CJPS3

182

Author’s Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James Hawdon, 654 McBryde Hall, Department of Sociology (MC 0137), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; e-mail: [email protected].

Police Quarterly Volume 11 Number 2

June 2008 182-201 © 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/1098611107311852 http://pqx.sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles A Theoretical Statement James Hawdon Virginia Tech

There currently is no consensus about why attitudes toward police vary by neighbor- hood. An unexplored explanation is that resident trust of police and perceptions of police legitimacy may depend on neighborhood levels of social capital. This article considers the relationships among trust, legitimacy, procedural justice, social capital, and policing styles. Treating trust and legitimacy as conceptually distinct, how neigh- borhood levels of social capital influence these perceptions and the style of policing that is most likely to promote these perceptions are discussed. Issues concerning the measurement of trust and legitimacy are also considered.

Keywords: trust; legitimacy; policing; social capital; community policing

Effective policing requires citizen cooperation (Alpert, Dunham, & Piquero, 1998; Cordner, 1997; Eck & Rosenbaum, 1994; Greene & Pelfrey, 1997; Skogan,

1998). To stimulate such cooperation, many policing initiatives attempt to make police “part of the community” (Hawdon & Ryan, 2003). Integrating police into the community can be difficult, however, especially in communities with a history of poor resident-police relations (Grinc, 1994; Parker, Onyekwuluje, & Murty, 1995; Sadd & Grinc, 1994). One means of improving resident cooperation with police is to increase residents’ perceptions of police legitimacy and trustworthiness (Hawdon, Ryan, & Griffin, 2003; Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002).

A growing body of literature supports the claim that resident perceptions of police trustworthiness and legitimacy are critical for cooperative relations between residents and officers (see, e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Although the existing research is com- pelling, it is theoretically incomplete and underspecified. First, much of the research on citizen trust of police and perceptions of police legitimacy conflates the concepts of trust and legitimacy. While these concepts are interrelated, they are conceptually distinct and can be analytically separated. Second, the existing literature does not

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 183

consider how trust and legitimacy operate within different social settings. There cur- rently is no consensus about why attitudes toward the police vary by neighborhood (see Brown & Benedict, 2002). An unexplored plausible explanation is that trust and legitimacy may be dependent on neighborhood levels of social capital. Third, the existing literature argues that issues of procedural justice are critical for establishing perceptions of trust and legitimacy (see Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002). However, researchers and theorists may have mis- specified the causal direction among these concepts. Finally, the policing style that is most effective in promoting a sense of legitimacy will likely depend on the larger social environment in which the policing occurs. Existing literature fails to discuss this potential relationship. This article addresses these gaps in the existing literature and offers theoretical predictions concerning the role of legitimacy and trust in dif- ferent types of neighborhoods. Moreover, predictions are made concerning the style of policing that is likely to best promote a sense of procedural justice in each type of neighborhood.

The argument proceeds in seven stages. To begin, I review the role of trust and legitimacy in creating positive police-resident relationships. I then discuss trust and legitimacy and argue that these are analytically and conceptually distinct. I next consider the causal direction between perceptions of legitimacy and perceptions of procedural justice. In the fourth section, I briefly review the concepts of bridging and bonding capital at the neighborhood level. I discuss the various styles of policing in the fifth section. I then outline how neighborhood levels of social capital can influence perceptions of trust and legitimacy at the individual level and determine the style of policing that is most likely to promote these perceptions. Finally, I address issues of measuring the concepts of trust and legitimacy.

Theoretical Issues

Trust, Legitimacy, and Resident-Police Relations

There is a consensus among researchers that citizen perceptions of police trust- worthiness and legitimacy increase the willingness of residents to cooperate with police and comply with the law (Sherman, 1997; Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For example, in a sample of New York City residents, perceptions of legitimacy and trustworthiness were positively associated with cooperating with police even when factors such as education, income, and eth- nicity were controlled (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Perceptions of legitimacy can also increase resident compliance with the law (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Using logic similar to Hirschi’s (1969) regarding his concept of “belief,” Tyler argues that if people believe the police are legitimate, they will engage in self-regulatory behaviors and conform to the law. There is evidence to support this

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

claim. In a longitudinal study conducted in Oakland and Los Angeles, Tyler and Huo concluded, “if people generally viewed legal authorities as legitimate, they were more likely to indicate that they followed the law in their everyday lives” (p. 106). The self-regulation that derives from viewing the police as legitimate is distinct from perceptions of risk of being caught and punished for misbehavior (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002).

There is also a consensus that perceived trustworthiness and legitimacy of the police increases when officers conduct their business in a manner that promotes “procedural justice” (Matrofski, Snipes, & Supina, 1996; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997; Sherman, 1997; Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). For example, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) found that “procedural fairness,” measured by items such as the police “treat everyone in your neighborhood with dignity and respect,” produced the strongest effect on perceptions of police legitimacy. The magnitude of this effect far exceeded the influence of resident perceptions of police performance, assessments of “distributive justice,” or any demographic characteristic of the residents. Tyler and Huo (2002) report similar findings among Oakland and Los Angeles residents. The greatest perceived reduction in serious crime in Chicago occurred in districts where residents believed police were responsive to their concerns (see Sherman, 1997). In Milwaukee, repeat domestic violence was lowest among arrestees who thought police treated them respectfully (Paternoster et al., 1997).

There is also a consensus, although not as widespread, that community policing, with its emphasis on seeking resident input and “getting to know” the community, increases perceptions of procedural justice more than traditional policing does. A growing body of evidence supports the claim that perceptions of the police are influ- enced by resident contact with police (Cheurprakobkit, 2000; Cordner & Jones, 1995; Hawdon et al., 2003; Paternoster et al., 1997; Stoutland, 2001; Tyler & Huo, 2002), and community policing aims at increasing positive police-resident contacts. Community policing reduces complaints about police (Kessler, 1999), increases officer-initiated investigations (Kane, 2000), and generally improves relations between residents and police (Greene, 1999; Skogan, 1994; Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).

Finally, demographic characteristics influence perceptions of police. Of all demo- graphic characteristics, ethnicity produces the strongest effect on perceptions. Several studies indicate that whites trust police more than Blacks or Hispanics (Ackerman et al., 2001; Brown & Benedict, 2002; Cole, 1999; Hawdon et al., 2003; Norris, Fielding, Kemp, & Fielding, 1992; Seron, Pereira, & Kovath, 2004; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Norris et al. (1992) note that of all groups, Black youth tend to have the most negative and hostile feelings toward police (see also Fine et al., 2003), although the majority of Black residents hold positive attitudes toward police (Regulus, Taylor, & Jackson, 2001). In addition to ethnicity, income and age are positively related and edu- cation is inversely related to perceptions of police legitimacy (Brown & Benedict, 2002; Hawdon et al., 2003; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

184 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 185

Given this literature, the links between policing, resident perceptions of proce- dural justice, perceptions of police legitimacy, and resident cooperation with police appear straightforward. The basic model is that community-policing tactics increase resident perceptions of procedural justice. This increase in procedural justice enhances perceptions of police legitimacy. In turn, residents who perceive police as being legitimate are more likely to cooperate with the police and comply with the law. Although this process allegedly holds regardless of the demographic characteristics of residents, blacks, youth, and the poor will hold officers in less esteem and withhold their cooperation from officers more than White, older adults, and the middle and upper classes do, all else being equal.

Although the existing research is compelling, it is incomplete. Most importantly, much of the research on citizen trust of police and perceptions of police legitimacy combines the concepts of trust and legitimacy. For example, Tyler (1990, p. 25; also see Tyler & Huo, 2002; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) defines legitimacy as the “accep- tance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of an external authority.” Yet, the operational definition of legitimacy is “the perceived obligation to obey the directives of a legal authority, trust in the institution of policing and in individual police officers in one’s neighborhood, and affective feelings toward the police” (see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 539). The measure of legitimacy includes items such as “the police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the people in your neighborhood” and “the police in your neighborhood are generally honest” (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 540), which tap resident trust in the specific officers who patrol their neighborhoods. However, the measure also includes items such as “you should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think they are wrong,” and “disobeying the police is seldom justified.” These items tap the acceptance of the policing institutions as legitimate more than trust. I argue that trust and legitimacy are not the same phenomena and should be treated as discrete concepts. Trust and legitimacy are analogous to what Tyler and Kerstetter (1994) call personal and professional moral authority, respectively.

