zmiozuowzooa
mmo n314MHo max zmflnscousooa
mm» :mmdminm zmdoscowsooa

 

 

 

58:. 8 >38 3% 3" 9.238 93:33. 322.8 m8 zo=.no=.==3.¥ 3:9. 8 ~83

  

 

 

 

 

m. @. . . m
_l
m N g
n “ No 1 PD: Fig.6.
I. \
0 ”a” © m a ...-firm: to.
.....m: r
. ELM
m

 

 

 

m _N 2:8 2. .352
m _ .3... 2::-
«a...
nine EC.
‘6 ......
s 4 :82
a» .5...- 95.5)

zo:-noaac:4fi< 80880438 Noamm

mp mmMflmiam zm483cowsooq

OH! I 0.:
D! D it u §\Tm~

W.

mm zoaflzmflam zmdnzco~sooa at

 

 

3:

.52»:
In»)? :5

v‘

 

192

Comparison of Responses and Hypotheses Concerning Experiential Data

Several questions were analyzed by an elaboration of the variances
between and within the categories of responses. Differences were
typically attributable to similarities/dissimilarities in general
demographic traits or characteristics.(e.g.. age. socioeconomic status.
ethnic origin. religion. etc.).

On the other hand. some differences could not be readily
attributed to any demographic trait or characteristic. In those
instances the difference was simply stated (e.g.. Question 8. a
difference of 6 percent was found between respondents residing in
community policing zones as compared to respondents residing in non-
community policing zones) and an explanation offered as to why these
differences may exist.

When controlling fOr all variables other than the variable under
investigation. the following findings were found:

Dog and Gun Ownership

H14 Frequency of respondent dog and gun ownership will not
significantly vary between designated community policing zones and
non-community policing zones.

Hypothesis 14 examined respondents responses to survey Question 8
and 9 and asserted that there is no difference in the frequency of dog
and gun ownership between respondents from designated community policing

zones and respondents from non-community policing zones.

193

Question 8: Do you own a gun?

As Table 8.1 indicates. more respondents residing in the
designated community policing neighborhoods identified themselves as
owning guns than respondents residing in neighborhoods not served by
community policing. Respondents identifying themselves as gun owners
appear to be equally distributed throughout each of the three defined
ethnic groups and evenly divided between male and female respondents. In
this study. most of the African and Hispanic respondents reside in

designated community policing zones.

Table 8.1 Gun Ownership by Respondents Area of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 33 26X 12 20X
No 96 74% 49 80%
129 100X 61 100X

Analysis

A six percent greater incidence of self-declared gun ownership was
reported in community policing zones as compared to non-community
policing zones. This difference could be attributable to the selection
criteria utilized in designating community policing zones (e 9.. high

frequency of reported criminal activity).

194

Question 9: Do you own a dog?

As indicated in Table 8.2. fewer respondents residing in
designated community policing zones identified themselves as owning
dogs.

Table 8.2 Dog Ownership by Respondents Area of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 47 36X 28 46X
No 82 64X 33 54X
129 100X 61 100X

Analysis
A ten percent greater incidence of self-declared non-ownership of
a dog was reported in community policing zones than in non-community
policing zones. Possible reasons fOr this are the care and maintenance
of a dog requires an ongoing investment of time and money whereas a gun
is a one time investment.
Victimization and Exposure to Crime
H15 Amount of victimization and exposure to crime will not change in
designated community policing zones as compared to non-community
policing zones.
Hypothesis 15 examined respondents responses to survey Questions
10-13 and contended there ‘would be no change in the amount of

victimization and exposure to crime between respondents from designated

community policing and respondents from non-community policing zones.

195

Question 10: Ever been a victim of a property crime or offense
requiring the assistance of a police officer?

As Table 8.3 indicates. no significant difference was fOund to
exist between non-community policing zones and community policing zones.

Table 8.3 Property Crime Victimization by Area of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 85 66X 40 66X
No 44 34X 21 34X
129 100% 61 100X

Analysis

No difference was found in self-declared victims of property
crimes from community policing zones as compared to non-community
policing zones. This absence of variation could indicate that as a
result of community policing intervention there is no significant
difference between the perceived frequency of criminal activity in
community policing zones as compared to non-community policing zones.

Question 11: Ever been a victim of a personal injury crime or offense
requiring the assistance of a police officer?

A comparison of respondents responses from non-community policing
zones with those from community policing zones presented in Table 8.4

indicates marginal differences.

196

Table 8.4 Personal Injury Crime Victimization by Respondents Area of

 

 

 

Residency
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 42 33X 16 26X
No 87 67% 45 74X
129 100X 61 100X

Analysis

A seven percent greater incidence of self-declared victims of
personal injury or assaults was reported in community policing zones as
compared to non-community policing zones. Proportionately more
respondents residing in designated community policing zones identified
themselves as having been a victim of a personal injury crime or
assault. Hispanic and Caucasian respondents who were fOund to
predominately reside in designated community policing zones indicated
they had been a victim of a personal injury crime or assault more
frequently than their African American counterparts.

Question 12: Have you ever witnessed a crime?

As Table 8.5 illustrates. a greater number of respondents residing

in the designated community policing zones identified themselves as

having witnessed a crime.

197

Table 8.5 Witness to a Crime by Respondents Area of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 58 45% 24 39X
No 71 55X 37 61X
129 100% 61 100%

Analysis

A six percent greater incidence of crimes were reported as being
witnessed in designated community policing zones than in non-community
policing zones.

Question 13: Have you or any member of your family ever been arrested
for a misdemeanor or felony?

As Table 8.6 indicates more respondents residing in the designated
community policing zones identified themselves as having
experienced/witnessed an arrest in their neighborhood.

Table 8.6 Witness to an Arrest by Respondents Area of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 42 33X 16 26X
No - 87 67X 45 74%
129 100X 61 100X

Analysis
A seven percent greater incidence of experiencing/witnessing an
arrest was reported in designated community policing zones as compared

to non-community policing zones.

198

Community Involvement and Police Interaction
H16 Respondents community involvement and police interaction will not
change in designated community policing zones as compared to non-
community policing zones.
Hypothesis 16 examined respondents' responses to survey Question
18 and Questions 21-25 and asserted that respondents’ community
involvement and police interaction will not change in designated

community policing zones as compared to non-community policing zones.

Question 18: Is there a Community Policing Base Station/Center in your
neighborhood?

As Table 8.7 illustrates. the majority of the respondents residing
in designated community policing zones indicated they were unaware of a
community policing center serving their neighborhood. On the other hand,
21 percent of the respondents residing in non-community policing zones
identified themselves as believing a community policing center existed
in their neighborhood.

Table 8.7 Knowledge of Neighborhood Police Center by Respondents Area
of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 62 48X 13 21X
No 67 52X 48 79X
129 100X 61X 100%

Question 21: Are you currently involved with Neighborhood Watch or
Neighborhood Association?

199

According to Table 8.8. the overwhelming majority of the
respondents residing in designated community policing zones indicated
they were not involved with a Neighborhood Watch or Association. As
indicated below. 26 percent fewer respondents. residing in designated
community policing zones than respondents residing in non-community
policing zones. identified themselves as currently being involved with
a Neighborhood Watch or Association.

Table 8.8 Active in Neighborhood Watch or Association by Respondents
Area of Residency.

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 26 20X 28 46X
No 103 80X 33 54%
129 100% 61 100X

Question 22: Have you ever called in or filed a complaint with the
police?

Sixteen percent fewer respondents residing in non-community
policing zones identified themselves as having called fer assistance or
filed a complaint with the police.

Table 8.9 Called or Filed Complaint with Police by Respondents Area
of Residency

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 83 64X 49 80X
No 46 36X 12 20X
129 100X 61 100X

200

Question 23: Ever infbrmed of the outcome. or disposition of a
complaint which you filed or an offense in which you
were either a victim or a witness?

Eight percent fewer respondents residing in designated community
policing zones identified themselves as having received feedback or

follow up to their calls for assistance or complaints.

 

 

 

Table 8.10 Police Feedback or Follow up of Complaints by
Respondents Area of Residency
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 32 25X 20 33X
No 97 75X 41 67X
129 100X 61 100X

Question 24: Ever attended a neighborhood/community meeting where
police officers participated?

Thirteen percent fewer respondents residing in designated
community policing zones identified themselves as having never attended
a neighborhood meeting where police actively participated.

Table 8.11 Attended Meeting where Police Actively Participated by
Area of Residency.

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 30 23X 22 36%
No 99 77X 39 64X

129 100X 61 100%

201

Question 25: Ever received a crime prevention assessment of your
business or residence by the police?

Eleven percent fewer respondents residing in designated community
policing zones identified themselves as having received a home crime

prevention assessment from the police.

 

 

 

Table 8.12 Received Home Crime Prevention Assessment by Area
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
185 128 95% t6 8%
129 100X 61 100%

H17 Respondents assessment of neighborhood safety will not markedly
change in designated community policing zones as compared to non-
community policing zones.

Hypothesis 17 examined respondents' responses to survey Question
14 and asserted that respondents' assessments of neighborhood safety
would not markedly change in designated community policing zones as
compared to non-community policing zones.

Question 14: In the past 12 months has crime in your neighborhood
increased or decreased?

Table 8.13 Assessment of Crime During the Past 12 Months

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Sig.Increased 58 45X 19 32X
Mi dly Increased 31 24X 17 28X
Mildly Decreased 8 6X 11 18%
Sig. Decreased 1 1X 0 0X
Neither 31 24X 14 22X

129 100X 61 100%

202

H18 Respondents sense of police and community partnership will not
substantially change in designated community policing zones as
compared to non-community policing zones.

Hypothesis 18 examined respondents' responses to survey Question

28 and asserted that respondents’ sense of police and community

partnership would not substantially change in designated community

policing zones as compared to non-community policing zones.

