stakeholders, about community problems and potential solutions. Results show ... democratic way as support by a majority or more than 50 per cent of a group.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com
Perceptions of neighborhood problems and their solutions: implications for community policing
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 439
Robert M. Bohm, K. Michael Reynolds and Stephen T. Holmes
Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA Keywords Police, Community policing, Community relations Abstract This exploratory study tests one of the key assumptions of community policing: that there is a relatively high level of consensus both within and between community groups, or stakeholders, about community problems and potential solutions. Results show that in the target community there is some consensus about social problems and their solutions. However, the study also reveals that the consensus may not be community-wide, but may exist only among a relatively small group of ``active'' stakeholders who differ significantly about the seriousness of most of the problems and the utility of some solutions. Implications for community policing are discussed.
Introduction This exploratory study tests one of the key assumptions of community policing. The assumption is that there is a relatively high level of consensus both within and between community groups, or stakeholders, about community problems and potential solutions. This assumption has not received much attention either in the scholarly literature or in implementation efforts (but see Mastrofski, 1991; Cordner, 1991; Weatheritt, 1991; Murphy, 1991, 1988; Bayley, 1991). If the assumed intra- and inter-group consensus does not exist, community policing, as the concept is generally operationalized[1], may be difficult if not impossible to implement. It may also succeed, but to the dismay and detriment of some community groups (more about this later). For purposes of this study, a consensus (or agreement) is defined in the traditional democratic way as support by a majority or more than 50 per cent of a group. Community policing is the latest philosophy or approach to policing. Considerable resources are being expended on its development and implementation. For example, since the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, more than $3.3 billion has been awarded directly to about 9,000 police departments to hire 61,000 additional officers dedicated to community policing. An additional $1.5 billion has been spent on specific community policing projects (Taylor et al., 1998, p. 5)[2]. Unlike traditional or ``professional'' policing which emphasizes responding to calls for The authors wish to thank Mark Lanier and R. Cory Watkins for their helpful suggestions.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, 2000, pp. 439-465. # MCB University Press, 1363-951X
PIJPSM 23,4
440
service and is widely regarded as having failed (Bayley, 1991, p. 225; but see Mastrofski, 1991), community policing involves proactive crime prevention through a visible police presence in neighborhoods, efforts to solve crimeproducing problems, arresting law violators, maintaining order, and resolving disputes (US Department of Justice, 1992, pp. 2-3; also see Goldstein, 1987)[3]. More importantly, for purposes of this study, community policing is supposed to be based on a shared responsibility for community safety and security. Law enforcement and other community stakeholders are to be partners or ``coproducers'' in the establishment and maintenance of peaceful neighborhoods (Hartnett and Skogan, 1999, p. 5; Bayley, 1991, pp. 226-7; Wycoff, 1991, pp. 105-6; Oettmeier and Brown, 1991, p. 126; Klockars, 1991, p. 247; Skolnick and Bayley, 1986, p. 213; Wilson and Kelling, 1982). As noted above, such a partnership presumes at least minimal agreement about what the problems and potential solutions are. A community's social problems and their solutions: consensus or conflict? Skogan claims that numerous studies (albeit older ones) show that the American public, regardless of race or class, almost universally condemns crimes involving theft and violence (1990, p. 5). He also notes that most people agree about the relative severity of various types of crimes as well as the punishments appropriate for different kinds of offenders (Skogan, 1990, p. 5). However, community-policing scholars (see, for example, Mastrofski, 1991; Weatheritt, 1991), relying mostly on anecdotal evidence, contend that no such agreement exists about what Skogan calls ``social disorders.'' Yet, the identification and amelioration of social disorders, considered crime-producing problems by community-policing proponents, is a principal goal of community policing[4]. Skogan (1990, p. 4) identifies two types of social disorder: social and physical. Social disorder involves behavior: ``you can see it happen (public drinking, or prostitution), experience it (catcalling or sexual harassment), or notice direct evidence of it (graffiti, or vandalism).'' Physical disorder is identified by ``visual signs of negligence and unchecked decay: abandoned or ill-kept buildings, broken streetlights, trash-filled lots, and alleys strewn with garbage and alive with rats''[5]. Skogan considers physical disorders as generally ongoing conditions and social disorders as mostly episodic events. For Skogan, social and physical disorders are distinct problems with different solutions. Nevertheless, both types of disorder share in common a number of undesirable consequences for community residents: anger (of being crowded out of community life), demoralization (``no one cares'' and ``nothing can be done''), fear (of violence), more disorder (the problem is contagious), and stigmatization (of the area and its residents) (Skogan, 1990, pp. 46-50). This study aims not only to determine whether a community's stakeholders agree about crimes and crime control policies, but also whether they agree about social disorders and solutions to those disorders. In this study, the term ``social
problems'' is used to denote both crimes and social disorders (both social and physical disorder). To date, evidence from community-policing projects suggests that the consensus within and between stakeholder groups needed to make community policing work should neither be assumed nor considered easy to achieve. For example, in a community-policing project in Seattle, community residents and a precinct captain disagreed about which physical disorders were more important. The precinct captain's top priority was abandoned cars used for drug dealing; residents were more concerned with the overall appearance of the neighborhood. Officers assigned to the neighborhood complained that they had little input into the identification of neighborhood problems. (US Department of Justice, 1992, pp. 12-13) An evaluation of community policing in Houston found that the program favored the community's dominant groups (i.e. whites over other racial and ethnic groups and homeowners over renters). Researchers in Houston discovered that a consensus about neighborhood problems and their solutions was difficult to achieve (it was not achieved!) in neighborhoods divided by race, class, and lifestyle differences (Skogan, 1996, p. 32; Wycoff, 1991, p. 116). Evaluations of other community-based programs corroborate this observation. Indeed, the research shows that ``community-based programs are very difficult to launch in low-income, heterogeneous, high-turnover, high-crime neighborhoods'' ± the very neighborhoods that need the programs most (Skogan, 1990, p. 17; also see Sherman, 1997, pp. 2-10). Class bias seems to be a frequent problem with attempts to implement community policing. To get programs started, the easiest strategy for the police is to identify existing community organizations and to work with their leadership and members. Most members of community organizations, especially in disadvantaged communities, are white and more affluent homeowners who live in the better parts of the targeted areas and community business owners who live outside the community. These ``active'' stakeholders, who generally comprise no more than 10 to 20 per cent of all community residents (Skogan, 1990, p. 133), are more likely to be aware of the community policing programs and participate in them. Minorities and the poor frequently are unaware of the programs and are excluded from participation or exclude themselves (see Skogan, 1990, pp. 16, 106-7; Mastrofski, 1991, p. 51). In some cases, new renters are not contacted because it is assumed that they will not be in the area long. The police also may be responsible for some of the exclusion. The police report that they generally find it easier to work with the more affluent white homeowners than with other residents of targeted communities (see Skogan, 1990, p. 16; Mastrofski, 1991, p. 52; Weatheritt, 1991, p. 172; Bayley, 1991, p. 233). Another reason for the exclusion in heterogeneous communities may be that minorities and the poor sometimes become targets of the programs rather than beneficiaries of them (see Skogan, 1990, p. 109; Bayley, 1991, pp. 232-3). Whatever the reason, most of the desirable benefits of the programs accrue to only two segments of the community ± the more
