Page 1 of 18
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.99.13111. Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police
Mark Pullin
Associate Professor or Border and Homeland Security
Department of Security Studies, Angelo State University
ABSTRACT
Research examining citizen perception of the police have typically looked at
expanded views of how the police interact in the community. By narrowing the focus
to encompass two principles that associate citizen satisfaction with and perceptions
of the police, this paper will include areas that influence satisfaction directly from
citizens toward police officers themselves. Moreover, recent research stresses the
importance of police/citizen relationships for positive outcomes to occur after
interaction. Research regarding race and ethnicity of the citizen is reviewed as well
as youth and age to provide context for this article. Demographic variables have
been shown to have an impact of citizen perception of the police thus affecting how
they view the police and government agencies. Police literature is reviewed as to
how these demographics contribute to neighborhood level changes in attitudes
toward police officers. Community policing literature and the effects it has on
neighborhood social cohesion and collective efficacy is also included. This will lead
into a discussion of neighborhood social cohesion and collective efficacy and their
impact on citizen perceptions of the police.
Keywords: Collective efficacy, Social Cohesion, Age, Gender, Race, Ethnicity,
Socioeconomic status, Citizen Perception, Police, Community, Locale.
INTRODUCTION
This paper will encompass two principles that associate citizen satisfaction with and
perceptions of the police. The first will include areas that influence satisfaction directly from
citizens toward police officers themselves. This literature stresses the importance of
police/citizen relationships for positive outcomes to occur after interaction. Research
regarding race and ethnicity of the citizen is reviewed as well as youth and age to provide
context for this dissertation. Demographic variables have been shown to have an impact of
citizen perception of the police thus affecting how they view the police and government
agencies. Police literature is reviewed as to how these demographics contribute to
neighborhood level changes in attitudes toward police officers.
Additional factors of police abuse after contact and abuse of authority will be reviewed as they
affect citizen perception and satisfaction levels. One of the overriding factors that influences
how a person views the police as individual officers and as a department is prior contact
(Skogan, 2005). When negative experiences occur, individual perception and that of the
community in which the citizen resides suffers. This is especially true when a neighborhood has
higher levels of social cohesion as residents tend to bind together for the good of the
neighborhood. When the police are perceived in a negative way, citizen cooperation and
community/police relationships degrade (Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). Maintenance of positive
Page 2 of 18
303
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
community relationships is the cornerstone of community policing efforts leading to higher
levels of satisfaction with the police (Weisburd & McElroy, 1988).
Secondly this article includes community policing literature and the effects it has on
neighborhood social cohesion and collective efficacy. This will lead into a discussion of
neighborhood social cohesion and collective efficacy and their impact on citizen perceptions of
the police. Additional literature will include how the impact of neighborhood cohesiveness
relates to how individual neighborhoods differ in their interactions with the police. The
literature will stress the importance of neighborhoods to achieve a level of collective efficacy or
a willingness to bind together or have mutual goals thus leading to better relationships with the
police. As levels of collective efficacy increase, citizen involvement with the community and the
police follows demonstrating the importance of the police and citizens to work together to solve
problems.
SATISFACTION AND CONFIDENCE WITH THE POLICE
Characteristics that affect the likelihood of citizens having positive views of the police center
heavily on their perceived degree of satisfaction with and trust of the police, either from direct
interactions or from view they learn from others. A variety of these elements have been tested
over time. But few have doubted the realization that these issues are more complicated because
of the very nature of our nation (Eck & Rosenbaum, 1994; Goldstein, 1990; Tyler, 2005). As
Robert, Crank, & Kuykendall (2000, p. 5) put
The United States is a work in progress as our experiment in democracy continues to
unfold...We are all participants in this experiment and by virtue of our studies or experiences
are well aware that representatives of the government, like the police, should never be trusted
completely.
The issue of trust has many levels of complexity that are important in different communities in
different ways. Often police are seen as being agents of government that are commissioned to
uphold laws that not everyone agrees with. But for the police and communities, other levels of
trust go much deeper. Most people agree with little hesitation that particularly heinous crimes
should be pursued by the police at nearly all costs (O’Brien, 1978). It is discomforting to people
of just about every socio-economic or most other demographic classifications to know that
murders or rapists or those who hurt children are free in the neighborhood (Dowler, 2003).
But as Skogan (1996) asserts, it is the actions of the police that are not so clear or pleasing to
all that drives the most disconcerting levels of ‘suspicion’ about the police. And it is the totality
of these various situations that routinely put police officers in positions where their
requirements to follow procedures and enforce a variety of good and bad laws. This puts them
under a microscope where both the officer’s and their administrator’s true intentions are
regularly questioned (Skogan, 2005).
For purposes of setting the sense of discussion and direction, it can be instructive to see how
some of these factors were presented in the past versus how they are conceived of today. In a
report by Obrien (1978) examining public attitudes toward the police, the following
extraordinary and informative quotation was offered. It was presented after a listing of a
number of factors considered important in shaping attitudes toward the police at the time, such
as the use of a military model which emphasizes efficiency and control and which requires
Page 3 of 18
304
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
distance from the community. They also noted the growing trend toward misrepresenting
police work in the news media. Then they said the following:
The Military Police Model was instituted in the 1940s, at exactly the time when vast numbers
of poor members of minority groups, particularly blacks, were pouring into slum areas. The old
service-oriented personal approach (foot patrol) was abandoned (in favor of the remote,
mechanized squad car patrol) at the time it was most needed. And the police started on a
collision course with minority subcultures. The problem has been compounded by the culture
shock many police officers experience when they enter ghetto neighborhoods. Also, minority
groups, trapped by the lack of demand for unskilled labor and problems of poverty and
adjustment, tend to vent their hostilities on symbols of authority. The police officer is a highly
visible symbol (Obrien, 1978, p. 305).
Considering again that this was written in 1978, just over 30 years ago, it depicts a
representation of the police force that many today likely see as long gone. But it also
demonstrates why it is that some of the same underlying conclusions and prejudices could still
be in play when it comes to understanding where problems lie in police-community relations.