Reconsidering Trust and Legitimacy

Legitimacy, at least that which is based on rational grounds, rests on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those in authority to issue commands (Weber, 1978). Weber states:

In the case of legal authority, obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order. It extends to the persons exercising the authority of office under it by virtue of the formal legality of their commands and only within the scope of authority of the office. (pp. 215-216)

Thus, obedience is due not to the person who holds the authority but to the impersonal social order that granted him or her that position. The individual’s authority applies only

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

within a specified sphere of competence that has been defined as part of the division of labor, and the means of compulsion at his or her disposal “are clearly defined and their use is subject to definite conditions” (Weber, 1978, p. 218). The legitimate authority of an individual officer is therefore based on that officer occupying a role within the institution of policing. It is the institution that is viewed as legitimate or not, not the individual occupying the position.

Conversely, “trust” deals with the behavior of a specific individual. Trust is the belief that a person occupying a specific role will perform that role in a manner consistent with the socially defined normative expectations associated with that role (i.e., what sociologists call the actual role). Trust deals with specific individuals occupying specific social roles. For example, a wife trusts her husband if she believes he will act in a manner consistent with the actual role of “husband.” That is, the wife believes her husband will be faithful, and that he will be a confidante, friend, and companion. Yet, this wife’s trust is specific. Although she may trust her nonmedically trained husband in the role of husband, she would not trust him in the role of thoracic surgeon when she needs open-heart surgery. Trust is therefore role-dependent and role-specific.

Applying this insight to the police, an officer will be “trusted” when a resident believes he or she will behave in a manner consistent with the actual role of police offi- cer. The public expects officers to behave like professional officers, which includes performing their duties “within a set of fair, public, and accountable guidelines” (Seron et al., 2004, p. 666; also see Weitzer & Tuch, 2004; see Deakin, 1988 for a detailed discussion of police professionalism). If the officer performs in such a manner, he or she will be “trusted” as an officer. Citizens do not simply grant officers trust; instead, officers earn trust through their behaviors. As Tyler and Kerstetter (1994, p. 46) note, “each police officer . . . builds his or her own reputation within the community and does not receive deference merely by holding a particular office.”

Therefore, legitimacy applies to a role position within the impersonal social order; trust applies to whether or not the behavior of an individual conforms to the social expectations concerning the role he or she occupies. The role is legitimate; the individual is trusted. Thus, it is possible to “trust” that an officer will be honest, fair in the administration of justice, and treat residents with respect without believing that an officer has the “legitimate authority” to dispense justice. For example, the “anti-police” sentiments found among residents in some neighborhoods may reflect a rejection of the institution of policing rather than the rejection of a specific officer. A specific officer may be well liked and trusted extensively. The “police,” however, may be considered “thugs” or “corrupt.” Conversely, a resident may consider the institution of policing as legitimate but not trust an individual officer. The news periodically reminds us that “bad cops” exist and that not all officers can be trusted; however, most residents still consider the institution of policing to be legitimate (Ackerman et al., 2001; Brown & Benedict, 2002; Regulus et al., 2001).

186 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Legitimacy and Procedural Justice

Recognizing the concepts of trust and legitimacy as analytically distinct, we must consider if the causal direction between perceptions of procedural justice and legiti- macy is correct. Perceiving the institution of policing to be legitimate may lead to per- ceptions of procedural justice rather than procedural justice leading to perceptions of legitimacy. Thus, compared to those who do not accept the police as possessing legit- imate authority, those who are disposed to believe in the legitimacy of the police may consider their procedural tactics and outcomes to be just, even if the tactics are less than “professional.” Moreover, such people are more likely to trust individual officers, even if past personal experiences have been less than trust producing. These people are also likely to cooperate with police, even if they do not trust individual officers or anticipate a favorable outcome because of their efforts. Conversely, those who are dis- posed to doubting the legitimate authority of the police are more likely to view an encounter with police as being “unjust” and less likely to trust an individual officer, regardless of the officer’s objective behavior. In addition, such a person is unlikely to cooperate with police, even if a criminal personally victimizes him or her.

Research supports the argument that perceptions of legitimacy may cause per- ceptions of procedural justice. For example, Brandl, Frank, Worden, and Bynum (1999, p. 129) found “global attitudes toward the police influence evaluations of the police in particular contact situations.” Thus, a person’s attitude toward the police shapes whether he or she interprets police behaviors as just or unjust. Similarly, Reisig and Chandek (2001) claim citizen expectations of police performance are as important as the officers’ actual performance in determining citizen satisfaction with police. This causal direction also makes logical sense. People are likely to form their general impressions of the police before they have any personal contact with them. These impressions, in turn, influence the interaction between the individual and the police when such contact does occur. Individuals who hold the police in high regard are more likely to act deferentially toward the officers. Officers, in turn, are then more likely to treat individuals respectfully. Conversely, an individual who views police with hostility is more likely to act defiantly toward them. The police, in turn, will treat that individual more suspiciously and possibly less respectfully. All things being equal, those who perceive the police as being legitimate are more likely to be treated fairly by the police than those who view them suspiciously. This situation may produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This argument is not to negate the importance of police behavior. On the contrary, police also have preconceived perceptions of the individuals with whom they inter- act. Research indicates that police alter their policing tactics in disadvantaged neigh- borhoods. Police working in high-crime minority communities are more likely to use coercion (Smith, 1986) and have higher rates of police misconduct (Kane, 2002). Officers also behave differently depending on the characteristics of those with whom they interact. For example, although Black, Hispanic, and White motorists are

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 187

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

equally likely to be stopped, Black and Hispanic motorists are approximately three times more likely than whites to be searched (Durose, Smith, & Langan, 2007). Thus, officers apparently approach individuals differently depending on the neigh- borhood they are patrolling and the individuals’ characteristics (Black, 1980; Wilson, 1968). When officers approach individuals respectfully, those individuals will likely show deference toward the officers. Conversely, when officers approach individuals suspiciously and accusatorially, those individuals will likely respond in a defensive and possibly disrespectful manner. As Drury, Stott, and Farsides (2003) argue, police perceptions can lead to tactics that ironically create the very hostility that the police were seeking to avoid.

Thus, there is likely a reciprocal relationship between perceptions of legitimacy and perceptions of procedural justice. Moreover, the perceptions of an officer need to be included in the model relating legitimacy, procedural justice, and cooperation with police. Existing research has not considered the possibility of these reciprocal effects nor the potential effects of an officer’s perceptions.

Trust, Legitimacy, and Social Capital

Separating the concepts of trust and legitimacy highlights another problem with existing research. Despite evidence that neighborhood conditions influence resident perceptions of police bias (see Weitzer & Tuch, 2005), existing studies do not ade- quately consider the social environment in which evaluations of police trustworthi- ness occur. Certain settings are more likely to engender positive interactions than are others. We know the social environment influences policing tactics (Black, 1980; Kane, 2002; Smith, 1986; Wilson, 1968), and neighborhood conditions influence resident perceptions of police (Brandl et al., 1999; Brown & Benedict, 2002; MacDonald & Stokes, 2006; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). However, existing models do not include these insights in a theoretically consistent manner. For example, in their extensive review of the literature, Brown and Benedict (2002, p. 556) state, “there is no consensus about why attitudes toward the police vary by neighborhood.”

Most of the existing research that has considered neighborhood influences on perceptions of police focus on structural characteristics of neighborhoods such as the neighborhood’s ethnic composition or levels of poverty (e.g., Kane, 2005); however, recently, MacDonald and Stokes (2006) found that depleted levels of perceived com- munity social capital contribute to higher levels of distrust of local police. Although these researchers measured social capital at the individual level, this research sug- gests that aggregate levels of social capital may also influence resident perceptions of police. Moreover, aggregate levels of social capital will likely moderate the rela- tionship between policing styles and perceptions of procedural and outcome justice. In addition, there is evidence that neighborhood conditions influence policing styles (see, e.g., Klinger, 1997; Sampson, 1986; Schulenberg, 2003; Stark, 1987; Wells, Falcone, & Rabe-Hemp, 2003; Wilson, 1968); thus, aggregate levels of social capital will likely

188 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

moderate the relationship between policing styles and perceptions of procedural and outcome justice. To build these theoretical links, I turn first to the literature on social capital and then consider variations in policing styles.