Question 28: Do you feel a partnership exists between you or your
neighborhood and the police?

Although Table 8.14 indicates that the majority of the respondents
did not believe a police and community partnership exists. 11 percent
more respondents residing in designated community policing zones
indicated they feel a police and community partnership does exist. This
could be attributable to the positive influence of the presence of

community policing in their neighborhoods.

 

 

 

Table 8.14 Believe a Police and Community Partnership Exists by
Area of Residency.
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 54 42X 19 31X
No 75 58X 42 69X
129 100X 61 100%

H19 Respondents support of tax-funded fOot patrols will not change in
designated community policing zones as compared to non community
policing zones.

203

Hypothesis 19 examined respondents responses to survey Question 31
and asserted that respondents’ support of tax-funded foot patrols would
not change in designated community policing zones as compared to non-
community policing zones.

Question 31: Would you favor a tax increase to support officer foot
patrols?

Although the majority of respondents favored tax supported fOot
patrols. 12 percent fewer respondents residing in designated community
policing zones identified themselves as favoring tax supported foot
patrols. This could be attributable to the high visibility of community
police and patrol activity already prevalent in their neighborhood.

Table 8.15 Favor Tax Supported Foot Patrols by Area

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 74 57X 42 69X
No 55 43X 19 31X
129 100X 61 100X

H20 Respondents assessment of the nature and severity of crime will
not markedly change in designated community policing zones as
compared to non-community policing zones.

Hypothesis 20 examined respondents' responses to survey Question

17 and asserted that respondents' assessments of the nature and severity

of crime would not change in designated community policing zones as

compared to non-community policing zones.

204

Question 17: In recent years the nature and severity of crime has:

 

 

 

Table 8.16 Assessing the Nature and Severity of Crime
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Sig.Increased 83 64X 38 62X
Mildly Increased 25 19X 18 29X
Mildly Decreased 10 8X 1 2X
Sig. Decreased 0 0X 1 2X
Neither 11 9X 3 5X
129 100X 61 100X

H21 Ability to fairly assess police and police perfOrmance will not
change in designated community policing zones as compared to non-
community policing zones.

Hypothesis 21 examined respondents’ responses to survey Question

33 and asserted that the respondents’ ability to fairly assess police

and police perfOrmance would not change in designated community policing

zones as compared to non-community policing zones.

Question 33: Do you believe your association or experience with police

is so limited that you cannot fairly assess or express an
Opinion about police or police performance?

Table 8.17 00 you feel you cannot fairly assess police and
Police Perfbrmance?

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 23 18% 8 13X
No 106 82X 53 87X

129 100X 61 100X

205

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS:

Question 29: Respondents in community policing zones indicating they
have received a break from police as compared to
respondents in non-community policing zones.

In terms of the respondents perception as to whether or not they
feel that they have ever received a break from the police. virtually no
difference was fOund between respondents from community policing zones
and respondents from non-community policing zones. Possible reasons fer
this could be the positive influences of community policing in their

neighborhoods. In other words. at risk neighborhood zones were

normalized by the intervention of community policing.

 

 

 

Table 8.18 Ever Receive a Break from Police by Area of Residency
Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 32 25X 16 26X
No 97 75X 45 74X
129 100% 61 100X

Question 30: Respondents from community policing zones who feel police
have not treated them fair as compared to respondents
residing in non-community policing zones.

As to whether a respondent personally felt the police have been
fair. seven percent fewer respondents residing in designated community
policing zones identified themselves as feeling the police have not been

fair. This could also be attributable to the positive influences of the

intervention of community policing in their neighborhood.

206

Table 8.19 Believe Police Have You Fair by Area of Residency.

 

 

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X
Yes 44 34X 25 412
No 85 66X 36 59%

129 100% 61 100X

Question 15: Respondents were asked to rank what they believe are the
seven major causes of crime.

Gangs and guns topped the list for respondents residing in
community policing zones fellowed by drugs and alcohol.
irresponsibility. adult supervision, lack of morality. ineffective
punishment. poor policing. and incompetent or unresponsive government.
Respondents residing in areas not served by community policing indicated
that drug and alcohol abuse was the number one cause of crime fOllowed
by gangs and guns. poverty. racism or sexism. lack of respect fOr God
and others. limited options or recreational opportunities. and corrupt
laws and courts.

African American respondents listed drug and alcohol abuse as the
number one cause of crime followed by gangs and guns. poverty. loss of
faith in God. no alternatives for young people. power hungry officials.
corrupt courts and general distrust and disillusionment with the system.

Hispanic American respondents indicated that they believe gangs

and guns are the number one cause of crime followed by drug and alcohol

207

abuse. loss of personal identity. desire for easy money. sense of
powerlessness. lack of respect for authority. and disgust or
disillusionment with the criminal justice system.

Caucasian respondents see gangs and guns as the number one cause
of crime fbllowed by drug and alcohol abuse. peer pressure.
irresponsible role models. absence of living wage. employment
opportunities. ineffective courts and criminal justice system. amoral
society which glorifies violence. and self-centered attitudes.
Comments:

Overall. the respondents’ comments indicated they felt extremely
bad messages had been conveyed by the courts and the media. at times
portraying criminals as victims. and at other times as hero's or cult
martyrs. On the other hand. victims are generally portrayed by the court
system and the media as either ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’,
‘unlucky’, ‘deserving it’. ‘asking fbr it‘. or at times even as quasi
criminals themselves. The ‘and justice for all’ in the American Justice
System has been convoluted into a proportionate and inverse correlation
between bank account balance of the accused and the measure of justice
‘we the people' deserve and can expect to receive. Television. movies.
and the media tacitly glamorize and glorify crime and promote what has

become the popular belief that ‘It is only a crime if you get caught’!

208

Question 16: Rank the fOllowing in terms of importance in combating
crime with # 1 being the MOST important and # 8 being the
LEAST important.

More Police Community Policing.

Get Rid of Gangs Citizen Police

Get Rid of Drugs Get Rid of Prostitution
Get Rid of Guns Get Rid of Gambling

Respondents residing in community policing zones and respondents
residing in areas not served by community policing agreed that getting
rid of drugs is the most important element in combating crime fbllowed
by community policing efforts. getting rid of gangs. more police.
getting rid of guns. citizen police patrols. getting rid of
prostitution. and getting rid of gambling. Male and Female respondents
indicated getting rid of drugs was the most important in combating crime
followed by getting rid of gangs. community policing. getting rid of
guns. citizen police patrols. more police. getting rid of prostitution.
and getting rid of gambling.

Question 19: How often do you see police in your neighborhood?

Respondents residing in areas served by community policing
indicated they see police in their neighborhoods slightly more often
than respondents residing in areas that are not served by community
policing. This is a positive impact of the intervention of community

policing.

209

Table 8.20 Frequency of Visibility of Police in Your Neighborhood
By Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X

 

 

Daily/Weekly 53 41X 28 46X
Monthly/Occasionally 41 32X 11 18X
Rarely/ Never 35 27% 22 36X

129 100X 61 100X

Question 20: How often do you have face-to-face encounters with police?

Respondents who resided in areas served by community policing as
compared to respondents who resided in areas not served by community
policing indicated they had face-to-face encounters with police in their
neighborhood at about the same rate. This is a positive impact of the
intervention of community policing.

Table 8.21 Frequency of Face-to-Face Encounters with Police in
Your Neighborhood by Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X

 

 

Daily/Weekly 2 2X 3 5X
Monthly/Occasionally 9 7X 3 5X
Rarely/ Never 118 91X 55 90X

129 100X 61 100X

Question 26: How safe is your neighborhood compared to other areas of
the city?

A larger percentage of respondents residing in areas served by

community policing indicated they felt their neighborhood was about the

210

same or worse than other areas 0f the city as compared 110 respondents

who resided in areas not served by community policing. This supports

normalization through the continued intervention of community policing.

Table 8.22

Compared to other areas of the city how safe is your
neighborhood by Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X

Non Community Policing X

 

 

Safer 25 19X 30 49X
Same 72 56X 22 36X
Worse 32 25X 9 15X

129 100X 61 100X

Question 27: Do You Favor or Oppose a Police and Community Commission

or Review Board?

A slightly smaller percentage of respondents who resided in areas

served by community policing as compared to respondents who resided in

areas not served by community policing indicated they favored the

creation of a police and community commission or review board. While

the simple majority of all the respondents indicated they favored the

idea. a substantial number indicated they were unsure.

Table 8.23

00 You Favor or Oppose a Police and Community

Commission or Review Board by Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X

Non Community Policing X

 

 

Favor 60 46X 40 66X
Oppose 2 2X 0 0X
Don’t Know 67 52X 21 34X

129 100X 61 100%

211

Question 32: Are crimes against people more important than property
crimes?

The majority of respondents who resided in areas served by
community policing and respondents who resided in areas that were not
served by community policing agreed that crimes against people are more
important than property crimes.

Table 8.24 Are Crimes Against People More Important Than
Property Crimes by Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X

 

 

Yes 115 89X 56 92X
No 14 11X 5 8%
129 100X 61 100X
Question 33: Do You Feel You Cannot Fairly Assess Police and Police
Performance?

The vast majority of respondents who resided in areas served by
community policing and respondents who resided in areas that were not
served by community policing did not feel they were unable to fairly
assess police and police performance.

Table 8.25 00 You Feel You Cannot Fairly Assess Police and Police
Perfbrmance by Area of Residency.

 

Community Policing X Non Community Policing X

 

 

Yes 23 18X 8 13X
NO 106 82X 53 87X
129 100X 61 100X

212

Summary of Community Policing Efforts in Lansing

According to Lansing Police' Department records (Trojanowicz.
Robert and Susan). the selection of the neighborhoods included in the
community policing project appeared to have been the result of the
specific requests of preexisting incorporated Neighborhood Watch
Organizations and Neighborhood Associations.