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 441
PIJPSM 23,4
442
affluent white homeowners and community business owners (see Bayley, 1991, pp. 233-4). Even when there is relative racial and class homogeneity in a community, consensus about community problems is not guaranteed. For example, an analysis of community-policing projects in eight cities revealed considerable conflict among community leaders and residents about what problems to address, as well as other strategic and tactical issues. At several of the sites, residents refused to get involved with the community-policing projects because of personality conflicts with community leaders (Sadd and Grinc, 1996). The police, themselves, also resist community-policing programs (see, for example, Skogan, 1990, p. 123; Oettmeier and Brown, 1991). Based upon standard police performance criteria (e.g. making arrests and clearing cases), many of the programs are considered ``inefficient'' (Skogan, 1990, p. 123). Many programs run counter to police culture, appearing ``soft'' and, therefore, difficult for some officers to accept (Skogan, 1990, p. 123). Many programs require decentralization of decision-making and placing officers in communities for longer periods rather than rotating them. Historically, police departments went to centralization of decision-making and the constant rotating of officers to control police corruption and to sever the ties between officers and local politicians (see, for example, Skogan, 1990, p. 123; Farrell, 1991; Bayley, 1991, p. 235; Klockars, 1991, p. 253). Decentralization of decision-making also threatens the authority and control of middle managers, such as lieutenants and captains (Skogan, 1990, p. 123). For these reasons, and others, the police themselves often resist community-policing initiatives and become a source of conflict. As the aforementioned examples suggest, numerous conflicts can plague efforts to implement community-policing projects. A consensus among community stakeholders is by no means guaranteed. Conflicts may exist both among and between community residents, police supervisors, police officers, community leaders, community business owners, as well as the perpetrators of a community's problems. Thus, it would seem that conflict about a community's social problems and their solutions, rather than consensus, may be the norm (Sadd and Grinc, 1996, p. 14). Stakeholder conflict should not be surprising for at least two reasons. First, and philosophically, policing has always been about the resolution of conflicts, by force if necessary (Weatheritt, 1991, pp. 172-3; Klockars, 1991, p. 257). Because the police may be called upon to use force to resolve problems, many police organizations deliberately remove themselves from the community and the daily lives of citizens (Kelling, 1985; Moore and Kelling, 1983). A problem for many advocates of community policing is that they have largely ignored the combative and adversarial aspects of the police role; for them, those aspects have simply ceased to exist (Weatheritt, 1991, p. 173). Second, and theoretically, people, and the groups of which they are a part, frequently perceive the social world differently. This is a source of much conflict. The list of social policies over which there are substantial differences and conflicts among people and groups is nearly endless. An interesting
question is why such differences and conflicts exist when everyone presumably lives in the same social world. The answer, of course, is that people perceive things differently. What people know about the social world is a product of how they interpret what they observe. What is observed depends on such things as cognitive apparatus, past experiences, and the social context in which the observation is made. It may also depend on such things as social status in the community. Because of such differences in perception and knowing, people, to varying extents, socially construct their own unique worlds (see, for example, Blumer, 1969; Cooley, 1964; Goffman, 1959). This social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; also see Quinney, 1970) can become troublesome in a democratic society when it comes to formulating and implementing public policy, such as community policing. Such constructions and differences make conflicts possible. This potential for conflict makes it incumbent on community-policing policymakers in a democratic society to address the following questions: (1) Do a community's stakeholders agree on the identification of social problems and their solutions? (2) If they do not agree, which stakeholder's perceptions will be used? (3) If there is no agreement, can a consensus be created? This study focuses on the first question, and only briefly considers the other two. The present study This study examines what stakeholders living and working in an urban community in the southeastern United States perceive as the community's social problems and as the best solutions for resolving those problems. The stakeholders in this study are: . community residents; . community business owners; . community leaders; . law enforcement personnel who work in the community; and . area prostitutes. Based on evidence from previous research and philosophical and theoretical expectations, we expect to find significant differences within and between the five groups of stakeholders in the identification of the community's social problems and solutions. The target community The target community of this study is an area of 4.38 square miles. It lies in the shadows of the downtown business and entertainment district to the north and a huge tourist area to the south[6]. Bounded to the north by the city limits, the
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 443
PIJPSM 23,4
444
area is entirely under the county's jurisdiction. It consists of a mix of low-tomoderate income housing, commercial property, and light industry. An interstate highway divides the area in half. The commercial property is located primarily on both sides of a major thoroughfare with residential areas located on the side streets to the east and west. Marginal uses and high vacancy rates have characterized the commercial property. Residential areas lack sanitary sewers, many side streets are unpaved, there are few sidewalks, there are open drainage ditches, and there is inadequate street lighting. Absentee landlords own a high proportion of the low-income rental properties. Despite exploding population growth in surrounding areas, residential areas of the target community have experienced little or no population growth over the last three decades. The population of the area is ethnically diverse with a high percentage of minorities. Because of the many social services found in the area (e.g. food pantries, labor pools, rescue missions), there are also many homeless people and transients. A large county jail near the area provides a continuous supply of recently released ex-offenders. Many people perceive the community as a blighted, high-crime area. Even though it is the smallest of the 27 geographical sheriff's office zones within the county and is not densely populated, it has consistently generated the highest number of calls for law enforcement service for nearly two decades. Many of the calls for service involve order maintenance issues (e.g. disorderly conduct, loitering, trespass), but the area has always ranked high in index offenses. For example, in 1998, the zone ranked first in murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, ranked second in burglaries and motor vehicle thefts, and ranked eighth in larcenies. Two of the more pervasive crime problems in the area are prostitution and drug offenses. The numerous run-down motels in the area have long provided a haven for those activities. However, since the mid-1980s, the emergence of crack cocaine in the area has combined with prostitution to create a new problem of crack-addicted prostitutes. The combination of crack-addicted prostitutes, crack dealers and crack houses, ``johns,'' transients, and homeless people, and the robberies, thefts, assaults, and disputes among and between them have contributed to the downward spiral in the area. Many residents, particularly the older ones, are afraid to leave their homes or venture into their yards, and property values have declined to the point where many residents cannot afford to move. Law-abiding residents live under a siege mentality, and despite considerable expenditures of time, effort, and money, including the demolition of more than 100 crack houses, law enforcement efforts to address the problems have been largely ineffective. Also, since the mid-1970s, the area has been home to about 65 per cent of the county's adult entertainment establishments (``nudie'' bars, adult bookstores, massage parlors), which add to the area's poor reputation. The adult entertainment businesses are believed to contribute to the prostitution and drug problems and are blamed for the decrease in residential property values and the difficulty in selling homes. After years of court battles, the adult