On social capital. Social capital consists of “features of social organizations, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35) and results in high levels of interpersonal trust and interaction, and norms of aid and reciprocity, and high rates of civic participation (Putnam, 1993, 2000). Social capital, as conceptualized here, is an ecological characteristic and a feature of the social structure, not of the individual actors within the social structure (Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 1999). We are most interested in the trust dimension of social capital.

Putnam and others distinguish between bonding and bridging capital (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Messner, Baumer, & Rosenfeld, 2004; Szreter, 2002; Uslaner, 2000). Bonding capital is the trust of specific others, such as friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Conversely, bridging capital extends beyond one’s immedi- ate social circles to others with whom one has no direct ties or few personal connec- tions (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Putnam, 2000). Bonding capital holds people together in groups while bridging capital connects people across diverse groups. Bonding capital is specific; bridging capital is generalized (Uslaner, 2000). Bonding capital is personal and requires intimate contact; bridging capital connects to people, groups, and institu- tions in the impersonal social order.

Noting the distinction between bonding and bridging capital allows us to tie these concepts to perceptions of legitimacy, trust, and procedural justice at the individual level. It is important to remember that bonding and bridging capital are characteris- tics of a neighborhood while legitimacy, trust, and procedural justice are beliefs of individuals.

Since bonding social capital is the connection among people within a group, it produces its most profound influence on levels of trust. All else being equal, members of aggregates that have high levels of bonding capital are likely to trust individuals within their group. However, they are less likely to trust individuals who are outside their immediate group. Members of aggregates with low levels of bond- ing capital are often suspicious of everyone, including members of their immediate group. In contrast, bridging capital relates to connections to the larger social order and has its strongest effect on perceptions of legitimacy. In settings high in bridging capital, individuals are likely to view the dominant institutions as being legitimate since they are connected beyond their immediate group to the larger social order. They are therefore likely to feel a part of that social order and a sense of responsi- bility for people beyond their bonded group (Szreter, 2002). The members of such groups will likely believe the institution of policing is legitimate. Conversely, members of a low bridging capital group are more likely to view the larger social order with suspicion and are less likely to adopt the dominant culture’s perspective

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 189

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

that the social order, and the institutions that comprise it, are legitimate. Consequently, they are less likely to view the institution of policing as being legitimate.

Next, those individuals living in neighborhoods with high levels of bridging capital are more likely to define police behaviors as promoting procedural justice. Conversely, those living in neighborhoods with low levels of bridging capital are less likely to define police behaviors as promoting procedural justice. Bridging capital, therefore, directly influences perceptions of legitimacy and indirectly influences per- ceptions of procedural justice and resident willingness to cooperate with the police. Bonding capital, however, has little influence on perceptions of legitimacy; however, it directly influences the importance of officers’ behaviors in shaping perceptions of trust and procedural justice. Thus, bonding capital indirectly influences resident willingness to cooperate with the police.

While bonding capital most directly influences trust and bridging capital most directly influences legitimacy, the combination of these two forms of social capital will either amplify or reduce the effect each has on trust and legitimacy. The combinations of social capital will also create specific social environments that will influence which style of policing—the watchman, the legalistic, or the service style (Wilson, 1968)— is most effective. After briefly reviewing these policing styles, I will consider how each style would likely function in neighborhoods with various combinations of bridging and bonding capital and, therefore, varying perceptions of police legitimacy and trust.

Policing Styles

In his classic study of eight communities, James Q. Wilson (1968) identified three styles of policing. These included the watchman (or order maintenance), the legalistic, and the service style. These well-known policing styles are highlighted here. The reader should remember that these are “ideal types” and that most police forces and police officers employ aspects of all three styles. However, as Wilson and others have argued, departments have unique cultures that emphasize one style over the others.

The watchman style. The watchman style of policing sees order maintenance rather than law enforcement as the officer’s principal function. Although all officers display a concern for order maintenance, “in a few places this style becomes the operating code of the department” (Wilson, 1968, p. 140). In this style, administrators, to the best of their abilities, influence officer discretion

by allowing them to ignore many common minor violations, especially traffic and juvenile offenses, to tolerate, though gradually less so, a certain amount of vice and gambling, to use the law more as a means of maintaining order than of regulating conduct, and to judge the requirements of order differently depending on the character of the group in which the infraction occurs (Wilson, 1968, p. 140).

190 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 191

This style of policing maximizes officer discretion. Officers judge the seriousness of legal violations “less by what the law says about (the infractions) than by their immediate and personal consequences” (Wilson, 1968, p. 141). Thus, community leaders are not arrested, minorities are “either ignored or arrested” and “private” affairs, unless serious, are overlooked and handled informally (Wilson, 1968, pp. 141-142). In general, officers are allowed and encouraged “to follow the path of least resistance” (Wilson, 1968, p. 144).

Because the watchman style of policing emphasizes order maintenance above law enforcement, distributive justice is paramount when handling disorderly situations (Wilson, 1968). Violators get what officers believe “they deserve” and what “they deserve” has more to do with contextual factors—the time of the disorder, place where the disorder occurs and personal characteristics of the person violating the norms—than it does with the legal proscriptions concerning the behavior. Therefore, different nor- mative and behavioral standards are applied to different groups, and what is “orderly” varies by community and the characteristics of the person committing the offense.

The legalistic style. In contrast to the watchman style, in departments where the legalistic style is predominant, administrators use what power they have to induce officers “to handle commonplace situations as if they were matters of law enforcement rather than order maintenance” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172). In legalistically oriented departments, the abstract principles of law direct officer conduct and therefore limit officer discretion. The police will apply the normative values the law prescribes as the single standard of community conduct. That is, officers are likely to apply universal standards and do not consider how norms may vary across neighborhoods or groups. As a result, they typically detain and arrest juvenile offenders, issue numerous traffic citations, and vigorously combat vice crimes. In legalistic departments, officers “make a large number of misdemeanor arrests even when, as with petty larceny, the public order has not been breached” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172).

Because the emphasis in legalistic departments is on law enforcement, officers are encouraged to view justice as solely based on individual culpability (Wilson, 1968). According to a legalistic model of policing, the characteristics of the offender or the cul- tural environment in which the act occurs should not influence the handling of a given situation. Instead, “the only just distinctions that may be made among (offenders) are on the basis of their behavior in areas defined by the law” (Wilson, 1968, p. 188). Wilson recognizes that the standards legalistic officers actually use in handling cases “will rarely be fully in accord with the standard required by the legalistic department, . . . such departments do have an effect on police behavior” (Wilson, 1968, p. 189).

Legalistic departments also emphasize professionalism. Dress codes are strictly enforced; officers are strongly encouraged to treat the public courteously; technical efficiency and “modernizing” police work are highly valued (Wilson, 1968). These departments try to produce as much output as possible, no matter how it is valued.

The service style. Finally, in the service style of policing, officers take seriously all requests for either law enforcement or order maintenance. Unlike officers with a

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

192 Police Quarterly

watchman style, service-oriented officers respond to requests despite the character- istics of the requester or the environment in which the request is made. However, they are less likely to make an arrest or impose other formal sanctions than officers with a legalistic orientation. In service-oriented departments, “the police intervene frequently but not formally” (Wilson, 1968, p. 200). Service style policing uses decentralized administrative units such as substations or precinct stations. In addition, service style policing is more likely than the other styles to use foot patrols instead of motorized patrols. These tactical strategies are designed to keep the department small, local, and “close to the people.” Service-oriented departments have high “regard for the opinion of the community” and emphasize community and public relations (Wilson, 1968, p. 203). Administrators and beat officers try to develop “various control procedures that make service a major concern to officers at every rank” (Wilson, 1968, p. 203).

Although advocates claim community policing includes more than the service style of policing (see Stevens, 2001, 2002), the service style is similar to what we now call “community policing.” Like the service style department, the philosophy of community policing endorses citizen input, a broadening of police function beyond crime fighting and law enforcement, and personal service that tailors police efforts based on local norms and individual needs. Strategically, community policing emphasizes crime prevention based on face-to-face interaction among permanently assigned officers and residents (Cordner, 1997; Kelling & Moore, 1998; Stevens, 2001, 2002). Thus, like the service style of policing, the purpose of community policing is to emphasize “non-adversarial problem solving in lieu of traditional strategies which conflict with normative structures in the neighborhood” (Alpert et al., 1998, p. 319). Community policing attempts to reinforce the area’s informal social controls (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).

