The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Ada County Sheriff’s Office-Boise State

University Partnership: Final Report

Author(s): Vaughn Killeen, Gil Wright, Ted Bowers, Gary

Raney, Ron Freeman, Dan Bohner, Kjeld

Guglielmetti, Bill Chalk, John Crank, Cary Heck,

Wendy Christensen

Document No.: 187354

Date Received: March 21, 2001

Award Number: 1996-IJ-CX-0085

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
PROPERTY OF 

O\fationa\ Criminal Justice Reference Senricg (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MB 20849-6000 ,Y 

Final report for NIJ grant #1996-IJ-CX-0085 

Report for the National Institute of Justice 

Prepared by Wendy Christensen and John Crank 

Ada County Sheriff's Office-Boise 

State University Partnership: Final 

Report 

September, 1998 

Ada County Sheriffs Office Participants: 

Sheriff Vaughn Killeen 

Captain Gil Wright 

Lieutenant Ted Bowers 

Sergeant Gary Raney 

Sergeant Ron Freeman 

Dan Bohner 

Kje Id G ug I ie I metti 

Bill Chalk 

Boise State University Participants: 

Dr. John Crank 

Dr. Cary Heck 

Wendy Christensen FINAL REPORT &' 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Table of Contents 

SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 1 

SECTION II INTRODUCTION: POLICING A RURAL 

ENVl RONMENT .......................... 8 

The Setting .......................................................................................................... 8 

Geography of Ada County .................................................................................. 11 

Traditional Service Delivery ............................................................................... 12 

SECTION Ill THE GRANT PROPOSAL ........................................................................ 15 

Partnership Goals ............................................................................................... 15 

Development of the Research Agenda ............................................................... 16 

SECTION IV PRIMARY GRANT PRODUCTS .............................................................. 20 

PROJECT A: Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services 

Survey 20 

Survey Method ........................................................................................ 20 

Citizen Fear of CrimeKitizen Satisfaction ................................................ 21 

The Community Policing Mandate ............................................................ 21 

Survey Findings ...................................................................................... 22 

Discussion ............................................................................................... 31 

e ............................................................................................................... 

Summary ................................................................................................. 33 

PROJECT B: Ada County Sheriffs Office Internet Site ...................................... 34 

The Internet Research Project ................................................................. 34 

Community-Focused Internet Site: Purposes .......................................... 34 

Implementation of the Web Site ti Construction of the Home 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Page .......... 34 

Providing information to a General Audience ........................................... 35 

Generating Community Reciprocity .......................................................... 36 

Screening for a Specialized Audience ...................................................... 37 

Evaluation of Home Page Effectiveness .................................................. 38 

The Home Page: Up and Running ......................................................... 42 

Home Page Feedback ............................................................................. 43 

Future Goals ........................................................................................... 44 

Discussion ............................................................................................... 45 

Summary., ............................................................................................... 46 

PROJECT C: Performance Criteria Under a Problem Oriented Policing Model: 

A Report Prepared for the Ada County Sheriffs 

Off ice .......................................... 47 

Overview ................................................................................................. 47 

Part I: Purposes ..................................................................................... 48 

Part II: The Ada County Sheriffs Office and POP: The Transition ......... 50 

Overview: Problem Oriented Policing ........................................... 50 

Traditional Delivery ....................................................................... 51 

The Transition .............................................................................. 51 

The WRICOPS Report ................................................................. 52 

The Press Conference .................................................................. 54 

The SARA Model .......................................................................... 56 

Part Ill: Performance Evaluation in a Problem Oriented Policing 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Context ................................................................................................... 58 

Section A: Issues in the Development of Evaluation Criteria ........ 58 

POP as Accountability ........................................................ 58 

What Can be Accomplished by Evaluation? ....................... 60 

What Criteria Should Evaluational Instrument 

Meet? .......... 6 1 

Community Policing: Specialists or Generalists? ............... 63 

The Effect iveness/Releva nce Dilemma .............................. 65 

Individual Versus Team Evaluations ................................... 66 

The Cultural Limitations of Performance Appraisal ............. 67 

Section B: Tailoring Evaluation to Rank ....................................... 68 

The Role of the Sheriff ....................................................... 69 

The Role of Middle Managers ............................................. 72 

The Role of the Sergeant ................................................... 77 

The Role of Deputies .......................................................... 79 

Line Resistance to Performance Criteria ....................................... 80 

Part IV: Measurement Process and Product ........................................... 81 

Part A: Measurement Process ............................................ 81 

Model 1 : Oettmeier and Wycoff ............................... 82 

Model 2: Mastrofski ................................................. 82 

Model 3: Fine .......................................................... 84 

Part B: Performance Measures ......................................... 86 

Measuring Deputy Performance ............................... 86 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Model 1 : Performance Evaluation Task-Activity 

Measurement Model ................................................ 86 

Model 2: A Qualitative Assessment. Adapted From 

Portland Police Department ..................................... 91 

Measuring Team Performance ................................. 93 

Measuring Sergeant 

Performance ............................ 94 

SECTION V SECONDARY GRANT PROJECTS ........................................................ 96 

Project 1: Community Gang Prevention Team Survey ........................................ 96 

Survey Method ........................................................................................ 96 

Findings .................................................................................................. 96 

Summary ............................................................................................... 101 

Project 2: Deputies' Perceptions of Citizens' Attitudes Toward Service ........... 103 

Methodology .......................................................................................... 103 

Findings ................................................................................................ 104 

Part 1 : Significant Differences .................................................... 104 

Part 2: Non-significant Differences ............................................. 105 

Discussion ............................................................................................. 106 

SECTION VI SCHOLARLY PRODUCTS ................................................................... 108 

Product 1 : Assessing Fear of Crime in a Rural Setting .................................... 108 