entertainment establishments are now regulated by county ordinance, but damage to the area, according to some observers, has been done. Methods Data about stakeholders' perceptions of the community's social problems and their solutions were collected during the summer and fall of 1998 primarily from a series of focus groups and personal interviews. The researchers also attended community organization meetings and obtained further information from documents and data supplied by community organizations and law enforcement agencies. From these data, resident and law enforcement survey instruments were constructed. A slight alteration in wording to make items relevant to both groups and the deletion of a few resident survey items not applicable to the law enforcement officers were the only differences between the two instruments. Additional survey items were adapted from the national crime victimization survey and from McGarrell et al. (1997). The survey instruments were pre-tested using target area residents and sheriff deputies. Pre-test feedback served as the basis for constructing the final survey instruments, which were distributed during the spring of 1999. (Sample survey instruments are available from the authors.) All of the sheriff's deputies who routinely patrol the target community (N = 15) were given survey instruments by the patrol captain. The response rate was 100 per cent. The resident sampling frame was obtained from a commercial electronic telephone directory. The directory, updated quarterly, contained the addresses and phone numbers of all current county residents. A list of about 4,000 target community residences was culled from the directory. From that list, a sample of 250 addresses was chosen using a random number generator. A return postage paid envelope was included with each survey. Fifteen days after the initial mailing, a follow-up reminder post card was mailed to non-respondents. Thirty days after the initial mailing, a full replacement survey was mailed to nonrespondents. Fifty-eight resident surveys were returned ± a return rate of 23 per cent. Thirty-eight were returned marked undeliverable for various reasons leaving a total of 154 non-responses after an initial 15-day follow-up and 30-day full replacement mailing. The sampling error (standard error) is 6.56 per cent (see Maxfield and Babbie, 1998, p. 215). Given the poor response rate typical of areas like the target community, the final sample size seemed reasonable enough for drawing tentative conclusions. Survey responses were coded and statistically analyzed. Demographic characteristics of the resident and law enforcement samples are shown in Table I. Unfortunately, the resident sample is not representative of the study population. For example, there were no black resident responses and this could have skewed the results (more about this later). Data were analyzed using several descriptive procedures. Except for the unrepresentativeness of the resident sample, no data abnormalities were
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 445
PIJPSM 23,4
446
Table I. Demographic characteristics of resident and law enforcement officer samples
Residents (N = 58) (%)
Officers (N = 15) (%)
Age Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 55
0 0 16 19 16 50
0 0 60 33 7 0
Gender Male Female
40 60
NA NA
Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Other
87 0 5 4 4
92 0 8 0 0
Education 8th grade or less Some high school Completed high school Some college Completed college Some graduate work
3 3 24 31 11 28
0 0 0 43 35 22
Time in community Less than 6 months 6 months-1 year 1-2 years 2-5 years 5 years or more
2 2 5 17 67
NA NA NA NA NA
Characteristic
revealed. Survey responses of residents and law enforcement officers were compared using the Mann-Whitney U Test for small samples (Lee and Maykovich, 1995, pp. 372-6). Significant differences were defined as differences of p = 0.05 or less (two-tailed test of significance). Findings The community's social problems Table II provides a list of the 23 social problems identified by the stakeholders. It also includes the percentage distributions for the resident and officer survey response categories and results of significance tests regarding the seriousness of the problems for residents and law enforcement officers. Community residents. As shown in Table II, none of the problems rates as a serious one by a majority of residents. The problems identified as serious by the largest percentage of residents (percentages in parentheses) are drug dealing (43 per cent), the bad reputation of the area (42 per cent) and illegal drug
Burglary (breaking into houses to take something of value) Robbery (taking something of value from YOU by force or threat of force) Assault (someone attacked you personally with or without a weapon) Drinking in public Strangers out on the street Criminals living in the area Absentee landlords Labor pools Lack of home ownership Youth gangs Illegal drug use Bad reputation of area Vacant or abandoned houses Garbage/litter on streets and sidewalks Drunk drivers Prostitution Drug dealing Kids bothering people Adult businesses Inadequate county police services Lack of police interest in community problems Lack of community interest in crime prevention Lack of political support for neighborhood problems
Social problems 44 30 31 29 30 18 30 28 37 35 26 18 30 23 31 25 17 23 22 37 32 32 38
22 17 23 38 36 34 11 11 22 41 42 30 30 25 34 43 30 22 17 13 24 23
48 32 46 36 61 52 43 32 40 41 46 43 41 40 47 56 46 55 44 39
51
48
23
A problem No problem (%) (%)
Residents
33
A serious problem (%)
56 40 73 73 40 40 20 100 73 60 20 13 87 100 47 33 15 20 40 47
47
87
40
A serious problem (%)
53 47 27 27 53 53 60 0 27 40 80 80 13 0 40 60 70 13 60 53
53
13
53
0.088 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.302 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.066 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.003 0.075 0.849 0.002 0.002
0 0 0 13 0 0 7 7 20 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 13 7 15 67 0 0
p
7
A problem No problem (%) (%)
Officers
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 447
Table II. Seriousness of social problems identified by stakeholders
PIJPSM 23,4
448
use (41 per cent). However, a majority of residents do agree about 18 less serious problems. They are (in parentheses are the combined percentages of those responding either ``a serious problem'' or ``a problem'') burglary (77 per cent), prostitution (69 per cent), strangers on the street (68 per cent), illegal drug use (67 per cent), absentee landlords (64 per cent), lack of political support (61 per cent), drug dealing (60 per cent), bad reputation of the area (60 per cent), vacant or abandoned housing (60 per cent), youth gangs (57 per cent), lack of community interest in crime prevention (56 per cent), inadequate county police services (54 per cent), criminals living in the area (54 per cent), drunk drivers (54 per cent), kids bothering people (53 per cent), garbage/litter on streets and sidewalks (53 per cent), drinking in public (52 per cent), and robbery (52 per cent). For a majority of residents, five of the identified problems are not problems (percentage selecting ``not a problem'' in parentheses): labor pools (61 per cent), adult entertainment businesses (56 per cent), lack of police interest in community problems (55 per cent), lack of home ownership (52 per cent), and assault (51 per cent). Area law enforcement officers. By contrast, a majority of the area's law enforcement officers feel that seven problems are serious ones (see Table II). They are illegal drug use (100 per cent), drug dealing (100 per cent), robbery (87 per cent), prostitution (87 per cent), criminals living in the area (73 per cent), absentee landlords (73 per cent), and vacant or abandoned houses (60 per cent). Moreover, there is near unanimity among law enforcement officers that all but one of the 23 problems identified are at least problems, if not serious ones. The only issue that a majority of the officers do not feel is a problem is a lack of police interest in community problems (only 33 per cent feel it is a problem). Community residents vs area law enforcement officers. There is a consensus among both community residents and the area's law enforcement officers that 19 of the area's 23 social problems are indeed problems (see Table II). However, the two groups differ substantially about the seriousness of most of those problems. For example, both groups consider drug dealing and illegal drug use as problems, but only 43 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively, of residents feel the problems are serious ones compared to 100 per cent of the area's law enforcement officers. The only ``problems'' about which residents and officers disagree are even problems are assault, labor pools, lack of home ownership, and adult entertainment businesses. In each case, a majority of law enforcement officers perceive the issues as problems, while a majority of residents do not. Regarding the relative seriousness of the problems, both groups agree about only seven of the 23 problems and consider none of them as serious. They agree about burglary, strangers out on the street, youth gangs, garbage/litter on the street, drunk drivers, and inadequate county police services. They also agree that a lack of police interest in community problems is not a problem. Community business owners[7]. Community business owners complain about three major problems: prostitutes (``streetwalkers''), drug dealing
(especially crack cocaine), and transients. The owners maintain that transients are attracted to the area because of the resources available to them, especially the labor pools ± which the owners consider as another problem. The lack of building code enforcement is also cited as a big problem. The first two problems are interrelated. Most of the prostitutes are crack users who ply their trade to support their drug habits. These crack users (not necessarily prostitutes) are also believed to commit many of the robberies in the area to support their habits. The sale of crack cocaine in the area is a major business that utilizes ``crack houses'' (frequently abandoned houses), and boys on bicycles who sell the drug. The bicycle boys are part of an elaborate security system designed to protect the major dealers. The business owners relate that businessmen and tourists are told that the area is where to go to get prostitutes and drugs. The major complaint about transients is that they sleep, urinate, and loiter on the streets. Many customers and community residents feel threatened and repulsed by their presence. One business owner blamed the liberal media and groups such as the ACLU for the problem because they defend the right of the transients to be in the area. Lack of political support to clean up the area is another problem cited by the business owners, as is the absence of a consistent commitment by law enforcement to the area's problems. Some business owners and other community stakeholders believe that county officials have adopted an unwritten policy to contain the social problems within the area rather than to eradicate them. Perhaps paradoxically, most of the business owners do not consider the adult entertainment businesses a problem. Because information from business owners was obtained in a focus group rather than by survey, responses of the business owners are not directly comparable to those of community residents and the area's law enforcement officers. Still, it appears that the business owners share many of the concerns of the other two groups. For example, in no particular order there appears to be a relative consensus about the problems of robbery, transients (strangers on the street), illegal drug use, the bad reputation of the area, prostitution, drug dealing, inadequate county police services (business owners focus on lack of building code enforcement), and lack of political support. The three groups differ only about two issues. First, a majority of law enforcement officers believe that the adult entertainment businesses are a problem, while a majority of residents and business owners do not. Second, law enforcement officers and residents believe that officers are more committed to solving the area's problems than the business owners believe the officers are. The list of problems cited by the business owners is also much shorter than the list of problems identified by either residents or law enforcement officers, probably reflecting the more narrow interests of the business owners and the data collection method[8]. Community leaders[9]. The community leaders are all homeowners in the area who actively promote the betterment of the community. Like the
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 449
PIJPSM 23,4
450
previously discussed stakeholders, the community leaders view drug dealing and prostitution as two of the area's major problems. They observe that the clients of the drug dealers and prostitutes come from outside the area. The community leaders believe that drug dealing and prostitution contribute to violence and the dangerous reputation of the area. One leader noted that the community is considered so dangerous that pizza companies will not make deliveries in the area. Other problems cited by community leaders are street people (homelessness), lack of home ownership and strong family units (too many renters and broken homes), adult entertainment businesses (that attract a bad element that wants drugs and prostitutes), area politicians (especially county commissioners) who will not support zoning changes or the blocking of through streets, and the failure of law enforcement to achieve results. At least one community leader believes that the lack of political support for the area is the most fundamental problem. Regarding the failure of law enforcement, it was noted that although there is a law enforcement presence in the area, officers do not respond quickly or effectively to problems. The leaders complain that despite undercover operations, reverse stings, ``sweeps,'' and conventional arrests, they see the same prostitutes and drug dealers all the time. Moreover, law enforcement officers have told residents that before residents call the sheriff's office for help, residents must first see people with drugs and that before sheriff's deputies can intervene, deputies must catch the drug dealers and users in the act. The problem is that the drug dealers have an elaborate surveillance system that makes it difficult to catch them in the act. Community leaders maintain that area residents are treated as second-class citizens. Two examples illustrate this point. First, postal employees do not get out of their cars when delivering mail; instead, they simply drive across residents' lawns. Second, the area's children are subjected to an inferior education. Students are rarely given homework primarily because there are not enough books for all students. Children make the school's honor roll even though they cannot read. Parents rarely complain. According to community leaders, effectively organizing community residents to improve the area and quality of life is made difficult by community fragmentation along racial and ethnic lines. A white female noted that most of the blacks in the area are renters and do not particularly care about the area because they do not believe that they will be there very long. One of the more interesting and serendipitous findings from the community residents' survey was that no black residents returned a questionnaire. One possible reason could be that black residents are so apathetic or alienated they had no interest in responding (more about this issue later). Another reason may be that some black residents were not able to read the survey instrument. (These reasons could explain why non-black residents failed to respond as well.) In any event, two other impediments to organizing are that most of the long-time residents have given up hope and that many of the senior citizens are so afraid that they have barricaded themselves inside their homes and will not come out at night.