Although Wilson’s typology is dated, it still captures the major policing styles used in the United States (see, e.g., Peak, 2003; Walker, 1999). As previously mentioned, most departments and officers use a combination of styles; however, departments and officers do adopt a dominant style. By the mid-1990s, community policing became the “dominant strategy of policing” in the United States (Cordner, 1997, p. 451); nevertheless, variety in policing styles still exist, especially in smaller and nonurban departments (Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, & Cox, 1997).1

Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles

The connections among neighborhood levels of social capital, policing styles, resi- dent perceptions of the legitimacy of the policing institution, and resident perceptions of trust in specific officers can now be explicated. Recalling the difference between bonding (trust of specific others) and bridging capital (trust in those with whom one has few personal connections), there are four possible combinations that are found within neighborhoods. These combinations are neighborhoods with (a) high bridging and bonding capital, (b) low bridging and bonding capital, (c) high bridging and low

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 193

bonding capital, and (d) low bridging and high bonding capital. How would percep- tions of legitimacy and trust likely vary in each of these neighborhoods and which policing style would mostly likely be effective in each of these neighborhoods? Moreover, where are issues of procedural and distributive justice most important?

High bridging and bonding capital. Being connected to the impersonal social order, members of a neighborhood with high levels of bridging capital likely con- sider that order legitimate. Given this disposition, they will approach an individual officer with an initial sense of trust. The individual officer will enjoy this general sense of trust unless his or her behavior proves that this trust was unwarranted. That is, the officer must “lose” the residents’ trust. However, given the close ties among the residents, as exemplified through their high levels of bonding capital, it would be relatively easy for an officer to lose the residents’ trust. Because of the tight networks among residents, residents would quickly learn about any officer misconduct. Thus, although initially individual officers will enjoy a high level of trust among the resi- dents, the subsequent behavior of an individual officer patrolling the area is critically important. In such a setting, the emphasis is primarily on treating residents respect- fully. That is, the emphasis is on procedural justice (Stoutland, 2001). Provided an officer behaves as an officer is supposed to behave, he or she will likely be trusted. Professionalism is of the utmost importance. The style of policing that most protects an officer’s high initial levels of trust is therefore a dispassionate, yet courteous, style of traditional legalistic policing.

Although traditional legalistic policing would likely be the most appreciated style in high bridging and bonding neighborhoods, the high levels of legitimacy afforded the office of the police would likely make any style of policing, provided it was implemented with respect to the general professional guidelines police follow, acceptable to residents. Given the police office is generally accepted, individual officers would likely enjoy a level of professional authority. That is, residents would likely defer to the judgment of the officer because the office he or she occupies is perceived to be legitimate. Nevertheless, the professionalism of the officer is of utmost impor- tance, and the legalistic style of policing advocates a professional-client approach to policing, more so than other styles.

High bridging, low bonding. Residents of high-bridging, low-bonding neighbor- hoods are connected to the impersonal social order. They are therefore likely to view the office of the police as legitimate. Moreover, because of this perceived legitimacy, individual officers are likely trusted initially. However, since this type of community is not internally bonded, the behavior of any given officer has less influence on the overall levels of trust for individual officers. Any misconduct in which a specific officer may engage is likely to remain unknown to most members of the unbounded neighborhood. Therefore, it is harder for the police to lose the residents’ trust. In this setting, perceptions of procedural justice are less important than perceptions of outcome justice (i.e., effectively controlling crime). Thus, provided the neighborhood remains

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

194 Police Quarterly

safe, few residents will know—or likely care—how this safety was achieved. Even if a resident’s sense of procedural justice was violated, other residents would not likely hear about this violation. What they will see is that the police are effectively con- trolling crime. As previous research indicates, residents of high-crime neighbor- hoods desire less crime and more police protection, and many residents in these neighborhoods support aggressive enforcement, including violations of civil liber- ties, if such actions result in a safer neighborhood (Rosenbaum, 1994; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Stoutland, 2001). Therefore, provided the neighborhood remains relatively safe, residents will likely perceive the police institution as legitimate and any given officer will be trusted, at least initially. In these neighborhoods, police visibility, regardless of the style of policing, would likely be important since it influences perceptions of outcome justice (Hawdon et al., 2003).

Low bridging, low bonding. Because of the low levels of bridging capital in these neighborhoods, most residents are relatively unconnected to the impersonal social order. Thus, many residents will question the legitimacy of the institution of policing. Given this, individual officers often begin their relationship with the neighborhood in a disadvantaged position of high suspicion and low trust. Yet, because of the low levels of bonding capital, the residents of these neighborhoods may not trust each other either. As in any low-bonding capital neighborhood, residents’ perceptions of outcome justice are paramount. Violations of procedural justice, although not recommended, could go unnoticed by most residents. However, unlike the high-bridging, low-bonding neighborhood, the low-bridging, low-bonding neighborhood is likely to be more dis- advantaged and may suffer from higher crime rates. Thus, promoting the perception of outcome justice is difficult in these areas. In this environment, an order mainte- nance style that diffuses disorderly situations that may escalate to criminal activities would likely be the most effective type of policing.

Low bridging, high bonding. These neighborhoods will be the most difficult to police. The low levels of bridging capital will dampen the perceived legitimacy of the institution of policing. In addition, the high bonding among the residents creates an environment that protects “insiders” from “outsiders.” Officers, as outsiders, are not likely to be trusted, further deteriorating the lack of legitimacy with which they enter a situation. In fact, officers in these neighborhoods are likely to be approached with latent, if not manifest, hostility. They are outsiders who represent a perceived illegiti- mate impersonal social order. They have “no business” being here and “no right” to impose their will on residents. In these situations, the emphasis is primarily on issues of procedural justice. Officers must “earn” the residents’ trust by respecting not only individual residents, but also the neighborhood’s culture and traditions. Residents of this tightly knit neighborhood will quickly share stories of any officer misconduct or disrespectful behavior, thereby further eroding any sense of legitimacy in the police as an institution. The legalistic style of policing, with its militaristic approach and close association with the dominant social order (Wilson, 1968), will likely violate

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 195

the residents’ sense of community. An officer employing a legalistic style of policing would potentially be seen as violating procedural justice by imposing the impersonal social order’s normative standards on the residents. As Wilson (1968) notes, the legalistic style often results in minorities and other disenfranchised groups barring the brunt of law enforcement. Since disenfranchised groups often have higher crime rates, they will frequently experience the law’s power (Black, 1980; Slovak, 1986; Wilson, 1968, p. 172). The greater use of law in poor neighborhoods will often “be experienced as harassment” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172).

In these neighborhoods, community policing will not only be the most effective style of policing but possibly the only style that will not inflame the already tense police-resident relationship. Even if it is difficult to establish, community policing is the best approach for winning the trust of residents. Table 1 summarizes the pre- dicted relationships just described.

Methodological Issues

Although the theoretical discussion generates the above specific hypotheses, it is currently impossible to test the model with existing datasets. Sampling and mea- surement issues must be addressed before the model proposed herein can be tested.

The proposed model specifies relationships across levels of analysis. That is, neighborhood-level characteristics are predicted to influence individual-level out- comes. Thus, to test the model properly, researchers must conduct hierarchical analyses (individuals are nested in neighborhoods). Although hierarchical tech- niques are now commonly used, the expense of collecting data from numerous neighborhoods is prohibitive. To generate a useful data set, a sufficient sample of residents that can reasonably represent the neighborhood must be collected from several neighborhoods. Then, researchers must collect data from a sufficient number of neighborhoods to ensure that the sample is reasonably representative and the analysis has sufficient statistical power (see Twisk, 2006 for a discussion of power analyses and correction factors for multilevel studies). Although it is unlikely that we will ever have sufficient resources to gather a nationally representative sample of neighborhoods, a sample of neighborhoods such as that collected for the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods could provide the needed data to begin testing the model. This sample, which has been widely used, included 8,782 residents in 343 “neighborhood clusters” (see Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997 for a discussion of the PHDCN data). Unfortunately, this data set does not offer measures of all of the concepts discussed in this article.