Although no fbrmalized criteria appears to have been utilized fer
the selection of community policing neighborhood zones. it was assumed
that infbrmation and recommendations from all of the “big five"- police:
citizens: businesses: media/political leaders: and social service
agencies were considered when selecting the quasi self-designating or
volunteering neighborhood organizations or associations (Trojanowicz
et.al.)

Neighborhood Watch organizations and similar citizen groups are
usually developed in response to a felt or perceived pressing need such
as high crime rate. high incidence of vandalism, drug and gang
activities. etc. From this prospective. designating these areas as
community policing neighborhood zones and the placement of community
police officers was appropriate. Idiosyncracies and prevalent
characteristics of these selected zones such as cultural factors. low

average annual income. ethnic/racial make up. etc. can be identified.

213

Although crime occurs in every segment of our society and no city
is crime proof. there are neighborhoods that are more prone to criminal
activity than other neighborhoods. In this survey of citizens
perceptions. many responses to the questions can be viewed as
reflections of past personal experiences or expectations of the future.

If all neighborhoods in the city were equal in the areas where
community policing was in place. one would expect to see a comparatively
greater awareness of police presence. sense of safety and
cooperativeness. But in light of the fact that all areas are not equal.
areas of high crime incidence and lower socioeconomic characteristics
were selected fbr community policing. In some respects because community
policing has been in place these targeted neighborhoods. they have
normalized. Normalization means that change within the neighborhood has
occurred in the direction of mainstream values. expectations and
attitudes.

For this reason. citizen perceptions of police and police
performance/activities provides insight into how citizens perceive
themselves in relation to the police in their community and
neighborhood. Citizen responses to survey questions can be viewed as
indicators of base line differences between designated community

policing zones/areas and areas where these services were not in place.

214

According to Lansing Police Department documentation found in S.
Trojanowicz's Master’s thesis (1993). an assumption was made that areas
with Neighborhood Watch Organizations or Associations in place would
tend to be more cooperative and already have an effective communication
network in place.

In addition. there is considerable variation between the
geographic sizes of the designated community policing areas and the
corresponding populations served for example: Area #7. 9 and 10 cover
three city blocks and represents a 1-3 officer to block ratio: Area #14
covers fOur city blocks a 1-4 officer to block ratio: Areas #1. 3. 5. 12
and 13 cover roughly five city blocks a 1-5 ratio: and Area #8 covers
eight city blocks a 1-8 ratio. Therefore. within community policing
areas. differences will occur simply due to the size of the area and the
work loads of the CPOs.

The two largest community policing areas are Area #2 which covers
the entire North side. approximately 100 city blocks. a 1-100 ratio: and
Area #11 which covers the entire East side. approximately 85 city
blocks. a 1-85 ratio. Although both areas encompass several square
miles. Area #2 is more industrial and commercial than Area #11 and.
therefOre. has a substantially smaller population to serve: but the size

of these areas makes even adequate motor patrol extremely difficult.

215

Four (5.6.7.8) of the fburteen Neighborhood Community Policing
areas represent 29 percent of the total and are within a five-block
radius of Downtown Lansing. In other words. fOur (4) community police
officers are responsible for approximately twenty (20) city blocks. an
average of five (5) blocks per officer. While these areas have very
small neighborhood population bases. they are situated in the hub of
Lansing predominated by Lansing Community College. Cooley Law School.
government and business structures. During the course of a day. these
areas experience population swelling during which transients are passing
through. Nonetheless. this appears to be a considerable “community
policing” resources devoted to marginally populated areas. particularly
in light of the already highly visible private security officers.
Lansing police. Lansing Community College police. and state police
capitol security officers.

Generally. property crimes are more common than personal injury
crimes and more respondents residing in community policing areas
indicated they had been victims of property crimes than their non-
community policing counterparts. Although Question 33 was stated in the
negative. overall respondents who resided in community policing areas.
as well as those who resided in non-community areas indicated they

believed they could fairly assess police and police perfOrmance.

216

Summary

While some of the differences between these areas may be
explainable on the basis of the preselection criteria. they cannot be
explained on the basis of post deployment. One would reasonably expect
that after community policing zones were identified and community
policing effbrts were in place the frequency of criminal activity would
diminish. and the residents‘ sense of safety would be enhanced and they
would be less likely:
To have a gun in their home for personal protection.
To have a dog as a guard or first alarm.
To be victims of personal injury crimes.

The majority of the respondents should believe a partnership
exists between the Lansing Police Department and the community.

0000

On the other hand. it is possible that either adequate time had
not elapsed from the implementation of community policing in the area to
produce the desired result or the residents in one area as compared to
the other were:

0 Avid hunters.

0 Dog lovers.

0 Victimized prior to the implementation of community policing
efforts.

Questions 34-79 represented a battery of questions comprising the
respective Indices and overall CPL score. A T-test was prefbrmed on the

CPL scores of respondents who resided in zones where community policing

was in place compared with the CPL scores of respondents who resided in

217

zones where community policing was not in place in order to determine if
any differences existed. The results of the T-test revealed that
virtually no difference exists between the CPL scores of the respondents
who resided in designated community policing neighborhood zones as
compared to respondents who did not reside in designated community
policing zones. At first blush. this finding seems to indicate that
community policing as implemented in the Lansing area has made no

significant difference.

 

 

CREEPTSTATISTIC N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
NCP 61 2.9307 1.4770 0.1891
CP 129 2.9416 1.4615 0.1287
Difference 0 0109 0.0155 0 0604
Conclusion

In an effort to explain the findings. one could assert that in the
absence of community policing efforts in the targeted areas marked
differences would have been observed. However. in the absence of
baseline data from the targeted areas prior to the implementation of the
community policing effort supporting the positive change. this assertion

may be viewed as suspect.

218

On the other hand. the first 33 questions which were comprised of
demographic and experiential inquiries served as an indicator of the
predisposing influences on the responses/respondents.

In an attempt to explain how two initially dissimilar groups were
transfbrmed into similar: groups by the introduction of' community
policing into troubled/at risk neighborhood zones. responses of
respondents from community policing and non-community policing
neighborhood zones were compared and analyzed.

Responses to questions that had an experiential basis indicated
differences. while responses to the CPL Indices indicated similarities.
Variations in responses to the first 33 questions. which were
experiential based. and the CPL Indices. which are a battery of
questions addressing leadership attributes. is believed to be
attributable to the intervention of community policing initiatives. Non-
community policing respondents‘responses to the first group of questions
1-33 were fOund to be similar to their responses to the second group of
questions 34-79. which addressed the indices. On the other hand.
community policing respondents responses to the first group of questions
were not fbund to be similar to their responses to the second group of
questions. which addressed the indices. but similar to their non-

community policing counterparts.

219

As a result of the comparative analysis between community policing
and non-community policing neighborhood zones we found that:
1. Implementation of the community policing model in the city
of Lansing has been beneficial and effective.

2. The City of Lansing is viewed by the resident respondents as
unilaterally safe.

3. Community policing effbrts may be enhanced by police-
community anchors/identity in neighborhoods and the
community at large.

 

 

 

Community Policing Non-Community Policing
Comm. Police Leadership 3.28 3.27
Interaction Facilitation 3.33 3.38
Support Facilitation 3.29 3.13
Neg. Goal Emphasis 3.25 3.08
Work Facilitation 3.35 3.41
CPL Score Average 3.30 3.25

Community Policing Non-Community Policing
Responses Value Responses Value

 

 

Comm. Police Leadership 1.060 3.473 2.089 6.832
Interaction Facilitation 473 1.576 958 3,242
Support Facilitation 160 526 357 1.117
Neg. Goal Emphasis 159 517 318 979
Work Facilitation 158 530 329 1.121
2.010 6.622 4.051 13.291

CPL Score 3.29 3.28

220

CHAPTER IX
FINDINGS. EXPLANATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Introduction

This chapter summarizes the principal conclusions. presents a
discussion of the research and its implications for future research. and
offers recommendations.

Summary

The main findings of the study support the hypotheses which
indicate that respondents. regardless of the degree of exposure to
police. were similar in the way they rate police activities and
performance.

This was a significant finding because it indicated that
previously at risk areas as a result of the positive experience of
community policing had become similar to relatively low risk areas.
Neighborhoods where there was considerable concern about personal safety
and diminished confidence in the police had a renewed confidence and
acceptance of community police interaction and intervention.

The groups varied in similar ways by the same demographic
variables. The verification of these hypotheses indicated an internal
consistency in the rating factors and survey questions while the

responses of the respondents in community policing and non-community

221

policing zones indicated an external consistency in the application of
the survey instrument. Differences fOr all respondents were fOund in
variables such as age. gender. education. experience. etc. These
differences. while not significant. caused the researcher to question if
respondents from designated community policing zones were more or less
educated. aged. experienced. ethnic. etc.. than their non-community
policing respondents counter parts.

This focus on group composition as a possible explanation for
differences precipitated a close examination of the first 33 questions
and an interpretation of the corresponding responses. Although
speculative. the following interpretation is based upon differences
noted in responses to these questions by NCP and CP respondents
(groups).

The first 33 questions dealt with the past experiences.
observations. expectations. and aspirations of the respondents and
tended to externally validate the use of the city's selection process in
placing community policing activities in the selected neighborhood
zones. The differences between the neighborhood areas selected and the
neighborhood areas which were not selected as community policing zones,

is indicated below.

222

1. Community policing activities are necessary in some areas of the
city and not in others areas because all areas of the city are not
equal. some areas are» more prone to criminal elements and
activities than others.