In sum, community leaders identified some of the same problems cited by the other stakeholders, but they also identified some additional ones such as lack of home ownership (identified as a problem by law enforcement officers but not by community residents or business owners), treatment of residents as second-class citizens, and difficulties in effectively organizing community residents. The four groups of stakeholders agree about the following problems: strangers on the street (transients), the bad reputation of the area, prostitution, drug dealing, inadequate county police services (building code enforcement for business owners and lack of results for community leaders), and lack of political support. A lack of community interest in crime prevention was cited as a problem by a majority of residents, law enforcement officers, and community leaders but was not mentioned by business owners (but see note 8). Area prostitutes[10]. The prostitutes mentioned many of the same problems identified by the community residents. Perhaps this is because five of the six prostitutes are residents themselves who have lived in the community from one to seven years. When asked why they prostituted in the target community, they responded that the area has a widespread reputation (for prostitution and other vices), that the area is where the money is, that it is the only area they know, or they have never tried another area. None of them feels safe prostituting in the area; only one of them has a pimp. Their clients are both from the neighborhood and elsewhere (outsiders). The primary reason why all of them are prostituting is to get money to support their drug (mostly crack cocaine) habits. One of them volunteered that she initially began prostituting simply to get money. Now, however, she prostitutes to support her crack cocaine habit. Solutions to social problems Table III presents ten potential solutions identified by the stakeholders and the degree to which residents and the area's law enforcement officers agree about their utility. Community residents. Table III shows that there is no strong agreement among a majority of residents about any of the ten proposed solutions. The solution agreed upon most strongly by the largest percentage of residents is tearing down crack houses, supported by 50 per cent of them. There is, however, at least some agreement (combining ``strongly agree'' and ``agree'' categories) among residents about seven of the ten solutions (see Table III). The three solutions about which a majority of residents do not agree (percentage agreeing in parentheses) are closing down adult entertainment businesses (50 per cent), blocking off streets to through traffic (33 per cent), and improving the physical appearance of the area (29 per cent). Regarding improving the physical appearance of the area and blocking off streets to through traffic, it should be noted that 50 and 46 per cent of residents, respectively, do not know about their utility. In the case of closing down adult entertainment business, 26 per cent of residents do not know. Area law enforcement officers. In contrast to residents, a majority of the area's law enforcement officers strongly agree with two of the proposed
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 451
Table III. Potential solutions to social problems identified by stakeholders 33 50 36 36
29 3 33 33 34 14
Deputies patrolling on bikes are a good way to reduce crime in the area
Tearing down crack houses is a good way to reduce crime in the area
A sheriff's precinct in the area would be a good way to reduce crime
The best way for the sheriff's office to solve problems in the area is to have deputies specifically assigned to the area
If the adult entertainment businesses were closed down, crime would decrease
Efforts to improve the physical appearance of the area have been effective in reducing crime in the area
Neighborhood watch programs are a good way to reduce crime in the area
If additional street lights were installed, I would feel safer in the area
If zoning and building code violations were enforced the area would be safer
If streets were blocked off to through traffic, the area would be safer
19
22
41
48
26
21
46
29
31
38
A (%)
46
32
16
12
50
26
15
19
10
26
20
10
9
7
17
19
3
10
5
3
Residents DK D (%) (%)
2
2
2
0
3
5
0
5
3
0
SD (%)
22
41
33
28
6
33
45
44
61
66
SA (%)
28
59
50
50
22
28
33
27
33
33
A (%)
33
0
0
17
28
11
0
16
5
0
17
0
17
5
22
22
22
5
0
0
Officers DK D (%) (%)
452
Potential solutions
SA (%)
0
0
0
0
22
6
0
0
0
0
SD (%)
0.491
0.019
0.895
0.784
0.066
0.795
0.896
0.727
0.184
0.002
p
PIJPSM 23,4
solutions and at least agree (combining ``strongly agree'' and ``agree'' categories) with six others (see Table III). The two solutions with which a majority of officers strongly agree are patrolling the area on bikes (66 per cent) and tearing down crack houses (61 per cent). A majority of officers also at least agree with enforcing zoning and building code violations, installing additional street lights, establishing neighborhood watch programs, having a sheriff's precinct office in the area, having deputies specifically assigned to the area, and closing down adult entertainment businesses. The two solutions about which the officers do not agree are blocking off streets to through traffic (50 per cent agree) and improving the physical appearance of the area (only 28 per cent agree). Officers seem more certain about the solutions (i.e. fewer do not knows) than do residents. Community residents vs area law enforcement officers. There is a relative consensus between residents and the area's law enforcement officers about the effectiveness of seven of the proposed solutions and about the ineffectiveness of two of them (see Table III). The two groups differ only about the utility of closing adult entertainment businesses. Although a majority of neither group feels strongly about closing adult entertainment businesses, a majority of law enforcement officers support it, while a majority of residents do not. Still, 50 per cent of residents support it, and 26 per cent do not know; so the difference between the two groups on the issue may not be difficult to overcome. The two groups agree about deputies patrolling on bikes, tearing down crack houses, having a sheriff's precinct office in the area, having deputies assigned specifically to the area, establishing neighborhood watch programs, installing additional street lights, and enforcing zoning and building codes. There is also a relative consensus between the two groups about the probable ineffectiveness of two proposed solutions: improving the physical appearance of the area and blocking off streets to through traffic. However, 50 per cent of residents do not know about beautification, 46 per cent of residents do not know about blocking streets, and 50 per cent of officers support blocking streets. (Thus, it may not take much to convince a majority of both groups to support both proposals.) Other differences between residents and officers. For the most part, officers believe they are doing a much better job than residents believe the officers are doing (see Table IV). For example, when asked whether the county sheriff's office does a good job reducing crime in the area, 83 per cent of officers either strongly agree (39 per cent) or agree (44 per cent) that it does, while only 53 per cent of residents either strongly agree (5 per cent) or agree (48 per cent) that it does. When asked whether the sheriff's office drug and vice units have done a good job at reducing crime in the area, 67 per cent of officers either strongly agree (22 per cent) or agree (45 per cent) they have done a good job, while only 31 per cent of residents either strongly agree (3 per cent) or agree (28 per cent) that officers have done a good job. To the statement that the sheriff's office is doing a good job working together with the residents of the area to solve local problems, 61 per cent of officers either strongly agree (17 per cent) or agree (44 per cent) with the statement, while only 34 per cent of residents either strongly
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 453
7
5
The sheriff's office is doing a good job working together with the residents of my area to solve local problems
I feel satisfied with the job the sheriff's office is doing in the area to reduce crime
How would you describe the general condition of the area over the past year?
