. . I . . . I 0 PH. 04...... 1‘... U r.6.p.._0 “9...! ...0....-.. .3. .. . .. . a .- . . . . . . . - . . ”- 0 00.0.0.0 )90“0000.0 00.00.. .lIv. w...9....’....0. .0 0...). .u..0. Psfizsubtn tor-hat. 0.300,. 6.0“... .0. J10. 0 0 .0... n ‘30 . .. 0 o l . .o .2. a. . .0 l .. 0-. 1 0 . . .. .. . .33.... n. 00 .10 00 . ... . . o.. .. a . o o o . .I.- I 5 . 0 0. 00‘. .ll 0 .0 . .0 DAD. . .... 0.0- 0, . 1-0.0. .50. 0 .0 0 ‘0....v|‘..0..0....00‘0. . . . . . . . . ’ .0.I...J0..o.0000.h.0000 00000000 10001.00 .00.w.0... .00.. . .4 . n . . I. O '30,. 0...0....03.0..00.Y0.90_ .....0.0 .71.... 3.... . . 0. 0. V. . .. 5.20.0.0. .u........0.....0.0.20...?. 0.0. .020... 04.5.”... .P. . 0...- . . .. . . . . .. [I .. . .f. o . :3... .. . _ . . .. . - . . . . . .I.0.p....’$’9.000.....'.0 9..l..0.-l....1?0......3.0... 1- ... .. . . . .7. .. 0... :3. .- 3... .0. 0 112...}: :0 Ill 0 c o. 0. .0... 0.. -.0 I . .o.1..0l.0.. 00".000 090..00. . ~ I. . . 9. . 0. V 0330‘ '0. hLJQ..0-.I\..0.A0 fi‘Cberx 0.... gib-s.0.n.0r.a0.. 02.030“... ..... u . 0 . . . .Ir . .... . . . I . 0 0 . .. ..l..as .9. .o. 010.. _. .. . .. e 0. 0'90 . a 00.9 60.30.00. 0. .. 0r. . .0 . . . . 3 . . .0 . 0 000. .0.. 00......“ 0.0..0. 00 c. 0.... .i . . . 0. .. . ... t... 7.0.13.907060 39“..“ ”3.0.2.”...‘06 00.... .06.. a... ... 11...... . 0.. . . .... I J- _ _. v z... .0.‘....0v. ..05...-0 s.v.-.10..3200~Z .1..Q!00..-.:‘..0090..0¥.. .... 3.0.3.0000. 01...... . ....... .0 . . . ..... n . ... 0. V .7. .. .. .13.? . I... 0.0. . . .. . . .. . . . o I ...‘00.¢000 0'. . .‘d . :0 0 . . 0 0.0 o o .3 ... - ofluv‘xrvq.o0n0.uohfl;zv 0 ‘N’...'.."'..9. 9.!o0r'LOSOOn ."s.... 0 ‘Vo...’ .. o P. . a 0. LI it To . 0 . l... o: 0 . .u... l . .3 220 2. - . -. I .. .0. ... ...... . 0. ..0. .0 4...00 . 0 0 00 I: 1.2.0.... 0 .r 0.0.. .0..... .. ..Iv! ........u:.......0..[,....’..l.l.0...00. 09......000... 0.9.0.390 I. ...........0 .0. 07?-.. .. .0... .. . a .00. .0. .u... :1 ...0 ...... .._ u. .o .2... . . .... t. d .. -0. . . I 0 . . .l I 0 u - . I Q 0 . _ 0 I y . I . . . . .. I. I. 0.0 v 0.. - 0. . . - .. - 0.0 . 0 I ... 0 I! . .V 0.. 0. u I... . . . . . lu'll.._ 00.0.. .. .“0. 00”»...I I!!! . 00”... -.0. 0.00 3.00.000... 000.. . ."0 . 230.0 . 0 5.0.. 0.1.0.333... fan; 004.000.53.304. r1531. 202.90.... 0 . . w. s . . 0...). 0 . .0. . . .0 . .- ... I . . 03. . .. u. _.. .. .. 0.0 ..... 0 . 0-0 . 0.... .9A0... .3000... 3... . . . .. . . . . 0 (”1.0000 0.0 0.... .I......o.1.- . . ... . I . ». o ,. 2.. .. . . .. ... .I . . _ . . . . .. ,. 9.06.9.3. 0 . o... .00....l' 9.0.0.3.“! :0 . 00.13.0101" .. .03.. o 0. . 2.0.. to... (0...... .. . 0'. ..I 0. Do... . . I . . - . c . . . 0 0. . . .0. .. 3.. 00 .0 0 . I 0.0 ”I .0 Ioofoo H I .0 .00. o. . 0. 00.. 0. 00 910-..... 000. . .. 0. :1om0l‘..0.'0.\0 Lfoo.....a.‘I’:‘9.‘.Y...§QOIC 0L.5’0. 0.00 ....I.. 0.01. . 3......2. . 0 . V. . s. - .. 3 .3 0. . u? I 0 A .. -. 0- . . - . . c . 00 .. Elna-0000 . .I 0. . .. .10....r. l I... .. o . 1.... 0.0.1.... ...o v. of}. : 80!!.1II0Y..00:. 0.23.1.5.- ...0 .011: c . s... 01 31-623.. ... ... e y . .. . . .2. .3. .3 .. . . .. 2.... 7 .. . 0 . . . 0' 0 00-..... ,0. . 0.. .00.?!29... ..0..J...00....u..!$ 0.1.3.. ...r...’.. 0.0.0.!!! ._ 4.0.0...!0.. . . .. - 0:0 . . 9 . OI I... .0.- . .9 . . . . . ._. u 0 0’0 .00 00.0 00.00.03.0fi‘... .005 .0900 . r6... . ... 1v“. .. 0.0": “0. V (1/03... 30.00.50.011. 0... '00 0.10 8-1... 0.... . . ‘.. 0 ... a . s. '0'. .. . . .0000. . .7... 0 . 3.3 . 70 . . . . . . . u 30.1)). o .0 0 0‘. 000 0 0- . .0 190.00.. ... .0. .0... o 9...... . . 00...... 0830...... .R.h0.06010:.'0.! 00.90.391.03”. 0.0.0.010... .. .0 t. . .. . . . .. a. r. r 1. 2 .000. . .2. - I .0 . .. _. .. .- .. . o f. . .0 £0 .. . 0 0 . .I. .6... 0 .. 0 0 00. 0'. lo...- 0...‘ 0:... 0.. . 00. 000. 00... .0... o 010.90....{0 .t' to 0:00 a. 0. 010.002.3250.. 0...... 0.90 0 0.0.0 0000. I . u‘. - .0. r I . - . . . . .- . .. . . _ 0 p o‘..000000.0.30f4..0¥00 c.0nl0-1.1.3.000.2.10..i0.0.....:0fir......o . .f....1.....1..o‘_o.i00.0 8.3; 000. ..-.00,0 .v..... -0 f . 00.... 0. ...c.0 -I .001. 0.0 0 0' - 00 . .0 .. ..... 0 0.. .. v-10. . II - .0. 0...). 000 Ih".00.01. .00 0-0.0...0‘0 2:30 0 .00.0.0I....‘. 020.... 01.00....2 3‘ .. .9 00.0 000. s: . h0?‘.’70.-~00 .000. . 2- . 0 . 0, .0. .0. 0.0 lib-.02 .. 004. ... . . .0300. . . . . . . . .. .- , 00 a... 0 $0.. .... a .. .. I '4 a O O .0 .. . ..: . I v ' 00 .00 I ..‘.- .vl0..... 5"...10»..‘O'O.h$ov'¢rs.’0‘ (- ”'0‘”: ‘\?'\.’QV.QDOQO0Q’.‘.~. 9 O . I. I 0.50 . . . 0 I 0 0 . 0 0. .. . .. 0 0. 0 .0 0 I :10 .0 0 0 . .H . . 0 - 0. 0 a 7. . 0' ‘ .C o O. 6 .. 019.00.00.33.- ..-00.0mv00 .40 2... 0‘0. 025.... 3.0... 0.1.000..8‘t.-6....00.0 . 0.00-1.60...) 0.) .0... 0.0.1.0100 ...-..L.. . .. I .. . . l . ... 0 .. 0r. . o .. . n .. .6. . 000 . .. .III . . . .7000 . I. - ........0n.-u.H-.. .0.0 3. ... 0.05.05. . 2. 0.3.5:... 9... . IN .2! o. .....0.P.f .01.. ‘0. O C 0.! ~. Cub-ll 01...:- 0 I . 0 . 2.3.. a . -50. u 0.0 000.0! . 0 ‘00". 0030\009 0":0900'00'000'00'. I D . 0 3.0L... hit-‘1 '0 5.0.5:...0010 . 0.. 92.2.13. . 0 . .000 .0... 00.. .0I0I.0 . .. ._. . . .. .. .... ... ....... - I. .‘0 «8.... .0 0.0.. 003}. 017'! . 0 ‘03. 0. 00.0.0. 3.00:...05 .0 .3 n... I." 0 . .. .0 0. .:L0 0 I r. 000, . . . . I . :0. ‘0 0 . . . I . . .. . . Lr . I. 1 . '00 h. . . . 6.10 0 0.... ‘0. I. 0.. . . . . . . .340: . 0. 0. 0 000 0 0 0 .00.“: .0“ 0.0.5.0 . .L .. 0 I 0‘ .0 '. .ullqorfun’0lh.“|o.le.hw2 001.1... 0 0. 0..” 0%. p .10.- ‘u. . "‘31....5...“ I!” 0. 0.7 . a. o..’0..... . (0.03." ... 0 .. . . 0000. 00. I) .. .1. . I o 0 . ..r. T: . . 0.. . I . o 0 00 . 0 - . .l..00‘00. . . - .. . . 0 .‘0’...-I.0..0.0.0I . . :00. o. . .40. .1030 .03....) . .3 00.0- ..o..0| o. :0...00v 00.0.r..0.0'0..l.0,.0..00 3‘0 . D... 1 00 . .90000‘10.’ , 3.. . O. . o ‘ . . A 1‘.‘.. ‘dfl‘o..‘. 0‘.b..“ . ‘50 . :0. 0 0 . 2‘. . . v. n 0 O O 2. . .-. q a 0.00 0 o O 0000 I '0 I O. -0. .06 . . {.900 . . . 0. . . . u I . .p .0 . 000. . I . . I. I . . . I- .."...0. a. .0 .. 0 . 0 . . .I .I I .0 . .0. I I ‘.O . 0 0 O .0'. O -I‘IO .0...;O'.‘..“I'l1p.“s tofuf-Inflvflfi .dowfihr’g‘fl‘g 0.0 ’Q‘ ‘ 7...... :N;I.0\..‘.On ". 'o...’00$0¢d.‘0.1‘.0~0.0....~. a“. .I' 000.‘ 0.. 0 ,. o. .0.'”.V.o. . 00! U. to 0. 0 . )0. - ..0-‘0I0 0.. “:3. 0. . ....0'..IF I I... . 0...”.. .0050 .00 0IM00. 500.00. Inns-00.0 0T0 ~0l..0 . 0 0.0 0 0 . . . . . 0 . - . . I . , 0 I. I . . I 0 0... b. . , . 0 .. I 0 I . 0 0 v- I . . . , :0 ... .- . . .0. . . . . I... or: v.4..hpfi0.uu....r....... 6.0.9.”..."00 . hr... in 0... .319-E..n:. 20.0.. 500.... .- 2.. “v... h...:...0u.. a... and.“ .- v. o}... 1 ..c .0 . , n .... . .._ E - . . .. .. .3 a . .s . . . . . . .1 :I . . . 0.- ll- . ... 0. . ... . . 0 - . I 13:03. .07. 0.0. .‘0........0...0Lf. ....0..f..ll.t.0....c.00. 0&5... ..I... .‘30.10. rLf000‘0..0,-.Fl. ...It.0....l .. ....I. .. 30.0...0..Is.0.0...$ . 3.... ... .... I 0 0.... 0.. 1... 2....- 10 . - '-.t. 9.9..1....90...!0I .4.» .‘00-1..0000000..0.l.o. v. 00 00 0.3.0.... .0!...00..00.20. 10min...QI'0. 51?.0912 .. . .MF00'3000. .00‘00‘ . . 1.. .. 0's... ..1.. ...- . .. . . ....o . . .0 .10 1 . 00..- 0. .000 000 .00 . 3....0 .,... -. 00.000... . . , i. 0 .0 0 00 O . . . . u . - .- . . .. . o.. 0.. 1. .. ....... 015...): . -r0. . . ‘ v..- ...' 0.00.1000". \Iootulru- 0?. Inhouto...P uh....hfihutd0dg.u.flfi A Jun-400213.. 0“. are . .00 ."t.‘fl§u....¥flkvwo.0nwv .0... I _ .HP 3...? 30.. 0.. b." . W0 .2. .0 .... 5-0.. 0.0! I .. . 0. 1.200 . 2..-... . .I 00000 .1. I0 .00. 300.. o. o .No. . I 0.00000 0 0.:- .0 o 00... 0 .000 . c 0. 0 .. I O ' 00.. .0 . u . . I . .. I . I .‘l '00 I 0 0 . I 70.. .5 0 .l. 0 . 0 o .u: . I!- . - . 0 o (I . .PLH...“ 0....0000u1_J. .0..0”.U.30000.0.|-0..00€0...00:0.: .r. '00. !.m. Wu...0.0 (0..“ . 3'3..- 00.0.1.0 ........ .. . 0. :0. .. J .3 I. n: c )0 ... 0 . . . .0 0 .0 r I . . o w. a I _ .7‘ 4 0 0. o . . . . . . . . 1 . 0 I v 1.0 on. 39’. 0.? . 3. 0.00.. ..0 m 0 0.10.?3 3. 9.4.0. .0300" 3.000,. ._!....0-.h0.l..Ln. I. 0.. a. .0 1... 8... 8.. 00... 0!! . I. .. . .. 000‘.- v: t 0 . ..l .00. .0 . r .......1 ’00.. ..0.0 23004. .‘a ’9 . . .90 11-0.. pp. . 0.0 .3. b..r0 ... 0v .. 3 02h. -. .1... 0,3 .0... 9. .00 n . o. 00. .. .201 . \.0$OVO . .Q...00. A. a) . . 0.1! {043000. . o 0 . . I. 0.. 0'0. 0 ...L3!19;.0 . 0.00.1: 2001.0..S'. 0.."H'Iov r... cal-0.0. .7m00d0..'ru‘9 P10.Kv\..:.30.0_0... .3‘ .3”!!! CI .9. 0 . 0k. 0. 00.0.0.0..1} 0 3 2.. .. .‘L... 00.... .. .10... 030...: . =0... -0 o . . . . . . 0 . . . u . . 0 II 00.0 .o 0 .0000 0. 0 $ ‘9. 90.0.0.0... 5.0 . . .. . .20.) I... -.. . .. PDQ... .100 139.!“ .0 .00.. 5. 0......-. . .0...- . 0!).0.... .. .es. 1- In- 10.0 00.7... . .v I. 00 I\0...I0 - :40: . o . 0.0. 0 0...». $0? . . . 9.510... f. . ".4.50m%~§m00. 00hr... unugg3.’...nuflohh .. o..10.-0.00..n07wd..9..0» II 0.700 r - . - D. . . I“ I90. I 2.. . .9. . 2.. .. 0 . 00 -.. . 36.30.... .p0.....00...00.l..). 0.03.0.3; .0 r 2.... .0. - . . .. . . , .- . . . . . II- . .1. . . . ." 1.1)... :03. . . . .00... .. . . 3,-0.0 .... ..I...3I..J If: I - 00...... rr . ..0........a../l.. 0J0 .00 .I.'00I0‘Is...la '."Y.r.\..-10. n . 0 .‘VI. 000 0 . (I. to” :0 . 0 . .§_ u! I 0.0.0..) .'9. '55.”..1’. .. on. 3.5.0.510...th 0 0-..‘.—....00mle;0..\"000“"NH“U10MKP..NOPQII..Ldrum....h...o:.00000 ”'2 000.-.!0 0. 03.00.. 103060.“ .0; . .0129. 1.0.0 0... =0 3.0 .. .l . v'. . .r - ... . I .90: 0‘00... 0.1...- r.... V. . . 0.00.00. 0 3000.. (0'00 00.. v. 0 o..fif.0.¢09" ‘0’. N .3..000..0..0.. .. . 0t . l. fiiflrr “-0.094 3.3.0.1.!9111101...‘ 0.9.13.5..3 .0..- .I..00. .03..» ..0r..00..... 3..00.l.. 0 011:. frfia. 0.. 00.0206]... L I. 9.. . {00' .. ..0..0....I 02-....00..00001J..'. .0000 0o..'o$ac.9ro-.r.‘il 0.0! .0 o 7 u 0 . o 0 0| 1. r 9.3.0.0.. 0. e4...lrz..tr!’al.-§Qfl.3. 201,290.00 {0.13.9}..tn‘0 0.9.3.0 3.00.0.3. I? 2 . 9. 29.00.“! 0.00 0.. I .0... ...o.-0........ .- :0 0 50C [1.0.9.52 020...; - 00.... .. .2 1.. . 30-....03'0001900. 0.0.. 0! -. .0 0 3.. . .0..00..00'. I- 00.70. 0.) 2 0 00 V009... 90....‘000 . . I... ...... . . I . 0. 0.500 3' o. 0.0... 7... .15 0:001:03. 9.... P.00vz..’3.f000. 00 "00.9000.’.9..0..'...20. ’00... .0... ........0.. 3. .i 7:».0. .0 0.07. 01.3.0.3... L 1'03... 0 0.0.. .0. :90. . .30... u . 0.0.. . v -a . .u . r. c? . . .0 0.. . I .6 .o.. 4.0.... 90!. 0. - tutti-40.0.. I." f?- 00. . 0J0 . 7'... 3;...20' .0010...: o... ’ .I.... $111.95.?!300. .00....25 0.00 .1 .... 0. 5.10 '3 30 3-0.9! . .0...0...0....0..0.. .1 ..r..-..Ir..l00. .0... . .0(...? 0.00 0-..I.... .0000IOA..000.0OI.000.. ui90.0109.010 .7: 0!. a....l¢... .. n0.0.0 2.0;... .0 .0... .1 .2. .I.. . .- 2.00.3000 .03 0. 0L .0... i .5 .730 .00 0.r_r. on. - I .002! .0 . . . .10. a? .v0 0000 . .00.. 0001 $00.00., I . 09...000.o. . 00.00 I‘- . 04.0. .0‘..1‘0 ‘0... r. .00 .I 0. 0....00....l..1.0.00.AI'V‘.J0¢0..00‘E'O"I ‘ld..}t‘f"0 I . - 3001,03. .0....00.o-0 0. this...’ 0 . . . .. . L . . . .0 0. .0.’ .0....~.- .. I .0; o. ’3 J'Oa. 0000' ,0I .bl .;. ..0II00-;|...0.00000.0 0t.0|0..|‘l.0¢‘010000d .0I0’0.i0. . 1.. .095! .. 0.. . 0 .03 . . .. .00.? . 0...}. E. 5. 2 . . . 000.....- 0.. 0.0. I... .. .0......0 0400........0 :00. ..o0 . .I.’ [030 9.0 0 .It. . 0.00 .1070. IPv 0.100000!) 00190000., . 0.00.0... 0. ..'. 20000.... 3‘0 . .. . . . 000.... 0‘0”... \houflvflnrtfio‘o 003003.005H0’. .0.“ .n .v0v00u00QII0 topOtratJus-UVH... I. ‘5”?155.“ N: .u..-’.h.\‘...|..:000...- . . 2.0. .5..... .0 .. 0..- 0.'. .- . ... . . .7000. 0 0. 0. fl: o . .' . III-D. .80... . . 0 o 0.0. . -0; . I.0'....I00..’.rov'005 001.00. 00‘ 9.00-0.09)... at"..59...’.l0.. ..0'00..0'.0.0.00-109..BL 3000 .I.. .00" 0.3.0.5. .. .000119'. 9.1.9 .3130. O .5 .oYI.0...0...?0.P.. 01;...“ J .0; o . 0 00. .....0o.....0 0....0 .....0..00..0. 00.00..000. 00”.! a. 0:00 Il0qo‘oOL0 ' VOII0.000.I.00.0001000. 490000.. I’ll“...': 9.. 0-01 ' 0. 0 .. 01.0. . I . . 5.. n . . . .. 04 0 . .._ 0. . .. "9..0 .0 .. I0 .0 I . 0 .' . .u 0... 0 0.0.... .. ..0 .0 . 0. s . u 0 01'. , . . . . . . '0 0 ‘09.": ”0....V H. . 0.0.000 0:."00100' 0|... ho.p.”000nflun.‘0 .anuutl 0% .C‘ 9"”.0000 ‘Vfibgwhv’ .‘I‘oflzwtuuflLI...J-I.¥I.'VVO.“.J..0- 00 0-71.01 30.50.01... :0. ”no/0.10.0.0 ’1‘: 33:20.. .0 o . .1? .. 0.0. 0 00-0 00 0....o .3 ...0 0. o o 0. 1’. '0000 9.33.00. 00or00. 1'00 '00.)... 0 . 0...... 0 3-. I... 00.0 0 $80.12 0.9.0.0 . \ {CL‘DL‘N uihvu‘ 0‘10...’00‘0..0. 2...... 0.. .0..0.-? . I . .00 .. - . .00. . I... III. . 900.0900I: .....0 - .... . . 0 2.1. .0 5.0.0. ..I o..'0.00.10 02- . . . .90.. 1.0.0004 0 0.00 .0...0 0.5". .I0.I..O..01:00900 0 . 400.. .90080....‘00'.0.o’0. :&-§..0§I’V..§§.b .. .0 z! '07.... 0303001.v.‘000r0.r00t...00:'.. 1.9.0.0.? 00.30109 3.... 0.11! 000,039}. 0.»I-.0., $.09 .02.. 0.. .00....‘000 .1000....a000.. 2.. 0‘. 0..00.L.000..I00.0I 0'..!I‘IO?00DJ.000 00"..0‘O'I'.'00..0. IL -0 . O . . $0.0. V1.1.t..2l-.. 0 _ .3? 0L“-..w1..$0 "000...’0.00‘0 ... pr. 0. '10:?- 1.’ .00. . .... .300 .00 . o . 0- .70 . ...i.l... 0 0. 0.020 . .3... ..r0. 0 . 0 3.000. 00.00 0 . - . . . o‘lt...’0.l¢ 00‘ 100.10.}. 01"..i'10ul'0-L0’EO0" . 3... .§.P0.0d...0..5§ T0 . . . . . . . . I. . . . . I .I u . . l I 0 ~ I h a I . A \ Ill 140. . . 0.0 .?'0 :‘0 a . l . a 3-00... 02‘£.900!§.0.OI-Or’ .. . . . 0 .0.. $0.... I I 0.0 0 . .0.I..0000C|0V'-' .‘O'IOOC.“'0 . I. J $.00! - . I 0 C o. . ' .900 . .3. .3. 0. . 0. V... 0 0-. v .. 9.300.)- . b; 00 .0, 0.. 0 o . .I I. 0 .|\ 00. 0 ’0 0. 9.00 .0001‘.IIV..H..0 I. - 0. . 0 . 00-0.. 0.00.! 0.0... 0 0 {0...13.000II!§..~.W. in’JHW10.“ 00lv)0...-.00’.W-0.'.§r.”'..:0‘0 “.000... 0fldww.§0.mfll0.10 JO 0...). -. .0.000. g 0 .4 .00... ,0 00. 9,. $5.03 0. I ... . . . .. 00.3... . 0. , ., t. I I... I) 0 0.000 . . . . 0.00.. I40 0' (.300’0. .4 0,0000 r‘ro 0: .7900 0. I I...— 00000.00!.0.0‘..0. IIJH000000J. O. .1330: 0000 .17. 0.0 0.0.10... .5. 0900100003.. 9.:...l..0.§'1.0.000.h.m003'2 ...00|I0-000.0.".0. . . 000...! 00“....000. .... .0 .05.. . a :H .. .. ., . r . . . . .J. .I 0 lo I .o . .0..I.........9 .0-0 .00 000 I! 0.09 ’ a .0. . . , . . 00 03.700... . a. 0 . ta. 0' .. . ... . , . r . no. ..I0..'~ .2. 1 .. ‘30.. t .2 .0 0.0..00‘0'30 0.0!, 0.0.. 1...: 0.. l...00 $1.00.} . . .0000. .I‘0000 0.00.!!! P. 0 ’0...(. .000 .0! . 00.09... a Afglr.3.b‘530n’lh7‘0'. . 0. . 5...”). i 7.000 A" 00.30.055.600}... 0 ‘00., ’53.... 00 . 1000' c. o . . . . . -. . . . . .0040 0 0- . . . 0 . .. .. . .. I... ...00...II . .0w-0‘000 L.. .. o . . .. . . - . ‘0nc‘ti’. ’0-.600‘0.I|001’.|000 Tl 0.'0 0.0 ..0. 00,0 0-0 . A (9.030. . :0! .00 f. . H _ ’9'. 1...: 0.1017. '00.. .3 . Q. .000" o. . 300‘ . . . . . . c’ 0 0 . 0 I .. .0.“ . t... 0.9., .0? 0000.. o‘ ...I. o. . .00. .00 00.0.; 10.000! . 9...! . Ill 0. 00":0100 . 0'0 0'..." QIJB‘aitg. 0'0. .9. I‘Vl.’h...r0£ru'l>l'=; ’0 gifigzlz’bfl?‘ 0 I..n0.P3..\00 {L040 094uflst?.fip\ "30.0”...“00006 ..II0.0-10.00o I v! .0. . 0.1... II If... I .00 0 z. . BO. 0 .0 0 I .10 00 0 f0 .- c . 0 000000.! -000 (0.00.0. . . I 0.00.?! 0 0 ...00. ‘0 .. . . . . . 0 - 9 . . . ‘0.’ _. a: p.. I u . .o 01f 3.. . . .1'.‘ ...'...;01. . 3.. 056.0!000.’ 3.03.00 .00 figt...!..!)‘§.lifi.{pm‘s . I3... .9 .. .eohhuuvv“. {-1-3}. .0...0u..00‘901.n0 .. ion. '00.! .. .0. To. .00 o I..- (- 0.0.2.000 .I. 3. . 00...... . 0.0.. (00. 0 0- .0. 200.0 .000 0070030010.??0'000“ “MINI 00. I 1. 00 .00 .0. . . . . . . . n . . . . L I - . . 9. . .. , .00. 0 . 0.0.l. .0190“; . P00 00 “0divgi'gifi'vfl'lvth0I‘Dut . .- '.00.IIDI0 .00r.0 . . I - . . 0 IIIIrI III-0 . I . u .7..- 0 0. E .l 0.. .1... .0'000‘000 3.0.0. l‘c..000..|00.'l|‘. 1|"...- ‘3 09"..00'00, 0 00.00.0100. rI.LJI_ 0-?!000 . 0 1.0. ollI lzzfifiwfihnu". .0...- "ugtuhufio.nm00n0it0 ”000““..1’0‘061 .10. ,3 ”.00 0%,. .0" II" .10”... 9.... f I. .00- .0 0| ‘ 0 .0 00. - .I'. 0 0.r .0. .0. 0 0 .0 .5 r0 .0 0.5.0. I . 00. 0 .050 9.0.0. 00040..."'.0‘$001I?J 0.0.0 0"". '0 I. 10-00.; .0: .5330; 01.02.311.11330. . .. 3.....93.\...9.0.0.0 0.0-)..3.‘ 6.!- .0. J 0.0.1...- .801... 10.1”». .0. 0 :00 .. .. f... .0002? - . I . . . . -. 10.0.0.0. .L 0 a)..- 010.00 -.\.o.0lVA-.' ’09,! ... . . 0‘3100..0..3: I 63L. . ......o,....:5... .2. 2. .420. 0.0000. 4 iv to . . .. - . . . . . . . . [00.0 - . . 50 .03.‘0'..0000.0.0 0 3\0‘..I’|fl!vm0 . . . 501.31.... .00.. 0. r0000 9300003000...§3-0I30. 0.3 - .I 03"-?!) 2. .0 p. 0.. - .0! .. 000.000... 0.000. I. .‘00.0-40 000.10.00.0.0.0.00-10900-1.‘00-'20030). 0'00. . . - .. . . . . o , . . . -.. . . . . . . 1...... .03'0‘000. .n . . . . - . . . . . . . . .0 . 00.. . 7.0... .. 0.0. 0. .00.} . . . . . . .. . p I . . .. f0”- I 00.00 I. O \ '1'“ r’fih.w.0iflsrk.uh.o0.uual£' 5.5... 0.30?- ..00.O.000.00.190.I. . . . 0. t.”.18"...010§l. .1"..va . M9400... .Ohlulun '01.! H00 0. .r .3>v\0.0 ..0 .00! 7‘.“ 0.. 5'. ‘l. .0 . 0. 00. .fl 0 I . 00 o . 0.2.00.0 .1 0. u . 7.0.0:. al'5110‘0 0 '0 0"...3',’ 00 0 ‘wfll..1’.(fi.‘.‘. ‘100 6': 0". £15.05 0‘... C’OSLvfi‘si 03". . . 03.0,...0 .II- 0.. ’ .s. 0’.-Iyx." 05.00... ’00 00.0.0.1 It - I 1.0.0 .IIHSIIIOfltp'..-00 00’ o. 0 .I . 0.0 o . (.00.. 3...“: 1...... a... .0. P ..0 ."9'0!. vlleIlO 0 - ’z' 0.. 0. ""0.} 0.0 ‘70’00 . l‘. .u .0. 3. . a. 0 .o‘vnsfl .I..‘..90 ’35: ’30,. 0010 3. 010‘31H. .0...00..! ,0. 4.0.0 .. . . ‘1: - 00 0 . u o .\0 . .I I ..I . . . 0 . 0000.330... .00 1’90.- - . .‘ 0' I. . . .9 .‘9 5. I 000II 000.. 000.0060le. .0..- NQ” tgnth“. JgfiW‘ ‘I.vtl 0000.0. .‘.0...l..bt~“ .00..‘:’ "-‘n ‘Jr.§s . .IA' 0 0. I. .. .0. . 30...... .l.0.....‘t. 3.1.0. 0.. .30.! 0... .90.... I 00.0". .0 r .0 000.0‘3:.0('0005 0. o". 1 0 0!: (0‘-.0’I0.0.'0 £10.0'0Lv..u00.0i. .. .0 0. ' I I I- ll .,-. .0.0.I0. ‘ . '0! '3'. 0..."’.r§.‘.000”..'" ‘L' I . . I . - l . 00000. .iotfig00zvg’30 . s. .05 . ’0 0.00.. 09...!!! .3100 10.) a!!! .50. .1000. 0. .0?.000I00) V0.0: “0 ”JP.‘ ., .. gu‘lo!000 ., 0051: I 0.0.0.0 .0’... “J AIL-,du’uuoozfi-nnu 0.9%}...Ofiuzq'uguvshh..hvuvro.nyvol 0.00.. . .01 I“ “I"... 0 .01.!3...O.00 l o. ’10 ...V 30.0.0.” 00" I0. I ..l . I: 00 I- (0 {lot-:fD' 0 07.0090". .0oDI-0L'v (0 $.‘00I00 03’00’000'0': _.I. .. {.0 .I ...-..- I- .1, 1.5.3.. 2 . I: .g. I... .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. :3». 0... 0.0.0. I! 00. 0 0 00.0 {30 3. 090.000.0"0IN. .350. Dutch: 0.. 70....030... 1...). Ofldhrsflvugio 0 1 000. 1.. 0...}? 30 e. 0...... 0:0. .0 Il!l.. .. .300 6.. .0 a. :23. . :7" 35.05000090I... 0 . 0 . 3‘00! . \00 00.0 . .. .0. .. I'll. It A! 0000.0... 90 '02-...) 300330.000; “I... .3. .0000 1.0. I... .. :1 02- QII I0 (0. 0 00010007000'000 "pg. 500.09.»..20... 500.200.... . 030... .5‘. 9.0... 0...... 0.8. 711...... ($6000....030N00 L.. -P‘ .00- :2; ..-.I..0\.0.0..>. . . 0. .- .. .00.... . Nu...) . 0. 3.0!.» I ...I.IIH Jrlnoaulo. ”.00”..030n‘00000u-.00000.10'0-.IN.10 oodoaanflfldlu ”31130000 I‘ollo 0.0. 0" ‘000 I’l.-r.. .00? 0. . .’. I" . s .60. .2300‘ . 0 3 01.05.: .00.:0.‘090.00.I..(1.. .2720. .. '0. [I 0. . . .00 0 . .. .. ......I ’00. . 0 . . I ..v ’0 100. 7.4.0 0 . 0 A! 000 00' I 0‘4 .L. 0. .‘pl .‘rn‘tu‘I. 0.830.500 “an“. 0.! £3.3..000...00....Mv.. fivsnlthg. 3. Ioogflbnro‘r H9Jnv..o.n:9'v...0..0V0 0o. ‘9. 3..."!!! 20.20.... t... .. l... - 0.. .0 .000 00.7. 0.. - .011 .. 0.0....007000 0. .000"... . 00-0!- ..0- "-00.... ..o.0.00.M00.L.0L0HH...000.0’W00....I0o 00’ 0" ”CI-O" 4"". 'D lav I ... .3, 0- .00 .000... . .3 n... .0... . o . . £0! «00...! v .00... 00 fi...‘ 498.05.00.30: . 31.12.90.323..- .90.. .l. 0....II..o.. .0 ....0I...0.l......0..0 .. .3... 0. .o . 0. .1 00.3.1. x70 .3. .. . .3. 0 1. . .0 0.000 1 . 0070-0000". (0.00" 00.00.000.00 000? II0.II-IIIOI II- 0 '0.- ‘KO‘. " 01.00. I o .. ’..‘V0|. . 007 . . -.I\ .“Cm’ 9 . ‘1‘ P0. 00., I03.0.00”0.. .3007 .0...0-0.I00\0..'0 0. 0.. It)? .......-.|I...000.O 000.0 ‘ I01.I0'0‘.08.I‘l’00-:. .Qst'. f-I|.9-'J."OD'§0O$.I - .6. .. . 0 ....0 0 .000 .I . 5.0.01.0.) .. .0 .00 .0 3.. 0 0‘ .5. 3.0.30. 00.23.00. T... .. 0:000! . . . . I . I 0 . I. '00. 000.000 0 0’...Ir.. v.0. . II... 090.00 '00.}. s 0.. . . - . . 0.. $3.06.! .k.1.... .9. 0. ...0.,..000.0...II.’.. .- .... 0-0 .13... .t.‘ 0.0....IJ. .30 :0. .00 '09-‘09: .. . I 001000.00vI0 . ... 0 00000, $0- ’90. 00.000.600.001." '0' .33 V.- ..IH .10 .1... in. -. 2.2.0.0.?!) ............s!.. ...u............... ....,...I.-.. .it...n..%!_..ts_. 3......7.....-........ :i....8.:.....u. in... 5.... 2.2.2:.-. .01... r..- _. E... .fi..........._. . r... 4.... rah-.1 .--.....- . 5..., .. ........-:.I-au.fl. .In-u...,.:..a.......!.u....-.H..!-..k-....-...-.$....-..-.ut.u-.n... 0 0. . II- 0|- -.. - 00). .. ’00-. . . .. I. . 0 . . . . 00.. .. L... 0 K. . C00 ’..‘...1 . 0.000 00.)..8r‘0. .. ‘.£..vlo.0 .. . -.. . III.. II .0. . . I. 0 0 I I 0 .' \IO’IHI.’ I 0 [.0 . 90.0 '03... H. P 0.8.“0....”00.0...JIO|P0. .510 0””?Bfi-Urhu. 0.9’.OU’~.0.H0 h."0.0‘l’0.¥0..00b‘.0. “1:030 .00.. . 0 .n...00.0o‘)n'..00‘0 W. .o: .o’. ..00002..00&. .1 10 t. 0.0.. 0.00.. . 08.10. I. -0u00000u0 00..~H.Io.- .0 0. .0 0 AL... .00}: t 00.00000 00 00. 31/90 'lfiflvltoaflo {“OIOOOOP'0307II _ I0.- 0 . . . . .0 a .40 3.80.0; 0. .080? 0.19. c t .0 8.9000000... . .f .c in. ..’....U0.¢QE.LII.!....I001.0...?! ..v...........0 .133. 0... I: 1.3.2.0200. .- . 0.10.. J 0002. . 0... . -.. .00 1 I I . .1. 0.... . .0 . I 00. 0.0... III-.000 I 3.00.5 it." 0... ‘0... 0,000“! .I .0 0.!1’. i‘..."% ‘ 9... 0 . .a .0. $ . .0. ’. .. I ‘60...“‘0’... .‘Q. .o T. r... ‘5‘,’... ~’ 9|!'I‘0V00-0I}... 0 ft 0.0]. .0.O‘I'O.I.?0... .007": 00.... I... II 00"... V'DII"'VI0.{"‘0.'.."O‘O¥“ \ ...-I..0 1.00. I ,. 20 $1.!...0l.. 0.360.009;- 0000..:..! ‘11.. 3 (51.0.3... .0 .0} 10 s I . III-.0000..- 0..0:0 .0‘I3.DI...0.0 000010! 010-0. .J.00‘sl-0000‘20l'000000l'1" I I 0 0.." 00 '2... ’0 ,2 0. .3 v- t’?‘ 8 0 00"? 0 . 0.3.0....0’. 0.0: 0.0 1.. .l .0. a 2 .. 00 I. 0 0|. .‘ J. I t... ‘00 I 0.00....02N.' 000 "0‘. 3‘. 1i“u”l§‘.‘““.fi0fi6d"fl f‘l‘U."\l{.’o' “9;..0‘0 "hmnvhv 0"J.).J.I.o. ?. 0.". ‘.00"’ 2.0.1"\ 0“! a It! .1900... I 00"”. Cf) 0'. .0000 f "50000 1,00,“; (0;. ‘3 O .09 .‘H00 0000.0" 0. 0.1-0.0000! 0.0, ”“0“”.‘1’.0.I‘00‘D."O'Ovzflt“.ulh J 0.0. p. .I . o .2000: 00‘- 0.I.00 3100. 0.0. .000 0500.. .. 2. 00....5’...r0... 1...»... o... 0.2.0.00. .0. .2. 1 :00. 970.; .. 0 .0-\ Z .3 .‘0- I. T0. 0.0 p - I . .0. II. a II . . 0 . 0.0 a 0.1.0 0 0|}! {'0 . 00' 9 I 00.000 0.0.0-300 300.83.... I. 0. .- 96.. . . . 0, v.0 .30. 05.0.3.1) 9-1.0 D 70.. 2 .DIIIIIIOI‘0III. 0. I 0'0 0..”00to010000. ’00....0"! 0: I 00.! .0 00... S. ,t‘ .0; I 3000 0 . g 5‘ 0‘. ’00! 3 if, 000 10.0 .0 .1134‘0 0 ’0' .01”. :0 ..I 0’04’1031 00’... 0 . .. .00I 0 . I 0. VI... . o . . 0.5{0 .. v. a f . J . . . l..-. l.’ I .0 x q 000‘ '15.! 1 :0... .03 0.... .1 .00? P l. 0.. r . 00 00 3 £01.00 IOIII . 0'0 '0 I . I C 000 00 00 10”! I0. fo'roitgg‘tlf '0... 0" ' 0.01.0200 O‘ILI 0 .Yo . 0'0? ’. 0“ ‘o‘-.!' 0 .39.. h‘ 01v?!» . 00...-.. 7.0 1 '0 I I, I ’4 .. o 0. 0 .P'o..1 81"... .07.... . .00. .500. Q... 0‘0"“00‘0 I 0000.0IIJ‘..".000. 0}. :0. 0.? 00 00 0%-0'9‘ "C'fl.’0""0""0- I .0. 0080.00,. 000. .. 0.0.0.0 .009. .P"0(0’..0.0.8l. 0.0], 0. u .9 05‘»: £3,100”. 0!! .0 . .01 I000.I.. 03,003.05... v 0 .0 a I I . 0 tullvznlfl/0'I'O‘i'Y‘0i .0 .3 I0 0 .0 . . .0 t .00.; 0.0. .ulp’) I, . . 0. .00. . v... \. 0.1 00...... . 0.0 50...!!!” 0.0.0205503I3000‘0 I I. 000.000 0.. $0.0. .00. 0.. I . o .0.IIII 0 .0 0 In! (0 t .0?) 0 n 0....VHIII u? .00.. s 10.. I I 0r. 0.... ”.00 00. .S.0H..un'.000 I .nhnosihnonhqhv§ott¢io (2&0... £00 ‘QbJI-r.dk.ha$‘.1f.h.. '0 I.’1%0....00.J’l30.830t|l00\ur 9 N‘- .. \0 07.0.]... 0.00”? I .90 '0 0.00 0.1.0 0 I000 0” .0 0.0 ..00..u.000/00 00‘. 0.0 I'.'000 0.00.00.40.30 “Hon. . 000.000? zlndcé0jétvt0h . I I ‘0 . ‘..I‘l0 0 0.0.0 I 19 '9 . ‘00. 1 ’u .U! . O 5". 0. .1700. 90:00:00. cl. . 021’ .00 .I I. I 0 .I .o . |.l 0 .0 . 0 lilo-0 0, 0 I 3 0’ .0... I! 0,; 0‘0. .00 09 a0 0! .1. 0.0:} .10..“ 2L0 .0. chafin'hnuuouhvurg .0002... f.“~w0u.’ioq. 311.400...” ‘D‘LSP. .00...." 57:10... (23.0.2600.- 0... . . ’00 A". 0000 0 0.0.0.0 ‘ 010.0 0 00.0.: 0.0 . ... 2 Ill...) be NIIIIIoll'. 0 .0”! INHVIIM. 0’00.“ .390:. 0 II). J ~00000001HU00” l’LCOI‘IIudebugI'. I 0' 0 O 00 '00! I i',.~00‘1.f‘!.5. 0.. 3’0. ,R E“"O‘ .0 0"..0 o. '9. ...0.15‘0.C.‘00.0..0£" . 0’10 2-0.00.0). £1,0‘... 1 0 ‘0 000 0 .0 .0000’001000 .0 I 0 0.. 00. .0 '0 .- 0 . 0 0 0.0 n.-. .0 0 I 0 . I . 0 5“. t 0“... .5. 0D.’| 0 000.0 IIfi“!00\Is30.¥.rp.v‘£:~n . .. '0. 0. . {0" ‘0’. O . .08....‘0-13’950. L! 0‘13? .5. ,03- 50.00030" 10.0 .000’00.“ 10000.0. I000...0I.€0000.009.00I. .I.01'0PI.I- .0 .00.. 90’0'010’.0\‘$‘§00f0 I . rhgiboho 3...! .l. v . “I! .20 0.1 . . . 0 0 .u. .. 0. 0 . 0 . 2.....00 0.010 r . .0100. 0'01}? .‘of. ..O.I 0 >0‘OII 000) ,\ .0. p! I' . 0 , .0 u - I 000 00 £0.02... -..;.§'0‘...§00 . In .0 at 9; ogl’. V9h0. 0 0.9.03. .2 0006.05... ’0‘»... . .Ja-O. . .1 000:0. 0 .236. 000 .. .i!’l00.000.7. 01.00.. 10...”... 3'1- 0 - .0 .. 2. I 00 0 .. . 0 I n I! 0 ll . It‘...lo0l’0- ‘- 00"‘1QU0. . 0.0..i v . 0. '0. 0. r... s. I’.' . . 0 0 0 ’0. 0.8-. ..00.0‘-0..00 7‘ 0....- .00..0-I q..- I’II-’ 0".Ir..0$00|000'.000:-. '-\000f‘ -0 -0 00!£1‘4|£0‘l};l‘l". I 0 . '60:]. ..‘..V 0'00.- 0..0vl ..t.V\1..s .1 E . ,.QO. ’0‘. . .0 0 i .000 -.000,0".0*“n ‘vbpzia 0‘ t a. . . . ..'.0l . 0. )0! .\al\ 000 . . r00 ‘,'....0 090:.0"‘. "IO.’$’I“’, Il.Io 0.1‘Iv00. - . 0100.0... ‘00,...O 0 ,'-I . .S. ’0. .. . 0 O . 95"! X'. g .0: ‘50. .‘0 ‘a’l‘l00‘000 04-0000... n... ’0. 0 ..0 ‘0‘. 1’ 1000.0000‘l‘ .J‘. I. .l .a.n I ’2" 0 0-0. 0000 o 011!- 0.. . ..0.I. {$0. 0:00.911»... ”"39““! 0O.h’l0m0l.o.w.0.r0.hl0 .20.}... 0.3% .8 0....000W'Mun’x." 300...“...0RM0._..'33..11 . ..0..10..00...0(0000. 00. :0 130".” . 30...“... .I . .15500 .0... Union. pw III... (M... . “.0390 . 00.0 .0- yuan! 000.00%... .Pwuvu...w0 » 00.0.00 9 00,00. 0 0 ‘0!"‘00" 0" . Cl .0 00.00 u.-0'09.000.. I'IIov .......l0.l. 0‘ 00053., '0 0000.‘.00.O..I I’ .00., .0... 0-0\0.! c... 00000 9.000 0.3I 0.0.0.101... I: 0|.0 0.. 0. .0 II .. 0.. J. . .9 . 0’. i 0' . .V 0 0 vol...o- 000000.00000I. 05000....000..3... r3003 0900;.0... lil...00 -. 1 5.. 0.0.0.... 0...... .....0 510.001 ’I..bl..0. 0550:... . .33)....- .. 00 06.0%.}; )0 I. 020-00.01.0c0, . .000J00' . I... h. hid-H.100 I. or); l§0.01.00’00 achO-l O. I . I I I I {0,0, I 00 0 0t. ‘:0000"l06.000 high. , ’ 00-0- 0 0.. ‘00‘0:"II"‘3£‘1 ‘0‘: .. 3.0‘h‘g-‘ 0000 00.‘. 0.0,. .‘..’.0.'.D‘.00 010,). .,50 I... .100 .0 -0 0... 0" O 0 0", .0 01'000006.‘ '0...‘ f.’ 00. 0.0, .' It}, 0 g '5 .0 . ll 0-. ‘00, L 00 .I’I l0. 0. :- a'flx0. 0 A .- ... . 0.00 0.00 Iir.0-‘."al..0 a .I 0 .1 .0II.|..000 000000.100.) 0 .0 .10 .I..'n\0 I. ..0... 01:01.00! 00.00.00.000 ‘IIIO'xv'Ig‘OI. I. 0 0.2 . 0|- . 0 0.0-.07 000 INN-.0000?! ILLhflc-H.‘ WHLKVBUA“.H01-.thfinhh 0.”.1000!‘ Q0.t.\.&2..0§nf . .00 39.0400» C...“hn.‘:0¢“v~fh0 I! . 3.. 00.0030... ..... 0.... 00.01 0.. a .92.! o.. 0. .000 . .5000 I... .0 0 ‘0 0 .3) 0.. . .l 0 0 0 .0..0 '. 00‘ 000‘ 0‘0 fr... 0‘ 00000)),0 ‘VOOO’O 0.";’ 080.0 . I... I. . I 05000000‘ 'I.. I‘ .000. .‘J\”09 0.. 0' 500-... I In": .a. .230... 10.).t. 0. 900 :03... .296... 0 100011.57. 10.601000).C400t 1... 3.00. 0.. 0. I 3 .. ...00|0.2I).r0 o I00 0 o .0 .IO’IIIIVI . 0. to 0... (00100 090,031 0000.0-0'30olfu0‘loioi. 0..- .v 0.. 00- . '..00 II. 0 0‘ .0 0 .00 0 0. 00 ’09. 9.50.300 ..I0 ’7 5n.600m...".. ‘33-‘13! 30...":0 3 .'I‘.$ 0.00.... .1... 000.13.801.10 .000. It. 00'. 00.0 1340...! 0.0.0“: .0 ..?rn000 0..) £0.00)” a-NIrII h .0 0 0.1.0" .00).- ‘IDIIIooIU..QJI0.0.00l‘ 0N.“'0!0‘.lo0..p.tfvl qjai'dfuflC'“ 0 a 0 l 0.0 00 1" 0 .0 i701! I I'l‘OII. .0? 4. 000.0 '0. a. 6.0.”..c: .0. :0. o 0'? 001. ..00 l rial- .’ I . 90. 04 .fl .1. . 0 I’ll I .0... 00.. 0 00 I- III a '0.’ 0 t i 0 I, I. o 0.90 .‘1. I”. l.’ 0' 0”. I... 0 vvgnoh‘fi-fit‘ohoasflu 00.. l'whnUH-Jnfiflucur D I”?! 0r€nfl§fl004~V$JW§1 £‘II‘0.‘00¢§0 ’0" 1900.0” 007 £00 '1 0....“FI0PV I.» 0 I? 0 I’t‘o . Iv - 00 .I0.‘ -0400 000- M... 00000“- .H 0 III .10 10..“ ”00”, 0 "HoiIIIV 0 othulidv‘ '00..""I'O" ‘0’"000; I! o .0 ..000 00P000 .0 .00 It0.. 0. .~ 00...... 920.. . 00 Ergo-0010.... 7.... 3....- . .. 2.108....50. III: . £3.00.) .- . I 93 3’50 .0 . e? .. . . 2 .. 20.5 - . . . . I I 00.0 1 . - I, .00! I 00.0 .0... (0- ‘v”; 0 001’ (’00010...0 0.|.L ( .000. . £1. 01 0.00 a. 00000000110“)... 0.3800103..- £3...‘2l¢- ‘00 02.00. 9.030. .0920... ... 0...v0.lIr0 - 0.00.0010 0.20000 . I00 0 u.-. I." I‘I’O 0 0.;0oo010"..¥,0“'§ 00-. 0 0. a a 0. . .3 .. 00--.!”0.“ L00 2.3.923“! . 0 00”.... .Iw0 {grow-00“.."u 0. 0.0”..."unhh 330....”“30”. .0..$.00‘ 5.0.3.3....o3..0...30.....0.3.-1.u0 0.0..0‘0’. .0... ... .zvoho..0...0. 3.30:... 0.00. ...0 :n 90,. ....00. .. .0.”0010.0.“uu.:.00.0|000.0...0 - 0 I0. l0”...U0 .Vfuo. » 0(0J0ano00h'0.0.“00000H-00|Il.0.00.l00“|0.00.00 00'1"“? E! I'Iilul! '0) 0 «I..'.0 .l .. . 6‘00 .0 . _ . .. .01... I19!- I‘ll" .0010....00 0 .Vt00107300'...r0 0.. I. .0 0... 0.30.. 5. 00 - .. .2 . ..... . . 0.100 I . 4‘ I I. .l....n0 ' 0).-00 00 - 0...,er hi... 0.0.. 0.0 .Wlh.v.0.!..u n...’.\w\...l.l0.. "Iii-0.... 30%.. 0M“... 0303.....7.3”0.00..u0-‘3..0..0. .10.“..0 trial. .01)"..0..\-L0\UI.. st?! .0070... 9. .0; I. '9 .500. .0110... a 1.0- 8.. o . .30. .900.“ . ...\u.00..001. . II. .0-.0 0 0‘. ,1"......0 (0'. .0d.00..0 {VOID-003,0 plele0H00 "g7'}'...lfltd’0flnl‘0ft .. . - 0‘00 . .01. .0. ..I-. 0000.90.01! L... n. . .... 3000.0 0. 3000.... 0:850. 00. 37.50.00 000.0..01. 01.0 0.:0.1).¢f0-? c-0101, .. :0 .. :0.- 0 3...:- 0...000..P9 . .00.!!! .0 .- . . 0 . ... 0‘ .18 .. -I I00 . (I . .- . . 0 10. IOOTO- .00 It) .9-. l I. . 0. 0 0p .0. :00 ’000‘ 00.....0 . . '0“ .00., 2.. '00... .9 r . 0000...! igézi.0§t0. ...n.‘. L. .00.... r. 0 0.0 0.0.... 0.0.. 1. .2‘,.0.lf100£.!1.100vv9.:. .. 0...]. 7. t . .'.v'00.l000 000020 0I18fu in’.lr00f”“ .' 1""0 0.30‘0’. .0," 000— 0000 .1001-‘0FI 0 so ‘ .00.” 0...“ 1} 3.. '0 0. . 0. . 0 . D! LL. .0. .03 0.. 0.0 .0 I 0.00.... Il'o.000-0 0000.. al.000 .. 0‘..IOIIO¢0000 . I)“ 00' QIII'O . 01“. ' h-i!",0 8.0 0'. it; .00. 0 i, .30I.’00001 9.0.0.00. :5 3. 0‘ 0.... $0.00! 0. 0- .0 0 . 2 0.0 . .01. 0 .0. In 00?-..0 .000 .I 01 0,0,0. 90 000 .‘l 000 .0.0 a...0.~t0l..5E-. . .l 3000 . 0.0 I .00. .30. 05.000.333.000...- 00071' . -. 0.0.0 I. u 0. o 0. .I: 0 {varavlll‘r .0s r .0000 0' A 0 a000'.000('. ‘i‘go‘OO‘.: 0-000 0.00. 000 .0) 0.000.010, q 0.0.0....09500. SI. ,..;..0‘.0.‘. 0009.}. 1.01....VI‘6. 1. l. 1. 0.. .. ... I I I (l..- .. 5r. 0‘005‘!’ '00....0000" (It, "IIID '0‘0.’ 0I‘0'III I 0.....‘00...‘ O, 0“ £ 0 QI.’0’\."§I”’0~.O . 00 to ’00 00- 0.00...‘ Io.‘l'r§.I1' f'l 0' 0 ‘I‘0.1 OI. .0 0” I! P 00 0' 0.0.4 '0' ' 7.01.20-(0312000‘02 .50". $10.3...ia 2.... 5.00 z 0. 0 . . 00k: 0. . . .00 I 0.000 r' I:..:‘.0'0’0"I 0‘ 0.0 0.0 0. .0. . 0-0 000... 30’. 0... 0.0. 200.0 .0. . 0. 0.3.0 .5100, ..C’..Ip0.=z 0.0. .I‘... 9... {5.0.41 :0 ’- 00.080.513.004. In .30. . 0.. . 00 in. 00.40.... . 0.0'00 00 0. I- .0 .o . .0). . .0009) '(0 (III. I 0 -(0 00": I." I.- -.0 00 0. U 0.5 I | - .11. It . .0“.- n . p 0 0...: Av. 00. .0- Va". 0L: ‘0... 20- .‘u”... .. 00' 00.. on" 0-00.... ‘0 .0 .a' . 0 .000 -lozodyll If... 0.00,.) II" 0 0,000. 3’04 00.! III-.3000. .0"lf0|00la 00 "(I 9.00.0-06‘0flglill’ 01‘ D..00\ 0 0'. 000“. 00 0M. .0I.0000.".v.0£ .0. .‘i.i§0¢.i%0.0.£3 1‘ n. I. D“: $.00. t. (I... 0. 00.0 009.01.... -3000 .00. .00 99.0.! \I 00.00.. r000. .10, a0 .. 0 ‘00’..l’t..§0.000701 0.00.35.00'0'0 0'10) '00:. it)" s 0 . 10 I. 00. O . to..’0.‘o.\ .00‘ 0 .000“.'0§30-00 0 .’-O 0.00, O. .00 ‘)‘(!0 0 50-0. .9000. 000‘ O 0.. 0. 0 0. 0| 0" Iii. 0- 0 ‘Di’. I 0 ..\ .90 I. 0.0 ‘I. .‘0. .0 . 000.0 tr. . . . 010‘ 0000 n... . . . 0033.00.02.90... .1 .0 .‘-.’.0.. 2.00.. .01.... .0 .02! 6.0 0.... . l 0 I- 00300’Ilo .‘0‘0’. ..\!.I .. .. 0 I. 0 I 0070 0-000. IIIlo'. 0 0 I." I “0‘ o 0.... .00 - 0.0.0 0 o . Qi‘rvt hd0. ..¢.0.H0 “huh-“00.0.03, up“... It": cannon-"r. 00......- 3’. ‘fi'...l.. .030 Z§P| ’30....[503‘091‘ I00 0 00.0002 . 0.0 :0 0.0 .— .. 000.. 0:... 0"0”.’. 0.. 00 . 0n.0 In'flio‘inuoloun-oCM. "0005. .0 .00.. 0-HI0:”P.,0‘00‘ “0.50.“. {IHOI'ou'IIszfg'J'u‘QJ‘HIi1r!§li.‘"p 0 . I . III .0. ‘3}.(I100l . 0... 0‘1\l0€l00..... .00 0.5.0.0. .0"..- 3..., ‘40 . 03.0..0‘4lx: 00 . 10.00 .0. 1.30.0. ‘ .9800? .00 I. .0.0 '0. fir! 1.0.0 I .90 . Q. .311. 00 .00 I I I, 0 00"“; If 0 00000 1.0- I 01.0. . -0. Icrs 1.5.:10‘ts. ..000 V... 7 .0 08.0.0.9... V0.80... .‘00005...v0.........’ 0.0.0.231. 