Task
BeautyGrad11
hurstFrank2000.pdf
Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
0047-2352/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0047-2352(00)00035-0
How kids view cops The nature of juvenile attitudes toward the police
Yolander G. Hurst
a,
*, James Frank
b
a
Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, Southern Illinois University, Mail Code 4504, Carbondale, IL 62901,USA
b
Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Abstract
During the past two decades there has been increasing interest in the attitudes of adults toward the police. There has only been limited interest in the attitudes of juveniles, even though they comprise a significant propor- tion of the population subject to police contact and arrests. The present study, using data collected through a sur- vey administered to a sample of urban and suburban juveniles, examined the determinants of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. The findings generally suggest that the overall attitudes of juveniles are not quite as favorable as those reported previously for adults, that the overall level of support voiced by juveniles varied depending on the focus of the attitude question, that many juveniles selected the “neutral” response category and failed to voice positive or negative attitudes, and that many of the variables identified as being theoretically relevant in the literature on adult attitudes toward the police (e.g., contact with police, respondents’ races and genders, extent of victimiza-
tion) are also significant predictors of the attitudes of juveniles. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
During the past two decades politicians, social scientists, and police administrators have become in- creasingly concerned with the attitudes of citizens to- ward the police (Brandl et al., 1994; Brown & Coulter, 1983; Decker, 1981; Erez, 1984; Frank et al., 1996; Mastrofski, 1981; Percy, 1986). As evalua- tors and police practitioners have come to see citi- zens’ support both as an important outcome in its own right and as an essential element in the copro- duction of public safety, surveys of citizens have been incorporated increasingly into evaluations of police strategies (e.g., differential police response, community policing). Most of the research concern- ing citizens’ attitudes, unfortunately, has focused on assessing the attitudes of adults. In contrast, only a limited number of studies have examined the atti- tudes of juveniles toward the police.
This lack of research is unfortunate for several reasons. First, juveniles comprise a significant pro-
portion of the population subject to police contact and arrests (Snyder & Sickmund, 1996). Second, the police are usually the first, and only, criminal justice officials with whom juveniles have contact. To- gether, these points may be significant because con- tacts early in life may shape future relations between youths and the system (Winfree & Griffiths, 1977). If the relationship between attitudes toward the police and citizen willingness to engage in behaviors support- ive of the police, or in other words to act as coproduc- ers of public safety and security, is valid (Bell, 1979; Goldstein, 1987; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988; Stipak, 1979; Thomas & Hyman, 1977; Wycoff, 1988), then the attitudes of juveniles take on added importance.
Still, researchers have paid only limited attention to the attitudes of juveniles toward the police. This neglect is evident in the limited number of studies performed in this area (Clark & Wenninger, 1964; Giordano, 1976; Griffiths & Winfree, 1982; Leiber et al., 1998; Moretz, 1980; Rusinko et al., 1978; Win-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 618-453-5701; fax: 618-453-6377.
E-mail address
: [email protected] (Y.G. Hurst).
190
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
free & Griffiths, 1977). In addition, with the excep- tion of the study by Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth (1998), most of the existing studies are quite dated, failed to include variables that recent studies on atti- tudes toward the police have suggested are theoreti- cally relevant, and failed to subject their data to rigor- ous multivariate statistical techniques.
With these points in mind, this study expanded the existing literature by addressing three research questions. First, what is the overall level of support for the police among juveniles? Second, do variables commonly found to be statistically significant deter- minants of adult attitudes also explain juvenile atti- tudes toward the police? Third, and related, are there other factors than those within the adult literature that contribute to an explanation of juvenile attitudes?
Attitudes of juveniles toward the police
In 1904, noted African American scholar W. E. B. DuBois administered a questionnaire to 1,500 African American children from the Atlanta public school sys- tem and 500 students throughout Georgia, in an effort to assess their perceptions of the courts, police, and the justice system more generally (DuBois, 1904). DuBois’ findings on the police revealed that slightly more than a third of the students believed the purpose of the police was to arrest people, while only 20 per- cent said the police were there to protect people. When these same students were questioned about how they were treated by police officers, almost one-third of the students stated that the police were unkind, while an additional 40 percent voiced the opposite opinion (DuBois, 1904, p. 54). Since DuBois’ explo- ration of the beliefs of minority youth, there has been a surprisingly limited number of studies that have ex- amined the attitudes of juveniles toward the police.
A review of the limited research on juveniles’ atti- tudes indicates that several trends are apparent in the extant research. First, the earliest studies were con- cerned primarily with describing and comparing the at- titudes of juveniles toward separate agencies within the government and the criminal justice system, including the police (Clark & Wenninger, 1964; DuBois, 1904; Giordano, 1976). In the 1970s and early 1980s, atten- tion shifted to the examination of the attitudes of juve- niles toward just the police (Griffiths & Winfree, 1982; Moretz, 1980; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977), providing statistical evidence primarily in the form of correlations and frequencies. Quite recently, however, this body of research took a major step forward as Leiber and his colleagues (1998) conducted a rigorous assessment of the relationship between subculture theory and the atti- tudes of juveniles toward the police.
Second, several studies examined how maladjust- ment to authority, and the system contact that results from maladjustment, are related to negative attitudes toward legal institutions. Commitment to criminal or antisocial norms was initially found to be related to more negative ratings of legal institutions (Clark & Wenninger, 1964; Giordano, 1976). These two stud- ies did not subject their data to rigorous statistical techniques (only frequencies and correlations were provided), though their findings were confirmed by Leiber et al. (1998) in their assessment of the rela- tionship between subculture theory and the determi- nants of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police.
Third, a number of the juvenile attitudinal studies examined the variance in juveniles’ attitudes across social groups. These research studies explored the re- lationship between individual-level demographic characteristics and attitudes toward the police. In general, they found that respondents’ demographic characteristics were not consistently related to the at- titudes of juveniles. Two studies (Clark & Wen- ninger, 1964; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977) did not find that family economic status was related to the atti- tudes of juveniles toward the police. Juveniles’ gen- ders were not found to be statistically significant pre- dictors of attitudes (Moretz, 1980; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977), though Winfree and Griffiths did note that males were slightly more critical of the po- lice than females.
Findings concerning the influence of juveniles’ races on attitudes toward the police have been mixed. For example, Winfree and Griffiths (1977) noted that race had only a minimal effect on attitudes. Rusinko, Johnson, and Hornung (1978) reported that African American juveniles tended to give more negative as- sessments of the police than did White juveniles. Fi- nally, Leiber et al. (1998) found that respondents’ races were the strongest predictor of attitudes con- cerning police fairness and discrimination. In addi- tion, it was determined that juveniles’ races also had indirect effects through family economic status, juve- niles’ commitment to a delinquent subculture, and contact with the police.