To demonstrate that changes have in fact occurred on many levels, another presentation by law
enforcements professionals at a later date paints a very different picture of the police and what
they are thought to do. From a report prepared by Gallagher, Maguire, Mastrofski, and Reisig
(2001) for the International Association of Police Chiefs, they summarize their study’s finding
on the public image of the police. The report noted the following conclusions, which were drawn
from survey results and a review of applicable literature centering on general perceptions of
the police as an organization, perceptions of outcomes associated with interactions, and
perceptions of police processes. There are a large number of findings but they are reproduced
here in their entirely because of their relevance.
Specifically, Gallagher et al. (2001)...(Public Image of the Police, Major Findings and
Recommendations, para. 2) report that:
§ Between the 1980s and mid-1990s, increasing numbers of the American public gave
police protection in their area a positive assessment.
§ Neighborhood residents hold both police and residents responsible for controlling
crime in the neighborhood.
§ At the end of the 20th century, substantial majorities of the American public expressed
positive views of how police treat the public. Police ranked highest in being helpful and
friendly and lowest in treating people fairly.
§ The public image of honesty and ethical standards of police has fluctuated over the years
but has improved substantially from 1977 to 2000.
§ At the end of the 20th century, a majority of the American public perceives racial
profiling to be a widespread practice and a problem.
§ The majority of the American public does not perceive police brutality in their area, but
from the mid-1960s to the end of the 20th century the percentage who do perceive
brutality has increased approximately threefold, accounting now for a third of the
public. This increase may be due at least in part to the public’s changing standards of
what constitutes brutality. The public has become less accepting of police use of force
during this time period.
Page 4 of 18
305
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
§ Across nearly all indicators of the public image of the police, racial minorities
consistently show lower assessments of police than do whites. These race effects appear
to be particularly enduring for citizens’ assessments of police fairness and use of force.
§ The over-all legitimacy of the police depends much more on citizens’ perceptions of how
the police treat them than on their perceptions of police success in reducing crime.
Public confidence in and support for the police depends more on citizens’ perceptions
of police officers’ motives than whether the outcome was personally favorable to the
citizen.
§ The public’s perceptions of how police treat them appear to affect their willingness to
obey the law and obey the police.
§ Negative publicity about the police in one city that receives high visibility around the
nation may have a nation-wide impact on the public’s view of the police, but the effect
appears to be modest and not enduring.
§ When the public perceives major threats to the nation’s security, the overwhelming
majority appears willing to give additional powers to the police that invade privacy and
restrict liberty, but substantial portions of the public are also concerned about the
possibility of police abuses of these powers.
§ Community policing may have some modest, long-term positive influence on citizens’
satisfaction with police, but it is unlikely to produce a “quick fix.”
The wording alone suggests certain predilections about what the police thought and how they
viewed the citizens they interacted with. Still, it can also be said that there is an air of improving
circumstances and finding ways for police to learn more about the demographics of their
changing communities.
In a publication produced by the US Department of Justice, Maxon (2003) included that
Attorney General Ashcroft reviewed the attitudes of certain people in selected sections of Los
Angeles area on their experiences. This report follows some proximate events that casted light
on Los Angeles policing (the Rodney King beating and the trial of O.J. Simpson), and thus could
be seen as demonstrating how events of this nature may influence public perceptions. This
study has its limitations, which are acknowledged in the publication. Among these weaknesses
are the facts that the study occurred in only four parts of the city, and the respondents were not
representative of the population’s diversity. The results are listed here as a way of
demonstrating to some degree the interest of the federal government to understand what the
public believes about law enforcement. Both formal and informal encounters with the police
were included, with formal relationships including calls to the police or arrest events. Informal
relationships centered on meeting the police on the beat or via community events. About 1% of
the respondents indicated that they had been arrested at one time.
Their findings are quoted directly from the report. They indicate that:
• Residents’ perception of the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood was a
significant factor shaping their opinion of the police.
• Residents with informal police contacts had more positive perceptions than residents
with formal contacts.
• Residents’ opinion of police performance did not vary by race or ethnicity in disorderly
neighborhoods.
Page 5 of 18
306
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
• Media did not affect residents’ approval of police job performance or their perception of
officers’ demeanor (Maxon, 2003, pp. 1-2).
These findings are inconsistent with other studies that have more reliability regarding certain
demographic considerations. But still they are noteworthy in their confirmation of how the
level of crime and disorder in a community may have influenced the public’s perceptions of
officers; and that persons who had experienced informal contacts with the police had overall
more positive perceptions than those with formal experiences. Their findings on race and
ethnicity and the role of the media also diverge from other studies of importance and further
literature focusing on the effects of race and ethnicity will be discussed further in the following
section.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
The issues of race and ethnicity are as prominent in the above findings as they are in other
studies on this topic. Worrall (1999) examined support for the police using the 1995 Crime Poll:
Texas and the Nation survey. He found that less than 50% of minorities had much if any
confidence in the police. This percentage went up when age and income of the respondents
were considered showing that older and more affluent respondents reported more favorable
levels of confidence than their younger and less affluent counterparts (Worrall, 1999).
Additionally, he noted that the nature and result of the contact influenced citizen confidence
and perceptions of police effectiveness. Those respondents who had positive interactions with
an officer were more likely to hold better views of the police. Worrall (1999) also found that
race and age were significantly associated with reported levels of confidence in the police
confidence. But still, quality levels of contact still overshadowed other demographic factors;
findings that were supported by Skogan (2005) as he asserted that police agencies should focus
on attempting to achieve positive interactions and results whenever contacts with the public
transpire. This sometimes is not possible, of course, such as when the contact is with the
offender; but even with this, a somewhat positive reaction was reported when the officer
treated that person with respect and fairness (Skogan, 1994; Skogan, 2005; Tyler, 2005;
Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). Weitzer & Tuch (2005) similarly reported that trust and confidence in
the police increased among those who observed police actions in which officers followed
proper procedure and treated subjects fairly.