3
The sheriff's office drug and vice units have done a good job at reducing crime in the area
Table IV. Other differences between residents and officers 5
30
53
50
29
29
12
17
15
Residents DK D (%) (%)
12
32
52
Residents Better Worse Same (%) (%) (%)
32
27
28
48
A (%)
3
2
2
2
SD (%)
44
44
45
44
A (%)
11
28
22
11
40
20
40
6
11
11
6
Officers DK D (%) (%)
Officers Better Worse Same (%) (%) (%)
39
17
22
39
SA (%)
454
The sheriff's office does a good job of reducing crime in the area
SA (%)
0
0
0
0
SD (%)
0.061
0.000
0.142
0.008
0.000
p
PIJPSM 23,4
agree (7 per cent) or agree (27 per cent) with it. When asked if they are satisfied with the job the sheriff's office is doing to reduce crime in the area, 83 per cent of officers either strongly agree (39 per cent) or agree (44 per cent) they are satisfied, while only 37 per cent of residents either strongly agree (5 per cent) or agree (32 per cent) they are satisfied. When asked to describe the general condition of the area over the past year, 12 per cent of residents compared to 40 per cent of officers believe it is getting better, 32 per cent of residents and 20 per cent of officers believe it is getting worse, and 52 per cent of residents and 40 per cent of officers believe it is about the same. There are also significant differences between residents and officers about the level of cooperation or support residents are likely to provide in addressing the area's social problems (see Table V). Law enforcement officers are much more pessimistic about the area's residents than the residents are about themselves. For example, when queried whether residents or business owners are bound to call the police if a suspicious person is hanging around the area, 50 per cent of residents either strongly agree (18 per cent) or agree (32 per cent) they will, while only 20 per cent of officers agree (none of them strongly agree) that residents will (not in Table). When asked what residents of the area would most likely do if they were having trouble with rowdy teenagers in front of their homes, 3 per cent of residents but 40 per cent of officers respond that residents would do nothing. By contrast, 78 per cent of residents but only 53 percent of officers believe that residents will call the police. A total of 6 and 7 per cent of residents and officers, respectively, believe residents will confront rowdy teenagers, and 13 per cent of residents but no officers believe that residents will get other neighbors and confront them. When asked what residents would most likely do if they learned that people were selling crack cocaine from a home in their neighborhood, 4 per cent of residents but 67 per cent of officers believe that the residents will do nothing. By contrast 93 per cent of residents but only 3 per cent of officers believe that residents will call the police. When asked whether people in the area ``help each other'' or ``go their own way,'' only 33 per cent of residents and no officers believe people help each other. The area's residents and its law enforcement officers also perceive the area and its dangers differently (see Table VI). When asked whether the area is ``a real home'' or ``just a place to live,'' 39 per cent of residents responded that it is a real home, while no officers responded that way. When asked how safe they feel walking alone in the area during the day, 57 per cent of residents feel either very safe (16 per cent) or safe (41 per cent), while only 7 per cent of officers feel safe (none feels very safe). When asked how safe they feel walking alone in the area at night, 24 per cent of residents feel either very safe (7 per cent) or safe (17 per cent), while only 7 per cent of officers feel safe (none feels very safe). One area in which there appears to be a relative consensus between both groups is whether criminals feel safer in the targeted area than in other areas of the county. A total of 49 per cent of residents and 40 per cent of officers agree
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 455
4
If residents of the area learned that people were selling crack cocaine from a home in their neighborhood, which of the following would they be most likely to do?
How would you describe the area?
3
Table V. Differences regarding levels of cooperation or support 33
People help each other (%)
0
6
Residents
3
13
67
People go their own way (%)
93
78
Call police (%)
67
40
Do nothing (%)
0
People help each other (%)
0
7
Officers
0
0
Officers Get other neighbors Confront and them confront (%) (%)
33
53
Call police (%)
100
People go their own way (%)
456
If residents of the area were having trouble with rowdy teenagers in front of their homes, which of the following would they most likely do?
Do nothing (%)
Residents Get other neighbors Confront and them confront (%) (%)
0.052
p
0.000
0.005
p
PIJPSM 23,4
16
7
How safe do you feel being outside and alone in the area at night?
Very safe
39
How safe do you feel walking alone during the day in the area?
Do residents feel the area is
A real home (%)
17
41
Safe
Residents
19
22
Neither
Residents
61
Place to live (%)
26
16
Unsafe
Officers
31
5
0
0
Very unsafe Very safe
0
A real home (%)
7
7
Safe
100
Place to live (%)
7
27
Neither
Officers
26
53
Unsafe
0.012
p
p 0.000
0.004
Very unsafe 13
60
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 457
Table VI. Perceptual differences of the area
PIJPSM 23,4
458
that criminals feel safer in the targeted area; however, 22 per cent of residents and 20 per cent of officers do not know (not in Table). Community business owners. Among the solutions cited by business owners are more aggressive building code enforcement, greater political support, zero tolerance for crime, a more consistent commitment by law enforcement, and better coordination of community resources. Community leaders. Solutions suggested by community leaders include getting rid of adult entertainment businesses or making it costlier for them to do business, getting rid of prostitutes and drug dealers or at least providing stiffer penalties for them, changing the street layout by blocking off streets, stiffer penalties for absentee landlords who allow their properties to be used for criminal activities, improved infrastructure including a branch bank, a library, a grocery store (one is supposedly coming), and a local voting place (most residents cannot get to the current voting place which is six miles away because of lack of transportation). Area prostitutes. As noted previously, because five of the six prostitutes are area residents, it is not surprising that they identified many of the same solutions to the area's problems as did other community residents. However, it is also not surprising (perhaps it is!) that most of them emphasized getting drugs (crack) off the street or getting rid of drug (crack) dealers. One of them mentioned the need for more streetlights. Table VII provides a summary list of the solutions suggested by the different stakeholder groups. Discussion In trying to identify a community's social problems, the research to date has focused almost exclusively on the perceptions of community residents. The perceptions of other community stakeholders, a key focus of this study, have largely been ignored. So, for example, surveys of 40 neighborhoods (and nearly 13,000 residents) show that, among social problems, public drinking is generally the biggest problem, followed closely by bands of loitering youths and drug sales and use (Skogan, 1990, p. 21). There is, however, wide variation among neighborhoods. In some neighborhoods, those social problems are considered very serious problems; in other neighborhoods, they are not considered problems at all (also see Murphy, 1988). Results of this study show that in the target community there is a greater consensus about social problems and their solutions, both among and between stakeholder groups, than had been anticipated by the researchers and reported in some pilot studies of community-policing projects. However, the study also reveals significant differences between stakeholder groups about the seriousness of most of the problems. If those differences cannot be resolved, they may affect the zeal with which the different groups commit themselves to the problems' solutions and the relative success or failure of community policing efforts. Results of the study also confirm what previous research has revealed about community fragmentation. Only a small percentage of the community's
Potential solutions Deputies patrolling on bikes are a good way to reduce crime in the area Tearing down crack houses is a good way to reduce crime in the area A sheriff's precinct in the area would be a good way to reduce crime The best way for the sheriff's office to solve problems in the area is to have deputies specifically assigned to the area If the adult entertainment businesses were closed down, crime would decrease Efforts to improve the physical appearance of the area have been effective in reducing crime in the area Neighborhood watch programs are a good way to reduce crime in the area If additional street lights were installed, I would feel safer in the area If zoning and building code violations were enforced the area would be safer If streets were blocked off to through traffic, the area would be safer Greater political support Zero tolerance for crime More consistent commitment by law enforcement Better coordination of community resources Stiffer penalties for prostitutes and drug dealers Stiffer penalties for absentee landlords Improved infrastructure (e.g. branch bank, library)
Business Community owners leaders Prostitutes
Residents
Officers
Yes
Yes+
NM
NM
NM
Yes
Yes+
NM
NM
NM
Yes
Yes
NM
NM
NM
Yes
Yes
NM
NM
NM
?
