Police Activities and Community Views of Police in Crime Hot Spots

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	“Avalon” avg (s.d.)	Range	N available	“Willowdale” avg (s.d.)	Range	N available
Outcome variables
Trust	3.9 (0.8)	1 − 5	559	4.0 (0.9)	1 − 5	518
Legitimacy	3.8 (1.0)	1 − 5	560	3.8 (1.0)	1 − 5	515
Reporting	3.9 (1.1)	1 − 5	558	3.9 (1.0)	1 − 5	518
Capability	3.9 (0.8)	1 − 5	554	3.9 (0.9)	1 − 5	515
Responsive	2.7 (1.4)	1 − 5	525	2.7 (1.4)	1 − 5	476
Satisfaction	4.0 (1.2)	1 − 5	552	4.1 (1.1)	1 − 5	514
Procedural justice	3.7 (0.9)	1 − 5	534	3.7 (1.0)	1 − 5	494
Predictors
Perceived patrol	2.4 (0.9)	1 − 5	561	2.7 (0.9)	1 − 5	519
Perceived enforcement	1.5 (0.8)	1 − 5	549	1.6 (0.9)	1 − 5	514
Perceived community engagement	1.4 (0.8)	1 − 5	546	1.5 (0.8)	1 − 5	508
Age	2.7 (0.9)	1 − 4	555	2.6 (1.0)	1 − 4	517
1 = 18 to 25 (11% / 15%)
2 = 26 to 39 (34% / 31%)
3 = 40 to 59 (34% / 33%)
4 = 60+ (21% / 21%)
Race	1.7 (0.5)	1 − 2	555	1.7 (0.5)	1 − 2	518
1 = White (28% / 32%)
2 = Non-white (72% / 68%)
Gender	1.4 (0.5)	1 − 2	561	1.4 (0.5)	1 − 2	520
1 = Female (56% / 55%)
2= Male (44% / 45%)
Time living/working in area	2.1 (0.8)	1 − 3	562	2.1 (0.7)	1 − 3	518
1 = 6 months-1 yr (24% / 20%)
2 = 1-5 yrs (41% / 48%)
3 = 5+ yrs (35% / 32%)
Education	3.2 (1.3)	1 − 6	554	3.1 (1.3)	1 − 6	516
1 = Less than high school (5% / 6%)
2 = high school graduate (31% / 35%)
3 = some college (29% / 29%)
4 = associate degree (14% / 10%)
5 = bachelor’s degree (14% / 13%)
6 = graduate or prof. degree (6% / 7%)
Residential or commercial respondent	0.9 (0.3)	0 − 1	562	0.8 (0.4)	0 − 1	520
0 = commercial (14% / 16%)
1 = residential (86% / 84%)
Property crime victimization	1.1 (0.2)	1 − 2.5	561	1.1 (0.2)	1 − 3.13	520
Violent crime victimization	1.0 (0.1)	1 − 2.25	562	1.0 (0.1)	1 − 2.5	520
Fear of crime	1.9 (1.0)	1 − 5	555	1.9 (1.0)	1 − 5	517
Perceived crime/disorder	1.8 (0.8)	1 − 5	559	2.0 (1.0)	1 − 5	517
Citizen-initiated police contact	2.4 (0.9)	2 − 8	559	2.5 (1.0)	2 − 9	519
Proactive police contact	2.2 (0.7)	2 − 8	553	2.3 (0.9)	2 − 9	517
Recent police stop	1.2 (0.5)	1 − 5	559	1.2 (0.6)	1 − 5	519
Police misconduct	1.2 (0.6)	1 − 5	554	1.2 (0.6)	1 − 4	517
N of hot spots	60			42
N of respondents	562			520

Notes: See text and Appendix Table A1 for descriptions of the outcome variables and measures of perceived patrol, enforcement, and engagement. Detailed breakdowns of demographic items show percentage values for Avalon and Willowdale, respectively. The violent and property crime measures are based on items from the National Crime Victimization Survey and indicate respondents’ average victimization from several forms of violent and property crime during the prior six months on a scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = 5 or more times. The fear of crime scale is taken from Weisburd et al. (2010) and reflects respondents’ average fear of experiencing several forms of violent and property victimization on a scale ranging from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely. The perceived crime and disorder scale, adapted from Ratcliffe et al. (2015) and Weisburd et al. (2010), measures respondents’ concern about numerous crime and disorder problems on a scale ranging from 1 = not a problem to 5 = a big problem. The police contact and stop items (see text) were measured on scales ranging from 1 = never to 5 = 5 or more times. The police contact and proactive police contact measures each represent the sum of two items (with minimum of 2 = never for both measures). The police misconduct measure (see text) is based on a multi-item scale taken from Rosenbaum et al. (2007) with item responses ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always.

