Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of 
Community Safety in 12 Cities, 1998


NCJ 173940  May 1999

U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

by Steven K. Smith
Greg W. Steadman
Todd D. Minton
Bureau of Justice Statistics


Med Townsend
formerly of the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services

A joint project by the BJS and the Office of COPS

Cover map:

Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local
police, 1998

Chicago, IL 
Kansas City, MO 
Knoxville, TN   
Los Angeles, CA   

Madison, WI     
New York, NY    
San Diego, CA     
Savannah, GA       

Spokane, WA      
Springfield, MA    
Tucson, AZ       
Washington, DC            

----------------
Acknowledgments
----------------

This report was prepared by Steven K. Smith, Greg W. Steadman,
and Todd D. Minton of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Meg
Townsend, formerly of the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS). Tom Hester and Tina Dorsey edited and produced
the report. Marilyn Marbrook supervised release, publication,
and dissemination, assisted by Yvonne Boston.  Marika Litras,
Ph.D., conducted the statistical review.  Also at BJS, Deputy
Director Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Charles R. Kindermann, and
Marshall M. DeBerry helped direct the overall project design and
development of telephone data collection methodology.   

The authors acknowledge the numerous people who made the development 
and administration of the 12-city survey possible.  At the U.S. 
Bureau of the Census, Kathleen Creighton, Marilyn Monahan, 
Tracy Mattingly, Denise Lewis, Elaine Hock, Stephen Phillips, 
David Watt, and David Hubble facilitated the development of the 
questionnaire, sample design, and data collection components of the study.  

At the COPS Office, Deborah Cohen, Ph.D. and Pam Cammarata
provided assistance in the questionnaire and report production.  
Veh Bezdikian of the COPS Office also contributed to the text 
of the report and assisted with data analysis.   

Data presented in this report can be obtained from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan,
1-800-999-0960.  An electronic version of this report and other
reports are available from the BJS Internet page:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/   


----------

Foreword
----------

This publication is a report on criminal victimization and
citizen perceptions in 12 cities across the United States.  
The findings reported are the result of a joint effort between 
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to supplement the National 
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with questions related to 
community policing.  

This project was designed to assess the use of Random Digit
Dialing (RDD) Telephone Methodology at the local level using the
NCVS and community attitude questions.  The results presented
here are intended to serve as a basis for new studies and
improved methodologies.

The NCVS has been providing national statistics on criminal
victimization for more than 20 years and continues to be the
primary source for data on the characteristics of criminal
victimizations that have occurred across the Nation. The NCVS
collects information on both victimizations reported to the
police and those that were not reported.

In response to informational demands from the law enforcement
community, BJS and the COPS Office initiated the groundbreaking
effort to collect city-level information on criminal
victimizations, perceptions, and satisfaction with local police.
Questions on these topics were added to the NCVS and piloted in
12 cities.   

As the community policing philosophy continues to be adopted by
law enforcement agencies across the country, agencies have
become more interested in using surveys as a tool to solicit
feedback and community participation, both of which are critical
to community policing efforts. Surveys may be used to foster a
relationship between the community and law enforcement.  They
can also be used to evaluate the impact of activities and
programs on community perceptions and satisfaction levels,
enhance service delivery by evaluating satisfaction levels, or
facilitate better information exchange on community concerns. 

The goal of this project is to develop a survey instrument and
methodology that may be used by law enforcement agencies to
collect information on criminal victimizations, citizen
attitudes toward the police, their willingness to report crimes
to the police, and the impact of different community policing
strategies and tactics on crime and neighborhood conditions.  

One of the most significant results of this project is the
demonstration of the benefits of collecting this type of
information at the local level.  To assist local agencies to
administer community surveys, BJS and the COPS Office have
developed a desktop survey software package.  The software is
available to local law enforcement agencies seeking to collect
victimization and community information from citizens in their
jurisdictions. 

This Windows-based software can be ordered by contacting the BJS
Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277 or by e-mail ASKBJS@ojp.usdoj.gov

We believe this data collection effort has initiated a new
opportunity to support law enforcement. 

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Bureau of the
Census, police departments in the 12 participating cities, those
who supplied questions or provided comments on the supplemental 
survey questions, and all the people who responded to the survey. 

Joseph E. Brann
Director
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

-----------

Highlights
-----------

-------------
Victimization 
--------------

For the first time in 20 years, BJS conducted city-level surveys
on crime victimization.  These city surveys, different from the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), used Random Digit
Dialing (RDD) to contact households.  Unlike the NCVS, findings
from these surveys do not represent national estimates.  

Among the 12 cities surveyed, violent crime victimization rates
ranged from 60 to 85 per 1,000 residents age 12 or older. 
Nationally, the 1997 violent crime victimization rate in urban
areas was 51 per 1,000 residents.

Nationally, black residents in urban areas have experienced a
higher rate of violent crime than urban whites.  This was also
the case in a majority of the 12 cities surveyed. 

In each of the cities, victims said that less than half of the
violent crimes involved a weapon.  In most of the cities, less
than half of the violent crime were reported to the police.

The percentage of violent crimes in which the offender was a
stranger to the victim ranged from 42% in Tucson to 74% in Los
Angeles.

--------------------------------------------------------
Violent victimization and property  
crime rate in 12 cities, 1998
 
                   Violent victimization   Property
                   rate per 1,000          crimes per
                   residents age           1,000
                   12 or older             households

Chicago, IL               68                  433
Kansas City, MO           61                  331
Knoxville, TN             70                  314
Los Angeles, CA           65                  347
 
Madison, WI               70                  322
New York, NY              85                  260
San Diego, CA             63                  308
Savannah, GA              81                  445
 
Spokane, WA               67                  411
Springfield, MA           78                  365
Tucson, AZ                82                  432
Washington, DC            60                  445
-----------------------------------------------------


----------------------
Community attitudes
----------------------

Overall, about 80% or more of the residents in each of the 12
cities said they were satisfied with the quality of life in
their neighborhood. 

The percentage of residents in each city who said they were
fearful of crime in their neighborhood ranged from 20% to 48%. 
Ten percent or less in each city said they were "very fearful"
of neighborhood crime.  

In 11 of the cities, a third or more of the residents said they
were fearful of becoming a victim of street crime.  Residents 
fearful of street crime most frequently cited assault with a gun and
robbery as the street crimes they most feared.  

About a quarter to a half of the residents among the 12 cities
said they were aware that a serious crime had occurred in their
neighborhood in the past 12 months.  

In general, those aware of such crimes identified a range of
crimes such as theft of personal property, burglary, auto theft,
gun crimes, and the open sale or use of drugs as having 
occurred in their neighborhood.

Citizens said they were most likely to find out about
neighborhood crimes through conversations with their neighbors
or from the media.  Residents across the 12 cities were
generally less likely to have gained their information about
local crime from the police.  

------------------------------
Percent of residents fearful
of neighborhood crime, 1998
 
Chicago, IL              48%
Kansas City, MO          33
Knoxville, TN            30
Los Angeles, CA          44
 
Madison, WI              20
New York, NY             42
San Diego, CA            30
Savannah, GA             33
 
Spokane, WA              32
Springfield, MA          45
Tucson, AZ               40
Washington, DC           48

Survey question: "How fearful are you about crime in your
neighborhood?  Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful,
not very fearful, or not at all fearful?"

Percents reported combine "very fearful"
and "somewhat fearful."
------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------

Using sample data

Since the data in this report came from a sample, a sampling
error (standard error) is associated with each reported number.  
All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at 
or above the 95%-confidence level.  As displayed in figure 1,
the reader is cautioned that some apparent differences between
and among the cities are not statistically significant.  All
stated differences in the text are tested at the 95%-confidence
level.  Standard error tables for selected estimates are
provided in Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
Citizen actions to prevent neighborhood crime 
----------------------------------------------

While neighborhood watch meetings were not widely attended, most
respondents in each city said they relied on neighbors to watch
out for each other.  

Residents fearful of street crime across the 12 cities most
frequently said that to protect themselves they avoided certain areas, 
going out at night, or going out alone.  About a quarter to a third of
residents fearful of street crime in each of the cities said
they had made an effort to get to know the police in their
neighborhood.

Another frequently cited security measure was the use of
automatic lighting around the house.  In several cities about a
third of the residents kept a weapon inside the home for
security. 

In 6 cities at least a fifth of the residents kept a weapon in
their home for self defense.

----------------------------------------------
Percent of residents who kept a self-defense 
weapon in their home, 1998
 
 
Chicago, IL             13%
Kansas City, MO         27
Knoxville, TN           39
Los Angeles, CA         20
 
Madison, WI             13
New York, NY             8
San Diego. CA           17
Savannah, GA            34
 
Spokane, WA             30
Springfield, MA         14
Tucson, AZ              31
Washington, DC           7

Question: "In the past 12 months, have
you done any of these things to protect
yourself from crime in the home, in a
direct response to you or your family's
fear of crime."  See table 25 for
complete list of response categories.
-------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Attitudes toward the police and community policing
---------------------------------------------------

About 30% or more of the residents in each city said they had
some level of contact with the police in the past 12 months.  

A majority of nearly 80% or more of the residents in each city
were satisfied with the police in their neighborhood.

In each of the 12 cities, residents fearful of neighborhood
crime were less likely to be satisfied with their local police
than those who were not fearful of crime in their neighborhood.  

Likewise, satisfaction with the local police was more widespread
among those who had not experienced a violent crime than those
who had.

Citizen familiarity with the term community policing varied
among the 12 cities.  About 25% of the citizens in Savannah
expressed familiarity, as did 60% or more of those in Chicago,
Madison, Springfield, and Washington, D.C. 

At least 40% of the residents in each city thought the police
practiced community policing in their neighborhood.

--------------------------------------
Percent of residents who said police 
are doing community policing, 1998
 
Chicago, IL          67%
Kansas City, MO      52
Knoxville, TN        42
Los Angeles, CA      50
 
Madison, WI          47
New York, NY         51
San Diego, CA        57
Savannah, GA         48
 
Spokane, WA          54
Springfield, MA      64
Tucson, AZ           46
Washington, DC       53

Question: "Community policing involves police
officers working with the community to address
the causes of crime in an effort to reduce
problems themselves and the associated fear,
through a wide range of activities.  Based on
this definition, do you think police in your
neighborhood practice community policing?"
---------------------------------------------


-------------------------
About the 12-city survey
-------------------------

BJS surveyed everyone age 12 or older in a representative sample
of approximately 800 households in each city.  Questions about
the neighborhood and community policing were asked only of
residents age 16 or older.

The Census Bureau used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) methodology to
contact sampled households. Phone lists were developed based on
zip codes and city boundary information.  This method is
different from the NCVS.

Interviews were conducted during February, March, April, and May
of 1998 from Census Bureau telephone call centers in Hagerstown,
MD, and Tucson, AZ.  

In addition to the standard questions from the NCVS, respondents
were asked new questions about their neighborhood and local
police.  The survey used a 12-month reference period.  

Violent crime findings from the city surveys can be compared to
crime reported to the police as published in the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR).

------------------------------------------
Number of survey respondents, 1998

                              Persons age
                Total         12 or older
                households    interviewed
 
Chicago, IL             790        1124
Kansas City, MO         798        1162
Knoxville, TN           756        1198
Los Angeles, CA         844        1121
 
Madison, WI             731        1162
New York, NY            744        1059
San Diego, CA           791        1131
Savannah, GA            766        1245

Spokane, WA             801        1239
Springfield, MA         771        1231
Tucson, AZ              813        1233
Washington, DC          722        1013
 
Total                  9327       13918
-----------------------------------------


--------------
Introduction
--------------

For the first time in 20 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) sponsored city-level crime victimization surveys. The
Census Bureau conducted the surveys.  The National Institute of
Justice provided funding for the city survey in Washington, DC,
as part of its research support to the District of Columbia
Revitalization Initiative.

The 12 cities are listed below: 
* Chicago, Illinois
* Kansas City, Missouri
* Knoxville, Tennessee
* Los Angeles, California
* Madison, Wisconsin
* New York, New York
* San Diego, California
* Savannah, Georgia
* Spokane, Washington
* Springfield, Massachusetts
* Tucson, Arizona
* Washington, D.C.

Cities selected for the survey project had police departments
that represented varying stages in the development of community
policing.  The project surveyed sampled house- holds residing
within the selected cities' jurisdictional limits to account for
the area served by the local police department.  The survey did
not capture victimizations experienced by those who lived
outside the city limits but that may have occurred within the
city.  It does include victimizations reported by city residents
which may have occurred outside the city limits.  Respondents
were asked about their experiences with crime over the past 12
months.

The Nation's law enforcement community has increasingly
requested city-level information regarding crime victimizations
and citizen attitudes. BJS and COPS undertook this study to
examine how NCVS questions could be administered at a local
level using the RDD methodology. The purposes of the project
were to collect baseline data on city-level violent crime, to
measure fear of crime and community attitudes toward
neighborhoods and police, and to test the RDD methodology.  This
 project explored how to use telephone surveys to provide needed
information to police departments, citizens, and the criminal
justice research community.

------------------
Violent crime 
------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents age 12 or older in the 12 cities
reported similar rates of violent victimizations
 
City ranked by population per 1,000 population
 
                  -95%     -90%     -67%    est       67%      90%      95%
 
New York         59.4     4.16     8.51     13.2     13.2     8.51     4.16
Los Angeles      47.1     2.83     5.79     8.97     8.97     5.79     2.83
Chicago          50.8     2.76     5.66     8.78     8.78     5.66     2.76
San Diego        46.5     2.64     5.41     8.38     8.38     5.41     2.64
Washington, DC   43.7     2.58     5.28     8.19     8.19     5.28     2.58
Tucson           58.4     3.72     7.61    11.81    11.81     7.61     3.72
Kansas City      41.7     3.07     6.28     9.74     9.74     6.28     3.07
Madison          53.4     2.73      5.6     8.68     8.68      5.6     2.73
Spokane          46.8     3.23     6.62    10.26    10.26     6.62     3.23
Knoxville        53.0     2.69     5.51     8.54     8.54     5.51     2.69
Springfield      54.5     3.71      7.6    11.78    11.78      7.6     3.71
Savannah         55.9     4.08     8.36    12.95    12.95     8.36     4.08
 
Figure 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The data from the surveys in each city are based on a sample of
households.  Therefore, the rates and numbers from each survey
are estimates and are not exact.  Figure 1 shows the violent
victimization rate for each city:  Each bar shows the range
within which the true victimization rate is likely to fall for
that city, and the dot represents the best estimate, the most
likely value for the rate in each city. There is a greater
likelihood that the true rate will fall near the best estimate,
and the bars reflect that likelihood: The darker the bar
segment, the greater the likelihood. 

Even though the best estimates of the victimization rates differ
between the cities, the bars overlap, meaning that it is
possible that the actual numbers are the same.  Therefore the
differences in the rates between cities may be too small to be
statistically significant.  

For example, the 68% probability ranges for violent crime rates
in Washington, D.C., and Tucson do not overlap, indicating that
the rates are statistically different for these cities at a 68%
confidence level. However, at the more likely levels of 90% or
95% of probability the rates in these two cities are not
statistically different; the ranges do overlap.  Likewise, at
the 95% level none of the cities surveyed had a violent crime
rate significantly different from any of the other cities.

For additional information about estimates from victimization
sample surveys, see Displaying Violent Crime Trends Using
Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ
167881).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------
City-wide crime rates
----------------------

Violent crime

The violent crime rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older ranged
from 60 to 85 across the 12 surveyed cities.