7 00000 . . . . .o .. 30.1-07.0 ..00 III..- 0...on ..P. (.00 . .4. 0 0.0.00.000‘0 0 0H”! 0"! 0” 0...). 000». I c . .0 .I 00 .. 0 0 00010. . .. . . . .00. 0 .00 l...r.l’.0\.(t.0 . 330.. .03 .00 o \00: 0 .0. 0 . 00 00 a. 0’00 . .00. 0.0000100- .a'l III .I .1' 0.). 0 .00 .0... I. 00003.00; 0.0 :00. -0 II; 000000000 $3000 .0?!) .A . c cl... :1...:...-:.....--I.....n.- nub...n.-.uur..Izfi....-0:.ku...m.i{ .....u.....uk.n.!..§.....§ 1.15:... 3.0.0:?! . .. z. I .I. e... . ....-...;.0...a.;. - -. o... . u n ....-. In. 11.2.31 «vucw.£.t£.h.-N0Io.uuu..0.£0 3430...,13.u$$l~¢:3 .. ‘ - ,5 0.‘ I 0 0 . . .I I . I. 00.. E’vo‘ 000.00» 000.000 .0... 00 0 1-0.0 3 '0... o. . Did 0 ‘00‘ 0 07 0 . . 0 0' 00 0 II v ‘0 h .0. III 0. . I0 00.5‘UL0L0uhln-‘0 hfi.ll.bhhhh0.§t.ucooo.hhn‘ .00 I‘VbOth.0d0I0P¢IJ.I-In"r “0r: 0...?Yuo0ynfinlbvkt 0 .. 00 III 7.... 0.0.. . .. '10... .001. o .7. I .0 10.00 \..00o 3:; u I: ........000.-| .PH ...W.."w.u.0.0 0 N41"... nub-InfilhI '4'.H0 JMW'IW‘I’I”IJ.IO".IU.(H-IO¥ . . 0.. ..0 .0 .0 I .‘0 u. 0 . . - . 0.10 , . 2. :10 .. . 3.0.0.30 . 0...’...r...0. : 2. .0 ...0.0.I 000.0... .. 3. .0. 0.00220 . r 3.0- 80.100! 0000- I. . .. I: ‘0 . .I i. 0‘. L. 1.. 0... (9‘s ((0.! 0.00 ' 0!, :0. 000.000 0'. . 0 . . .00.! 1’0 . lb .HbiI‘OllntQJfinmflfiurfluun‘J 0. ‘04]. 00..H.00...0hun.xn).gloiousflabtdwupJWWh.0 .vl'..03.1.0.7.- 010990.. 01r10... 00-0 30,30 . .0..- 0-. 1. 0 .. 0.0...'II I31-.. . 0‘0 .95R’ 1. t . .. I.”0 II I00], I». J - I y . 0000‘- III . .00...-70’r F’iibi‘K'f’Ffll? v ..0. l.- n.70... n lvbl’nIII-III». I-.. , _ ., . . . Wit/iMimi/Mini"7"!"‘7/7177/17/i , 7617 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Explication and Measurement of the Theoretical Constructs Underlying Community Policing presented by Mark M. Lanier has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for (CSS) PhD degreein Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Criminal Justice and Criminélogy MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 _,____—___i _ A "—‘-"‘-v—-.. a. _,4— ‘fi‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return onor before date due. =—_—_——___——_—W DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE W " L____JL____ OW“ ' I I MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEquel Opportunity Inaitution cmma-M * EXPLICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF THE THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS UNDERLYING COMMUNITY POLICING by Mark Murfee Lanier A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Criminal Justice College of Social Sciences 1993 ABSTRACT EXPLICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF THE THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS UNDERLYING COMMUNITY POLICING BY Mark M. Lanier Community policing is a proactive police philosophy that seeks to reduce crime and disorder by promoting a partnership between the police and community members. Implicit is the assumption that increased community cohesion will have a positive impact on crime, fear of crime, and disorder. In this study, the reliability and validity of scales developed.to:measure cohesion, disorder and fear of crime were tested. Furthermore, the relationship between these constructs in diverse neighborhoods was examined. It was predicted that neighborhoods having high levels of disorder would have low levels of cohesion. Fear of crime would also be inversely related to high cohesiveness. Data for the study was collected from three Michigan neighborhoods utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques. Interviews and fieldwork were used to identify neighborhoods which were thought to be high or low on each construct. Following this identification and classification, 1,088 questionnaires were distributed to a systematically selected sample of community members. A total of 377 useable questionnaires were returned. Findings revealed.that.the three scales had good internal consistency. Relatively high overall standardized reliability coefficients, .74 for cohesion, .92 for disorder and .83 for fear' of’ crime, indicated. that. the instrument, accurately measured the major constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses also provided strong support for the items comprising each scale. Having established the reliability of the scales, validity was assessed by comparing qualitative expectations with survey data. ANOVA's indicated that statistically significant differences existed.betweenigroupS‘with respect to the fear of crime construct. Furthermore, survey data for each neighborhood supported the qualitative fear of crime projections. Correlation coefficients also indicated within group differences between disorder and fear. Thus, indications as to the validity of the instrument were positive, yet. variance existed. due, to context dependent effects. In conclusion, the scales appeared to reliably measure the constructs postulated to be important to community policing efforts. Further research on a larger scale is needed to provide additional validation of these constructs, and ultimately validation for the utility of 'community policing itself. Copyright by MARK MURFEE LANIER 1993 DEDICATION Seven years ago my son was born followed 20 months later by a daughter. At that time I returned to academia to complete my college education. .All my academic achievements, culminating with this Dissertation and Doctorate, have really been for Seth Incas Lanier, and his younger sister, Jessica Iauren Lanier. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation reflects a sampling of the skills many people have graciously provided me. I wish I were better able to reflect their contributions. Dr. Robert Trojanowicz sparked my interest in policing and provided an appreciation for the practical applications of social science research. Dr. Peter K. Manning provided, often humbling, lessons in the value of critical analysis and qualitative techniques. Dr. William Davidson II guided me towards understanding quantitative methodologies. Dr. David Carter contributed a synthesis of each skill and a supportive ear. Many officers of the Lansing Police Department were always candid, informative and available. Special thanks are due to: Chief Jerome Boles, Assistant Chief David Sinclair, Captain Mike Wahl, Sergeant Mark Alley, Russell McKenzie, and Andrew George, Officer Bill Fabijancic "Fab", Cassie Alley, Teresa Szymanski, and Steve Luciano. The many hours spent with them are appreciated and are already missed. Others have also provided necessary motivation and training. Dr. Belinda McCarthy, Dr. John Sloan, Dr. Merry Morash, Laura Lanier and Tae Nichols deserve singular recognition. Finally, the memories of Keith Grouby and Tommy Chance, which will be with me always, inspired me. The most important contribution that each of these made tetme‘was their friendship. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Underlying Assumptions and Justifications . . . . . . 7 Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Fear of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Disorder, Cohesion and Community . . . . . . . . . 10 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Outline of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 14 Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Causes of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Crime Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Perceptions of Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Fear of Crime Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Community Cohesion and Disorder . . . . . . . . . . 24 Measures of Cohesion and Disorder . . . . . . . . 25 Community and Policing Defined . . . . . . . . . . 27 Defining Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Defining Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Impact of Community Policing on Crime . . . . 31 V1 Page Community Policing and the Fear of Crime . . . . . 33 Community Policing: Findings on Disorder and Decay 36 Critique of Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 COPS Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Social Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Site Selection and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Qualitative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Quantitative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Reliability and Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Qualitative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Quantitative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 CHAPTER FOUR QUALITATIVE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 68 Neighborhood Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Impressions of Cohesion and Disorder . . . . . . . 73 Fear of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 85 vii Page CHAPTER FIVE QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 88 Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Response Rate and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Demographic Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Instrument Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Measurement of Cohesion, Disorder and Fear of Crime. . 127 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Methodological Observations . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Theoretical Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . 137 APPENDIX A - Community Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 144 APPENDIX B - Human Subjects Approval . . . . . . . . . 151 APPENDIX C - Area Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 viii TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LIST OF TABLES Page Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Quantitative measures of the primary variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Baker Street activities . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Hypothesized ranked relationships . . . . . . 87 Respondent demographics . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Cohesion items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Disorder items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fear of crime items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Cohesion: Corrected item-total scale correlation coefficients . . . . . . . 111 Disorder: Corrected item-total scale correlation coefficients . . . . . . . 112 Fear of crime: Corrected item-total scale correlation coefficients . . . . . . . 113 Rotated factor matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Item eigenvalues and variance explained . . . 117 Scale correlation matrix and eigenvalues. . . 118 Scale mean scores by neighborhood . . . . . . 121 Actual ranked relationships . . . . . . . . . 123 Within group correlations . . . . . . . . . . 125 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to develop and examine measures which can be used to ascertain the effectiveness of community policing. To accomplish this, the underlying justifications and foundations for community policing had to be identified and operationalized. Chapter One provides an introduction to the subject matter and provides an overview of the study. This chapter also presents the rationale for the study, as well as justifications for the research methods employed. The chapter concludes with an outline of the dissertation. Problem Crime has many diverse causes, yet law enforcement agencies have typically been assigned, or have assumed, the primary function of dealing with street crime in our society. The roles of, as well as the mandated and assumed functions of, police in our democratic society have been questioned and examined from numerous perspectives (Fyfe, 1990: Klockars, 1983; Manning, 1992; McDougall, 1988: Radelet, 1986). Some police scholars have argued.that the primary role of'police in our society has become explicitly defined.- that the function 1 2 of the police is law enforcement or crime control (Adams, Buck, & Hallstrom, 1974; Douthit, 1975: Fogelson, 1977; Leonard s. More, 1982, 8: Sutor, 1976, 8; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990, v: Walker, 1983). According to Eck and Spelman, this role is accepted, since " . . . the police have adopted the notion that their principal mission is to control crime and maintain order" (1989, 97). Manning strengthened this assertion by adding, "the police continue to claim that they are primarily, if not exclusively, 'crime fighters'" (1992, 1). However, Fyfe (1990) noted.that.the "police cannot be comprehensively discussed or understood in terms of their responsibilities to apprehend criminals or to enforce laws" (1990, 469). Part of the reason for this is that the police role is usually complex, often conflicting and always dynamic. Some police scholars have suggested that the role of police should be, or is, one of maintaining 'order' (Kelling, 1988) or, at least promoting the appearance of order and control. For example, Manning stated that ". . . the selective display of symbols, . . . is to maintain the appearance of control" (1988, 29). Yet another group of scholars argue that an emerging explicit secondary police role appears to be that of addressing fear of crime and manipulating citizen attitudes (Hayeslip & Cordner, 1987). Regardless of which role one accedes to, some consensus exists that.a primary role of police in American society is to 3 attempt to control1 crime (Adams, Buck, & Hallstrom, 1974; Douthit, 1975; Eck & Spelman, 1987: Fogelson, 1977: Radelet, 1986; Walker, 1983). Both reactive, or responsive, as well as proactive, or preventive, strategies have been employed to accomplish this objective. However, due to many compounding and re-enforcing factors, police have increasingly assumed a role of reacting to crime, often having little opportunity to prevent crime from occurring (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990) . For ‘whatever reason, it. has been noted that, "(c)rime, incivility, and fear of crime continue to plague American cities at unacceptably high levels relative to other countries" (Rosenbaum, 1986, 11) . When considering the police role, it is apparent that they must take some, albeit limited, responsibility for this situation. Recognizing these concerns, a growing movement centering around proactive police movements, such as community policing (CP) , is developing. Proactive police strategies involve actively working, primarily at the neighborhood or community level, at resolving the underlying problems that may contribute to crime. Proactive tactics demand a partnership between the police and community members. Several factors have been cited as explaining this return to a community-focused style of policing. First, as Lurigio and Rosenbaum noted, "sentiments underlying community crime 1 Use of the word "control" was carefully considered. Radical scholars argue that certain disadvantaged citizens are controlled by agents of society. Although in a different context, police themselves readily claim, or accept, a "control" function. 4 prevention arose partly out of a growing realization that the institutions represented by the police and the court system were failing in their mission to reduce the crime problem . . . " (1986, 20). Furthermore, research has indicated that reactive police tactics have been found to be ineffective at reducing or preventing crime (Kelling et al., 1974). Second, increasing community participation may be vital since, "(t)oday many citizens are apathetic and prefer that criminal justice specialists be responsible for keeping order, thus relieving citizens of that responsibility" (Troj anowicz, 1986, 481). Aggregate community’ efforts Ihave. been. considered fundamental since it has also been suggested that ". . . there is a cycle of crime, avoidance and isolation, out-migration and more crime (Podolefsky & Dubow, 1981, vii). In other words, crime may result in individual citizens relying on avoidance tactics (staying indoors, relocating) and taking personalized protective measures (buying watchdogs, security systems, etc.) which may further erode a sense of community and ultimately contribute to even more crime. This final justification may be the most important for proactive, community-empowering policing if the hypothesis that "(w)hen citizens get together in community groups and identify crime as a community problem rather than an individual problem, they are transforming the issue into one of mutual concern, thus reaffirming the interdependence of community residents upon one another (Podolefsky & Dubow, 1981, vii)" is correct. 5 Whichever type of police response (reactive or proactive) is used may influence citizen perceptions, and ultimately their attitudes as well. For example, it.can.be asserted that all-too-often a dichotomous situation is created by reactive police tactics; especially when considering that an aggressive, reactive police response may have inadvertently contributed to increasing citizen's fear of crime2 and may have also contributed to alienating the police from the public they serve. Consequently, any police tactic may influence citizen attitudes towards the police and community conditions. Attitudes are critical since for any police effort to be successful, citizen acceptance, comprehension and participation are necessary. For example, a high percentage of crimes are investigated only as a result of information provided by citizens (Sergenant A. George, personal correspondence, November, 1992). Indeed, it can be asserted that without citizen reporting very few'crimes would.even.come to the attention of the police. It has been argued that community policing is an efficacious vehicle for permitting police to operate proactively and for simultaneously involving citizens with policing themselves. For example, Sparrow (1988, 1) in defining community policing, stated that the police, " . . . perceive the community as an agent and partner in promoting security rather than as a passive audience." Trojanowicz and 2 It has also been proposed that an increased police presence may also increase citizen fear (Green & Taylor, 1988, 204; Manning, 1984). 6 Bucqueroux added, "community policing . . . allows the police and community residents to work closely together. . . . (the) CPO's (community police officer's) broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law-abiding people in the community. . . the police serve as a catalyst, challenging people to accept their share of the responsibility for solving their own individual problems, as well as their share of the responsibility for the overall quality of life in the community" (1990, xiii). According to these scholars, considerable community input is required for successful community policing and crime reduction. Community policing is one police/community response which seeks to reverse police/citizen alienation and citizen reluctance to resolve their own problems. What however exactly is community policing? V Community policing has been defined as a "proactive, decentralized approach, designed to reduce crime, disorder, and by extension, fear of crime, by intensely involving the same officer in the some community on a long-term basis" (Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988, 17). Consequently, one explicit purpose of Community Police Officers (CPO) is to reduce fear of crime, in part, through empowering law-abiding individuals, who can then work together to strengthen communities. It has been hypothesized that this strategy should also eventually reduce street crime, in addition to altering "perceptions" of safety (Pate, 1986). 7 Underlying Assumptions and Justifiggpipps Crime Apparently, based on readings of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of Police Departments, and their legislated mandates, the police in our society have some responsibility for solving and/or preventing crime. Unfortunately for the police, some tangible causes of crime may be imbedded in structural-level processes over which they have little, or no, control (e.g., unemployment rates). High rates of crime may therefore be erroneously attributed to an inadequate police response. However, the inability of police to reduce crime has also been attributed to the inflexibility of police tactics. 'The term "Bending Granite" has often been applied to describe police inflexibility to change and innovation (Guyot, 1977). Fairweather (1972, 1) noted that, "(t)he greatest obstacle to creating needed change in technological societies are the very values and social organizations that man himself has created." contemporary police have traditionally been reactively driven and, therefore, recurrently respond to crime after it has occurred. Indeed, many law enforcement officers perceive themselves exclusively as this type of "crime fighter" (Manning, 1992). Consequently, some police officers have been unsuccessful at, and may be reluctant to attempt, reducing fear and promoting informal social control. Community policing seeks to promote a fundamental change in police attitudes towards their mandate and the means of 8 accomplishing it (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990, 322). However, since, "the fear of change is . . . one of our greatest fears, and a new idea must be at the least couched in the language of past ideas: often it must be, at first, diluted with vestiges of the past" (Alinsky, 1972, 108) it is crucial that community policing proponents support the "accepted" law enforcement model that most police officers identify with. This translates into community policing which includes a full law enforcement component - as well as the community empowering aspects. In other words, it may be necessary that the police mandate be expanded to incorporate proactive tactics with law enforcement activities; especially since crime rates have remained inordinately high (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 1988, 65: Karmen, 1984; Nettler, 1984; Walker, 1985). Recognizing these dilemmas, a growing movement centering around community policing (CP) is developing. Community policing advocates explicitly recognize and promote increasing informal social control. Community policing is therefore changing the role of police and communities with regard to crime suppression. Furthermore, many are recognizing that crime causation is "event-centered" and involves "a set of interactions between offender(s) , crime target(s) , agent(s) of social control, and society" (Gould, Kleck & Gertz, 1992). Community policing (CP) is influenced by, and at the same 9 time, influences, each of these factors.3 For community policing to be successful at reducing crime, it therefore demands citizen support of the police. This may require an improved relationship between the police and some community members. In addition to concerns with crime, fear of crime is a closely-related issue. Fear of Crime Fear of crime has become a significant social factor and indicator of community 'health' in contemporary times (Cordner 8: Trojanowicz, 1992) . Consequently, a large and diverse literature has developed that addresses fear of crime issues. Research has consistently found certain factors which predict a.high fear of crime. IPrior victimization, understandably, is found to have a high positive correlation with increased fear of crime (Warr & Stafford, 1983). Likewise, those most vulnerable, such as women and the elderly, are consistently found to have the highest levels of fear (Mullen & Donnermeyer, 1984: Ortega & Myles, 1987: Warr, 1984). Ironically, those who are least likely to be the victims of violent crime (the elderly) express the greatest fear of this type crime (Lindquist & Duke, 1982). Those most likely to be victimized by violent crime (young, males) express the least fear (Stafford & Galle, 1984; Yinn, 1985). Different groups not only express diverse levels of fear but practice differential avoidance tactics. Many citizens 3 "Crime" itself is partially a function of police decisions and, in large part, police discretion (Manning, personal correspondence, November, 1990). 10 become isolated and trapped within their fortressed homes as the consequence of fear of crime. Recognizing this, an evolving role of police is to reduce fear of crime (Hayeslip & Cordner, 1987). Community policing is presented as being the police practice that shows the most potential for achieving this emerging mandate (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). Other police scholars concur, . . . there is a pressing need to try to assuage fear in order to short—circuit the cycle in which fear leads residents to abandon the streets or move away, either of which may lead to a decline of business, diminishing informal social control, more crime, more fear, and more flight (Skogan & Wycoff, 1986, 180). Thus, for several reasons, contemporary police must consider fear of crime issues. In this study, indicants of fear of crime are examined. In addition to fear of crime, equally relevant to community policing are levels of social and physical disorder. Disorder, Cohesion and Community Fear of crime has been empirically and theoretically linked with disorder (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Lewis & Maxfield, 1980). Disorder, or a violation of the peace, can be conceptualized as being physical or social. Each are related and relevant. In practice, community policing efforts must address each type of disorder if fear of crime is to be reduced. However, few studies have examined this aspect and no ‘measures of disorder' have been identified. by' police researchers. Studies of "community" are more common. 11 Fogelson (1977) postulated that, "the widespread enthusiasm for community policing" reflects dissatisfaction with current reactive police practices. However, it is also likely that a lack of community involvement, or cohesion, is partially responsible for the inability of police to control the inordinately high crime rate in American. In fact, "the vast majority of Americans today are not involved in any collective crime prevention activities, and most police departments continue, 'business as usual,’ with traditional motorized patrols and follow-up investigations serving as the standard response to crime" (Rosenbaum, 1986, 13). Community policing is a joint police and community response which seeks to reverse these trends. Consequently, community policing requires considerable community support to be effective. However, it is often unclear as to what constitutes a community. This study provides a novel measure of one aspect of "community". The theoretical support for this supposition is feunded in the terms provided by Travis Hirschi's Social Control Theory (1969). However, the focus is juxtaposed and transposed from a micro-level focus on individual acts of deviance to macro- level community cohesiveness. Consequently, the emphasis is shifted from mechanisms which control individuals to mechanisms which may make communities, as aggregated individuals, more cohesive. In addition, one primary assumption is that community members and police officers address disorder through attempts 12 to increase neighborhood cohesion. While this tactic has not been explicitly addressed in the community policing literature, it is presented and examined here. Objectives The role of police, the police mandate, community policing, justifications for community policing (crime, fear of crime, cohesion and disorder) have all been briefly discussed. Community policing is predicated on certain assumptions. This study seeks to provided reliable and valid indications of these underlying assumptions. Despite the increasing popularity of community policing, few research studies, and fewer experimental designs, have been used to evaluate its effectiveness at increasing cohesion, reducing fear and.decreasing crime. IFew measures of the primary constructs have appeared in the literature and even fewer ‘validity and reliability analyses have been presented. This study therefore sought to provide a basis for future experimental studies by developing, and testing, measures of each primary construct discussed above. The primary objective was to ascertain if these constructs could be accurately measured. The second objective was to determine if hypothesized relationships exist, and if they are in the predicted direction. For example, is community disorder correlated with fear of victimization? Is community cohesion related to disorder (social and physical)? In this research, qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilized. Qualitative research.methods included 13 observational research and loosely structured interviews with community members and police participants. The nucleus of the quantitative component was a 61-item questionnaire which was systematically administered to over 1,000 community members. Outline of the Study Chapter Two provides a detailed literature review. In this literature review, a comprehensive theoretical explanation, and examples of practical applications of the over-arching construct - community policing - are presented. Following this description of community policing, some criticisms of community policing are considered. Next, the primary outcome variables - perceived likelihood of victimization, community disorder and cohesion are examined. In Chapter Three a description of the research strategy, site, and analytical techniques are provided. This chapter also contains a description of the methods used to enhance the reliability and validity of the study, and specific measures. Chapter Four presents the results of the interviews and fieldwork, while Chapter Five includes the survey results. Chapter Six contains discussion, implications and concluding comments. .Also in this chapter, the limitations to this study are made explicit and directions for future research are suggested. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter, the primary underlying constructs which justify this study - policing, community, and community policing - are discussed and critiqued. As part of this critique, the fundamental research variables: crime, fear of victimization, community cohesion and disorder are operationalized and relevant research reviewed. Emphasis is placed, not only on findings, but on prior methodologies and measures. First, however, the methods employed in conducting this literature review are described. Research articles, reports and monographs which included the fore-mentioned constructs, as they relate to community policing programs, were sought. Specifically, disorder, community crime jprevention, community/proactive jpolicing, policing, crime, perceived vulnerability to crime, disorder and writings on criminological social control theory were sought. Specific methods employed to conduct this literature review were as follow. First, the leading journals in criminology were identified. Holmes and Taggart (1990) conducted the most recent study identifying the major 14 15 criminological journals. They selected gamimplpgy, M31122 W, and the Joummal pf Criminal Justice for several reasons. First, these journals represented the two major professional organizations. Second, several independent sources identified Criminology and the Journal of gmimingl Justice as having a high degree of prestige and "self- identification among members of the American Society of Criminology and Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences" (Holmes & Taggart, 1990, 423). Furthermore, these three journals are consistently ranked among the most prestigious. Finally, they are the "most frequently cited of the journals devoted to the two general disciplines" (Holmes & Taggart, 1990, 423). Jpsticg Quarterly was reviewed since its founding in 1984. Criminology and was also reviewed from 1984. The W Qrimlnal Justice was examined since its inception in 1973. In addition to these journals, The American Journal of Sociolgy, Ameplgan Journal of Police and the Jourmal of Commpmipy nggmplpgy were also reviewed since they each address closely related subject matter. Somewhat surprisingly, few research articles dealing with community policing were located - and none outside of the Amemicam Journal of Police. Following this search, the two leading books on the subject (Cpmmunipy Ppliclng; A. Contempomamy Perspective and Community Policing: Rhetomlg p; kiln!) were read and any references to research articles noted. These cited sources were then located and photocopied. From this collection other articles which were cited, and 16 which appeared relevant based on readings of their abstracts, were also examined. Consequently, a variety of secondary journal sources (e.g. , Criminal Jpstlce mpg Behgylpp, Mn meppgl pf gmiminal Lay, grime and Delingmemcy) were examined for relevant articles. Additionally, articles were identified.through.citations in computer data sources (e.g., Social Sciences Citation Index, PSYLIT) . Topical areas were scanned for relevant areas (e.g., crime, fear of crime, disorder). Next, leading and accessible scholars in the area (Drs. David Carter, Peter' K. JManning, John. Sloan, and. Robert Trojanowicz) were requested to list the works they considered to be most important to the area. These works were also located and then photocopied. Finally, a survey of published books in the area was conducted. A total of approximately 35 articles, chapters and books were collected from these sources (see Bibliography). Those most relevant are discussed below. Crime To understand the theory underlying community policing, it is first necessary to identify the causes of crime. This is crucial since effective interventions would logically target relevant causal factors. This discussion attempts to reveal why community policing must focus on apparently "peripheral" issues (e.g., disorder, fear of crime). 17 Qauses of crime Gould, Kleck and Gertz (1992) provided a logical and contemporary explanation for crime. According to their interpretation, theoretical causes of crime were initially classified into two explanations: those which questioned why crimes occurred and those which asked why certain individuals committed deviant acts or crime (Jeffery, 1959). Theoretical developments have made this simplistic, yet thoughtful and useful, distinction obsolete. For example, Labeling Theory (Becker, 1973) cannot be categorized as either a "theory of crime or as a theory of criminality" (Gould, Kleck & Gertz, 1992). Labeling Theory questions how certain acts come to be defined as deviant, as well as criminal, and asks what are the consequences for the individuals who receive either label. Radical Criminology represents yet another example of a departure from a neat, concise explanation of the "cause" of crime. Radicals, or Critical Criminologists, have examined the power structures which are in positions to define deviance, the etiology of deviance and of deviance control (Bohm, 1982: Spitzer, 1975). Often economics and control underlie these explanations. Modern Utilitarian economists also argue that, "all people are capable of committing crimes and will do so if the expected utility in so doing exceeds the utility they could get by using their resources for other activities" (Gould, Kleck & Gertz, 1992) . According to this perspective, like the l8 radical perspective, the reward and punishment systems in society "cause" crime - not individuals. Finally, proponents of Opportunity or Routine Activities Theory (Cohen, 1979) argue that crime occurs when suitable opportunities - in conjunction with acceptable risk levels - are simultaneously present. Therefore, understanding crime, includes considering "crime targets, victims, and agents of social control" (Gould, Kleck & Gertz, 1992). Following the brief chronology of theoretical developments, Gould, Kleck and Gertz made a contribution by shifting focus from the criminal act as the unit of analysis and considering crime as an "event". In their words, (v)iewed as social events, it becomes evident that crimes involve not only the actions of individual offenders, but the actions of other persons as well. In particular, they involve the actions of such persons as victims, bystanders and witnesses, law-enforcement officials, and members of the political society at large. A crime, in other words, is a particular set of interactions among offender(s), crime target(s), agent(s) of social control, and society (Gould, Kleck & Gertz, 1992, 4). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) likewise presented a similar "event-centered theory" yet stressed characteristics of individuals (specifically self-control) as being somehow more important. In this study, a similar multi-causal theory of crime is accepted. The concepts first presented by Hirschi (1969), at the micro level of analysis, are applied.at a larger community level. Thus, crime as a synthesis of events is accepted as the underlying theoretical basis. Before progressing into a 19 deeper explication of the theory used here: the measurement of crime, and a discussion of fear of crime, disorder, and their measurement is presented. Grim Criminologists have presented two conflicting interpretations of American crime rates. One ideological position promotes the supposition that America has an inordinately high crime rate. The other perspective argues that occurrences of crime are exaggerated to promote a conservative, active law-enforcement state. According to proponents of the first perspective, the United States has a higher crime rate than most comparable societies. Elliott Currie (himself not a so-called "conservative") noted that, "Americans have faced roughly seven to ten times the risk of death by homicide as the residents of most European countries . . . " (1985, 5). However, there is not consensus among criminologist's that crime is actually increasing in American society. For example, Reiman noted, The American criminal justice system is a mirror that shows a distorted image of the dangers that threaten us-an image created more by the shape of the mirror than by the reality reflected ( 1989, 66) Regardless of which perspective is taken, when mentioning crime rates it is prudent to note that the majority of criminal acts are never brought to the attention of the police (Karmen, 1984; Nettler, 1984; Walker, 1985). In the United States, there are two primary indicators of crime: the Federal 20 Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Survey (NCS). Unifpmm Cmime Repomts Starting in 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began collecting crime data. Nearly 16,000 city, county and state law enforcement agencies now provide crime statistics to the FBI. Ninety-six percent of the United States is covered by these reports (Conklin, 1992, 61). Eight crimes which are regarded by the public as being serious, or which are relatively frequent in occurrence, and which often come to the attention of the police, are used to compile a crime index. This index is comprised of Part 1 offenses (homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson). Despite its longevity, the UCR.has been criticized as being inadequate (Blumstein, Cohen & Rosenfeld, 1992). Dissatisfaction with the UCR led to greater use of victimization surveys, the largest of which is the National Crime Survey. National Crime Survey The National Crime Survey (NSC) is mailed to national sample of 135,000 Americans selected from 60,000 households each year (Conklin, 1992). The NCS is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (like the FBI, under the Department of Justice). Over 60 percent of all NCS offenses identified are. not reported. to law' enforcement agencies (BJS National Update, 1991, 3). While the two measures cannot be directly compared, in part, because crime is measured and data collected differently, they have been examined relative to each other. 21 Relationship between UCR and NCS. Most of the differences found between the UCR and NCS are differences in scale. The UCR generally reports about half the level of crime as the NCS. However, the trends reflected in each appear to be related. Blumstein, Cohen and Rosenfeld (1991) examined the extent of correlation between.the‘UCR.and NCS for robbery and.burglariesc ‘They concluded.that, "(1) most of the annual variation in UCR crime rates is accounted for by variation in the NCS crime rates: variations in NCS reporting rates have little or no effect on UCR crime rates . . .. (2) Most of the annual variation in UCR crime rates is due to yearly deviations from trend as opposed to trend in NCS crime rates . .. .. Trend differences between the two data series appear to be declining over time" (Blumstein, Cohen & Rosenfeld, 1991, 254). In other words, when comparing trends between the UCR and NCS there appears to be consistency, at least according to these authors. Others (McDowall & Loftin, 1992; Menard, 1992) have questioned these apparent similarities between the two on methodological and theoretical grounds. For purposes pursued here, it may be a mute point to consider if crime rates are high or not (except perhaps as a relative measure or "bench-mark"). Perceptions of high crime may have as much significance as does the reality of crime. Ramifications of crime in America far exceed the numbing consequences of quantitative statistics and victimizations. 22 Indeed, our society seems mesmerized by the spectacle of violence and crime. Manning (1989, 4) eloquently discussed some additional sources of rhetoric, (v)icarious participation in violence, from viewing 'talk' shows dripping with hatred, disdain and vulgarity, hosted with all the charm of a cretinous barker at a carnival or freak show, to fascination with mass media violence and tolerance of news reporters' intrusive raping of human sensibilities, insure iterative public amplifications and seductive complicity with what Hannah Arendt once called the 'banality of evil'.. Crime and violence are so pervasive in our lives that many Americans may have come to accept it "as an inevitable feature of modern society" (Currie, 1985, 5). Thus fear of crime has emerged. as. a significant indicator of social conditions in our society. Perceptions of Fear Various theoretical explanations have been offered to explain the fear of crime which is pervasive in many inner- city communities (Cohen, 1988; Smith & Jarjoura, 1988; Stafford & Galle, 1984: Taylor & Hale, 1986; van der Wurff, van Staalduinen, & Stringer, 1989; Warr & Stafford, 1983). Two theories have been developed which provide explanations for the "social ecology of crime and individuals' risks of victimization" (Miethe, 1991, 424). These perspectives: Routine Activities Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) and Life Style Theory (Hindelang’ et. al., 1978) each incorporate measures of sociodemographic characteristics of the 23 respondents, as well as respondents routine activities as being somehow predictive of victimization. Each theoretical perspective adequately explains many of the replicated research findings on fear of crime. For example, the routine activities of many younger respondents (frequenting night spots, bars, etc.) jplace them.at increased risk. of ‘victimization. ZLikewise, despite their "safer" routine activities, the increased physical vulnerability of the elderly increases their apprehension. W Despite the variety of theoretical explanations, the dominant methodological procedures and measures used to determine "fear of crime" are exceedingly similar. For example, a representative question from the National Crime Survey (NCS) is, "How safe do you feel or'would.you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?"; the General Social Survey (GSS) inquires, "Is there any place around here - that is, within.a mile - where you.would be afraid to walk alone at night?". Researchers often rely on the measures, and data, provided with the NCS (Garofalo, 1979; Liska, Sanchirico & Reed, 1988: Stafford & Galle, 1984), the GSS (DeFronzo, 1979; Rao & Rao, 1988) or apply similar and/or identical measures to their own study populations (Box, Hale & Andrews, 1988; Cordner, 1986: Ortega & Myles, 1987). LaGrange and Ferraro (1989) correctly point out that these measures determine perceived "likelihood of‘victimization” NOT fear'of’crime. In 24 a footnote, they present an even stronger explanation articulating the difficulty in measuring fear of crime, Physiologically, fear initiates complex changes in an organism's bodily functioning and chemical production: psychologically, fear involves an emotional reaction to a real or perceived threat. A person filling out a questionnaire is not likely to be experiencing fear of crime at that particular moment. . . . By nature and design, even the best indicators of fear of crime in social surveys are approximate measures of real fear because they are removed in time and space from the fear-producing event (LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989, 699). Consequently, perceptions of victimization is perhaps a better construct purported to be indicated by these measures of "fear of crime". Other researchers have developed their own measures and used diverse methodologies in efforts to reduce this problem. For example, Warr'and.Stafford (1983) devised.a ranking system of 16 crimes/situations, which they used to create a scale of "fear of victimization." van der Wurff, van Staalduinen & Stringer (1989) used vignettes to help determine levels of fear of crime. Mawby (1986) conducted interviews to determine levels of fear in Sheffield, England. Donnelly (1989) used telephone interviews in Dayton, Ohio. In addition to fear of victimization, levels of disorder have become another indicator of social conditions, especially in urban environments. Community Cohesion and Disorder Social disorganization has been presented as a "cause" of increased anomie and resultant increased crime rates (Taylor & Covington, 1988). Implicit in this assertion is the idea 25 that disorganized communities lack effective informal social control mechanisms. For this reason, formal control devices (e.g., the police) are important for maintaining, or creating order. Likewise, fear of crime has often been equated with disorganized, deteriorating communities. Skogan and.Maxfield (1981, 121) indicated that, ”problems with neighborhood crime and disorder remain the most important predictors of fear." Consequently, several projects have been undertaken to examine this relationship. Studies which have empirically examined community-led disorder reduction tactics have found mixed results. Rosenbaum, Lewis and Grant (1986, 125) found "no consistent support . . . regarding reductions in crime, social disorder, and 'physical' disorder. ...... changes were generally in the direction of increases . . . in these problem areas" when citizens groups addressed these areas in Chicago communities. Studies conducted by Skogan and.Maxfield (1981) and Lewis and Maxfield (1980) indicate that, "level(s) of incivilityy may be as important a determinant of fear as crime itself" (Donnelly, 1989, 71). Donnelly also concluded that "levels of social integration and community involvement, . . . give residents a sense that they can exert some.control over their environment" (1989, 71). Measures of cohesion and disorder Despite the relevance of "disorder" reduction to community policing, and other social programs, few measures of 26 disorder were located. Cohesion is, apparently, a more common construct to measure. Donnelly (1989) used home ownership and membership in community organizations to indicate cohesion. Buckner (1988) conducted an excellent study which developed and tested measures of community cohesion. Unfortunately, no consistent measures were used across community policing research sites or between studies. However, several theoretical linkages have been made. For example, Wesley Skogan in Disprdem and deglipe; grime nd t e s iral f deca in American ne h o o noted that part of the cause of America's high crime rates are that, "(t)he social organization of the United States . . . is characterized by unstable nuclear families, very weak extended-family networks, and frequent residential mobility and job changes" (1990, 171). Skogan uses this thesis (according to Skogan, first presented by William Felstiner in 1974, but actually articulated much earlier by Durkheim in 1915-1933) to explain that, "these features of American life lead Americans to rely on formal mechanisms for settling disputes, and on formal social-control institutions for protection" (Skogan, 1991, 171). Further justification was offered by Wilson and Kelling (1982). Their, now classic though disputed, "Broken Windows" thesis states that, . . . (a)t the community level, disorder and crime are 'usually inextricably linked, in. a Ikind. of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken, and is left unrepaired (sic), all the rest of the windows will soon be broken (Wilson & Kelling, 1982, 31). 27 Implicit in this assertion is the view that the quality of life is a factor which social forces are obligated to address. Based on these assumptions it is apparent then that social disorder helps justify modern social control mechanisms, such as the police. At this point, it may prove useful to define police and community. Community and Policing defined Dgfining Policing There is no widely-accepted definition of "police" (Manning, 1991). Serious police scholars often defer to the definition first.provided.by Bittner in 1971, "the role of the police is . . . a mechanism for the distribution of non- negotiably coercive force employed in accordance with the dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies" (Manning 1972, 46: Klockars & Mastrofski, 1991, 3). The definition is further clarified by recognizing that, "the police use violence and the threat of violence in a normatively constrained, focused, and purposive fashion to order or control interpersonal relations on behalf of a legally constituted formal group such as city, county, or state" (Manning, 1991, 338). Force, and the threat of force, distinguish police from other occupations and more importantly, serve to define the way in which many police officers see themselves and their role in society (Bittner, 1991). Police work in a symbolically, and sometimes empirically, violent world. The potential for, and their readiness for, 28 violence permeates the police officers actions and even their definition of situations. The actuality of violence impinging on every aspect of the American conscious may further justify police perceptions of themselves as the last bastions between violence and victims. The media is representative of this phenomenon. Numerous "real-life" shows dominate the airways (e.g., 911, Real Cops, Top Cop, etc.). Not surprisingly, these shows seldom stress the service nature of police work - on the contrary, they typically highlight the dangerous, and yes, violent, aspects of'police‘workg The implications of the internal and external preoccupation with violence for the future of social control generally, and community policing specifically, are discussed in following sections. In summary, police are defined as agents of social control who have the mandate of promoting, or providing "order". They have the legal authority to use force to achieve this end. This sanctioned violence has become part of the police culture, and is stressed by forces of social persuasion, such as the media. e 'ni ommuni As early as 1955, 94 different definitions of community had been identified (Hillery, 1955). Hillery concluded that a community "consists of persons in social interaction within a geographic area and having one or more additional ties"- (1955). At a rudimentary level, a community is the physical concentrations of individuals in one place (Miner & Greed, 29 1969). A more recent definition describes a "community of interest" (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). Saul Alinsky preferred to view communities through a common concern with issues, or a focused community of interest (Meenaghan, 1972). In this study, community is considered to be grouping of individuals in a specific location (e.g., a neighborhood). This area.is bounded.spatially'and.conceptuallyu For example, a major thoroughfare, or river, may designate a community boundary. As a group, the citizens on one side of the boundary are conceptually considered to be "different" from others in surrounding areas. Having considered, and defined, theoretical and pragmatic dimensions of "policing" and "community" the discussion can now focus on community policing; ‘While the impact of community policing is not measured in the current study, it is nonetheless important since the purpose:of this research.is to determine if a relationship exists between community cohesion and perceived risk of victimization and crime rates - all postulated to be influenced by, and which provide the justification for, community policing. Community Policing Confusion has been expressed as to the definition of community policing (Greene & Mastrofski, 1988). Since community policing is the over-arching construct in this research, a comprehensive definition will be presented here. Following this explication, the objectives, philosophical and 30 pragmatic concerns and criticisms of community policing will be considered. Trojanowicz et. al. (1982, 1988, 1990), Trojanowicz and Carter (1985), Kelling and Stewart (1989), Moore and Kleiman (1989), and Moore et. a1. (1988), have been recognized as leaders in developing the operational strategies and theoretical justifications (and, in some cases, many of the questions) associated with community policing. Bi-partisan support has been documented for community policing. Prominent so-called 'liberals' (Currie, 1985) and 'conservatives' (Wilson, 1983a,b) have endorsed community policing. While their reasons may be dissimilar the objectives of controlling crime, and improving the life quality of life for all Americans remain the same. According to Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux ten crucial elements (including normative ends and means) can be used to help understand community policing. In an abbreviated form these are: 1). CP is both a philosophy and an organizational strategy that allows the police and community residents to work.close1y together in new ways to solve the problems of crime, fear of crime, physical and social disorder, and neighborhood decay. 2). CP's organizational strategy first demands that everyone in the department .... must investigate ways to translate the philosophy into practice. 3). (P)olice departments must also create and develop a new breed of line officer, the Community Police:Officer (CPO), who acts as the direct link between the police and people in the community. 31 4). The CPO's broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law-abiding people in the community, so that together they can explore creative new solutions to local concerns involving crime, fear of crime, disorder, and decay, with private citizens serving as unpaid volunteers. 5). CP implies a new social contract . . . the police serve as.a catalyst, challenging people to accept their share of the responsibility for solving their own individual problems, as well as their share of the responsibility for the overall quality of life in the community. 6). CP adds a vital proactive element to the traditional reactive role of the police, resulting in full-spectrum police service. 7). CP stresses exploring new'ways tijrotect and enhance the lives of those who are most vulnerable -- juveniles, the elderly, minorities, the poor, the disabled, the homeless. 8). CP promotes the judicious use of technology, but it also rests on the belief that nothing surpasses what dedicated human beings . . . can achieve. 9). CP must be a fully integrated approach that involves everyone in the department. . . . 10). CP provides decentralized, personalized police service to the community; It recognizes that the police cannot impose order on the community from outside, but that people must be encouraged to think of the police as a resource they can use in helping to solve contemporary community concerns. Community policing seeks to create, maintain and strengthen 'order' within disorganized communities. Some pragmatic and theoretical questions regarding community policing have been raised. Tpg impact pf community policing on grime Based on the empirical research it would be premature at this time to state that community policing reduces crime. If it is true that, "neither the police nor the larger criminal justice system has much leverage over criminal offending. Most of the variation in crime rates can be explained in terms 32 of structural factors in society having nothing to do with criminal justice processes, . . ." (Bayley, 1988, 228) then community policing would have difficulty influencing crime rates. However, according to the philosophy of science, even if this conjecture has not been falsified, it can be. The empirical evidence to support the supposition that the community policing is ineffective at reducing crime is slim. However, research of the current type is needed to provide measures which can be applied to later experimental designs which may provide verification, or falsification, of this assertion. Research which has been conducted indicates apparently contradictory findings. For example, during a foot patrol experiment in Boston (which may NOT have been community policing as defined in this study since community policing entails much more than simply walking a beat) there were no major effects in crime rates due to the foot patrol (Bowers & Hirsch, 1987). Yet researchers did find a decrease in crime in areas having foot patrol in Flint, Michigan (Trojanowicz, 1982). According to Trojanowicz, "there was a reduction of 8.7 percent in the crime rate . .. during the three years the Foot Patrol Program was in existence and this does not take into consideration the overall crime increase in Flint in general from 1978 to 1981" (1982, 85). Despite the contradictory results with crime reduction, it is argued that the concepts and tactics associated with community policing may ultimately reduce street crime, in 33 additionswtoraltering'"perceptions" of safety (see‘Pate, 1986) or conversely, fear. 0 un' o i 'n and e ear ime Within many urban communities, high crime rates may instigate and perpetuate greater fear of crime (or anticipated probability of victimization) among law-abiding citizens.‘ These citizens may react by isolating, and they assume, thus protecting themselves. Reactive police responses may strengthen this fear of crime (lights flashing, officers responding, then disappearing, etc.). On the other hand, it has been submitted that proactive police responses re/involve local residents by reducing fear and permitting citizens the opportunity to improve community conditions, thereby breaking the cycle (Cordner, 1986; Kelling 8 Stewart, 1989; Moore 8 Trojanowicz, 1988). V Compared to the research on crime, research findings are more conclusive when examining the impact community policing has on fear of crime (as conventionally measured). This is promising since, recall, community policing is defined as a "proactive, decentralized approach, designed to reduce crime, disorder, and by extension, fear of crime, by intensely involving the same officer in the same community on a long- term basis" (Trojanowicz 8 Carter, 1988, 17). Thus, one explicit purpose of Community Police Officers (CPO) is to reduce fear of crime, empowering law-abiding individuals, who ‘ At the same time, it is also possible, and acknowledged, that fear'of’crime could increase crime, or'have no effect. 34 can then work together to strengthen communities. Advocates of community policing have postulated that proactive police tactics demonstrate potential for reducing impending crime through channeling fear of crime into productive, community- empowering movements. Researchers in one study found community policing to be effective at reducing fear of crime. These authors found, "intensive foot patrol coverage . . . can have considerable effects on the perceptions of residents concerning disorder problems, crime problems, the likelihood.of crime, safety, and police service" (Pate, 1986, 155). Additional empirical support was found in Flint, Michigan, where Trojanowicz (1982) found FOC3to be reduced, and.citizen approval of the police to be enhanced by community policing. In Newark, New Jersey citizens also expressed support and reduced levels of fear after community policing was implemented (Police Foundation, 1982). Other research has also demonstrated that community policing reduces citizens' fear of crime (Brown 8 Wycoff, 1987: Cordner, 1986; Moore 8 Trojanowicz, 1988; Kelling, 1988). How community policing accomplishes fear reduction is less clear. While fear of crime has been the subject of considerable research (Balkin, 1979: Brown 8 Wycoff, 1987: Garofalo, 1979; Louis-Guerin, 1982; Ortega 8 Myles, 1987: Taylor 8 Hale, 1986) few solutions or policy recommendations have been offered on how to reduce or divert fear of crime. 35 One creative policy recommendation was explicated by Moore and Trojanowicz (1988). They advocate using fear as a catalyst for positive change. They show how community policing explicitly seeks to channel fear of crime into positive directions. For the community as a whole, the manner in which individuals deal with fear of crime has repercussions. If individuals adopt "defensive, individualistic solutions" the risk of people becoming isolated within their fortressed homes increases (Moore 8 Trojanowicz, 1988). However, according to these scholars, another reaction can be a "constructive, community-based" response. If the latter solution is adopted, the community itself will be strengthened and crime may ultimately be reduced in that community. Research (Brown 8 Wycoff, 1987; Williams 8 Pate, 1987; Taft, 1986: Troj anowicz, 1982) has consistently shown that community policing has the potential "not only to reduce fear, but to transform it into something that helps to build strong social institutions" (Moore 8 Trojanowicz, 1988, 6). It should be noted that, IF the probability of being victimized does NOT increase, and perceptions of safety DO increase (allowing greater freedom, etc.), then the overall quality of life may improve REGARDLESS of changes in the actual crime rate. Fear of crime is thus an important construct. 