2. Areas selected fbr inclusion in the community policing experiment
were composed of the following characteristics:

0 Neighborhood Watch/Association in place and operant.

0 Neighborhoods with younger more transient populations.
0 Comparatively high incidence of criminal activity.

0 Lower average annual household income.

0 Low home ownership/high rental.

0 Very diverse multi-racial population.

3. Areas that were not selected for inclusion in the community
policing experiment were composed of the following
characteristics:

0 Neighborhood Watch/Association was not in place.

0 Neighborhoods with older more stable populations.
0 Comparatively low incidence of criminal activity.
0 Mid-Upper average annual household income.

0 High home ownership/low rental.

4. Ideally Community Policing initiatives should:

0 Neutralize criminal activities prevalent in the area.

0 Increase Police visibility in the area.

0 Enhance citizen awareness and sense of safety.

0 Promote citizen involvement with Community policing
initiatives.

0 Empower citizens as partners in the war against crime.

0 Foster police and community relations.

0 Improve the quality of life of residents of the area.

If successful. differences between designated community policing

zones and non-community policing zones will be diminished/normalized.

223

Normalization of At Risk Neighborhoods

Differences in responses to the questions were noted between
respondents who resided in areas served by community policing as
compared to respondents who resided in areas that were not served by
community policing. The differences. in large part. can be attributed to
differences in personal experiences. values. and attributes.

Community policing was initiated in areas which had high to
moderate incidence of crime. large minority/transient populations, and
comparatively lower average annual household incomes. In short. in areas
where they were previously absent and with the appearance of these
activities a normalization occurred which made them more consistent with
other areas of the city.

It is speculated that if a survey had been done prior to the
intervention of community policing vast differences between respondents
from community policing and non-community policing neighborhood zones
would have been noted. with respondents from the areas subsequently
being designated as community policing zones viewing the police as less
visible in displaying leadership in the neighborhood community. less
interactive with residents. non-supportive of neighborhood activities
and initiatives and less apt to attempt to foster a community police

partnership. less visible. cooperative. supportive of community. In

224

other words. the presence of community policing in these at risk
neighborhood zones seemed to have raised the residents consciousness.
perceptions. expectations. respect. hope and aspirations to the level of
other less debilitated neighborhood zones. In the areas where community
policing was initiated. there was a demonstrative need as evidenced by
the banning together of the residents to form neighborhood watch
organizations or neighborhood associations as opposed to non-community
policing areas. which did not feel the need to establish such community
action organizations or associations.

Prior to the intervention of community policing. residents of the
neighborhood zones which were subsequently designated as community
policing zones were predisposed to higher crime. less police
visibility/intervention. less stability due to transient nature of
neighborhood populations. lower income levels. and the prevalence of
criminal elements.

The past experiences of respondents have a direct impact on their
present perceptions. expectations and actions which were reflected in
many of these questions. The differences between these two groups can.
therefOre. be viewed as a measurement of the deviation of respondents in
community policing zones from the norm represented by the responses of

the non-community policing respondents.

225

The goal of community policing activities thus can be viewed as
making dissimilar groups more similar by introducing community policing
into troubled/at risk neighborhood areas.

In many respects. the neighborhood areas designated as community
policing zones were self identified in that they were areas which had
already been organized by the residents into neighborhood watch
groups/associations. Conditions existing in the community policing and
non-community policing neighborhoods prior ‘to ‘the intervention of
community policing were in some ways reflected in the differences fbund
in the responses to questions 1-33.

Comparing responses from the two groups to questions 34-71 with
community policing in place in selected neighborhoods. Community
Policing Leadership seems to be viewed similarly by both sets of
respondents. This seems to indicate that community policing and
activities associated with it served as a catalyst for change.
Reasonable Expectations

Community policing centers were established in each of the
designated community policing neighborhoods and community police
officers (CPO) assigned to each of these areas. The rationale for this
was to promote police visibility. display community leadership. foster

interaction between police and residents. support of' neighborhood

226

activities and work on neighborhood initiatives. In short. CPOs were
supposed to serve as catalysts fer advancing the goals of the police and
forging a community police partnership. To this end community police
officers' duties and activities were defined and a job description
developed fbr the Lansing Police Department by Robert C. Trojanowicz
encompassing the philosophy enumerated above.1

Responses to questions 34-71 represent CPL scores a statistical
comparison of these scores for respondents from community policing and
non-community policing areas indicated no significant differences. A
detailed explanation was provided in Chapter VIII.

This study provided insight into citizens as consumers perceptions
of community policing and police services. Community policing in many
respects can be viewed as an enhanced (community) communication network.
The community police officer as the facilitator employs public relations
strategies. information sharing and feedback loop techniques to fo$ter
a community police partnership. It is hoped that this will bring about
a more infOrmed public better equipped to aid and assist themselves and

the police in their fight against crime. The community policing efforts

 

1 Community Police Officers Duties and Activities (21-23) and the LPD
Community Policing Job Description (33-35)are found in Appendix C.

227

in Lansing have been successful in bridging the gaps between the
community and the police and have brought about a new social
consciousness/awareness.

The CPL score. which is an aggregate of the scores of several
indices that address specific leadership attributes. indicated how
citizens perceive police and their level of satisfaction with the
role/activities of police. As the consumers of ‘these activities.
citizens ferm consensual expectations. In this study no significant
differences of expectations were noted between respondents from
community policing neighborhoods as compared to respondents from
neighborhoods not served by community policing.

Most Important Finding

The most important finding of the study was that neighborhoods
otherwise at risk were normalized as a result of the mobilization and
extension of community policing services. Base stations were established
in the community making police more assessable and visible. putting a
positive emphasis on the role of police as peace makers and community
partners. Police and community partnership is a two-way street of
communication and cooperation. A community police officer is a peace
officer as well as law enforcement officer and is proactive rather than

reactive and user friendly rather than adversarial. CPOs are advocates

228

of the community who are not only concerned about safety. but the
welfare and quality of life of the residents of the neighborhoods they
serve. Whenever possible they engage in communication with residents to
establish a rapport and gain/share information.

By interacting with and empowering citizen residents CPOs
facilitate cooperation. mutual trust and respect and. as a result.
citizens become more inclined to help rather than hinder and assist
rather than resist police.

Stronger and More Definitive Outcome Data

If base line data were available on the at risk neighborhoods
prior to the intervention of community policing. stronger and more
definitive outcome data would have been obtainable. This is precisely
why routine citizen surveys of public services are necessary and so
essential. Unfbrtunately. community policing was already in place prior
to this study. and I was forced to retospectively reconstruct the
selection process.'rhe primary criteria fOr inclusion appeared to be the
exsistence of a neighborhood watch or citizen organization which was
believed to have emerged as a result of citizens banning together to
address problems requiring their collective attention.

This study is a considered observation of community policing from

the end user/citizens consumers perspective. It is hoped that the

229

reflection of community policing in the eye of the citizen consumer may
shed some insight into the make up of community policing strengths and
weaknesses.
Criticisms of Community Policing

The greatest strength of community policing may also be its
greatest weakness. Inherent in the nature of community policing is a
potential loss of objectivity necessary to make fair and impartial
decisions. Community police officers in the same way as undercover
officers risk being influenced by misplaced allegiance or affection.
Recommendations

The following recommendations are made based on the findings of
this survey. an analysis of respondents written comments. and ongoing

public concerns regarding the Lansing Police department and police

activities.2

 

According to a February 20. 1999 Lansing State Journal article as a result of
citizen rights advocates in January and in early February Marchers gathered in
front of Lansing City Hall and continued to protest alleged police abuses.

After over a year of waiting and as a result of a freedom of information lawsuit
filed by the State Journal finally police records were opened that the city. and
police union wanted closed forever. In 1997 the Lansing Police department handled

116 citizen complaints that included 109 claims of wrongdoing by police officers.

Twenty two percent of the claims of wrong doing were substantiated. In the 24
cases. most of the officers received verbal reprimands and none were fired or

resigned. The most severe discipline was a three day suspension without pay.

In the article. LPD administration argued.that in light of the fact that in the

remaining 85 claims police actions were either found to be proper or lacked

sufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing. meant that the actions of the LPD

officers were vindicated.

230

Recommendations (continued)

0 As an outgrowth of a public concern over police community
relations evoked in part as a result of this survey in December of
1997/8 LPD initiated an annual round table conference designed to:

1. Foster police community relations:
2. Enhance communication between police and citizens: and
3. Improve complaint resolution process and fellow up.

0 Require community police officer candidates to reside in or
relocate inside the jurisdictional boundaries of the city of
Lansing. preferably in the neighborhood zone which they wish to
serve and offer monetary incentives to promote this initiative.

0 Establishment community police operations field service offices in
the neighborhood zones served.

0 Require and fund in service training. testing and at least a one
year field internship of all community police officer prospects
prior to their community placement. The curriculum should include
but not be restricted to: (1) Communications Skills and
Techniques: (2) Psychology/Sociology-Interpersonal Relations: and
(3) Criminal Justice - Expeditious law enforcement procedures.

 

On August 4. 1999 in a Lansing State Journal article the LPD reported there was
a 15 percent drop in serious crimes such as murders. rapes and burglaries in the
city for the first half of 1999.

According to the report between 1998 and a comparable period in 1999:

Murders went from 7 to 6 -14.0 X
Rapes decreased from 62 to 46 -26.0 X
Burglaries dropped from 788 to 533 -32.0 X
Felonious Assaults went from 443 to 385 13 O X
Arsons decreased from 40 to 37 7 5 X

On the other hand.
Domestic assaults went from 614 to 685 +11.0X
Auto thefts went from 193 to 212 + 9.8X

Curiously absent was any discussion pending murder. attempted murder. rape. or
burglary charges which due to backlogs had not yet been processed.