Product 2: Police Work and Culture in a Rural Environment ................. 108 

APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................... I 

APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................ v11 0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................ XXVI 

APPENDIX 4 .......................................................................................................... XXVlll 

APPENDIX 5 ......................................................................................................... XXXVII 

APPENDIX 6 .................................................................................................................. 1 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... LVI 

ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................ LXI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a 

The Ada County Sheriff's Office has traditionally been a reactive rural police 

agency, deploying its personnel in accordance with perceived service needs. In 1996 

under the leadership of Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, the Sheriff's Office in Ada County, Idaho 

began to explore ways to increase citizen input into its activities. The development of 

citizen input was initiated with the "partnership" grant provided by the National Institute 

of Justice in January of 1997 and culminated in the restructuring of patrol activities 

under a decentralized "beat integrity" model (see pp. 50-58 for discussion) of patrol in 

1998. 

The transition to a community policing model is ongoing, with profound changes 

occurring across the agency. The Sheriff's Office elected to convert the entire patrol 

division to a problem oriented policing (POP) model of proactive policing. Patrol has 

been restructured, personnel have been transferred, and evaluation procedures are 

0 

being placed. The ultimate success of such a far-reaching and bold endeavor will be 

written in the future. It is clear, however, that the Sheriff has accomplished the critical 

activity necessary to maximize the likelihood of success in its community policing 

endeavors. 

The partnership grant has become a chronicle of the Sheriffs Office's lransition 

to a POP model. In 1996, the Sheriffs Office began exploring means to encourage 

citizen input into its affairs. The need for police-citizen linkages in Ada County, Idaho 

had taken on a particular urgency: intense population in-migration in traditionally rural 

areas of the county have resulted in an increasingly diverse citizenry with unclear crime 

1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
control needs and unknown expectations of the police, and a sharp increase in crime 

over a relatively short period. 

0 

In fall of 1996, the Sheriff and his commanders met with faculty at Boise State 

University to consider ideas for meeting service needs. The result was a partnership 

between the Ada County Sheriffs Office and the Department of Criminal Justice, Boise 

State University (BSU). Captain Gil Wright, Administrative Director of the Sheriffs 

Office, served as liaison to BSU. The Sheriffs Office provided recommendations for 

research problems, reviewed ongoing collaborative research, and assisted in the 

organization and dissemination of policy-relevant findings. 

Dr. John Crank served as liaison for BSU and project manager. BSU assessed 

research potentials and needs of ideas provided by the Sheriffs Office, linked 

proposals with skilled researchers, provided timely research outcomes, and associated 

funding opportunities and proposed problems by the Sheriffs Office. The Sheriffs 

Office carried the primary, but not sole responsibility for establishing a pool of research 

tasks, while BSU provided primary technical support. 

e 

A review of research projects resulted in the selection of two primary research 

products. The first was a survey of 800 citizens that focused on citizen crime-control 

needs, perceptions of police practices, and knowledge of crime control and community 

policing initiatives by the Sheriffs Office. The second was the development of an 

Internet site that provides rapid information about police activities, shows patterns of 

criminal activity, describes services available to the public, and invites feedback and 

discussion. In the following summer, a third product was approved by the National 

Institute of Justice; the review and recommendation of performance evaluation protocol a 

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
criteria to be used by the Sheriffs Office during a patrol-wide transition to "beat a 

integrity" model of service (see pp. 50-58). 

Four by-products of the partnership were carried out during the funding period. 

The first two were policy-relevant surveys. The first product was a random mail survey 

of county residents. Citizens were asked about issues of drugs, gangs, and youth in 

their neighborhoods and in the county generally. The second product was a survey that 

measured Ada County Sheriffs deputies' perceptions of citizens' attitudes toward 

service delivery. The final two products were scholarly papers. One was presented at 

the 1998 Annual Meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the other was am 

ethnographic account of rural policing. 

Each product of the grant is briefly described below. 

Primary Products a 

Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey 

This survey was designed to enhance the Sheriffs current community policing 

program and assist in the deployment of community policing officers. It provided 

information regarding public needs and current perceptions of Sheriff services. 

The purpose of the survey was to measure citizens' perceptions and fears of 

crime, perceptions of deputies, behavior and knowledge of Sheriffs services, and 

support for community policing. Conducted to address the crime control needs of the 

expanding population base in the county, the survey provided the Sheriffs Office with 

the type of knowledge that has allowed it to link its community-based initiatives in a 

direct way to its service population. 

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
We found that citizens were more concerned with street problems and order 

maintenance problems than with serious crime. Yet, even among this rural population, 

the percentage of residents claiming to have seen drug use was quite high. Sharp 

differences in safety were associated with different areas. We also found a very high 

level of satisfaction with sheriff services. Citizens were well informed about community 

policing programs, and support community policing initiatives. 

Ada County Sheriffs Office Internet Site 

a 

The second product, the Internet Site, was carried out after the survey was 

concluded. The survey carried key questions on the kind of information citizens wanted 

on an Internet Site. The survey consequently enabled the Sheriffs Office to provide 

information in response to public interest. 

The Home Page has become a creative way to transmit information to the public a 

that emphasizes feedback through e-mail responses. The work accomplished by the 

Sheriffs Office in the Internet site reflects a deep, underlying commitment to engage 

the public in an impartial and open dialogue. 

Performance Criteria Under a Problem Oriented Policing Model: A Report 

Prepared for the Ada County Sheriffs Office 

After an internal review of current patrol procedures, the Sheriff's Office began 

consideration of transforming their patrol service delivery from a traditional model to a 

"beat integrity" model (see pp. 50-58). The model is a problem oriented policing (POP) 

design, and is being implemented generally across patrol. Dr. Crank was asked to 

assist in the development of performance evaluation criteria for deputies working under 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a POP model. He provided a review and recommendations for the Sheriffs Office 

pe rFo rma nce evaluations efforts . 