36 Commumity poliging: Findings on disomde; and decay Friedman (1987) examined community policing in Israel. He found that community policing increases citizens' attitudes towards their neighborhood. Friedman found, "residents in research neighborhoods demonstrated a positive attitude change toward their community compared with a decline and restabilization in control neighborhoods" (1987, 78). Using a discriminant factor analysis, he also determined that neighborhood quality was the single variable which best differentiated between the community policing and control neighborhoods. Other sources were not located which quantitatively demonstrated a relationship between disorder and community policing. However, other social indicators were located which signified "improving" social conditions. For example, for blacks (who, not incidentally, predominately comprise most inner-city residents) several indicators (e.g., per-capita income, reading levels, high school graduation rates) seem to indicate that the quality of urban life is improving (U.S. News, 1990, 14). Christopher Jencks, a sociologist at Northwestern, thinks the under-class may have actually shrunk over the past 15 years. According to Jencks, in the worst neighborhoods, the proportion of blacks finishing high school and demonstrating increased reading levels have risen dramatically since 1970. Other indicators are encouraging as well. For example, proportionately fewer single mothers rely on welfare today 37 than in 1972 (e.g., in 1972 over 80 percent of black, female headed households were on welfare, compared to 57 percent in 1987) . Furthermore, birthrates among teenage blacks have dropped significantlyu Since 1975 the murder rate.among black men has decreased, as have robbery and aggravated assault (e.g., in East Harlem, violent crime rates decreased over 30 percent from 1980 to 1986) (U.S. News, 1990, 14).5 Criticisms of community policing have focused on theoretical and methodological issues. One of the more comprehensive and astutely critical collection of readings on community policing was edited by Jack Greene and Stephen Mastrofski (1988). In this volume, methodological practices and theoretical assumptions were challenged. The primary methodological criticisms presented by Greene and Taylor (1988, 216-219) were inadequate Operationalization of 'community, ' confusion about the appropriate level of analysis, design of the experiment, defining the treatment effect, implementation of the treatment, and specification of the hypothesized outcomes of the experiments. One theoretical criticism has focused on the role of police as agents of social control. Should the police function be to 'fight crime' or should they function more as a "social service agency" (Trojanowicz 8 Bucqueroux, 1990, p. 188)?’ In other'words, should the police concentrate on formal 5 These statistics make one question again, how much the media is shaping reality. 38 control, or promote informal control mechanisms? Manning, among others, rejects the use of police to promote informal social control (1984). Greene and Taylor likewise ask, Informal social control as a system of norm enforcement operates independently of and perhaps as a result of a lack of formal agents of authority (Greenberg and Rohe, 1986). Given the independent or at best complementary nature of these two systems of social control, it is «iifficult to envision how the police as formal agents of social control can become effective agents of informal control. It seems more sensible to assume that community' policing enhances the formal control system and the prestige of the agents of formal control, rather than the informal social control system (1988, 204). However, research on domestic assault has indicated that "the effectiveness of legal sanctions rests on.a foundation of informal control" (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, 8 Rogan, 1992, 688: see also Berk, Campbell, Klap, 8 Western, 1992). In fact, "overall formal arrest has no effect on occurrence of a subsequent assault" (Pate 8 Hamilton, 1992, 691). If these findings can be extrapolated and applied to crime in general (yet, at.his time, there is no evidence that this extension is warranted) then informal control mechanisms may become increasingly important to law enforcement agents. However, even.if consensus were to be achieved on the police broadening of their mandate, it is not clear if they can effectively do so. For example, Greene and Taylor specifically question whether police officers are equipped to broaden their mandate, 39 It may also be erroneous to assume that police officers can function as agents of informal social control, and even if that were possible, the amount of training required to assure effective community responsiveness has not been demonstrated . . . (1988, 206). The potential for discriminatory practices also exists with community policing. As Riechers and Roberg (1990) pointed out, theoreticians "worry that reliance on nonlegal norms and community definitions of order can 'quickly become extensions of class and racial bias and.thereby introduce more injustice'" (cited in Greene, 1987, 4). These two areas of criticism - theoretical and methodological - are worthy of further consideration. Indeed, one purpose of this study is to address inadequate operationalization.and incomplete:theoretical justifications. Ideally, that is how science operates: pilot studies are conducted, critiqued and improved upon. To conclude this literature review, a description of the program that led to this research is presented. This information can assist the reader with discerning the implicit and unintentional biases that may have resulted from forces that, to some extent, controlled the research process. The final pages present the theoretical overview and problem statement. COPS Policy Histopy During Fall of 1989, Robert Trojanowicz, Director of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, began 40 meeting with representatives of the Michigan State Police, Louis Glazer - the Director of the Neighborhood Builders Alliance (NBA), and Donald Reisig - the Director of the Michigan Office of Drug Agencies (ODA), (as part of my research assistantship I participated in these sessions). The purpose of these meetings was to develop a policy initiative that could reduce crime, drug abuse, fear of crime, reduce social and physical decay, and enhance communication between citizens and representatives of law enforcement agencies. This was, indisputably, a immense and broad mandate. During the course of these meetings a comprehensive strategy founded on community policing was formulated. At the conclusion of these meetings this plan was presented to Governor James Blanchard. At the Governor's State-of-the- State address he endorsed the plan and outlined the initiative. The plan was titled Community Officers Patrolling Streets (COPS). According to Shadish, "(t)he dichotomy between intents and consequences is generally understandable and.predictable: Policies are implemented to the extent that they are consistent with extant social structures and ideologies" (1984, 725). The COPS policy initiative apparently had.wide- spread citizen and political support. COPS was a program designed to meet a broad range of objectives. However the overall purpose was to empower law- abiding community members. It is hypothesized that by developing and strengthening a sense of community cohesion, 41 many of the problems that plague inner-city neighborhoods could be reduced. To be successful, COPS demanded the participation of several different groups. mempmity The most important group was supportive citizens - the law-abiding members of local communities. To participate in COPS, community members had to be represented by an organized community group. In addition, these local groups had to meet certain criterion to participate in COPS and receive the subsequent endowment. These qualifications included: 1. Be a nongovernmental organization which serves an area with geographically defined boundaries. 2. Be accountable to Iand Ibroadly‘ representative of ‘the community they serve. 3. Be incorporated as a Michigan nonprofit organization prior to submitting the funding request. 4. Be able to demonstrate a record of community improvement activity with substantiated self-help involvement by local residents. 5. Be able to demonstrate responsible financial management history and capability for at least a two-year period. Local government Local governments also had to make a substantial commitment to be eligible to participate in COPS. A representative of the local police department had to be assigned to a designated neighborhood on a full-time, permanent basis to assist citizens in meeting the community- defined objectives. This Community Police Officer (CPO) not only had to be assigned to a specific neighborhood area, but was required to patrol that area on a daily basis. The CPO 42 would work with local residents in identifying local problems and developing solutions. The CPO would also serve as a liaison to other government agencies and make all residents aware of the government services available to them (e.g., mental health, medical, sanitation). The participating local governments also had to meet additional criterion. The requirements that are most germane to this study include: 1. Agree to have each COPS officer participate in State required training sessions. 2. Agree to participate fully in COPS evaluation requirements, e.g., surveys, data collection, field program audits, etc. 3. Have a total population of 10,000 or more and total number of "index offenses" equal to at least 50 crimes per 1,000 population as reported in the 1989 Michigan Uniform Crime Report. An exception may be granted if a (serious drug problem with crack, heroin, or cocaine exists). State government The State of Michigan also made a substantial commitment to COPS. The state government committed several million dollars to COPS over a two-year period. This money was distributed to 30 Michigan neighborhoods. Each police agency received $50,000 for each officer involved with the program for two years. This money was intended to assist with a broad range of community improvement projects. This financial assistance could be spent at the police department's discretion, as long as a CPO was assigned, on a permanent basis, to the local community. The qualifications to receive the state funding were: 1. The police department must assign a full-time police officer to work with a neighborhood organization. 43 2. Local government and neighborhood organizations must apply for funds jointly. 3. Applicants must identify and prioritize how they will use their new community officer. 4. Applicants must agree to attend training courses identified by the state. 5. Applicants must agree to participate in the program evaluation process and gather and retain detailed program information. Each of the above mentioned groups had to cooperate for the program to be successful. Overview Up to this point, this chapter has described the pragmatic elements of the primary reasons for conducting the study: the relationship between the role of police and the responsibility of the community for promoting informal social control. Community policing was presented as being one method of achieving this mandate. The fundamental research variables: crime, risk of victimization, community cohesion and disorder, were conceptually considered. To date, research findings on community policing's crime reduction capabilities are inconclusive. However, research has found community policing to be effective at reducing fear of crime. Community policing also appears to increase community cohesion. However, each study used different measures of cohesion and disorder and none (including the fear of crime studies) presented the reliability, or demonstrated the validity, of the research instruments. Thus, findings may be suspect. The following section describes the theoretical basis for the 44 research and measures, applied in this study, presents the problem statement and concludes with the research hypotheses. Theoretical Framework One extraneous dis/advantage (depending on ones perspective) benefit to community policing appears to be that of promoting concerns that apparently lie outside the typical police mandate of law enforcement. For example, community policing seeks to increase interaction between law-abiding citizens. Since, "people with spouses, friends, and family members who provide psychological and material resources are in better health than those with fewer supportive social contacts" (Cohen 8 Wills, 1985, 310) community policing should be of interest to Icommunity' psychologists and. community organizers, since the police may be contributing indirectly to improved psychological well-being. In addition, by increasing POSITIVE interaction between neighbors, community cohesion should also be increased. Like community and policing, community cohesion is a somewhat nebulous term. Unlike concepts of community and policing, little literature, within criminology, exists on "community cohesion". Therefore, the phrases used by Travis Hirschi (1969) to describe Social Control Theory are applied, in a different context, to help define community cohesion. In addition, an understanding of crime as being event- centered is accepted here. Thus, interactions between victim, offender, police and environment may result in crime and the resultant fear of crime. 45 The resultant theoretical framework is unique in that it transforms a micro-level psycho-sociological theory, concerned with adolescents, to a ecological theory measuring ties to norms and. a geographic. community; Hirschi's theory is juxtaposed and transposed from a focus on individual acts of deviance to a community focus. Consequently, empirical attention is shifted from mechanisms which control individuals to mechanisms which may make communities, as geographic entities, more crime resistant. Since the constructs underlying social control theory are employed here, a brief discussion of the theoretical assumptions are presented. Social Control Theopy Control theory is one of two major versions of social disorganization theory. This paradigm, "assumes consensus on certain. basic ‘values codified in criminal law and ‘view delinquency' as infraction. of legal norms resulting from weakened commitment to conformity" (Kornhauser, 1984, 23) and is most often linked to the seminal works of Thrasher, Shaw and McKay, and Merton. Its' earlier heritage can be traced to Durkheim (Vold 8 Bernard, 1986). One basiijremise is that since man and society are never perfectible, as Marx asserted, then the causes of delinquency are in "malfunctioning social structure, malintegrated cultures, or faulty links between the two" (Kornhauser, 1984, 23) . Social disorganization theory has developed along strain and control continuum's which result from'varying degrees of 46 social disorganization. The present study builds upon the control tradition. Kornhauser eloquently articulated how external controls and rewards influence acts of conformity. She stated that, ”(s)ocial controls are actual or potential rewards and punishments that accrue from conformity to or deviation from norms. Controls may' be internal, invoked. by self, or external, enforced by others" (1984, 24). Kornhauser described a "community control" theory in which communities characterized by "ethnic and racial heterogeneity, frequent residential mobility, and low economic status are unable to achieve effective social controls" (Vold 8 Bernard, 1986, 180). Control theory has been termed a sociopsychological explanation for' crime (Nettler, 1984, 288). The Ibasic assumptions of control theory, according to Nettler, are that "social behavior requires socialization" or that the human animal requires nurturing. Nettler continued to delineate the assumptions of control theory stating that "differences in nurturing account for variations in attachment to others and commitment to an ordered way of living" (1984, 290). Attachment and commitment are usually differentiated into internal (guilt) and external (shame) control mechanisms. Kornhauser adds that, "(s)ocial bonds vary in depth, scope, multiplicity, and degree of articulation with each other" (1984, 25). Like Kornhauser, Travis Hirschi focused on bonds to society as mediating behavior. 47 Hirschi postulated.that delinquent behavior becomes more probable as the individual's bond to society weakens or breaks (1972, 16). This 'bond' consists of several components: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Appmgpmgp; is defined as caring about others, including their opinions and expectations. Commitment is defined by the individuals investment to conventional behavior: including time and energy. Commitment implies that "the interests of most persons would.be endangered.if they'were to engage in criminal acts" (1972, 21). Inyplvement is the amount.of'dedication.to, and participation in, conventional activities. I interpret this as a simple ratio. Since time and energy are limited, the more time spent with conventional activities the less is available for less constructive (or destructive) acts. And finally, the bond is solidified by pelief in the moral validity of conventional norms. This is a fundamental and explicit assumption of control theory; According to Hirschi, control theory, "assumes the existence of a common value system within the society or group whose norms are being violated" (1972, 23). While assuming that a "common value system" exists within individuals. and. communities, it. is .also recognized. that variation is inevitable between individuals and communities. Therefore to be successful, community policing, or any community empowering movement, must be within "the limits of established standards" of all persons and interest groups involved. This theoretical framework has been termed 48 Normative Sponsorship Theory, and was first articulated by Christopher Sower (Sower, Holland, Tiedke, 8 Freeman, 1957). According' to 'this ‘theoretical. perspective, each individual and group involved and interested in community policing must, "be able to justify and, hence, legitimize the common . . . goal within its own patterns of values, norms, and goals. The more congruent the values (and) beliefs . . . the easier it will be for them to agree on common goals" (Trojanowicz, 1972, 408). The inevitable disparity between values, norms, and goals of different socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural groups help explain why community policing must utilize unique strategies, programs, and methods in diverse areas. It is imperative to recognize that various groups may have different self-interest. While all may desire safety, other facets of community policing may be desired by various groups for very different reasons. However, "(s)elf—interest is not dysfunctional unless it contributes to intergroup contest or opposition and diverts energy that should be more appropriately be directed at problem-solving" (Trojanowicz, 1972, 409). While Hirschi (1972) was concerned with juvenile delinquency, his theoretical propositions can be applied on a larger scale to communities. Based on this theoretical framework it has proposed.that it.is possible to strengthen an already existing, but often unrecognized, consensual bond on a community level. One significant facilitator and instigator 49 of this can be the Community Police Officer (CPO). One empirical question that remains to be answered is residents attachment to, commitment, involvement, and belief in community norms and communities and if CPO's can effect this bond. These concepts are operationally defined in the Methods section. Problem Statement In the preceding critique of community policing, the more forceful arguments were founded on inadequate or inappropriate research designs and a lack of a operationalizable theoretical grounding for community policing research. The lack of hypothesized outcomes, control groups and operationalization were the jprimary' deficiencies cited. in earlier' research efforts. However, prior to adequately addressing these concerns, basic relationships which are postulated to be influenced by community policing, and which form the theoretical basis for community policing, need clarification. It may premature to develop elaborate and expensive research projects when basic elements remain undefined, much less measured or correlated with one another. Furthermore, with the exception of fear of crime, most of the studies located (and whidh are used to criticize and justify community policing) used varied measures. No studies located explicitly addressed validity and reliability issues. This study' therefore seeks to define, measure, and examine correlations between basic concepts identified as 50 being crucial to community policing. For example, does community cohesion have any relationship to crime, perceived victimization, and/or disorder? Hypotheses The primary research hypotheses are presented in Table 1. As shown in this table, neighborhoods having high levels of disorder will have low levels of cohesion. Neighborhoods which are highly cohesive should have low levels of disorder. Fear of crime will alsoibe highest.in.neighborhoods having the highest levels of social and physical disorder. 51 TABLE 1 HYPOTHESES 1A. 2A. Residents of neighborhoods having high levels of social and physical disorder, will also have high degrees of fear of victimization. Conversely, residents in neighborhoods with low levels of social and physical disorder, will have low levels of fear of victimization. Residents of highly cohesive neighborhoods will report low levels of social and physical disorder. Residents of neighborhoods identified as being low in cohesion, will have high levels of social and physical disorder. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research strategy, setting, and procedures taken to enhance the reliability and validity of the study. There were four distinct methodological stages. First, areas (neighborhoods) had to be identified which had variance on the three constructs (cohesion, disorder and fear of crime). This was a two-part stage involving a set of initial interviews which were supplemented by 12 months of fieldwork. The fieldwork was intended to confirm, or deny, the impressions of the identified "experts". Second, subsequent to the literature review, a survey instrument had to be constructed. Third, the instrument had to be administered to residents in each of the identified areas. And finally, the most appropriate statistical techniques had to be selected. On the following pages each of these processes are described in detail. To reiterate, the primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime, in three Michigan neighborhoods. After spending twelve months collecting qualitative data, questionnaires were provided to the residents of the three research neighborhoods. 52 53 It was necessary that quantitative methods were coupled with qualitative strategies to provide a more comprehensive understanding (Babbie, 1986: Berg, 1989: Manning 8 Van Maanen, 1978). The primary purposes of the qualitative component was to help determine: 1) if the "experts" had accurately identified the neighborhoods, 2) if any community organizing occurred and changed conditions, 3) if residents experienced fear, cohesion or perceived disorder, and 4) if the physical and social conditions were reflected in the attitudes of the respondents. The purpose of the quantitative methods were employed to help establish reliable indicators which can be used to help determine the success or failure of future experimental community policing programs. The following sections describe the research sites, research methods (qualitative and quantitative), as well as how reliability and validity issues were addressed. The section concludes with an overview of the statistical techniques to be applied. Site selection and description The primary initial task was to locate areas which were considered high, or low, in each of the primary constructs. The .neighborhoods, as ‘units of’ analysis, were ‘therefore systematically selected based on distinguishing characteristics of research interest (e.g., areas which were identified.as being high in disorder, low in cohesion). Since "fear of crime", "cohesion" and "disorder" were the differentiating characteristics neighborhoods considered high 54 or low in these respective constructs were purposely selected. For example, a neighborhood known for being very disorganized was needed to contrast with a neighborhood considered as being very organized and "ordered". Variability’ was thus enhanced. However, prior to locating these neighborhoods, an acceptable, yet accessible city had to be selected. In identifying which city to focus on, the opinion of Dennis Stabenow, then Executive Assistant with the Neighborhood Builders Alliance (NBA), was first soughtm Partially~based on his recommendations, the city of Lansing was selected from a group of 17 cities involved with the previously mentioned COPS program. This choice was also made for convenience factors, and due to the commitment of the local Police Department to provide assistance. The city serves as the capitol of Michigan and has approximately 135,000 residents. Following selection of the city, the Chief of Police was provided a description of the research strategy and objectives. Next, Sergeant Russell McKenzie of the Lansing Police Department was interviewed and requested to suggest neighborhoods - NOT police reporting districts - which most closely matched the research requirements. Finally, Alan Tubbs, Director of the Lansing Department of Planning and Municipal Development: Jo Flaherty, the Mayor's Public Affairs Specialist: and Priscilla Holmes, Director of the Lansing Neighborhood Council were interviewed to give their impressions of the neighborhoods (e.g. , those which were high 55 in disorder, very organized, etc.). Using this method, experts provided purposely selected units for analysis (Singleton, et. al., 1988). The first neighborhood was selected since it had the cities highest reported crime rate and the highest ratio of calls for service per citizen.“ This neighborhood - Baker Street - received two community police officers. With the exception of a weakly organized, poorly supported Neighborhood Watch program, the neighborhood previously had no active, organized community organization. The geographic boundaries of Baker Street are: Baker Street (near the Red Cedar River) (North), Washington Avenue (East), Pennsylvania (West) and Mt. Hope Road (South). A second neighborhood was selected which closely matched the socio-economic status, demographics and.crime rates.of the Baker Street area. The second area selected was geographically bounded by Oakland Avenue (South), Grand River Avenue (North), Pennsylvania. Avenue (West) and. Cleveland Street (East). This neighborhood is located several miles north of Baker Street. This area also had no organized community groups. For the purposes of this study it is referred to as "Oakland". The third, and final area, was selected based on its reputation for having several active, organized community groups, relative low crime rates, and perceived high levels of 6 Two Lansing Police officers were assigned to work for two years as Community Police Officers in this area. 56 community cohesion. This area is bounded by Washington Avenue (East), Mt. Hope Avenue (South), Island (North), Davis Avenue (West) and Moores River Drive (North). Coincidentally, it also was immediately adj oining the Baker Street area, although separated by a major thoroughfare (Washington Avenue). Here it is designated "Moores River". Qualitative Measures Initially, the qualitative .aspect. of ‘the study *was designed to be primarily observational with semi-structured interviews. The dominant methodological strategy was "ride- along's" with local police. However, considerable time was also spent, without police presence, attending community meetings, participating in neighborhood social events, and simply walking and observing the street scenes. For the entire 12 months I rode at least one 8 hour shift per week with police officers assigned to the neighborhoods. Over 500 hours were spent on patrol with various Lansing officers. A typical session would include my meeting the officer at the Police Department, attending roll call, and then remaining with the officer for the duration of the 8 to 12 hour shift. After a relationship with the officers was established, I often assisted the officers with various tasks. I became a common figure around the station, and can name and talk informally with over 75 of the 240 Lansing officers. A small (pocket size) note pad was carried and used to jot down observations collected during the actual ride- 57 along's. This was unobtrusive - in fact, officers also utilize pocket pads to record their own informal observations. Out of the officers view, these notes were converted into a log reflecting dates, hours, and events and.was maintained on a computer file. Over 25 officers and approximately 50 citizens were also interviewed. throughout the course of the study; These interviews were semi-structured and were intended to gather impressions of respondents towards items such as community policing, the role of police, neighborhood cohesiveness, disorder, fear of crime and community organizing. Primarily through these methods over 200 pages of notes were acquired. Another valuable source of information was personal logs which were kept by the police officers, and which they willingly shared with me. Quantitative Methods Survey Methods The primary source of numerical data was an 8-page, 61- item questionnaire (see Appendix A). This questionnaire was administered to a systematic sample of community residents in each of the three neighborhoods (see page.62). The instrument was designed to be read by persons having approximately sixth grade reading ability. The instrument was designed to elicit information on perceived crime, fear of crime, disorder/cohesion, as well as respondent demographic characteristics (see Table 5, page 94). 58 Questionnaire Cpnstruction. Table 2 provides a summary of the items used to measure each variable. A description of these measures, and the sources from which they were selected, is also presented below in narrative form. Fear of Crime. There has been considerable debate concerning how to best measure the fear of crime. However, despite all the debate, social scientists have consistently applied the same measures (Jones 8 Levi, 1987; Ortega 8 Myles, 1987: Stafford, 1984). For the sake of compatibility these were the primary measures employed. These measures are founded on those used in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and General Social Survey (GSS). Nine items were used. to ascertain respondents' fear of criminal victimization. Community Disorder. No consistent measures of physical and social disorder were located in the community policing literature review. Therefore, community disorder was measured by having participants respond to 13 specially developed items on the questionnaire. Items such as general appearance, abandoned/run down buildings, and gang activity, were used with Likert-type response options. These items were selected based on events, situations, and conditions which have been hypothesized to indicate disorder (Wilson and Kelling, 1982: Skogan, 1990: Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1990). Cohesion. The policing literature review also found few measures of cohesion. Four subcategories were therefore created to comprise a scale to measure levels of community cohesion. These subcategories were attachment, belief, 59 involvement and commitment. The categories were loosely based on Travis Hirschi's (1969) use of these constructs to measure juvenile delinquents' bonds (or lack of) to conventional society. To determine citizens attachment, respondents were asked if they would like to move, and how often they have spontaneous interaction with neighbors. To determine involvement, specific questions addressed participation in community groups, activities outside the home and within the community. Commitment.was measured by requesting information on the amount of time spent in improving the community and respondents' residence. To help determine belief in community norms, respondents indicated their perception of other neighbors degree of concern for the neighborhood. Instrument validation and potential validity problems are discussed in the subsequent section. First however, Tables showing each measure are presented. 