Table 2. Attitudes towards police regressed on perceived police activities, controlling for respondents’ characteristics and experiences (“Avalon” City).

Variable	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsive	Satisfaction	Procedural Justice
Perceived patrol	.164**	.183**	.069	.142**	-.053	.467**	.164**
Perceived enforcement	-.092	-.039	-.113	-.135*	.182*	-.148	-.157*
Perceived community engagement	.083	-.019	-.047	.144**	.751**	.133	.212**
Citizen-initiated contacts	-.039	-.074	.025	-.031	.045	-.087	-.065
Police-initiated contacts	.085*	.049	.022	.048	.276*	.081	.146*
Police stops	-.019	-.068	.074	-.026	-.140	-.067	.009
Police misconduct	-.247**	-.152	-.295**	-.404**	-.501**	-.224*	-.464**
Age (26-39)	-.287*	-.358*	.038	-.175	-.009	-.135	-.335*
Age (40-59)	-.191	-.151	.215	-.251	.001	-.327	-.394**
Age (60+)	-.075	-.164	.507**	-.158	.464*	-.533**	-.357**
Non-white	-.310**	-.308**	-.325**	-.235**	-.368**	-.312**	-.358**
Male	.030	.012	-.053	-.013	-.073	-.080	.031
1-5 years in area	.028	-.104	.043	.065	.232	.103	.074
5+ years in area	.093	.004	.254	.146	.177	.022	.241*
Education	-.020	.003	.051	-.013	.040	-.047	-.030
Resident	-.184	-.132	-.069	-.001	.000	-.013	.004
Property victimization	-.256	-.796**	-.230	-.325	-.290	-.268	-.211
Violent victimization	-.332	.203	-.338	-.493	.222	-.636	-.316
Fear of crime	-.045	.005	-.020	-.013	.059	-.099	-.073
Perceived crime / disorder	-.088	-.040	-.042	-.136	-.188	-.345**	-.058
Constant	5.20**	5.12**	4.72**	5.49**	1.792**	5.70**	4.95**
F-statistic p-value	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
R-squared	.221	.125	.147	.246	.299	.283	.300
N	501	501	500	495	470	497	478

* p< =.05, ** p< =.01. OLS estimates with standard errors clustered by hot spot. Age indicators are interpreted relative to respondents 18-25 years of age, and indicators for time in the location are interpreted relative to respondents living or working in the location for 6 months to 1 year.

Table 3. Attitudes towards police regressed on perceived police activities, controlling for respondents’ characteristics and experiences (“Willowdale” City).

Variable	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsiveness	Satisfaction	Procedural Justice
Perceived patrol	.124**	.102	.109*	.193**	.021	.317**	.121*
Perceived enforcement	-.203**	-.106	-.213**	-.252**	-.051	-.399**	-.175*
Perceived community engagement	.142**	.115	.072	.123*	.638**	.224**	.180**
Citizen-initiated contacts	-.040	-.016	.116**	-.046	-.067	-.118*	-.030
Police-initiated contacts	.055	-.068	.002	.028	.078	.079	.051
Police stops	-.119	0.250*	-.071	-.039	-.165*	-.034	-.047
Police misconduct	-.430**	-.257*	-.153*	-.403**	-.350**	-.091	-.580**
Age (26-39)	-.048	-.131	.300	-.042	-.072	.001	-.066
Age (40-59)	.075	-.005	.656**	-.153	-.165	-.018	-.066
Age (60+)	.241	.095	.686**	.051	.106	.032	-.061
Non-white	-.08	-.268**	-.257**	-.055	-.554**	-.093	-.161
Male	-.044	.048	-.112	.012	-.111	.239**	.034
1-5 years in area	-.056	-.56	-.047	-.079	.137	-.078	.141
5+ years in area	.084	-.102	-.005	.032	.277	-.027	.251
Education	.002	.043	-.050	.007	.068	-.036	-.024
Resident	.027	-.120	-.112	-.052	-.545**	.053	-.067
Property victimization	.038	.066	.273	-.018	.481*	-.032	.090
Violent victimization	-.244	-.809**	-.426	-.044	.409	.037	-.238
Fear of crime	-.109*	-.032	.027	-.063	-.176*	-.132	-.166**
Perceived crime / disorder	-.040	.083	.011	-.062	-.134	-.037	-.056
Constant	4.88**	4.58**	3.97**	4.68**	2.31**	4.24**	4.78**
F-statistic p-value	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
R-squared	.298	.091	.166	.226	.329	.183	.301
N	487	485	488	484	454	485	464

* p< =.05, ** p< =.01. OLS estimates with standard errors clustered by hot spot. Age indicators are interpreted relative to respondents 18-25 years of age, and indicators for time in the location are interpreted relative to respondents living or working in the location for 6 months to 1 year.