Fourth, recent research assessing the attitudes of juveniles toward the police has focused attention on the relationship between contact with the police and the attitudes of juveniles. The findings concerning this relationship suggest that juvenile contact with the police is generally associated with more negative attitudes towards them (Griffiths & Winfree, 1982; Rusinko et al., 1978; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977). Leiber et al. (1998) noted that the nature of the police contact was important. In their study, with African American juveniles, respect for the police was dimin-
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
191
ished by contact that involved officers taking juve- niles to station houses for questioning, while being warned and released had the same diminishing effect for White juveniles.
Attitudes toward the police: expanding the literature on juveniles
With the exception of the study by Leiber and his colleagues (1998), studies on juveniles’ attitudes to- ward the police are dated and limited in number. Leiber et al. provided a rigorous test of the relation- ship between subculture theory and the attitudes of juveniles toward the police, and included in their models many variables found to be theoretically rele- vant in research on adult attitudes toward the police, though their analysis only included males that were “either accused of delinquency or adjudicated as de- linquent” (1998, p. 158). All of the males in their sample were youth that had contact with criminal jus- tice officials, including the police. As a result, it was valuable as a study that explored the formation of at- titudes toward the police by focusing on the relation- ship between juveniles’ social environments, delin- quent attitudes, and contacts with the police, though it could not generalize about the attitudes toward the police by youths in the community, because most of them had not been arrested and charged with some form of delinquency. In addition, Leiber et al. (1998) did not address the attitudes of females.
Merging attitudinal research on adults and juveniles
The present article builds on this recent work and examines the determinants of the attitudes of male and female juveniles toward the police. In order to achieve this objective, the study reexamined the find- ings in the juvenile literature and incorporated vari- ables from the adult literature that have been found to be significant predictors of the attitudes of adults to- ward the police. More specifically, the focus here was on the explanatory power of four types of vari- ables: demographic variables, crime-related mea- sures, police conduct variables, and confidence in the criminal justice system.
Demographic variables
The literature on citizen’s attitudes toward the po- lice has highlighted the relationship between individ- ual-level variables and attitudes toward the police. A fairly consistent finding in this line of research is that non-Whites (principally African Americans) are less satisfied with police services than Whites and, thus, hold less favorable attitudes toward the police (Al- brecht & Green, 1977; Cao et al., 1996; Decker,
1981; Furstenberg & Wellford, 1973; Jacob, 1971; Parks, 1984; Percy, 1981; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Smith & Hawkins, 1973).
1
The attitudes of non- Whites are often thought to result from two factors: minority members are more likely to have negative contact with the police and/or hold more negative at- titudes toward governmental authority (Skogan, 1991). Respondents’ races appear to be a consistent de- terminant of attitudes in the adult literature, though al- most half (42.9 percent) of the studies of juveniles’ atti- tudes failed to examine race as a possible determinant.
Existing research has also found that younger in- dividuals often possess less positive attitudes toward the police than older citizens (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Boggs & Galiher, 1965; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Smith & Hawkins, 1973). One explanation for this finding is that younger individuals are more likely to have hostile (antagonistic) contact with the police (Erez, 1984; Furstenberg & Wellford, 1973; Scaglion & Condon, 1980) and as people get older they tend to believe that the police play a legitimate role in protecting the status quo. One caution should be noted when discussing the relationship between respondents’ ages and juveniles’ attitudes. Prior re- search has compared the attitudes of younger adults (18–21 years old) with those of older individuals. The present study shed preliminary insight into the influence of age on the attitudes of juveniles younger than eighteen. The positive relationship found in the adult literature, therefore, may not persist.
Findings concerning the influence of gender on attitudes have been mixed. Apple and O’Brien (1983) found that females voice more positive evaluations of police than do males (see also: Thomas & Hyman, 1977). Boggs and Galiher (1965), however, found in their sample of African American respondents that gender was not a statistically significant predictor of attitudes.
Crime-related variables
Extant studies have found that individuals who have been victimized by criminal acts have less posi- tive attitudes toward the police than those without similar experiences (Dean, 1980; Homant et al., 1984; Koenig, 1980). In addition, a series of victimizations may have a more pronounced negative impact on evaluations than a single victimization (Brown & Coulter, 1983; Poister & McDavid, 1978). The juve- nile literature has failed to measure and assess the im- pact of prior victimizations on the attitudes of youth.
Perceptions of crime and police efforts to control criminal behavior may also influence attitudes to- ward the police. Stipak noted that respondents’ atti- tudes toward general neighborhood conditions may
192
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
influence levels of satisfaction with the police (1979). The impact of neighborhood conditions should be especially critical where the condition is one that citizens consider within the function and control of the police and involves an issue of concern to citizens (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Christenson & Taylor, 1983; Percy, 1981; 1986; Stipak, 1979). Citi- zens’ beliefs about whether the police are visible and effective in combating crime should have an influ- ence on their attitudes toward the police. The existing literature on juveniles has not concerned itself with variables of this nature.
Police conduct variables
The sole existing juvenile study that examined the explanatory power of contact with the police in a multivariate model found that it is a theoretically rel- evant predictor (see Leiber et al., 1998). This finding is consistent with the adult literature that has sug- gested that citizen experiences with the police greatly influence their attitudes toward police performance (Furstenberg & Wellford, 1973; Parks, 1984; Sca- glion & Condon, 1980; Rusinko et al., 1978; Zamble & Annesley, 1987). Several researchers concluded that experiences should have more predictive power than demographic variables (Koenig, 1980; Parks, 1984; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977), since without contact, people have much less information on which to base their attitudes (Brown & Coulter, 1983).
When assessing the relationship between contact with the police and attitudes, it is critical to measure two dimensions of the police-citizen encounter. First, it is important to examine who initiated the contact (Dean, 1980; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Skogan, 1991). Second, citizens’ assessments of their experi- ences with the police are also of utmost importance (Percy, 1986; Scaglion & Condon, 1980). The mag- nitude of the assessments’ effect often varies depend- ing upon whether the contact is positively or nega- tively evaluated, with negative evaluations usually having a greater effect (Brandl et al., 1994; Dean, 1980; Erez, 1984; Mastrofski, 1981; Skogan, 1991).
Measures used in the extant juvenile research con- cerning contacts with the police were either too gen- eral or erroneously operationalized. Neither Giordano (1976) nor Winfree and Griffiths (1977) accounted for citizens’ evaluations of officer behavior during en- counters. Leiber et al. (1998), for two of their three contact variables, measured frequency of each type of contact (taken to the police station and warned and re- leased) and not juveniles’ assessments of officer be- havior. Their third contact variable asked juveniles if they were wrongly accused by the police, which im- plied evaluative assessments of officer behavior.