Yes
NM
Yes
NM
?
No
NM
NM
NM
Yes
Yes
NM
NM
NM
Yes
Yes
NM
NM
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NM
NM
?
?
NM
Yes
NM
Yes NS NS
Yes NS NS
Yes Yes Yes
NM NM NM
NM NM NM
NS
NS
Yes
NM
NM
NS
NS
NM
Yes
Yesa
NS
NS
NM
Yes
NM
NS
NS
NM
Yes
NM
Notes: Yes = supports solution; Yes+ = strongly supports solution; No = does not support solution; NS = not surveyed about; NM = not mentioned; ? = no clear majority consensus; a = only applies to drug dealers
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 459
Table VII. Summary of solutions suggested by different stakeholder groups
PIJPSM 23,4
460
population is actively involved in addressing community problems (see, for example, Hartnett and Skogan, 1999, p. 9). Despite comprising about 40 per cent of the target community's population (based on a 1992 estimate), not a single black resident responded to the survey (see Table I). Furthermore, half of the respondents were 55 years of age or older. Not a single respondent was under 25 years of age. Survey respondents were also probably better educated than residents as a whole. Finally, 67 per cent of respondents had lived in the area for more than five years. As has been found in previous research (see below), community residents that responded to the survey, and who are active in the community, are overwhelmingly white, older in age and residency, and better educated. Such community fragmentation, as noted previously, puts the success of community-policing efforts in jeopardy. If community policing is to succeed in the targeted area, it would seem necessary as a first step to get a much larger proportion of the community involved and in agreement. Nevertheless, with these important caveats in mind, it appears that a relative consensus in the community may exist or be obtainable about the following seven problems (in no particular order): strangers on the street (transients), the bad reputation of the area, prostitution, drug dealing, inadequate county police services (building code enforcement for business owners and lack of results for community leaders), lack of political support, and probably a lack of community interest in crime prevention. All of these are formidable problems and many of them have been cited as problems in other similar communities throughout the country (see, for example, Skogan, 1990, Chap. 2). There are also three general solutions about which there appears to be a relative consensus among stakeholders. They are: (1) improved police services (e.g. greater use of bike patrols, a sheriff's precinct office in the community, more deputies specifically assigned to the area, more consistent commitment by law enforcement to the community's problems, zero tolerance of crime); (2) greater community interest in crime prevention; and (3) greater political (and economic) support. A note on displacement and diffusion A major concern with area-specific solutions to social problems is displacement. There are at least five types of displacement effects: (1) offenders can change locations; (2) offenders can change the time of offending; (3) offenders can change their targets; (4) offenders can adopt new behaviors to attack the same targets; and (5) offenders can switch the type of crime they commit (Eck, 1997, pp. 7-40). Analyses of crime prevention efforts in the USA, Canada, the UK, continental Europe, and Australia show that frequently there is no displacement; when it
does occur, the gains from blocking crime opportunities are always greater than problems created by displacement; and crime, overall, is never increased by displacing it (Eck, 1997, pp. 7-40). Neither a majority of residents nor a majority of law enforcement officers in this study would be satisfied if the area's problems were moved to another area of the city. Only 21 per cent of residents and 28 per cent of officers would be satisfied with displacing the problem; 24 of residents and 11 per cent of officers do not know. Another possible effect of crime prevention efforts, and one that has received much less attention than displacement, is diffusion. Diffusion refers to the spread of crime prevention benefits beyond the targeted area. Although there is some weak evidence of diffusion effects of some crime prevention strategies (see Eck, 1997, pp. 7-41), at present, it remains primarily a theoretical possibility. Conclusion Like community-policing projects in Houston and elsewhere, results of this study confirm that successful community-policing efforts may favor the community's dominant groups (e.g. whites over other racial and ethnic groups and homeowners over renters). What is troublesome about this finding is that the community's dominant groups represent only a minority of the community's population. Whether the majority of community residents agree about the community's problems and their potential solutions is unknown. Future research efforts should attempt to provide more definitive answers. However, as discovered in this study, those answers are elusive. As evidenced by their lack of participation in community organizations and failure to respond to the survey, the majority of residents of the targeted community are either apathetic, alienated, or supportive of many of what are defined as the community's problems. If this silent majority is merely apathetic, it still may agree with the more active minority about the problems and potential solutions. Although the silent majority may not actively participate in community-policing efforts, it is not likely to undermine them either; if it can be mobilized to participate, all the better. On the other hand, if the silent majority is alienated from the dominant community, or if it is supportive or actively involved in what the minority has defined as the area's social problems, then community-policing efforts are likely to meet resistance. Indeed, if there is substantial conflict within communities about the community's problems and potential solutions, community policing may become just another in a long line of efforts by a community's dominant minority to impose its values on the community's majority (see, for example, Bayley, 1991, p. 233). Stripped of its pretensions, community policing may be merely another, albeit cleverly disguised, way the government intrudes on the privacy of its citizens (see, for example, Manning, 1991; Mastrofski, 1991; Bayley, 1991, p. 230; Wycoff, 1991, p. 116; Weatheritt, 1991; Murphy, 1991, p. 188; Klockars, 1991, p. 240).