Further studies looking at race and citizen confidence in the police and trust from a larger
perspective, Weitzer and Tuch (2005) found that trust in the police was highest among whites
at nearly fifty percent with fewer than fifteen percent being dissatisfied. In contrast, they
reported that dissatisfaction among blacks and Hispanics accounted for about twenty percent
each within their respective populations (Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). Interestingly, they also noted
that negative media coverage about the police only had an effect on the level of trust and
confidence in the police in the black population. They reported that negative police contacts
were significant among all races and ethnicities when examining levels of trust and confidence
in the police (Wietzer & Tuch, 2005). Tyler (2005) reinforced this in reporting that while trust
in the police diminished after negative contacts among both whites and blacks, it diminished at
a higher rate among black citizens than Whites. Weitzer and Tuch (2005) as well as Tyler
(2005) found that police confidence in all groups increased when adequate crime control was
in place.
Page 6 of 18
307
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
In a telling closing to Skogan’s 2005 Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters, the author states
specifically that, “There is much that can be done in the domain of the routine work of the police:
dealing with citizen’s calls and on-street encounters with the public. At a time in which there is
much discussion of problem-oriented policing and intelligence-driven policing, there is also
increasing evidence for the importance of process-oriented policing” (2005, p. 318).
A process-oriented policing can be thought to be of particular importance when it comes to
understanding how police and public interactions contribute to or weaken social cohesion and
efficacy in particular neighborhoods. After all, it’s not just possible that people engage through
the processes of police operations, but that people create their own senses of process with the
individual officers they meet. Some studies have demonstrated directly that it is not the number
of people or what is being done that matters as much as it is the character of the citizens and
the police officers they become engaged with (Capowich & Roehl, 1994; Cordner, 1988; Corriea,
2000; Greene & Decker, 1988; Greene, 2000; Skogan, 2005).
Skogan and Frydl (2003, also see Skogan, 2005) included that people tend to be more satisfied
with the police when they have a say in what happens with the process in which the police
operate. This gives citizens a sense of ownership in their community as they feel the police are
working with them instead of an us versus them attitude. The authors also included that a level
playing field insofar as decision-making about the neighborhood is concerned creates the
perception that the police are unbiased in the process of policing the community. When people
are treated equal regardless of age, race, ethnicity or socioeconomically, the results of process- oriented policing are evident in positive responses by the public (Skogan, 2005). The results of
taking care of legitimate concerns of citizens by the police and showing they care about the
persons in the neighborhood is belief by citizens in the process of policing leading to more
positive outcomes.
YOUTH AND AGE
The relationship between age and the community members’ assessment of the quality of police
encounters is also a key topic of concern. Young people are often the subject of study on these
kinds of issues for many reasons. One key reason is the assumption that if young people start
their experiences with the police with positive impressions, this perspective may remain with
them as they grow, and thus may suggest how to develop more effective programs and services.
In one study examining youths’ attitude toward the police, Hurst and Frank (2000) reported
that trust levels of the police among those under age 24 are generally lower than that of older
citizens. One of the main reasons for the distrust is the amount of negative police contacts they
have had or seen (Hurst & Frank, 2000). They observed that juveniles are more likely to be in a
public place and may be involved in types of mischief that could lead them toward police
contacts with more seemingly negative results (Hurst & Frank, 2000). Travis, Carlson, Winston
and Hurley (2000) likewise noted that in as little as one negative contact, juveniles can develop
attitudes of lack of trust for the police that may, many times, last a lifetime. It is further worth
noting that if the treatment of the youth was deemed fair, however, Travis et al. (2000) posited
that the level of mistrust seemed to wane somewhat over time.
A more recent study by Lee, Steinbert and Piquero (2010) specifically sought to test ethnic
identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders. They used
data gathered from 561 African American youth from Pennsylvania and Arizona as part of a
Page 7 of 18
308
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
larger data collection undertaken by a Pathways to Desistance long-term project geared to
judge separation successes from criminality among youth. Their results had four basic
conclusions of note. One being that a higher perceived sense of ethnic identity was associated
with higher perceptions of police discrimination. A second was that these findings were tied to
larger perceptions of inequality, not particular process activities. A third result was that overall
senses of police legitimacy were well correlated with their experiences in various procedures
as well as with encounters associated with actual offenses, as expected. This meant that youth
who perceived officers as unfair rated them lower on their sense of legitimacy, while the
reverse was true for those who rates police as less unfair. But it was the fourth finding that was
surprising. It turned out that the higher the level of ethnic identity, the higher was the overall
level of perceived police legitimacy.
Why this association between ethnic identity and a positive perception of police legitimacy
existed was discussed in depth by the authors. The following extensive quotation is provided
because of the psychological results they found but also because of their perceived reading on
its significance to the idea of social order:
Although it may seem counterintuitive that youth with a stronger sense of ethnic identity are
more likely to believe that the police discriminate but also have more respect for the police as
a legitimate authority, this specific finding became more plausible if ethnic identity
development was conceived of as a proxy for cognitive and psychosocial maturity. The
increasing metacognitive abilities that make ethnic identity more salient for youth led them to
be more aware of racial discrimination; at the same time, these abilities also made them mature
enough to develop an understanding that the police were a necessary and legitimate institution
for maintaining social order (Lee et al., 2010, p. 783).
For the most part, most research has stated that the majority of citizens have confidence in the
police and are satisfied with the job they are doing. Individual characteristics such as race,
gender and age, to some degree, play a role in the level of satisfaction that is expressed towards
the police by the public (Weitzer & Tuch, 1999). Race has the most influence on satisfaction
with the police with some studies showing whites to be much more likely to cooperate with the
police (Weitzer & Tuch, 1999). A good deal of this is the perception by minorities who believe
they are more likely to be treated poorly and less likely to receive equal treatment when they
do come in contact with the police, voluntarily or otherwise (Weitzer & Tuch, 1999; Weitzer,
2000). This feeling, according to Weitzer (2000), tends to subside as police engage in
community policing efforts such as police presence to reduce fear of crime and feelings of safety.