The adult literature also suggested that persons knowing of police misconduct experienced by others will have less positive attitudes toward the police. (Dean, 1980; Koenig, 1980; Murty et al., 1990; Smith & Hawkins, 1973). This presumably occurs because knowledge of the negative experience of another pro- vides unfavorable information that is cognitively ac- cessed when voicing attitudes toward the police.
Levels of support for the police: examining the adult literature
One consistent finding in the literature on the atti- tudes of adults toward the police has been that most people voice favorable attitudes, irrespective of the focus of the attitude question or the response catego- ries (e.g., level of satisfaction, whether police did a good job, etc.). Brandl, Frank, Wooldredge, and Wat- kins (1997) found that 80 percent of their sample was satisfied with the police, while Frank et al. (1996) re- ported that approximately 65 percent of their sample was at least somewhat satisfied with the police. Fa- vorable attitudes toward the police have also been re- ported when adults were asked about whether the “po- lice do a good job.” Albrecht and Green (1977) determined that 60 percent of their sample agreed with this statement, and 80 percent of the Reiss (1971) sample said the police do a “good or fairly good” job. Finally, 75 percent of the adults surveyed by Albrecht and Green (1977) said that they respect the police, and White and Menke (1982) determined that 84.1 per- cent of their sample said the police were competent.
The specific attitudes reported for adults in prior studies follow a similar pattern; namely, adults voiced favorable attitudes. For example, Cao et al. (1996) found that 81.9 percent of their sample of adults agreed that police do a good job protecting them against crime (see also: Brandl et al., 1997). Dean (1980) determined that between 72 and 85 per- cent of the sample were satisfied with police behavior during recent contact with the police (see also: Brandl & Horvath, 1991; Furstenberg & Wellford, 1973; Jacob, 1971). Finally, Frank et al. (1996) reported that 46.7 percent of their White respondents and 30.9 percent of their Black respondents believed that the police do a good job controlling the sale and use of drugs.
Method
Study sample
Data for this study were collected using self- administered surveys distributed to high school stu- dents in and around Cincinnati, Ohio. The sample consisted of ninth through twelfth graders enrolled in
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
193
two Cincinnati public schools and one Hamilton County public school. Students attending Cincinnati public schools generally reside within the city limits, while students attending Hamilton County public schools generally reside outside the city limits but within the county in which Cincinnati is located. A total of 510 students attending two city public schools and 342 students from a county public school completed the survey (
n
5
852). All but six of the sample students returned usable surveys for a re- sponse rate of 99.3 percent.
Surveys were administered in the spring of 1996, by either classroom teachers or the first author and her colleagues. In one city public school and in the county public school the survey was administered by a member of the research team and each survey packet contained a letter introducing the project. In the remaining city public school the surveys, with cover letters attached, were distributed by teachers. Each county survey packet contained the same cover letter that was distributed to the Cincinnati students.
The characteristics of the study sample were: 62.9 percent White Americans, 30.3 percent Black, 1.1 percent Asian, 1 percent Hispanic, and 4.7 percent other; 46.5 percent male and 53.5 percent female; the mean age of respondents was 16.7 years; the average grade level was eleventh; and 60 percent were stu- dents in the Cincinnati Public School System (urban schools), while 40 percent attended the county school.
Measures
In accordance with the objectives of this study, the survey of juveniles was designed to collect data on the attitudes of juveniles toward the police and the determinants of those attitudes. An overview of the de- pendent and independent variables used in the analysis follows.
Dependent variables: attitudes toward the police
Eleven survey items asked juveniles about their attitudes toward the police. The police referent varied in these eleven questions. For instance, some ques- tions asked the respondents to evaluate the police in their neighborhood, others asked about the police in the city of Cincinnati or just mentioned the police without providing a specific referent. This approach was taken for two reasons. First, many students travel across the city (e.g., going to and from school) and might have contact with officers in their neighbor- hood as well as officers throughout the city. Second, varying the referent might bring other police officers to the attention of respondents. Recent research sug- gested that similar cues were used when formulating responses to questions, which vary the referent
(Brandl, et al., 1997). The answers of respondents to survey items, therefore, were likely to be premised on their perceptions of all police officers the they had in- formation about. Respondents used a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to rate each of the eleven attitudinal items.
Following the lead of Brandl et al. (1994) and White and Menke (1982), both global attitudes and attitudes about specific police functions were mea- sured (see Easton, 1965).
2
The four global attitude questions were: (1) In general, I trust the police; (2) In general, I am satisfied with the police in my neigh- borhood; (3) In general, police officers do a good job; and (4) In general, I like the police. Responses to these four attitudinal items were summed to create a global attitude scale, with high scores indicating more positive attitudes toward the police (Cron- bach’s
a
5
.887).
3
The remaining seven survey items were used to create the specific attitude measure. The specific items were: “The police will help you if your car is broken down and you need help. . . . The police do a good job of stopping people from selling drugs. . . . The police do a good job of stopping people from us- ing drugs. . . . The police do a good job in keeping my neighborhood quiet at night. . . . The police do a good job of stopping crime. . . . If the police see someone who is sick and needs help, they will do their best to help them. . . . [and] The police do a good job in stopping people from hanging around on street corners and causing trouble.” Responses to these seven items were also summed, with higher scores indicating more positive beliefs about police performance of specific police functions (
a
5
.794).
4
A final scale that included all eleven attitudinal items was also created. This scale measured the over- all attitudes of juveniles toward the police. The reli- ability coefficient for this scale was (
a
5
.872).
5
Independent variables
One objective of the present study was to explore the determinants of juveniles’ attitudes toward the po- lice. This research explored the effects of those vari- ables, which prior attitude research has suggested are theoretically relevant. Several of these variables have been examined infrequently in prior juvenile attitude research, while others have not been examined at all.
Demographic variables
Survey responses were used to collect data on four respondent characteristics. First, respondents’ races were coded as 0
5
White, 1
5
non-White.
6
Second, age was measured as the juveniles’ ages in year when they completed the survey instrument.
194
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
Third, respondents’ genders were coded as 0
5
male and 1
5
female. Fourth, where the respondents at- tended school was collected as a proxy for whether the juveniles lived within the city’s limits, which is required to attend the city school, or in the county.
7
Crime-related variable
Survey items were used to determine the extent of victimization suffered by respondents, since it has been suggested that prior victimizations, and espe- cially a series of victimizations influence attitudes to- ward the police. Juveniles were asked, “During the last year, from May of last year to now, have any of the following crimes been committed against you person- ally?”—“Someone broke into your house. . . . You had property stolen from your house or yard. . . . Some- one stole, broke into your/the family car. . . . Someone took your purse or wallet while you were on the street. . . . Someone threatened to beat you up or threatened you with a knife, gun, or other weapon. . . . Someone actually beat you up (in a fight you didn’t start). . . . [or] Some other crime not mentioned here happened to you.” Affirmative responses to these questions were summed to create a total victim- ization score (mean
5
1.288). Police activities aimed at preventing victimiza-
tions were operationalized by two variables. Respon- dents were asked, “On a normal day, how likely is it that you will see a police officer in your neighbor- hood?” A second question asked about the likelihood of seeing an officer in other parts of the city. Re- sponse options were: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, and very unlikely.