In general the patterns and characteristics of violent crime
found in the 12 cities did not differ greatly from those found
among all urban areas surveyed in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS)* (Source:  BJS, Criminal
Victimization 1997, NCJ 173385, December 1998.)

The 1997 violent crime rate for all urban areas across the
Nation as measured by NCVS was 51 per 1,000 persons age 12 or
older.

Overall, black residents in the 12 cities experienced violent
victimizations at a rate of 99 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. 
The violent crime rate for all white residents in the 12 cities was 
61 per 1,000 (table 1).  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.  Criminal victimization in 12 cities, by race of victim, 1998

                   Total           Violent crime (a) rates   Property crime (b) rates
                   population      per 1,000 persons         per 1,000 households
                   age 12 or older  All (c) White    Black   All (c)  White    Black
 
    Total           14167416       75       61       99      326      311      387
 
Chicago, IL          2237203       68       66       50      433      394      478
Kansas City, MO       366351       61       58       58      331      293      465
Knoxville, TN         138066       70       70       --      314      316      295
Los Angeles, CA      2954058       65       62      114      347      308      503
 
Madison, WI           164987       70       75       --      322      327      395
New York, NY         6116941       85       55      123      260      255      311
San Diego, CA         982314       63       64       --      308      300      416
Savannah, GA          112349       81       75       91      445      437      440
 
Spokane, WA           156428       67       60       --      411      398      953
Springfield, MA       122501       78       69       85      365      349      468
Tucson, AZ            380067       82       78       --      432      424      425
Washington, DC        436151       60       52       67      445      513      383
 
NCVS urban, 1997                   51                        310

-- Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey.
(a) Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple).
(b) Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and
theft (personal larceny without contact and household larceny).
(c) Includes persons or household heads who are american Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific
Islander, and of unknown race.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Property crime

The property crime rate per 1,000 households was 326 for all 12
cities compared to the NCVS urban property crime rate of 310 per
1,000.

In the aggregate, black households in the 12 cities experienced
property crime at a higher rate than white households. In total,
387 per 1,000 black households compared to 311 
per 1,000 white households were victims of property crime.

Among the 12 cities, the difference in property crime
victimization rates between white and black households varied. 
In Los Angeles black households had a property crime
victimization rate of 503 per 1,000 households, compared to 308
per 1,000 white households.

In Washington, DC, whites had a property crime victimization
rate of 513 per 1,000 compared to 383 per 1,000 black households.

Crimes reported to the police

Across all 12 cities, 35% of violent crimes and property crimes
were reported to the police (table 2). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.  Victimizations reported to the police in 12 cities, 1998
 
                                    Violent crimes (a)     Property crimes (b)
                   Total                       Percent                Percent
                   population       Number (c) reported    Number     reported
                   age 12 or older( in 1000s)  to police  (in 1000s)  to police
 
    Total               14167416       1056         35%    2369         34%
 
Chicago, IL              2237203        152         38       489         38
Kansas City, MO           366351         22         44        66         45
Knoxville, TN             138066         10         41        23         43
Los Angeles, CA          2954058        191         34       523         33
 
Madison, WI               164987         12         36        28         37
New York, NY             6116941        521         32       815         29
San Diego, CA             982314         62         36       151         28
Savannah, GA              112349          9         40        24         47
 
Spokane, WA               156428         10         31        33         38
Springfield, MA           122501         10         58        21         41
Tucson, AZ                380067         31         42        86         44
Washington, DC            436151         26         50       109         41
 
(a) Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery,
and assault (aggravated and simple).
(b) Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and
theft (personal larceny without contact and household larceny).
(c) Does not include cases where reporting to police was unknown.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within most cities the percentage of crimes reported to police
did not differ significantly between violent crime and property
crime.  Similarly across the Nation about a third of the crimes
measured by the NCVS were reported to law enforcement
authorities, according to the victims.

Gender of victim

In general, the rate of violent crime for men age 12 or older
was higher than the rate for women.  Overall in the cities
surveyed, about 93 per 1,000 men and 59 per 1,000 women were
victims of violent crime (table 3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.  Violent victimization rates in 12 cities, 
by gender of victim, 1998
  
                                     Estimated
                    Total            number of       Rate of violent victimizations
                    population       violent         per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
                    age 12 or older  victimizations  Total    Male     Female
 
    Total               14167413    1056327           75       93       59
 
Chicago, IL              2237202      152136          68       97       43
Kansas City, MO           366352       22263          61       74       50
Knoxville, TN             138065        9634          70       88       53
Los Angeles, CA          2954058      191189          65       89       39
 
Madison, WI               164988       11615       70       75       66
New York, NY             6116940      521469       85      100       75
San Diego, CA             982313       61844       63       69       57
Savannah, GA              112349        9130       81       94       70
 
Spokane, WA               156428       10470       67       71       63
Springfield, MA           122500        9502       78       69       84
Tucson, AZ                380067       30992       82      101       63
Washington, DC            436151       26083       60       83       39
 
Note:  Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery,
and assault (aggravated and simple).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men were victims of violent crime at over twice the rate of
women in  Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

--------------------------------------------------------
Using sample data

Since the data in this report came from a sample, a sampling
error (standard error) is associated with each reported number. 
All differences discussed in the text are statistically
significant at or above the 95%-confidence level.  As displayed
in figure 1, the reader is cautioned that some apparent
differences between and among the cities are not statistically
significant.  

All stated differences in the text are tested at the
95%-confidence level.  Standard error tables for selected
estimates are provided in Appendix II.
--------------------------------------------------------

Age of victim

Although persons ages 12-19 in the 12 cities were 12% of the
population surveyed, they were victims of 26% of the violent
crime (not shown in a table). The oldest group, age 50 or older,
made up 29% of the population but suffered 9% of the violent
victimizations.  The remaining age groups, 20-34 and 35-49, both
experienced violent crimes at levels consistent with their
proportion of the population.


Victimization experiences among the different age groups in each
of the 12 cities were similar to that found by NCVS among the
different age groups across the Nation.

Weapon use

The 12-city survey questionnaire asked the victims of violent
crime for information about any weapons used during the incident.

Violent crime victims in the 12 cities said the offender had a
weapon in at least 20% of the incidents -- ranging to  46% in
Savannah (table 4).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.  Percent of violent victimizations in which
a weapon was used in 12 cities, 1998
 
                 Estimated number
                 of violent         Percent of violent victimizations
                 victimizations     in which the offender--
                 of residents                         Did not have
                 age 12 or older    Had a weapon      a weapon
 
    Total                 937454*       36%          64%
 
Chicago, IL               139338        22           78
Kansas City, MO            20018        20           80
Knoxville, TN               8484        41           59
Los Angeles, CA           166106        38           62
 
Madison, WI                10871        32           68
New York, NY              462166        41           59
San Diego, CA              52903        26           74
Savannah, GA                8443        46           54
 
Spokane, WA                 8965        26           74
Springfield, MA             8508        34           66
Tucson, AZ                 26673        27           73
Washington, DC             24979        36           64
 
Note:  "Weapon" refers to a gun or knife, or something used as a
weapon, such as a bottle or wrench.  Violent victimizations include
rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple).
*Total number does not include victimizations in which the victim could
not determine whether a weapon was present.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victim-offender relationship

Victims of violent crime were asked to describe any prior
relationship they may have had with the offender such as being a 
family member, spouse, intimate, nonrelative, or stranger.

Among the total population in the 12 cities surveyed, victims of violent 
crime were more likely to have been victimized by a stranger
than by a nonstranger.  The percentage of violent victimizations
in which the offender was a stranger ranged from 42% in Tucson
to 74% in Los Angeles  (table 5).  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.  Violent victimizations committed by strangers
and nonstrangers in 12 cities, 1998
 
                Estimated number  Percent of violent
                of violent        victimizations
                victimizations                Involving
                of residents      Involving   non-
                age 12 or older   strangers   strangers
 
    Total            989986          64%          36%
 
Chicago, IL          143587          67           33
Kansas City, MO       20644          47           53
Knoxville, TN          9361          50           50
Los Angeles, CA     181,892          74           26
 
Madison, WI           10985          62           38
New York, NY         483006          62           38
San Diego, CA         60260          63           37
Savannah, GA           8656          58           42
 
Spokane, WA            9607          54           46
Springfield, MA        9179          53           47
Tucson, AZ            28492          42           58
Washington, DC        24317          67           33
 
Note:  Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault
(aggravated and simple).  Table does not include victimizations in
which the victim could not determine the number of offenders or
whether the offender(s) was a stranger or known by the victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the smaller cities (populations below 200,000) the percentage
of violent victimizations committed by a stranger was below the
aggregate level for all 12 cities.

Black victims of violent crimes reported similar percentages of
incidents involving strangers and known offenders.  Overall,
white victims were more often victimized by a stranger (table 6).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.  Violent victimizations committed by strangers
or nonstrangers in 12 cities, by race of victim, 1998
 
                 White victims age 12 or older        Black victims age 12 or older
                 Estimated                            Estimated
                 number of                 Involving  number of                 Involving
                 violent        Involving  non-       violent        Involving  non-
                 victimizations strangers  strangers  victimizations strangers  strangers
 
    Total             493494         68%      32%       329319         48%       52%
 
Chicago, IL             78731         63       37        36347         52        48
Kansas City, MO         14244         57       43           --         --        --
Knoxville, TN            8607         51       49           --         --        --
Los Angeles, CA        111358         77       23        49254         64        36
 
Madison, WI             11022         62       38           --         --        --
New York, NY           170099         73       27       209224         43        57
San Diego, CA           47524         63       37           --         --        --
Savannah, GA             4746         55       45         4118         61        39
 
Spokane, WA              8570         54       46           --         --        --
Springfield, MA          5880         64       36         2191         31        69
Tucson, AZ              23612         40       60           --         --        --
Washington, DC           9101         82       18        14371         58        42 
 
Note:  Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and
simple).  Table does not include victimizations in which the victim could not determine the
number of offenders or whether the offender(s) was/were stranger(s) or known by the victim.
Zero indicates no cases in the sample.
--  Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Race of offender

Annual findings from the NCVS have indicated that most violent
crimes across the Nation involve victims and offenders of the
same race.  This pattern was also the case in nearly all the 12
cities where data permitted analysis.

Black victims of violent crime committed by a single offender,
most often identified the offender as also being black.  Across
all 12 cities 84% of single-offender incidents committed against
a black victim were committed by a black offender (table 7).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.  Single-offender violent victimization, by perceived race of offender in 12 cities, 1998
 
                 Estimated
                 number of
                 single-offender   White victims age 12 or older         Black victims age 12 or older
                 violent           White     Black    Other              White    Black    Other
                 victimizations    offender  offender offender Unknown   offender offender offender  Unknown
 
    Total                727826        59%     22%       15%    3%          6%      84%      7%      3%
 
Chicago, IL              115355        41      31        22     6           5       70      17       7
Kansas City, MO           16533        69      23         5     3          --       --      --      --
Knoxville, TN              8568        70      25         3     2          --       --      --      --
Los Angeles, CA          134988        67      13        21     0           8       78      14       0
 
Madison, WI                9394        77      15         6     2          --       --      --      --
New York, NY             339065        63      26         9     2           4       90       3       3
San Diego, CA             43802        55      20        13    11          --       --      --      --
Savannah, GA               6343        50      47         3     0           7       88       5       0
 
Spokane, WA                6818        78       3        17     2          --       --      --      --
Springfield, MA            5692        50      33        15     2          21       65      11       4
Tucson, AZ                20702        68       4        28     0          --       --      --      --
Washington, DC            20566        38      47        12     3          0        85       4      11
 
Note:  Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple).
Zero indicates no cases in the sample.  Table does not include victimizations in which the victim
could not determine the number of offenders or whether the offender(s) was/were stranger(s) or known 
by the victim.
-- Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, white victims of violent crime committed by a single
offender most frequently identified whites as their offenders. 
In most of the cities, white victims reported at least half of
the single-offender violent crime incidents were committed by
whites.

--------------------------------------------------------
Measuring local violent crime

Citizen surveys provide a useful tool to collect crime
victimization data. The 12-city survey was designed to obtain
total violent crime estimates.  The survey used the current
National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with
a series of supplemental questions measuring the residents'
attitudes toward crime, their neighborhood, and local police
activities.  

Another source of crime data is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
based on crimes that are known to the police.  

Each year through the UCR program, the FBI presents crime
statistics for the Nation as a whole as well as for cities.
These data are compiled from monthly law enforcement reports or
individual crime incident records. 

The 12-city local victimization survey collected data for all
victimizations, whether reported to the police or not. The UCR
data are only incidents reported to the police. NCVS data are
collected only from residents age 12 or older; UCR data are for
victims of all ages.

To compare the UCR and NCVS data, only the NCVS incidents that
the respondents said were reported to the police were used.  To
adequately compare NCVS findings with the UCR, common crime
definitions have to be used as well.

Violent crime data from the NCVS  comparable to UCR crimes
include rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.  Because of
differences in methodological procedures, the NCVS and UCR data
are not strictly comparable, but the table does show generally
similar results.  

Overall, the violent crime rate for robbery and aggravated
assault reported in the 12-city survey is similar to that found
in the UCR.  There were some differences in the two reported
crime rates for each city. The UCR violent crime rate was higher
than the city-level survey rate in Chicago and Springfield,
while in Savannah and Madison the UCR rate was lower.

Violent crime measures in the 12 cities, 1997-98
 
                       Rapes, robberies, and  Total robberies, rapes,
                       aggravated assaults    and aggravated
                       reported to the police assaults reported    Crimes reported to the police
                       per 1,000 persons/a    to the police               Robbery/a       Aggravated assault
                       City-level             City-level           City-level             City-level
                       survey     1997 UCR    survey     1997 UCR  survey      1997 UCR   survey   1997 UCR
 
    All 12 cities            14       15       200128     253031    75893       104146   122444   143574
 
Tucson, AZ                   13       10         5125       5066     1518         1446     3607     3329
Los Angeles, CA              12       16        36731      55962    16464        20506    20267    34043
San Diego, CA                10        8        10092       9722     4237         2604     4635     6734
Savannah, GA                 19        8         2100       1146      521          620     1539      465
 
Chicago, IL /b,c             10       22        21325      61808    13112        25289     8213    36519
Kansas City, MO              13       19         4779       8469     1559         2711     2931     5341
Springfield, MA/d            24       31         2962       4637     1137          473     1583     4078
New York, NY                 17       13       105050      92093    30808        44707    74242    45229
 
Knoxville, TN                16        8         2156       1486     1125          545     1031      844
Spokane, WA                   7        7         1048       1383      393          406      655      871
Madison, WI                  13        4         2199        854      522          340     1677      433
Washington, DC               15       20         6561      10405     4497         4499     2064     5688
 
Note:  Violent crimes include rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults which were reported to the police
NCVS urban violent crime rate for 1997 was 51 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
a/UCR robbery includes commercial robberies.  In 1997 approximately 75% of robberies known
to the police were residential robberies.
b/Complete data were not available for the State of Illinois; therefore it was necessary that their crime 
counts be estimated.
c/Forcible rape figures furnished by the State-level UCR program administered by the Illinois Department
of State Police were not in accordance with national UCR guidelines.  Therefore, the figures were excluded
from the forcible rape category.
d/Due to reporting changes or annexations, UCR figures are not comparable to previous years.
Source:  FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1997.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------
Homicide rates for 12 cities, 1985-97

Nationally, the homicide rate rose in the late 1980's and early
1990's to a peak of 9.8 per 100,000 persons in 1991.  By 1997
the rate had declined to 6.8 per 100,000 persons.