Citizen satisfaction and confidence in the police furthers neighborhood cohesion leading to
citizens accepting law enforcement as a part of the neighborhood rather than an outside source.
A unique study conducted by the San Angelo, Texas, police department in May 2011 is also
worth noting for several relevant factors (McLane, Jones, & Stewart, 2011). First, it is presented
as a working document to give police and city officials and the public specific operational
guidance. This means that reviewers can see how actual findings are considered and
recommended for use by law enforcement personal. Second, they note in their survey that their
residents were given questions pertaining to a number of salient considerations, including 39
numerical indicator questions via six indexes to determine perceptions. The indexes registered:
officer satisfaction, departmental satisfaction; significant concerns in general; fear of crime;
Page 8 of 18
309
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
essential service evaluations; and the respondents’ impressions on how certain services
worked as crime prevention techniques.
The findings were interesting in a number of ways. Mentioned first was the fact that
respondents thought the officers were respectful to them even when they did not like the
outcomes. The citizens are willing to contact the police when needed, even though they identify
service areas that require improvements. They rated certain police activities, such as the ability
to report incidents to a desk officer or an online reporting capability, as not essential services.
And they wanted more police contact through services with their young people, even though
they did not believe that those services would be good crime prevention activities. From the
perspective of this study, these elements can be seen as important to understanding some of
the less formal roles that citizens may elect to use when or if they have contact with the police.
Presumably, in well-functioning local settings, process elements like these that are changed to
meet public concerns could encourage much greater compliance with the police department by
members of the public. And they could be seen as suggestions that the police are responsive to
recommendations for change.
POLICE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
The issue of the role of the police in improper or abusive encounters continues to be relevant
to understanding what the public thinks about them and their departments overall. Various
studies have sought to evaluate these realities, and it is accepted that how police act and
perform is tied to whether the public gives them credibility (Tooley, 2009). A forthright study
conducted by the US Department of Justice on this issue is particularly instructive. Weisburd,
Greenspan, Hamilton, Williams and Bryant (2000) were the collaborative authors of this unique
national study. They suggest that their study is different because of the size and reliability of
their study. Officers were selected through data weighting and random assignment to ensure
the representativeness of the study group. The participants were also not selected in
association with a particular local or state orientation, nor where they identified because of a
particular instance or dramatic case of abuse of authority. From thousands of locations and a
larger qualifying pool of respondents, some 922 responses were reviewed using appropriate
statistical assessments of the findings and variations.
Weisburd et al., (2000) asked the respondents direct questions on the use of force issues, and
their impressions of how their fellow officers engaged in activities important to these concerns.
Their findings suggest how police view their jobs and how they view fellow officers on these
sometimes-tough issues. Several of these issues are reported here.
First, they found that most officers believe that it is inappropriate to use excessive force
(Weisburd et al., 2000, p. 3). At the same time, most believe that they should be allowed to use
more force than they were currently permitted to use at the time. The overwhelming majority
of respondents did not believe their fellow officers engaged in excessive force, and they
believed that high visibility incidents (such as the Rodney King encounter) were extremely rare
(Weisburd et al., 2000, p.3).
All that being confirmed, however, other topics that concerned citizens about police operations
were more instructive about the operational power of the phenomenon known as the code of
silence or the blue wall (Weisburd, 2000, pp. 3-4). This idea, whether real or not, has led to
Page 9 of 18
310
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
mistrust of the police by citizens leading to lower levels of satisfaction (Weisburd, 2000;
Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). Weisburd et al. (2000, p. 3) noted that more than 80% did not accept
that it was necessary for them to abide by this practice for them to do their job properly.
However, some 24.9% (p. 3) also said that being a whistle-blower (reporting improper actions
by other officers) was not productive. The report also included that about 67% reported that
doing so would result in getting a “cold shoulder” from their fellow officers, even though over
52% indicated that it was not unusual for fellow officers to “turn a blind eye” to missteps by
fellow officers (p. 5, exhibit 3). Nearly 60% said that it was not unusual for officers to not report
even serious violations by their fellow officers (p. 5).
The findings on “extralegal” factors, such as race and ethnicity or social class, were also
examined by Weisburd et al. (2000, p. 5). The numbers in general indicate that only around
10% or so of officers believe that these issues are important when it comes to determining how
suspects are handled (p. 6). Still, 17% believed that whites were generally treated better than
blacks, and 11% believe that more violence occurs against blacks than against whites (p. 5-6).
But this study by Weisburd et al. (2000) conveys only part of the true picture. The study
originally considered the officers based on generic race or ethnic identities, using a
classification system identifying them as being either white or non-white. A closer examination
of the data details (pp. 7-9) in the latter category showed, however, that when black officers’
responses were isolated, their opinions were significantly different from other non-white
officers. Black officers reported much higher perceptions of how blacks and whites were
treated with most believing that whites were treated better. The opinions of non-black officers
of color were more like those of white officers. Black officers also were substantially more likely
to believe that people who were identified as members of the lower socio-economic group were
treated differently than others not so identified. Accordingly, the authors concluded: “Although
the survey may not be generalizable beyond police officers, its findings seem to corroborate the
view that there is a racial divide between whites and blacks in American society—a divide so
pronounced that even the apparently strong culture of policing does not transcend it”
(Weisburd et al., 2000, p. 12).
Weisburd et al. (2000) examined police perceptions in other areas as well. One critical
consideration was the influence of the officers’ perceptions regarding the proper use of
authority in community-oriented policing. The authors reviewed what other academic studies
had found, including the fact that some have shown that community policing may reduce major
incidences of corruption at the same time it may enhance minor forms of corruption (such as
accepting free meals, etc.). In this project the results suggest that officers did not believe this
practice resulted in more corruption of either kind. Still, over half of the officers believed that
community visibility reduced the likelihood of the use of excessive force. But, at the same time,
some 21% of officers felt that it would basically be easier for them to use more force if needed
if the community members asked them to do so.