In addition to an adequate sample, researchers must be sensitive to measurement issues if they are to test the proposed model. Specifically, they must carefully measure perceptions of police legitimacy and perceptions of trust in the police. As argued earlier, the concepts of trust and legitimacy are conceptually distinct; however, most commonly used measures of “trust and legitimacy” (see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) include items

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

196

Ta bl

e 1

P re

di ct

ed R

el at

io ns

hi ps

W it

hi n

Sp ec

if ic

N ei

gh bo

rh oo

d Se

tt in

gs

Pe rc

ei ve

d M

os t

L ev

el s

of

L ev

el s

of

L eg

iti m

ac y

In iti

al P

er ce

pt io

ns

Im po

rt an

ce E

ff ec

tiv e

B ri

dg in

g B

on di

ng

of P

ol ic

in g

of O

ff ic

er

of P

ro ce

du ra

l Im

po rt

an ce

St

yl e

of

C ap

ita l

C ap

ita l

In st

itu tio

n T

ru st

w or

th in

es s

Ju st

ic e

of O

ut co

m e

Po lic

in g

H ig

h H

ig h

H ig

h H

ig h,

bu t d

ep en

de nt

V

er y

hi gh

R el

at iv

el y

un im

po rt

an t

L eg

al is

tic on

o ff

ic er

b eh

av io

r H

ig h

L ow

H ig

h H

ig h,

le ss

d ep

en de

nt

R el

at iv

el y

lo w

V er

y hi

gh A

ny s

ty le

. V is

ib ili

ty

on o

ff ic

er b

eh av

io r

of o

ff ic

er s

is c

ri tic

al L

ow L

ow L

ow L

ow ,b

ut c

an b

e ea

rn ed

R el

at iv

el y

lo w

V er

y hi

gh O

rd er

m ai

nt en

an ce

L ow

H ig

h V

er y

lo w

L ow

,d if

fi cu

lt to

e ar

n E

xt re

m el

y hi

gh R

el at

iv el

y un

im po

rt an

t C

om m

un ity

-o ri

en te

d (s

er vi

ce )

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 197

such as “you should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think they are wrong.” Such items reflect the acceptance of the policing institutions as legitimate more than trust and therefore conflate the concepts. Consequently, new, more carefully constructed, measures are needed.

The measure of perceptions of police legitimacy should include items that reflect the extent to which residents believe the institution of policing has legitimate authority to issue commands and expect obedience. Thus, a proposed measure of perceptions of police legitimacy would include items such as (a) “you should accept the decisions made by police officers, even if you think they are wrong,” (b) “disobeying the police is seldom justified,” (c) “communities work best when people follow the directives of the police,” (d) “in general, the police are corrupt,” (e) “the police should always be respected,” (f) “the police have a right to tell people what to do,” and (g) “the police have no business telling people how to live their lives.” Sunshine and Tyler (2003) use the first three items to measure legitimacy. The additional items should be included to tap better the central aspect of legitimacy: the police’s legal authority to issue commands and expect obedience.

In contrast to the measure of legitimacy, a measure of trust of the police should include items that reflect the extent to which residents believe individual officers perform their role as they should. Consequently, trust of the police should be measured directly by using a question such as “on a scale from 1 to 10, how much do you trust the police in your neighborhood?” In addition to this direct question, the measure should include items such as (a) “the police generally make the right decisions for the people in your neighborhood,” (b) “the police in your neighborhood are generally honest,” and (c) “in general, the police in your neighborhood are upstanding officers.” These items specif- ically reference the respondent’s neighborhood so his or her attention is drawn to spe- cific officers instead of the larger institution of policing.

Although it is possible that trust and legitimacy are conceptually distinct, they may not be analytically distinct. That is, the correlation between the two concepts may be so high that the concepts would need to be treated as a single construct in any statistical analysis. Although this analytic overlap is possible, existing data cannot determine if this is the case. Only by carefully operationalizing the concepts can researchers determine if they are both conceptually and analytically distinct.

Conclusion

Although scholars and practitioners know that resident perceptions of trust and legit- imacy influence their willingness to cooperate with the police, we lack an understanding of how the social environment patterns resident perceptions. Noting that trust and legitimacy are conceptually distinct and using the concepts of bridging and bonding capital, I argue that neighborhood levels of social capital influence resident percep- tions of the police. Then, I connect these insights to what is known about policing styles to make predictions of which style of policing would be most effective in generating perceptions of trust and legitimacy in specific types of neighborhoods.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

198 Police Quarterly

Finally, I address some of the issues researchers will confront when attempting to test the accuracy of the proposed model.

Although testing the model will not be easy or inexpensive, it would be worthwhile. Given the massive body of literature that demonstrates social capital’s influence on crime, community development, child development, neighborhood mortality rates and community health, access to health care, and a host of other individual and collective problems (see, e.g., Saegert, Thompson, & Warren, 2001), it is likely social capital also influences resident perceptions of the police. If this theory is useful in furthering our understanding of how neighborhood conditions influence perceptions of procedural justice, it will not only fill a major gap in the literature, but it will also have significant consequences for police operations. By understanding which policing style generates positive resident views of police in various types of neighborhoods, officers will be freed from a “one-size-fits-all” model of policing. Instead, they can tailor their policing to the neighborhoods they patrol. Community policing, currently considered the best style of policing, is expensive. However, it may not be necessary to implement community policing in certain neighborhoods where less expensive styles may be equally effective. If this model is accurate, law enforcement will be able to increase resident cooperation, induce law-abiding behavior, and efficiently target resources.

Note

1. Based on a 1994 national sample, 80% of responding police agencies and two thirds of sheriffs had implemented “community policing” programs (McEwen, 1995). However, even by the late 1990s, in nearly 6,000 police departments that completed the COPS FAST (Funding Accelerated for Small Towns) application, only 12% had a strategic plan for community policing, only 31% provided community policing training for officers, and only 51% met with the community to explain crime prevention techniques. These relatively low numbers came from small departments, but the majority of the nonrandom sample were agencies that either practiced or wanted to practice community policing and were seeking federal funds to support those activities (Maguire et al., 1997).

References

Ackerman, G., Anderson, B., Jensen, S., Ludwig, R., Montero, D., Plante, N., et al. (2001). Crime rates and confidence in the police: America’s changing attitudes toward crime and police, 1972-1999. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28, 43-55.

Alpert, G., Dunham, R., & Piquero, A. (1998). On the study of neighborhoods and the police. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings. (pp. 309-326). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Black, D. (1980). The manners and customs of the police. New York: Academic. Brandl, S. G., Frank, J., Worden, R. E., & Bynum, T. S. (1999). Global and specific attitudes toward the

police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119-134. Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capi-

tal. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023. Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues,

conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25, 543-580.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cheurprakobkit, S. (2000). Police-citizen contact and police performance: Attitudinal differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 325-336.

Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system. New York: W.W. Norton.

Cordner, G. (1997). Community policing: Elements and effects. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 451-468). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Cordner, G., & Jones, M. (1995). The effects of supplemental foot patrol on fear of crime and attitudes toward the police. In P. Kratcoski & D. Dukes (Eds.), Issues in community policing (pp. 189-198). Highland Heights, KY: Anderson.

Deakin, T. J. (1988). Police professionalism: The Renaissance of American Law Enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Drury, J., Stott, C., & Farsides, T. (2003). The role of police perceptions and practices in the development of “public disorder.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1480-1500.

Durose, M. R, Smith, E. L., & Langan, P. A. (2007). Contacts between police and the public, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Eck, J., & Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The new police order: Effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in community policing. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 3-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fine, M., Freudenberg, N., Payne, Y., Perkins, T., Smith, K., & Wanzer, K. (2003). Anything can happen with police around: Urban youth evaluate strategies of surveillance in public places. (Youth confronting public institutions). Journal of Social Issues, 59, 141-159.

Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. (1999). Zero tolerance: A case study of police policies and practices in New York City. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 437-468.

Greene, J., & Pelfrey, W. V. (1997). Shifting the balance of power between police and community: Responsibility for crime control. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 393-423). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Grinc, R. M. (1994). Angles in marble: Problems in stimulating community involvement in community policing. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 437-468.

Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2003). Police-resident interactions and satisfaction with police: An empirical test of community policing assertions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 55-74.