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 461
PIJPSM 23,4
462
It must also be remembered that the target community in this study is only one of many communities that comprise a large city. Thus, when addressing a community's problems, it is necessary not only to ascertain the opinions of the community's stakeholders but also to consider the opinions of the residents of the larger city of which the community is a part. Because of their proximity to the targeted community, residents of the larger city must also be considered stakeholders in the targeted community. It may be that the smaller community's stakeholders are in agreement about issues over which the majority of city residents disagree. If community policing is implemented in that context, then it is bound to fail because many of the smaller community's residents will view the police disparagingly as an army of occupation. As this discussion suggests, achieving the partnership required of community policing in a democratic society is a formidable challenge. If community policing is to succeed and be embraced by the vast majority of community residents, greater efforts will have to be made in securing the necessary partnership. However, even if a consensus were achieved, community-policing efforts may still prove ineffective in reducing a community's social problems because community-policing programs do little to address the more fundamental problems of poverty, racism, illiteracy, and family disruption (Sherman, 1997, p. 3-2-3-6; Skogan, 1990, pp. 57-61; Sampson, 1987). Altering those major correlates of social problems probably requires monumental changes in political and economic policy. Short of such fundamental changes, perhaps the most that can be accomplished by community policing is the temporary amelioration of the symptoms of a community's principal social problems rather than the resolution of the underlying problems themselves. Is that enough? Is it the police's proper role? Notes 1. For problems with the concept of community policing, see Murphy (1988) and Manning (1984). 2. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized the federal government to spend $8.8 billion over six years for grants to local policing agencies to add 100,000 officers and to promote community policing in innovative ways. 3. Bayley (1991, p. 228) argues that having realized that they cannot significantly reduce crime and apprehend many law violators, police agencies that have adopted community policing have redefined their roles and set new goals to those they may better achieve. Those new goals include reducing the fear of crime, making the public feel less powerless, reducing the distrust between minority groups and the police, mediating quarrels, overcoming the isolation of marginal groups, organizing social services, and generally assisting the development of ``community.'' He adds that another goal is making the community a police interest group that will, among other things, protect and enhance police budgets (p. 229). Acknowledging that all, but perhaps the last one, are worthwhile goals, Bayley wonders whether they are what the police were created to do and should be doing (also see Klockars, 1991). 4. Greene and Taylor (1991, pp. 202-3) argue that the relationship between social disorders and crime is spurious and largely a function of social class.
5. In his typology, Skogan lists vandalism among social disorders, but in his extended discussion includes vandalism among physical disorders. 6. Information about the target community is from the Orange Blossom Trail Safe Neighborhood Plan prepared by Herbert-Halback, Inc. (10/92), data from the county sheriff's office, and discussions with area stakeholders. 7. Information from community business owners (N = 10) was obtained through a focus group. 8. Just because business owners did not mention a specific problem does not necessarily mean that they did not think there were other problems. 9. Information from community leaders (N = 5) was obtained through a focus group and personal interviews. 10. Six female prostitutes (three white and three black) were interviewed and, to varying extents, completed the resident survey instrument. Sheriff's deputies selected each prostitute. If the potential participant voluntarily agreed to the interview, she was informed that transportation to and from the interview site would be provided. Each participant was also given $50 for participating. A semi-structured format was used for the personal interviews that concluded with each participant completing, to varying extents, the survey instrument. Two of the participants were obviously drug impaired and, consequently, raise issues of validity and reliability. Most were very cooperative after gaining some assurance that the research was legitimate and not a contrived police sting operation. References Bayley, D.H. (1991), ``Community policing: a report from the devil's advocate'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 225-37. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor, Garden City, NY. Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Cooley, C.H. (1964), Human Nature and the Social Order, Schocken, New York, NY. Cordner, G.W. (1991), ``A problem-oriented approach to community-oriented policing'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 135-52. Eck, J.E. (1997), ``Preventing crime at places'', Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC, pp. 7-1-7-62. Farrell, M.J. (1991), ``The development of the Community Patrol Officer Program: communityoriented policing in the New York City police department'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 73-88. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York, NY. Goldstein, H. (1987), ``Toward community-oriented policing: potential, basic requirements and threshold questions'', Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 33, pp. 6-30. Greene, J.R. and Taylor, R.B. (1991), ``Community-based policing and foot patrol: issues of theory and evaluation'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 195-223. Hartnett, S.M. and Skogan, W.G. (1999), ``Community policing: Chicago's experience'', National Institute of Justice Journal, April, pp. 2-11.
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 463
PIJPSM 23,4
464
Kelling, G.L. (1985), ``Order maintenance, the quality of urban life, and police: a different line of argument'', in Geller, W. (Ed.), Police Leadership in America: Crisis and Opportunity, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 296-309. Klockars, C.B. (1991), ``The rhetoric of community policing'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 239-58. Lee, I. and Maykovich, M.K. (1995), Statistics: A Tool for Understanding Society, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. McGarrell, E.F., Giacomazzi, A.L. and Thurman, Q.C. (1997), ``Neighborhood disorder, integration, and the fear of crime'', Justice Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 479-97. Manning, P.K. (1984), ``Community policing'', American Journal of Police, Vol.3, pp. 205-27. Manning, P.K. (1991), ``Community policing as a drama of control'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 27-45. Mastrofski, S.D. (1991), ``Community policing as reform: a cautionary tale'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 47-67. Maxfield, M.G. and Babbie, E. (1998), Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, 2nd ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Moore, M. and Kelling, G.L. (1983), ``To serve and protect: learning from police history'', Public Interest, Vol. 70, pp. 49-65. Murphy, C. (1988), ``Community problems, problem communities, and community policing in Toronto'', Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 25, pp. 392-410. Murphy, C. (1991), ``The development, impact, and implications of community policing in Canada'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 177-89. Oettmeier, T.N. and Brown, L.P. (1991), ``Developing a neighborhood-oriented policing style'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 121-34. Quinney, R. (1970), The Social Reality of Crime, Little, Brown, Boston, MA. Sadd, S. and Grinc, R.M. (1996), ``Implementation challenges in community policing: innovative neighborhood-oriented policing in eight cities'', National Institute of Justice Research Brief, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, February, Washington, DC. Sampson, R.J. (1987), ``Urban black violence: the effect of male joblessness and family disruption'', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93, pp. 348-82. Sherman, L.W. (1997), ``Thinking about crime prevention'', Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC, pp. 2-1-2-32. Skogan, W.G. (1990), Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods, The Free Press, New York, NY. Skogan, W.G. (1996), ``The community's role in community policing'', National Institute of Justice Journal, No. 231, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, August, Washington, DC. Skolnick, J.H. and Bayley, D.H. (1986), The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in Six American Cities, The Free Press, New York, NY. Taylor, R.W., Fritsch, E.J. and Caeti, T.J. (1998), ``Core challenges facing community policing: the emperor still has no clothes'', ACJS Today, Vol. 17, May/June, pp. 1-5.
US Department of Justice (1992), ``Community policing in the 1990s'', National Institute of Justice Journal, Office of Justice Programs, No. 225, August, Washington, DC. Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982), ``The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows'', Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 127, pp. 29-38. Weatheritt, M. (1991), ``Community policing: rhetoric or reality?'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 153-75. Wycoff, M.A. (1991), ``The benefits of community policing: evidence and conjecture'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 103-20.
Perceptions of neighborhood problems 465