Secondary Products 

Community Gang Prevention Team Survey 

a 

With the support of the Sheriffs Office, Dr. Crank, Dr. Heck, and Ms. 

Christensen carried out a random mail survey of 270 citizens, aimed at the identification 

of problems and development of responses to gangs and teen-age use of drugs. This 

survey elicited information about drug and gang activity that citizens had witnessed, 

problems they perceived with such activities, and knowledge and effectiveness of 

community resources for dealing with drug and gang problems. 

We found that over half of the respondents had seen drug dealing and a problem 

with shootings and violence by gangs on they streets where they lived. Respondents 

were more concerned about their children becoming involved with drug activity than 

with gang activity. One of the interesting findings was that even when residents feared 

victimization, concerns over children outweighed their reluctance to involve themselves 

in outdoor activities. 

Deputies' Perceptions of Citizens' Attitudes Toward Service 

e 

In a meeting between the Sheriffs Office and BSU staff, the Sheriff indicated his 

curiosity regarding the extent to which Sheriffs deputies' attitudes mirrored citizens' 

attitudes about the quality of Ada County Sheriffs Office service. Did deputies have 

accurate perceptions of citizens' attitudes concerning their work? A survey was 

conducted of Sheriffs deputies in order to assess their perceptions of citizens' attitudes, 

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
and findings were compared to citizens' actual attitudes from product one above. 

We found that deputies' estimations of citizens' attitudes were remarkably close 

to how citizens actually felt. Where there were differences, they consistently occurred 

in a way that showed that deputies had higher levels of positive sentiments from 

citizens than deputies expected. During deputy-citizen interactions, deputies have a 

strong impact on citizens. Citizens generally thought that deputies were courteous, 

honest, fair, and concerned about their problems. Citizens and deputies would like to 

have more contact with each other, and both are receptive to the kind of police-citizen 

programs characteristic of community policing endeavors. 

Scholarly Products 

Assessing Fear of Crime in a Rural Setting: An Application of the "Broken 

Windows" Model Using Survey Data 

This paper was presented at the 1998 Annual Meetings of the Academy of 

0 

Criminal Justice Sciences in Albuquerque, new Mexico. This paper used survey 

findings from the citizen and gang surveys to develop a perspective on rural crime, 

disorder, and growth. Some findings provided support for a broken windows model of 

rural fear of crime. Others point to an altruism effect that supersedes crime fear and 

involves community members in an out-of-doors activity in spite of increasing concerns 

of victimization. 

Police Work and Culture in a Rural Environrnent 

This paper is an ethnographic account of Sheriff deputies written by Ms. 

Christensen. This paper looks at how a rural environment shapes the way deputies 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
think about their work. Using a thematic approach, the authors contrasted and 

compared rural police perspectives to similar research conducted among big-city police. 

Summary 

a 

The partnership between Boise State University and the Ada County Sheriff's 

Office occurred in a strategic time in the development of community policing practices 

in the Sheriffs Office. It resulted in research products that addressed the need for 

information about rapid demographic transformations in the county and police service 

delivery needs. We identified crime control problems, services needed, perceptions of 

the Sheriff's Office, knowledge of and attitudes about current community policing 

initiatives, and attitudes concerning community-based strategies through citizen 

surveys. 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION II INTRODUCTION: POLICING A RURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Policing in rural environments is different in important ways from urban context. 

It is also relatively unstudied, a literature is unavailable from which readers can learn 

about rural police activities. The following discussion is accordingly presented to 

provide a sense of policing in rural Ada County, and to give a "feel" for the kind of work 

deputies do. 

The Setting 

Ada County is located in a high desert sagebrush ecology. It is arid, with an 

annual precipitation of 12 inches over the desert landscape. The county is located 

between the rolling front range of the Rockies and the Owyhee mountains. Though 

predominantly rural, the county also contains the city of Boise, the state capitol of 

The Sheriffs Office has primary jurisdiction in the various small towns and 

waterways in Ada County. The towns where the Sheriffs Office has primary jurisdiction 

are Eagle (population 6,577), Kuna (population 976), and Star (no data available). The 

hydrology of the county is riverine and the Sheriffs Office has special watercraft patrol 

for sporting areas created by county dams. The Sheriffs Office also has primary 

jurisdiction in Boise State University, on the Boise River in the city of Boise, and in the 

city parks. The Boise Greenbelt, a ribbon of asphalt and dirt trail along the Boise River, 

is also under the Sheriffs jurisdiction. The cities of Boise, Meridian, and Gardlen City 

have their own police departments (See Exhibit 1: Map of Ada County). 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The rural area of the county has witnessed substantial growth over the past two 

decades. From 1977 to 1991 the rural population has more than doubled, increasing 

from 31,4484 to 66,124. From 1991 to the present, the population increased by 18.4% 

to 78,305 (Crime in Idaho, 1977, 1991, 1996). The population growth can be 

characterized as rural sprawl. It has tended to occur adjacent to the County's small 

a 

towns, and follows the familiar pattern of rapid housing construction on relatively 

inexpensive rural land followed by municipal incorporation. 

Crime has followed the county's popula,tion growth. The Sheriffs Office reported 

a 17% increase in total crime from 1977 to 1991. From 1991 to the present, the total 

rural crime index increased by 106% (Crime in Idaho, 1977, 1991, 1996). In I991 the 

odds of a rural citizen being the victim of any crime were 1 in 41.6. By 1996 the odds 

had increased to 1 in 21 .I. 

A number of high-profile crimes have sparked county-wide concern over the 

0 

migration of gangs and the growth of drug use among school-aged youth. These 

crimes mobilized an incipient county-wide effort to address drug and gang problems. 

An interdependent county-wide gang interdiction unit was organized in 1996 to focus on 

what was widely perceived as a growing gang problem. In 1997 the Community Gang 

Prevention Team, comprised of representatives of police, the schools, the courts, and 

business groups, was organized under the guidance of the Office of Juvenile >Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 

Concerns over public order have also been at the center of the growing 

community debate over the impact of growth on the region. Residents were primarily 

concerned over nuisance and juvenile problems associated with issues of public order. e 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
A recent survey of rural residents found that they were primarily disturbed over 

speeding problems in their neighborhoods. This finding was followed closely by 

concerns over stray animals, teenager's lack of recreation, and teenage use of drugs 

and alcohol. 

Geography of Ada County 

e 

Star, Eagle, and Kuna, are three small towns in which the Sheriff has primary 

jurisdiction (See Exhibit I). They are surrounded by farmlands, dairies, and ranches. 

Star is on state highway 44 north west of Eagle which is on state highway 55, and both 

are in the north western part of Ada County. Kuna is in the mid western area, and 

Boise is in the north eastern area. Meridian is south of Eagle, east of Boise, and north 

of Kuna. Neighbors traditionally were separated by a mile or more, giving a wide 

geographic breadth to the idea of "neighborhood." In the past fifteen years housing 

subdivisions have emerged in many rural areas surrounding Boise between Eagle, Star, 

and Kuna. Many of the new residents are employed in high-tech industries and 

commute daily to Boise. 

a 

Communities are separated by farms, ranches, and desert, reflecting the 

traditional rural geography of the region. Residential areas near the city are 

patchworked with farms, horse and cow pastures. Rolling fields of grain, corn or alfalfa 

are common. Dairies are dispersed around the outskirts of subdivisions. 

In recent years urban sprawl has crept into the county's rural areas. South Ada 

County has been steadily developed for the past twenty years, and today is 

characterized by a few remaining pastures along major routes to subdivisions, blending 

a mix of urban housing with the flavor of a ruraU environment. a 12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
North Ada County has seen recent dramatic growth. From Eagle to Star, many 

business structures and residential areas have emerged along the roadways, giving the 

inter-city areas a "strip" quality. Major grocery stores in Eagle and Meridian support a 

mixed rural and suburban environment. There has been considerable growth near 

Kuna in the past five years as well. Kuna used to have its own police station twenty 

years ago, but abandoned it because of cost considerations. Although Kuna has a 

small, modern housing subdivision on its east side, it carries a transitional ambience of 

rural farmlands, dairy farms and horse ranches. 

a 

Hydrology and sports combine to create recreational opportunities which the 

Sheriffs Office polices as well. Lucky Peak Lake is a water sport area serviced by the 

Sheriff's Office in the eastern portion of the county off of state highway 21 near the 

Boise County border. It is popular with swimmers, boaters, sailors, jet-skiers, and 

fishermen. The Boise Greenbelt, 15-20 miles of pathway along the Boise River, 

attracts bicyclists, runners, walkers, swimmers, fisherman, in-line skaters, and nature 

lovers. It connects from the west part of the county to the east part of the county, 

extending to Sandy Point, just one mile south of Lucky Peak Lake. The Greenbelt runs 

east and west along the river, extending about four miles east past downtown Boise, 

through Garden City and about five miles west past downtown Boise. In the summer 

people floating the river on rafts and inner-tubes can be seen from the greenbelt. It has 

been a source of crime as well: in 1997, a woman's stabbed body was found on the 

greenbelt. No suspects have been identified. 

Traditional Service Delivery 

a 

Patrol has traditionally been reactive. The following discussion provides a 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
description of patrol activities. @ 

Ada County patrol is based on a team concept. Teams are comprised of 7 to 9 

deputies, one deputy to a patrol car. Each team is led by a sergeant, or a Rove officer, 

who has free reign to patrol the entire county; usually as Acting Field Commander 

(AFC). Special contract cars are available for Boise State University, Kuna and Eagle. 

Special patrols carried out by the Sheriffs Office include bicycle patrol for the Boise 

Greenbelt and boat patrol for Lucky Peak Lake. Select Traffic Enforcement Patrol 

(STEP) covers all areas of the county. 

Area patrols have been confined to north and south sectors of Ada County. 

ROVE patrols usually have two to three AFC's, and cover all areas of Ada County as 

arterial patrol and to assist area patrol officers. Even though assist calls can be picked 

up by any available deputy, those with seniority have traditionally been provided first 

opportunity to respond. All patrol units, in essence, act as one large team. When there 

is an assist call, the closest available car responds to create a "sub-team" that ensures 

a very fluid system.' 

0 

Today this patrol design is undergoing broad and profound change. The 

Sheriffs Office is implementing a "beat integrity" model (see pp. 50-58) according to 

which officers are assigned to county areas for extended times. Officers are also 

permanently assigned to the communities of Kuna and Eagle. The Sheriffs Office is in 

the process of establishing sub-stations in both communities. 

The beat integrity model is based on notions of responsibility, community, or 

area identification, and accountability. Accordingly, a part of the new patrol model 

includes the development of performance criteria. Product "C" describes performance a 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
criteria development. a 

The final aspect of patrol re-design is an emphasis on proactive problem 

identification. The Sheriff's Office is implementing a POP model using a SARA method 

for problem identification and resolution. Deputies are currently undergoing training for 

implementing the SARA method (see pp. 56-57). 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION 111 GRANT PROPOSAL 

The Ada County Sheriffs Office has traditionally been a reactive rural police 

e 

agency, deploying its personnel in accordance with perceived service needs. In 1996 

under the leadership of Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, the Sheriffs Office in Ada County Idaho 

began to explore ways of increasing citizen input into its activities. The process of 

developing citizen input was initiated with the "partnership" grant provided by the 

National Institute of Justice in January of 1997 and culminated in the restructuring of 

patrol activities under a decentralized "beat integrity" model of patrol in 1998. 