Two additional questions were used to assess ju- veniles’ perceptions of crime within their neighbor- hoods. First, they were asked to compare crime rates in their neighborhood to other neighborhoods with the response options being: lower than most, about the same, and higher than most. Second, they were questioned about whether they felt crime had in- creased, stayed the same, or decreased in their neigh- borhoods.
Police conduct variables
Survey items were constructed to allow an assess- ment of both the initiators of the police-citizen en- counters and the citizens’ perceptions of officer be- havior during the interactions. Each juvenile was first asked if he/she had experienced a personal encounter with a police officer as a result of: (1) victimization, (2) asking for information, (3) asking for help with a problem other than something involving a crime, (4) being stopped while standing on the street, (5) being stopped while driving or riding in a car, (6) being ar- rested, (7) talking to an officer for no special reason
on the street, and (8) talking to an officer for no spe- cial reason while in school. For each type of contact the juveniles said they had experienced, they were asked to rate how they were treated during the prob- lems, incidents, or encounters. Response options were: very poor, poor, good, and very good.
The responses to the police contact questions were used to create four variables. First, the type of contact was examined to determine whether the en- counter was initiated by a police officer or citizen. Second, the citizen’s evaluation of the officer’s be- havior was used to determine whether the interaction had been positively evaluated or not. There were, therefore, two variables denoting positive police en- counters: (1) police initiated contact wherein juve- niles reported good or very good treatment, and (2) citizen initiated contact wherein juveniles reported good or very good treatment. There were also two variables denoting negative police encounters: (1) police initiated contact in which juveniles believed they were treated in a poor or very poor manner, and (2) citizen initiated contact in which juveniles be- lieved they were treated in a poor or very poor manner.
8
Vicarious conduct involved police officer behav- ior with a third party that was seen or heard about by the respondent. This variable was operationalized through a series of questions that first asked juveniles if they had seen any of the following practices of the police being directed at a citizen: impolite or rude treatment, unfair treatment when making an arrest, physical abuse, covering up another officer’s wrong- doing, taking sides in an argument between citizens, and an officer not performing required duties. A sec- ond series of questions repeated the same practices of the police and asked respondents if they had heard about officer behavior involving each of these types of conduct. Affirmative responses were then summed to measure the respondents’ extent of vicarious infor- mation about police misconduct.
9
Findings
Two strategies were utilized to examine the atti- tudes of juveniles toward the police. First, the fre- quencies to the eleven attitudinal items were exam- ined to assess the extent of support the police enjoy. Second, to explore the determinants of juveniles’ atti- tudes toward the police, the results of multivariate analyses are presented.
Overall level of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police
Table 1 displays the distribution of responses to the eleven attitudes toward the police measures. The responses indicate that there is not widespread sup-
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
195
port for the police among juveniles in the sample and that their level of support varies depending upon the focus of the attitudinal question. For example, in re- sponse to the general attitude items less than 40 per- cent of the respondents voiced favorable attitudes to any of these measures. In particular, 39.8 percent of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “In general, I trust the police,” while 38.8 percent agreed that they are “satisfied with the police in their neighborhoods.” Thirty-eight percent be- lieved the police are doing “a good job” and slightly less than one-third (31.9 percent) of the respondents agreed that, “In general, I like the police.”
The specific police function attitude items elicited varying levels of support depending on the police function that was the focus of the measure. Four of the measures tapping juvenile attitudes about specific police functions elicited attitudes that were less posi- tive than the general attitudes. This pattern however, was reversed for three other specific service-related functions. Only 6.8 percent of the juveniles agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, that “The police do a good job of stopping people from selling drugs,” while only 5 percent of the teenagers surveyed agreed that police officers “do a good job of stopping people from using drugs.” On a more positive note— though still evidence of less than widespread favor- able attitudes—20.4 percent of the respondents be- lieved that the police do a “good job of stopping peo-
ple from hanging around on street corners and causing trouble,” and 19.6 percent agreed that the po- lice “do a good job of stopping crime” (Table 1).
The most favorable specific attitudes involved measures of three police service functions. Slightly more than 40 percent (42.1) of the respondents said the police do a “good job keeping their neighbor- hoods quiet at night.” In addition, almost half of those sampled (49.4 percent) agreed that the police will help you if your car is broken down, and 52.4 per- cent responded favorably to the statement that the po- lice will be of assistance to sick persons in need of help.
One final note is in order concerning juveniles’ atti- tudes toward the police. The “neutral” response option was either the most, or second most, commonly selected response category for all but two of the attitudinal items (buying and selling drugs). One could therefore argue that juveniles do not express overwhelming disagree- ment with the attitudinal items either. The critical find- ing displayed in Table 1 is that there is not the overall widespread support for the police that others have found in extant studies of adult attitudes toward the police.
In order to assess the sample’s level of support more closely, the responses to the attitudinal ques- tions were reexamined, this time excluding those ju- veniles that selected the neutral response category (Table 2). A majority of respondents agreed with seven of the ten attitudinal statements, though in only two instances do the percentages (76.8 percent and
Table 1 Juvenile level of support for the police
a
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly agree x
General In general, I trust the police. 11.0 16.6 32.7 32.9 6.9 3.078 In general, I like the police. 16.4 15.3 36.4 24.2 7.7 2.914 In general, I am satisfied with the police in
my neighborhood. 14.0 19.6 27.6 29.4 9.4 3.006 In general, police officers do a good job. 8.0 15.9 38.0 30.6 7.4 3.135
Specific The police do a good job of stopping crime. 14.7 26.4 39.3 16.5 3.1 2.668 The police do a good job of stopping people
from using drugs. 45.5 35.0 14.6 3.8 1.2 1.802 The police do a good job of stopping people
from selling drugs. 42.8 32.6 17.8 5.4 1.4 1.901 The police do a good job in keeping my
neighborhood quiet at night. 15.1 17.6 25.0 28.2 14.0 3.085 The police will help you if your car is broken
down and you need help. 5.8 15.6 29.2 38.6 10.8 3.333 If the police see someone who is sick and
needs help, they will do their best to help. 3.2 12.6 31.8 39.3 13.1 3.465
a
Figures represent percents.
N
5
848.