60 TABLE 2 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF THE PRIMARY VARIABLES W Prostitution Drug use Theft, robbery Fighting, violence Unsupervised juveniles Excessive use of alcohol Inadequate schools Loud parties Sexual assaults Homeless people Gang activity Unemployment General appearance Short-term renters Abandoned/run-down buildings Egg: pf czime - How safe is your neighborhood at night? - How is the level of safety in your neighborhood changing? - Fear of crime - ranked - Is crime serious here that you would move if you could? - Do you think your chances of being the victim of a violent crime (rape, assault, mugging) are great in this neighborhood? - Do you think that your chances of being the victim of a robbery or theft are great in this neighborhood? - Do you feel that you are more likely to be a crime victim than most other people? - How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood at night? - How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood during the day? 61 TABLE 2 (Cont'd). c hes'o u es Aptgchment (affection for, and sensitivity to others, strength of ties to others in community). How often do you have friendly talks with neighbors? How many of your neighbors do you know ny name? Where are most of your friends from? Most neighbors don't talk to each other. Belief (acceptance of conventional moral beliefs, strength of attitudes towards conformity) How important is it for neighbors to think you always obey the law? As long as no one gets hurt, it is O.K. to break some laws. The laws are to protect you. Public support of the police is important for keeping law and order. Commitment (rational investment in conventional society, local community, devotion to conformist conduct). How often.do you do things outside (in the yard, playground, sidewalk) to take care of, or improve, the place you live? How often do you do something to keep your house and/or neighborhood nice? Is crime serious enough here that you would move if you could? Most neighbors don't care about this neighborhood. Involvement (time spent with conventional activities) During the day, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? After sunset, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? How often do you participate in neighborhood group (Church, athletic, neighborhood association, social) activities? 62 Following selection of the neighborhoods, and creation of the survey instrument, the survey was first administered to student volunteers and police officers. Next, it was provided to community members. The method employed is described below. Questipnnaire adminispmatiom The questionnaire was administered to every house in each of the three selected neighborhoods. This occurred on Saturdays from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and on Sundays from 1 P.M. to 5 P.M. (times when most residents could be expected to be home). The survey was conducted in September of 1991. One weekend from the month was devoted to surveying each neighborhood (the Baker Street area required two weekends). A survey packet (including a brief explanation letter, questionnaire, envelope, and a telephone number where help could be attained) was provided to every house in each area. When distributing the packets it was stressed that the CONFIDENTIALITY and ANONYMITY of all respondents were to be maintained. If no one was home, the questionnaire was left in an accessible location (usually the mailbox).7 7 After I entered the neighborhoods, I learned from postal carriers that.it.is against.postal regulations to.allow such. packets to be left in :mailboxes. However, after describing what I was doing and the purpose of the research to the postal carriers, they encouraged the use of the mailboxes, commenting, ". . . this neighborhood needs any and all the help it can get. It will make our jobs easier if the program works". They (2 of them, on two separate occasions) then pointed out vacant houses to me. 63 Reliability and Validity Each aspect of the research presented unique threats to reliability and validity. Indeed, the selection of the research topic and methods indicate a certain bias. These threats to reliability and validity are discussed, and organized, under the headings "quantitative" and "qualitative". However, it should be acknowledged that many of the issues considered are not unique to either research strategy. The purpose of this section is two-fold. First, to make explicit those intervening factors of which I am aware - so that the reader can look for their unintentional biasing effects. This is crucial since, ". . . self and role of the observer mediate the«data gathered, information on the role of the observer is essential to questions of reliability and validity . . . (Manning, 1988, 24). The second purpose is to describe the steps taken to reduce biases. Qualitative Qualitative studies present numerous research opportunities. At the same time, several threats to validity and reliability are also encountered.8 The more obvious are discussed below. Propecting the Watchers John Van Maanen, in his seminal contribution to ethnographic police research.provided several methodological guidelines in "On 'Watching the Watchers" 8 These are not unique to the qualitative methods and also influence the quantitative. 64 (1978). For example, Van Maanen sensitized those interested to the importance of providing the reader some indication of the authors background and inherent biases. According to Van Maanen, to increase credibility, a brief explication of the authors background and biases need revealing to the reader. Furthermore, Van Maanen often laments his regret at not identifying the department of his research and the names of certain officers. Having considered, and accepted, his argument it was determined not to use aliases. However, during the course of the study some questionable actions on the part of some officers and citizens were observed. ‘Without including these behaviors no contrasts would be feasible. However, respecting the privacy of these individuals is of considerable concern. Therefore, since some people could be potentially hurt, names and identifying characteristics have been changed only in cases that involved questionable activities. Every incident described did occur in my presence. As an aside, I considered the commission of questionable actions in my presence one indication of my being accepted by the officers. While this may be an incorrect assumption, I felt that I was in their confidence - that confidence will not be betrayed. e 'n th E e a in he Wa e s. Chalmers (1982) eloquently made the point that, "(f)rom the materialist point of view individuals are born into some part of a pre-existing social structure that they do not choose and their 65 consciousness is formed by what they do and experience in that structure" (p. 121) . Accepting that preconceived notions are unavoidable, I, like Van Maanen, am convinced that greater credibility can be gained by making self-suspected biases explicit. The researcher can then seek to overcome these hindrances to objectivity and the reader can better look for their subtle influences. "Objective" researchers, no less than their subjects, are the product of socializing processes and unavoidable prejudices. Therefore, a brief discussion follows in which I try and present those biases of mine of which I am most acutely conscious. First, the purposeful career selection of becoming a social scientist indicates bias. Eurthermore, all researchers show bias from the moment of selecting the subject of their investigation. This is compounded through every stage of research. For example, the manner in which questions are worded, research methodologies selected, statistical tests conducted, and how conclusions are presented all reflect the influence of past experiences and beliefs. Second, it might be revealing to know that when my childhood compatriots learned of the study they joked that the, "View must be quite different from the FRONT seat of a police car." There was more truth in that remark than they suspected. Again, like Van Maanen, as a youth I had few favorable interactions with police officers. To say the least, police were not my favorite topic for reflection. And, 66 I found my friends were right, the view WAS considerably different from the front seat. That was my second bias. The third bias is more serious and self-perplexing. After spending considerable time with officers I became impressed with their professionalism, effectiveness as law enforcers, and, on occasion, even humanity. My third acknowledged, and perhaps most serious, bias is therefore that of a reluctant advocate for police officers. u i 've Due to the pre-experimental, exploratory nature of the study some validity claims can be readily dismissed. For example, no claims of generalizability to other neighborhoods, cities or areas are made. Second, since no change agent, or stimulus, was measured, protestations that extraneous factors influenced the research are not relevant. Other threats to internal validity which would effect causal inferences are also not considered since the research design prohibits identification of causal determinations (e.g., maturation, testing, instrumentation, mortality). Content and Construct Validity Ideally, content and construct validity would be enhanced by employing many items which have previously been shown.to be valid measures of the variables of interest. Unfortunately, with the exception of fear of crime measures, the literature review revealed few such measures. Therefore, new measures were employed. Establishing content and construct validity was thus a crucial first step. 67 Three police researchers (Dr. David Carter, Dr. Peter K. Manning and Dr. Robert Troj anowicz) and numerous active police officers, reviewed, and provided input, into development of measures of the constructs of interest. Finally, the survey instrument was further validated by having a group of Criminal Justice student volunteers complete the questionnaire and make appropriate suggestions for change. Other threats to construct validity were discussed previously' under' qualitative ‘validity' threats (e.g., experimenter expectations) . Since multiple measures and techniques were used, threats to mono-operation and mono- method bias were also decreased. CHAPTER FOUR QUALITATIVE FINDINGS In this chapter the results of the qualitative research are presented. The qualitative findings were collected first and this data was then used to generate hypotheses as to how each neighborhood - as aggregates - would respond to the survey instrument's measures of cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime. Consequently, this section is arranged chronologically. In other words, findings are organizationally presented here as they were gathered over the course of the study; The first section presents the initial ranking of research neighborhoods by the qualified experts. The second section describes gaining access to, and acceptance by, the community members, Lansing Police Department, and officers. This is followed by a report on independent observations collected over the course of the 12 month research period. The final section to this chapter summarizes how all these data sources led to the formulation of expectations as to how high, or low, each neighborhood would be in cohesion, disorder and the fear of crime. 68 69 Neighborhood classification The initial task.was to identify neighborhoods which fit the research requirements. To accomplish this objective, several civic and community leaders were contacted and interviewed. These interviews typically lasted between one, and one and one half hours. Each interview followed the same general format. The interview session would begin with an introduction and description of the research project. Then the specific needs that the interviewee could fulfill were presented. For example, different individuals could help with the identification of neighborhoods which met various evaluation requirements such as: indication of community crime levels, organizational sophistication, etc. One of the first individuals interviewed was Mr. Alan Tubbs, Director of the Department of Planning and Municipal Development for the city of Lansing. Mr. Tubbs elaborated on the historical genesis of each area. His years of experience working with Iansing neighborhoods qualified him for these description. Mr. Tubbs provided the following information on the Baker Street area: (w)hen two major employers closed in 1975 the area became a real trouble spot. John Beam and Diamond Reo closing's resulted in 2,400 lost jobs in the area. The area has never been organized, and was, in fact, very antagonistic towards the city council due to one dissident - who died last year - and (the area) has not received (city) help. The appraisal presented by Mr. Tubbs was confirmed from other sources. Several Lansing Police Officers also provided 7O less-than-flattering description's of the area. One sergeant remarked that, (t)he area was considered the arm pit of Lansing since I started work here a dozen years ago. . . . an extremely violent part of town and the people were to the point where they were afraid to leave their house yet.while inside their'houses, drive-by shootings were occurring and the rounds were coming through their walls. Other police officers and community members shared this impression. In fact, it was quite common to hear the phrase, "every house on Baker Street has bullet holes in them" from police officers and community members. Being skeptical, I considered this to be an exaggeration. However, the first four houses that I entered on the street, did, in fact, have bullet holes. While I have not been in every house, it is apparent that this perception exists, and is supported, at least partially, by what I was able to observe. The result of the interviews led me to initially classify Baker Street as being low in cohesion, high in disorder and fear of crime. The organizational characteristics of the Moores River neighborhood was held in high regard by each person interviewed. In addition, police officials considered this area to be relatively low in crime. Mrs. Priscilla Holmes, Director of Iansing's Neighborhood Council, resided in the area and owned several additional properties in the neighborhood. The neighborhood had several active community organizations and had a very clean and "ordered" appearance. Each person interviewed considered this area to be cohesive, to be lacking in disorder and to have relatively low crime 71 rates. The interviews did indicate that there was considerable concern with "encroaching crime problems", leading me to suspect that the fear of crime may have been present in this neighborhood. One community member substantiated this supposition, We have lived here a long time and have noticed changes in the neighborhood. More and more renters are moving in, and near the major streets prostitutes and drug addicts are starting to hang out. Pretty soon we will have a crime problem in this neighborhood if the police don't do something. According to the interviews, the Oakland neighborhood was very similar to the Baker Street area. The neighborhood historically had a reputation for being very disorganized. Few community-wide organizations were ever formed and none generated much community support. Crime and fear of crime were high according to police sources. One Sergeant remarked that, "there is no community cohesiveness, several active crime families create tremendous fear for (the) neighborhood. . . much dislike for the police department". 131—1121.“! There were two prominent groups that I desired to be accepted by - community members and the local police. Each group presented unique challenges and opportunities. With one exception, acceptance by one group enhanced credibility with the other; This initial acceptance can be attributed, in part, to my affiliation with the police department in both a consultive and research role. However, individual police officers presented acceptance difficulties. 72 Some police researchers have noted the difficulties with penetrating the "code of silence" and gaining access to police operations. Other police researchers have heralded the openness and frankness of police organizations. My experiences contained elements of each position. As a whole, the police administration allowed complete access and granted all my requests. Also, some officers (particularly younger officers) were quite frank and apparently honest with me. However, some officers (admittedly a minority) expressed reluctance and did not cooperate with the research effort until their confidence had been gained. Gaining the officers confidence demanded that trust was established. For example, to present a hypothetical situation, if an officer elected to spend too much time on "breaks" s/he would not do so in my presence if the officer did not have confidence that I would not report the incident to his or her supervisor. Other situations presented themselves which "tested" my ability to keep quiet. After a period of several weeks the officers began to accept.me. 'This acceptance increased my access to, and knowledge of, the "police side" tremendously. However, as mentioned, it concurrently decreased my ability to talk ‘with certain community members. Overall, the police acceptance and accommodation resulted in most community members being generally supportive and cooperative. However, like with the officers, some initial reluctance was expressed by certain community members. This 73 reluctance was overcome when it became clear that I was an independent researcher, rather than an employee of the police department. The only exception to this generalization were some young, street-wise individuals who continually identified me with the police.9 Perhaps not surprisingly, gaining the trust and acceptance of police officers (in part through spending considerable time with them) resulted in increased alienation from these community members. Having gained entry the actual task of observation began. Cohesion, disorder and fear of crime were the primary topics which interested.me. However, several peripheral issues also caught my attention (e.g., gender differences in policing). lmppessipns pf cohesipp and gisppger Recall from the Methods section that cohesion was defined as the amount.of interaction between.community'members and.the degree of cooperative efforts directed at achieving neighborhood-level objectives. Disorder reflected the opposite. Therefore, in this section these constructs are presented together. The interviews provided initial information on what could be expected concerning cohesion, disorder and fear of crime. With the exception of Baker Street, the data collected during the fieldwork supported what the interviewees had predicted. Consequently, more discussion is presented describing the 9 These individuals were of primary research interest. However, since they initially saW“me in the presence of police officers, some never overcame their reluctance to talk openly with me. Others were willing to cooperate and participate with the interviews. 74 anomaly - Baker Street. The changes that took place in the Baker Street area are presented next. At the beginning of the 12 month period, social, as well as.physical, disorder was common in the Baker Street area. In addition to the impressions of the individuals interviewed, there were other, more tangible, indications that this was a "rough" neighborhood. For example, during my first solo research period in the area, I approached a house and was told, "Hey, you G-- D--- White Boy, get the F--- out of my yard. You ain't the landlord, so get the F--- out". He made this outburst while urinating on the side of his house, which was in plain sight and only 20 feet from a main road. This outburst elicited no surprise or reaction from the 15 or so community members who were close by. This incident supported the expectations I had of the area based on earlier interviews. Consequently, based on my first site visit, and on the interviews, Baker Street was first classified as being low in cohesion, high in disorder and fear of crime. For reasons presented in the following pages, by the conclusion of the first year these initial classifications were changed. Bake; Street transition Over the course of 12 months, the Baker Street neighborhood underwent substantial changes. In part, these changes led me to alter the initial hypothesized levels of cohesion, disorder and fear of crime. 'These changes can be attributed to intensive community organizing efforts. These efforts were instigated by a local community policing 75 program. At first, these efforts at community organizing were attempted through existing Neighborhood Watch organizations. The Baker Street area had two such. groups. Each Neighborhood Watch group held.monthly meetings. The meetings typically attracted 5 to 8 residents - including the organization leaders. This low turnout reflected a poorly organized, weak organization. The community policing effort initially attempted to work closely with these groups. However, indicative of what Mr. Tubbs forecast, this was met with resistance and the effort was abandoned by the police. As an alternative organizational strategy, the police officers went door-to-door and passed out "flyers" advertising a neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss crime, crime prevention and to explain the new community policing program. These meetings generated considerable interest and large numbers of community members attended. The first meeting in August, 1990, and had over 100 community members in attendance. The initial lack of an active neighborhood-wide organization did not last. In October, two separate neighborhood groups were formed and each prospered. One was called.Neighbors United in Action (NUIA) and the other'went.by the more. generic "Fab's .Acres". Several projects ‘were undertaken and conditions began to improve. Each group claimed over several hundred members and neighborhood-wide improvement projects began almost immediately. One such 76 project was a neighborhood wide clean up. One Lansing sergeant observed, . . . neighborhood had trash piled 5 feet high in some places and eight hours after they started, the neighborhood was able to fill 4 large city compactor trucks. They had a tremendous amount of help and if I ever doubted their ability to organize a large neighborhood function today that doubt went out the window. There were 10-15 different people throwing trash on the truck all day! I also attended this function and noticed several reputed "gang members" assisting with loading trash onto the trucks. The police officers worked closely with the community organizations in other'ways aS‘well. For example, they helped schedule speakers, sought out grant possibilities, and provided behind-the-scenes support. Yet, to the officers credit, they refused to take an active (elected) leadership role. It was quickly recognized by the organizations that landlords yielded considerable influence. For example, landlords, by refusing to lease homes to known "trouble makers" and by evicting others, could improve conditions throughout the community. On November 1, 1990, one police officer mailed letters to 750 landlords requesting their help with improving the area, On November 7, 1990, over 150 people attended a special meeting organized, in part, to address landlord-related issues. Table 3 presents a synopsis of the number and type of activities that occurred in the Baker Street neighborhood. 77 TABLE 3 BAKER STREET ACTIVITIES Dnte Event September 14, 1990 First community meeting (100 in attendance). October 9, 1990 Second community meeting (over 200 in attendance) . Included 2 City Council persons, Police administration, Alan Tubbs and at least 3 Vice Lords. October 17, 1990 Leadership meeting with 35 community "leaders" present. Decided to become an officially incorporated group. October 20, 1990 Meeting at Eastern High School with 3 Police Chiefs and community members. October 24, 1990 Leadership meeting with 30 members present. » October 26, 1990 Channel 10 story on the neighborhood. November 1, 1990 Group selected a name - Neighbors United In Action - and nominated leadership. November 7, 1990 Large meeting (150 in attendance). Elected leadership. November 26, 1990 Group (35 :neighborhood. ‘people) attended city’ council to "demand barricades". December 2, 1990 NUIA meeting, Vice Lords expressed their views to the group. December 20, 1990 Christmas party February, 1991 Community meeting March 6, 1991 South Central Neighborhood Organization meeting 78 TABLE 3 (cont'd) March 25, 1991 Small neighborhood meeting May 16, 1991 Small leadership meeting May 18, 1991 Neighborhood-wide trash clean up May 19, 1991 Neighborhood Block Party (World welterweight champion, Roger Turner, Lansing Fire Dept., K-9, and Parks Horse Officers, plaque of appreciation) May 20, 1991 Learning Resource Task Force meeting June 5, 1991 Meeting of Neighbors United In Action (40 people) Weekend of June 16 Camp Highfields outing for 40 neighborhood adolescents June 20, 1991 Two writers from the Lansing State Journal and Channel 10 TV ran stories on the Baker Street neighborhood.and noted the positive changes. July 2, 1991 Two Baker Street women called the Lansing Police Department to nominate one of the community officers (Bill Fabijancic) for "Officer of the Year". July 30, 1991 Neighborhood meeting (those present included: Prosecutor Don Martin, Alan Tubbs, Chief Boles, City Attorney Al Knot, Channel 10 news, 4 city council members, Mayors assistant, and a core group of neighborhood residents. August 3, 1991 Softball games August 17, 1991 Flea Market and auction 79 TABLE 3 (cont'd) September 17, 1991 September 18, 1991 October 3, November 1, 1991 1991 Neighborhood meeting Talk show on WJIM AM radio First year B'day party for“ NUIA group. (Newsmedia, 4 council persons, Mayor's assistant, and many Police and Building Dept. reps attended.) "Into the Streets" MSU students rehab. the empty lot at Donora and Baker. Planted trees, shoveled dirt, and leveled mulch for' a bicycle trail. 80 Additional indicant's of change. At the beginning of the community policing effort in the Baker Street area, residents were VERY reluctant to even be seen talking with the two police officers. For example, on August 26, 1990, several attempts to interact with residents failed. One resident responded to the officers efforts at interaction with, "see their watching me (so I won't talk to you) ." Another resident said, "I can't be seen talking to you." As if to reaffirm her fear, a local "tough" named "T.C." crossed the street and picked up the woman's toddler-aged daughter as she was standing with us. The threat was clear to all present and the lady, visibly shaken, hurried off. Each Baker Street officer met with considerable reluctance. On September 5, 1990 one officer and myself walked through the neighborhood for five hours. During that time only one person talked with the officer - a new volunteer to the Neighborhood Watch group. This reluctance was short-lived and by Christmas the officers were conversing with a wide variety of residents. The residents literally overwhelmed the officers with conversation, information and problems. It would have been very easy to spend an entire 8 hour shift just talking with people on the streets. This willingness to communicate extended to the reputed gang members as well. Several individuals ("T.C.", J. Skinner, "Chuckie Love", "Domingo") became quite talkative and would often joke with the officers. This familiarity had some unusual outcomes. 81 On another occasion we were talking with one individual and the officer asked if he was selling any drugs. He replied, "no . . . see" while reaching into his pockets to empty them. Unfortunately, a partially empty baggy (used to transport crack cocaine) came out in his hand. He was extremely embarrassed and was lucky not to have been arrested. This incident is indicative of the turnaround that occurred. Most residents had become comfortable with, and indeed many sought out, the officers for conversation. This provides an indication that the officers were at least superficially accepted. Another indication was provided by the number of calls received by the officers on their answering machines (which were located within offices in the neighborhood). Initially, one or two calls would have been cause for excitement by the officers. However, after several months it was not unusual to have 15 to 20 messages per day from area residents. A final indication of change was provided by Alan Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs noted that, . . . (d)ecay in Cassie's neighborhood has been occurring for about 40 years. Now we've gotten the neighbors organized and they want to turn things around in one year. They've had many small victories and are hungry for more. The Moores River neighborhood was considered to be "model", in many respects, by all the individuals I interviewed. My observations over the 12 months did not result in any deviations from the original expectations. In the Moores River neighborhood, several community organizations 82 were socially and politically active. The area was known for being very involved with civic and neighborhood affairs. The Director of the Lansing Neighborhood Council, Priscilla Holmes, efforts and organizational abilities were indicative of those reflected in the general area. During the course of the study several bake sales and other community activities were conducted to raise money and provide general support for the neighborhood. However, activities which occurred in the Baker Street area as community efforts (specifically neighborhood clean-ups and house paintings) did not occur in the Moores River neighborhood. These type of group projects were unnecessary since each individual maintained.their own.property at a level reflective of the neighborhood as a whole. Consequently, cohesion was high while disorder was low relative to the other two neighborhoods. The Oakland neighborhood was similar to the Baker Street area in many respects. The primary distinction was that Baker Street was the object of the community organizing and activism during the course of the study. Oakland had a reputation for being disorganized and for having disorder and crime problems. The time that I spent in the neighborhood supported these expectations. For example, people were often reluctant to open their doors and talk with me. Others expressed fear that they would be seen talking to me. Unlike Baker Street, these conditions never changed (and according to police sources deterioted). 