Hawdon, J., Ryan, J., & Griffin, S. (2003). Policing tactics and perceptions of police legitimacy. Police Quarterly, 6, 469-491.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kane, R. J. (2000). Permanent beat assignments in association with community policing: Assessing the

impact on police officers. Field Activity. Justice Quarterly, 17, 259-280. Kane, R. J. (2002). The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40, 867-896. Kane, R. J. (2005). Compromised police legitimacy as a predictor of violent crime in structurally disad-

vantaged communities. Criminology, 43, 469-499. Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1998). The evolving strategy of policing. In W. M. Oliver (Ed.),

Community policing: Classical readings (pp. 96-117). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kessler, D. A. (1999). The effects of community policing on complaints against officers. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 15, 333-372. Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to

deviance. Criminology, 35, 277-306. Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health

and Place, 5, 259-270. MacDonald, J., & Stokes, R. J. (2006). Race, social capital and trust in the police. Urban Affairs Review,

41, 358-375.

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 199

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Maguire, E. R., Kuhns, J. B., Uchida, C. D., & Cox, S. M. (1997). Patterns of community policing in nonurban America. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 368-395.

Matrofski, S. D., Snipes, J., & Supina, A. (1996). Compliance on demand: The public’s response to specific police requests. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 33, 269-305.

McEwen, T. (1995). National assessment program: 1994 survey results, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Messner, S. F., Baumer, E. P., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Dimensions of social capital and rates of criminal homicide. American Sociological Review, 69, 882-903.

Norris, C., Fielding, N., Kemp, C., & Fielding, J. (1992). Black and blue: An analysis of the influence on being stopped by the police. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 207-224.

Parker, K. D., Onyekwuluje, A. B., & Murty, K. S. (1995). African Americans’ attitudes toward the local police: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 369-409.

Paternoster, R., Brame, B., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31, 163-204.

Peak, K. (2003). Policing America: Methods, issues, challenges (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Regulus, T. A., Taylor, R. J., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). The structure of Black American’s attitudes toward the police. African American Research Perspectives, 7, 185-206.

Reisig, M. D., & Chandek, M. S. (2001). The effects of expectancy disconfirmation on outcome satisfaction in police-citizen encounters. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24, 87-99.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1994). Innovative neighborhood oriented policing: An evaluation of community policing programs in eight cities. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. R. (Eds.). (2001). Social capital and poor communities. New York: Russell Sage.

Sampson, R. J. (1986). Effects of socioeconomic context on official reaction to juvenile delinquency. American Sociological Review, 51, 876-885.

Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: Neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777-804.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-651.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). The social context of police discretion with young offenders: An ecological analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 127-158.

Seron, C., Pereira, J., & Kovath, J. (2004). Judging police misconduct: “Street-level” versus professional policing. Law and Society Review, 38, 665-710.

Sherman, L. W. (1997). Communities and crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 58-109). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Skogan, W. G. (1994). The impact of community policing on neighborhood residents: A cross-site analysis. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 167-181). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

200 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 201

Skogan, W. G. (1998). Community participation and community policing. In J. P. Brodeur (Ed.), How to recognize good policing: Problems and issues (pp. 88-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skogan, W. G., & Hartnett, S. M. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slovak, J. S. (1986). Styles of urban policing: Organization, environment and police styles in selected American cities. New York: New York University Press.

Smith, D. (1986). The neighborhood context of police behavior. In A. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 8, pp. 313-341). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stark, R. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25, 893-909. Stevens, D. J. (2001). Case studies in community policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stevens, D. J. (2002). Community policing and police leadership. In D. J. Stevens (Ed.), Policing and

community partnerships (pp. 185-210). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stoutland, S. E. (2001). The multiple dimensions of trust in resident-police relations in Boston. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 226-256. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public sup-

port for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513-547. Szreter, S. (2002). The state of social capital: Bringing back in power, politics and history. Theory and

Society, 31, 573-621. Twisk, J. W. R. (2006). Applied multilevel analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 593, 84-99. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society.

Boulder, CO: Westview. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and

courts. New York: Russell Sage. Tyler, T. R., & Kerstetter, W. (1994). Moral authority in law and criminal justice: Some reflections on

Wilson’s “the moral sense.” Criminal Justice Ethics, 13(2), 44-53. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of

motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-282. Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 569-591. Walker, S. (1999). The police in America (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weitzer, R., & Tuch. S. A. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social Problems, 51, 305-325. Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determinants of citizen perceptions. Social

Forces, 83, 1009-1031. Wells, L. E., Falcone, D. N., & Rabe-Hemp, C. (2003). Community characteristics and policing styles in suburban

agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26, 566-590. Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982, March). Broken windows: Police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic

Monthly, 249, 29-38.