During the 1990's 10 of the 12 cities experienced a decrease in
the murder rates per 100,000 persons.

Graph:  Homicide victimization rates 
for cities over 100,000 population, 1976-97
 
City size     One
              Million  500K - 250K - 100K -
              and over 999K   499K   249K
    1976        20.9   19.5   16.5   11.3
    1977        24.1   18.1   16.4   11.6
    1978        25.4   19.4   16.7   11.0
    1979        28.8   21.7   18.6   12.0
    1980        30.9   21.3   22.1   13.0
    1981        28.2   22.2   22.0   14.3
    1982        26.5   19.4   19.1   12.8
    1983        27.0   17.2   16.3   10.7
    1984        25.5   18.5   16.1   11.7
    1985        24.8   17.9   17.2   11.4
    1986        24.1   18.4   19.8   12.7
    1987        22.9   20.1   16.3   11.7
    1988        28.2   20.3   17.7   12.7
    1989        28.8   23.8   18.3   13.2
    1990        31.9   24.6   21.7   14.1
    1991        35.5   24.1   22.4   14.9
    1992        31.1   22.9   20.1   13.2
    1993        29.9   22.5   25.1   14.6
    1994        26.3   19.7   24.0   15.0
    1995        22.5   21.1   24.4   13.2
    1996        21.6   15.7   21.1   11.9
    1997        20.3   19.0   20.4   12.6
 
Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-97.
See the methodology section in Additional Information About
the Data for weighting and imputation procedures used.

                                  Murder rate per 100,000                                      Percent change  Percent change
                                                                                               in rate         in rate 
                 1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996 1997   1985-1997       1990-1997
 
Chicago          22.2  24.8  22.9  22.0  24.8  30.6  32.9  33.1  30.3  33.1  30.0  28.6  27.4       23.4%      -10.5%
Kansas City      20.5  25.9  29.5  29.9  31.8  27.8  30.8  34.0  35.1  32.3  24.0  23.2  22.1        7.8       -20.5
Knoxville         9.1  16.4  11.4  12.0  15.0  15.1  20.9  20.6   8.2  13.9  11.0  13.2  10.8       18.7       -28.5
Los Angeles      24.4  25.6  24.3  21.6  25.5  28.2  28.9  30.3  30.5  23.8  24.5  20.3  16.3      -33.2       -42.2
 
Madison           2.3   1.8   3.4   3.4   3.9   1.6   1.0   1.5   1.0   2.0   2.5   0.5   1.5      -34.8        -6.3
New York         19.3  22.0  23.0  25.8  25.8  30.7  29.3  27.1  26.5  21.3  16.1  13.4  10.5      -45.6       -65.8
San Diego         9.7  10.1   9.2  13.4  11.0  12.2  14.7  12.7  11.5   9.7   7.9   6.8   5.7      -41.2       -53.3
Savannah         26.3  19.1  16.0  12.6  13.5  24.0  42.0  16.0  23.3  20.0  18.8  15.0  18.1      -31.2       -24.6
 
Spokane           5.1   5.6   9.1   5.7   5.1   4.5   3.8   6.4   6.8   3.6  11.7   7.5   5.4        5.9        20.0
Springfield      11.9   4.0   5.3   6.7   4.6   8.3   8.3   8.3  13.0  10.3  12.7   8.0   6.0      -49.6       -27.7
Tucson            8.4  10.3   6.1   8.1    --   7.4   5.8   9.9  10.3   8.4  14.4   9.7  10.3       22.6        39.2
Washington, DC   23.5  31.0  36.2  59.5  71.9  77.8  80.6  75.2  78.5  70.0  65.0  73.1  56.9      142.1       -26.9
 
 -- Did not report
Source:  FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1985-97.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------
Community perceptions
----------------------

Graph:  Percent of residents who said they were
fearful of crime in their city or neighborhood,
or of being a victim of street crime, 1998
 
                 
                                           Fear of being     
                        Fear of crime      A victim of       Fear of crime 
                        In city            Street crime      In neighborhood     

Los Angeles, CA              0.797            0.592             0.438
Springfield, MA              0.767            0.46              0.452
Washington, DC               0.738            0.511             0.477
Chicago, IL                  0.735            0.527             0.477
Kansas City, MO              0.728            0.413             0.326
Savannah, GA                 0.726            0.426             0.325
Percent for all sites        0.708            0.523             0.416
Tucson, AZ                   0.703            0.403             0.401
New York, NY                 0.683            0.541             0.418
Knoxville, TN                0.624            0.352             0.3
Spokane, WA                   0.62            0.307             0.323
San Diego, CA                0.576            0.417             0.295
Madison, WI                   0.36            0.247             0.199
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------
Population age 16 or older in 12 cities, by race, 1998

The survey questions on community attitudes were asked only of 
those residents age 16 or older.  City populations differed in
size and racial composition.  The number of residents age 16 or
older varied from about 100,000 to more than 5 million.  The
proportion of the black population in the 12 cities ranged from
2% in Spokane to 53% in Washington, D.C:

                                    Percent of total population 
                                    age 16 or older
                         Total      White    Black   Other*
 
    Total             13252672      61%      23%      16%
 
Chicago, IL            2085056      57       32       11
Kansas City, MO         349260      74       21        5
Knoxville, TN           130144      90        8        2
Los Angeles, CA        2810891      63       14       22
 
Madison, WI             157983      91        4        6
New York, NY           5661180      55       28       17
San Diego, CA           925803      76        6       18
Savannah, GA            104495      58       39        3
 
Spokane, WA             145476      93        2        5
Springfield, MA         110791      71       21        8
Tucson, AZ              359000      83        4       13
Washington, DC          412593      41       53        6
 
*Includes Asian, Pacific Islander and American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------
Community attitudes
----------------------------

The neighborhood

About 80% or more of the residents in each of the 12 cities said
they were satisfied with the quality of life in their
neighborhood.  Few residents, 6% or less in any of the 12
cities, were "very dissatisfied" with their neighborhood (table
8).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with the quality of
of life in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                Estimated                      Percent of residents age 16 or older
                number of                  Satisfied                   Dissatisfied
                residents age          Very                         Dis-        Very
                16 or older     Total  Satisfied Satisfied   Total  satisfied   Dissatisfied
 
Total           12577831         83%     26%     57%         17%      13%          4%
 
Chicago, IL      1983510         81      22      59          19       14           5
Kansas City, MO   343658         90      36      55          10        7           3
Knoxville, TN     122785         93      44      49           8        6           1
Los Angeles, CA  2730287         82      27      55          18       14           3
 
Madison, WI       152422         96      55      41           4        3           1
New York, NY     5242943         81      21      60          19       13           6
San Diego, CA     911275         94      45      49           6        5           2
Savannah, GA       98293         88      29      59          12       10           2
 
Spokane, WA       142410         91      37      54           9        7           1
Springfield, MA   104039         80      20      59          20       14           6
Tucson, AZ        352640         89      31      58          11        8           2
Washington, DC    393569         79      26      53          21       17           4
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your neighborhood?
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Less than half the residents in each of the cities were fearful
of crime in their neighborhood (table 9).  Fewer than 1 in 10 in
each of the cities said they were "very fearful."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of fear of neighborhood crime, 1998
 
                Estimated                    Percent of residents age 16 or older
                number of             Fearful                         Not fearful
                residents age           Very     Somewhat           Not Very  Not at all
                16 or older    Total    Fearful  Fearful    Total   Fearful   Fearful

Total           12597016         42%      7%       35%      58%       37%     22%
 
Chicago, IL      1985495         48       9        39       52        34      18
Kansas City, MO   343285         33       4        28       67        43      25
Knoxville, TN     122814         30       3        27       70        41      29
Los Angeles, CA  2761158         44       8        36       56        36      20
 
Madison, WI       152269         20       1        19       80        46      34
New York, NY     5236728         42       7        35       58        36      22
San Diego, CA     907779         30       3        27       71        44      27
Savannah, GA       97239         33       5        28       68        39      29
 
Spokane, WA       142194         32       3        30       68        39      28
Springfield, MA   105135         45       9        36       55        34      20
Tucson, AZ        353347         40       5        35       60        37      23
Washington, DC    389573         48       7        40       52        34      18
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "How fearful are you about crime in your neighborhood?
Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents who said they were very or somewhat fearful of crime
in their neighborhood were asked if their level of fear had
changed at all over the past 12 months (table 10).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.  Residents in 12 cities who expressed fear of neighborhood 
crime, by whether their level of fear had changed, 1998
 
                  Estimated                 In the previous 12 months
                  Number of                 fear of crime in neighborhood-
                  Residents age   Total                            Stayed the
                  16 or older     Percent  Increased  Decreased    Same

Total                5210677      100         19%       8%          73%
 
Chicago, IL           941366      100         25        8           68
Kansas City, MO       110958      100         25        6           69
Knoxville, TN          36783      100         34        4           61
Los Angeles, CA      1202378      100         18        6           76
 
Madison, WI            30125      100         24        8           68
New York, NY         2173941      100         15       10           75
San Diego, CA         266251      100         19        9           72
Savannah, GA           31219      100         23        6           71
 
Spokane, WA            45586      100         31        7          62
Springfield, MA        47128      100         41        3          57
Tucson, AZ            140334      100         26        7          67
Washington, DC        184608      100         15       10          75
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Asked only of those who indicated they were "somewhat fearful" or "very fearful"
of crime in their neighborhood.
Question: "Over the past 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased,
or stayed the same?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of residents who were fearful of crime said their
fear of neighborhood crime had not changed over the past 12
months.  Each of the 12 cities generally had few residents (10%
or less) who thought their fear of crime had decreased over the
past year.

Neighborhood crime

Between a quarter and a half of the residents in the 12 cities
indicated that a serious crime had occurred in their
neighborhood over the past 12 months.  About 10% in each city
said they were not aware of the crime situation in their
neighborhood.  In Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, over
40% said they were aware of a serious crime that had taken place
in their neighborhood (table 11).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.  Residents in 12 cities who said serious crime 
had occurred in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                  Estimated
                  number of              Percent of residents
                  residents age  Reporting      Not reporting  Not aware
                  16 or older    serious crime  serious crime  of crime

Total               11918619          39%            50%           11%
 
Chicago, IL          1909191          43            46            11
Kansas City, MO       329112          32            57            11
Knoxville, TN         118901          28            62            10
Los Angeles, CA      2581393          33            53            13
 
Madison, WI           149970          29            64             7
New York, NY         4909999          43            47            10
San Diego, CA         872268          32            57            11
Savannah, GA           95515          27            64             9
 
Spokane, WA           139095          32            57            12
Springfield, MA       101425          36            56             8
Tucson, AZ            342385          31            55            14
Washington, DC        369365          50            44             7
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "To the best of your knowledge, have any serious crimes
occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents who said they were aware of serious crimes in their
neighborhood were asked to identify the types of serious crimes
which had occurred in their neighborhood over the past 12
months.  Overall, the same proportion of all residents (about
20%) identified theft of personal property, burglary, auto
theft, violent attacks, and gun crimes as the types of crimes
which had occurred in their neighborhood (table 12).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12.  Types of crime which residents said occurred in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                Estimated               Percent of all residents who identified a type of serious crime which
                Number of               had occurred in their neighborhood
                residents age   Open drug  Open drug  Auto    Theft/             Violent           Sexual
                16 or older     sales      use        theft   property Burglary  attacks Gun crime assault  Murder
 
Total              12844374          16%     14%        19%     21%     20%        19%     19%        9%     15%
 
Chicago, IL         2025146          19      15         21      26      25         24      26        11      21
Kansas City, MO      339739           9       8         13      20      20         11      11         4       7
Knoxville, TN        128081           7       6          8      16      17          7       7         5       5
Los Angeles, CA     2725774          13      10         17      17      18         14      17         5      11
 
Madison, WI          155411           7       7         4       14      13         12      11         7       5
New York, NY        5462528          18      17        20       21      21         22      19        12      16
San Diego, CA        910853          10      10        16       17      16         13      12         5       8
Savannah, GA         103766           9       7        10       15      15          9      10         3       9
 
Spokane, WA          141797          10       8         8       19      18         11      10         4       8
Springfield, MA      108368          17      14        17       18      17         17      14        10      19
Tucson, AZ           349234          10       7        11       19      18         11      13         3       7
Washington, DC       393677          22      17        26       32      27         24      27        12      19
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  Estimated number of respondents
age 16 or older represents the largest category.  The total number of respondents varies by each response
category.  Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.  Asked only of those residents who said they knew of
serious crimes  which had occurred in their neighborhood in the past 12 months.
Question: "Which of the following types of serious crimes do you know to have occurred in your neighborhood in
the past 12 months -- people openly selling drugs, people openly using drugs, auto theft, theft of personal
property, breaking and entering to steal personal property, violent physical attacks, crimes committed with guns
sexual assault/rape, murder."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About a fifth of all the residents in Chicago, Springfield, and
Washington, D.C. said they were aware of a murder in their
neighborhood. One of the serious crimes which people said they
were least aware of was sexual assault.

Residents in the 12 cities who said they were aware of serious
crimes in their neighborhood were asked how they found out about
these crimes.

In most of the cities residents primarily received information
about serious neighborhood crime either from attending a
community meeting or from the media.  Few residents said they
became aware of serious crime from the police (table 13). 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13.  Sources of information for residents in 12 cities on serious 
crimes that had occurred in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                                     Percent of all residents who identified sources
                                     of information on serious neighborhood crime
                 Estimated      Resident
                 number of      was victim Wit-    Neighbor-
                 residents age  or knew    nessed  hood                      Other
                 16 or older    victim     crime   meeting   Police   Media  ways

Total            13252673          5%         7%      20%      4%     16%      5%
 
Chicago, IL       2085055          6          7       23       4      19       5
Kansas City, MO    349260          4          4       20       4      11       4
Knoxville, TN      130143          6          3       17       2      10       2
Los Angeles, CA   2810892          4          6       17       5      10       5
 
Madison, WI        157985          3          3       14       2      19       3
New York, NY      5661180          5          7       22       4      17       5
San Diego, CA      925803          4          5       16       3      13       5
Savannah, GA       104494          5          5       15       2       9       2
 
Spokane, WA        145476          5          4       17       3      13       4
Springfield, MA    110792          4          5       18       2      22       4
Tucson, AZ         359001          5          5       17       3      10       5
Washington, DC     412592          6          8       29       7      23       6
 
Note:  Estimated number of  respondents age 16 or older represents largest category.
Other ways" include "received information through a public kiosk/terminal
or by visiting a police substation."  Residents could provide more than one source
of information.
Asked only of those residents who said they knew the type of serious crimes which had 
occurred in their neighborhood in the past 12 months.
Question: "How did you find out about these crimes?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among all residents in each city, about two-thirds or more said
they were well-informed about crimes which occurred in their
neighborhood (table 14).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 14.  Residents in 12 cities, by whether they considered 
themselves well informed about crime in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                    Residents age 16 or older
                                Percent
                    Estimated   well-informed
                    number      about crime

Total               11921692        65%
 
Chicago, IL          1898138        63
Kansas City, MO       327390        73
Knoxville, TN         117730        80
Los Angeles, CA      2602552        65
 
Madison, WI           144760        76
New York, NY         4943781        62
San Diego, CA         845649        70
Savannah, GA           93999        79
 
Spokane, WA           134994        76
Springfield, MA       101724        75
Tucson, AZ            338095        70
Washington, DC        372880        69
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are 
excluded from analysis.
Question: "Overall, do you think you are well-informed 
of crime which occurs in your neighborhood?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neighborhood conditions

The 12-city survey asked residents about a series of conditions
and activities which may have existed in their neighborhood. 
Residents said a variety of conditions existed in their
neighborhood (table 15).  These conditions included abandoned
buildings and cars, poor lighting, trash, and empty lots.  At
least a fifth of the residents in each city mentioned "poor
lighting" as a condition which existed in their neighborhood.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15.  Residents in 12 cities who identified conditions which existed in their neighborhood,
 
                 Estimated      Percent of all residents age 16 or older who identified 
                 number of      Abandoned
                 residents age  cars/         Rundown    Poor     Overgrown
                 16 or older    Building      Buildings  Lighting Shrubs/Tree  Trash   Empty Lots

Total               12696240        22%            21%      27%       18%       23%      19%
 
Chicago, IL          2008041        28             28       23        18        26       25
Kansas City, MO       344544        17             19       29        19        18       19
Knoxville, TN         123236        12             14       24        23        13       21
Los Angeles, CA      2763084        20             18       29        23        16       19
 
Madison, WI           151562         9             10       27        19        14       10
New York, NY         5305779        23             21       25        14        30       18
San Diego, CA         906290        11             11       27        20        11       14
Savannah, GA           98425        16             17       22        19        15       18
 
Spokane, WA           142270        18             17       28        22        15       21
Springfield, MA       104572        26             28       27        21        22       19
Tucson, AZ            354785        18             19       50        26        17       27
Washington, DC        393652        34             30       29        23        30       18
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  Estimated number
age 16 or older represents largest category.  The total number of respondents varies by each 
respondents varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.
Question: "Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood -- abandoned
and/or buildings, rundown/neglected buildings, poor lighting, overgrown shrubs/trees, trash, empty lots?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neighborhood activities 

Residents were also asked about various activities which may
have been present in their neighborhood.