The implications of this key finding were summarized by Weisburd et al. (2000, p. 9) this way:
Although the survey suggests that black officers are more likely than other officers to believe
that minority and poor citizens are treated unfairly by police, it also indicates that black officers
have greater faith in the communities they serve. Approximately 65 percent of black officers
(compared with 49.2 percent of white officers) believed that community oriented policing was
Page 10 of 18
311
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
capable of reducing the number of incidents involving excessive force, and 63 percent of black
officers (compared with 39 percent of white officers) believed that community policing could
decrease the seriousness of incidents involving excessive force. Black officers’ responses
regarding citizen review boards further demonstrate their faith in the community—with
slightly less than 70 percent of black officers in the sample agreeing or strongly agreeing that
citizen review boards are effective at preventing police misconduct, compared with one-third
(33.3 percent) of white officers who found the boards effective.
When findings are clear as presented by Weisburd et al. (2000), it is not difficult to draw
conclusions on community engagement strategies between citizens and the police and the
importance of social cohesion and collective efficacy – or perhaps community collective
efficacy, which will be discussed below. Community policing seeks to integrate effective multi- layer, two-way communication and collaboration between citizens and the police. The
confirmation that black officers more readily accept community policing strategies may be very
important if one can further examine data specific to small localities and neighborhoods where
officers of many races and ethnicities find themselves when working beat patrols. In this
dissertation, we later review statistics on local citizen perceptions about their relationships
with the police to determine the impact of local and neighborhood cohesion and social efficacy
in impacting crime on many levels.
Before turning to the data assessment of this dissertation, however, it is important to look more
directly on what is known about two other contemporary factors that are deemed relevant
today in building police and community relationships. The studies and reports noted below
focus particular attention to how localities view and utilize community policing strategies and
these impacts on cohesion and efficacy.
COMMUNITY POLICING AND SOCIAL COHESION
The concept of community policing has developed over the last few years beginning most
intensively in the 1990s. Almost from the start it can be said to have started the movement
away from the over reliance on formalized, technical, military approaches to policing and a
return to more “beat cop” experiences in local neighborhoods. The next sections of this work
turn directly to the specifics of social cohesion and collective efficacy and their tie in to how
social organization (or disorganization) contributes and enhances citizen engagement and the
ways that police and the public work together (Kurbin and Weitzer, 2005).
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994) provided an early framework for considering this idea
in a monologue presented by a consortium management team led by Stephen Gaffigan. The
authors noted in the preface that “Community policing is, in essence, collaboration between the
police and the community that identifies and solves community problems. With the police no
longer the sole guardians of law and order, all members of the community become active allies
in the effort to enhance the safety and quality of neighborhoods.”
In today’s environment, this idea is well accepted as an approach that deserves implementation
and respect for what it offers. Many communities openly attempt to implement varieties of the
concept from one or another approach. A 2006 report from a working committee of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police provided one collection of such efforts, showcasing
examples in many locations across the country. In their overview, they note that different
Page 11 of 18
312
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
localities have strategies that incorporate problem solving, community engagement,
partnership, organizational development and even evaluation and assessment elements. Each
of these approaches emphasizes different perspectives that have usually been designed to meet
highly local considerations. In general, however, according to the summary of findings, most
communities integrated a variety of these tactics and did so with some degrees of success.
Awards were provided at the time because they were perceived as being well aligned with
achieving the broader community policing expectations.
To understand more about how localities actually work with these models, one can turn to
reports such as the 2006 San Francisco Community Policing: A report on current efforts
overview created by the San Francisco Police Department on their highly varied experiments
in neighborhood engagement (SFPD, 2006). They described their document as a “living
document” at the time; it was designed to highlight how they thought the various approaches
might evolve over time even when used in different ways in numerous sections of the city. It
was still perceived that this concept was only then coming into its own as a tool for addressing
criminality and community cohesion, so they went forward to build into their models what was
needed. Their overview provides multiple-point summaries of their mission and values, and the
key operational elements that they believe to be critical for making the experiment successful.
They then offer detailed discussions of how these values and program components were
developed for 10 locations that encompass the 44 beat neighborhoods. The report showed that
being results and not incident-oriented allowed for serious program variability. Each sector of
the town provided very extensive summaries of key realities of their areas and denotes many
suggested ideas for implementing their unique efforts. It is impossible to review all of the
situations, findings and recommendations here, but it is believed that the document is still
relevant at looking at how localities function. This dissertation expects to relate our findings
and conclusions to these similar kinds of situations and approaches.
The sections that follow review the concepts of Social Cohesion and Collective Efficacy in
relation to the targeted community. Our assessment expands on the original data by looking at
how greater considerations of community apply. We do not herein examine the technological
implications, but we believe that we set the foundation for future studies on these issues.
SOCIAL COHESION
The idea of social cohesion has been in the literature for some time. To look back at early
sociologists’ definitions, Moreno and Jennings (1938, p. 371, as cited in Friedkin, 2004, p. 411)
stated that “cohesion is the force that holds individuals within the group they are in.” Friedkin
goes on to posit that social cohesion is the result of all forces acting together within a particular
group that creates the attraction for the members to stay in the said group. It is the “causal
system that determines individuals’ membership attitudes and behaviors” (Friedkin, 2004, p.
411). Early sociologists examined what shaped these attitudes and behaviors for individuals to
remain in the group or migrate to another. Although it is ultimately an individual decision as to
whether a person stays in the group, factors developed within the commune have been found
to strongly affect these decisions (Friedkin, 2004).
Cartright (1968, p. 91, as cited in Friedkin, 2004, p. 412) wrote:
The term group cohesiveness has come to have a central place in theories of group dynamics.
Although different theorists attribute somewhat different conceptual properties to the term,
Page 12 of 18
313
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
most agree that group cohesiveness refers to the degree to which the members of a group desire
to remain in the group. Thus, the members of a highly cohesive group, in contrast to one with
a low level of cohesiveness, are more concerned with their membership and are therefore more
strongly motivated to contribute to the group’s welfare, to advance its objectives, and to
participate in its activities.