83 The Oakland area had no community organization according to over 150 residents I spoke with on August 15, 1990. No Neighborhood Watch program existed either. The absence of community organizations was coupled with a high degree of social disorder as well. loud, pulsating music could be heard on virtually every block during the evenings. In addition, groups of young people (aged 13-30 apparently) were also often congregated on the streets and front porches. Isolated individuals would walk around, often in the middle of the street, apparently intoxicated. While these symptoms of social disorder MAY have reflected the "community norms" they were often illegal, and certainly disrupting to those who were not participating. Physical disorder also appeared to be high. In fact, my fieldnotes had an entry which read, "sometimes difficult to distinguish abandoned houses from those lived in, especially Vietnamese who had no furniture, pictures, carpet, etc.". Trash was often piled in yards, on front porches and inside doorways. Cocaine deliveries were made on a regular basis by couriers. On one occasion a small, silver, car occupied by a young, black, male and an young, white, male pulled up to a house and blew their automobile horn. The occupant (who I was interviewing at the time) said, "none today." He then revealed to me that "they were making their rounds selling crack (cocaine)." 84 Like Moores River, Oakland remained in a stable state throughout the project. It remained disorganized, high in fear and had no significant community activities, or events. Fea; of crime Many residents in the Baker Street area initially verbally and behaviorally expressed considerable fear. These were primarily older, white people. In fact, one family moved out in mid-August, after 43 years in the neighborhood, because of fear of crime. The young people who congregated on the streets expressed no fear. Apparently, these were the individuals who aroused fear in the fearful. One incident was revealing. On August 29, 1990 I knocked on a house door. The door opened and a elderly, white, male immediately grabbed me around the throat. He squeezed for several minutes and I did not actively resist. His strength was lacking and I merely stared him down. He finally released me and we proceeded to talk for several minutes. According to him, he had a black eye which he had received the previous day when three black males had "beat him up in the street". In another incident a 73 year old man was dragged from his home and beaten with a nail-imbedded board by a group of six to seven young males. However, by the conclusion of the first year of the community policing program, respondents who I interviewed, and my observations, indicated that levels of fear had decreased significantly. A wider variety of people were often outside 85 (not just the young) and area facilities, such as parks, were being used. The fear of crime was of a different nature in Moores River. Moores River residents took many preventive measures to prevent crime. For example, burglar bars and alarm systems were installed in many houses. While interviewing residents, many expressed concern over crime problems "spilling over from the surrounding neighborhoods." Fear of crime did not change much in the area during the twelve months. Several manifestations indicated that fear of crime, or something similar, was high in Oakland. For example, one entry in my fieldnotes revealed that, "considerable metal doors (were) on approximately 40% of the houses, (many had) large dogs and only 5% of the residents (out of over 200) would even open their doors prior to my identifying myself." Consequently, fear of crime was hypothesized to be high in Oakland. Summary At the conclusion of the twelve :month period, the following hypotheses were made. First, as shown in Table 4, the Oakland neighborhood was predicted to be the lowest in cohesion, followed by Baker Street and Moores River. Initially Baker Street had been very low in cohesion, however cohesion increased. Second, Moores River was predicted to have the lowest levels of disorder, followed by Baker Street and then Oakland. Finally, fear of crime was expected to be 86 lowest in Baker Street, highest in Oakland with Moores River falling somewhere between the others on this measure. 87 TABLE 4 HYPOTHESIZED RANKED RELATIONSHIPS* Moores River Baker Street Oakland Cohesion 3 2 l Disorder 1 2 3 Fear Crime 2 1 3 * 1 = Lowest levels 2 = Moderate 3 = Highest levels CHAPTER FIVE QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS In this chapter the survey results are presented. The first section clarifies the level of analysis used for the various statistical techniques. This is followed. by' a presentation of population demographics and the frequency distributions for each item used to compile the three scales. The third section contains results of the reliability tests used for each scale and the outcome of the factor analysis. The subsequent section describes the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The concluding section summarizes the findings and presents an analysis of how well the predicted relationships were supported by the data. Level of Analysis It is important to differentiate between the properties of measures based on the unit(s) of analysis. This is a crucial concern since "clarifying the logic of how inference of a collective-level attribute is made as well as in the correct statistical analysis and interpretation of data" (Buckner, 1988; see also Smith, 1975: Kennie 8 La Voie, 1985) requires distinguishing between variables which measure properties of individual and aggregated individual variables. 88 89 Aggregated means can be used to make inferences about specific neighborhoods. While individuals constitute the sampling frame, selected (preferably randomly) individuals residing within one geographic locale can have their scores aggregated to make neighborhood levels of analysis possible. For example, in the current study, N=377 at the individual level, and N=3 at the neighborhood level of analysis. Again, referring to Buckner, ". . . the mean score from aggregated individual-level data is used to quantify some setting-level attribute. A strength of this method is it enables analyses at both the collective and individual level" (1988, 775). Response Rate and Demographics A total of 1,088 survey packets were distributed. The overall response rate ‘was 34.7 percent, with 377 questionnaires being completed and returned. Response rates for specific neighborhoods were: Moores River had a 32.6 percent response rate, Baker Street 34.3 percent, and Oakland 37.5 percent. Demographic profiles of respondents from.the three areas are presented in Table 5. Respondents from all three areas indicated high unemployment rates. As shown in Table 5, Oakland had the highest percentage of respondents who were unemployed (31.3%), followed by Baker Street (24.3%) and Oakland (19.7%). Nearly a quarter of the respondents from Moores River (24.2%) identified themselves as "professionals", while nearly a quarter from Oakland (24.1%) identified themselves as "service providers". Among Baker Street 90 respondents the second most frequently selected category, following those unemployed, was "factory worker" (23.8%). Nearly a third of the respondents from each area were between the ages of 26 and 35. The only exception to this pattern were those aged 56 or older from the Oakland area. Oakland had 26.5 percent in this older age group, compared to only 11.1 percent of the Moores River respondents and 19.9 percent in Baker Street who fit into this category. Over half of all respondents were female. The largest percentage of females were located in the Oakland group (67.9%), followed. by Baker' Street (62.3%). The fewest percentage of female respondents were from the Moores River (58.7%) neighborhood. Demographic Trends The most recently published census data which provides demographic information on these neighborhoods was collected in 1980 (Census Tracts, 1983). The 1980 census indicated that 20 percent of residents from Baker Street and Moores River (these two neighborhoods are included in the same census tract reporting area) were between the ages of 25 and 34. In Oakland, 17 percent were in the 25 to 34 year age category. The 1980 census also reported an 18 percent unemployment rate"’in Baker Street/Moores River and 19 percent in Oakland. This census found 52 percent of the Moores River, Baker Street and Oakland residents to be female in 1980. The 1980 census 1° Those unemployed, as defined by the Census Bureau, are respondents who reported being unemployed 15 weeks or more during the preceding year. 91 indicated that 69 percent of the residents in Oakland were Caucasian, while 77 percent from Baker Street and Moores River were Caucasian. The census data indicated that the ethnicity of respondents to the 1991 survey closely matched earlier neighborhood ethnic compositions. For example, in Oakland, 70 percent of the respondents in 1991 reported being Caucasian while 69 percent of the respondents to the 1980 census survey were also Caucasian. There was only a three percent difference in the other two neighborhoods - with more Caucasians responding to the more recent survey. However, more females responded.to the survey than the 1980 census data indicated resided in the communities. The mean percentage of female respondents from all three neighborhoods was 62.9, while the percentage of females reflected in the 1980 census data was 52 percent. Ten percent more respondents to the more recent survey were also likely to be between the ages of 26 and 35. However, since the 1991 survey was administered over 10 years later, and if the neighborhoods did not experience turnover, then this statistic could be considered representative of neighborhood ages. Finally, the largest change was with the unemployment rate. The percentage of unemployed respondents in Moores River was slightly lower in 1991 than in 1980 (18 percent versus 19.7 percent). However, there were more unemployed respondents in Baker Street and Oakland, in fact, nearly 30 percent compared to under 20 percent in 1980. 92 Again, these data must be viewed with extreme caution for several reasons. First, no claims of representativeness are made for the second survey group. Second, due to the date that the 1980 census data was collected, it must be viewed with caution when determining how representative respondents in the current study are to current neighborhood demographic profiles. 93 TABLE 5 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS nglgnd Moomes River Baker SC. _N_ Occupation Factory 14.5 25.8 23.8 78 Professional 13.3 24.2 16.0 60 Service 24.1 19.7 21.4 77 Retired 16.9 10.6 14.6 51 Unemployed 31.3 19.7 24.3 89 Column 83 66 206 355 Total 23.4 18.6 58.0 100.0 Number of Missing Observations: 22 Age 15 and under 3.6 1.6 4.3 13 16-25 14.5 22.2 10.4 48 26-35 33.7 31.7 31.8 115 36-45 13.3 17.5 21.8 68 46-55 8.4 15.9 11.8 42 56 or older 26.5 11.1 19.9 71 Column 83 63 211 357 Total 23.2 17.6 59.1 lflLO Number of Missing Observations 20 Gender Male 32.1 39.7 37.2 127 Female 67.9 58.7 62.3 219 Column 78 63 207 348 Total 22.4 18.1 59.5 100.0 Number of Missing Observations: 29 Race/ethnicity Caucasian 70.0 80.0 80.4 276 African-Amer 10.0 10.8 10.0 36 Hispanic 13.8 3.1 5.3 24 Asian 1.3 1.5 1.0 4 Other 5.0 4.6 3.3 14 Column 80 65 209 354 Total 22.6 18.4 59.0 100.0 Number of Missing Observations: 23 * X2p< .05. TABLE 5 (cont'd) Oakland Moones River Baker St. Time lived in neighborhood < 6 Months 14.5 18.8 10.2 7 mo.- 2 yr 21.7 18.8 18.1 2 yr - 10 yr 21.7 37.5 34.4 Over 10 yrs 42.2 25.0 37.2 Column 83 64 215 Total 22.9 17.7 59.4 Number of Missing Observations: 15 Type of residence Own 43.4 54.0 58.3 Rent 50.6 39.7 37.0 Live w friend 4.8 6.3 3.3 Other 1.2 1.4 Column 83 63 211 Total 23.2 17.6 59.1 Number of Missing Observations: 20 Amount of education* < High School 32.9 6.6 20.8 HS Grad 28.0 23.0 33.2 Some College 31.7 37.7 30.2 College Grad. 1.2 23.0 8.4 Grad School 6.1 9.8 7.4 Column 82 61 202 Total 23.8 17.7 58.6 Number of Missing Observations: 32 Marital status Single 18.1 28.3 24.6 Married 49.4 41.7 39.4 Divorced 25.3 18.3 20.2 Separated 1.2 6.7 3.9 Widowed 6.0 5.0 11.8 Column 83 60 203 Total 24.0 17.3 58.7 Number of Missing Observations: 31 362 EDI) 193 145 357 100.0 73 104 110 32 26 345 100.0 82 146 73 32 346 100.0 * X?jp < .05. 95 Item analysis Following calculation of the demographic profiles, each relevant survey item was analyzed to determine frequency distributions, as well as levels of statistical significance, using the Chi—Square statistic. A Crosstabs procedure was utilized to assess this. With the exception of cohesion, only those questions which were included in the final scales are presented here. All the cohesion measures are presented since this construct had four subcategories which were hypothesized to jointly indicate cohesion. The other two scales were one dimensional and consequently only those items meeting internal consistency criterion are presented here.‘ Table 6 presents results of the items used to measure cohesion. Only three of the fifteen items were statistically significant. The construct of cohesion was divided into four subsections: attachment, belief, commitment and involvement. Under attachment, the amount of friendly conversation occurring at least daily or weekly between neighbors was highest in Oakland and Moores River (74.4% and 74.3%), followed by Baker Street (69.6%) . However, Oakland and Baker Street respondents were more likely to "never", or only a "few times a year", have friendly conversations with their neighbors: 11.6 and 10.4 percent respectively. By contrast, only 4.3 percent of the Moores River respondents reported m having friendly talks with their neighbors (x2 16.72; NS). Furthermore, nearly 5 percent (4.7%) of the Oakland 96 respondents reported to not know a single neighbor by name. In addition, over half (52.3%) of the Oakland respondents were also much more likely to "agree", and "strongly agree", that "most neighbors don't talk to each other". At the same time, only 37.2 percent of the Moores River respondents indicated this to be case, and 36.6 percent of the Baker Street respondents (x? 15.39: NS). When asked where most of their friends were from, nearly a quarter (21.4%) of the Moores River residents identified "work", compared to 16.3 percent from Oakland and 18.6 percent from Baker Street. Moores River respondents were also more likely to indicate "neither" neighborhood or work (38.6%) compared to 32.6 percent from Oakland and 27.1 percent from Baker Street on this response option (x2 7.28: NS). The belief sub-section of the cohesion scale revealed that over three quarters of all respondents felt that it was "important" or "very important" for neighbors to think that they always obeyed.the law (Baker’Street.78.7%; Oakland.76.7%: Moores River 78.6%) (X2 2.57; NS). Few respondents also agreed that "as long as no one gets hurt, it is O.K. to break some laws". In fact, only 3.5 percent.of Oakland, 4.3 percent from.Moores River and 6.3 percent from Baker Street responded positively to this question (X2 10.37; NS). At the same time, there was considerable agreement with the statement that, "the laws are tijrotect you" as reflected.by the 84.9 percent from Oakland, 81 percent from Baker Street and 77.1 percent from Moores River agreed with this statement (X? 6.45: NS). Most 97 respondents also agreed that "public support of the police is important for keeping law and order". The highest percentage of respondents agreeing to this statement were from Oakland (94.2%) followed by Baker Street (87.8%) and Moores River (87.1%) (x2 4.78; NS). Examining commitment, Oakland residents were the most likely group to do something "outside (in the yard, playground, sidewalk) to take care of, or improve, the place you live". Over three quarters (77.9%) of the Oakland respondents reported doing such outside projects at least weekly. Moores River respondents were the least likely to do outdoor improvement projects on a weekly basis (65.7%), while nearly three quarters (73.3%) of Baker Street respondents indicated that they also did outdoor projects at least weekly (x2 5.32; NS) . Slightly over one quarter (25.7%) of the Moores River respondents agreed with the statement that "most neighbors don't care about this neighborhood" compared to 39.5 percent in Oakland and one third (33%) of the Baker Street respondents (X2 21.24; p .01) . Finally, approximately half of all the respondents were likely to "strongly agree" or "agree" with.the statement that "is crime serious enough.here that.you would move if you could". The exact breakdown for this question was 48.4 percent from Baker Street, 48.8 percent from Oakland, and 50.0 percent from Moores River (x2 24.11; p .01) . Analyses of the final subsection of cohesion, involvement, revealed that 66.3 percent of the respondents from Oakland were likely to walk, run, or ride a bike in their 98 neighborhood during the day on at least a weekly basis (X2 13.01; NS), while only 37.2 percent reported doing so during the evenings (X2 11.32: NS). Of the three neighborhoods, Moores River respondents were the gang; likely to walk, run or ride a bike in their neighborhood during the daylight hours (54.3%). However, they were the mpg; likely to do so after sunset (41.4%) . Over half (54.3%) of the respondents from the Baker Street neighborhood reported participating with these activities at least weekly during the day, and 31.7 percent reported doing so after dark - the lowest percentile of all three neighborhood groups. Respondents from Moores River were also the most likely to participate in neighborhood groups every day, weekly, or a few times a month, since 37.1 percent agreed with this, compared to 29 percent from Baker Street and 18.6 percent from Oakland. In fact, 65.1 percent of the Oakland respondents indicated that they NEVER participated with any neighborhood group (X2 32.64; p .000) . 99 .mo. 9 ~x « :ucouuonaw humor. no eucouuoeaw: . 2m ooosnonnmfioz . a .ucmfiooumo osflmmoumxo mmoucmoumm . 8 5:00th on v ocfimmoumxm mmoucoouom . Am .mmmcoommu .3003 o 00:0: can ease €0.45: mnemmwumxm mmoucmoumm . 2 lemme lose lose momooomou oeam> z m.sm H.sm ~.em .umouo one and meadows you ucouuomaw ma mOflHom on» no uuoemom Deanne .AO o.He H.5s m.eo .oo» uoououo on one mama one .16 m.o m.o m.m .msoa meow gonna 0» .x.o we we .uunn name one on no mcoa m4 .Ao s.me o.oe s.o> meme on» sooo mmozao so» goes» on mnonomflmc you a“ ma pneumonfifl 30: .Am mqumm e.o~ m.oa m.om wfioum mocofluu M50» no umoa who omens .Ao o.om ~.hn m.mm .umcuo some 0» xaou u.coo muoncmwo: umoz .AO H.Ho m.ao w.mm wsocx so» on was: muonnmfloc use» no acne 30m .Am o.mo m.es «.4e mmuonooflmc woo» apes mxaou waocofluu o>os so» on coumo 3oz .Ac Bzmzmuflafid mmwmmwlmwmmm MdNflMINMMdmfi mmmammd fiouH mSMBH ZOHmmmOU w mflmda 100 .mo..wuv~x « manmm0nQX0 0oouc0on0m .Am .uc0a00nmo unnmm0nox0 0mouc0on0m .Ao .uc0on0m om v .m0mcomm0n 1.003 c 00:0: one .1920 mn0>0= mcnmm0nmx0 0mouc0on0m . 2 lemme wmwmmwlmwwmm Lose HMMflMImwmmmfi Lowe w.NH ocomxoo m0mcoem0n onao> z mm0nuw>nuoo moonm ooonnonsmn0c an 0uoenonunoe mom on c0umo 30m wooonnons0n0c n50» an 0an o 0onn\ csn\xao3 so» on c0uno 3oz .u0mcom n0uuc . mooonnonnmn0c nso> an 0xnn o 0onn\ :sn\xaoa so» on c0uno 30c .moo 0n» mannso Bzmzméqo>zH .ooonnonnmw0: one» usono 0noo u.coo mnoonmn0: umoz woaooo so» we 0>oa oases 50% noon 0n0n nosoc0 moann0m 0Enno mH w0on: msflxooH oooononson0c n0\oco 00:0: n50» m00x on manzu0fiom on 50» 0o c0pmo 30m m0>na 50> 000Ho 0n» .0>onmaw no .uo 0no0 0xon on AxH030onm .ocoonohoae .ono» 05¢ any 0onmudo means» on com on c0uno 30m BZMZBHZSOU flmuH .A4 .A< .A< .Ao .Ao .A< .Aa Ao.ucooc o mamas 101 In order to compare neighborhoods levels of disorder another scale was created. Table 7 contains a description of the items used to measure disorder. Only two of the original fifteen items, shown in Table 2, did not meet internal consistency criterion (which are discussed in the next section). Seven of the remaining thirteen items were found to be statistically significant. These thirteen items are discussed as social disorder, civil, physical and criminalistic (legalistic) types of disorder. Regarding social disorder, over three quarters of all respondents felt drug use to be a problem in their neighborhoods. More Baker Street respondents expressed the greatest concern with drug use, since 81.9 percent indicated that they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that drug use was a neighborhood problem. This compares to 75.6 percent of Oakland respondents and 75.7 percent of the Moores River respondents (X2 22.99; p .01). Excessive alcohol use was a much greater concern with Oakland (70.9%) and Baker Street (60.6%) residents. The excessive use of alcohol was identified as being a significant neighborhood problem by 57.2 percent of Moores River respondents (X2 20.02; p .02). Loud parties were a greater concern with residents from Oakland (64.0%) followed by the Baker Street (45.3%) , and Moores River (34.3%) neighborhoods (x2 29.62; p .00). From all three neighborhoods, with the exception of homeless people, the most concern with civil disorder was 102 expressed by respondents from the Oakland neighborhood. For example, inadequate schools were cited as neighborhood problems by 36.1 percent of the Oakland residents, 31.4 percent.of Moores River, yet.by only 20.8 percent of the Baker Street respondents (X2 24.90: p .00) . Considering neighborhood employment levels, unemployment problems ranked lowest with Moores River respondents (64.2%) and Baker Street (64.3%) respondents. Oakland residents expressed the most concern with unemployment (70.9%) (x2 20.32; p .02). Likewise, Table 7 reveals that short-term renters were also of least concern to residents of Moores River (52.9%) compared to the Baker Street (58.0%) and Oakland (58.1%) respondents (X2 14.43; NS). Homeless individuals generated the most concern among Moores River respondents (35.8%) , contrasted by 27.9 percent of Oakland residents, and 23.9 percent of Baker Street residents (x2 7.81; NS). When questioned about physical disorder, Baker Street and Oakland respondents also expressed more concern with each item. First, 42.9 percent of the Moores River respondents agreed that "general appearance" was a problem. This compares with 52.3 percent of the respondents from Oakland and 57.0 percent from Baker Street (X2 22.83; p .01) . Closely related, abandoned buildings created concern with 47.1 percent of the Moores River respondents and among 51.1 percent of the Baker Street population, and with 57.0 percent of the responding Oakland residents or2 13.24; NS). 103 As shown in Table 7, the criminalistic or legalistic types of disorder generated mixed concern. For example, theft and robbery were considered to be problems by 54.3 percent of the Moores River respondents, and by 62.8 percent from Oakland and 64.3 percent in the Baker Street neighborhood or2 11.35: NS). Fighting and violence generated mixed concern in the three neighborhoods. For example, over half the respondents from Moores River (57.2%) ranked this as a significant problem. However, nearly three quarters (73.3%) of those from Oakland and Baker Street (70.1%) , expressed concern with fighting and violence (X(2 16.93; NS). Sexual assaults generated less concern in all three areas. Nearly a third of the respondents from Moores River (30.0%) , nearly one quarter (23.2%) from Oakland, and 18.1 percent from Baker Street "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that this was a problem in their respective neighborhoods (X2 13.45: NS). Gang activity was identified as being more of a problem with respondents from Oakland (60.4%) and Baker Street (57.5%) than with those from Moores River (42.9%) (x2 18.67; p .04). 104 TABLE 7 DISORDER ITEMS (PERCENTAGE EXPRESSING AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS) The following things are problems in my neighborhood: Oakland Moores R Baker St. X2 __p_ Drug use 75.6 75.7 81.9 22.99 .01 Theft/robbery 62.8 54.3 64.3 11.35 NS Fighting/Viol 73.3 57.2 70.1 16.93 NS Excessive alco. 70.9 57.2 60.6 20.02 .02 Inadeq. schools 36.1 31.4 20.8 24.90 .00 Loud parties 64.0 34.3 45.3 29.62 .00 Sexual assaults 23.2 30.0 18.1 13.45 NS Abandoned bldg 57.0 47.1 51.1 13.24 NS Gang activity 60.4 42.9 57.5 18.67 .04 Unemployment 70.9 64.2 64.3 20.32 .02 Gen. appearance 52.3 42.9 57.0 22.83 .01 Short-trm rent 58.1 52.9 58.0 14.43 NS Homeless 27.9 35.8 23.9 7.81 NS N Valid response (86) (70) (221) 105 Table 8 provides data on the fear of crime measures. These are discussed as individualized, or personalized fear, and a more generalized neighborhood fear. All nine of the original measures (see Table 2) met internal consistency requirements, based on Cronbach's Alpha, and so all are included in this discussion. Two of the nine items were statistically significant. Addressing personalized fear, respondents from Moores River were the least likely (47.1%) to "agree" or "strongly agree" that they had a great chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Nearly half (48.5%) of the Baker Street residents agreed with this statement, while over one half (51.1%) of Oakland respondents agreed (x2 16.93; NS). This pattern - with Oakland being the most fearful, followed sequentially by Baker Street and Oakland, repeated itself with the question, "Do you think your chances of being the victim of a robbery or theft are great in this neighborhood?". Responses revealed that Moores River residents expressed the least fear (62.9%) followed by Baker Street (70.1%) while the most fear was indicated by the residents from Oakland (72.1%) (X2 8.69; NS). Another measure, "Do you feel that you are more likely to be a crime victim than most other people?" showed that the percentages who "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with this statement to be 61.4 percent from Moores River, 52.4 percent from Baker Street and 46.5 percent from Oakland (X2 13.24; NS). The pattern, although in reverse order, once again repeated with fear of being out alone in the 106 neighborhood at night. Moores River respondents were the most likely to feel safe in the neighborhood at night. Over a third (34.2%) of the Moores River respondents indicated that they felt "safe" or "very safe", followed by one quarter (25.3%) of the Baker Street respondents and 22.1 percent of the respondents from Oakland who felt safe at night (X2 12.60; NS). On the final question, "How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood during the day" respondents from Oakland expressed the least fear, with 77.9 percent feeling safe, followed by Baker Street (77.8%) and Moores River (72.8%) (X2 8.82: NS). Four of the nine fear of crime questions were of a more generalized, neighborhood-wide nature. Percentage wise, most respondents felt fear of crime to be a problem in each neighborhood. Around three quarters from each area expressed agreement with this question - 74.4 percent from Oakland, 74.2 percent from Baker Street, and 70.0 percent from.Moores River (X2 8.9; NS). In addition, nearly half of the respondents agreed.that "crime (was) serious enough that.you would move if you could". From the Oakland respondents this was indicated by 48.8 percent, and Baker Street by 48.4 percent and half (50%) from Moores River desired to move from their respective neighborhoods because of concern with crime (X2 24.11; p .01) . Moores River respondents were the least likely to indicate that their neighborhood was "safe" or "very safe" at night (37.1%), followed by Oakland (38.4%) and Baker Street (38.9%) (x?- 6.4; NS). 107 m2 m2 m2 Ho. mz ¢N.MH mm.m wo.¢H HH.¢N “ammo nose a.e~ a.- H.os a.~o m.me n.5e e.me o.om ~.es 6.05 Ammo m0mcoem0n onao> z m.mm m0aoo0e n0suo #003 com» Enuon> 0finno M 0m on >H0xnn 0nOE 0no so» use» H00u so» on H.~> wooonnonnmn0: 0gp an uo0nm 0no unmou\nnonnon a no snuon> do» meson no m0oco£o nsoa gonna 50% oo H.Hm mooosnonnmn0: 0:» on no0nm 0no 0Enn0 nc0H0n> o no anuon> 0:9 mcn0n no m0ocosu nsom none» 50% oo m.mo moadoo so» on 0>oa oasoz no» nos» nosoc0 msown0m 0finno 0H ¢.en moooononnon0c on E0Hnone n on oanno no nm0m «MWIMMmmm «Mlmwmmmfl moodmmm E0nH “azmzmmmod oznmmmmmx mzmen mszo m w mflm¢8 m mon0>= no “aco0n: manmm0nmx0 0mouc0on0m .Am :0moms ocnmm0nox0 0mouc0on0m .Am 00. m2 m2 m2 bb.mv mm.m ow.NH Nx Lemme Lose Aooo m.ae H.s~ m.on m.ss m.~s a.ss m.m~ ~.em H.- a.sm n.sm e.mm dMWImmmmm dmlmwmmmm mmmAMMd m0mcoem0n onflo> z mocnmcoco ooocnonnmw0c n50» an >u0uom no H0>0a 0:» on son eAm whom 0nu mannso ooonnonnmn0c nsom on 0coao use H00“ :0» 0o 0nom 30m munonc no oooononnmn0c n50» an 0coHo use H00n so» on 0nom 3o: masons on ooonnonn0n0c n50» on 0nom 30: .As mZmBH mSHMU m0 Mdmh Ao.usooc a woman 109 Instrument properties Following the descriptive statistics, each scale was examined to determine how well each individual scale item.met standard internal consistency criteria (Babbie, 1992, A71). For this procedure, respondents were pooled into one group for analytical purposes. Respondents who neglected to respond to any particular item had that response option re-coded as a zero. Thus, by re-coding all missing cases to zero, all 377 respondents could be included in the analysis since respondents who left single items blank would have otherwise been excluded from all other measures as well (Norusis, 1990, c-17). A standardized Cronbach's Alpha was used to determine the reliability coefficient's since this statistical technique analyzes scale items in a manner whiCh converts each item to values having a common standard.deviation of one (1). Results indicated that all three scales had good internal reliability properties. Findings revealed that when the original fifteen items used to measure cohesion were reduced to eight, the scale had an acceptable overall standardized reliability coefficient of .74. Items which were deleted from each scale did not meet internal consistency criterion and would have lowered the overall alpha if not deleted. The measures which were deleted from the final scale included all four measures of belief ("how important is it for neighbors to think you always obey the law", "as long as no one gets hurt, it is O.K. to break 110 some laws", "the laws are to protect you", and "public support of the police is important for keeping law and order"). One of the four measures of the sub-category attachment ("where are most of your friends from") and one of four from commitment ("is crime serious enough here that you would move if you could") were also deleted from the final scale. Finally, one of the three involvement measures was deleted ("how often do you participate in neighborhood group activities"). The disorder scale required less alteration. When two measures (prostitution and unsupervised juveniles) were deleted from the fifteen item scale, the resultant thirteen item disorder scale had an overall coefficient of .92. All nine of the fear of crime measures were found to be reliable indicators“ The nine item fear of crime scale had an internal consistency coefficient of .83. Tables 9 through 11 illustrate final scale items, as well as corrected item total correlational coefficient's for each measure. 