Residents frequently said panhandling, vandalism, loitering and
public drinking/drug use existed in their neighborhood (table
16).  In three cities about half said there was loitering in
their neighborhood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16.  Residents in 12 cities who identified activities which existed 
in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                                                   Percent of all residents age 16 or older who identified-
                Estimated                                                                                      Transients/
                number of       Public                                            Pan-                         homeless
                residents age   drinking or Public     Vandalism                  handling/                    sleeping
                16 or older     drug use    Drug sales or graffiti  Prostitution  begging  Loitering  Truancy  on street

Total              12696240         29%      24%             40%          10%       35%      43%       28%      29%
 
Chicago, IL         2008041         35       30              47           14        41       50        29       26
Kansas City, MO      344544         18       14              18            5         9       20        19        5
Knoxville, TN        123236         11        9              17            4         8       13        14        7
Los Angeles, CA     2763084         24       20              42           12        39       36        24       35
 
Madison, WI          151562         19       10              25            2        11       24        20        8
New York, NY        5305779         33       28              42           10        36       52        33       31
San Diego, CA        906290         19       13              33            7        28       31        21       27
Savannah, GA          98425         19       16              15            5        13       24        19        9
 
Spokane, WA          142270         18       12              29            4         9       16        19        6
Springfield, MA      104572         25       22              27            7        13       31        29        7
Tucson, AZ           354785         20       14              50            3        25       26        24       22
Washington, DC       393652         35       31              29           12        46       51        23       32
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  Estimated number of residents
age 16 or older represents largest category.  The total number of respondents varies by each response category.
Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.
Question: "Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood  illegal public
drinking/public drug use, public drug sales, vandalism or graffiti, prostitution, panhandling/begging,
loitering/hanging out, truancy/youth skipping school, transients/homeless sleeping on benches, streets?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents who identified a neighborhood condition or activity
were asked if any of  these conditions or activities made them
feel less safe in their  neighborhood, and if so, which one
impacted their feeling of safety the most.  

Not all the residents felt that the existence of these specific
conditions or activities affected their perception of public
safety.  For example, between 17% and 36% of all the residents
in each city said the conditions or activities made them feel
less safe (table 17).  Across the cities, public drug use,
loitering and poor lighting were among the conditions that
affected residents' sense of safety  (table 18).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17.  Residents in 12 cities who said a condition/
activity made them feel less safe in their neighborhood, 1998
 
 
                   Residents age 16 or older
                   Estimated
                   Number of       Percent of
                   Residents       Residents
Total               13079428         30%
 
Chicago, IL          2068756         36
Kansas City, MO       344883         20
Knoxville, TN         129673         17
Los Angeles, CA      2773663         33
 
Madison, WI           157241         17
New York, NY         5561217         29
San Diego, CA         922216         22
Savannah, GA          104178         20
 
Spokane, WA           143562         20
Springfield, MA       109860         24
Tucson, AZ            354856         30
Washington, DC        409323         35
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer 
are excluded from analysis.  Asked only of those who
identified a condition or activity that existed in 
their neighborhood.
Questions:  "Do any of the conditions you just 
mentioned make you feel less safe in your neighborhood?"
--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18.  Residents in 12 cities who identified activities or conditions 
that made them feel less safe, by which most affected their feeling of safety, 1998
 
                     Estimated     Percent of residents who identified a condition or an activity which most affected their safety
                     number of                 Open
                     residents age  Poor       drinking and Open
                     16 or older    lighting   drug use     drug sales Vandalism  Loitering  Other*
Total                3594640            8%       15%             17%        8%     21%       33%
 
Chicago, IL           678739            5        13              22        11      24        24
Kansas City, MO        62586           28        14              14        11      13        20
Knoxville, TN          19858           23         9              16        14      12        21
Los Angeles, CA       844194            9        12              10        14      16        41
 
Madison, WI            25546           20        17              13         7      14        28
New York, NY         1481001            4        18              19        --      26        30
San Diego, CA         188931           21        11               8        12      12        35
Savannah, GA           18939           13        16              18        --      20        30
 
Spokane, WA            26073           17        16              16        17      11        22
Springfield, MA        23917           13        19              23         7      21        16
Tucson, AZ             96310           22        11               9        15      11        33
Washington, DC        128546            9        15              22        --      20        33
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table.   Asked only of
those who identified a condition/activity that existed in their neighborhood and said it affected 
their feeling of safety.  The total number of respondents varies by each response category.  
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
--Fewer than 10 respondents."
Question: "Which one of the conditions just mentioned affects your feeling of safety the most?"
*"Other" includes prostitution, panhandling, truancy, transients/homeless sleeping in public,
abandoned cars, rundown buildings, overgrown trees, and trash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Residents in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tucson who had
identified a condition frequently said transients and the
homeless sleeping in public were problems that made them feel
less safe (not shown in table).  Few respondents in any of the
12 cities mentioned abandoned cars, trash, abandoned buildings,
overgrown trees, or empty lots as most affecting their feeling
of safety.

---------------------------------------
Residents' attitudes toward their city
---------------------------------------

Residents were asked about the conditions of their city and
about their perceived risk of becoming a victim of street crime
in the city.

A majority of the residents in each of the 12 cities said they
were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the quality of life in
the city.  This ranged from 56% in Los Angeles  to 95% in
Madison (table 19). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with the 
quality of life in their city, 1998
 
                Estimated                 Percent of satisfaction with quality of life
                number of                       Satisfied                   Dissatisfied
                residents age             Very                         Dis-       Very
                16 or older       Total   satisfied Satisfied   Total  satisfied  dissatisfied
Total               12395789       69%       12%       58%        31%      24%      7%
 
Chicago, IL          1975488       68        13        56         32       26       6
Kansas City, MO       337584       70        11        59         30       23       7
Knoxville, TN         121924       85        28        57         15       13       2
Los Angeles, CA      2710225       56         7        50         44       33      11
 
Madison, WI           152124       95        46        48          6        5       1
New York, NY         5114424       72         9        63         28       22       6
San Diego, CA         900796       90        32        58         10        8       2
Savannah, GA           97114       71        13        58         29       22       7
 
Spokane, WA           140965       81        21        60         19       17       2
Springfield, MA       102836       57         4        53         43       35       9
Tucson, AZ            353262       78        17        61         22       17       4
Washington, DC        389047       59         8        50         41       32      10
   
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your city?
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About a third or more of the residents in Madison (46%) and San
Diego (32%) said they were "very satisfied" with the quality of
life in their city.

The percentage of residents expressing dissatisfaction with the
quality of life in their city varied, ranging from 6% in Madison
to 44% in Los Angeles.  However, in many of the cities fewer
residents were satisfied with the quality of life in their city
as compared to the quality of life in their neighborhood. 

More than half of the residents in 11 cities were "somewhat
fearful" or "very fearful" of crime in their city (table 20).  
In each of the cities a higher proportion of residents said they were
fearful of crime in their city than in their respective
neighborhoods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of fear of crime in their city, 1998
 
                                                  Percent of residents 16 or older
                     Estimated              Fearful                     Not fearful
                     Number of                Very     Somewhat           Not very Not at all
                     Residents       Total    fearful  fearful    Total   fearful  fearful

Total               12440671          71%         18%     53%      29%     21%      8%
 
Chicago, IL          1970708          74          20      54       27      19       8
Kansas City, MO       337094          73          17      56       27      22       6
Knoxville, TN         121960          62          12      51       38      28       9
Los Angeles, CA      2737851          80          24      56       20      14       7
 
Madison, WI           151352          36           2      34       64      51      13
New York, NY         5142188          68          17      51       32      22      10
San Diego, CA         894738          58           9      49       42      35       8
Savannah, GA           96190          73          18      55       27      19       8
 
Spokane, WA           141827          62          10      52       38      30       8
Springfield, MA       104175          77          23      53       23      16       7
Tucson, AZ            352353          70          15      56       30      23       7
Washington, DC        390235          74          21      53       26      18       8
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "How fearful are you about crime in your city?
Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In most of the 12 cities, about three-quarters of the residents
who were fearful of crime in their city said their level of fear
about crime in the city had remained about the same over the
past 12 months.  Few, ranging from 2% to 11%, indicated that
their level of fear had decreased (table 21).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 21.  Residents in 12 cities who expressed fear of crime 
in their city, by whether their level of fear had changed, 1998
 
                  Estimated
                  number of        In the previous 12 months fear of crime in city --
                  residents age    Total                           Stayed the
                  16 or older      percent  Increased   Decreased  same

  Total             8745982          100%      18%       8%         75%
 
Chicago, IL         1441581          100       20        5          75
Kansas City, MO      244534          100       22        4          75
Knoxville, TN         75988          100       33        2          65
Los Angeles, CA     2153598          100       20        6          74
 
Madison, WI           54352          100       24        4          73
New York, NY        3490565          100       13       11          76
San Diego, CA        515038          100       16        6          78
Savannah, GA          68996          100       21        4          75
 
Spokane, WA           87685          100       42        3          56
Springfield, MA       79417          100       40        2          58
Tucson, AZ           247269          100       29        2          69
Washington, DC       286959          100       13        7          80
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Asked only of those who said they were very fearful or somewhat fearful of crime in their city.
Question: "Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When residents were asked if they were afraid of becoming a
victim of street crime, except for Madison residents, about a
third or more said they were fearful of becoming a victim of
street crime (table 22).

-------------------------------------------------------------
Table 22.  Residents in 12 cities who said they were afraid 
of becoming a victim of street crime in their city, 1998
 
                  Residents age 16 or older
                              Percent
                  Estimated   with fear of
                  number      street crime

Total             12446470        52%
 
Chicago, IL        1971332        53
Kansas City, MO     337128        41
Knoxville, TN       121693        35
Los Angeles, CA    2689497        60
 
Madison, WI         149992        25
New York, NY       5217814        53
San Diego, CA       885545        42
Savannah, GA         96103        43
 
Spokane, WA         139116        31
Springfield, MA     102943        47
Tucson, AZ          347141        41
Washington, DC      388166        51
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer 
are excluded from analysis.
Question:  "Are you afraid of becoming a victim of 
street crime in the city?"
---------------------------------------------------------

Respondents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of
street crime were then asked to identify the type of street
crime they feared the most.  Overall, robbery and assault with a
gun/deadly force were the street crimes most frequently
mentioned among all the residents (table 23).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 23.  Residents in 12 cities, by the type of street crime they most feared, 1998
 
                   Estimated
                   number of      Percent of all residents who identified a type of crime they most feared
                   residents age           Physical  Assault   Sexual
                   16 or older    Robbery  assault   with gun  assault  Murder

Total              12420723         14%      4%        16%      6%      6% 
Chicago, IL         1956384         16       3         14       7       7
Kansas City, MO      336979         14       4         13       4       3
Knoxville, TN        123821         11       3         10       4       2
Los Angeles, CA     2604976         14       5         23       5       8
 
Madison, WI          155059          9       4          4       4       --
New York, NY        5269927         14       3         14       8       6
San Diego, CA        894077         12       6         12       4       3
Savannah, GA          98451         15       3         11       3       3
 
Spokane, WA          140868          8       5          9       3       3
Springfield, MA      104914         12       5         10       5       8
Tucson, AZ           343746         10       4         16       4       3
Washington, DC       391521         18       2         18       3       5
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Asked only of those who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime in their city.
--Fewer then 10 respondents.
Question: "What type of street crime are you most afraid of -- robbery, someone
stealing from you, physical assault that does not involve a gun (non-domestic violence).
assault with a gun, someone hurting you with a deadly weapon, sexual assault/rape, murder?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those residents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim
of street crime were asked to describe what  measures they used
to protect themselves against crime occurring outside the home.