James Hawdon is an associate professor of sociology at Virginia Tech. His research interests include the sociology of policing, community structure and crime, and the sociology of drug use. In addition to his book and articles on intergovernmental organizations, he has published several articles in the areas of crime, vio- lence, deviance, and policing. His recent book, Drugs and Alcohol Consumption as Functions of Social Structures, analyzes drug use from a cross-national and historic perspective and develops a sociological theory of drug consumption. The book won the Adele Mellen Prize for Contributions to Scholarship.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Bold /ACaslon-BoldItalic /ACaslon-Italic /ACaslon-Ornaments /ACaslon-Regular /ACaslon-Semibold /ACaslon-SemiboldItalic /AdobeCorpID-Acrobat /AdobeCorpID-Adobe /AdobeCorpID-Bullet /AdobeCorpID-MinionBd /AdobeCorpID-MinionBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionRg /AdobeCorpID-MinionRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionSb /AdobeCorpID-MinionSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBd /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBl /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBlIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLtIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadPkg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSb /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScnIt /AdobeCorpID-PScript /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-ItalicOsF /Aldus-Roman /Aldus-RomanSC /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /AmazoneBT-Regular /AmericanTypewriter-Bold /AmericanTypewriter-BoldA /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCond /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Cond /AmericanTypewriter-CondA /AmericanTypewriter-Light /AmericanTypewriter-LightA /AmericanTypewriter-LightCond /AmericanTypewriter-LightCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Medium /AmericanTypewriter-MediumA /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /ArrusBT-Black /ArrusBT-BlackItalic /ArrusBT-Bold /ArrusBT-BoldItalic /ArrusBT-Italic /ArrusBT-Roman /AssemblyLightSSK /AuroraBT-BoldCondensed /AuroraBT-RomanCondensed /AuroraOpti-Condensed /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /Avenir-Black /Avenir-BlackOblique /Avenir-Book /Avenir-BookOblique /Avenir-Heavy /Avenir-HeavyOblique /Avenir-Light /Avenir-LightOblique /Avenir-Medium /Avenir-MediumOblique /Avenir-Oblique /Avenir-Roman /BaileySansITC-Bold /BaileySansITC-BoldItalic /BaileySansITC-Book /BaileySansITC-BookItalic /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /Baskerville-Bold /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Baskerville-Normal-Italic /BauerBodoni-Black /BauerBodoni-BlackCond /BauerBodoni-BlackItalic /BauerBodoni-Bold /BauerBodoni-BoldCond /BauerBodoni-BoldItalic /BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-BoldOsF /BauerBodoni-Italic /BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-Roman /BauerBodoni-RomanSC /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Light /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Benguiat-Bold /Benguiat-BoldItalic /Benguiat-Book /Benguiat-BookItalic /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BoldItal /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /BenguiatITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatITCbyBT-BoldItalic /BenguiatITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatITCbyBT-BookItalic /Benguiat-Medium /Benguiat-MediumItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular /BernhardFashionBT-Regular /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /BernhardTangoBT-Regular /BlockBE-Condensed /BlockBE-ExtraCn /BlockBE-ExtraCnIt /BlockBE-Heavy /BlockBE-Italic /BlockBE-Regular /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /BroadwayBT-Regular /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Caliban /CarminaBT-Bold /CarminaBT-BoldItalic /CarminaBT-Light /CarminaBT-LightItalic /CarminaBT-Medium /CarminaBT-MediumItalic /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonOpenFace /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /CaxtonBT-Bold /CaxtonBT-BoldItalic /CaxtonBT-Book /CaxtonBT-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /Century-Bold /Century-BoldItalic /Century-Book /Century-BookItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Bold /CenturyExpandedBT-BoldItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Italic /CenturyExpandedBT-Roman /Century-HandtooledBold /Century-HandtooledBoldItalic /Century-Light /Century-LightItalic /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CenturySchoolbookBT-Bold /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldCond /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldItalic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Italic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Roman /Century-Ultra /Century-UltraItalic /CharterBT-Black /CharterBT-BlackItalic /CharterBT-Bold /CharterBT-BoldItalic /CharterBT-Italic /CharterBT-Roman /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldCondItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldExtraCondensed /CheltenhamBT-BoldHeadline /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalicHeadline /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Cheltenham-HandtooledBdIt /Cheltenham-HandtooledBold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Bold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Book /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BookItalic /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMR10 /CMR8 /CMSY10 /CMSY8 /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CooperBT-Bold /CooperBT-BoldItalic /CooperBT-Light /CooperBT-LightItalic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DellaRobbiaBT-Bold /DellaRobbiaBT-Roman /Della-RobbiaItalicBT /Della-RobbiaSCaps /Del-NormalSmallCaps /Delphin-IA /Delphin-IIA /Delta-Bold /Delta-BoldItalic /Delta-Book /Delta-BookItalic /Delta-Light /Delta-LightItalic /Delta-Medium /Delta-MediumItalic /Delta-Outline /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /DomCasual /DomCasual-Bold /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ELANGO-IB-A03 /ELANGO-IB-A75 /ELANGO-IB-A99 /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /ElGreco /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /Euclid /Euclid-Bold /Euclid-BoldItalic /EuclidExtra /EuclidExtra-Bold /EuclidFraktur /EuclidFraktur-Bold /Euclid-Italic /EuclidMathOne /EuclidMathOne-Bold /EuclidMathTwo /EuclidMathTwo-Bold /EuclidSymbol /EuclidSymbol-Bold /EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic /EuclidSymbol-Italic /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /EuroSans-Bold /EuroSans-BoldItalic /EuroSans-Italic /EuroSans-Regular /EuroSerif-Bold /EuroSerif-BoldItalic /EuroSerif-Italic /EuroSerif-Regular /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldCondensed /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-BoldOblique /Eurostile-Condensed /Eurostile-Demi /Eurostile-DemiOblique /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EurostileLTStd-Demi /EurostileLTStd-DemiOblique /Eurostile-Oblique /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /FairfieldLH-Bold /FairfieldLH-BoldItalic /FairfieldLH-BoldSC /FairfieldLH-CaptionBold /FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy /FairfieldLH-CaptionLight /FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium /FairfieldLH-Heavy /FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic /FairfieldLH-HeavySC /FairfieldLH-Light /FairfieldLH-LightItalic /FairfieldLH-LightSC /FairfieldLH-Medium /FairfieldLH-MediumItalic /FairfieldLH-MediumSC /FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF /Fences /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Flood /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDAaOsF /FontanaNDAaOsF-Italic /FontanaNDCcOsF-Semibold /FontanaNDCcOsF-SemiboldIta /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold /FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic /FontanaNDEeOsF-Light /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /ForteMT /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FrankfurterHigD /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Demi /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-DemiItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Heavy /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /Freeform721BT-Bold /Freeform721BT-BoldItalic /Freeform721BT-Italic /Freeform721BT-Roman /FreestyleScrD /FreestyleScript /Freestylescript /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-CondensedLight /Futura-CondensedLightOblique /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /Futura-Thin /Galliard-Black /Galliard-BlackItalic /Galliard-Bold /Galliard-BoldItalic /Galliard-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Bold /GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Galliard-Roman /Galliard-Ultra /Galliard-UltraItalic /Garamond-Antiqua /GaramondBE-Bold /GaramondBE-BoldExpert /GaramondBE-BoldOsF /GaramondBE-CnExpert /GaramondBE-Condensed /GaramondBE-CondensedSC /GaramondBE-Italic /GaramondBE-ItalicExpert /GaramondBE-ItalicOsF /GaramondBE-Medium /GaramondBE-MediumCn /GaramondBE-MediumCnExpert /GaramondBE-MediumCnOsF /GaramondBE-MediumExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalic /GaramondBE-MediumItalicExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalicOsF /GaramondBE-MediumSC /GaramondBE-Regular /GaramondBE-RegularExpert /GaramondBE-RegularSC /GaramondBE-SwashItalic /Garamond-Bold /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BoldItalic /Garamond-Book /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /Garamond-HandtooledBold /Garamond-HandtooledBoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-Light /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /Garamond-LightItalic /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-Ligh /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-LighItal /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-BoldItalicOsF /GaramondThree-BoldSC /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThree-ItalicOsF /GaramondThree-SC /GaramondThreeSMSIISpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSitalicSpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /Garamond-Ultra /Garamond-UltraCondensed /Garamond-UltraCondensedItalic /Garamond-UltraItalic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldExtraCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-ExtraBoldDisplay /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-LightShadowed /GillSans-Shadowed /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Gothic-Thirteen /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /GoudyCatalogueBT-Regular /Goudy-ExtraBold /GoudyHandtooledBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-RegularCond /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Black /GoudySans-BlackItalic /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySans-Book /GoudySans-BookItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Black /GoudySansITCbyBT-BlackItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Light /GoudySansITCbyBT-LightItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Compressed /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-Light-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Condensed-Thin /Helvetica-ExtraCompressed /Helvetica-Fraction /Helvetica-FractionBold /HelveticaInserat-Roman /HelveticaInserat-Roman-SemiBold /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-Black /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackExt /HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightExt /HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-Thin /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-ThinItalic /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLight /HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal /Helvetica-Oblique /Helvetica-UltraCompressed /HelvExtCompressed /HelvLight /HelvUltCompressed /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist531BT-BlackA /Humanist531BT-BoldA /Humanist531BT-RomanA /Humanist531BT-UltraBlackA /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackCondB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightCondensedB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /Humanist777BT-RomanCondensedB /Humanist970BT-BoldC /Humanist970BT-RomanC /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Black /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Bold /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Italic /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Roman /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /Iglesia-Light /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Light /Imago-LightItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /ITCGaramondMM /ITCGaramondMM-It /JAKEOpti-Regular /JansonText-Bold /JansonText-BoldItalic /JansonText-Italic /JansonText-Roman /JansonText-RomanSC /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /Juniper /KabelITCbyBT-Book /KabelITCbyBT-Demi /KabelITCbyBT-Medium /KabelITCbyBT-Ultra /Kaufmann /Kaufmann-Bold /KeplMM-Or2 /KisBT-Italic /KisBT-Roman /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Linotext /Lithos-Black /LithosBold /Lithos-Bold /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaHandwritingItalic /LucidaMath-Symbol /LucidaSansTypewriter /LucidaSansTypewriter-Bd /LucidaSansTypewriter-BdObl /LucidaSansTypewriter-Obl /LucidaTypewriter /LucidaTypewriter-Bold /LucidaTypewriter-BoldObl /LucidaTypewriter-Obl /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Machine /Machine-Bold /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /MatrixScriptBold /MatrixScriptBoldLin /MatrixScriptBook /MatrixScriptBookLin /MatrixScriptRegular /MatrixScriptRegularLin /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Bold /Meridien-BoldItalic /Meridien-Italic /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /Minion-DisplayItalic /Minion-DisplayRegular /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps /MrsEavesAllSmallCaps /MrsEavesBold /MrsEavesFractions /MrsEavesItalic /MrsEavesPetiteCaps /MrsEavesRoman /MrsEavesRomanLining /MrsEavesSmallCaps /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /MyriadMM /MyriadMM-It /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book /NeuzeitS-BookHeavy /NewBaskerville-Bold /NewBaskerville-BoldItalic /NewBaskerville-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman /NewBaskerville-Roman /NewCaledonia /NewCaledonia-Black /NewCaledonia-BlackItalic /NewCaledonia-Bold /NewCaledonia-BoldItalic /NewCaledonia-BoldItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-BoldSC /NewCaledonia-Italic /NewCaledonia-ItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-SC /NewCaledonia-SemiBold /NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Bold /NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Italic /NewCenturySchlbk-Roman /NewsGothic /NewsGothic-Bold /NewsGothic-BoldOblique /NewsGothicBT-Bold /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic /NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic /NewsGothicBT-Demi /NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic /NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Italic /NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Light /NewsGothicBT-LightItalic /NewsGothicBT-Roman /NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed /NewsGothic-Oblique /New-Symbol /NovareseITCbyBT-Bold /NovareseITCbyBT-BoldItalic /NovareseITCbyBT-Book /NovareseITCbyBT-BookItalic /Nueva-BoldExtended /Nueva-Roman /NuptialScript /OceanSansMM /OceanSansMM-It /OfficinaSans-Bold /OfficinaSans-BoldItalic /OfficinaSans-Book /OfficinaSans-BookItalic /OfficinaSerif-Bold /OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic /OfficinaSerif-Book /OfficinaSerif-BookItalic /OnyxMT /Optima /Optima-Bold /Optima-BoldItalic /Optima-BoldOblique /Optima-ExtraBlack /Optima-ExtraBlackItalic /Optima-Italic /Optima-Oblique /OSPIRE-Plain /OttaIA /Otta-wa /Ottawa-BoldA /OttawaPSMT /Oxford /Palatino-Bold /Palatino-BoldItalic /Palatino-Italic /Palatino-Roman /Parisian /Perpetua /Perpetua-Bold /Perpetua-BoldItalic /Perpetua-Italic /PhotinaMT /PhotinaMT-Bold /PhotinaMT-BoldItalic /PhotinaMT-Italic /PhotinaMT-SemiBold /PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic /PhotinaMT-UltraBold /PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic /Plantin /Plantin-Bold /Plantin-BoldItalic /Plantin-Italic /Plantin-Light /Plantin-LightItalic /Plantin-Semibold /Plantin-SemiboldItalic /Poetica-ChanceryI /Poetica-SuppLowercaseEndI /PopplLaudatio-Italic /PopplLaudatio-Medium /PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic /PopplLaudatio-Regular /ProseAntique-Bold /ProseAntique-Normal /QuaySansEF-Black /QuaySansEF-BlackItalic /QuaySansEF-Book /QuaySansEF-BookItalic /QuaySansEF-Medium /QuaySansEF-MediumItalic /Quorum-Black /Quorum-Bold /Quorum-Book /Quorum-Light /Quorum-Medium /Raleigh /Raleigh-Bold /Raleigh-DemiBold /Raleigh-Medium /Revival565BT-Bold /Revival565BT-BoldItalic /Revival565BT-Italic /Revival565BT-Roman /Ribbon131BT-Bold /Ribbon131BT-Regular /RMTMI /Rockwell /Rockwell-Bold /Rockwell-BoldItalic /Rockwell-Italic /Rockwell-Light /Rockwell-LightItalic /RotisSansSerif /RotisSansSerif-Bold /RotisSansSerif-ExtraBold /RotisSansSerif-Italic /RotisSansSerif-Light /RotisSansSerif-LightItalic /RotisSemiSans /RotisSemiSans-Bold /RotisSemiSans-ExtraBold /RotisSemiSans-Italic /RotisSemiSans-Light /RotisSemiSans-LightItalic /RotisSemiSerif /RotisSemiSerif-Bold /RotisSerif /RotisSerif-Bold /RotisSerif-Italic /RunicMT-Condensed /Sabon-Bold /Sabon-BoldItalic /Sabon-Italic /Sabon-Roman /SackersGothicLight /SackersGothicLightAlt /SackersItalianScript /SackersItalianScriptAlt /Sam /Sanvito-Light /SanvitoMM /Sanvito-Roman /Semitica /Semitica-Italic /SIVAMATH /Siva-Special /SMS-SPELA /Souvenir-Demi /Souvenir-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi /SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Light /SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic /Souvenir-Light /Souvenir-LightItalic /SpecialAA /Special-Gali /Sp-Sym /StempelGaramond-Bold /StempelGaramond-BoldItalic /StempelGaramond-Italic /StempelGaramond-Roman /StoneSans /StoneSans-Bold /StoneSans-BoldItalic /StoneSans-Italic /StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSans-PhoneticIPA /StoneSans-Semibold /StoneSans-SemiboldItalic /StoneSerif /StoneSerif-Italic /StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA /StoneSerif-Semibold /StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic /Swiss721BT-Black /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackExtended /Swiss721BT-BlackItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackOutline /Swiss721BT-BlackRounded /Swiss721BT-Bold /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldExtended /Swiss721BT-BoldItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldRounded /Swiss721BT-Heavy /Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic /Swiss721BT-Italic /Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed /Swiss721BT-Light /Swiss721BT-LightCondensed /Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-LightExtended /Swiss721BT-LightItalic /Swiss721BT-Medium /Swiss721BT-MediumItalic /Swiss721BT-Roman /Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed /Swiss721BT-RomanExtended /Swiss721BT-Thin /Swiss721BT-ThinItalic /Swiss921BT-RegularA /Symbol /Syntax-Black /Syntax-Bold /Syntax-Italic /Syntax-Roman /Syntax-UltraBlack /Tekton /Times-Bold /Times-BoldA /Times-BoldItalic /Times-BoldOblique /Times-Italic /Times-NewRoman /Times-NewRomanBold /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT /Times-Oblique /Times-PhoneticAlternate /Times-PhoneticIPA /Times-Roman /Times-RomanSmallCaps /Times-Sc /Times-SCB /Times-special /TimesTenGreekP-Upright /TradeGothic /TradeGothic-Bold /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl /TradeGothic-BoldOblique /TradeGothic-BoldTwo /TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique /TradeGothic-CondEighteen /TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl /TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended /TradeGothicLH-Extended /TradeGothic-Light /TradeGothic-LightOblique /TradeGothic-Oblique /Trajan-Bold /TrajanPro-Bold /TrajanPro-Regular /Trajan-Regular /Transitional521BT-BoldA /Transitional521BT-CursiveA /Transitional521BT-RomanA /Transitional551BT-MediumB /Transitional551BT-MediumItalicB /Univers /Universal-GreekwithMathPi /Universal-NewswithCommPi /Univers-BlackExt /Univers-BlackExtObl /Univers-Bold /Univers-BoldExt /Univers-BoldExtObl /Univers-BoldOblique /Univers-Condensed /Univers-CondensedBold /Univers-CondensedBoldOblique /Univers-CondensedOblique /Univers-Extended /Univers-ExtendedObl /Univers-ExtraBlackExt /Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl /Univers-Light /Univers-LightOblique /UniversLTStd-Black /UniversLTStd-BlackObl /Univers-Oblique /Utopia-Black /Utopia-BlackOsF /Utopia-Bold /Utopia-BoldItalic /Utopia-Italic /Utopia-Ornaments /Utopia-Regular /Utopia-Semibold /Utopia-SemiboldItalic /VAGRounded-Black /VAGRounded-Bold /VAGRounded-Light /VAGRounded-Thin /Viva-BoldExtraExtended /Viva-Regular /Weidemann-Black /Weidemann-BlackItalic /Weidemann-Bold /Weidemann-BoldItalic /Weidemann-Book /Weidemann-BookItalic /Weidemann-Medium /Weidemann-MediumItalic /WindsorBT-Elongated /WindsorBT-Light /WindsorBT-LightCondensed /WindsorBT-Roman /Wingdings-Regular /WNCYB10 /WNCYI10 /WNCYR10 /WNCYSC10 /WNCYSS10 /WoodtypeOrnaments-One /WoodtypeOrnaments-Two /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal /ZapfChancery-MediumItalic /ZapfDingbats /ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular /ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold /ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold /ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi /ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra /ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic /ZurichBT-Black /ZurichBT-BlackExtended /ZurichBT-BlackItalic /ZurichBT-Bold /ZurichBT-BoldCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-BoldExtended /ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldItalic /ZurichBT-ExtraBlack /ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-Italic /ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed /ZurichBT-Light /ZurichBT-LightCondensed /ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-LightItalic /ZurichBT-Roman /ZurichBT-RomanCondensed /ZurichBT-RomanExtended /ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /FRA <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> /JPN <FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3092542b308000200050004400460020658766f830924f5c62103059308b3068304d306b4f7f75283057307e30593002537052376642306e753b8cea3092670059279650306b4fdd306430533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103057305f00200050004400460020658766f8306f0020004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067304d307e30593002> /DEU <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> /PTB <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> /DAN <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> /NLD <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> /ESP <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> /SUO <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> /ITA <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> /NOR <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> /SVE <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> /ENU (Use these settings for creating PDF files for submission to The Sheridan Press. These settings configured for Acrobat v6.0 08/06/03.) >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice