Citizen Concerns and Approval of Police Performance

Transcription

1 Citizen Concerns and Approval of Police Performance Greg Koehle, Tamson Six, and Kate Hanrahan Assessing police performance is challenging. Surveys of citizen satisfaction with police services are a staple in the literature on police effectiveness. This paper presents the results of a recent survey conducted by a central Pennsylvania police department. The survey was intended to inform the police department about community needs and concerns. Residents of owner occupied dwellings in four neighborhoods in a college town were surveyed to assess concern at the neighborhood level regarding crime. Citizen satisfaction with police service was also measured. Despite significant differences in crime and neighborhood characteristics, satisfaction with police service and overall approval rating were consistently high. The paper concludes with some observations about police receptivity to research findings. Key Words: Community oriented policing police approval fear of crime Debate is ongoing as to how police performance is best measured (Fielding & Innes, 2006). Traditional measures of police performance usually include response times, clearance rates, and overall crime rates (Dempsey & Forst, 2005). While quick response times, arrests cleared, and crime are important indicators, they are not representative of the many functions and interactions police have with the public (Gaines, Kappeler, & Vaughn, 1999). Additionally, the shift to community oriented policing has changed the nature of policing and citizen expectations about police performance, which requires police effectiveness to be measured differently (Ren, Cao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2005). Moreover, the perennial challenge to any evaluation or assessment effort getting the end user to trust and accept the information is particularly difficult with police officers. Police have traditionally been reluctant to accept evaluations from outside the department and resistant to expanding internal efforts. The nature of community oriented policing encompasses a broad range of programs and strategies and is difficult to define precisely (Dunham & Alpert, 1997). Many programs and initiatives include features of community oriented policing (Dempsey & Forst, 2005). Generally, though, community oriented policing can be defined through police accountability and responsiveness to the community (Dunham & Alpert, 1997). Clearly, Greg Koehle is a police officer with the State College (Pennsylvania) Police Department assigned as the Community Relations and Crime Prevention office. He is also a Criminology doctoral student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Tamson L. Six is an associate professor and serves as Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Lock Haven University. Kate Hanrahan is a professor of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

2 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan this perspective broadens potential evaluation criteria and, at the same time, makes relevant additional types of systematically collected information. Citizen surveys have been identified as an essential measurement tool for police performance (Wells, Horney, & Maguire, 2005). In fact, some have urged that community attitudes should be measured before instituting community policing (Sims, Hooper, & Peterson, 2002). A citizen survey serves the purpose of measuring police performance and providing additional information to guide implementation of a community oriented policing approach. The survey reported here represents an effort to provide the sponsoring police department (State College Police Department) with information about citizen concern regarding crime and related problems. It also describes citizen satisfaction with local police service and performance at the neighborhood level. Community Oriented Policing While community oriented policing is represented differently in police departments throughout our country, a few principles remain constant. Principal among them is the idea that police should understand and respond to public expectations. Community oriented policing should involve the police working directly with the community (Hawdon & Ryan, 2003). More specifically, community oriented policing expands the focus of policing and generally attempts to be more proactive, as opposed to traditional policing, which is often viewed as reactive (Schneider, Rowell, & Bezdikian, 2003). With an increased role and proactive nature, community oriented policing should be an essential part of improving quality of life, and police performance can be aligned with and assessed on matters that police departments have control over. While many departments espouse a community oriented policing approach, there is no consensus among experts regarding how best to determine whether an agency is more aligned with traditional or community policing methods in its philosophy and practice (Lilley & Hinduja, 2006). An argument could be made to have the public assess the level of effectiveness and/or community oriented policing in a department, rather than assessing a police department by any other means. The State College Police Department has adopted a community and problem oriented policing approach. State College Borough is home to one of the largest universities in the United States. The borough surrounds Penn State and has a population of 38,500, which makes it the largest borough in the Commonwealth. Penn State University has a student population of 44,000; approximately two-thirds of the students live off-campus. While the borough enjoys a positive relationship with the university, the sheer size and relatively transient nature of the student population poses challenges familiar to all who live or work in a small town that houses a college or university. One of 10 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

3 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance the main goals of the local government, including the police department, is neighborhood preservation. Owner occupied residences have been identified as an important factor in neighborhood preservation. The survey reported below was directed at owner-residents in four key neighborhoods. The purpose was to establish baseline information about problems, concerns, and satisfaction with the police. Methods Survey Background In June 2007, the State College Police Department conducted a mail survey of four neighborhoods: Highlands, Holmes Foster, College Heights East, and College Heights West (see Appendix A for map). A total of 886 surveys were sent out. The mailing consisted of a cover letter, color-coded survey, and a postage-paid addressed envelope (see Appendix B for cover letter and Appendix C for survey). The surveys were sent only to owner-occupied residences. The survey had several general purposes. The concern for crime and level of satisfaction and approval of the police were primary. These four neighborhoods were specifically selected because of the stated, overall local governmental goal of neighborhood preservation and their strategic location in close proximity to the University. Four Neighborhoods and Downtown The four neighborhoods surveyed all border Penn State University and/or the town s downtown area and are roughly the same geographic size. The reported crime rates and level of owner occupied residences within these neighborhoods differ significantly. Owner occupied residences were targeted because they are viewed as a key component of neighborhood preservation and their occupants are likely to be best informed regarding the matters surveyed. Downtown. Downtown State College is roughly twenty square blocks. Downtown consists of more than 30 licensed liquor establishments, several restaurants, retail businesses, and housing, largely in the form of high-rises with student tenants. Downtown accounts for approximately 5,000 calls for service annually, which represents the largest volume of calls for service in any of the areas the State College Police Department serves. Annually, the State College Police Department handles more than 20,000 calls for service. Highlands. The Highlands neighborhood borders downtown for approximately ten blocks. The Highlands is largely residential, although it does contain some light commercial use. Several high-rise apartment complexes are occupied largely by students. Some of the single family homes are rentals and occupied largely by students. The Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

4 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan Highlands accounts for approximately 4,500 calls for service annually and is second to Downtown in number of calls for service. Holmes Foster. The Holmes Foster neighborhood is mostly residential. It is similar to the Highlands because it does contain commercial space and student housing, although the proportion is much lower than the Highlands. Holmes Foster residences are largely owner occupied. Holmes Foster accounts for approximately 1,350 calls per service annually. College Heights East and West. The College Heights East and West neighborhoods are very similar. Both are strictly residential with College Heights East having more rentals and student housing than West. Generally, these two neighborhoods are quiet, accounting for approximately 200 calls annually each. Survey Response Rates Public response to the survey was unexpectedly high, particularly given that a single mailing was done. The overall rate of return was 60% (527 surveys returned out of 873 mailed). Neighborhood response rates were virtually identical: 60% Highlands, 60% Holmes-Foster, 60% College Heights East, and 59% College Heights West. Results The two main areas the survey measured were public perception of different types of crime at the neighborhood level, and public satisfaction with the State College Police Department. Concern With Crime In general, the public seemed to be more concerned with nuisance activity and far less concerned with serious crime; however, there were variations by neighborhood. Nuisance Crime. Overall, as Table 1 indicates, approximately one-third (30%) of respondents reported that they were moderately to extremely concerned with nuisance crimes (graffiti, vandalism, etc.). However, concern ranged from 58% in the Highlands neighborhood to approximately 20% in the two College Heights areas. Serious Crime. Community concern about serious crime is quite different from that expressed for nuisance offenses. As Table 2 shows, for the most part, citizens report that they are slightly or not concerned about serious crime. Some difference by neighborhood is noted, with Highlands residents reporting that they are somewhat more concerned about serious crime than respondents from other neighborhoods. 12 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

5 Table 1. Concern With Nuisance Activity Concern Rate % Highlands n = 73 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Holmes Foster n = 124 College Heights West n = 195 College Heights East n = 135 Extremely Concerned 32% 22% 8% 7% Moderately Concerned 26% 22% 12% 12% Somewhat Concerned 23% 18% 15% 12% Slightly Concerned 10% 18% 22% 38% Not Concerned 8% 17% 41% 29% Do Not Know 1% 3% 2% 0% Note. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Survey Item. Please rate the level of concern about nuisance activity in your neighborhood. By neighborhood nuisance activity we mean such problems as garbage, graffiti, vandalism, loud parties, speeding cars, or other activities that can be irritating or harmful but are generally not felony level crimes. Table 2. Concern With Serious Crime Concern Rate % Extremely Concerned Moderately Concerned Somewhat Concerned Slightly Concerned Highlands n = 73 Holmes Foster n = 124 College Heights West n = 195 College Heights East n = 135 4% 5% 2% 2% 10% 8% 3% 4% 20% 10% 7% 5% 20% 34% 27% 21% Not Concerned 39% 36% 55% 64% Do Not Know 4% 4% 4% 1% Total 98% 97% 98% 97% Survey item. Please rate the level of concern about dangerous criminal activity in your neighborhood. By dangerous criminal activity we mean such problems as car theft, assault, burglary, drug sales, domestic violence, and other serious, felony level crimes. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

6 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan Reported Crime As Table 3 shows, crime rates do vary by neighborhood, and the pattern generally reflects citizen concern. Table 3. Crime reported May 2006 April 2007 by Neighborhood Crime Type Violent/Serious (1) Property (2) Public Nuisance (3) Highlands Holmes Foster College Heights West College Heights East Downtown Total Note. (1) includes: rape, robbery, burglary, assault, drug offenses, sex offenses, auto theft, and arson; (2) includes: theft, fraud, forgery, criminal mischief and receiving stolen property; (3) includes: DUI, liquor law violations, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, and traffic related offenses. Table 4. Citizen Evaluation of Police Service Satisfaction Rate % Highlands n = 55 Holmes Foster n = 63 College Heights West n = 70 College Heights East n = 76 Excellent 58% 57% 54% 65% More Than Satisfactory 21% 19% 22% 17% Satisfactory 10% 22% 17% 9% Less Than Satisfactory 3% 0% 5% 7% Poor 5% 1% 0% 0% Total 97% 99% 98% 98% Note: Only those survey respondents who had contact with the police in the preceding 12 months were directed to answer this question; n = 264. Survey Item. Please rate the overall quality of assistance you received on a scale of one (1) to five (5) where five is excellent and one is poor. 14 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

7 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Satisfaction With Police Given the differences in reported crime by neighborhood and varying levels of concern with crime by neighborhood, differences in public satisfaction with police service was expected. However, as Table 4 shows, survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction across all four neighborhoods. Overall, 78% of the respondents rate the police performance as more than satisfactory or excellent. Interestingly, there is little difference across the neighborhoods. Important to note here is the fact that only those members of the public who reported contact with the police in the preceding 12 months were directed to answer this question. Contact with the police did vary by neighborhood. Fully 75% (55/73) of the respondents in the Highlands neighborhood reported contact with the police. Only 34% of those in College Heights West had such contact; about 50% of the respondents in College Heights East and Holmes-Foster reported contact with the department. Overall Approval of Police Again, given the differences in neighborhood characteristics, reported crime, and reported level of concern for serious and nuisance crime, police approval rating was expected to vary accordingly. Interestingly, as Table 5 shows, the approval/confidence level was consistently high in each of the neighborhoods. This is noteworthy and informative, given the extreme differences in crime indicated in Table 3. Table 5. Citizen Confidence In/Approval of Local Police Satisfaction Rate % Highlands n = 73 Holmes Foster n = 124 College Heights West n = 195 College Heights East n = 135 Excellent 53% 43% 44% 50% More Than Satisfactory 30% 33% 31% 31% Satisfactory 10% 15% 13% 10% Less Than Satisfactory 1% 0% 2% 2% Poor 2% 0% 0% 0% Do Not Know 1% 7% 8% 5% Total 97% 98% 98% 98% Survey Item. Please rate your overall confidence/approval of the State College Police Department on a scale of one (1) to five (5), where five is excellent and one is poor. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

8 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan Qualitative Comments Survey respondents were asked this final question: If you could make one recommendation to the State College Police Department about how we could improve services to your neighborhood, what would it be? The vast majority of respondents 72% wrote in a recommendation. About 10% of the comments simply complimented the work of the police department; for example, Keep up the excellent work! You are appreciated (Respondent 331, College Heights West). By far the most common recommendations concerned increasing patrol or enforcement activities (30% of comments) and traffic or parking concerns (33% of comments). These two categories are more closely connected than they may appear; requests for additional patrol or enforcement often explicitly asked for more enforcement of local ordinances such as those governing speeding or noise. For example, one respondent wrote: More patrols bicycle perhaps in warm months and stricter enforcement of noise, garbage, traffic, and parking ordinances. Better enforcement of open container laws and underage drinking laws (Respondent 391, Holmes-Foster). Many statements imply concerns about student activities, but relatively few mentioned students explicitly. And of the latter, some statements were quite positive. These two categories patrol/enforcement and traffic/parking were the most common recommendations in each neighborhood. The relative emphasis varied somewhat by neighborhood as Table 6 shows. Residents of the Highlands neighborhood were much more likely to request additional patrol or enforcement activities (60%) than were residents of other neighborhoods, while owners in the remaining three areas were more likely to note concerns with traffic/parking. It probably would be a mistake to make too much of the between-neighborhood differences in these two categories given the close connection of these two topics of concern. One final observation about the qualitative comments is the striking lack of comments about serious crime. In line with earlier quantitative findings (see Table 2), comments about serious crime are remarkably few. Perhaps a handful of residents mentioned crime explicitly. For example, a resident of the Holmes-Foster neighborhood wrote: More police presence cruisers, bikes, etc; evenings but especially late night. Please protect the integrity of the neighborhood for those who have chosen to live permanently here.... Concerns about garbage, loud parties, speeding cars, stolen property, car break-ins, noise violations, and garage break-in (Respondent 498). 16 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

9 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Table 6. Selected Recommendations for Improved Services by Neighborhood Recommendation Highlands n = 60 Holmes Foster n = 92 College Heights West n = 126 College Heights East n = 104 Total N = 382 Patrol/enforcement 60% 32% 20% 25% 31% Traffic/parking 13% 34% 39% 38% 36% All other 27% 35% 41% 33% 33% Total 100% 101% 100% 101% 100% Note. Not all respondents provided a recommendation. Survey Item. If you could make one recommendation to the State College Police Department about how we could improve services to your neighborhood, what would it be? Of the few similar comments, some respondents placed their concern about crime outside of their immediate area: Just keep up the good work. We are concerned about the increasing number of assaults in the downtown area (Respondent 102, College Heights East). Others seem to believe that the offenders are likely to be outsiders; for example: Advise residents to do more to prevent crime lock houses and cars, report suspicious activity to prevent this neighborhood from becoming a burglary and mugging target area when [newly extended Route] I-99 brings drug addicts to town looking for easy pickings (Respondent 122, College Heights East). Discussion This study was intended to provide basic information about the community s concern for crime, satisfaction with police service, and overall approval of police in four neighborhoods. Positive public responses and perceptions of police service were expected to vary along the dimension of community problems. That is, residents of the Highlands neighborhood were expected to be less satisfied with the police service due to the large number of calls for service and crimes reported in that neighborhood. In fact, the opposite was found. More than half (53%) of survey respondents from this neighborhood rated their satisfaction with police response and performance as excellent and another Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

10 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan 30% rated the police as more than satisfactory. These ratings were higher than any other neighborhood in the survey. The literature on public expectations suggests that the public holds the police responsible for a wide range of problems, with crime at the head of the list. And it is not unreasonable for a citizen to assume that because police enforce the law they should be able to control crime. Unfortunately, crime is the result of broader social factors, which are well beyond the control of the police (Katzenbach, 1967; Williams & McShane, 2003). Despite the fact that the police do not have control over these factors, police effectiveness is often judged on the basis of crime rates when it should not be (Klockars, 1997). It has even been suggested that the police and criminologists seem to be the only groups who understand the complexities of crime (Cole & Gertz, 1998). Policing involves many functions and different types of interactions with the public beyond those associated with crime control (Gaines, et al., 1999). Cole and Gertz (1998) illustrate this complexity by citing Manning s (1972) essay in which he asserts that the police have an impossible mandate because there are no limits to policing and the public expects the police to respond to all complaints and maintain order (pp ). While the police are expected to fill many roles, recent research indicates that public opinion of the police may be more the result of how a person in direct contact with the police was treated than the outcome of the contact (Horowitz, n.d.). For example, while most victims typically want the offender to be apprehended, evidence suggests that victims may actually place more emphasis on how responding officers treat them than on a subsequent arrest. This is true for the offender as well. While being arrested is generally an unpleasant experience, the accused have shown appreciation for respectful treatment from the officer. Skogan (2005) has suggested that, Although there are many determinants of people s attitudes and assessments of policing, none is more important for policy than the quality of service being rendered (p. 298). Police Receptivity to Research Data This paper would be incomplete without acknowledging the traditional police resistance to evaluation and, in particular, the role and effect of the police subculture in relationship to the type of community input that characterizes community oriented policing. The essence of the police subculture is an us (police) vs. them (public) mentality (Gaines et al., 1999). What is less well recognized, but very apparent to those who work within departments, is that police departments have a series of subcultures, in which officers are oppositional to other officers of different rank, assignment, tour, and/or policing philosophy. Of significance here is that the police subculture is generally negative and can informally control police officers more so than formal rules such as departmental policy (Herbert, 2006). 18 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

11 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Several possible reasons for the existence of the police subculture have been hypothesized. One possibility is that the police feel removed from society because they are dealing with criminals and the public does not understand the complexities of policing (Culbertson & Weisheit, 1997). Another contributing factor could be that officers view themselves as crime-fighters and the public on a lower level as potential victims (Herbert, 2006). These types of attitudes are obviously inconsistent with the community oriented policing philosophy. In fact, Holdaway (1984), as cited by Goldstein (1987), suggests that community oriented policing has had little effect because it was undermined by the police subculture. The police subculture supports the traditional model of policing with the police as crime-fighters and actually might prefer the opposite of community oriented policing. That is, they would prefer an atmosphere where the police determine which problems they will address and which solutions they will offer. The findings in this paper support the argument for using citizen assessment of satisfaction with police performance in general and in response to calls for service. The strategy used here might increase police receptivity to input from the public. Examining public perception of and satisfaction with police performance and response within the context of response to calls for service may be a more effective indicator of police effectiveness than the statistics such as reduced crime and increased clearance rates. The State College Police Department is in the enviable position of having a strongly positive public rating. Future research projects will likely involve qualitative methods. The type of information focus groups and qualitative one-to-one interviews typically provide is familiar to and thus more readily accepted by officers. As stated earlier, community oriented policing is broadly defined and can be abstract in nature. It is our hypothesis that the abstract nature of the concept of community policing hinders its acceptance among officers because it is contrary to the explicitness police officers seek. For example, by the nature of their job, police officers must operate in the unknown. Consequently, they must focus on quickly informing themselves for safety and legal reasons. The law and much of police policy are quite broad, and subsequently vague, this is by design since much of what the police encounter is situation-dependent. Specifically, important legal terms such as reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the totality of the circumstances are all fluid concepts that are interpreted and subsequently applied based on the situation (Samaha, 2002). However, their applicability must often be determined quickly. As a result, police officers focus on specific facts, not philosophies, beliefs, and/or other intangibles in which community oriented policing is typically presented. The nature of police investigations is quite similar to research in that contributing and causal factors and validity or accuracy are of primary focus and importance. The police subculture can readily and easily dismiss statistical findings or research conducted by other police departments or by external Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

12 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan reviewers, who do not understand the complex nature of police response to a call for service. However, the nature of qualitative findings in the words of real people, in response to questions familiar in police work may increase the receptivity of police officers. The design reduces the chance that the findings will be similarly dismissed. References Cole, G. F. & Gertz, M. G. (1998). The criminal justice system: Politics and policies (Rev. ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth. Culbertson, R. G., & Weisheit, R. A. (1997). Order under law. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Dempsey, J. S., & Forst, L. S. (2005). An introduction to policing (3 rd ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth. Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (1997). Critical issues in policing (3 rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Fielding, N., & Innes, M. (2006). Reassurance policing, community policing, and measuring police performance. Policing and Society, 16, Gaines, L. K., Kappeler, V. E., & Vaughn, J. B. (1999). Policing in America (3 rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime & Delinquency, 33, Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2003). Police-resident interactions and satisfaction with police: An empirical test of community policing assertions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, Herbert, S. (2006). Tangled up in blue: Conflicting paths to police legitimacy. Theoretical Criminology, 10, Horowitz, J. (n.d.). Making every encounter count: Building trust and confidence in the police. National Institute of Justice, 256. Katzenbach, N. (1967, February). The President s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Klockars, C. B. (1997, November). Measuring what matters: Developing measures of what police can do. National Institute of Justice, Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

13 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Lilley, D., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Organizational values and police officer evaluation: A content comparison between traditional and community policing agencies. Police Quarterly, 9, Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in the police with the performance of the police: Community policing can make a difference. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, Samaha, J. (2002). Criminal procedure (5 th ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth. Schneider, M. C., Rowell, T., & Bezdikian, V. (2003). The impact of citizen perceptions of community policing on fear of crime: Findings from twelve cities. Police Quarterly, 6, Sims, B., Hooper, M., & Peterson, S.A. (1999). Determinants of citizens attitudes toward police: Results of the Harrisburg citizen survey Policing, 25, Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8, Wells, W., Horney, J., & Maguire, E. R. (2005). Patrol officer responses to citizen feedback: An experimental analysis. Police Quarterly, 8, Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (2003). Criminological theory (4 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

14 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan Appendix A Map of four neighborhoods and Penn State University 22 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010

15 Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance Appendix B Mail Survey Cover Letter June 11, 2007 Dear Neighborhood Resident, Over the next several years, the Borough of State College will survey residents in an effort to collect information and opinions regarding the delivery of a variety of governmental services and other important issues in the community. The enclosed survey focuses on public safety and services provided by the State College Police Department. The police department is committed to neighborhood preservation and values your opinion. Our commitment is demonstrated through the department's community oriented policing philosophy. We are currently involved in programs designed to improve neighborhood safety as well as maintain and enhance the quality of life in the.... Neighborhood. In an effort to improve services to your neighborhood, the State College Police Department would appreciate if you would take a few minutes to complete the enclosed brief survey. Your responses are completely anonymous and will only be compiled in the aggregate with survey responses from other citizens residing in the... Neighborhood. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which is enclosed. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments regarding this survey, please contact Officer Greg Koehle, community relations officer for the State College Police Department at (814) or gkoehle@statecollegepa.us. Thank you in advance for assisting with this important endeavor. Sincerely, Thomas R. King Chief of Police Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1),

16 Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan Appendix C Survey 1. Please rate the level of concern about nuisance activity in your neighborhood. By neighborhood nuisance activity, we mean such problems as garbage, graffiti, vandalism, loud parties, speeding cars, or other activities that can be irritating or harmful but are generally not felony level crimes. EXTREMELY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SLIGHTLY NOT DON'T KNOW CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED Please rate the level of concern about dangerous criminal activity in your neighborhood. By dangerous criminal activity, we mean such problems as car theft, assault, burglary, drug sales, domestic violence, and other serious, felony level crimes. EXTREMELY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SLIGHTLY NOT DON'T KNOW CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED CONCERNED Have you had contact with the State College Police Department during the last 12 months? Yes 1 (Please answer 3b if answered yes) No 2 (proceed to 4) Don't recall 9 (proceed to 4) 3b. Please rate the overall quality of assistance you received on a scale of one to five, where five is excellent, and one is poor. POOR LESS THAN SATISFACTORY MORE THAN EXCELLENT DON'T KNOW SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY Please rate your overall confidence/approval of the State College Police Department on a scale of one to five, where five is excellent, and one is poor. POOR LESS THAN SATISFACTORY MORE THAN EXCELLENT DON'T KNOW SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY If you could make one recommendation to the State College Police Department about how we could improve services to your neighborhood, what would it be? 24 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010