231

0 Establish community policing criteria format which includes
Routine Foot patrols.

0 Quarterly community policing neighborhood zone meetings.

0 Semiannual citizen public services assessments and evaluations
like those being done in the city of Portland. Oregon. which
include community policing as a service element and address such
questions as ‘How are we doing?'.‘What do you think?‘. ‘How can we
improve service to the community?’. etc.?

0 Establish a Police and Citizen Review Board to review at least on
a quarterly basis all police activities and operations and file a
report to the Mayor and City Council (Trojanowicz. 1986 Lansing
Citizen Survey).

0 CPOs roles must be sufficiently delineated in order to modify the
individual officers attitudes and behaviors and equip them with
the attributes necessary to assume their role as a community
police officer.

First. hopefully other police departments nationwide will use
this survey as one model for surveys of their own. With that in mind.
besides the overall survey report, fOur appendices have been included as
examples. Appendix A is a copy of the actual citizens survey
questionnaire. Appendix B is a list of the Lansing Police Departments'
Designated Community Policing Zones. Appendix C is the Community Police
Officer’s Duties and Activities and Appendix D is the Lansing Police
Departments’ Community Police Officer Job Description. In addition. it
is recommended that police departments release survey findings at a

press conference. thereby. demonstrating the spirit of cooperation and

openness.

232

Second. it is hoped this research will encourage police
departments:
0 To make similar or related community survey efforts.

0 To include and empower citizens in decisions impacting their
community and

0 To share their findings with the National Neighborhood Foot
Patrol Center whose primary objective is to serve as a
clearinghouse fer community policing research and programs.

0 To share infOrmation on tactics. strategies. programs. or
research that pertains to the goal of involving citizens in
the policing process.

Third. the data itself may prove useful as documentation for
decisions others must make elsewhere. For example. a police chief or
city official can cite the findings of a community survey as supporting
evidence for policy decisions/changes. The survey results may be
generalized to other communities that have similar characteristics.
Some possible reasons why no difference were found between the CPL
scores of the respondents residing in neighborhoods served by community
policing and those from neighborhoods where community policing was not
prevalent may be:

0 Community policing role. purpose(s) and activities must be clearly
defined and differentiated from non-community policing activities
in order to make a significant impact on citizens and establish

police as partners in the community.

0 Establish and adhere to a standardized community police officer
selection and training criteria.

233

0 Promote public awareness and establish a citizen empowerment
initiative.

0 Emphasize the peace keeping aspects rather than the law
enforcement aspects of police activities and services. 3

0 Police agency administrators must, be~ committed to community
policing principles and philosophy in practice as well as theory.

0 Adhere to the CPD ‘Duties and Activities‘ and ‘Job Description'
developed by Robert C. Trojanowicz for the Lansing Police
Department.

0 The symbols of community policing will not modify citizen's
perceptions of police or the police's understanding of themselves.
It takes cooperation and positive police community interaction.

Summary and Conclusion
If police administrators expect community policing to sway

citizens’ attitudes/perceptions in such a way that the police are viewed

as cooperative community partners. they must reemphasize that police are
public servants and redefine police work as peace making as well as law
enforcement.

Success of community policing is dependant upon the mission.
goals. and objectives of police administration and the corresponding

attitudes and behaviors of the officers involved being altered/modified

from emphasizing law enforcement to community service/peace making.

 

3 The Democratic Policeman presents police as public servants whose
primary responsibility is to preserve the peace and promote good
will.

234

APPENDIX A

“THE CITIZENS SURVEY”

235

July 5, 1995

Dear Lansing Resident:

One of the most neglected subjects in law enforcement services is the
perceptions of the citizens. households, and businesses that the police
are sworn to serve. protect and defend. Specifically, what do citizen '8
think about the law enforcement services they are receiving? How do
they believe these services can be improved or changed? What part do
they envision themselves playing in preventing criminal activity in their
community, neighborhood or backyard?

You have been selected to participate in a survey to assess citizen
perceptions of community safety and police performance. You must be
1 8 years of age or older to participate in this survey. Completion of the
survey will take approximately 45 minutes. It will provide you an
opportunity to share your concerns and perceptions of your community’s
safety and police performance. Your identity will remain confidential. By
completing and returning this questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate. Your responses to these questions are very
important.

The survey results will be used as part of the investigator‘s dissertation
research and the findings submitted for inclusion in scholarly journals
across the nation and to city governments to inform them of citizens
concerns about police and police services. There is no connection
between this research and any political campaign for public office. All
results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain
anonymous in any report of research findings. On request, and within
these restrictions, results will be made available to subjects.

Please return your questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to your participation in this
study or to any of the questions contained within the survey instrument,
please feel free to contact me.

   
 

MIC ae J. ane a
(517) 335-9096
(517)485-0933

 

236

September 15, 1995
Dear Lansing Resident:

One of the most neglected subjects in law enforcement services is the
perceptions of the citizens, households, and businesses that the police
are sworn to serve. protect and defend. Specifically, what do citizen ’8
think about the law enforcement services they are receiving? How do
they believe these services can be improved or changed? What part do
they envision themselves playing in preventing criminal activity in their
community, neighborhood or backyard?

You were selected to partidpate in a survey to assess citizen perceptions
of community safety and police performance. You must be 18 years of
age or older to participate in this survey. This second (2nd) mailing is
provided to encourage your participation. Completion of the survey will
take approximately 45 minutes. It will provide you an opportunity to share
your concerns and perceptions of your community’s safety and police
performance. Your identity will remain confidential. By completing and
returning this questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate. Your responses to these questions are very important.

The survey results will be used as part of the investigator’s dissertation
research and the findings submitted for inclusion in scholarly joumals
across the nation and to city governments to inform them of citizens
concerns about police and police services. There is no connection
between this research and any political campaign for public office. All
results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain
anonymous in any report of research findings. On request, and within
these restrictrons, results will be made available to subjects.

Please return your questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope
within 15 days of receipt to insure your responses are included in this
study.

Once again thank you for your time and cooperation.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to your participation in this
study or to any of the questions contained within the survey instrument,
please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mrc ae . anetta

(517) 335-9096
(517) 485-0933

237

‘The Citizens Survey '

The following questions are constructed to avoid identification so please check the
appropriate space or specify as requested but DO AOT sigi or identify yourself on any
portion of the questionaire.

1.
2.
3.

10.

11.

12.
13.

Gender: Male Female
Ethnic Origin (specify)

 

 

Age: _ 18-24 _ 45-49

_ 25-34 __ 55-59

_ 35-39 _ 60 +

_ 40-44
Level of Education:
Less than High School Graduate Degree
High School Post Graduate
Same Technical Courses Other (specify)
College Degree Bil/BS
Residency: an Rent Other (specify)
Length of time in Community:

Less than 1 yr _ 1 - 5 yrs
6 - 10 yrs _ 11 - More
Approximate Household Incam:
Below 310.000 330.001 - 40.000
310.001 - 20.000 340.001 - 50.000
320.001 - 30.000 350.001 - 60.000
320.001 - 30.000 360.000 - OVER
00 you cm a gun? Yes No
Do you cm a dog? Yes No
Have you ever been a victim of a property crime or offense requiring the
assistance of a police officer? _ Yes No
Have you ever been a victim of a personal injury crime or offense requiring the
assistance of a police officer? __ Yes
Have you ever witnessed a crime? _ Yes No
Have you or any of matter of your family ever been arrested for a misdemeanor or
a felony? Yes No
Next Page Please

238

The following statements explore your views on Crime. Safety. Personal Security and
generally how safe you feel in your home and neidrborhood. Please check the space that
best describes your feeling or specify as remested.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Crime during the past 12 months has
_ Simificantly increased

_ Moderately increased

_ Moderately decreased

__ Simificantly decreased

_ Neither

Please list. what you believe are the 7 major causes of crime.
(1) (5)

(2) (6)

(3) (7)

(4)

Rank the following in terms of how you perceive their importance in combating
crime with #1 being the rrosr imartant and 18 being the LEAST important.

 

More Police Community Policing
Get Rid of Gangs Citizen Police
Get Rid of Drugs Get Rid of Prostitution
Get Rid of Guns Get Rid of Gambling
In recent years the nature and severity of crime has:
Sign fi cant ly increased Moderately increased
Moderately decreased Si mi fi cant ly decreased
Neither
Is there a Community Policing Base Station I Center in your neid'rborhood?
Yes No
How often have you seen the police in your neimborhood ?
Occasionlly Daily _ Meekly Monthly
Rarely Never

lbw frequently have you or do you have personal contact with the police in your
neimborhood community ?

Once _ Daily _ heekly _ Monthly _ Rarely _ Never

Are you currently involved with the Neighborhood Hatch Program or Neighborhood
Association/Organization? Yes No

Have you ever called in or filed a complaint with the police?
_ Yes No

Next Page Please

239

Please deck the space that best describes your feeling or specify as requested.

23. Here you ever contacted and informed about the outcome! results / disposition of
a complaint which you filed or an offense in which you were either a victim or
a witness?
_ Yes _ No

24. Have you ever attended a neidrborhood watch/community meeting where police
officers participated?

Yes No
25. Have you ever received a crime prevention assessment of your home or residence
by the police?
Yes Ab

26. Compared to the other areas of the city is your neighborhood
_ Safer than most other areas
__ About the same as other areas
_ Norse than mrost other areas

27. In general. would you be in favor of or opposed to a Joint Police and Community
Commission or Review Board?

In favor mposed Don't know
28. Do you feel a partnership exists between you/your neiylborhood and the police?
Yes No
29. Have you ever been given a ‘Break' by the police?
Yes No
30. Have you ever felt that you were not ‘Treated fair' by the police?
Yes Ab
31. Abuld you favor a tax increase to sapport officer foot patrols?
Yes No
32. Are you more concerned about crimes that hurt people than crimes against
property?
Yes Ab

33. Do you believe that your association or emerience with police is so limited that
you can not fairly assess or express an opinion about police or police
performance?