Table 4. Attitudes towards police regressed on perceived police activities, controlling for respondents’ characteristics and experiences (“Avalon” and “Willowdale” responses combined).

Variable	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsiveness	Satisfaction	Procedural Justice
Perceived patrol	.135**	.152**	.100*	.172**	-.003	.397**	.140**
Perceived enforcement	-.162**	-.062	-.155**	-.201**	.037	-.276**	-.176**
Perceived community engagement	.128**	.040	.002	.132**	.675**	.176**	.202**
Citizen-initiated contacts	-.042	-.040	.072*	-.039	-.020	-.102**	-.045
Police-initiated contacts	.065	-.023	.014	.035	.143*	.086	.086*
Police stops	-.091	.105	-.005	-.038	-.146*	-.060	-.030
Police misconduct	-.344**	-.199*	-.231**	-.399**	-.437**	-.188*	-.517**
Age (26-39)	-.160	-.270**	.209	-.102	-.072	-.044	-.183
Age (40-59)	-.048	-.111	.468**	-.194*	-.110	-.166	-.210*
Age (60+)	.088	-.051	.637**	-.054	.256	-.250	-.199
Non-white	-.204**	-.283**	-.265**	-.147**	-.460**	-.194**	-.263**
Male	-.002	.028	-.074	.003	-.093	.080	.030
1-5 years in area	-.009	-.079	.007	-.005	.178	-.013	.095
5+ years in area	.088	-.045	.132	.093	.237	-.009	.235*
Education	-.013	.030	.001	-.007	.058	-.052*	-.029
Resident	-.076	-.133	-.087	-.039	-.351**	.010	-.043
Property victimization	-.100	-.385*	-.050	-.179	.121	-.020	-.052
Violent victimization	-.221	-.444	-.275	-.313	.197	-.321	-.254
Fear of crime	-.075*	-.016	-.004	-.040	-.052	-.124*	-.114**
Perceived crime / disorder	-.065	.018	-.003	-.093**	-.160**	-.168**	-.062
Willowdale	.032	-.016	-.004	.029	-.047	.043	-.058
Constant	5.00**	5.05**	4.23**	5.14**	2.53**	5.06**	4.91**
F-statistic p-value	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
R-squared	.244	.083	.135	.228	.290	.210	.290
N	988	986	988	979	924	982	942

* p< =.05, ** p< =.01. OLS estimates with standard errors clustered by hot spot. Age indicators are interpreted relative to respondents 18-25 years of age, and indicators for time in the location are interpreted relative to respondents living or working in the location for 6 months to 1 year.

Table 5. Tests for racial invariance in regressions of attitudes towards police on perceived police activities (“Avalon” and “Willowdale” responses combined).

Variable	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsiveness	Satisfaction	Procedural Justice
Perceived patrol	.131*	.207**	.119	.137*	.005	.519**	.148*
Perceived enforcement	-.161*	-.111	-.174**	-.202*	-.130	-.272*	-.215**
Perceived community engagement	.137*	.113	-.075	.101	.648**	.229**	.191**
Perceived patrol * Black	.000	-.034	-.027	.043	-.035	-.139	-.005
Perceived enforcement * Black	-.004	.055	.034	.002	.190	-.003	.022
Perceived community engagement * Black	-.022	-.095	.090	.023	.009	-.042	.003

* p< =.05, ** p< =.01. OLS estimates with standard errors clustered by hot spot. Black and white respondents only. Models control for same respondent characteristics and experiences shown in Tables 3–5 (estimates not shown).

Table 6. Standardized coefficients from regressions of attitudes towards police on perceived police activities: key policing measures (“Avalon” and “Willowdale” responses combined).

Variable	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsiveness	Satisfaction	Procedural Justice
Perceived patrol	.146	.131	.087	.172	n/s	.302	.130
Perceived enforcement	-.157	n/s	-.122	-.183	n/s	-.188	-.152
Perceived community engagement	.119	n/s	n/s	.115	.366	.115	.166
Police misconduct	-.241	-.112	-.229	-.258	-.170	-.090	-.321

Coefficients shown only for variables that were statistically significant at p< =.05 (n/s = not significant). Models control for same respondent characteristics and experiences shown in Tables 3–5 (estimates not shown).