196
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
69.8 percent) rival those reported in research on adults. Both of these attitudinal statements address support for police performance of service functions (the police will help someone sick and help if your car is broken down). The responses to the remaining three attitudinal items suggest substantial disagree- ment with the statements (94.2 percent, 91.7 percent, and 67.8 percent, respectively). In addition, 49.9 per- cent of the respondents disagreed with the statement that they “liked the police.”
Due to variation in question focus, response catego- ries, and the police referent, exact comparisons be- tween this study’s findings and those existing in prior research on adults were impossible. At the same time, some comparisons were still proper and infer that juve- niles in the current sample do not support the police to the same extent as adults. For example, Cao et al. (1996) found that 81.9 percent of their respondents be- lieved the police do a good job protecting them against crime, while in the current sample only 32.2 percent of the juveniles said the police “do a good job stopping crime.” Frank and his colleagues (1996) found that 46.7 percent of their White respondents and 30.9 per-
cent of their Black respondents believed that the police do a good job controlling the sale and use of drugs. The proportion of youth in the present study that agreed with the statement asking about police performance in stopping people from using drugs was a mere 5.8 per- cent, and only 8.3 percent agreed that the police do a good job stopping the sale of drugs (Table 2). Finally, Albrecht and Green (1977) reported that 60 percent of their sample and 80 percent of the adults in the sample by Reiss (1971) said the police do a “good or fairly good” job, while 61.4 percent of the juveniles in this study agreed with a similar statement about the police.
Multivariate analyses
To assess whether various demographic, crime- related, and police conduct variables influence juve- niles’ attitudes toward the police, three regression equations were estimated. The dependent variable in the overall equation was the scale created using all eleven attitudinal measures. Consistent with prior re- search, an equation using the general attitude scale as the dependent variable and another equation using the attitude toward performance of specific police func- tions scale as the dependent variable were estimated. Table 3 contains the results of these analyses. The findings are presented by examining the three sets of explanatory variables, because of the consistent effects of many of the variables across the three equations. A correlation matrix was also computed: No correlations among the independent variables were high enough to suggest the presence of multicollinearity (Table 4).
Demographic variables
The school system variable was significantly re- lated to all three attitudinal measures with urban stu- dents more likely to express less favorable attitudes than students attending suburban schools. The three re- maining demographic variables exerted less consistent effects, though each (age, gender, and race) was signif- icant in at least two of the equations (Table 3). Respon- dents’ ages and genders were significant in the overall attitude equation and the specific attitude equation, and females were more likely to express less favorable atti- tudes than males. On the other hand, respondents’ races were significant in the overall and general atti- tude equations. The direction of the variables’ coeffi- cients indicates that for these two equations, non- Whites (primarily African American students) voice less positive attitudes than White students.
Crime-related variables
As can be seen in Table 3, only two of the five crime-related variables were significant in any of the estimated equations. The variable regarding compari- sons by juveniles of crime in their neighborhoods
Table 2 Juvenile level of support for the police excluding neutral respondents
a
Disagree
b
Agree
General In general, I trust police. 41.1 59.9 In general, I like the police. 49.9 50.1 In general, I am satisfied with
the police in my neighborhood. 46.4 53.6 In general, police officers do a
good job. 38.6 61.4 Specific
The police do a good job of stopping crime. 67.8 32.2
The police do a good job of stopping people from using drugs. 94.2 5.8
The police do a good job of stopping people from selling drugs. 91.7 8.3
The police do a good job in keeping my neighborhood quiet at night. 43.6 56.4
The police will help you if your car is broken down and you need help. 30.2 69.8
If the police see someone who is sick and needs help, they will do their best to help. 23.2 76.8
a
Figures represent percents.
b
The disagree category includes strongly disagree and disagree, while the agree category includes both strongly agree and agree.
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
197
versus other neighborhoods was statistically signifi- cant in all three equations. In addition, the beta coef- ficient in the specific attitude equation indicated that it exerts the second greatest effect of the included variables on these attitudes, while on the overall atti- tude scale it exerts the third largest impact. In con- trast, respondents’ perceptions of whether crime is increasing or decreasing in their own neighborhoods did not exert a significant effect in any of the esti- mated equations (Table 3). It appears that juveniles engage in comparative assessments of officer ability to control crime and hold police responsible when they see crime worsening in their own neighborhoods as compared to other areas of town.
A significant effect was also found for the extent of victimization variable, as it was significant in two of the attitudinal equations and the direction of each of the coefficients was negative as suspected. Increases in the number of victimizations were related to having less fa- vorable overall and general attitudes toward the police. The two visibility variables (visibility outside and within respondents’ neighborhoods), however, were not significant in any of the three attitudinal equations.
Police conduct variables
The findings presented in Table 3 also provide par- tial support for the contention that evaluations of po- lice-citizen encounters are predictors of attitudes. Two of the contact variables were significant across all cat-
egories (police-initiated negative contact and citizen- initiated positive contact), while two of the contact variables were not significant in any of the equations (police-initiated positive contact and citizen-initiated negative contact). Those juveniles stopped or arrested by police and treated, in their perception, poorly or very poorly were less positive in their attitudes. On the other hand, juveniles who initiated contact with the po- lice and viewed the police behavior in the encounter as good or very good were more likely to hold favorable attitudes toward the police. The beta coefficients for these two contact variables indicate that they exert substantial influence on all of the attitude scales.
There were also consistent effects for the vicari- ous conduct variable across all three attitudinal equa- tions. Teenagers with higher scores on the vicarious conduct scale (saw or heard more types of improper police behavior involving other people) reported less positive attitudes toward the police in each model. The beta coefficients in each instance indicate that this variable exerts the greatest effect, of the included vari- ables, on each of the three attitude scales (Table 3).
Discussion and conclusion
This study examined the attitudes toward the po- lice of a rarely studied population—juveniles. This is unfortunate because juveniles comprise a substantial
Table 3 Determinants of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police
Overall General Specific
b Beta b Beta b Beta
Demographic Age .506* .060 .099 .024 .414** .069 Race
2
1.632**
2
.099
2
1.017***
2
.111
2
.554
2
.055 Gender
2
1.342**
2
.083
2
.324
2
.041
2
1.013***
2
.104 School
2
1.396**
2
.086
2
.475*
2
.060
2
.954**
2
.097 Crime related
Victimization
2
.401*
2
.065
2
.231*
2
.078
2
.177
2
.048 Crime within neighborhood
2
.191
2
.020 .038 .008
2
.214
2
.038 Crime out of neighborhood
2
1.641***
2
.143
2
.588***
2
.105
2
1.095***
2
.158 Visible within neighborhood .191 .026 .013 .003 .17 .039 Visible out of neighborhood
2
.368
2
.032
2
.081
2
.015
2
.286
2
.041 Police conduct
Police initiative positive .385 .035 .141 .026 .244 .037 Police initiative negative
2
1.438***
2
.207
2
.897***
2
.267
2
.521*** 2.124 Citizen initiative positive .765*** .183 .419*** .206 .357*** .141 Citizen initiative negative 2.328 2.037 2.231 2.054 2.089 .016 Vicarious conduct 21.044*** 2.356 2.499*** 2.352 2.554*** 2.314
Adjusted R2 .408 .459 .281 N 818 819 820
*p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.
198 Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
T ab
le 4
C or
re la
tio n
m at
ri x
of v
ar ia
bl es
in a
na ly
si s
(N 5
8 48
)
V ar
ia bl
e 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
1. A
ge 1.
00 2.
R ac
e 2
.0 7
1. 00
3. G
en de
r .0
2 .0
7 1.
00 4.
S ch
oo l
2 .0
8 .4
9* *
.0 1
1. 00
5. V
ic tim
2 .0
4 .0
1 2
.0 8
.3 4*
* 1.
00 6.
C ri
m e
w ith
in 2
.0 2
.0 3
.0 5
.0 4
.0 9
1. 00
7. C
ri m
e ou
ts id
e .0
2 .1
6* *
.0 1
.1 9*
* .2
3* *
.2 5*
* 1.
00 8.
V is
ib le
w ith
in .0
3 .2
8* *
2 .0
6 .3
5* *
.1 9*
* .1
0 .3
4* *
1. 00
9. V
is ib
le o
ut o
f .0
5 2
.0 3
2 .0
4 .0
2 .1
8* *
.0 5
2 .0
3 .2
2* *
1. 00
10 . P
ol ic
e in
iti at
iv e
po si
tiv e
.0 3
.0 1
.0 5
2 .0
1 .0
5 .0
1 .0
4 .0
4 2
.0 2
1. 00
11 . P
ol ic
e in
iti at
iv e
ne ga
tiv e
2 .0
1 .0
4 2
.2 1*
* .0
5 .3
2* *
.0 7
.1 0*
.2 2*
* .1
1* 2
.2 1*
* 1.
00 12
. C iti
ze n
in iti
at iv
e po
si tiv
e .0
1 .0
1 .0
4 .0
2 .1
1* *
.0 3
2 .0
1 .0
4 .0
8 .2
0* *
2 .0
4 1.
00 13
. C iti
ze n
in iti
at iv
e ne
ga tiv
e .0
9 2
.0 2
2 .0
4 2
.0 1
.2 9*
* 2
.0 6
.0 9*
.1 0*
.0 2
2 .0
4 .1
6* *
2 .0
1 1.
00 14
. V ic
ar io
us 2
.0 3
.2 5*
* 2
.0 7
.1 4*
* .3
5* *
.0 9
.1 6*
* .1
9* *
.0 9*
2 .0
8 .3
8* *
.2 2*
* .2
2* *
1. 00
15 . C
on fi
de nc
e in
c ri
m in
al ju
st ic
e .0
3 2
.0 7
.0 6
.0 1
2 .1
1* .0
9 2
.1 1*
* 2
.1 *
2 .0
1 2
.1 2
2 .1
8* *
2 .0
6 2
.1 2*
* 2
.1 9*
* 1.
00
R 2
.0 3
.3 .0
6 .3
.2 5
.0 7
.1 9
.3 0
.0 9
.1 1
.2 7
.0 7
.1 2
.2 7
.0 7
*p ,
.0 1;
* *p
, .0
01 .
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202 199
portion of the population likely to have contact with the police (Snyder & Sickmund, 1996), attitudes formed early in life are likely to persist over time, and these attitudes may influence both teenager will- ingness to act as coproducers of public safety and their behavior during encounters with the police (Bell, 1979; Goldstein, 1987; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988; Stipak, 1979; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977). In order to explore the attitudes of juveniles two ap- proaches were used. First, the extent of support for the police among the study sample was examined. Next, the determinants of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police were explored.
Level of support
The findings concerning level of support for the police indicated that juveniles do not express wide- spread support for the police, and more importantly, not the level of support extant studies have found for adults. When all the responses were considered less than 40 percent (Table 1) of the respondents agreed with any of the general attitude items about liking the police, being satisfied with them, or trusting them. A higher proportion of the sample (42.2 to 52.4 per- cent) agreed with specific attitudinal measures that concerned helpful or truly service roles of the police (keeping the neighborhood quiet at night, helping people with car problems, and helping sick people), while the percent who agreed plummeted when the fo- cus of the attitudinal items addressed controlling the use and sale of drugs (5 percent and 6.8 percent, re- spectively), stopping crime (19.6 percent), and keeping people from hanging out on the streets (20.4 percent).
In addition, a substantial minority of youths dis- agreed with these same attitudinal items and reported negative attitudes toward the police (Table 1). Exclud- ing the two drug-related items, which admittedly are unique issues of concern, the proportion of juveniles that expressed unfavorable beliefs about the police ranged from 15.8 to 44.1 percent. In addition, between 25 percent and 39.3 percent were neutral. The result is that the police are likely to encounter, on a fairly regu- lar basis, youths who are not favorable to them.
The present findings refute those of White and Menke (1982), and others who contended that citi- zens overall express positive attitudes toward the po- lice. In only one instance did the youth in this study report more favorable attitudes than those reported in the extant literature on adults: Albrecht and Green (1977) determined that 60 percent of their sample agreed with the statement that police do a good job, while 61.4 percent of the current respondents agreed with a similar statement. At the same time however, 80 percent of the sample studied by Reiss (1971) said
the police do a “good or fairly good” job. Overall, the findings in the present study indicate that juveniles did not express widespread support for the police, thus efforts directed at increasing support for the po- lice and involving juveniles in the coproduction pro- cess may be quite difficult and challenging for police agencies. Albrecht and Green (1977) stated two de- cades ago that any policy aimed at changing attitudes toward the police, independent of changing attitudes toward the system as a whole, may be ineffective.10
Realizing that the police do not function in a vacuum, and are the representatives of a system many juve- niles are likely to have contact with, policies and pro- grams should be developed that focus on changing not only perceptions of the police but also percep- tions of the system as a whole. Whether this effort entails having a representative of each agency of the system act as community liaison, it is imperative that the police along with other agents engage in nonad- versarial contact (see Table 1 for attitudes regarding police performance of purely service or helpful func- tions) with juveniles in an effort to educate them about their purpose and function.
Future research might examine why the attitudes of juveniles are not as favorable toward the police as are those reported for adults. This could be accom- plished through intensive interviews with small sam- ples of juveniles from various social groups. Loosely structured interviews that permit respondents to pro- vide information on their expectations of the police during encounters, their beliefs about the police role, their perceptions of police practices, and their expec- tations of what the police should accomplish may al- low a better and more complete understanding of the belief systems of juveniles. In addition, this informa- tion may prove useful to police administrators and community leaders involved in improving percep- tions of the police. At a minimum, it may be valuable to those involved in educating the public about the nature and content of police work.
Finally, if the present findings in the adult litera- ture are correct and generalizable to the juveniles in this study, then it appears that the attitudes of minor- ity youth may actually improve over time and ap- proach the more positive ratings of minority adults. This is noted because as the aforementioned studies suggested, most adults are positive in their overall at- titudes toward the police
Determinants of juveniles’ attitudes
In an effort to advance the literature on the atti- tudes of juveniles toward the police, three regression equations that included variables, which extant re- search has suggested are theoretically relevant were
200 Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
estimated (see also: Leiber et al., 1998). This tech- nique permitted an examination of the influence of variables that extant studies on juveniles have not ad- dressed, but also allowed for a rigorous reexamina- tion of the sources of the attitudes of youths.
Several variables exerted consistent and strong ef- fects across all three equations. First, three of the po- lice conduct variables were significant in the general, specific, and overall attitude equations. Seeing or hearing about police misconduct directed at third par- ties (vicarious conduct) was not only significant across all models, but also exerted the greatest impact on attitudes toward the police. Police-initiated con- tacts that were negatively evaluated by juveniles and citizen-initiated contacts that were positively evalu- ated also were significant in all three equations.
These findings confirm recent studies in the adult literature (Brandl et al., 1994; Dean, 1980; Erez, 1984, Homant et al., 1984; Skogan, 1991) that found it is the citizens’ evaluation of police behavior during an encounter that is critical, and that negatively and positively evaluated encounters do not exert equal ef- fects. The present study provides the first insight into whether these findings hold true when the attitudes of juveniles are explored. Officer behavior is critical not only during face-to-face encounters with citizens, but also during encounters with other citizens where the individual doing the evaluating acquires the informa- tion through vicarious contact. Police departments could gather feedback from citizens experiencing re- cent encounters to isolate those behaviors that lead to positive or negative evaluations. Once this initial step is completed, the police could take a proactive stance to remedy problems that exist, or make adjustments to their procedures as necessary, which in turn could affect the overall attitudes citizens hold toward the police.
Second, one of the crime-related variables and one demographic variable exerted consistent effects across the equations. In particular, respondents’ com- parisons of crime in their neighborhoods to crime elsewhere exerted a consistent significant effect on each of the attitudinal measures. Those juveniles who believed that crime was worse in their communities than other communities held less favorable attitudes toward the police. At the same time, the crime vari- able measuring juveniles’ perception of crime condi- tions solely in their own neighborhoods was not sig- nificant. The youths in the present study appear to hold the police responsible for what they perceive as a worsening of conditions in their own neighbor- hoods when they make comparative assessments, but do not hold the police responsible for conditions gen- erally where they reside. It therefore appears that these juveniles may hold the police responsible for
not engaging in the same enforcement efforts in their communities as in other neighborhoods—almost as if their neighborhoods are receiving less than is neces- sary to maintain themselves. It should also be noted that the extent of victimization experiences during the prior year was a significant predictor of overall and general attitudes. Juveniles apparently hold the police responsible for protecting them from actually being victimized.
Finally, the present study also found that teenag- ers residing within the city and attending city public schools (urban sample) assessed the police less posi- tively than juveniles attending the suburban public school. This finding was consistent across all three attitudinal variables. In addition, this finding is con- sistent with prior adult research (Albrecht & Green, 1977; Jacob, 1971).
Consistent with prior research, the influence of re- spondents’ demographic characteristics on attitudes was examined. Similar to the findings from the adult literature, racial minorities were more likely to hold less positive attitudes toward the police than Whites. These attitudes apparently form quite early in life for many minority youth. Females, in the sample were also less likely to hold positive overall and specific attitudes toward the police. One possible explanation for this finding is the fact that girls were more likely to have heard of police misconduct, which was also related to less favorable attitudes. It appears that vi- carious misconduct had a substantial influence on the attitudes of females toward the police.
The present study sample suffers from several possible limitations. First, the sample consisted only of students in a single Midwestern metropolitan area. Expanding the sample to include juveniles in rural ar- eas who may have had different experiences with the police or have different expectations of the police, may influence the findings. The findings presented here received support in the literature on the attitudes of adults toward the police and are not counterintui- tive. It is expected that future research will provide additional support for these findings. Whether this is correct of course, remains an empirical question.
Second, the sample was comprised only of public school students. Studies should be performed that in- clude juveniles who are not only enrolled in public schools, but also private, vocational, and alternative schools. Future samples might also include juveniles who are under state custody. Perhaps the social and economic experiences of juveniles under state cus- tody or in private schools, may differ significantly from other teenagers. The variables that determine these youths’ attitudes may be different from the variables found to be statistically significant in this
Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202 201
study, though early indications are that the same de- terminants would remain predictors (Leiber et al., 1998). In any case, results from a more diverse sam- ple would be much more generalizable to the atti- tudes of the juvenile population as a whole.
Notes
1. For a contrary finding see Frank et al. (1996) where African Americans were found to have more positive atti- tudes toward the police than White respondents. This find- ing was attributed to the situational context of the study site.
2. The eleven attitudinal items were factor analyzed and produced two significant factors with eigenvalues of 5.168 and 1.534. All of the remaining factors were below .859. The attitudinal items that loaded on the first factor were used to create the general scale, while those loading on the second comprised the specific scale. To permit compari- sons to recent research, an overall scale was also created using all eleven attitudinal items.
3. Respondents that failed to answer any single gen- eral attitude item were deleted from the analysis (n 5 8). Scale scores were summed and ranged from 4 to 20, with a mean score of 12.13.
4. The same eight respondents that failed to answer the general attitude items also failed to complete these seven attitudinal statements. Scale scores ranged from 7 to 35, with a mean score of 18.9.
5. Scale scores ranged from 11 to 55 with a mean score of 31.05.
6. Respondents that selected a response category other than White or African American were coded as non-White. This was done for two reasons. First, initial cross-tabula- tions indicated that their responses were very similar to African Americans. Second, in the study site only African Americans were a recognized minority for purposes of fed- eral laws.
7. Attempts were made to collect family incomes. Respondents were asked whether in the past year the heads of their households had been unemployed and whether their households had received social services such as AFDC, food stamps, and public housing. In addition, juveniles were asked about the highest level of education attained by either parents or guardians with whom they currently reside. Due to missing responses these variables were deleted from these analyses.
8. For each variable, respondents who did not have contact received scores of 0. In addition, respondents that had evaluated their encounters in a direction that was con- trary to the constructed variable (evaluated positively when the variable represented negative evaluations or vice versa) were also coded as 0 (see Dean, 1980; Frank et al., 1996; Mastrofski, 1981).
9. More respondents indicated that they had heard about police misconduct than had actually seen misconduct occurring. The proportion of juveniles that responded affir- matively to the five “saw” police misconduct items ranged from 24.2 percent (saw police cover up for misconduct of fellow officers) to 68.8 percent (saw police being rude or impolite to someone). The “heard” about misconduct items ranged from 55.6 percent (police inappropriately taking sides in an argument) to 86.3 percent (police making rude or impolite statements).
10. Equations that included a confidence in the criminal justice variable were also estimated (the results were not presented). This variable was created by summing respon- dents’ scores on four questions and was a proxy for confi- dence in governmental authority. There were concerns about whether “confidence in the system” was more appro- priate as a dependent variable and whether it was proper to predict confidence in the police with a measure that was substantively similar to itself, therefore, it was deleted from the analysis. It should be noted that when the confidence variable was included in the regression equations, it was one of the strongest predictors and the adjusted r-squares of the equations increased.
References
Albrecht, S., & Green, M. (1977). Attitudes toward the po- lice and the larger attitude complex: implications for po- lice-community relationships. Crim 15(1), 67–86.
Apple, N., & O’Brien, D. (1983). Neighborhood racial com- position and residents’ evaluation of police perfor- mance. Am Soc Rev 11, 76–84.
Bell, D. J. (1979). Police and public opinion. J Police Sci & Admin 7(2), 196–205.
Boggs, S. L., & Galiher, S. F. (1965). Evaluating the police: a comparison of Black street and household respon- dents. Soc Probs 13, 393–406.
Brandl, S., & Horvath, F. (1991). Crime victim evaluation of police investigative performance. J Crime & Just 19, 293–305.
Brandl, S., Frank, J., Worden, R., & Bynum, T. (1994). Glo- bal and specific attitudes toward the police: disentan- gling the relationship. Just Quart 11, 119–134.
Brandl, S., Frank, J., Wooldredge, J., & Watkins, R. C. (1997). On the measurement of public support for the police: a research note. Policing: An Int J of Police Strat & Mgmt 20(3), 473–480.
Brown, K., & Coulter, P. (1983). Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Admin Rev 43, 50–58.
Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. (1996). Race, community context, and confidence in the police. Am J Police 15(1), 3–22.
Clark, J., & Wenninger, E. (1964). The attitudes of juve- niles toward the legal institution. J Crim Law, Crim, & Police Sci 55, 482–489.
Christenson, J., & Taylor, G. S. (1983). The socially con- structed and situational context for assessment of police services. Soc Sci Quart 63, 264–274.
Dean, D. (1980). Citizen ratings of the police: the difference police contact makes. Law & Policy Quart 2, 445–471.
Decker, S. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: a re- view of past findings and suggestions for future police. J Police Sci & Admin 9(1), 80–87.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1904). Some Notes on Negro Crime, Par- ticularly in Georgia. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press.
Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. En- glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Erez, E. (1984). Self-defined “desert” and citizens’ assess-
202 Y.G. Hurst, J. Frank / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 189–202
ment of the police. J Crim Law & Crim 75(4), 1276– 1299.
Frank, J., Brandl, S., Cullen, F., & Stichman, A. (1996). Re- assessing the impact of race on citizens’ attitudes toward the police: a research note. Just Quart 13(2), 321–334.
Furstenberg, F., & Wellford, C. F. (1973). Calling the po- lice: the evaluation of police service. Law & Soc Rev 8, 393–406.
Giordano, P. (1976). The sense of injustice? an analysis of juve- niles’ reactions to the justice system. Crim 14(1), 93–111.
Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime & Del 33, 6–30.
Griffiths, C. T., & Winfree, L. T. (1982). Attitudes toward the police: a comparison of Canadian and American ad- olescents. Int J Comp & App Crim Just 2, 127–141.
Homant, R., Kennedy, D., & Fleming, R. (1984). The effect of victimization and the police response on citizens’ attitudes toward police. J Police Sci & Admin 12(3), 323–327.
Jacob, H. (1971). Black and White perceptions of justice in the city. Law & Soc Rev 5, 69–89.
Koenig, D. J. (1980). The effect of crime victimization and judicial or police contacts on public attitudes toward the local police. J Pol Sci & Admin 8, 243–249.
Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Farnworth, M. (1998). Ex- plaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Just Quart 15(1), 151–173.
Mastrofski, S. (1981). Surveying clients to assess police performance. Eval Rev 5, 397–408.
Moretz, W. (1980). Kids to cops: we think you’re impor- tant, but we’re not sure we understand you. J Police Sci & Admin 8(2), 220–224.
Murty, K., Roebuck, J., & Smith, J. (1990). The image of the police in Black Atlanta communities. J Police Sci & Admin 17(4), 250–257.
Parks, R. B. (1984). Linking objective and subjective mea- sures of performance. Public Admin Rev 44, 118–127.
Percy, S. L. (1981). Citizen Co-production of Community Safety and Security. Ph.D. diss. Bloomington, IN: Indi- ana University.
Percy, S. L. (1986). In defense of citizen evaluations as per- formance measures. Urban Affairs Quart 22, 66–83.
Poister, T. H., & McDavid, J. C. (1978). Victims’ evalua- tion of police performance. J Crim Just 6, 133–149.
Reiss, A. (1971). The Police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rusinko, W., Johnson, K., & Hornung, C. (1978). The im- portance of police contact in the formulation of youths’ attitudes toward police. J Crim Just 6, 53–67.
Scaglion, R., & Condon, R. (1980). Determinants of atti- tudes toward city police. Crim 17(4), 485–494.
Skogan, W. (1991). The impact of routine encounters with the police. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA.
Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1988). Theme and varia- tion in community policing. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice [Vol. 10] (pp. 1–37). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, P. E., & Hawkins, R. O. (1973). Victimization, types of police-citizen contacts, and attitudes toward the po- lice. Law & Soc Rev 8, 135–152.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1996). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Ad- min Rev 39, 46–52.
Thomas, C., & Hyman, J. (1977). Perceptions of crime, fear of victimization, and public perceptions of police per- formance. J Police Sci & Admin 5(3), 305–317.
Winfree, T., & Griffiths, C. (1977). Adolescent attitudes to- ward the police: a survey of high school students. In T. Fer- dinand (Ed.), Juvenile Delinquency Little Brother Grows Up (pp. 79–99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
White, M., & Menke, B. (1982). On assessing the mood of the public toward the police: some conceptual issues. J Crim Just 10, 211–230.
Wycoff, M. A. (1988). The benefits of community policing: evidence and conjecture. In J. R. Greene & S. Mastrof- ski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality (pp. 103–120). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Zamble, E., & Annesley, P. (1987). Some determinants of public attitudes toward the police. J Police Sci & Admin 15(4), 285–290.