111 TABLE 9 COHESION: CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAIISCALE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Corrected Item-Total Item Corpelation Cpefficienp ATTACHMENT How often do you do things outside (in the yard, playground, sidewalk) to take care of, or improve, the place you live? .50 How many of your neighbors do you know by name? .42 Most neighbors don't talk to each other. .45 COMMITMENT How often do you do something to keep your house and/or neighborhood looking nice? .45 Most neighbors don't care about his neighborhood. .37 INVOLVEMENT During the day, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? .41 After sunset, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? .31 How often do you have friendly talks with your neighbors? .53 Alpha = .74 112 TABLE 10 DISORDER: CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAI.SCALE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Corrected Item-Total Item Correlation Coefficient In your neighborhood, tell us if you agree or disagree that the following things are problems: Drug use. .64 Theft, robbery. .64 Fighting, violence. .67 Excessive drinking of alcohol. .71 Inadequate schools. .49 Loud parties. .62 Sexual assaults. .69 Abandoned/run-down buildings. .65 Gang activity. .70 Unemployment. .70 General appearance. .62 Short-term renters. .60 Homeless people. .64 Alpha = .92 113 TABLE 11 FEAR OF CRIME: CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL SCALE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Corrected Item-Total Item Correlation Coefficient How safe is your neighborhood at night? .52 How is the level of safety in your neighborhood changing? .37 Fear of crime (ranked). .57 Is crime serious enough here that you would move, if you could? .52 Do you think your chances of being the victim of a violent crime (rape, mugging) are great in this neighborhood? .69 Do you think your chances of being the victim of a robbery or theft are great in this neighborhood? .66 Do you feel that you are more likely to be a crime victim than most other people? .47 How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood at night? .45 How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood during the day? .52 Alpha = .83 114 W Following this analyses, a confirmatory factor analyses was conducted to ascertain if the scale items did, in fact, measure three distinct constructs. The purpose of this procedure was to ascertain if the underlying, or individual, survey items were actually measuring the same three larger constructs (Hedderson, 1990). If so, it could be expected that the individual items would group into the three separate categories. A Principal Components analysis was first conducted. Table 12 shows the result of the rotated factor matrix. With only one exception, "fear of crime is a serious problem in the neighborhood" (Q32), all of the items grouped with other appropriate measures of each construct. As would be expected, many of the fear of crime items loaded negatively on the cohesion scale indicating an inverse relationship between these constructs. The theoretical relationships were further supported since most cohesion items had very low loadings on the disorder scale. ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX 115 TABLE 12 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 Q34 Disorder .727 .167 .172 Q40 Disorder .725 .182 .088 Q37 Disorder .722 .213 .038 Q39 Disorder .720 .125 .164 Q38 Disorder .700 .120 .053 Q43 Disorder .695 .066 .144 Q36 Disorder .655 .159 .102 Q29 Disorder .642 .171 .247 Q41 Disorder .636 .202 .084 Q42 Disorder .632 .164 .119 Q31 Disorder .630 .349 .181 Q30 Disorder .625 .281 .170 Q32 FOC .623 .415 .127 Q35 Disorder .597 -.004 -.017 Q47 FOC .306 .728 -.026 Q48 FOC .232 .726 .004 Q52 FOC .079 .706 -.121 Q50 FOC .151 .580 -.082 Q51 FOC .114 .579 .132 Q8 FOC .243 .534 .346 Q46 FOC .422 .471 -.051 Q19 FOC .212 .382 .028 Q4 Cohesion .106 .079 .664 Q5 Cohesion .168 -.010 .663 Q6 Cohesion .192 .035 .610 Q1 Cohesion .052 .155 .576 Q7 Cohesion .043 -.033 .572 Q44 Cohesion .074 -.221 .562 Q45 Cohesion .082 -.290 .480 Q2 Cohesion .070 .237 .442 Factor Transformation Matrix: FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 1 .839 .469 .272 FACTOR 2 .047 -.563 .824 FACTOR 3 -.540 .679 .495 116 Table 13 indicates individual item eigenvalues (eigenvalues represent a measure of variance, or the percentage of variance explained) while Table 14 displays the scale eigenvalues and the percentage of variance explained by each scale. As shown, the fear of crime scale accounts for nearly 60 percent of the variance, while cohesion explains nearly 30 percent. As expected, disorder and cohesion have a weak relationship (.34) while disorder and fear of crime have a stronger relationship (.63). Thus, three distinct constructs (cohesion, disorder'and.fear'of'crime) are measured by the 30 individual survey items as suggested by the theoretical expectations and supported by the preceding reliability analyses. ITEM EIGENVALUES AND VARIANCE EXPLAINED 117 TABLE 13 Variable Q1 Q2 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q19 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q50 Q51 Q52 Facto; @mQChUlwaH Eigenvalue 8.891 2.886 1.877 1.434 1.117 1.077 .914 .905 .791 .758 .738 .674 .661 .638 .616 .585 .529 .512 .502 .491 .445 .412 .395 .366 .352 .327 .310 .277 .262 .245 % of Var. N Hiahawiahowiahapiaaaweosawtoaimceoautoc-m\0u) 000...... \ODOHNNU#meQmOl-‘HNNUIUIGOOO‘QmUOiO‘ 00 Cum. i 29.6 39.3 45.5 50.3 54.0 57.6 60.7 63.7 66.3 68.8 71.3 73.6 75.8 77.9 79.9 81.9 83.7 85.4 87.0 88.7 90.2 91.5 92.9 94.1 95.3 96.3 97.4 98.3 99.2 100.0 118 TABLE 14 SCALE CORRELATION MATRIX AND EIGENVALUES FOC COHESION DISORDER FOC 1.000 COHESION .143 1.000 DISORDER .627 .340 1.000 Determinant of Correlation Matrix = .531 Significance = .00 Scale Mean S.D. FOC 26.362 7.225 COHESION 28.701 6.073 DISORDER 43.436 12.761 ca e Factom Eigenyalpe % pf Mgr. Cum. % FOC 1 1.780 59.3 59.3 COHESION 2 .881 29.4 88.7 DISORDER 3 .338 11.3 100.0 119 Comparative analysis Having determined that at the individual level of analysis (N=377) each scale had good internal consistency characteristics, the neighborhood level analyses were conducted. The purpose of this analyses was to ascertain if the scales could detect significant between-group differences. At the neighborhood level, a multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA) was first conducted, however results were not statistically significant. Next, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the three neighborhood's levels of cohesion, disorder and fear. With one exception, results indicated that F values were not statistically significant for any group. As shown in Table 15, mean results of the ANOVA indicated that residents of the Oakland neighborhood reported the highest levels of cohesion (Mean = 29.58, SD 5.1) . The Moores River respondents had the second highest levels of cohesion (Mean = 28.86, SD 5.99) and Baker Street residents had the lowest reported levels of cohesion (Mean = 28.44, SD 6.14). The ANOVA also indicated that the residents of Oakland also had the highest levels of disorder - as hypothesized (Mean = 45.79, SD 11.08). Unexpectedly, the Moores River residents had the second highest levels of disorder (Mean = 43.23, SD 9.71), followed by Baker Street (Mean = 42.78, SD 13.82). Finally, as expected, respondents' fear of crime was highest in Oakland (Mean = 27.77, SD 6.57), followed by Moores 120 River residents (Meani= 26.51, SD 7.06). The respondents from Baker Street reported.the lowest levels of fear (Mean.= 25.87, SD 7.27). The sole statistically significant difference was found between Oakland and Baker Street residents on the fear of crime construct. In summary, on each construct, respondents from the Baker Street area had the lowest mean scores, followed by Moores River. The aggregated Oakland scores were the highest for each construct: cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime. 121 TABLE 15 SCALE MEAN SCORES BY NEIGHBORHOOD Neighborhood Mean SD 95% Confidenge Intemydl Cohesion Baker Street 28.44 6.14 27.62 to 29.25 Oakland 29.58 5.11 28.48 to 30.68 Moores River 28.86 5.99 27.43 to 30.29 F = 1.17 Prob. of F = .311 Disorder Baker Street 42.78 13.82 40.95 to 44.61 Oakland 45.79 11.08 43.42 to 48.17 Moores River 43.23 9.71 40.91 to 45.54 F = 1.80 Prob. of F = .165 Fear of Crime Baker Street 25.89 7.27 24.92 to 26.85 Oakland 27.77 6.59 26.36 to 29.18 Moores River 26.51 7.06 24.83 to 28.19 F = 2.18 Prob. of F = .113 122 The .ANOVA. revealed. that at. the neighborhood level, findings were often contrary to what was expected. Table 16 shows the predicted and actual relationships. Surprisingly, cohesion was highest in Oakland, while Baker Street reflected the lowest levels of cohesion. This was opposite of what was expected (that cohesion would have been highest in Baker Street, followed by Moores River) based on the fieldwork. Closely related, and also counter-intuitively, disorder was alsoihighest.in.Oakland, while Baker Street.again reported.the lowest levels of disorder. Finally, as expected, fear of crime was highest in Oakland and lowest in the Baker Street area . 123 TABLE 16 ACTUAL RANKED RELATIONSHIPS* Moores Rive; Baker StreeC Qdkldnd Cohesion 2(3)** 1(2) 3(1) Disorder 2(1) 1(2) 3(3) Fear Crime 2(2) 1(1) 3(3) * 1 = Lowest levels 2 = Moderate 3 = Highest levels ** () Hypothesized level 124 The final analysis that was conducted examined within group differences - to help determine if there were context dependent effects. In other words, one purpose of this analyses was to determine how cohesion, disorder and fear of crime were related within each neighborhood. Correlation coefficients (shown in Table 17) reveal that significant within group differences existed. Specifically, the Oakland residents had the weakest correlations between disorder and fear of crime, followed.by Baker Street and Moores Rivera All three relationships were also statistically significant. Cohesion also had a weak correlation with disorder in all three areas. Fear of crime was also weakly correlated with cohesion in all neighborhoods. In Moores River there was a negative relationship between these two constructs. In summary, the strong correlations between disorder and fear of crime found in all three areas support the hypotheses that this relationship would exist. Equally noticeable was the magnitude of differences, indicating that context dependent effects may be present, again as the qualitative findings suggested. 125 TABLE 17 WITHIN GROUP CORRELATIONS N N N FOC COHESION DISORDER =221 FOC COHESION DISORDER 7O FOC COHESION DISORDER 86 BAKER STREET FOC COHESION DISORDER 1.00 .14 .62** .14 1.00 .38** .62** .38** 1.00 1-tailed Significance: * < .01 ** < .001 MOORES BIYEB FOC COHESION DISORDER 1.00 -.05 .65** -.05 1.00 .08 .65** .08 1.00 1-tailed Significance: * < .01 ** < .001 OAKLAND FOC COHESION DISORDER 1.00 .09 .55** .09 1.00 .18 .55** .18** 1.00 1-tailed Significance: .01 ** < .001 126 Summary At.an individual level of analysis, the.scales adequately measured cohesion, disorder and fear of crime. Relatively high overall standardized reliability coefficients (Alphas of .74, .83 and .92) indicated that the scales performed as expected. The individual items used to comprise the three scales were strongly validated by the results of factor analysis. With the exception of one scale item ("fear of crime is a serious problem in the neighborhood") the items which were theoretically linked with each construct grouped with the anticipated category. Unexpectedly, at the neighborhood level, the data did not always support the hypotheses. The exception to this was that fear of crime was highest in Baker Street, followed by Moores River and Oakland. Therefore each neighborhood was examined separately to determine if within group differences existed. These findings suggested that the correlations between disorder and fear of crime are context dependent, supporting the qualitative expectations. CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION In this final chapter the measures of cohesion, disorder and fear of crime are discussed concerning their reliability and validity as measures of the constructs underlying community policing. Next, interpretations of the findings are presented at methodological and theoretical levels. Following this discussion, some suggestions for alternative and additional research techniques are proposed. The concluding statements point to the critical need for further research into community policing. Measurement of Cohesion, Disorder and Fear of Crime Reliability Reliability is discussed first since without reliable measures it is impossible to ascertain if obtained coefficients of correlation were due to unreliable measures or weak relationships. Thus, establishing reliability was the initial task and is discussed first. On the first scale, the set of items used to measure cohesion comprised four categories. These were attachment, belief, commitment and involvement. The combination of these four were hypothesized to measure the over-arching construct 127 128 of cohesion. Attachment was defined as affection for, and sensitivity towards others in the neighborhood, as well as a measure of the strength of ties to the community. Belief was conceptualized as being a degree of acceptance of conventional moral beliefs coupled with attitudes towards conformity. Commitment was defined as a rational investment in society, the local community and conformist behavior. Finally, involvement was taken to mean time spent with conventional activities. This, admittedly conservative, definition was meant to serve as a proxy measure of cohesion. The internal consistency statistical procedures revealed that several items did NOT measure cohesion. Most notable, none of the measures of the subcategory "belief" met standard internal consistency criterion. Upon reflection, the individual items used to measure belief: 1) "how important is it for neighbors to think you always obey the law"; 2) "as long as no one gets hurt, it is O.K. to break some laws"; 3) "the laws are to protect you" and 4) "public support of the police is important for keeping law and order") are more likely indicators of support for legalistic norms rather than cohesion. However, since rejection, or acceptance, of legalistic norms was not identified through the literature review as being a major underlying component of community policing this scale was not included in the analysis. Three-quarters of the measures of attachment and commitment, and two-thirds of the measures of involvement did meet internal consistency criterion. Thus, the construct of 129 cohesion can be reliably measured using three of the original four categories. The final cohesion scale used in this study contained eight of the original fifteen measures. The scale had an acceptable correlation coefficient of .74. The items used to measure disorder were more compatible. Only two of the original fifteen items (prostitution and unsupervised juveniles) did not.meet the internal consistency requirements determined by Cronbach's Alpha. Thus, this measure, with little modification, reliably measures disorder. The coefficient for this scale was high at .92. All nine of the proposed measures of fear of crime met the reliability criterion. This was especially encouraging since the individual items have all been previously used in prior studies - however, results of reliability analyses had not been widely reported in the literature. The combination of items used here had a correlation coefficient of .83. In summary, after deleting an overall total of nine items from the three scales acceptable alpha's were obtained. With correlational coefficients. of .74 for (cohesion, .92 for disorder, and .83 for fear of crime, the scales proved to be reliable measurement devices. The confirmatory factor analyses provided strong support for the items used to create each scale. With the exception of one item, each individual indicator grouped with the appropriate larger construct. The one item "fear of crime is a problem in this neighborhood" could also be used as an indication of disorder. This statistical technique provided 130 strong confirmation of the reliability of the scales. Having established that the scales were reliable the discussion can turn to the equally crucial validity issues. leidipy To review, the following steps were used to establish the validity of the measures. IFirst, the individual items used.to comprise the scales were given to, and were often suggested by, a panel of experts, and were drawn from prior studies to help assure content and construct validity. Second, to establish concurrent validity the relationship between the interviews with city leaders, findings gathered during the fieldwork, and the survey results were compared. In other words, to test the concurrent validity of the measures, interviews and fieldwork were used to identify neighborhoods which were postulated to be high, or low, in each construct. Following’ this :methodological stage the survey' ‘was administered to residents of each neighborhood. The factor analyses, in addition to providing confirmation of the reliability of the scales, also provided additional support for the content and construct validity of the scales and the items used to comprise the scalesc 'This was because, with one exception, the items ‘which. were Ihypothesized. to jprovide indices of each construct - cohesion, disorder, and fear of crime - did, in fact, load ‘with each of the expected constructs. After establishing the reliability of the scales (discussed above) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) 131 and a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. These analytical steps, designed to indicate concurrent validity, provided results which, with the exception of fear of crime, partially contradicted the expectations as to which communities were high or low in each construct. However, since fear of crime was the only finding which was statistically significant this merely suggests the need for further research with more units (neighborhoods) for analysis. Prior to explaining this outcome, a brief review of the primary ANOVA findings are presented. First, the neighborhood which was qualitatively identified as being lowest.in.cohesion (Oakland) was the area which ranked the highest in this category. Oakland did have the highest levels of disorder as expected. In addition, Oakland also reflected the highest levels of fear of crime as expected, .Second, Baker Street was expected to have fallen between the other two communities on the cohesion.and.disorder scales, and.yet ranked.the lowest in each category. As expected, the fear of crime scale revealed moderate levels of fear. Third, Moores River had only moderate levels of cohesion and disorder, while these residents were predicted to have high levels of cohesion and low levels of disorder. Fear of crime, again, was as expected. However, again it should be stressed that the only statistically significant finding was on the fear of crime measure between Baker' Street respondents and those from Oakland. 132 Therefore, the fear of crime scale was the only scale which can be said to have ‘met the concurrent validity criterion (in other“words, the scale.responded as predicted by the qualitative methods). The disorder scale behaved as expected at the upper end of the spectrum. However, it did not perform as expected in the middle neighborhood and the neighborhood predicted to be low in disorder. The cohesion scale reflected the inverse of what was expected in all three neighborhoods. However, the lack of significant findings makes these findings unsubstantiated. One important question remains then: are the scales valid, or were the neighborhoods identified incorrectly? However, since the ANOVA findings were not statistically significant further research is required to conclusively answer these questions. Interpretation The apparently contradictory survey and fieldwork results could be considered either methodological artifacts, or valid empirical observations which require theoretical clarification. The first explanation will address the findings as being the result of survey methodological deficiencies. Methodological Observations Survey At the neighborhood level, in addition to a lack of statistically significant findings, results were often contrary to what was predicted. The methodology utilized may partially explain this artifact. First, response rates were 133 relatively low. This could have been problematic. Kerlinger noted, The mail questionnaire . .. . has serious drawbacks unless it is used in conjunction with other techniquesc 'Two of these defects are.possible lack of response and the inability to check the responses given. . . . responses to mail surveys are generally poor. Returns of less than 40 or 50 percent are common (1986, 380). Low response rates decrease the chances of a having a representative sample. These hindrances have long been documented and are presented in all introductory methods textbooks. While the second threat is also not unique, a new interpretation is provided. This problem was that respondents within neighborhoods were not randomly selected. However, even if targeted subjects were randomly selected, it would.not have assured representative respondents. Close examination of Table 5 reveals that respondents in all three neighborhoods were relatively homogenous. For example, the typical respondent from all three areas was a white, married, female possessing a High School degree and having had some College courses. Most respondents were employed and had lived in their homes for 10 years, or longer (with the exception of Moores River respondents). Consequently, while the physical and social conditions within the neighborhoods may have reflected variance, as the "experts" predicted and qualitative findings indicated, respondents who were willing to complete the 8 page survey were remarkably similar to one another, at least demographically. 134 Eieldypmk Limitatipns This discussion will present the possible biasing influences. First, the government officials who helped provide the initial neighborhood classifications, may have influenced, and been influenced by, the some of same factors that "biased" the police. Specifically, the money provided to the city through the COPS grant was dependent on the city having a crime-ridden, highly fearful, and disorganized neighborhood. Second, bias could have been introduced as the result of spending more time with the police than with community members - especially "marginal" community members. Most obviously, by spending considerable time with police officers and executives their'views and "opinions" would have been.expressed.and.heard more often than those of community members. Furthermore, their "world view" would have been similarly expressed and displayed. In most instances, there was uniformity between various police officers. For example, all initially considered the Baker Street area as lacking cohesion, being extremely disorganized, and having a (justified) high fear of crime. Worse, the police considered their program to possibly be the "last chance" for this area to turn itself around. As an objective observer it was difficult not accepting and sharing this "police" view. However, it is equally plausible that the residents of Baker Street relished their independence, thrived on the apparent disorder and did not fear victimization. 135 Theoretical Intenpretation Aside from these basic methodological issues, there are several ways in which the findings could be interpreted. For example, it could be that the residents of Oakland are actually a more cohesive group than.Moores River respondents. However, the fieldwork and interviews refute this explanation. Another explanation could be that residents of the Oakland neighborhood, or at least respondents to the survey, perceived crime and disorder to be substantial threats to their well-being. At the same time, they may have noticed an absence of police, and/or governmental concern — as indicated by the lack of special programs, such as community policing. The residents then may have informally, but meaningfully, formed a cohesive unit. However, once again, the fieldwork and observations make this interpretation suspect. Yet another possibility is that respondents were influenced by being asked if they "feared crime". Attitudes which may have been of little relevance to every day activities would appear influential on the survey. Kerlinger also addressed this concern, ". .. . the survey . .. . can temporarily lift the respondent out of his (sic) own social context, which may make the results of the survey invalid" (1986, 387). Conpext dependenp effects. Considering the results of the fieldwork and the survey data, a comprehensive explanation could be that the respondents have disparate expectations and diverse interpretations as to what constitutes "disorder", 136 "fear" or "cohesion". For example, what may be extremely fear-provoking to residents of Moores River may be recognized, and accepted, as a non-anxiety provoking facet of every-day life by respondents from Oakland. One common occurrence in Oakland may illustrate this point. In the Oakland neighborhood it was a routine experience for groups (comprised of four or more) of young people, playing loud music on "boom boxes", and often openly drinking, to be observed walking around the neighborhood. Most residents of Oakland appeared to ignore, tolerate or accept this activity. (In fact, this type of loud.behavior is very common among some Latino cultures). The same event in Moores River would not only have been very unusual, but would have created a distraction. In fact, it is not unlikely that such a group would result in a police complaint being lodged by some residents of Moores River. Survey items, especially those using Likert-type response options may, in some cases, prohibit such a comprehensive understanding. This possibility has been recognized. For example, "survey information ordinarily does not penetrate very deeply below the surface" (Kerlinger, 1986, 387). The final statistical analysis examined within neighborhood effects. The obtained correlation coefficients strongly support the notion that context dependent effects should be expected. Furthermore, the fieldwork strongly suggested that context dependent effects are very relevant. Thus, the hypotheses that disorder automatically, and 137 uniformly, increases fear of crime and ultimately crime may be valid in certain types of communities. More likely, the relationship between these constructs is much more complicated and is apparently dependent on expectations, norms and characteristics of individuals who comprise neighborhoods. Suggestions for Future Research In this study the accepted definition of community policing was that it is a proactive approach designed to reduce disorder, fear of crime, and ultimately crime, by assigning the same officer(s) to a specific area with the task of working closely with community members. Thus, within this definition a geographical boundary is implied, an intervention articulated (although the proactive approach will vary based on neighborhood needs), and evaluation outcomes - the reduction of disorder, fear of crime and crime - are included. In this study, these outcome measures - disorder, and its inverse cohesion, and fear of crime - were operationalized and measured. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to determine that the measures created were reliable and valid.11 The next step would be to use these measures, along with additional techniques, in a variety of locales, to determine the effectiveness of community policing. Ideally, these additional techniques would include qualitative and quantitative components. These two broad ‘1 It should be mentioned that there is no "one" qualitative method. At least three distinct, though related types of fieldwork have been identified. These are the British Anthropological tradition, the Chicago or neo-Chicago tradition and the Existential tradition (See Manning, 1988). 138 research categories, while disparate, are equally critical to program evaluation. No single research technique is sufficient for ascertaining the impact of broad social interventions, such as community policing, which may significantly impact peoples lives - perhaps even depriving some of liberty. For other, more specific reasons, both quantitative and qualitative research methods seem to be demanded by neighborhood level interventions such as community policing. First, the quantity of reliable and valid data which can be generated by survey research is of considerable value. In part, this is because quantitative empirical work "requires and permits greater precision in stating and testing expected relationships" (Hanushek 8 Jackson, 1979, 3). Quantitative techniques also permit the estimation of magnitudes of expected relationships. Survey methods also allow a broad cross-spectrum of community members to participate and "be heard" thereby enhancing generalizability. However, when deeper interpretations are required, survey instruments may prove to be inadequate. For example, the behaviors of the community police officers and community members may need to be observed. Subtle differences that survey data could not capture may account for the success or failure of the intervention. Furthermore, since the intervention itself may vary between neighborhoods, observational techniques may be necessary to accurately describe various stimuli. In addition, semiotics 139 teaches that the meanings of signs, perhaps words and actions, as well as phenomenon will vary between actors - be they researchers, police officers or community members (Manning, 1987: Milovanovic, 1988) . Finally, since results are probably context dependent; neighborhood norms, characteristics and expectations must be identified. Qualitative methods can help provide the needed in-depth understanding. Being cognizant of the advantages and disadvantages to each method, and having "lived" this study for over a year, it is suggested that an integrative strategy be employed to validly and reliably determine the effectiveness of community policing. This alternative entails synthesizing the strengths of each method. Such a research strategy would make extensive use of observational techniques and surveys but would also make significant use of interviews. V Such a strategy would demand a rigorous, multi—phase evaluation. The first step would be to select units for intervention and analysis. This step should proceed as it did in this study with the addition of a random component. In other words, multiple areas should be identified and then a random selection made of the neighborhoods to receive the intervention. Since community policing is a neighborhood level intervention, Greene and Taylor (1988) have, correctly, argued for the neighborhood being the appropriate unit of analysis. Thus, a sufficient number of neighborhoods should be selected to allow meaningful statistical analyses. Thus, 140 at least 50 to 60 areas should be randomly selected and compared. After randomly selecting experimental and control areas fieldwork should be conducted. The fieldwork is critical to determine if the community policing intervention is actually occurring, if certain interventions appear more effective, if most residents are participating or if only "select" groups are participating, and to help determine individual neighborhood characteristics, problems and solutions. Second, interviews should. be conducted. with a random sample of community members to help further clarify neighborhood problems and interventions. Interviews should be included as a mid-step since they are "probably man's oldest and most often used device for obtaining information. . . . an interview can obtain a great deal of information, is flexible and adaptable to individual situations, and can he often used when no other method is possible or adequate" (Kerlinger, 1986, 440). The key word here is flexibility since interventions and neighborhood conditions will, in all probability, vary between areas. Schatzman and Strauss add, "(w)hile direct observation is the heart of field research, the interview must be used to provide context or meaning" (1973, 77). Interview results could then be utilized to help modify the survey instrument to reflect individual neighborhood diversity. Finally, a randomly selected, representative sample of community members (from both experimental and control areas) 141 should be surveyed with an instrument created based on the field work and interviews. Such an instrument could also include the measures of cohesion, disorder and fear of crime tested here since they, presumably, measure the central underlying constructs upon which community policing is based and individual neighborhood differences should not change these. Furthermore, this study has demonstrated the reliability and validity of these measures. The comprehensive methods proposed here would be labor extensive, expensive and time-consuming. Having over 50 neighborhoods as the units of analysis would also demand considerable training of field workers to assure inter-coder reliability. However, when one considers the massive amounts of money and effort being devoted to community policing such a strategy is not unreasonable. Furthermore, this apparent extension of the police role also warrants rigorous evaluation and reflection. Unfortunately, despite the rigor suggested here, it may still prove inadequate if, community policing (can) be seen as part of an on- going reform movement that includes various foundations, educational institutions, urban politicians in non—machine cities, and criminal justice educators“ It cannot be seen independently of other movements that stress the unity of life, the wholeness of experience, and other rather loose ideologies of the modern age (Manning, 1988, 45). Finally, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of community policing (witness the proliferation of 142 "Network Centers")12 we, as researchers, are obligated to critically examine, question and attempt to improve this evolving social movement. This study provided a specific, fundamental first step. The measures examined here reliably and validly measure the basic tenets of any community policing intervention. ‘2 Network Centers are locations where various social serv1ce prov1ders make their services available to community members in one local community location. APPENDIX A Community Survey 143 Community Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. We are concerned with your safety and neighborhood. Therefore, your opinion is very important to us. Please take a few minutes and complete this questionnaire. To answer questions on the survey, use a number 2 pencil and fill in the circle that has the letter which most closely matches your answer. If you need help, call the telephone number provided in the packet. NO ONE WILL KNOW WHO YOU ARE, OR HOW YOU ANSWERED 1. During the day, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never 2. After sunset, how often do you walk/run/ride a bike in your neighborhood? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never 3. How often do you participate in neighborhood group (Church, athletic, neighborhood association, social) activities? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never 4. How often do you do things outside (in the yard, playground, sidewalk) to take care of, or improve, the place you live? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never 5. How often do you have friendly talks with your neighbors? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never Thu—.4..-- 10. 11. 12. 13. 144 How often do you do something to keep your house and/or neighborhood looking nice? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never How many of your neighbors do you know by name? A. Less than 25% B. Between 25% and half C. Between 1/2 and 75% D. Almost all your neighbors E. None How safe is your neighborhood at night? A. Very safe B. Safe C. Not safe D. Very dangerous How important is it for neighbors to think you always obey the law. A. Very important B. Important C. Somewhat important D. Not important As long as no one gets hurt, it is O.K. to break some laws. A. Yes B. No C. Unsure The laws are to protect you. A. Yes B. No C. Unsure Public support of the police is important for keeping law and order. A. Yes B. NO C. Unsure Do the local police have a good understanding of what people in the neighborhood consider acceptable behavior? A. Yes B. NO C. Unsure 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 145 Do the local police treat people fairly? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure Does the local foot patrol officer treat people fairly? A. Yes B. NO C. Unsure How often do you talk to police officers? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never How'often.do you seejpolice officers in your neighborhood? A. Every day B. Once or twice a week C. A few times a month D. A few times a year E. Never Where are most of your friends from? A. Work B. Your neighborhood C. Both D. Neither How is the level of safety in your neighborhood changing? A. Not at all B. Becoming safer C. Becoming more dangerous D. Don't know Have you.been the victim of a violent crime (like a fight, rape or attack) in the last 3 years? A. Yes B. No Have you been the victim of a non-violent crime (like vandalism or theft) in the last 3 years? A. Yes B. No Have you called the police to report.a problem.(other than to report a crime) in your neighborhood since last summer? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 146 Have you called the police to report a violent crime (fight, rape, assault) in your neighborhood since last summer? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure Have you called the police to report a non-violent crime (vandalism, theft, etc.) in your neighborhood since last summer? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure Would you like to see police officers walking through.your neighborhood? A. Yes B. No C. Don't know Did you know that police foot-patrol and/or community policing program operates in your neighborhood? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure How much has local police service improved in the last year? , A. A lot B. A little C. None D. It has become worse E. Don't know In your neighborhood, tell us if you agree or disagree that the following things are problems. 28. 30. Prostitution 29. Drug use A. Strongly agree A. Strongly agree B. Agree B. Agree C. Disagree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know E. Don't know Theft, robbery 31. Fighting, violence A. Strongly agree A. Strongly agree B. Agree B. Agree C. Disagree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't Know E. Don't know 32. 34. 36. 38. 40. 42. 44. 147 Fear of crime A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Excessive drinking of alcohol A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Loud parties A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Abandoned/run-down buildings A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Unemployment A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Short-term renters A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Most neighbors don't talk to each other A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know 33 . Unsupervised juveniles A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know 35. Inadequate schools A. Strongly B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know Sexual assaults A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know 37. 39. Gang activity A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know 41. General appearance A. Strongly agree B. Agree C..Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know 43. Homeless people A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't Know 45. Most neighbors don't care about this neighborhood A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly disagree E. Don't know 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 148 Is crime serious enough here that you would move, if you could? A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Do you.think your chances of being the victim of a violent crime (rape, mugging) are great in this neighborhood? A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Do you think that your chances of being the victim of a robbery or theft are great in this neighborhood? A. B. C. D. E. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know the local police protect you from crime? Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know Do you feel that you are more likely to be a crime victim than most other people? A. B. C. D. E. How Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood at night? A. B. C. D. E. Very safe Safe Not safe Very unsafe Unsure 149 52. How safe do you feel out alone in.your neighborhood.during the day? A. Very safe B. Safe C. Not safe D. Very unsafe E. Unsure We are concerned with how people with different ages, jobs, gender, etc. feel about this neighborhood. The following questions ask: you to ‘tell us something about. yourself. Remember that no one will know who you are. 53. Based on your current job, which group would you best fit with? A. Factory worker, plumber, welder, construction B. Teacher, doctor, banker, counselor C. Secretary, typist, restaurant worker, salesperson D. Retired E. Unemployed 54. What is your age? A. Under 16 B. 16 - 25 C. 26 - 35 D. 36 - 45 E. 46 - 55 F. 56 - older 55. What is your sex? A. Male B. Female 56. What is your race/ethnic group? A. White/Non-Hispanic B. Black/African American C. Hispanic D. Oriental/Asian E. Other 57. How long have you lived in this neighborhood? A. Less than 6 months B. 7 months to 2 years C. 2 - 10 years D. Over 10 years 57. In the place you live, do you? A. Own B. Rent C. Live with a friend/relative D. Other 150 58. How many children live with you? A. None B. One C. Two - three D. Four or more 59. How much education have you had? A. Less than High School B. High School Graduate C. Some College D. College graduate E. Graduate School 60. Marital Status A. Single, never been married B. Married C. Single, divorced D. Separated E. Widowed Thank you for completing this survey; Please place the answer sheet into the envelope and mail it. If you would like to know the results of this survey, send a eeparate postcard to the same address with your return address included. APPENDIX B Human Subjects Approval 1151 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL October 1. 1991 Mark M. Lanier 3301 Trapper Cove 3C Lansing, MI 48910 RE: EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN COPS PROGRAM-DISSERTATION, IRB #91-460 Dear Mr. Lanier: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find.that the rights anduwelfare of'human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to September 26, 1992. Any changes in procedures involving human subj cots must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. $1.0m.) David E. Wright. Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS “DEW/deo cc: Robert Trojanowicz MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Insulation [II 1152 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL May 4, 1992 Mark M. Lanier 2731 Trappers Cove #30 Lansing, MI 48910 RE: EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN COPS PROGRAM. IRB #91-460 Dear Mr. Lanier: UCRIHS' review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, has approved this project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to April 29, 1993. There will be a'maximum of four renewals possible. If you.wish to continue a project beyond that time, it must again be submitted for complete review. Any changes in procedures involving human.subjects must be reviewed.by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention” If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, avid E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair University Committee esearch Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEW/pjm cc: Dr. Robert Trojanowicz "it u an Alhmcm-e damn/Equal Opponmurv Inuit-man APPENDIX C Community Maps 153 SAGINAW LIBSIII‘ ._ I: ’4: ". Community 2*. -' _ . I College ”'15. - . ' v ‘ ’- . . .l' I": ‘. ' Ri WASSEE 119th 313316;). PENNSYLVANIA CLELIENS Washington "I: '. ’1‘. '4' . . ‘I' _‘ a a o ‘. . ‘0’!- ' ‘ I‘ - c.nt.'. Z .1 HOLMES WARWICK OR .27 BRIARFIELD ,5 4? 154" STABLER -—I ”I I I rtnron SYRINGA C G LIVERNOIS I Lansing Generei Hospital LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, T. F., Buck, G. 8 Hallstrom, D. (1974). Cmiminal justice: Organization and management. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing. Albee, G. W. (1982). The politics of nature and nurture. Amemiean doumnel pf Cemmunipy Eeycnology, lQ, 4-30. Alinsky, S. D. (1972). Rnles fer padicele. New York: Random House. Babbie, E. R. (1986). Tne praetice e: eocial reeeamcn. (4th. ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Balkin, S. (1979). Victimization rates, safety, and fear of crime. Soc'al Problems, 26 343-358. Banfield, E. C. (1974). The nnheavenlv city revisited. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Barker, T., 8 Carter, D. (1986). eds. Police deviance. Cincinnati: Anderson. Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsideps; Studies in the sociology pf deyienee. (2nd. ed.). New York: Free Press. Bell, C., 8 Newby, H. (1982). Cemmpnity stndies. (4th. ed.). Boston: Allen. Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitetive nesearch methods for tne sociel seiences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 155 156 Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., 8 Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Soeiological Review, 51, 698-708. Bernard, J. (1973). The sociology of communityg Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Bizzack, J. (1989). Eoliee managemenp for Che igeg'e. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., 8 Rosenfeld, R. (1991). Trend and deviation in crime rates: A comparison of UCR and NCS data for burglary and robbery. Criminolo , e2,2,237- 264. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., 8 Rosenfeld, R. (1992). The UCR- NCS relationship revisited: A reply to Menard. Criminology, dQ,1, 115-124. Brown, L. P., 8 Wycoff, M. A. (1987). Policing Houston: Reducing fear and improving service. Cnime and Delingpency, dd, 71-89. Brown, S. E., 8 Curtis, J. H. (1987). Eundamentele of rimina ust esea c . Cincinnati, OH: Pilgrimage. Bryant, C. G. A. (1985). Positivism in epeial theeg and zeeeenen. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Bohm, R. M. (1986). Crime, criminal and crime control policy myths. Justice Quarterly, ;, 193-214. Bowers, W. J. 8 Hirsch, J. H. (1987). The impact of foot patrol staffing on crime and disorder in Boston: An unmet promise. American deurnal of Police, El, 17-43. 157 Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American urnal of community psycnology, lg, 771-791. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (1988). REEL—£94113 napien en cmime and jpstice. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (1991, July). National Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Carter, D. L. (1983). Hispanic interaction with the criminal justice system in Texas: Attitudes, perceptions, and experiences. J2urnal_2f_§riminalelu§tics. 2. 213- 227. Carter, D. L. (1985). Hispanic perceptions of police performance: An empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, lg, 487-500. Carter, D. L. (1986). Hispanic police officers' perceptions of discrimination. Police Studies, 2, 204-210. Census.Tracts. (1983). 1980 Census of Population.and.Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Cohen, L. L. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. erica S o c l Beyiew, d5, 588-607. Cohen, M. A. (1988). Some new evidence on the seriousness of crime. Criminology, 26, 343-353. Cohen, S., 8 Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 98, 310-357. 158 Conklin, J. E. (1992). Cmiminology. (4th. ed.). New York: MacMillan. Cook, T. D. (1983). Quasi-experimentation: Its ontology, epistemology, and methodology. In G. Morgan, Beyond Method. London: Sage. Cook T. D., 8 Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cordner, G. W. (1986). Fear of crime and the police: An evaluation of a fear reduction strategy. Journa of Pglice Seience and Administrapion, lg, 223-233. Cronbach, In J., 8 Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychology tests. Psychology finllepin, dz, 281-302. Currie, E. (1985). Wine. New York: Pantheon Books. Davidson, W. S. (1989). Ethical and moral dilemmas in community psychology: Tarnishing the angel's halo. American dournal ofi Community Psychology, l1, 385-390. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephene sumyeys. iNew York: Wiley and Sons. Douthit, N. (1975). August Vollmer, Berkeley's first Chief of police, and the emergence of police professionalism. Californie distorical Quarperly, LIV, 101-124. In Klockars, C. B. (1983). Thinking about police. New York: McGraw Hill. 159 Drug Use Forecasting (1988). National Institute of Justice, co-founded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. May. In Trojanowicz, R., 8 Bucqueroux, B. C mmunit o ' . 1990, p. 262. Esbensen, F-A. (1987). Foot patrols: Of what value? Amemieen dournal o: Boliee, 2;, 45-65. Eck, J. E., 8 Spelman, W. (1987). Problem solving: Problem oriented policing in Newport News. Washington: Police Executive Research Forum. Eck, J. E., 8 Spelman, W. (1987). Who ya gonna call? The police as problem busters. Crime end Delingpeney, 1;, 31-52. Eck, J. E., 8 Spelman, W. (1989). A. problem-oriented approach to police service delivery. In D. J. Kenney (ed.). Police and policing, New York: Praeger. Emerson, R M. (1988). te oa ' e . (Reissued), Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Soeial change: The challenge to s rv'v . Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Fairweather, G. W., 8 Davidson, W. S. (1986). An intnodnction to community experimentepion. New York: McGraw-Hill. Felkenes, G. T. (1984). Attitudes of police officers toward their professional ethics. Journal of Criminal dustice, 2, 211-220. 160 Fink, J., 8 Sealy, L. G. (1974). The community end Cne police - conflict 0; ceope;apion?. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fogelson, R. M. (1977) . Reform at a standstill. Chapter in Pig city police. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Friedmann, R. R. (1987). Citizen's attitudes toward. the police: Results from an experiment in community policing in Israel. Amezieen donznel pf Police, PT, 67-93. Fyfe, J. J. (1985). Police management Coday. thhington, D.C.: International City Management Association. Fyfe, J. J. (1989). Police praetice in the 90's. 'Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association. Garofalo, J. (1979). Victimization and the fear of crime. Jonrnal of Researcn in CIime end Delingnency, id, 80- 97. Gibbons, D. C. (1979). The cmiminological entenprise. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gottfredson, M. R., 8 Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theony of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gould, L. C., Kleck, G., 8 Gertz, M. C. (1992). The concept of 'crime' in criminological theory and practice. The Criminologisp, l1, 1, 1-6. Greene, J. R. (1987). Foot.patrol and.community policing: Past practices and future prospects. A_merican qumnal of Police, ET, 1-15. Greene, J. R., 8 Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Communipy policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger. 161 Greene, J. R., 8 Taylor, R. B. (1988). Community-based policing and foot patrol: Issues of theory and evaluation. In Greene, J. R., 8 Mastrofski, S. D. (1988) (ed.). Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger. Guyot, D. (1977). Bending granite: Attempts to change the rank structure of American Police Departments. dournal o; Pelice Science and Administration, 1, 3. Hansel, M. (1987). Citizen crime stereotypes - normative consensus revisited. Criminology, Pp, 455-485. Hayeslip, D. W., 8 Cordner, G. W. (1987). The effects of community oriented patrol on police officer attitudes. American Journal pf Pelice, 2;, 95-119. Hedderson, J. (1990). §P§S1PC+. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Pural Sociology, PQ,4, 111. Hirschi, T. (1969). Canses of delingnency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hoekema, D. A. (1986). Punishment, the criminal law, and Christian social ethics. criminal Justice Ethics, p, 31-53. Hoos, I. R. (1983). Systems analysis in pnplie;peliey (revised ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press. Horowitz, R., 8 Schwartz, G. (1974). Honor, normative ambiguity and gang violence. Ame;ieen_§eeiplegieel_ Review, 12, 238-251. Hunter, A. (1974). Sympolic communities. Chicago: Waveland. 162 Jeffrey, C. R. (1959). The historical development of criminology. Journal e: Criminal Law, Criminology and Polise_§cisnce. 59. 3-19- Jones, 8., 8 Levi, M. (1987). Law and order and the causes of crime: Some police and public perspectives. The Hewamd Journal of Criminal Justice, ed, 1-13. Kamenka, E., 8 Tay, A. E. (1987). Marxist ideology, communist reality, and the concept of criminal justice. Cmiminal Jnstiee ECniee, d, 3-29. Karmen, A. (1984). C;ime_yiepime. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). o d o s o ehaviora esearc . (3rd. ed.). Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kelling, G. L., 8 Stewart, J. K. (1989). Neignporhoods end pelice: The maintenenee pf ciyil enpnonity. Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Klockars, C. B. (1983). Thinking about police. New York: McGraw Hill. Klockars, C. B. (1986). Street justice: Some micro moral reservations: Comments on Sykes. Justice Quampenly, J, 513-516. Knight, D. E., Curtis, H. w. 8 Fogel, L. J. (1971). Qbernetics, simulation, and confliet pesolution. New York: Spartan. 163 Kornhauser, R. R. (1984). Social seurces pf delingmency. (paper ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LaGrange, R. L., 8 Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminelpgy, J1,4, 697-719. Levine, M., 8 Perkins, D. V. (1987). Principles pf epmmnnity psycnology. New York: Oxford University Press. Louis-Guerin, C. (1982). Fear of crime--myths and realities. Criminology, Jd, 69-83. Lurigio, A. J., 8 Rosenbaum, D. P. (1986). Evaluation research in community crime prevention. In Rosenbaum, D. P. (ed.). Community crime prevention. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Marenin, O. (1989). The utility of community needs surveys in community policing. Peliss_§tudiss. 12. 73-81- Marx, K., 8 Engels, F. (1970). e Ge de . New York: International Publishers. Masters, J. C. (1984). Psychology, research, and social policy. Amenieen Psychologist, JP, 851-862. Manning, P. K. (1977). Police work: The social organizetion pf policing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Manning, P. K. (1984). Community policing. e J u 3 of Police, J, 205-227. Manning, P. K. (1987). Semiotics and Fieldwork. Sage University Paper, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 164 Manning, P. K. (1988). Community policing as a drama of control. In Community polieing (Greene, J. R. 8 Mastrofski, S. D. eds.). New York: Praeger. Manning, P. K. (1989a). On the phenomenology of violence. Tne_ Criminelegiet, lg, 1-22. Manning, P. K. (1989b). Community policing. In 211311.211 'ss s ' ° ' . (Dunham, R.G., 8.Alpert, G.P., eds.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Manning, P. K. (1992) . Economic rhetoric and policing reform. Cpiminal Justice Research pullepin, 1, 4, 1-8. McDowall, D., 8 Loftin, C. (1992). Comparing the UCR and NCS over time. Cmiminplegy,JQ,1, 125-132. Meenaghan, T. W. (1972). What means community? Social Kerk, ie,6,94. Menard, S. (1992). Residual gains, reliability, and the UCR- NCS relationship: A comment on Blumstein, Cohen, and Rosenfeld (1991). Criminology, JQ,1,105-114. Miethe, T. D. (1991). Citizen-based crime control activity and victimization risks: An examination of displacement and free-rider effects. Cri 'nolo , JP, 3, 419-440. Miller. W- B. (1975)- MW r s s ' e in 'o Americ c tie . Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Milovanovic, D. (1988). A prime; in the sociology of law. New York: Harrow and Heston. .AL ‘1 165 Minar, D. W., 8 Greer, S. (1969). The conce o n' . Chicago: Aldine. Morgan, G. (1983). e on e ° te es o ' 1 research. London, England: Sage. Moore, M. H., 8 Kleiman, M. A. R. (1989). The poliee and dppg_. Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Moore, M. H., 8 Trojanowicz, R. C. (1988). W Cne fee; of gel e. Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Moore, M. H., Trojanowicz, R. C., 8 Kelling, G. L. (1988). Cnime and policing. Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of .Justice, ‘U. S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Mullen, R. E., 8 Donnermeyer, J. E. (1985). Age, trust, and perceived safety from crime in rural areas. G r ntolo i t,J§,237-242. 166 Munro, J. L. (1987). The.decision for community policing: The cases of Victoria and South Australia. Police SCmdies, in, 140-153. Nettler, G. (1984). Explaining crime. (3rd. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. O'Malley, P. (1988) . The purpose of knowledge: Pragmatism and the praxis of marxist criminology. Contemporany C 'ses, T_. Ortega, S. T., 8 Myles, J. L. (1987). Race and gender effects on fear of crime: An interactive model with age. Criminolo , JJ, 133-152. Pate, A., 8 Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. Amepiean Soeielogicel Reviey, J1, 691-697 . Pepinsky H. E., 8 Jesilow, P. (1984). uyehs Chat camse enime. Cabin John, Md.: Seven Locks. Podolefsky, A., 8 DuBow, F. (1981). Steepegies f0; communiey crimeiprevention: Collective responses to crime in urban Ameniee. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Quinney, R. (1979). The production of criminology. Cmiminology, 1p, 445-457 . Radelet, L. A. (1986). e ol' and the commun t . (4th. ed.). New York: McMillan Publishing. Reiman, J. H. (1987). The Marxian critique of criminal justice. Criminal Juspiee Ephies, d, 30-49. 167 Riechers L. M., 8 Roberg, R. R. (1990). Community policing: A critical review of underlying assumptions. Jppmnel_e; Police Seience end Administration, l1(2), 105-114. Robinette, H. M. (1987). Bunnoup in blue. New York: Praeger. Rosenbaum, D. P. (1986). Community crime prevention. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rossi, P. H., 8 Freeman, H. E. (1985). Evaluetion e systematic approach. (3rd. ed.) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sarason, S. B. (1981). An asocial psychology and a misdirected clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 827-836. Sarason, S. B. (1983). The nature of social problem solving in social action. American Psychologiep, JJ, 370-380. Shadish, W. R. (1984). Lessons from the implementation of deinstitutionalization. Americen Psyeholegisp, J_9_, 725- 738. Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., 8 Rogan, D. R. (1992) . Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Socielogical Peview, 51, 680-690. Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline. New York: The Free Press. Sloan, R. C. (1990). Community policing turning concept into reality. Unpublished manuscript. Smith, D. A., 8 Jarjoura, G. R. (1988). Social structure and criminal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime end Delin enc , JJ, 27-52. 168 Sower, C., Holland, J., Tiedke, K. 8 Freeman, W. (1957). Community invoivemenp. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Sutor, A. P. (1976). Egiip§_gpgmdpign§. St. Paul, MN: West Sparrow, M. K. (1988). en ' u ' . Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of'Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Spitzer, S. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social Probiems, zg, 638-651. Stafford, M., 8 Galle, o. (1984). Victimization rates, exposure to risks, and fear of crime. Qriminoiogy, _2__2_, 173-185. Steinman, M. (1986). Managing and evaluating police behavior. Journnl pf Police Science And Administrgtion, i5, 285- 292. Stephens, M. (1988). Policing; The gpitigdi issueg. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Taylor, B. 'I'. 8 Covington, J. (1988). Neighborhood changes in ecology and violence. Cmimingipgy, 26, 4, 553-590. Taylor, R. B., 8 Hale, M. M. (1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminai Law and Criminology, 77, 151-189. Trojanowicz, R. C. (1972). Police-community relations. Criminology, 2, 401-423. 169 Trojanowicz, R. C. (1982). An evaluation of the neighborhood foot patrol program in Flint, Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for Community Policing. Trojanowicz, R. C. (1982). Foot patrol: Improving police- citizen contact. Cited in Tng_pdiig§_gnd_pn§_ggmmnnipy. L. A. Radelet. (4th ed.). New York: MacMillan. Trojanowicz, R. C. (1989). Preventing givii disturbanges : A community pgliging appmgacn. No. 18. East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for Community Policing. Trojanowicz, R. C., 8 Banas, D. (1985). rce io s sa e : A com a ison f f e s to at o officgms. East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center. Trojanowicz, R. C., 8 Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Qommunity 01' in ° 0 tem o a rs ecti . Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Trojanowicz, R. C., 8 Carter, D. L. (1988). Ing_pnilp§ppny dnd moie of gommunity poiicing. East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center. Trojanowicz, R. C., 8 Carter, D. L. (1990). The changing face of America. Law Enforcement Bulietin, d2, p.6. Washington: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 170 Trojanowicz, R, C., 8 Pollard, B. (1986). Community policing: The line officer' perspective. East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center. van der Wurff, A., van Staalduinen, L., 8 Stringer, P. (1989) . Fear of crime in residential environments: Testing a social psychological model. The J u nal o 0 Psychology, 129, 141-160. Vold, G. B., 8 Bernard, T..J. (1986). Theometicai criminology. (3rd. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Walker, S. (1983). The pdiiee in Americe. New York: McGraw Hill. Walker, S. (1985). Se s 0 se s b ° gnid_. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Walsh, W. F., 8 Donovan, E. J. (1989). Private security and community policing: Evaluation and comment. Journal of Qmiminel Justice, T1, 187-197. Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and.the elderly more afraid? Sociei Scienee Quarterly, 681-702. Warr, M., 8 Stafford, M. (1983). Fear of victimization: A look at proximate causes. Social Eopces, di,1033-1043. Webster, J. A. (1983). Police time and tasks. Cited in Thinking apout police. C. B. Klockars (ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Whisenand, P. M., 8 Ferguson, F. (1989). The managing of police organizations. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 171 Williams H., 8 Pate, A. M. (1987). Returning to first principles: Reducing the fear of crime in Newark. end Delingneney, dd, 53-70. Wilson J. Q. (1983a). Crime and public policy. San Francisco, CA’ Institute for Contemporary Studies. (1983b). Tninking about crime. New York, NY: Qpime Wilson, J. Q. Vintage Books. Winkel, F. W. (1988). The police and reducing fear of crime a comparison of the crime-centered and the quality of life approaches. Police Studiee, Ti, 183—189. Wycoff, M. A. (1988). The benefits of community policing: Evidence and conjecture. In Greene and Mastrofski, 1988. Young, J. (1987). The tasks facing a realist criminology. Contemporary Crises, ii, 337-356. ‘ "I7'l’ifllifiiujflifli’i'flflflflflmflITS