Table

Measure	Items (abbreviated)	α	Source(s)
Trust in police scale (“trust”)	Proud of the police Afraid of the police Trusting of the police Uneasy around the police Feeling confident in the abilities of the police Responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree	0.79	Rosenbaum et al. (2007)
Police legitimacy scale (“legitimacy”)	Should do what the police tell me to, even if I disagree Should accept decisions made by area police, even if I do not understand the reasons for their decisions Should obey police directives because that is the proper or right thing to do Responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree	0.81	Kochel et al. (2015)
Willingness to report to police scale (“reporting”)	A crime committed against you A non-crime problem, e.g., excessive noise, on your block Suspicious activity on your block Information that may help solve a crime Responses: 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely	0.72	Weisburd et al. (2010); Kochel et al. (2015)
Police capability scale (“capability”)	Well-trained Knowledgeable about police procedures Respond quickly to emergency calls Satisfied with overall performance Capable of maintaining order in the streets Capable of responding to emergencies Capable of solving crimes Capable of preventing future crime Responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree	0.94	Rosenbaum et al. (2007); Kochel et al. (2015)
Police responsiveness scale (“responsive”)	Sharing information with residents Taking residents’ suggestions on local crime and non-crime related problems Working with residents to solve local problems Dealing with problems that really concern residents Providing crime prevention tips to residents Available to talk to residents Responses: 1 = very poor job to 5 = very good job	0.98	Rosenbaum et al. (2007)
Procedural justice scale (“procedural justice”)	Treat citizens with respect and professionalism Neutral and transparent Courteous to residents Provide the same quality of service to all citizens in the area Take the time to listen to people Fair and impartial Treat all people with dignity and respect Explain their actions to people Respectful of the youth Respectful of minorities Responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree	0.97	Rosenbaum et al. (2007); Kochel et al. (2015)
Satisfaction with police item (“satisfaction”)	In general, how satisfied are you with the frequency of police presence? Responses: 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied	N/A	N/A

α = Cronbach’s alpha estimated with full multi-city sample (maximum n = 1,082). All scales and items were measured on a 1 to 5 scale with higher scores indicating more positive views (items were reverse-coded as needed). Some scales combine items from multiple listed sources.

Table

	Satisfaction	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsive	Procedural justice	Perceived patrol	Perceived enforcement	Perceived community engagement
Satisfaction	1
Trust	0.4184	1
Legitimacy	0.2873	0.3292	1
Reporting	0.2076	0.3343	0.2442	1
Capability	0.511	0.6753	0.4044	0.3529	1
Responsive	0.1136	0.2627	0.1002	0.1861	0.2891	1
Procedural justice	0.4891	0.6351	0.4151	0.3328	0.7231	0.3695	1
Perceived patrol	0.2599	0.1299	0.1067	−0.0077	0.0977	0.1967	0.1596	1
Perceived enforcement	-0.0976	-0.0964	−0.0702	-0.169	-0.151	0.1942	-0.1002	0.396	1
Perceived community engagement	0.1215	0.0956	0.019	−0.0151	0.0848	0.4305	0.1732	0.4433	0.477	1

Bolded coefficients statistically significant at p< =.05. Maximum n = 562.

Table

	Satisfaction	Trust	Legitimacy	Reporting	Capability	Responsive	Procedural justice	Perceived patrol	Perceived enforcement	Perceived community engagement
Satisfaction	1
Trust	0.4294	1
Legitimacy	0.2042	0.284	1
Reporting	0.2027	0.4213	0.1918	1
Capability	0.477	0.6983	0.3785	0.3044	1
Responsive	0.1554	0.3031	0.0945	0.1268	0.2858	1
Procedural justice	0.4142	0.6536	0.3237	0.3219	0.7184	0.3901	1
Perceived patrol	0.1648	0.0092	0.0633	0.0466	0.0426	0.0736	0.0186	1
Perceived enforcement	-0.1735	-0.2518	−0.071	-0.1025	-0.2568	0.0347	-0.2234	0.4308	1
Perceived community engagement	0.1132	0.0907	0.0623	0.0666	0.0496	0.369	0.115	0.3927	0.4975	1

Bolded coefficients statistically significant at p< =.05. Maximum n = 520.

Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., Famega, C., & Ready, J. (2010). Legitimacy, fear, and collective efficacy in crime hot spots: Assessing the impacts of broken windows policing strategies on citizen attitudes. Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

 Google Scholar

Ratcliffe, J. H., Groff, E. R., Sorg, E. T., & Haberman, C. P. (2015). Citizens’ reactions to hot spots policing: Impacts on perceptions of crime, disorder, safety, and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9230-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Graziano, L. M., & Stephens, C. D. (2007). Measuring police and community performance using web-based surveys: Findings from the Chicago Internet Project. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

 Google Scholar

Kochel, T. R., Burruss, G. W., & Weisburd, D. (2015). St. Louis County hot spots in residential areas (SCHIRA) final report: Assessing the effects of hot spots policing strategies on police legitimacy, crime, and collective efficacy. Southern Illinois University.

 Google Scholar