Groups in neighborhoods or other close-knit collections of persons often become close due to
similar ideals and the desire to maintain their level of comfort that has been developed over
time. When the citizens in these areas respect one another and the conditions to which they
live, positive reactions by most members seem to fuel likewise positive attitudes and behaviors.
According to Friedkin (2004, p. 421):
Groups are cohesive when they possess group-level structural conditions that produce positive
membership attitudes and behaviors and when group members’ interpersonal interactions
maintain these group-level structural conditions. Many people understand the importance of
retaining valued members, enlisting members’ contributions to group activities and tasks,
reducing the number of negative and increasing the number of positive relationships between
members, resolving disruptive disagreements, achieving consensus, and encouraging a positive
view of the group as a social unit. Because many people understand (or believe) that such things
are important, they often act intentionally to bring them about. Social networks are formed in
part from these intentional efforts to create and maintain various forms of social cohesion.
Shaw and McKay (1942, as cited in Goudriaan et al., 2006, p. 722) posited that cohesive
neighborhoods need a strong informal social control to regulate and mediate interpersonal
disputes. Many authors have alluded to the fact that informal social control many times is a
controlling factor in citizen/police interaction. Baumer (2002) argued that neighborhoods that
depend on formal social control as a mechanism for citizen cooperation with agencies are
deficient in crime reporting as not all have access to these agencies. Samson et al. (1997) stated
that as social cohesion in neighborhoods increases, informal social control mechanisms
increase as well thus leading to more willingness of people in the neighborhood to cooperate
with the police to maintain order in their respective areas. This line of thought supports
Sampson et al.’s (1997) theory of collective efficacy and how it leads to increased neighborhood
cooperation with regards to informal social control concerns.
Social cohesion does not mean everyone in a neighborhood is of the same mind set as to social
control measures or otherwise. It means people in the neighborhood have learned what is
necessary to live together peacefully. Torrente (2001) stated that social cohesion requires
informal social control, communities to become involved with maintaining this control and
interaction with agencies who are assigned formal social control duties. The willingness for
individuals to commit to the area in which they reside both informally and formally leads to
social cohesion and collective efficacy. As collective efficacy measures increase, citizen
satisfaction with the neighborhood and the residents therein increases the likelihood they will
cooperate with the police when crimes do occur thus increasing the efficiency of the police to
create safer neighborhoods. Collective efficacy leads to more positive collaboration with law
enforcement but it depends on social cohesion. Without social cohesion, collective efficacy
cannot develop as the collective will not be empowered to stand up against wrong-doers.
Page 13 of 18
314
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY THEORY
Collective efficacy is the mutual trust among residents in neighborhoods and how they expect
others in similar areas to act and respond to various aspects of the neighborhood. It is the
combination of trust and cohesion with shared expectations for control (Sampson et al., 1997).
It occurs when people consider themselves a part of a collective neighborhood and act in a way
to preserve the integrity of such. It is centered, insofar as how this dissertation examines it, on
how neighborhood actions reduce crime, increase social integration, and the overall deterrence
of criminal activity. Collective efficacy is more focused on creating a social environment where
citizens are the mainstay of informal social control and community policing is welcomed and
expected. Sampson et al. (1997) posits that when the community takes control of their actions,
they develop collective efficacy and trust with the police. As collective efficacy increases,
neighbors trust each other, are more willing to help each other, and want to take care of
neighborhood issues that may arise informally but are also willing to call the police as a working
trust has been created (Sampson et al., 1997).
When neighborhood collective efficacy is high, citizens have a sense of belonging thus raising
the levels of conformity to all aspects of the area (Sampson et al., 1997). As people see
neighborhood collective efficacy levels increase, cooperation with other individuals also
increases leading to the ability to maintain societal control including crime control and
lessening disorder. Citizens develop the ability to maintain neighborhood solidity through
internal order maintenance, which includes cooperation with the police when outside
assistance is necessary (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). This becomes easier as the desire to
preserve homeostasis in the neighborhood becomes the main focus of their actions.
According to the theory, neighborhoods recognize that they need a voice and communal
collectivity is necessary to thwart crime and disorderly conduct. Sampson et al. (1997) stated
that for collective efficacy to flourish, unity between citizens is paramount. They must be willing
to accept the responsibility of addressing social ills through informal social control or inclusion
of police efforts. By instilling trust in the police, the neighborhood increases collective efficacy
levels by allowing the police to become an integral part of their efforts to reduce the likelihood
of criminal activity (Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004).
Collective efficacy is just that – the willingness of the neighborhood to act collectively. If a
neighbor sees a child spray painting a wall, they might go and speak to the child’s parents in a
way to stress the importance of keeping the neighborhood free of graffiti as it may breed further
disorder if left unaddressed. Sampson (2003) posits that communities can apply implicit rules
by acting collectively in order to deter further disorder that may turn into future crime.
Sampson et al. (1997) put it this way...one is more likely to respect the property of others if
they know who the owners are or who it belongs to. If an event does occur, a collective response
by neighbors might keep incidents minor instead of escalating into further criminal activity that
requires police action thus deteriorating the bond in the neighborhood. This is not to say the
police should be kept in the dark when incidents occur, but they should encourage citizens to
work together in solving small occurrences without relying on official police intervention. By
encouraging collective efforts in solving issues, neighborhood citizens will increase trust in
each other and governmental agencies leading to a reduction in fear of crime and an increase
in the willingness of people to work with the police by early recognition of criminal activity and
alerting the police to solve the issue before it escalates (Sampson, 2004). Collective efficacy is,
Page 14 of 18
315
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
in effect, “a way for citizens to solve their own problems without handing them over to
professionals” (Braithewaite, 1989, p. 8).