This grant has been a central informational component in the Sheriffs Office's 

effort to move toward a community policing concept. Because the literature on 

community policing for rural areas and sheriffs is so scant, the grant aimed at the 

provision of foundational knowledged - what do county citizens know about the Sheriffs 

Office, what is their interest in community policing ideas, and how can we engineer 

reciprocal contacts between the community and the Sheriffs Office? 

Partnership Goals 

The goals of the partnership were: 1) form a research-practitioner partnership 

that would contribute to policy-relevant research and evaluation on behalf of the Ada 

County Sheriffs Office; 2) use the partnership to develop a pool of research ideas 

fruitful to the Sheriffs Office; 3) solicit information on citizens' perceptions of current 

police practices, community-based initiatives within the Sheriffs Office, and ways in 

which the department can more effectively communicate information about its activities. 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
By the end of the grant we had expanded the original partnership agreement with 

the completion of three additional products. This document presents a discussion and 

findings of all five products listed below. 

e 

b "Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey" 

b "Ada County Sheriffs Office Internet Site" 

b "Performance Criteria Under a Problem Oriented Policing Model: A 

Report Prepared for the Ada County Sheriffs Office" 

"Community Gang Prevention Team Survey" 

"Deputies' Percept ions of Citizens' Attitudes Toward Service" 

b 

b 

Abstracts for the two scholarly papers are also provided herein. 

Development of The Research Agenda 

On July 25, 1996 Dr. John Crank met with the command staff of the Sheriff's 

Office and presented a discussion on the idea of formal collaboration and the NIJ 

solicitation. On the 26th and 27th the Director of the Administrative Services Section 

visited individually with lieutenants, captains, and other members of the agency 

command in an effort to identify topics of particular concern to the agency. Their 

suggestions for collaborative research are listed below, and were provided without order 

of priority. It was from items 2, 3, and 9 on this list that the current research proposal 

was developed. 

1. 

a 

Should the Department implement educational television for criminal 

inmates? 

Can a community survey be used to assess and develop the current 

community policing component, and at the same time provide information 

2. 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

about citizen needs? 

How can public access to records be improved? 

The development of a radio frequency usage plan. 

Evaluation of current management and administration structure. 

Explaining the drop in inmate population in the Ada County Jail, a drop 

that is contrary to projections. 

Review of pre-employment procedures and evaluate overall employment 

process. 

The development of a "paperless office." 

Examining the department's current means of dealing with the news 

media in emergency and non-emergency situations. Can information be 

made more immediately available? 

Working with the Ada County Sheriffs Office, Boise State University pursued two 

research projects intended to provide community input into the affairs of the Sheriffs 

Office. The first was a survey of citizenry of the county that focused on rural areas in 

which the Sheriff's Office has full enhanced patrol/investigative responsibilities. A 

random survey of 800 citizens, geographically stratified, identified both new and 

traditional centers of population, allowed a focused examination of citizen attitudes in 

the full array of communities and rural towns in the county. The survey focused on 

traditional and community policing initiatives. 

The second project was to enhance the capacity of public access to the Sheriffs 

Office vis-a-vis the Internet. This aspect of the grant resulted in the development of a 

"Home Page" that provided the general public with ongoing information about the 0 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
department, permits media access to current crime events, and presents a "newsy" 

human-interest aspect of Sheriff's Office activities. The system was intended to be 

interactive, with programs designed for public feedback on various topics. The site has 

been useful in the provision of information on the Cops Ahead initiative, and activities of 

crime prevention and juvenile sections in which these officers are used. 

e 

With the first two principal tasks of the grant completed, Dr. Crank was invited to 

assist in the development of performance evaluation criteria for deputies working under 

a problem oriented policing (POP) model. Dr. Jeffries at the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ) notified Dr. Crank that the project was approved by the NIJ. This resulted in a 

third project that assisted the Ada County Sheriffs Office in transforming their patrol 

service delivery to a "beat integrity" model (see pp. 56-64) based on POP design 

principles. Dr. Crank provided a document containing and overview and 

recommendations for performance evaluations that assisted in the development of 

evaluation protocols for the Sheriff's Office. 

0 

During the course of the grant, additional projects and products were identified 

that were perceived to be beneficial to both Boise State University and the Ada County 

Sheriffs Office. We completed two additional projects in the spirit of the partnership 

proposal. These were a county-wide survey OF public perceptions of gang activity and a 

survey of deputies' perceptions of citizens' attitudes. 

The first was a survey of citizen's perceptions of gang activity and teenage drug 

usage in Ada County. This mail survey represented continuing efforts of Ada County 

citizens, state and local governments, community action agencies, and the Sheriffs 

Office to identify problems and develop responses to gang and drug activity. a 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The second project resulted during a meeting between the Sheriff's Office and 

BSU staff. To what extent did deputies' attitudes mirror citizens' attitudes towards the 

Sheriffs Office service delivery? This project enabled us to find out if deputies were 

giving citizens they service they wanted and whether or not deputies' perceptions of 

citizens' service needs were accurate. 

a 

Included in this document are two scholarly activities carried out under the 

auspices of the grant. The first product was the presentation of a paper titled 

Assessing Fear of Crime in a Rural Setting: An Application of the "Broken Wjndows" 

Model Using Survey Data, presented at the 1998 Annual Meetings of the Academy of 

Criminal Justice Sciences in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Using survey data, we 

assessed the impact of neighborhood crime problems on fear of victimization and 

changes in recreational and social out-of-door activity. Some findings provide support 

for a broken windows model of rural fear of crime. Others point to an altruism effect 

that supersedes crime fear and involves community members in out-of-doors activity in 

spite of increasing concerns of victimization. 

e 

The second product Police Work and Culture in a Rural Environment was an 

ethnographic study of Ada County Sheriffs deputies conducted by Wendy Christensen. 

This project consisted of nine ride-alongs to familiarize ourselves with typical shift work 

performed by police in a rural setting. The ethnography was carried out to answer two 

questions: What do rural police do and in what kind of environment; and does rural 

police culture differ from their urban cousins? Findings highlighted surprising 

similarities and subtle differences in rural and urban police styles. 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION IV PRIMARY GRANT PRODUCTS 8 

PROJECT A: Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey 

This survey was developed in order to further Ada County Sheriffs Office efforts 

to move toward a community policing service delivery model and to provide information 

regarding public needs and perceptions of services offered by the Sheriffs Office. The 

survey itself was tailored to the needs of the Sheriffs Office. 

This project contained two components: research and evaluation. The research 

component assessed I) citizens' fear of crime; 2) citizens' satisfaction with current 

sheriff services across the jurisdiction; and 3) knowledge and attitudes regarding 

elements of community policing. The evaluation component assessed citizens' 

knowledge of COPS services currently available and the current use of COPS in the 

community and the community based initiatives put forth by the Sheriffs Office. 

Survey method. The survey was a random telephone survey of 806 residents in 

e 

Ada County, Idaho. The survey Research Center at Boise State University conducted 

the survey using methods proposed by Dillman (1 984). Respondents were selected 

randomly within particular area codes, using a proportionate sampling frame. The 

sample was stratified to ensure sufficient rural-signifying code were selected that 

provided a meaningful count of rural citizens. Detailed geographic data was gathered 

during the interview to discount the possible error of mis-designating rural and urban 

respondents. The survey instrument was constructed with content valid questions 

developed with similar research in mind (Weisheit, Falcone, and Wells, 1994; La Free 

et. al., 1992; Cordner, 1994). Data was presented in SPSS format. A phone survey 

21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
format allowed us to elicit a comprehensive and in-depth statistical profile of 

perceptions of current police practices and citizen interest in the expansion of 

community-based policing strategies and tactics. 

0 

Citizen fear of crimekitizen satisfaction. The first set of questions assessed 

recent experiences with the police, attitudes toward crime, and perceptions off the 

quality of various police services. Listed below are the categories of questions we 

wanted to address, not the specific questions themselves. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

What is the citizen's level of satisfaction with law enforcement? 

What do citizens want from law enforcement? 

How are the different service areas of the Sheriffs Office received by the 

public? 

What are the citizen's principle concerndfears that can be addressed by 

law enforcement? 

Does the department adequately deal with the problems confronted by 

victims of crime? 

How can the Sheriffs Office improve its image with the public? 

Do county residents, particularly those in rural areas, believe that they are 

getting enough patrol coverage? 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The community policing mandate. The next set of questions intended to 

ascertain interest in ideas of community policing and the viability of imparting 

community-based programs. What follows are not specific questions, but categories 

from which questions were drawn. 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Are there particular crime controVorder maintenance needs of county 

citizens, and do these needs vary by location within the county? 

Will the public be receptive to the emplacement of local, decentralized 

substations? 

Will the public be receptive to organizations for crime prevention and 

meetings attended by county police officers? 

Will the public be receptive to alternate forms of patrol? 

Will rural citizens be interested in expanded neighborhood watch 

programs? Citizen-band patrols'? More frequent meetings with members 

of the department? 

Will the public be willing to trade off some conventional police services, 

such as having an officer physically respond to relatively minor cold 

crimes, in exchange for more sewice-oriented police activities? 

Survey Findings 

In Part 1 we asked respondents about their fears of crime, criminal activity that 

they had witnessed, their fears that they or their children will be victimized, and their 

thoughts on the contributions of local agencies in dealing with these concerns. 

Residents were asked about 39 different crime related problems in the neighborhoods 

where they !ke. ?he five most frequently cited! problems were: 

F Speeding, reported by 79% of the respondents. 

t A lack of recreation for children (65%). 

t Stray animals (60%). 

b Excessive noise (i.e., barking dogs, loud parties) (53%). a 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
b Vandal ism (53.4%). a 

The top five issues that were regarded as no problem were: 

b Homeless people or vagrants were cited as no problem by 95% of respondents. 

t 

b 

b 

b 

Ninety-two percent felt there was no problem with poaching. 

Eighty-two percent (81.9%) saw no problem with graffiti. 

Eighty-one percent (81.4%) felt there was no problem with auto theft. 

Sixty-seven percent (67.4%) felt that physical decay - such as abandoned cars, 

run-down building, houses or farm buildings in disrepair were no problem. 

When asked about serious crime, 

b Nearly half (44%) of the respondents noted that having homes being broken into 

and things being stolen was a problem in their neighborhood. 

Forty-one percent (41.1%) thought there was a problem with people breaking 

into cars. 

Forty-one percent (40.5%) of the respondents believed that drunk drivers were a 

problem. 

Fourteen percent stated they had observed drug activity in their neighborhood. 

b e b 

b 

b Twenty percent stated that they had observed gang activity in their 

neighborhood. 

b Most of the respondents (90.4%) felt there was no problem with shooting and 

violence by gangs. 

Ninety percent (89.7%) felt there was no problem with "crack" houses or Meth 

labs. 

b 

b Eighty-nine percent (89.3%) saw no problem with gang violence. e 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
We asked respondents about the contribution of 11 different agencies and colmmunity 

efforts to solve problems having to do with drugs and gangs. Of the 11, the 5 most 

e 

helpful with regard to gangs were: 

t The Church (selected by 72% of the respondents). 

t "Enough is Enough" and other community action programs (70%). 

t The Sheriffs Office (68%). 

t DARE programs (64%). 

t The School District (59%). 

The five most helpful with regard to drugs were: 

t 

b 

The Church (selected by 72% of the respondents). 

"Enough is Enough" and other community action programs (70%). 

t DARE programs (65%). e t The School District (59%). 

F The Sheriff's Office (58%). 

Residents provided information about their recreational activities. We found a high 

level of activity outside the home. 

t Seventy-six percent (76.4%) recreate outside the house, but in the 

neighborhood. 

t Seventy-six percent (75.6%) stated they walk, jog, or ride a bike in the day time, 

64.3% participate in these activities in the evening, and 27.7% at night. 

t Fifty-five percent (54.8%) stated they participate in social activity in their 

neighborhood. 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
t 

t 

Residents thought they were safe, though more so in their neighborhoods than in 

Respondents average ten hours per week watching television. e 

Only two percent of the respondents do not watch television. 

downtown Boise. 

t Ninety-six percent (96.1 %) felt safe in their neighborhoods during the day, while 

86.% felt safe in their neighborhoods after dark. Only 3.5% thought their 

neighborhood was dangerous after dark. 

Seventy percent felt safe in downtown Boise during the day while respondents 

were divided about the safety of downtown Boise after dark: 29.5% thought it 

was safe, 29.9% were neutral, and 28.7% indicated downtown Boise was 

dangerous after dark. 

b 

In spite of feelings of safety, we found that many respondents feared being victimized. 

t Forty-two percent of the respondents feared being the victim of a non-gang 

crime. 

t Twenty-six percent (25.9%) feared being the victim of a gang crime. 

t Twenty-eight percent (27.8%) worried that gang members would hurt some 

member of their household. 

Fifty-four percent (53.6%) of the respondents have children These residents were 

asked about their fears that their children would become involved in gang or drug 

activities. Parents were more worried about drug involvement than gang involvement. 

t Thirty-three percent (32.9%) worried about their children getting involved with 

drugs. 

t Twenty percent (I 9.6%) worried about their children getting involved with gangs. e 

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
? More than 1 in 4 parents (26.8%) were afraid their children would be hurt by a 

gang member. 

More than 1 in 3 parents (38.7%) stated that there were certain areas of the 

e 

? 

community where their children were afraid to walk. 

In Part 2 we wanted to find out about citizen's knowledge of and satisfaction with 

Sheriffs Office services. Our findings revealed a high degree of satisfaction with sheriff 

service delivery and with deputy professionalism. What kind of relationship exists 

between the Sheriffs Office and the general public? We found that there is a reservoir 

of good will toward the Sheriffs Office and that respondents highly rated deputies' 

professionalism. 

? 

? 

? 

? 

Eighty-four percent (83.6%) stated that deputies were courteous. 

Seventy-seven percent (76.8%) thought that deputies were honest. 

The majority of the respondents (73.9%) stated that Sheriffs deputies were fair. 

Sixty percent (59.5%) noted that deputies treated all citizens equally and 

e 

according to the law. 

Over half (53.3%) of the respondents are interested in the problems faced by the 

Sheriffs Office. 

Over half 58.8%) stated that citizens and Sheriffs deputies work together in 

solving problems. 

Fifty-four percent stated that friendship between the Sheriffs Office and citizens 

? 

? 

was easy to develop. 

An area of considerable interest to the Sheriffs Office is whether deputies should 

spend more time assisting residents with their problems or focus their energies on m 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
serious crime. The following questions reveal citizen’s preferences on this issue. 

t More than half (74.1 %) of the respondents noted that deputies show concern 

when asked questions. 

Over half (53%) agreed that deputies should spend more time talking to people 

about their problems. 

Sixty-three percent (63.4%) stated that deputies should spend more time working 

with individuals and groups to solve problems. 

Fifty-five percent (54.8%) observed that deputies should spend more time than 

they do investigating serious crime, serious criminals, an suspicious persons. 

Respondents seemed satisfied with the number of tickets issued even for minor 

law violations. However, nearly 4 in IO (39.8%) thought that deputies should 

spend more time on traffic enforcement. 

We asked if residents had any recent contacts with the Sheriffs Office. We 

0 

t 

t 

t 

t 

found that the quality of service was consistently rated high, even for those who had 

been arrested. 

t Twenty percent (20.1 %) had contacted the Sheriffs Office for information or a 

request for service, and 83.4% of those stated they received good to excellent 

service. 

Seventeen percent (16.6%) had recently reported a crime and 77.6% of those 

stated they received good to excellent service. 

Twelve percent (1 1.5%) had recent contact with Dispatch/911 and 88.2% of 

those stated they received good to excellent service. 

t 

b 

b Ten percent (10.4%) had received a traffic violation, and over half (57.1%) of .. 

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
those who said that they had contact received good to excellent service. 

A small number (2.7%) of respondents had recently visited the jail, and over sixty 

percent (63.7%) of those stated they received good to excellent service. 

Six respondents (0.7%) had been arrested, and of those who had been arrested, 

four (66.7%) rated the service they received as good to excellent. 

b 

t 

In the following questions, we were especially interested in contacts respondents had 

with the jail. First we wanted to know how many had contact with the jail. 

t Twenty percent (21.2%) of the respondents had called the Ada County jail for 

information or visited the jail to bond a friend or relative out of jail. 

Twelve percent (12.4%) of the respondents had visited a relative or friend in the 

Ada County jail. 

t 

Next we wanted to know the quality of the contact with the jail. 

t Eighty-six percent of the respondents who had visited the jail stated they had 

been treated respectfully. 

m 

b Almost all (91%) of the respondents who had visited the jail stated they felt 

secure inside the facility. 

