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), 2010 9
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
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), 2010 11
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
Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance
Table 1. Concern With Nuisance Activity
Concern Rate
%
Extremely
Concerned
Moderately
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Slightly
Concerned
Not Concerned
Do Not Know
Highlands
n = 73
Holmes Foster
n = 124
College Heights
West
n = 195
College Heights
East
n = 135
32%
22%
8%
7%
26%
22%
12%
12%
23%
18%
15%
12%
10%
18%
22%
38%
8%
17%
41%
29%
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
Not 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%
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), 2010 13
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
Holmes
College
College
Crime Type
Highlands
Foster
Heights West
Heights East
Violent/Serious
177
61
3
2
(1)
Property
575
200
3
13
(2)
Public Nuisance
1346
592
60
107
(3)
Total
2098
853
66
Downtown
112
525
2232
122
2869
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
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
College Heights
Satisfaction Rate Highlands Holmes Foster
West
%
n = 73
n = 124
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), 2010 15
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
Citizen Concern and Approval of Police Performance
Table 6. Selected Recommendations for Improved Services by Neighborhood
Holmes
College
College
Highlands
Foster
Heights West Heights East
Recommendation
n = 60
n = 92
n = 126
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), 2010 17
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. 81–82).
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
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), 2010 19
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 (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
West/Wadsworth.
Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (1997). Critical issues in policing (3rd ed.). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Fielding, N., & Innes, M. (2006). Reassurance policing, community policing, and
measuring police performance. Policing and Society, 16, 127–145.
Gaines, L. K., Kappeler, V. E., & Vaughn, J. B. (1999). Policing in America (3rd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements,
and threshold questions. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 6–30.
Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2003). Police-resident interactions and satisfaction with police: An
empirical test of community policing assertions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14,
55–74.
Herbert, S. (2006). Tangled up in blue: Conflicting paths to police legitimacy. Theoretical
Criminology, 10, 481–504.
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, 91–122.
Klockars, C. B. (1997, November). Measuring what matters: Developing measures of what
police can do. National Institute of Justice, 1–15.
20 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010
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, 486–513.
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, 55–66.
Samaha, J. (2002). Criminal procedure (5th 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,
363–386.
Sims, B., Hooper, M., & Peterson, S.A. (1999). Determinants of citizens’ attitudes toward
police: Results of the Harrisburg citizen survey—1999. Policing, 25, 457–471.
Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8,
298–321.
Wells, W., Horney, J., & Maguire, E. R. (2005). Patrol officer responses to citizen
feedback: An experimental analysis. Police Quarterly, 8, 171–205.
Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (2003). Criminological theory (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010 21
Koehle, Six, and Hanrahan
Appendix A
Map of four neighborhoods and Penn State University
22 Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 5(1), 2010
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) 278-4738 or [email protected] . 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), 2010 23
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
CONCERNED
MODERATELY
CONCERNED
1
2
SOMEWHAT
CONCERNED
3
SLIGHTLY
CONCERNED
4
NOT
DON'T KNOW
CONCERNED
5
9
2. 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
CONCERNED
MODERATELY
CONCERNED
1
2
SOMEWHAT
CONCERNED
3
SLIGHTLY
CONCERNED
4
NOT
DON'T KNOW
CONCERNED
5
9
3. Have you had contact with the State College Police Department during the last 12
months?
Yes
No
Don't recall
1 (Please answer 3b if answered yes)
2 (proceed to 4)
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
1
LESS THAN
SATISFACTORY
2
SATISFACTORY
3
MORE THAN
SATISFACTORY
4
EXCELLENT
5
DON'T KNOW
9
4. 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
1
LESS THAN
SATISFACTORY
2
SATISFACTORY
3
MORE THAN
SATISFACTORY
4
EXCELLENT
5
DON'T KNOW
9
5. 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