Yes No

Next Page Please

240

The following qestions explore how well you feel police officers in the LPD carry out
specific aspects of their job and how they make you feel as the recipient of those
services. Rate tle performance of Lansing police using the scale below. Print the nurber
that best represents your feeling/perception in the space provide.

991995?!“

Almost always
Freqrently
Occasional ly
Almost never

Lansing Police Officers:

34.

35.

36.

Relate to citizens in a concerned and professional manner.

Are responsive and sensitive to citizens needs.

Convey an impression of trust.

Convey an impression of always being ready to talk and help out.
Handle delicate interpersonal situations in a professional manner.

Actively strive to develop and maintain an open and positive working
relationship with citizens and community agencies.

Seek citizens' irput before using new methods and procedures.
Are himly visible and accessible to citizens in your neimborhood.
Cut throudr tie 'red tape" when fast action is required.

Effectively communicate with citizens and community agencies the mission.
goals and objectives of the Lansing Police Department.

Provide good examples as role models.

Are open minded and receptive to citizens viewpoints .

Display leadership without being overbearing.

Develop and maintain morale in the community.

Are flexible in ”Mt of the particular situation / circwrstances.
Know the strengths and weaknesses of the carrmunity they serve.

AExt Page Please

241

-‘

Rate the performance of Lansing Police Officers using the scale below. Print the rider
that best represents your perception in the space provide.

9999933“

Almost always
Frequently
Occasional ly
Almost never

Lansing Police Officers:

50.

Nork with citizens to get them to coordinate activities for the
improvement of the canunity.

Take time to listen to problems. complaints and suggestions from citizens.

Take action to imrove the wality of life and living conditions of the
citizens in their patrol zone.

Go to bat for citizens against higher authority when necessary.
Give citizens the feeling that community activities are “important”.

Encourage citizens to rpgrade their crime awareness and report criminal
activities.

Seek citizen irput when making decisions.

Give swport and encouragement to citizens.

Offer constructive suggestions to citizens in dealing with their problems.
Develop a feeling/sense of 'we" when working out problems with citizens.

Make sure each citizen mderstands tleir ridits and options as they relate
to particular incidents.

Act impartially and without bias or favoritism.
Discipline all offenders using the same standards .
Take a strong interest in improving citizen awareness and involverrent.

Take an interest in the personal welfare of the average citizen.

Next Page Please

242

Rate tle performance of Lansing Police Officers using the scale below. Print the ruler
that best represents your perception in tle space provide.

Always

Almost always
Frewently
Occas ional ly
Almost never
Never

9999.”?

Lansing Police Officers:

65._ Evaluate citizens fairly.

66._ Rewire citizens to engage in unnecessary paper work.

67._ Display inconsistency in their decision making.

68.__ 19mm citizens whose ideas don't agree with their views.

69.___ Maximize the use of citizen and cammwity resources.

70._ Help citizens understand the dangers of their community.

71._ Are interested in improving the wality of life in the comnmity.

72.___ Defend and explain unpopular policies/laws to citizens

73._ Show unwillingiess to cooperate with citizens/cmity.

74._ Earn the trust of the cammnity by being honest and fair in dealing with
citizens.

75.__ Mo patrol my neidrborhood are generally polite to me.

76._ Are helpful in matters rewiring their assistance.

77._ Take time to understand the problems of the citizens they serve.

78._ Generally care about me as a person.

79._ It is important to work with tle police to make our neighborhood a better

place to live.

Comrents or Suggestions:

 

 

 

RETIRN TO: The Citizens Survey'
719 N. Hagolia
Lansing. Michigan 48912-3131

243

ATTACHMENT B

Lansing Police Department

‘Designated Community Policing Zones'

244

 

Ol

02

O3

04

05

06

07

08

O9

10

11

12

13

14

gin-"-

River Forest Neighborhood Association
(Delta River and Forest Drive Area - Northwest Zone)

North Lansing Community Association
(North side Territory)

Old Oakland Neighborhood Association
(Old Oakland Avenue and West Park - Far West)

Westside Neighborhood Association
(West Street - West Zone)

Genesee Neighborhood Association
(Genesee Street - West)

Downtown Neighborhood Association
(Downtown Complex - Central)

Cherry Hill Neighborhood Association
(Cherry and Hill Street Area - Central)

Cedar, Larch and Pennsylvania Avenue Corridor
(Cedar,Larch and Pennsylvania Avenue Areas - East Central)

Sparrow Estates Corridor
(Sparrow Hospital Complex Area - East Central)

Green Oaks Neighborhood Association
(Green. Oak and Hickory Street Area - East Central)

Eastside Neighborhood Association
(Eastern and Resurrection School Area - East Central)

Lower Eastside Neighborhood Organization
(Frandor Area - Southeast)

South Central Neighborhood Organization
(Morres Park Area - South Central)

Cristo Rey Community Association
(Cristo Rey Church Area - Southside)

245

 

ATTACHMENT C

Community Officer's Duties and Activities

246

The Community Officer‘s Duties and Activities

Law enfOrcement - The Community Officer performs general duties
common to all police patrol assignments.

Directed patrol - Through increased visibility on the street is an
added plus. the main reason fOr removing the Community Officer
from the patrol car is to allow the officer the time and
Opportunity to work behind the scenes. involving the community in
effbrts to make the beat a better and safer place in which to live
and work.

Community involvement - The Community Officer attempts to build an
atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. so that average citizens
and community leaders fOrm a new partnership with the police to
address the problems of crime. drugs. fear of crime. and social
and physical disorder. including neighborhood decay.

Identifying and prioritizing problems - The Community Officer
works with community residents to identify and prioritize
problems.

Reporting - The Community Officer shares infOrmation. including
infbrmation about problems on the beat. with officers who are part
of the team and also with the rest of the department. including
special units (such as narcotics).

Problem-solving - Because of the knowledge that the Community
Officer has of the neighborhood and the people who live there. he
or she can be a catalyst to develop creative solutions to problems
that do not focus exclusively on arrest.

Organizing - The Community Officer rapidly moves beyond organizing
activities such as Neighborhood Watch to organizing community
based initiatives and activities aimed at specific problems and at
enhancing the overall quality of life in the community.

Communicating - The Community Officer gives fOrmal and infOrmal
talks to individuals and groups to educate people about crime
prevention techniques. to discuss problems in the beat. etc. The
Community Officer also employs writing skills to communicate with
residents in the beat. and the Community Officer may also be
empowered to communicate directly with the media.

247

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Conflict resolution - The Community Officer mediates. negotiates.
and resolves conflicts fbrmally and infOrmally (and challenges
pe0ple to begin resolving problems on their own).

Referrals - The Community Officer refers problems to appropriate
agencies: code~ enforcement. social services. drug 'treatment.
animal control, sanitation. etc.

Visiting - The Community Officer makes home and business visits
to acquaint individuals in the beat with Community Policing. to
enlist their help. and to educate them about crime prevention.

Recruiting and supervising volunteers - The Community Officer must
solicit.train.and supervise paid and/or unpaid community
volunteers. ranging from individuals who assist with clerical
duties to people who provide technical assistance. help in
coaching youth . etc.

Proactive projects - In addition to efforts that focus on solving
immediate problems. the Community Officer works with the community
on short- and long-term efforts to prevent problems and enhance
the quality of life.

Targeting special groups- Part of the Community Officers mandate
is to protect and assist groups with special needs - women.
juveniles. the elderly. the disabled. the homeless. etc.. as well
as to target other groups. such as youth gangs. for special
attention.

Targeting disorder - Unlike traditional police officers.the
Community Officer's mandate includes emphasis on developing
solutions to problems of social and physical disorder and
neighborhood decay.

Networking with the private sector - The Community Officer
contacts and solicits the active participation of’ business.
ranging from donations of goods from small business to broad
corporate support fOr new initiatives.

Networking with non-profit agencies - The Community Officer acts

as both liaison and facilitator with non—profit agencies. ranging
from food banks to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

248

18. Administrative/professional duties - The Community Officer
participates in:
-training
-roll call
-office duties (answering mail. phone calls. reports)

The following example of a Community Officers job description. provided
by the Lansing Police Department. is used when the job is posted.

249

ATTACHMENT D

LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICER JOB DESCRIPTION

250

COMMUNITY POLICING OFFICERS
LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT

The position of Community Policing Officer will be responsible for a
variety of duties which will include. but not be limited to. the

following:

1. Perform the duties of a police officer assigned to the Unifbrm
Patrol Bureau as necessary.

2. Gather and report intelligence -related information in reference
to the officer’s assigned neighborhood.

3. Provide a sense of security fOr businesses and citizens within the
assigned neighborhood.

4. Become acquainted with the merchants. businesses. and citizens
within the neighborhood and assist them in identifying problem
areas or concerns.

5. Enforce local and state laws. particularly those related to. or
specifically drafted for. the assigned neighborhood.

6. Respond to all calls for service within the assigned neighborhood
when available.

7. Respond to and investigate reports of criminal offenses within the
assigned neighborhood when available.

8. Be responsible for tnnlding security. where applicable.
particularly vacant or temporality closed businesses and
residences.

9. Develop and conduct speaking presentations on topics which have
been identified as concerns and/or problems within the
neighborhood.

10. Research and develop materials for preparing outlines.

newsletters. and citizen training programs. as well as in-service
training programs.

251

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Conduct interviews with representatives of the media.

Serve as a member of various organizations and committees at the
direction of the administration.

Conduct security surveys. complete business cards and crime risk
reports . and provide fOllow-up contacts on commercial/residential
burglaries and armed robberies which occur within the assigned
neighborhood.

Prepare and coordinate the tasks to be accomplished within the
neighborhood on a weekly basis.

Prepare weekly evaluation reports describing task accomplishments
related to program goals and objectives.

Coordinate the services of' various governmental and private
agencies in an effort to resolve identified problems within the
neighborhood.

Due to the nature of the assignment. it is anticipated that the
officer selected will have to work a flexible schedule of 40 hours
per week with variable leave days. Authorized functions or
activities above 40 hours will be compensated as overtime.

Selection criteria

1.

2.

The expression of interest and qualifications for the position.
Seniority insofar as possible.

Be able/willing to physically withstand the rigors of walking
throughout the assigned neighborhood.

The willingness to work flexible hours as community needs dictate.

The demonstration of an ability to communicate effectively with
all levels within the department and with the general public.

252

The demonstration via previous work history of his /her
dependability.

The demonstration via previous work history of the ability to work
independently with a minimum of direct supervision.

At the time of selection. all eligible applicants will submit a
one-page handwritten document as directed. to demonstrate an
ability in the use of written communication skills.

Participate in an oral interview board to demonstrate interest in
the position and the ability to communicate effectively.

Examples of Problem-Solving Approaches

Use of community surveys to identify problems and their solutions

Citizen surveillance (with and without cameras) at peak times of
crime and disorder.

Drug hot lines fOr reporting drug-related activity.

Education and recreational programs for neighborhood children
(including such activities as tutoring and playground
participation).

Conflict resolution training for citizen volunteers.

Self-esteem enhancing activities for neighborhood children.

Fingerprint identification programs.

Eliminating abandoned vehicles from the neighborhood that are
being used by prostitutes.

Community Policing Officers involvement in the Special Olympics.
The CPO being a member of a community problem-solving team.

Community volunteers escorting the elderly and new neighbors to
businesses and resource centers.

253

Use of the media to provide safety tips. especially at special
times of the year like Halloween.

Cleaning up vacant lots that attract drug dealers . prostitutes.
and other undesirables.

Tearing down buildings that are havens for problem people.

Using No Parking or Standing signs to reduce congestion and
undesirable vendors.

Using volunteers to collect clothes for the homeless.

Enactment of loitering laws to keep streets clear of problem
people.

Encouraging park restrictions and hours to control undesirable
persons.

Recreational programs for inner-city youth in rural areas.

Identification of absentee landlords and holding them responsible
fOr their building code infractions and unkempt property.

Closing up houses and apartments that have more than one
violation.

Removing public telephones or limiting them to only out-going
calls to eliminate their use for drug dealing.

Use 10 cards for residents of crime -ridden apartments to keep
non-residents from misbehaving.

Establishing Neighborhoods Network Centers to decentralize and
personalize other service providers.

Use of volunteers to supervise recreation activities at
neighborhood school gymnasiums during non-school times.

Educating senior citizens on how to avoid and deal with con
artists.

254

- Encouraging residents to use their homes as safe havens for
children going to and from school who may be targeted of deviant
behavior.

- Supervision of community service/prisoners
SOURCE:

Trojanowicz. Robert C.. Bucqueroux. 8.. Toward Development of
Meaningful and Effective PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 1992 MSU

255

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayley. David. “Community Policing: A Report From the Devils Advocate.”
a paper delivered at the International Symposium on Community
Policing. Temple University. Philadelphia. PA. 1987:5.

Bayley. David H.. and Mendelsohn. Harold. Minorities and the Police:
Confrontation in America. New York: The Free Press. 1969.

 

 

Benson. Paul R.. "Political Alienation and Public Satisfaction with
Police Services.” Pacific Sociological Review; 1981. 24(1): 45-6.

Becker. Howard S.. “Marijuana Use and Social Control.” Social Problems.
3. July 1955. 1:36-37.

 

Becker. Howard S. Outsiders. New York: Free Press. 1963.

Berkley. George E.. The Democratic Policeman. Beacon Press. Boston.
Mass. 1969:89-100.

Biddle. Bruce J. and Edwin J. Thomas."Role Problems of Offenders and
Workers in the Field of Corrections.". Role Theory: Concepts and
Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1966:164-172.

 

Biderman. Albert 0.: Johnson. Louise A.: McIntyre. Jennie: and Weir.
Adrianne W.. Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia
on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. Submitted
to the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. U.S. GPO.1967.

Blau. Peter M.. and R. Scott. Formal Organizations. Chandler. 1962.

 

Blau. Peter M..”The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations”, American
Journal of Sociology. 1967-68:453—467.

Boggs.Sarah C.. and Galliher. John F.."Evaluating the Police: A

Comparison of Black Street and Household Respondents.” Social
Problems. 1975. 22(3): 393-406.

256

Bowers. D G .and Seashore. S.E.. Predicting Organizational Effectiveness
with Four-Factor Theory of Leadership. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 1966.11. 238-263.

BSSR Study - Albert 0. Biderman. Louise A. Johnson. Jennie McIntyre. and
Adrianne W. Weir. Report on a Pilot Study in the District of
Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enfbrcement.
President's Commission on Law Enfbrcement and Administration of
Justice Field Survey 1. Washington. D.C.: U.S.. Government
Printing Office. 1967.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Report to the Nation on Crime and
Justice. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1983.

Carter. 0. L.. An Overview of Research in Support of the Community
Policing Concept. Training Program Handout for the FBI National
Academy. Quantico. VA. 1986.

Carter. David L.. ”Hispanic Perception of' Police Performance: .An
Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 1985:13(6):
487-500.

Carter. David L.. "Hispanic Interaction with the Criminal Justice System
in Texas: Experiences. Attitudes. and Perceptions.” Journal of
Criminal Justice. 1983 11(3): 213-227.

 

Chiricos. Theodore G..”Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of
Aggregate Research Evidence.” Social Problems. Vol. 34. No. 2.
April 1987.

Couper. D.C.. (1983) "How to rate your local police." Washington, D.C.:
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).

Cole. G.F.. The American System of Criminal Justice. Belmont.
California: Brooks Cole Publishing Company. 1989.

Community Relations Service Staff Principles of Good Policing: Avoiding

Violence between Police and Citizens. Washington. D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice. Community Relations Service. 1987.

257

Carvalho.G. F.. “Installing Management by Objectives: A New Perspectives
in Organization Change.” Human Resource Management. Spring. 1972

Cloward. Richard A. and Ohlin. Lloyd. E.. Delinquency and Opportunity.
Glencoe: Free Press. 1960 and Richard A. Cloward. “Illegitimate
Means: Anomie and Deviant Behavior." American Sociological Review.
24. April. 1959:164-176.

 

 

Crozier. Michael. “The Bureaucratic Phenomenon". University of Chicago
Press.1964. in Mintzberg. Henry. The Structuring of Organizations.
Prentice-Hall. 1979.

Cressy. Donald. "Limitation on Organization of Treatment in the Modern
Prison.” in Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressy. Principles
of Criminology. 6th ed.. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. 1960:92-
97. 112-128.

 

Cohen. Albert K.. Delinquent Boys. Culture of the Gang. Glencoe. Ill..
The Free Press. 1955:24-32.

 

Coser. Lewis. and Bernard Rosenberg. Sociological Theory: A Book of
Readings. New York. The MacMillan Company. 1967:615-665.

 

Cressey. Donald. ”Limitation on Organization of Treatment in the Modern
Prison.” in Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey. Principles
of Criminology. 6th ed.. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. 1960:92-
97.

 

Downs. Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston. Mass.: Little, Brown and
Company: 1967.

Erickson. Kai T. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social Problems.
Spring. 1962. 9 307-314.

 

Etzioni. Amitai.”Authority Structure and Organizational Effectiveness.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1959 43-67.

Etzioni. Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free
Press. 1961.

Etzioni. Amitai. Modern Organizations. Free Press. 1977.

258

“Citizen Survey Generates Better Municipal Management." Financial World
Repprts. Portland Oregon: February. 1994:46.

Farrell. Ronald A.. and Swigert. Victoria L. Social Deviance.
Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.. 1975.

Goldstein. H.. Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.l990

Greenhouse. Samuel M.. ”The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System:
Rational. Language and Idea-Relationships" 1978:120-156.

Gross. Neal C.. 8 Herriott. R. E.. Staff Leadership in Public Schools:
A Sociological Inquiry, New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. 1965:21-33.

 

Gross. N.C.. Mason. W.S.. 8 McEachern. A.W.. Explorations in Role
Analysis: Studies of Social Superintendency. New York: John Wiley
8 Sons. Inc.. 1965.

 

 

Gross. Neal C.. 8 Herriott. R. E.. Staff Leadershipin Public Schools:
A Sociological Inquiry. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. 1965:21-33.

 

 

Hays. W.L.. “Statistics.” Holt. Rinehart and Winston Inc.. New York.
1963:1-12.

Hersey. P.. 8 Blanchard. K H.. Management of Organizational Behavior:
Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.. 1977.

 

 

Hobbes. T. (1651) Leviathan. ed. C.B. MacPherson, Baltimore: Pelican
Books. 1968.

Jacob. Herbert, ”Black and White Perceptions of Justice in the City."
Law and Society Review. 1971:6(1): 69-89.

 

Johnson. A. and Szurek. SA. in Ruth Sholne Cavan's Readings in
Juvenile Delinquency. 1970:144.

 

 

Kansas City. Missouri Police Department. Response Time Analysis Reports.
Washington. D.C.: National Institute of' Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice. 1977.

 

Kobrin, Solomon, ”The Conflicts in Values in Delinquent Areas.” American
Sociological Review. 16. October. 1951:57-68.

 

259

Kelling. G.L. and M.H. Moore. The Evolving Strategy of Policing.
Perspectives on Policing. Washington. D.C.: National Institute of
Justice. 1988.

Kelling. G. et al.. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A
Technical Report. Washington. D.C.: The Police Foundation. 1974.