Samson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) made major strides in their research concerning
collective efficacy theory and neighborhood violence. As a long-running study for nearly a
decade, they examined children in Chicago area neighborhoods and how they grew up and
developed in the midst of drugs, gang activities, and violent criminality (Sampson et al., 1997).
What they were interested in was to see how neighborhood characteristics affected the family
environment, neighborhood social measures and individual attributes. They surveyed 8,872
people of 343 neighborhoods in Chicago as defined by geographic borders (Sampson et al.,
1997). Questions were asked about informal social control, social cohesion and trust, and
violent criminal activities in the area where they resided (Sampson et al., 1997). To measure
collective efficacy, they asked residents about whether they would assist a neighbor in need, if
they knew their neighbors, and if they could trust others in their respective areas (Sampson et
al., 1997). They found that neighborhoods scoring high on their collective efficacy scale
reported less crime, more social cohesion, and were more willing to help their neighbors and
call the police to help in criminal situations (1997). The research showed that neighborhood
characteristics and positive social environments have more to do with less crime than just
individual characteristics (Sampson et al., 1997).
This gives rise to the ideas brought out by Goudriaan et al. (2005) that neighborhood
characteristics and increased collective efficacy measures correlate with citizen’s trust of
governmental agencies, especially the police, and their likelihood to report criminal activity to
the police. Trust, as brought out by Sampson et al. (1997) is highest when neighborhood
economic disadvantage is low and collective efficacy is high. In return, they found that in
neighborhoods that have high racial and ethnic minority populations, neighborhood collective
efficacy seems to be low (1997). This, at least in the Chicago study, was deemed by Sampson et
al. (1997) an important variable as different groups had language barriers, dissimilar customs,
and socialization differences that led to weak common values and lower levels of collective
efficacy. They determined that collective efficacy was the largest predictor of the overall crime
rate at the neighborhood level (Sampson et al., 1997).
In other related research, Elliot, Wilson, Huizinga, Sampson, Elliot and Rankin (1996) used
neighborhood level data collected from Chicago and Denver and compared it to individual
levels in looking at whether neighborhood social characteristics and collective efficacy
measures outweigh the effects of economic disadvantage on neighborhood social control. It was
reported that the higher the level of disadvantage, the less citizens took charge in social control
issues in the areas where they lived (Elliot et al., 1996; also see Calvito, 2008). Similar to the
findings in Sampson et al. (1997), they found that differences in the level that minority groups
became integrated into mainstream society had an effect on levels of informal social control.
The effects of economic disadvantaged neighborhoods also were significant in predicting lower
social cohesion. Again, as with Sampson et al. (1997), Elliot et al. (1996) determined that
neighborhood characteristics are a better predictor of positive social control efforts than the
same areas when measured using individual characteristics.
Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (2001) reported on crime and the influence of collective
efficacy. By again using the Chicago data from earlier works, they found that increases in
Page 15 of 18
316
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
collective efficacy measures led to sharp declines in murder rates (Morenoff et al., 2001).
Similar findings on the effects of neighborhood collective efficacy and homicide have been
demonstrated through other studies (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Browning, Feinberg, &
Dietz, 2004) utilizing the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods data set
collected by Sampson et al. (1997). Sampson et al. (1997) developed a three-stage project in
that first, entire city blocks were sampled. Secondly, housing within the city blocks were
sampled and their third stage incorporated individuals 18 years and older within the housing
units. They included that as family or friendships ties were closer knit, citizens were more
willing to participate in neighborhood activities and social units such as neighborhood
meetings and associations. As neighborhoods became less involved, collective efficacy declined
similarly. Accordingly, Sampson et al. (1997) found that as neighborhood environments
declined, expectations for neighbor cooperation in social control issues followed suit and fear
of crime and violence increased.
An overarching study was conducted by Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley (2002) in
looking at much of the research in the previous 10 years in the area of neighborhood effects on
social issues. Their measure of collective efficacy had social control and social cohesion scales
in conjunction to surveillance and monitoring young peer groups (Sampson et al., 2002, as cited
in Colavito, 2008, p. 7). The research included measures of social relations, collective efficacy
and how neighbors cooperated with each other informally and formally (Sampson et al., 2002).
They found that collective efficacy measures such as trust and confidence were higher when
neighbors were willing to take action when beliefs were similar using informal social control.
Sampson et al., (2002) included that most research examined crime outcomes as reported by
the police with individual victimization reports including violent and personal crimes. What is
lacking, according to Sampson et al. (2002), are studies that go beyond the formal agency
processes to solve simple neighborhood problems and disputes that collective efficacy
measures might address. Collective efficacy is about citizens in a neighborhood taking action
and cooperating with local police agencies to create a two way street between the police and
citizens. This creates a relationship between both parties to encourage neighborhood
involvement with each other and the police.
CONCLUSION
Many issues must be considered when examining the issues between the community and the
police. The initial focus of the research was on individual characteristics. Perceptions changed
with race and ethnicity in accordance to previous experience with police contact. As minority
citizens showed a tendency to have increased efficacy within the neighborhood from which
they reside, personal as well as family and friend contact with the police influences their
perception and satisfaction levels. This was reiterated when age was considered. It was
suggested that as citizens felt the policing process in their neighborhood demonstrated a
reciprocal effort to increase their quality of life, perceptions of police officers followed suit
.
The literature review also suggests some relationships between neighborhood, citizens and
satisfaction with the police and how this may affect overall citizen perceptions of the police. If
citizens are suspicious of each other and the police and do not initiate informal social control
measures, poor neighborhood cohesion will ensue resulting in lower collective actions
(Sampson et al., 1997). Police-initiated contact appears to influence negative attitudes and
satisfaction levels with the police leading to less cooperation with police services. Lack of
Page 16 of 18
317
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
confidence in law enforcement stemming from negative attitudes, individually and communal,
has been shown to influence the willingness of citizens to cooperate the police as well when
formal social control becomes necessary (Weitzer & Tuch, 1999).