To avoid becoming a victim of street crime, those residents most
commonly said they don't go out alone, don't go out after dark,
and avoid certain routes or areas of the city.  In eight cities,
20% or more of the residents fearful of street crime said they
planned to move out of the neighborhood to avoid crime.  Among 
residents afraid of street crime, between a fifth to a third made 
an effort to get to know the neighborhood police. In six cities, 
at least 20% of these residents said they carried a self-defense 
weapon (table 24).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 24.  Residents in 12 cities fearful of street crime, by actions they took
to protect themselves from crime outside their home, 1998
 
                                 Percent of persons fearful of street crime who --
                 Estimated                                    Avoided
                 number of       Carried a      Carried a     certain   Avoided   Avoided
                 residents age   self-defense   self-defense  routes    going out going
                 16 or older     warning device weapon        and areas at night  out alone

  Total           6509867            10%          14%           44%        49%     48% 
Chicago, IL       1039490            13           22            48         51      48
Kansas City, MO    138885            14           23            37         45      48
Knoxville, TN       42575            16           23            40         46      46
Los Angeles, CA   1622136            10           17            45         52      47
 
Madison, WI         37427             9           11            44         39      40
New York, NY      2784226             8            8            44         48      47
San Diego, CA      371845            11           14            33         43      48
Savannah, GA        40929            12           29            40         51      54
 
Spokane, WA         43489            14           23            41         46      48
Springfield, MA     47863            11           14            46         53      59
Tucson, AZ         141634            14           28            40         48      49
Washington, DC     199368            12           14            51         48      49
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.   
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  
Total number of respondents varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 
100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those residents who said they 
were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime.
Question:  "Here are some things people do to avoid becoming a victim of crime
that takes place outside the home.  In the past 12 months, have you done any 
of these things -- you carry a self-defense warning device such as a whistle 
or alarm, you carry a self-defense weapon (includes knife, gun, club, mace, stun-gun), you no longer take certain routes or go into certain areas in your
neighborhood, you avoid going out at night, you avoid going out alone?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 24.  (continued)
 
                    Estimated      Percent of residents fearful of street crime who --
                    number of      Took a          Attended      Got to know              Took other
                    residents age  self-defense    community     police in     Planned to preventive
                    16 or older    class           meetings      neighborhood  relocate   measures

Total                6509867         11%              18%           26%          25%       10%
 
Chicago, IL          1039490          9               25            34           29        9
Kansas City, MO       138885         11               19            29           25       14
Knoxville, TN          42575          9               22            31           17       12
Los Angeles, CA      1622136         14               17            24           26        8
 
Madison, WI            37427         13               13            22           18       14
New York, NY         2784226          9               15            24           24       10
San Diego, CA         371845         13               21            24           15       11
Savannah, GA           40929         10               23            37           23        8
 
Spokane, WA            43489         12               20            25           19       13
Springfield, MA        47863         10               14            34           29        9
Tucson, AZ            141634         16               21            28           25       11
Washington, DC        199368          8               26            31           20       13
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. 
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  Total number of respondents
varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.   Asked only of those
residents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime.
Question: "Here are some things people do to avoid becoming a victim of crime
that takes place outside the home.  In the past 12 months, have you done any of these 
things   you took a self-defense class, you attended community meetings in your neighborhood, 
you made an effort to get to know the police in your neighborhood, you planned to relocate to 
outside your neighborhood?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------
Crime prevention measures 
--------------------------

All residents were asked about the types of security measures
they took to protect themselves from crime in their homes as
well as crime which might occur in the street.

The most frequently cited security actions taken by residents in
the 12 cities to protect themselves from crime in their home
included adding outside or automatic lighting, arranging with
neighbors to watch out for each other, and installing extra
locks.  About a third or more of the residents in Knoxville,
Savannah, Spokane, and Tucson kept a weapon inside the home for
self defense.  Less frequently mentioned were installing
security systems, attending neighborhood watch meetings, or
asking police to conduct a home security check (table 25).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 25.  Residents in 12 cities who took action to protect themselves 
from crime in their home, by the type of action taken, 1998
 
                                     Percent of all residents who--
                 Estimated                                          Requested
                 number of      Attended  Watched        Installed  police    Owned
                 residents age  watch     out for        security   security  guard
                 16 or older    meetings  other's safety system     Check     dog

Total            12737662         11%       61%           18%         5%       15%
 
Chicago, IL       2009342         17        65            18          6        16
Kansas City, MO    344390         13        72            18          7        19
Knoxville, TN      123672         12        72            17          5        21
Los Angeles, CA   2782894         11        66            21          5        25
 
Madison, WI        152702          5        51             4          2        10
New York, NY      5315324          9        54            17          4         9
San Diego, CA      910508         10        68            14          4        15
Savannah, GA        98389         16        73            19         10        24
 
Spokane, WA        143515         14        75            12          3        25
Springfield, MA    105571          7        67            21          8        18
Tucson, AZ         355691         15        70            15          5        29
Washington, DC     395664         15        64            15          7         6

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.   
Total number of respondents varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 100% due 
to multiple responses.
Question: "In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself 
from crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime --
you go to neighborhood watch meetings, you and your neighbors have agreed to watch out 
for each other's safety, you've installed a security system for your home, you've asked 
the police department to do a home security check, you have guard dogs at home?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 25.  (Continued)
 
                                           Percent of all residents who--
                 Estimated                             Kept
                 number of     Placed                  self-defense  Added      Took
                 residents age ID numbers  Installed   weapons       automatic  other
                 16 or older   on property extra locks in home       lighting   precautions

Total            12737662         17%        41%          14%           33%       18%
 
Chicago, IL       2009342         18         41           13            36        17
Kansas City, MO    344390         23         40           27            42        18
Knoxville, TN      123672         24         36           39            40        15
Los Angeles, CA   2782894         21         42           20            43        19
 
Madison, WI        152702         14         23           13            27        18
New York, NY      5315324         14         40            8            24        19
San Diego, CA      910508         20         44           17            39        15
Savannah, GA        98389         23         43           34            44        17
 
Spokane, WA        143515         30         44           30            49        19
Springfield, MA    105571         18         42           14            48        15
Tucson, AZ         355691         25         49           31            44        19
Washington, DC     395664         14         32            7            30        22

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  Total number 
of respondents varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.
Question: "In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself from 
crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime -- you've engraved 
security identification numbers on all your belongings, you've installed extra locks on windows 
and/or doors, you keep weapons inside the home, you've added outside automatic lighting (e.g. timers)?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------
Community crime prevention meetings
------------------------------------

Residents were not widely familiar with community watch meetings
held in their neighborhood.  About a third or less of the
residents in each of the cities said they had heard about
community  meetings concerning crime that took place in their
neighborhood (table 26).  

--------------------------------------------------------
Table 26.  Residents in 12 cities who had heard about 
a meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                 Residents age 16 or older
                             Percent who
                 Estimated   heard about
                 number      a meeting

Total            12524175        24%
 
Chicago, IL       1982067        38
Kansas City, MO    340045        20
Knoxville, TN      122509        16
Los Angeles, CA   2741853        19
 
Madison, WI        150836        18
New York, NY      5201213        23
San Diego, CA      900086        17
Savannah, GA        97445        15
 
Spokane, WA        141766        19
Springfield, MA    104421        25
Tucson, AZ         351060        18
Washington, DC     390874        33
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer 
are excluded from analysis.
Question:  "In the past 12 months, have you heard 
about any community meetings concerning crime
in your neighborhood?"
------------------------------------------------------

Community meetings on crime were not widely attended.  In each
city, 10% or less of the residents had attended a community
meeting on crime within the past year (table 27).  

------------------------------------------------------
Table 27.  Residents in 12 cities who attended a 
meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                  Residents age 16 or older
                              Percent who
                  Estimated   attended a
                  number      a meeting

Total             13251676         6%
 
Chicago, IL        2085055        10
Kansas City, MO     349260         5
Knoxville, TN       130142         4
Los Angeles, CA    2810892         6
 
Madison, WI         157985         3
New York, NY       5661180         6
San Diego, CA       924886         4
Savannah, GA        104415         4
 
Spokane, WA         145476         5
Springfield, MA     110792         5
Tucson, AZ          359000         5
Washington, DC      412593        10
 
Note:  Asked only of those who said they heard about
community meeting on crime.
Question: "In the past 12 months, have you attended 
any of these community meetings?"
--------------------------------------------------------

Residents in the 12 cities who knew about the meeting but did
not attend most frequently said they failed to attend because
they did not have time or the meeting was held during work hours
(table 28).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 28.   Residents in 12 cities who did not attend a meeting 
concerning crime in their neighborhood, by reasons for not attending, 1998
 
                                 Percent not attending meetings because-
                  Estimated      Meeting 
                  number of      held                 Not
                  residents age  during     No time   especially  Other
                  16 or older    work hour  to attend concerned   reasons

Total             11708877          3%         6%          2%      9%
 
Chicago, IL        1791876          6         10           3      14
Kansas City, MO     322031          3          5           1       8
Knoxville, TN       117378          2          3           1       7
Los Angeles, CA    2590886          2          5           1       7
 
Madison, WI         146594          3          4           4       8
New York, NY       4866822          3          6           2       8
San Diego, CA       859908          3          4           1       6
Savannah, GA         93225          3          2          --       6
 
Spokane, WA         135112          3          5           1       8
Springfield, MA      99621          5          5          --      11
Tucson, AZ          334376          4          4          --       6
Washington, DC      351048          5         10           2      14

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  
Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Asked only of 
those who said they had heard about a community meeting concerning crime in 
their neighborhood, but had not attended a meeting in the past 12 months.  
"Other reasons" include "did not know time or location," "unable to obtain 
transportation," "unable to obtain child care," "meeting held in unsafe part 
of town," "won't help crime problem," and "meeting is too far away."
--Fewer than 10 respondents. Zero indicates no cases in sample.
Questions: "What are your reasons for not attending any meetings?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------
Attitudes toward the local police
----------------------------------

Residents in each of the 12 cities were asked if they had been
in contact with the local police for any reason over the past 12
months.

About 3 in 10 residents or more in each city -- ranging from 29%
in New York to 44% in Savannah and Tucson -- said they had
contact of some kind with the police over the past 12 months
(table 29).

---------------------------------------------------
Table 29.  Residents in 12 cities who had contact 
with local police for any reason, 1998
 
                  Residents age 16 or older
                              Percent
                  Estimated   with police
                  number      contact

Total             12738135        35%
 
Chicago, IL        2010498        41
Kansas City, MO     345262        42
Knoxville, TN       123430        40
Los Angeles, CA    2782789        36
 
Madison, WI         152763        43
New York, NY       5317897        29
San Diego, CA       909065        38
Savannah, GA         98024        44
 
Spokane, WA         143179        41
Springfield, MA     105361        43
Tucson, AZ          355051        44
Washington, DC      394816        40
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are 
excluded from analysis.
Question:  "In the past 12 months, have you been in 
contact with the local police for any reason?"
---------------------------------------------------------

Overall, 8% of the residents had contact with the police because
they reported a crime; 6% called for police service; 6% had a
casual conversation with the police; and 6% said they had
provided information to the police (table 30).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 30.  Residents in 12 cities, by types of contact with police, 1998
 
                                                            Percent of all residents who-
                     Estimated                                                                    Participated  Involved
                     number of      Had casual   Called       Provided     Reported   Asked for   in community  in traffic  Worked
                     residents age  conversation police       information  a crime    information activity with violations/ with police  Other
                     16 or older    with police  for service  for police   to police  or advice   with police   accidents   on problem   Contact*
 
Total                13252674           6%         6%           6%            8%         2%           1%           5%          2%         10% 
Chicago, IL           2085054           8          7            6            12          2            2            6           2          11
Kansas City, MO        349260          10          9            7            10          2            2            7           2          10
Knoxville, TN          130143           9          6            5            10          1            2            8           2           9
Los Angeles, CA       2810892           6          7            9             8          2            1            4           2          11
 
Madison, WI            157985           8          7            7            10          2            2            8           3          14
New York, NY          5661180           5          3            4             7          1           --            5           2           9
San Diego, CA          925803           8          7            8             8          2            2            7           2           9
Savannah, GA           104494          10          7            5            12          2            2            7           1          13
 
Spokane, WA            145477           6          7            8            12          2            2            5           3          12
Springfield, MA        110792           9          7            6            11          3            2            4           2          14
Tucson, AZ             359001           8         10            8            13          2            2            6           2          11
Washington, DC         412593           7          6            5            11          3            4            4           2          13

Note:  Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.   
Total number of respondents varies by each response category.  
Asked only of those who said they had contact with the local police in the past 12 months.
--Fewer than 10 respondents.
*"Other contact" includes "responded to police survey." 
Questions:  "How would you best describe your contact with the police?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A majority of respondents across all 12 cities said they had not
noticed a change in police presence in the past 12 months (table
31).  Twenty-three percent of all respondents reported an
increase in police presence. In two of the largest cities, New
York (26%) and Los Angeles (23%), about a quarter of the
residents reported increases in police presence.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 31.  Residents in 12 cities who observed a change in police
presence in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                 Estimated      Percent of residents who said police
                 number of      presence in their neighborhood-
                 residents age                         Did not  Never see
                 16 or older    Increased  Decreased   change   Police

Total            12170240         23%            5%     68%      5%
 
Chicago, IL       1945421         17             5      75       3
Kansas City, MO    333760         15             4      76       5
Knoxville, TN      119311         13             3      77       7
Los Angeles, CA   2651357         23             4      68       5
 
Madison, WI        146606         13             2      82       4
New York, NY      5039589         26             6      63       5
San Diego, CA      875953         19             3      72       5
Savannah, GA        95835         16             5      75       4
 
Spokane, WA        137779         13             3      75       9
Springfield, MA    101052         33             2      62       3
Tucson, AZ         345162         19             4      70       8
Washington, DC     378415         26             3      67       4
 
Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Question: "In the past 12 months, have you observed any increases
or decreases in police officer presence in your neighborhood
or did the number stay the same?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents were asked what kind of activities they saw police
doing in their neighborhood.  Thirty-seven percent of
respondents reported seeing police talking to residents (table
32). Recreational and school activities with children (30%) and
facilitating crime watch and prevention activities (27%) were
other commonly reported police activities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 32.  Residents in 12 cities who observed police activities, by type of activity, 1998
 
                                              Percent of residents who said they saw police
                 Estimated                                                                 Opening
                 number of      Talking   Talking with  Attending   Facilitating           substation/  Doing
                 residents age  with      Business      community   prevention   Involving information  other
                 16 or older    residents owners        meetings    activities   with kids centers      activities

Total            12030433         37%         24%           22%         27%         30%        19%         26%
 
Chicago, IL       1934459         41          29            34          30          31         13          22
Kansas City, MO    328858         35          14            22          26          37         13          23
Knoxville, TN      113754         25          17            17          24          37         18          24
Los Angeles, CA   2612038         34          17            20          23          32         25          24
 
Madison, WI        146805         34          12            16          19          31         18          25
New York, NY      5007973         38          30            19          29          26         13          29
San Diego, CA      858278         36          18            19          24          34         31          25
Savannah, GA        93577         35          16            24          34          39         32          23
 
Spokane, WA        130001         29           9            21          28          43         58          19
Springfield, MA    101518         44          29            27          32          44         30          31
Tucson, AZ         327270         34          12            19          25          33         27          24
Washington, DC     375902         42          29            33          32          28         27          29

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  Total number 
of respondents varies by each response category.  Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.
Question: "In the past 12 months, what activities have you seen police doing   
police talking with residents in the neighborhood, police talking with business owners, 
police attending community meetings, police facilitating crime watch and prevention 
activities such as nights out, police involved with kids through recreational or school activities, 
police opening police substations or information centers?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satisfaction with local police

The household telephone survey asked residents age 16 or older
about their level of satisfaction with the police who served
their neighborhood.  The vast majority of residents in each of
the 12 cities were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the
local police.

The level of satisfaction with the police ranged from 97% of
residents in Madison reporting being "satisfied" or "very
satisfied" to 78% in Washington, D.C. (table 33).  Few residents
in the 12 cities, 6% or less, said they were "very dissatisfied" with
the police.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 33.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local police, 1998
 
                 Estimated                    Percent of residents
                 number of             Satisfied                            Dissatisfied
                 residents age             Very                                            Very
                 16 or older    Total      satisfied  Satisfied     Total    Dissatisfied  Dissatisfied
Total            11913071         85%          18%       66%         15%            12%      3%
  
Chicago, IL       1901575         80           16        64          20             15       4
Kansas City, MO    330761         89           24        65          11              7       4
Knoxville, TN      116356         89           22        66          11              9       2
Los Angeles, CA   2557680         86           20        66          14             12       3
 
Madison, WI        147236         97           31        66           3              3      --
New York, NY      4973711         84           16        67          16             13       4
San Diego, CA      848531         93           25        68           7              6       1
Savannah, GA        93110         86           21        65          15             10       4
 
Spokane, WA        133288         87           19        68          13             11       2
Springfield, MA    102609         87           23        64          13             10       3
Tucson, AZ         336711         87           19        68          13             10       3
Washington, DC     371503         78           14        63          22             17       6

Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table.  
Details may not add to total because of rounding.
-- Fewer than 10 respondents.
Question:  "In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood?
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?" 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In total, white residents in the 12 cities were more likely than
black residents to have said they were satisfied with the police
who served their neighborhood (table 34).  The proportion of
black residents who said they were satisfied with the police
ranged from 63% in Knoxville to 97% in Madison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 34.  Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local police,

by race, 1998
 
                Estimated                        Percent of residents
                number of               White              Black              Other
                residents age           Dis-                  Dis-                 Dis-
                16 or older   Satisfied satisfied  Satisfied  satisfied  Satisfied satisfied
 
    Total        11913070         90%    10%           76%    24%           78%    22% 
Chicago, IL       1901575         89     11            69     31            67     33
Kansas City, MO    330762         90     10            86     14            84     16
Knoxville, TN      116355         91      9            63     37           100      0
Los Angeles, CA   2557679         89     11            82     18            80     20
  
Madison, WI        147236         97      3            97      3            98      2
New York, NY      4973710         89     11            77     23            77     23
San Diego, CA      848530         95      5            89     11            87     13
Savannah, GA        93110         88     12            81     19            92      8
 
Spokane, WA        133289         88     12            79     21            73     27
Springfield, MA    102609         90     10            76     24            82     18
Tucson, AZ         336713         88     12            91      9            76     24
Washington, DC     371502         81     19            75     25            83     17

Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table.  
Details may not add to total because of rounding.  Zero indicates no cases in sample.
*Includes Asian, Pacific Islander and American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo.
Question:  "In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood?
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For each of the 12 cities, residents who had been a victim of
violent crime were less likely than others to say they were
satisfied with the local police (table 35).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 35.  Residents in 12 cities degree of satisfaction with
the police, by whether they were a victim of violent crime, 1998
 
                  Estimated                            Percent of residents
                  number of       Victim of violent crime      Not a victim of violent crime
                  residents age   Satisfied     Dissatisfied   Satisfied    Dissatisfied
                  16 or older     with police   with police    with police  with police
  
    Total           11913070            69%      31%              86%        14%
 
Chicago, IL          1901576            75       25               81         19
Kansas City, MO       330761            72       28               90         10
Knoxville, TN         116356            74       26               89         11
Los Angeles, CA      2557679            74       26               86         14
 
Madison, WI           147236            92        8               97          3
New York, NY         4973712            61       39               85         15
San Diego, CA         848531            81       19               94          6
Savannah, GA           93110            69       31               86         14
 
Spokane, WA           133288            74       26               88         12
Springfield, MA       102607            69       31               88         12
Tucson, AZ            336711            70       30               88         12
Washington, DC        371503            69       31               78         22

Note:  Detail may not add to total because of rounding.  
Don't know responses and refusals to answers are excluded from analysis.
Question: "How satisfied are you with the police   are you very satisfied, satisfied, 
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?"  "Satisfied" includes "very satisfied" and "satisfied." 
"Dissatisfied" includes "dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, compared to those who were not fearful of neighborhood
crime, persons who were fearful of crime in their neighborhood
were somewhat less likely to be satisfied with the local police
(table 36).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 36.  Residents in 12 cities degree of satisfaction with police,
by whether they were fearful of crime in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                                            Percent of residents
                                  Fearful of               Not fearful of
                 Estimated        neighborhood crime       neighborhood crime
                 number of                    Dis-                      Dis-
                 residents age    Satisfied   satisfied     Satisfied   satisfied
                 16 or older      with police with police   with police with police
 
    Total           11762723             79%      22%           89%       11%
 
Chicago, IL          1868212             76       24            84        16
Kansas City, MO       328837             84       16            92         8
Knoxville, TN         115284             81       19            92         8
Los Angeles, CA      2538139             81       19            89        11
 
Madison, WI           146901             91        9            98         2
New York, NY         4893634             77       23            88        12
San Diego, CA         845941             87       13            95         5
Savannah, GA           91982             77       23            90        10
 
Spokane, WA           132261             80       20            90        10
Springfield, MA       101958             80       20            92         8
Tucson, AZ            333972             79       21            92         8
Washington, DC        365602             69       31            85        15

Note:  Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Don't know responses and refusals to answers are excluded from analysis.
Question: "How fearful are you of crime in your neighborhood?"
"Fearful" includes those who said they were "very" or "somewhat fearful."
"Not fearful" includes those who said they were "not very fearful" or "not at all fearful."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------
Community policing
-------------------

Police crime prevention

Sixty percent of respondents from all 12 cities indicated that
in the past 12 months the police had worked at least "somewhat"
with neighborhood residents on crime prevention and safety
(table 37). The percent of residents who identified police
activity regarding crime prevention in the neighborhoods varied
from about 50% of the residents in Knoxville, Spokane, and
Tucson to 68% in Chicago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 37.  Residents in 12 cities who evaluated the level of work police were 
doing to prevent crime, 1998
 
                   Estimated
                   number of               Percent of residents who said police were doing-
                   residents age           At least somewhat                Not much     Nothing
                   16 or older         Total     A lot    Some      Total   very little  at all

Total                 8112979           60%        17%     43%       40%      23%         17%
 
Chicago, IL           1429016           68         19      49        32       20          12
Kansas City, MO        238250           60         14      46        41       19          21
Knoxville, TN           86678           50         10      40        50       26          23
Los Angeles, CA       1793979           57         15      42        43       23          19
 
Madison, WI            100620           60         11      50        40       24          16
New York, NY          3148976           59         20      40        41       25          16
San Diego, CA          547820           63         14      49        37       22          15
Savannah, GA            73755           58         14      44        42       20          22
 
Spokane, WA            100599           51         10      41        49       26          23
Springfield, MA         77419           66         19      47        35       20          15
Tucson, AZ             251564           54         10      44        46       23          23
Washington, DC         264303           64         15      50        36       21          15


Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Details may not add to total because of rounding.
Question:  "How much are police doing with the residents of your neighborhood
to prevent crime and safety problems; a lot, some, very little, or nothing at all?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The survey asked each of the residents a series of questions
related to community policing and citizens' preference for
police activity.

Over half of all respondents said they were familiar with the
term "community policing" (table 38).  In Chicago, 73% of the
residents were familiar with community policing. 

-----------------------------------------------------
Table 38.  Residents in 12 cities who were familiar 
with the term "community policing," 1998
 
                                Percent of
                Estimated       residents
                number of       familiar with
                residents age   community
                16 or older     policing

Total              12548085          54%
 
Chicago, IL         1992242          73
Kansas City, MO      338859          52
Knoxville, TN        121455          45
Los Angeles, CA     2737268          49
 
Madison, WI          150298          60
New York, NY        5232448          50
San Diego, CA        894461          57
Savannah, GA          96724          25
 
Spokane, WA          140358          55
Springfield, MA      103881          69
Tucson, AZ           352703          39
Washington, DC       387388          60

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to 
answer are excluded from anaylsis.  
*When known, local terms for community policing 
were used in question wording.  For example, in 
Chicago "CAPS" was used.
Question:  "Are you familiar with the term community policing'?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

When given a definition of "community policing," 54% of the
total residents in the 12 cities said they thought police in 
their neighborhood practiced community policing (table 39).  
Across the 12 cities the percentage of residents who thought 
their local police practiced community policing ranged from 
42% in Knoxville to 67% in Chicago.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 39.  Residents in 12 cities who said their police practiced community policing, 1998
 
               Estimated       Percent of 
               Number of       residents who 
               Residents       said police practiced
               Age 16 or older community policing*

Total            9176371          54%
 
Chicago, IL      1480734          67
Kansas City, MO   271550          52
Knoxville, TN      95850          42
Los Angeles, CA  1974335          50
 
Madison, WI       122825          47
New York, NY     3728768          51
San Diego, CA     661900          57
Savannah, GA       76199          48
 
Spokane, WA       114318          54
Springfield, MA    86008          64
Tucson, AZ        268419          46
Washington, DC    295465          53

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
*Including those residents who said police practiced community policing "somewhat."
Question:  "Community policing involves police officers working with the community 
to address the causes of crime in an effort to reduce the problems and the associated 
fear, through a wide range of activities.  Based on the definition, do you think the
police in your neighborhood practice community policing?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents who reported community policing activities in their
neighborhoods became aware of those activities in different
ways.  Overall, about a third of the residents said they became
aware of community policing in their neighborhood because they
saw the police doing community policing activities (20%) or they
heard about it in the media (12%) (table 40). The remaining
residents stated several other ways of learning about such
activities, including talking with neighbors and children,
neighborhood meetings and newsletters, advertising in the
community, and police patrols.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 40.  Residents in 12 cities who said their police practice community
policing, by sources of information in their neighborhood, 1998
 
                               Percent of all residents who said police
                               practiced community policing because they --
                Estimated                          Saw in the media
                number of      Saw police doing    that police were  Had 
                residents age  community policing  doing community   other
                16 or older    activities          policing          knowledge

Total              9176371          20%                12%             27%
 
Chicago, IL        1480734          23                 16              37
Kansas City, MO     271550          20                 13              22
Knoxville, TN        95850          14                 12              18
Los Angeles, CA    1974335          21                 13              21
 
Madison, WI         122825          16                 15              20
New York, NY       3728768          17                  9              28
San Diego, CA       661900          23                 15              25
Savannah, GA         76199          18                 10              21
 
Spokane, WA         114318          19                 18              26
Springfield, MA      86008          29                 17              26
Tucson, AZ          268419          18                 15              19
Washington, DC      295465          25                  9              25

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Asked only of those residents who said the police were practicing community 
policing in their neighborhood."
Question:  "How do you know?" 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Police activities of increased patrols and attending community
meetings were each observed by about a third of the residents
who reported seeing police practicing community policing 
in their neighborhoods (table 41).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 41.  Residents in 12 cities who said they saw police practicing community 
policing, by type of activities observed, 1998
 
                                       Percent of residents who said they saw police practicing community policing activities:
                  Estimated                    Increased   Increased      Working with            Conducting
                  number of                    presence    patrol by      community    Attending  crime       Running
                  residents age  Enforcing     in high     vehicle,       to address   community  prevention  youth    Other
                  16 or older    traffic laws  crime area  foot, or bike  problems     meetings   workshops   programs activities

Total                  1834531       11%           16%           33%            23%       30%         10%         19%     35%
 
Chicago, IL             342593        9            14            35             26        31          11          15      31
Kansas City, MO          55486       11            15            29             24        29           5          23      38
Knoxville, TN            13531       16            17            40             23        28          15          20      43
Los Angeles, CA         413957       12            17            33             22        30           9          20      37
 
Madison, WI              19967       14            12            35             22        23           7          28      44
New York, NY            651819        9            17            33             25        33          10          19      32
San Diego, CA           153879       20            18            28             21        20          10          22      41
Savannah, GA             13636       11            13            41             18        30           7          18      35
 
Spokane, WA              21400       12            14            22             24        25          20          26      42
Springfield, MA          24573        7            15            60             17        23          10          26      33
Tucson, AZ               49144       13            23            30             17        23          10          20      39
Washington, DC           74546        5            14            39             20        40           7          15      42

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  Estimated number of
residents age 16 or older represents largest category.  Total number of respondents varies by response
category.  Totals exceed 100% due to multiple responses.  Asked only of those residents who said they
thought the police in their neighborhood practiced community policing and said they saw them doing
community policing.  Other activities include, "conducted surveys."  
Question:  "You said you saw the police doing community policing activities.  
Please specify what type of activities you saw the police participating in?" (open-ended question)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall about half of the residents in the 12 cities said their
local police did not practice community policing.  Of these
respondents most in each city wished the police did practice
community policing (table 42).  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 42. Residents in 12 cities who said police did not practice
community policing but wished that the police did, 1998
 
                Residents reporting police did not practice community policing
                Estimated number of          Percent who wished police
                residents age 16 or older    practiced community policing
 
    Total                    6,914,327                     86%
 
Chicago, IL                    892,591                     90
Kansas City, MO                176,659                     83
Knoxville, TN                   73,399                     72
Los Angeles, CA              1,640,927                     89
 
Madison, WI                     83,054                     57
New York, NY                 2,989,595                     87
San Diego, CA                  469,406                     74
Savannah, GA                    52,791                     80
 
Spokane, WA                     71,738                     72
Springfield, MA                 46,187                     85
Tucson, AZ                     200,530                     80
Washington, DC                 217,450                     90
 
Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.
Not asked of those residents who said they thought the police did practice community
policing in their neighborhood.
Question:  "Do you wish the police in your neighborhood practiced community policing?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, of those residents who said they did not have community
policing but wanted it, 46% indicated they would like more
police officers patrolling the streets (table 43). Almost half
specified "other activities," with most responses involving
increased police visibility and contact with residents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 43.  Residents in 12 cities who said police did not practice community policing, by types of police activities
they would like, 1998
 
                                                         Percent of residents who wanted police to--
                 Estimated                 Increase             Removed                       Conduct
                 number of                 number     Assign    Trash/                        security
                 residents age  Work with  of police  same      Evict bad Clean up  Work with checks/  Not do    Other
                 16 or older    community  on street  officers  tenants   streets   Kids      surveys  anything  activities
Total               5943774         25%         46%      7%        4%      5%       13%         5%      6%         49%
 
Chicago, IL          801690         25          47       5         4       6        13          5       8          48
Kansas City, MO      146338         26          42       9         3       3        13          6       6          45
Knoxville, TN         53123         23          44       6         3       3        10          6       8          43
Los Angeles, CA     1453044         29          48       7         5       4        11          5       5          45
 
Madison, WI           47740         25          38       7         3       4        14          6       7          42
New York, NY        2604328         22          45       7         4       6        14          5       6          53
San Diego, CA        348693         29          46       9         3       2        12          6       6          39
Savannah, GA          42195         26          47       5         3       3        12          4       7          44
 
Spokane, WA           51862         23          45       7         3      --        12          4       9          41
Springfield, MA       39256         22          46       7         3       4        11          5       7          47
Tucson, AZ           160746         30          45       9         3       5        12          6       5          42
Washington, DC       194759         25          44       9         4       5        13          5       6          51  

Note:  Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis.  
Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category.
Total number of respondents varies by each response category.
Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses.
Asked only of those who said the police were not practicing community policing in their 
neighborhood but wished the police did.
-- Fewer than 10 respondents.
Question:  "What types of things do you wish the police were doing in your neighborhood?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------
Methodology
-------------

The methodological description of the study is based on the
material presented in the Census Bureau's NCVS Research
Memorandum No. 98-02 -- Community-Oriented Policing Services:
Project Description and Analysis Plan -- Revised by Denise Lewis
and Elaine Hock, May 1, 1998.

This survey was designed to obtain total violent crime estimates
in 12 selected cities.  The survey used the current National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of
supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. 
The NCVS collects data in interviews from all household members
age 12 or older about victimizations that occurred within the
preceding 6 months. For the purposes of the 12-city survey,
respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the
last year. Information on any of the following crimes is
collected:

* Violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and
simple assault
* Personal crimes of theft 
* Household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

The data collection was done using Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (CATI). The data collection took place over a
4-month period starting in February 1998.

---------------
Sample design
---------------

The 12-city survey sample design is a simple random sample of
telephone numbers within each city.  People residing within the
city boundaries of interest were the target population. The
Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) used the GENESYS
Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) Sampling System to select zip codes
associated with each of the 12 cities. The GENESYS RDD Sampling
System selects telephone numbers at a unit called a cell.  These
cells are grouped  to form projects. For the 12-city survey, a
cell contained the appropriate zip codes for each sample city,
and the project was the sample city itself.

GENESYS numbers are contained in banks which are sets of 100
potential telephone numbers.  These numbers have the same area
code and five-digit prefix. Only those banks that contained at
least one listed telephone number were used.  By excluding banks
that contained only unlisted numbers, a slight coverage bias was
incurred. 

After obtaining GENESYS banks of phone numbers for zip codes
within the 12 cities, DSMD obtained zip code maps that showed
county and city boundaries. The zip codes that were wholly
within city boundaries were included in the sample. In the zip
codes that crossed boundaries, DSMD looked at population counts
to determine which zip codes to include. Cut-off levels for
inclusion of zip codes were determined on a city-by-city basis.
The cut-offs used included as much city population as possible
while minimizing the population outside the city.

Approximately 870 household interviews, or 1,600 individual
interviews, were required within each city to obtain total crime
estimates at the 10% coefficient of variation level.

Prior NCVS results suggested that there were an estimated 1.84
eligible persons per household.  This number was applied to the
estimated number of household interviews to obtain the 1,600
individual interviews within each city. Applying these estimates
for all 12 cities produced a required total sample size of
10,440 household cases.  Exact household counts varied across
cities based on differences in the percent of the city
population age 12 or older. Target household interview counts
were --

   Total           10,449

Tucson, AZ            878    
Springfield, MA       894
Los Angeles, CA       881          
New York, NY          866

San Diego, CA         868          
Knoxville, TN         844
Savannah, GA          891          
Spokane, WA           875

Chicago, IL           885         
Madison, WI           840
Kansas City, MO       884       
Washington, DC        843

The target household sample sizes were then increased by four
types of inflation factors: geographic screenouts,
nonrespondents, ineligible respondents, and nonresidential
respondents. Based on previous studies of this type it was
estimated that approximately 40,000 telephone numbers would need
to be screened to obtain the required number of interviews.

The monthly designated sample size for the first month was based
on the Telephone Point of Purchase Survey (TPOPS) interview and
screenout rates. DSMD provided phone numbers for additional
households in the first month to ensure that the final sample
size was achieved. This was done to allow for additional
sampling in the following months if the expected number of
interviews was not attained.

Survey interview and screen-out rates replaced TPOPS rates as
the survey progressed.  This allowed more accurate projections
of interview counts.  The designated sample sizes were adjusted
among the cities in April and May to take into account inflation
that differed across the 12 cities.  Telephone numbers were
edited to eliminate numbers already in a prior month's sample. 
Listed business numbers were eliminated from the sample using
the GENESYS Sampling System.

-----------------------------
Nonsampling sources of error
-----------------------------

In addition to sampling error, other sources of error can affect
the data collected. These sources include:

* The inability to obtain information about all cases in the
sample. To reach the established target sample size of
approximately 800 households per city almost twice that number
of households had to be contacted by telephone.  If respondents
in fact differ from nonrespondents, this could be a source of
significant bias in the estimates.

* Data collection errors resulting from recording and coding
data and errors in estimating values for missing data

* Failure to represent all city-wide household units with the
selected sample (undercoverage).  This survey excluded the
nontelephone households and households with unlisted phone
numbers in strictly unlisted phone banks.  Although there is
evidence that nontelephone households have somewhat different
victimization rates than other households, the size of these
groups is small enough that the effect on overall rates would
not be large.

* Respondent recall error and the unboundedness of the
interview.  In the regular NCVS, interviews are bounded, as
households are interviewed more than once to exclude incidents
outside the time reference period.  This was not possible in the
12-city RDD survey.  

Source: Census Bureau Memorandum Source and Accuracy Statement
for the 1998 Community Oriented Policing Services Survey, by
Alan Tupek, September 24, 1998.

--------------------------------
Weighting/estimation procedures
--------------------------------

Each person, household, and person incident received a full
sample final weight. The final weight was the product of all the
components presented in the table on this page. 
The weighting was done independently within each of the 12
cities.

The weights calculated for each person, household, and person
incident contain the following four components:
* Base weight is the inverse of the probability of selecting the
household's telephone number.
* Multiple phone number factor adjusts for households with more
than one telephone number and therefore a higher probability of
selection.
* Household noninterview adjustment factor adjusts for household
noninterviews. This includes both in scope noninterviews and a
portion of the cases with unknown eligibility. Fifty percent of
the unknown eligibility cases were assumed to be in-scope
noninterviews.

----------------------------------------
Components of the COPS final weights 
    
Components                                  House-     
of final weight                    Persons  holds   Incidents  
       
Base weight                            X        X      X
Multiple phone number factor           X        X      X
Household noninterview             
   adjustment factor                   X        X      X
Within-household              
  noninterview factor                  X               X 
Population ratio estimate factor       X        X      X
Multiple-victim adjustment factor                      X

* Population ratio estimate factor  adjusts the weighted person
totals to the estimated city population for each of the surveyed
cities. DSMD determined the growth rate for each city based on
April 1, 1990, and July 1, 1996 city population counts.  These
growth rates were then applied to the July 1996 counts to
estimate city populations for February 1998. Further adjustments
were made to reflect each city's population age 12 older,
(eligible to take part in this survey).


The person and person incident weights also included the
Within-Household Noninterview Factor (WHNF). The WHNF inflates
the weights of interviewed persons within interviewed households
to account for noninterviewed persons within interviewed
households. The weight assigned for the household is the weight
of the principal person excluding the WHNF; this weight is also
used to construct household incident estimates.

The incident weight also includes the Multiple-Victim Adjustment
Factor (MVAF). This factor reduces the weights of multiple
persons involved in a single victimization.

-------------------------------------------
Replicate weighting and variance estimation
-------------------------------------------

The sample used for a survey is one of a large number of
possible samples of equal size that could have been obtained
using the same sample design and selection procedures.
Information collected from the sample surveyed is used to
estimate characteristics of the entire population. The accuracy
of those estimates must be measured to determine whether
apparent differences are significant or part of the estimates'
variation.

The standard error of a survey estimate is a measure of the
variation among that estimate from all possible samples. DSMD
has traditionally developed generalized variance functions that
modeled the standard error for each type of characteristic
studied. Generalized variance functions derive standard errors
which are applicable to a wide variety of items and which can be
prepared at a moderate cost, but require a number of approximations.

For the 12-city survey, variance estimation is based on the
concept of replication. Through the use of replicate weights,
users can compute standard errors for any characteristic that is
relevant to their area of interest.  The standard errors are
more accurate than with the previously used approximations obtained 
through generalized variance functions.

Replicate samples were created by randomly assigning a replicate
code (1 to R) within each primary sampling unit (PSU). For the
12-city survey, a replicate code of r=1, ..., 30 was assigned to
each sample case at the time of sampling. This created thirty
replicate samples (R), each containing 1/30 of the sample.

Replicate methods of variance estimation require reweighted
replicate samples.  The 12 cities replicate samples were
reweighted by rerunning the basic weighting program 30 times
with the following revisions:
* excluded one replicate sample for each iteration of the
weighting procedure.
* increased the base weight of each replicate sample by a factor
of 30/(30-1) to account for the exclusion of one replicate
sample during each iteration.

The survey data can now be used to calculate estimators for each
characteristic of interest and each estimator variance. The
appropriate replication method to calculate variances is the
"simple jackknife" because the 12-city survey used a simple
random sample. The simple jackknife procedure requires that
replicate codes (1 to R) be randomly assigned to each case,
which was done during sampling. To calculate an estimator and
its variance, first calculate the estimator of interest using
the complete sample. Then recalculate the estimator for each of
the 30 reweighted replicate samples.  The simple jackknife
variance estimator is:

     where:

R = the total number of reweighted replicate samples

y/r = the reweighted replicate sample estimator

y = the complete sample estimator

Use of replicate weights to calculate variances requires a vast
number of computations.  Software programs have been developed to
perform these procedures.

----------------------------------------------------
Number of survey respondents, 1998

                   Households          Persons
City            Target   Actual     Target   Actual
 
    Total       10449     9327       19200   13918
 
Chicago, IL       885      790        1600    1124
Kansas City, MO   884      798        1600    1162
Knoxville, TN     844      756        1600    1198
Los Angeles, CA   881      844        1600    1121
 
Madison, WI       840      731        1600    1162
New York, NY      866      744        1600    1059
San Diego, CA     868      791        1600    1131
Savannah, GA      891      766        1600    1245
 
Spokane, WA       875      801        1600    1239
Springfield, MA   894      771        1600    1231
Tucson, AZ        878      813        1600    1233
Washington, DC    843      722        1600    1013
---------------------------------------------------

-------------
References
-------------

Battaglia, Michael P., et al.  Pre-Identification of nonworking
and business telephone numbers in list-assisted
random-digit-dialing samples.  Abt Associates Inc., 55 Wheeler
Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (undated).

Brick, J. Michael, et al.  Bias in list assisted-telephone
samples. Westat Inc., 1650 Research Blvd. Rockville, MD 20850.

Groves, Robert M., et al. Telephone Survey Methodology (Wiley
Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics/Applied Probability
and Statistics) John Wiley and Sons, New York, November 1988.

Kulp, Dale W, et al. Dynamics of "list-assisted"
random-digit-dialing (RDD) frame coverage. GENESYS Sampling
Systems, 565 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
(undated)

Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, BJS Report,
NCJ 151657, May 1996.

The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, BJS
Technical Report, NCJ 164381, May 1997.

---------------------------
Appendix I
Survey Instrument
---------------------------

The survey questions related to community attitudes were
developed through a collaboration between the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics.  

A number of survey instruments were reviewed during the
development of the community policing questions.  Specific
questions were adapted from policing surveys conducted in --

Chicago, Illinois,
Knoxville, Tennessee,
Pocatello, Idaho, and
Tempe, Arizona.

Comments on the survey instrument were provided by Gary Cordner
of Eastern Kentucky University, Wes Skogan of Northwestern University, 
and Deborah Weisel of the Police Executive Research Forum.  

The Bureau of the Census reviewed the final instrument prior to
field work.

Copies of the National Crime Victimization Survey can be
obtained from the BJS website http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Large City RDD Victimization Survey Community Policing Questions
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1:  If the respondent is 16 years old or older AND
interviewed by self-response, continue the interview with the
COPS questions, otherwise skip  to the FILLROSTER screen,  if
there are other household members 12 years of age or older to be
interviewed, or to THANK-YOU to end the interview with the
household.

Section A.   Perception/Identification of the Crime Problem 

1a. Now, I am going to ask you a few questions about crime in
your current neighborhood. 
To the best of your knowledge, have any serious crimes occurred
in your neighborhood in the past 12 months, that is between <fill>?
 (PROBE, IF NECESSARY) 
   ( 1 )  Yes  - Ask 1b
   ( 2 )  No - Skip to 2  
   ( 3 )  Not aware of any crime occurring in current neighborhood - Skip to 2  
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 2.  

1b. Which of the following types of serious crimes do you know
to have occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months . . . 
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY)
                          (1) Yes      (2)  No      (3) Don't know

   . . .  People openly selling drugs
   . . .  People openly using drugs
   . . .  Auto-theft 
   . . .  Theft of personal property
   . . .  Breaking and entering to steal personal property
   . . .  Violent physical attacks 
   . . .  Crimes committed with guns
   . . .  Sexual assault/Rape
   . . .  Murder 

1c.  How did you find out about these crimes? 
(DO NOT PROBE.  ENTER THE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY). 
Was there any other way you found out?
(WHEN FINISHED, ENTER "N" FOR 'NO MORE)
----  ( 1 )   Respondent or someone they know was victimized.
----  ( 2 )   Witnessed criminal acts in neighborhood.
----  ( 3 )   Learned about crime through conversations with neighbors, neighborhood   
       associations/civic organizations' newsletters, and/or community meetings.
----  ( 4 )   Received information directly from the local police through community meetings,
       newsletters, pamphlets, crime bulletins, and/or police Internet websites.
----  ( 5 )   Received information through the media, such as newspapers, television, and radio.
----  ( 6 )   Received information through a public kiosk/terminal or by visiting a police
       substation.
----  ( 7 )   Other (Specify)

Section B.   Fear of crime/Quality of Life 

2.  Overall, do you think you are well informed of crime which occurs in your neighborhood?
   ( 1 )  Yes
   ( 2 )  No 
   ( D)   Don't know. 

3a. Now I'd like to ask you questions about your fear of crime
and quality of life in both your current neighborhood and in your city.  

How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your NEIGHBORHOOD?  Are you very satisfied,
satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
   ( 1 )  Very satisfied
   ( 2 )  Satisfied
   ( 3 )  Dissatisfied
   ( 4 )  Very dissatisfied
   ( D)   Don't know.

3b. How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your city?
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
   ( 1 )  Very satisfied
   ( 2 )  Satisfied
   ( 3 )  Dissatisfied
   ( 4 )  Very dissatisfied
   ( D)   Don't know.                       

4a.  How fearful are you about crime in your NEIGHBORHOOD?  Are you very fearful,
somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?
   ( 1 )  Very fearful
   ( 2 )  Somewhat fearful 
   ( 3 )  Not very fearful - Skip to 5a
   ( 4 )  Not at all fearful - Skip to 5a
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 5a.

4b. Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
   ( 1 )  Increased
   ( 2 )  Decreased 
   ( 3 )  Stayed the same
   ( D)   Don't know. 

5a.  How fearful are you about crime in your city?  Are you very
fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?
   ( 1 )  Very fearful
   ( 2 )  Somewhat fearful 
   ( 3 )  Not very fearful - Skip to 6a
   ( 4 )  Not at all fearful - Skip to 6a
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 6a.

5b.  Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
   ( 1 )  Increased
   ( 2 )  Decreased  
   ( 3 )  Stayed the same
   ( D)   Don't know. 

6a.  Now I am going to ask you a few questions that are more NEIGHBORHOOD specific.
Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood ?
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY)
                          (1) Yes    (2) No   (3) Don't know
   . . .  Abandoned cars and/or buildings
   . . .  Rundown/neglected buildings 
   . . .  Poor lighting 
   . . .  Overgrown shrubs/trees
   . . .  Trash
   . . .  Empty lots
   . . .  Illegal public drinking/public drug use 
   . . .  Public drug sales 
   . . .  Vandalism or Graffiti
   . . .  Prostitution
   . . .  Panhandling/Begging
   . . .  Loitering/"hanging out"
   . . .  Truancy/youth skipping school
   . . .  Transients/Homeless sleeping on benches, streets

NOTE 2:      Do any of the categories in 6a contain an entry of 1?
             [ ]   Yes - Ask 6b
             [ ]   No - Skip to 7.

6b.  Do any of the conditions you just mentioned make you feel
less safe in your NEIGHBORHOOD?
   ( 1 )  Yes 
   ( 2 )  No - Skip to 7
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 7.

6c.  Which one of the conditions just mentioned affects your feeling of safety the most? 
(DO NOT READ RESPONSE CATEGORIES UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE RESPONDENT) 
   ( 1 )   Abandoned cars 
   ( 2 )   Rundown/neglected buildings
   ( 3 )   Poor lighting
   ( 4 )   Overgrown shrubs/trees
   ( 5 )   Trash
   ( 6 )   Empty lots
   ( 7 )   Illegal public drinking/public drug use
   ( 8 )   Public drug sales
   ( 9 )   Vandalism or Graffiti
  ( 10 )   Prostitution
  ( 11 )   Panhandling/Begging
  ( 12 )   Loitering/"hanging out"
  ( 13 )   Truancy/youth skipping school
  ( 14 )   Transients/Homeless sleeping on benches, streets
   (D)     Don't know. 

7.  Here are some things people DO to protect themselves or
their property from crime that takes place AT HOME.  
In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to 
protect yourself from crime in the home, in a direct  
response to you or your family's fear of crime?.
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY)
                                 (1) Yes  (2) No    (3) Don't know
   . . .  You go to neighborhood watch meetings.                
   . . .  You and your neighbors have agreed to watch out for each other's safety. 
   . . .  You've installed a security system for your home.
   . . .  You've asked the police department to do a home security check.
   . . .  You have guard dogs at home.
   . . .  You've engraved security identification numbers on all your belongings.
   . . .  You've installed extra locks on windows and/or doors. 
   . . .  You keep weapons inside the home.
   . . .  You've added outside and/or automatic lighting (e.g timers).
   . . .  Are there any other precautions you take that I haven't
          described? (Specify).     

8a.  The next few questions pertain to ALL areas of your city.  
Are you afraid of becoming a victim of STREET crime?
   ( 1 )  Yes 
   ( 2 )  No- Skip to 9a
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 9a.

8b. What type of street crime are you MOST afraid of?
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE)
   ( 1 )  Robbery, someone stealing from you  
   ( 2 )  Physical assault that does not involve a gun (non-domestic violence)    
   ( 3 )  Assault with a gun, someone hurting you with a deadly weapon
   ( 4 )  Sexual assault/Rape
   ( 5 )  Murder,  OR
   ( D)   Don't know.

8c.  Here are some things people DO to avoid becoming a victim
of crime that takes place outside the home.
In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things?.
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY)
                                       (1) Yes  (2) No  (3)Don't know  
   . . . You carry a self-defense warning device such as a whistle or alarm.
   . . . You carry a self-defense weapon (includes knife, gun, club, mace, stun-gun). 
   . . . You no longer take certain routes or go into certain areas in your neighborhood.  
   . . . You avoid going out at night. 
   . . . You avoid going out alone. 
   . . . You took a self-defense class. 
   . . . You attend community meetings in your neighborhood.
   . . . You've made an effort to get to know the police in your neighborhood.
   . . . You plan to relocate to outside of your neighborhood. 
OR
   . . . Have you taken other preventative measures that I haven't described? (Specify).

Section C.   Police Contact/Visibility 

9a. Now, I am going to ask about the LOCAL police.
In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with the LOCAL police for any reason?
   ( 1 )  Yes 
   ( 2 )  No - Skip to 10
   ( D)   Don't know/Can't remember - Skip to 10.

9b.  How would you best describe your contact with the police?
(DO NOT PROBE.  ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.
WHEN FINISHED, ENTER "N" FOR 'NO MORE'.
----  ( 1 )   Casual conversation with a police officer.
----  ( 2 )   Officer responding to respondent's call for service.
----  ( 3 )   Gave information to police about a crime or incident (e.g. crime tip).
----  ( 4 )   Reported a crime to the police.
----  ( 5 )   Participated in a survey given by the police department.
----  ( 6 )   Asked the police for information or advice.
----  ( 7 )   Participated in a community activity that involved
the police  (e.g. clean-up, social event, community meeting).
----  ( 8 )   Traffic violations/traffic accidents.
----  ( 9 )   Working with police to address specific problems.
----  ( 10 )  Other (Specify).

10.  In the past 12 months, have you observed any increases or
decreases in police officer presence in your neighborhood or did 
the number stay the same?
   ( 1 )  Increase
   ( 2 )  Decrease
   ( 3 )  No change
   ( 4 )  Never see police in my  neighborhood
   ( D)   Don't know.

11.  In the past 12 months, what activities have you seen police doing?
(READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY)
                                    (1) Yes    (2) No    (3) Don't know      
   . . . Police talking with residents in the neighborhood.     
   . . . Police talking with business owners in the neighborhood.                 
   . . . Police attending community meetings.                   
   . . . Police facilitating crime watch and prevention activities such as nights out.                                  
   . . . Police involved with kids through recreational or school activities
   . . . Police opening police substations or information centers.                 
   . . . Are there any other activities that you've noticed police are 
         involved in (Specify).                               
  OR
   . . . Have you noticed any other activities?  

12a.  In the past 12 months, have you heard about any community
meetings concerning crime taking place in your neighborhood? 
   ( 1 )  Yes
   ( 2 )  No - Skip to 13
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 13.

12b.  In the past 12 months, have you attended any of these community meetings?
   ( 1 )  Yes - Skip to 13
   ( 2 )  No 
   ( D)   Don't know - Skip to 13.

12c.  What are your reasons for not attending any meetings? 
(DO NOT PROBE.   ENTER THE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.)

----  ( 1 )   Aware of meetings, but do not know location and/or dates/times.
----  ( 2 )   Unable to obtain transportation.
----  ( 3 )   Unable to obtain child care.
----  ( 4 )   Meetings held in unsafe/scary part of town.
----  ( 5 )   Attendance would not help crime problem.
----  ( 6 )   Meeting place is too far.
----  ( 7 )   Meeting times take place during work hours.  
----  ( 8 )   Don't have the time to attend
----  ( 9 )   Not especially concerned about crime in my neighborhood.
----  (10 )   Other (Specify) 
----  ( D)    Don't know.

Section D.   Satisfaction with Police/Availability of Police

13.  In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood? 
Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 
   ( 1 )  Very satisfied 
   ( 2 )  Satisfied
   ( 3 )  Dissatisfied
   ( 4 )  Very Dissatisfied
   ( D)   Don't know (no opinion; not aware of police services).

14.  Does the police department servicing your neighborhood have
a phone number for you to call for non-emergencies, other than 911?
   ( 1 )  Yes (includes respondents who may not remember the number itself)
   ( 2 )  No 
   ( D)   Don't know/can't remember.

Section E.   Responsibility for Crime Prevention

15.  How much work are police doing with the residents of your
neighborhood to prevent crime and safety problems, a lot, some, very 
little, or nothing at all?
   ( 1 )  A lot  
   ( 2 )  Some
   ( 3 )  Very little
   ( 4 )  Nothing at all 
   ( D )  Don't know. 


Section F.   Knowledge of Community Policing

16a.  Are you familiar with the term "Community Policing?"
   ( 1 )  Yes
   ( 2 )  No
   ( D)   Don't Know.

16b.  Community policing involves police officers working with
the community to address the causes of crime in an effort to reduce 
the problems themselves and the associated fear, through a wide range 
of activities. 
Based on the definition, do you think the police in your
neighborhood practice community policing? 
   ( 1 )  Yes - Skip to 17a
   ( 3 )  Somewhat - Skip to 17a
   ( 2 )  No 
   ( D)   Don't know .

16c.  Do you wish the police in your neighborhood practiced community policing?
   ( 1 )  Yes
   ( 2 )  No 
   ( D)   Don't know.

NOTE 5:  Is there a response of 2 or D in 16c?
      [   ]  Yes - Skip to FILLROSTER, if there are other household members 12 years of
                   age or older to be interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK-YOU to end 
                   the interview with the household.  
      [   ]  No - Ask 16d 

16d.  What type of things do you wish the police were doing in your neighborhood? 
(DO NOT PROBE.)
----  ( 1 )  Working with the community to prevent crime
----  ( 2 )  Increasing the number of officers patrolling the streets
----  ( 3 )  Assigning the same officers to my neighborhood day in and day out
----  ( 4 )  Removing the trash, abandoned cars, destroying abandoned buildings or
             helping to evict bad tenants
----  ( 5 )  Cleaning up the streets 
----  ( 6 )  Working more with the children in the area/ giving them a safe place to play 
----  ( 7 )  Doing home security checks/surveys
----  ( 8 )  Do not want them to do anything/they are doing what I want them to do
----  ( 9 )  Other (Specify).

NOTE 6:  If any response in 16d, skip to FILLROSTER, if there
are any other household members 12 years of age or older to be
interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK YOU to end the interview
with the household.  

17a.  How do you know? 
(DO NOT PROBE.  ENTER CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.)
----  ( 1 )   Saw police doing community policing activities
----  ( 2 )   Saw in newspaper, on TV, or heard on the radio
              that police were doing community policing 
----  ( 3 )   Other (Specify).
----  ( D)    Don't know.

NOTE 7:  Is there an entry of 1 in 17a?
         [   ]  Yes   - ask 17b.
         [   ]  No    - Skip to FILLROSTER if there are any
other household members 12 years of age or older who need to be
interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK YOU to end the interview
with the household.  

17b.  You said you saw the police doing community policing
activities. Please specify what types of activities you saw 
the police participating in. 
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES.  ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR ALL
CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.)
----  ( 1 )  Traffic enforcement
----  ( 2 )  Increasing their presence in high crime/"bad" areas
----  ( 3 )  Increasing patrol by vehicle/foot/bike patrol 
----  ( 4 )  Working with the community and/or business owners to address specific problems
----  ( 5 )  Attending community meetings
----  ( 6 )  Conducting crime prevention or community policing workshops
----  ( 7 )  Conducting community and/or business surveys about neighborhood problems                      
----  ( 8 )  Running youth programs like DARE, GREAT, PAL
----  ( 9 )  Other (Specify).
End interview.

---------------------
Appendix II
---------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 1.  Standard errors for selected estimates, 1998

                           Fear of crime         Violent crimes               Property crimes
                  In city  In neighbor- Rate per            Percent    Rate per              Percent
                  percent  hood percent 1,000    Number     reported   1,000     Number      reported
                  fearful  fearful      persons (1,000's)   to police  persons  (1,000's)    to police
 
    Total           0.80       0.86       6.37    90.18      3.63       12.18     88.35       1.64
 
Chicago, IL         1.25       1.91       8.78    19.64      4.70       25.40     28.63       2.71
Kansas City, MO     1.59       1.65       9.74     3.57      5.74       30.81      6.11       3.42
Knoxville, TN       1.26       1.34       8.54     1.18      6.78       26.89      1.94       3.01
Los Angeles, CA     1.14       1.59       8.97    26.50      7.88       24.68     37.02       2.90
 
Madison, WI         1.39       1.40       8.68     1.43      5.82       32.32      2.78       5.00
New York, NY        1.65       1.69      13.20    80.72      6.09       21.63     67.87       3.84
San Diego, CA       1.67       1.56       8.38     8.23      6.61       23.78     11.68       2.88
Savannah, GA        1.48       1.50      12.95     1.46      8.01       27.01      1.46       3.67
 
Spokane, WA         1.16       1.51      10.26     1.60      5.19       29.35      2.38       2.93
Springfield, MA     1.43       1.72      11.78     1.44      5.87       30.02      1.75       2.72
Tucson, AZ          1.43       1.63      11.81     4.49      5.04       29.49      5.86       2.43
Washington, DC      1.57       2.20       8.19     3.57      8.90       36.33      8.93       3.17
 
See Methodology section for description of calculations of standard errors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 2.  Standard errors for satisfaction with police
estimates, 1998

                      Percent satisfied with police
                      Total    White    Black    Other
 
    Total             0.68     0.74     1.93     2.03
 
Chicago, IL           1.47     1.35     2.38     5.56
Kansas City, MO       1.05     1.35     3.02     6.15
Knoxville, TN         1.02     0.99     7.35     0.00
Los Angeles, CA       1.34     1.64     4.41     2.75
 
Madison, WI           0.79     0.88     3.11     1.96
New York, NY          1.53     1.75     3.21     3.83
San Diego, CA         0.71     0.76     3.35     2.69
Savannah, GA          0.95     1.43     1.48     4.39
 
Spokane, WA           1.33     1.25    11.15     7.43
Springfield, MA       1.25     1.35     2.71     4.05
Tucson, AZ            0.96     0.96     4.70     3.91
Washington, DC        1.45     2.23     2.27     7.59
 
See Methodology section for description of calculation
of standard errors.
--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 3.  Incidents used to calculate rates of crime
 
                      Violent crime incidents                       Property crime incidents
                           Victim race                                  Household race
                   Total      White      Black    Other        Total    White    Black     Other
 
    Total         1056327    516391      337064  202872       2365223  1375965   655782    333476
 
Chicago, IL        152136     82492       37178   32466       488093    250089   175978     62026
Kansas City, MO     22263     15863        4494    1906        65715     43455    19072      3188
Knoxville, TN        9634      8607         923     104        22647     20405     1835       407
Los Angeles, CA    191189    115404       49254   26531       520865    293323   110628    116914
 
Madison, WI         11614     11338           0     276        27735     25366     1360      1009
New York, NY       521470    182220      214839  124411       814937    448779   267321     98837
San Diego, CA       61844     47524        6087    8233       151176    112979    12267     25930
Savannah, GA         9129      4745        4118     266        24053     13827     8981      1245
 
Spokane, WA         10471      8689        889      893        33393     30226     1067      2100
Springfield, MA      9502      5881       2191     1430        21258     14387     5411      1460
Tucson, AZ          30993     24527       1421     5045        85859     70342     2844     12673
Washington, DC      26082      9101      15670     1311       109492     52787    49018      7687
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 4.  Populations used to calculate rates of crime

                            Population                                    Number of Households
                     Total      White      Black     Other         Total      White     Black     Other
 
    Total         14167416     8488609    3401856  2276951       7251110    4430682   1695832    1124596
 
Chicago, IL        2237203     1241089     742591   253523       1127553     634599    368492     124462
Kansas City, MO     366351      271397      77899    17055        198303     148264     41038       9001
Knoxville, TN       138066      123238      11644     3184         72228      64642      6227       1359
Los Angeles, CA    2954058     1856651     431939   665468       1499930     953045    220044     326841
 
Madison, WI         164987      150289       5684     9014         86154      77589      3446       5119
New York, NY       6116941     3317344    1752530  1047067       3137685    1758658    859342     519685
San Diego, CA       982314      743711      58668   179935        491217     376317     29481      85419
Savannah, GA        112349       63440      45132     3777         54084      31632     20399       2053
 
Spokane, WA         156428      144919       3796     7713         81177      76000      1120       4057
Springfield, MA     122501       85717      25854    10930         58230      41257     11554       5419
Tucson, AZ          380067      315133      13544    51390        198706     165720      6691      26295
Washington, DC      436151      175681     232575    27895        245843     102959    127998      14886
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------
Sources of additional information on community policing

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
---------------------------------------------------------

To obtain information about COPS grant programs, call the U.S. 
Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or access 
the COPS website at http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/ 

---------------------------------------------
Local police departments in the study cities
---------------------------------------------

Information about the police departments and their forms of community 
policing can be obtained from the following locally maintained websites:

Chicago, IL -- www.ci.chi.il.us/CommunityPolicing
Kansas City, MO -- www.kcpd.org
Knoxville, TN -- www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/departments/kpd.htm
Los Angeles, CA -- www.lapdonline.org/index.htm
Madison, WI -- www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/poldept.html
New York City, NY -- www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd
San Diego, CA -- www.sannet.gov/police/index.html
Savannah, GA -- www.savannahpd.org
Springfield, MA -- www.spfldpd.org/
Spokane, WA -- www.ior.com/~spd
Tucson, AZ -- www.ci.tucson.az.us/police
Washington, DC -- www.mpdc.org

END OF FILE, 6/3/99, tld