Kleih, John F.. Webb. Jim R. and DiSant. J.E.. “Experience with the
Police and Attitude Toward the Police.” Canadian Journal of
Sociology. 1978:3(4): 441-456.

 

Kohl. Herbert. ”Great Expectations.” Where it‘s at. Deutsch and Howard.
Harper and Row Inc . New York. 1970:258-262.

 

Kotler. M.. Neighborhood Government. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Ladd. J.. The Structure of a Moral Code. Harvard University Press. 1957.

Lanier, Mark M.. Explication 8 Measurement of the Theoretical Constructs
Underlying Community Policing, Unpublished Dissertation.1993.

Lansing State Journal. February 14. 1994: A1-A3.

Levine. M.J. and J.T. McEwen. Patrol Deployment. Washington. D.C.:
National Institute of Justice. 1985.

Lovrich. Nicholas P.. Jr.. and Taylor. G. Thomas. Jr.. "Neighborhood
Evaluation of Local Government Services: A citizen Survey
Approach." Urban Affairs Quarterly. 1976. 12(2): 197-222.

Liebow. E.. Tally's Corner. Boston: Little. Brown and Company. 1967.

Likert. R.. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
1967.

McIntyre. Jennie. ”Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Law Enforcement.”
Criminal Behavior and Social Systems. Anthony L. Guenther ed..
Rand McNally and Co.. Chicago 1970:381-396.

260

McManus. G.P.. and Griffin. J. 1.. Police Training and Performance
Stugy. United States Department of Justice. Washington. D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office. 1970 21.

NORC Study - Ennis. Phillip. Criminal Victimization in the United
States: A Report of a National Survey. Presidents Commission on
Law Enfbrcement and Administration of Justice Field Survey 11.
Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1967.

 

Panetta. Joel C.. Presentation. Correction Process. Criminal Justice.
Michigan State University: January 1984.

 

Parks. Roger 8.. "Police Response to Victimization: Effects on Citizen
Attitudes and Perceptions." in Wesley G. Skogan (ed.) Sample
Surveys of the Victims of Crime. Cambridge. MA: Ballenger
Publishing Company. 1976:89-104.

Parks. Roger B.. “Complementary Measure of Police Performance” in
Kenneth M. Dolbear (ed.) Public Policy Evaluation. Beverly Hills.
CA: Sage Publishing. 1975: 185-218.

 

Parsons. Talcott. ”Suggestions for Sociological Approach to the Theory
of Organizations.” Administration Science Quarterly. 1956:1z63-85
and 225-239.

Pate. Tony. Ferrara. Amy. Bowers. Robert A. and Lorence. Jon. Police
Response Time: Its Determinants and Effects. Washington. D.C.:
Police Foundation. 1976.

Peak. Ken. Bradshaw. Robert V.. Glensor. Ronald W.. Improving Citizen
Perceptions of the Police: "Back to the Basics” with a Community
Policing Strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 20. 20. pp
25-40 (1992).

 

 

Percy. Stephen L.. "Response Time and Citizen Evaluation of Police
Perfbrmance.” Journal of Police Science and Administration. 1980.
8(1): 75-86.

President's Commission on Law Enfbrcement and Administration of Justice.
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington. D C.. United
States Government Printing Office. 1967.

261

Radelet. L.. The Police and the Community. 4th ed.. New York. NY:
Macmillan Publishing Co.. 1986.

Reiss. A. J.. Jr.. The Police and the Public. London: Yale University
Press. 1971.

 

Reiss. A. J.. Jr.. "Police Brutality: Answers to Key Questions.” in A.
Niederhohffer 8 A.S. Blumberg. eds . The Ambivalent Force:
Perspectives on the Police. Waltham. Mass: Xerox Publishing. 1970.

Reiss. Albert J.. "Delinquency”: The Failure of Personal and Social
Control. “American Sociological Review.” 16. April. 1951 196-208
and Nye. Ivan F. and James F. Short Jr.. ”Scaling Delinquent
Behavior.” American Sociological Review. 16. June 1957: 26-31.

Reiss Studies - Albert J. Reiss. Jr. ”Probability of Victimization fOr
Major Crimes Against the Person by Race and Sex Status of Victims
and Offenders." Studies in Crime and Law Enforcement in Major
Metropolitan Area. ed. Albert J. Reiss. Jr.. President's
Commission on Law Enfbrcement and Administration of Justice Field
Survey 111, Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1967:103.

 

 

 

 

 

Rosenberg. Morris. Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books. Inc..
1979.

 

Rossi. Wright and Anderson. eds.. Handbook of Survey Research. 1983:145-
194.

Skogan. Wesley G.. “Ghetto Assessments of Police Protection and
Authority.” Law an Society Review. 1971 6(2): 183-194.

Sower, ChristOpher et.al.. Community Involvement. 1957:317-327.

 

Sower. Christopher. et.al.. “The Normative Sponsorship Theory of
Updating Organizations.” Community Involvement. Free Press.
Glencoe. Ill.. 1957:317-327.

Sparks. Richard F.: Gent. Hazel G.: and Dodd. David J.. Surveying
Victims. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1977.

262

Spelman. W. and D.K. Brown. Calling the Police: Citizen Reporting of
Serious Crime. Washington. D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
1984.

Sterling. J.W.. Changes in Role Perceptions of Police Officers.
Gaithersburg. Maryland: International Association of Police
Chiefs. 1972.

Study of Lansing Police Department. United States Department of Justice
Administration. 1976:56-60 (Trojanowicz and Nicholson).

Surveys by George Gallup. Director. America Institute of Public Opinion.
Princeton. New Jersey. are referred to as Gallup Polls. Those by
Louis Harris. public opinion analyst. are cited as Harris Surveys.

Sutherland. Edwin H. and Cressey. Donald R.. Principles of Criminology.
Sixth Edition. Philadelphia. Lippincott, 1960.

Tappen. Paul, Juvenile Delinquency. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co..
1949:56-63.

Tannenbaum, Frank. Crime and the Community. Boston: Ginn and
Company.l938.

Taylor. Laurie, Deviance and Society. Great Britain: A. Wheaton and
Company.l971.

 

Traub. Stuart H.. and Little. Graig 8.. Theories of Deviance. Illinois:
F. E. Peacock Publishing. Inc.. 1975.

Trojanowicz. R.C., The Environment of the First Line Police Supervisor.
Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc . 1980.

 

Trojanowicz. Robert C. and Nicholson. Thomas A.. ”A Comparison of
Behavioral Styles of College Graduates vs. Non College Going
Police Officers.” Police Chief. Vol. XLIII. No.8. 1976:56-60.

Trojanowicz. R.C. and Moore. M.H. 1988. The Meaning of Community in
Community Policing. East Lansing: National Center for Community
Policing at Michigan State University. 1988. No. 15.

 

263

Trojanowicz. Robert C.. J.M. Trojanowicz and F.M. Moss. Community Based
Crime Prevention. Pacific Palisades. Califbrnia: Goodyear
Publishing Company. Inc.. 1975:122-123.

‘Trojanowicz. Robert. C. and D.W. Banas. Perceptions of' Safety; A
Comparison of Foot Patrol versus Motor Patrol Officers. East
Lansing: The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center of the
School of Criminal Justice. Michigan State University. 1985a.
No.1.

 

Trojanowicz. Robert. Gleason. Richard. Pollard. Bonnie and Sinclair.
David. COMMUNITY POLICING: Community Input into Police Policy
Making. 1987 National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center.

Trojanowicz. R.C.. An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program
in Flint. Michigan. East Lansing. MI: National Neighborhood Foot
Patrol Center.

Trojanowicz. Robert C. and Carter. David. National Neighborhood Foot
Patrol Center, School of Criminal Justice. Michigan State
University. 1988.

Trojanowicz. R.C.. M. Steele and S. Trojanowicz. (1986) Community
policing: a Taxpayers perspective. East Lansing: The National
Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center of the School of Criminal Justice.
Michigan State University. 1986.

Trojanowicz. S.. A case analysis: Community policing as an innovative
response to environmental influences. Unpublished manuscript.
1993.

Vernon. Robert I. and James R. Lasley. Ph.D . Police/Citizen
Partnerships in the Inner City. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

 

Vollmer. August. The Police and Modern Society. Berkley: University of
California Press. 1936: 230-236.

Vollmer. August. The Criminal. Brooklyn. Foundation Press. 1959 444.

 

Walker. N D.. and Richardson. R.J., Public attitudes toward the poligg.
Chapel Hill. NC: Institute for research in Social Science. 1974.

264

Weatheritt. M.. ”Community Policing: Rhetoric or reality?” In Community
Policing: Rhetppic or Reality3. ed. J. R. Green and S.D.
Mastrofski. 153-77. New York: Praeger. 1988.

 

White. M. F.. and Menke. B.A.."On assessing the mood of the public
toward the police: Some conceptual issues." Journal of Criminal
Justice 10 211-30. 1982.

Waisaned and Durlack.Research Design and Analysis. 1966:101-115

Wilson. James 0.. Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge. Mass: Harvard
University Press. 1968:16.

Wilson. James 0.. Planning and Politics: Citizen participation in urban
renewal. in Roland L. Warren ed. Perspectives on American
Communit . Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
1973:359.

Wilson. Orlando W.. Police Administration. New York. McGraw-Hill
1950:95-102.

Whitaker. G.P.. (ed.) Understanding Police Performance, Washington.
D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 1984.

Whitaker. G.P. et.al. Basic Issues in Police Perfbrmance. Washington.
D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 1982.

Whittick. A..(ed.) “Community and Community Feeling.” The Encyclopedia
of Urban Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1984 288

 

 

Weikert. P.S.. The Social and Psychological Determinants of Adolescent
Sexual Behavior. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State
University. 1979.

 

 

265

"Illllllllllllllllllllls