As communities develop higher levels of social cohesion and further collective efficacy as
outlined by Sampson et al. (1997), negative feelings toward the police tend to subside. This is
exaggerated by community policing efforts by law enforcement to make agencies a part of the
neighborhoods they serve. It is likely that increased social cohesion and collective efficacy will
have an effect on whether neighborhood citizens initiate contact with the police. As the
literature suggests, greater social cohesive and collective efficacy measures leads to higher
police satisfaction resulting in more cooperation with law enforcement.
If citizens and the police do not see the problems in the neighborhood in the same light, public
satisfaction with police services will be affected. Community policing literature suggests
citizens want the police to have a stake in their neighborhood and identify with most persons
living there. Positive police perception is deeply rooted in levels of social cohesion and
collective efficacy experienced by neighborhoods. If this analysis demonstrates that in
neighborhoods where social cohesion and collective efficacy are high and positive perceptions
and satisfaction levels of the police follow accordingly, significant policy implications for police
agencies and researchers will allow for development of communal policing strategies. In this,
support for community policing and greater levels of informal social control resulting from
increased citizen perception of the police will also have policy implications on how police
agencies develop the process in how they police the community.
References
Baumer, E.P. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology, 40,
579-616.
Bureau of Justice Administration (1994). Understanding community policing: A framework for action. Monograph.
NC148487.
Capowich, G.E., & Roehl, J.A. (1994). Problem-oriented policing: Actions and effectiveness in San Diego. In D.P.
Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 127-146). London, England:
Sage.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics:
Research and theory. (3rd. ed). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Cordner, G.W. (1988). A problem-oriented approach to community-oriented policing. In J.R. Greene & S.D.
Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 135-152). New York, NY: Praeger.
Correia, M. (2000). How community factors affect progressive policing. NCJRS, Police Executive Research Forum.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=182480.
Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The relationship between
fear and crime, punitive attitudes and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular
Culture, 10(2), 109- 126.
Elliott, D.S. & Wilson, W.J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R.J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of neighborhood
disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(4) 389-426.
Friedkin, N.E. 2004. Social Cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-25.
Page 17 of 18
318
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Gallager, C., Maguire, E.R., Mastrofski, S.D. & Reisig, M.D. (2001). The public image of police. Final Report to the
International Association of Chirfs of Police by the Administration of Justice Program, George Mason University.
Retrieved from
http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/ThePublicImageofthePolice/
tabid/198/Default.aspx.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem oriented policing. Los Angeles, CA: McGraw Hill, Inc.
Goudriaan, H. (2006). Reporting crime. Effects of social context on the decision of victims to report to the police.
Veenendaal, Netherlands: Universal Press.
Greene, J.R., & Decker, S.H. (1989). Police and community perceptions of the community role in policing: The
Philadelphia experience. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 105-123.
Hurst, Y. G., & Frank, J. (2000). How kids view cops: The nature of juvenile attitudes toward police. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 28, 189-202.
Kubrin, C. & Weitzer, T. (2005). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal in Crime and
Delinquency, 40(4), 374-402, doi: 10.1177/0022427803256238.
Lee, J., Steinber, J., & Piquero, A (2010). Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American
juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 781-789.
McLane, S., Jones, L., & Stewart, K. (2011). Analyzing public attitude toward services provided by the San Angelo
Police Department. Retrieved from http://www.angelo.edu/dept/cdi/final%20report.pdf.
Morenoff, J., Sampson, R.J. & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality,collective efficacy and the spacial
dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39, 517-560.
Obrien, J. (1978). Public attitudes toward police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6(3), 303-310.
Reisig, M.D. & Parks, R.B. (2003). Neighborhood context, police behavior and satisfaction with relations and
controls of neighborhood crime victimization. Western Criminology Review Research, 40(1), 138-170.
Sampson, R. (2000). Whither the Sociological Study of Crime? Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 711-714.
Sampson, R. (2002). Transcending tradition: New directions in community research, Chicago style. Criminology,
40 (2), 213-230.
Sampson, R. (2003). The neighborhood context of well-being. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46(3), S53-
S64.
Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence.
American Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 224-232.
Sampson, R., Morenoff, J.T., & Gannon-Rawley (2002). Assessing neighborhood effects. social processes and new
directions in research. Annual Review in Sociology, 28, 443-478.
Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (2004). Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of
“broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective
efficacy. Science, 277, 918-922.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998). Reducing violence through neighborhood collective efficacy.
Alternatives to Incarceration, 4(4), 18-19.
Sampson, R., & Sharkey, P. (2008). Neighborhood selection and the social reproduction of concentrated racial
inequality. Demography, 45(1), 1-29.
Sampson, R. J. & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in
urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-651.
Page 18 of 18
319
Pullin, M. (2022). Social Factors and Citizens’ Perception of the Police. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 302-319.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13111
San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) (2006). San Francisco community policing: Report on current events. San
Francisco Police Department and the San Francisco Office of the Mayor. Retrieved from http://sf- police.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=14702.
Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Skogan, W. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 298-321.
Skogan, W. & Frydl, L. (2003). Fairness & effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National
Academics.
Skogan, W.G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Skogan, W. G. (1994). The impact of community policing on neighborhood residents: A cross-site analysis. In D. P.
Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing:Testing the promises (pp. 167-181). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
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, NY: Oxford University Press.
Travis, L., Novak, K., Winston, C., & Hurley, D. (2000). Cops at the door: The impact of citizen surveys by police on
public attitudes. Police Quarterly, 3(1), 85-104.
Tyler, T.R. (2005). Police in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police
Quarterly, 8, 322-342.
Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E., Williams, H., & Bryant, K. (2000). Police attitudes toward abuse of
authority: Findings from a national survey. Research Brief, U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs.
Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf.
Weisburd, D., & McElroy, J.E. (1988). Enacting the CPO role: Findings from the New York City pilot program in
community policing. In J.R. Greene & S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality? New York,
NY:Praeger.
Weitzer, R. & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Determinants of public satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 279-
297.
Worrall, J. (1999). Public perceptions of police efficacy and image: The fuzziness of support for the police.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 7-66.