An issue of considerable public interest is whether or not offenders in the Ada 

County jail might be provided alternative, non-incarcerative treatments. We wanted to 

assess the public’s opinion on this issue. We first asked respondents to compare the 

two: 

When asked generally if they thought offenders should receive jail or 

alternative, non-incarcerative sentencing: 

b 21.7% chose jail. a 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
t 63,9% chose alternative sentences. 

9.7% were uncertain. 

Then we asked respondents a more detailed question about current offenders in 

a' 

the Ada County jail. 

Our independent research found that the average offender in the Ada 

County jail has 14 prior arrests, typically including the following: driving with a 

suspended license, DUI, petit theft, possession of marijuana, and failure to 

appear. We asked respondents if they thought that a maximum penalty of one 

year in jail for this offender, with time off for good behavior, is too lenient, just 

about right, or too harsh. 

t Sixty-one percent (60.5%) answered that this was too lenient. 

t Thirty percent (29.5%) answered that this was about right. 

t Five percent (5.1%) answered that this was too harsh. 

In keeping with a "co-active" model of community police program deveuopment, 

we elicited information about what citizens would like to see on a Sheriff's Internet site. 

Citizens responded as follows: 

a 

The majority of citizen respondents (81 YO) were interested in information about 

community policing and crime prevention activity. 

A question and answer section where "I can ask questions" section was 

supported by 80% of respondents. 

Seventy-nine percent of respondents were interested in a description of the 

different programs offered by the Sheriffs Office. 

Almost two-thirds (74%) of the respondents were interested in activities and 

meetings of neighborhood watch groups. 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
t Current crime reports were of interest to 72% of respondents. 

Sixty-eight percent of respondents were interested in more information on DARE. 

Slightly over half (51 %) of the respondents were interested in more information 

on bicycle and horse patrols. 

Nearly half (43%) of respondents wanted more information about the jail. 

In Part 3 we asked Ada County residents about their interest in and support for 

at t 

t 

community policing endeavors. We found that residents supported community oriented 

policing programs. 

t Almost all citizens (92.2%) thought that Community Oriented Policing was a good 

use of resources. 

We asked respondents if they thought that community policing was just another 

name for coddling criminals and people on welfare. Only 13% agreed with this 

idea, while 65% disagreed. 

The majority (93.9%) of respondents thought citizens should participate in 

programs such as Neighborhood Watch. 

Seventy-five percent (74.6%) thought that Community Oriented Policing is the 

direction all police will have to take to reduce drugs, gangs, and crime. 

Finally we wanted to find out about the characteristics of participants in the 

t 

t 

t 

survey. Part 4 provides a description of our respondents. The following information 

provides a description of the respondents participating in this research. 

t Most respondents (94.7%) identified themselves as Caucasian/White. Asian 

Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans accounted for 1 % each. 

t Females accounted for 64% of the respondent sample. 

Seventy percent of the respondents had college experience, with 50% having a b e 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
college degree of Associates (2 year) or higher. 

t Most respondents identified themselves as professionals (24.7%). Homemakers 

were second (1 6.7%), followed by white collar workers (1 5%). 

t The average respondent's 1996 pre-tax family income was $30,590. Ten 

percent made $1 5,000 or less. Thirty-two percent indicated that their annual 

income was over $50,000. 

t Eighty-seven percent (86.8%) of the respondents were homeowners, and 87% 

lived in single family dwellings. 

t The average age for respondents was 42 years of age. 

b The typical respondent had lived in Ada County for an average of 11 years, and 

in their current neighborhood for five years. 

Discussion a - 

What we know of fear is sketchy - our society doesn't systematically collect data 

on fear (Moore and Trojancowicz, 1988:2). Usually fear of crime is associated with 

being a victim or with a lack of social order. Our data shows that people aren't worried 

about the effects of order maintenance problems or their security. The relationship 

between fear of crime, victimization and disorder may not be as closely related in rural 

areas and in urban areas. Fear is influenced by a sense of vulnerability. Rural 

communities have their own unique kinds of culture. Rural people tend to be more 

independent and individualistic. They maintain close community ties with their 

neighbors who are usually no closer than a mile away. They commonly own dogs and 

guns which are both important tools for any farmer or rancher. Rural people are 

territorial, and feel a certain amount of responsibility for areas that go beyond their e 

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
doorsteps. They also take action when the feel their territory is being threatened by 

intruders . a 

Rural communities have a propensity for certain types of crime due to the nature 

of their environment. Rural communities are most often the victims of vandalism and 

thievery. According to Weisheit and his colleagues (1 994), "25 percent of victimizations 

of rural residents took place while they were away from their communities ... rural 

residents are more vulnerable to robbery when visiting urban areas." More people are 

moving to rural areas that do not operate farms or ranches. It is more common for rural 

residents to commute to metropolitan areas to work, naturally increasing the fear of 

being victimized while away from home. Public transportation for rural residents 

creates problems for young people. Our data shows that people are concerned about 

the lack of recreation for youth. With no public transportation and two working parents 

in the household, it is more difficult for young people to become involved in after school 

activities. 

a 

Rural areas may be fertile territory for growth of a variety of criminal activities. 

According to Kevin Thompson (1996) a number of sheriffs have expressed concern 

regarding the spread of urban gangs and drugs to the hinterlands. As urban and 

suburban populations begin to creep closer to rural populations, it is foreseeable that 

arenas for drug and gang activity may expand. It is important to monitor how urban 

sprawl affects the nature and extent of rural crime. 

Our data shows that citizens are satisfied with Ada County Sheriff services and 

deputies. Wilson (1982) states "In rural communities, self-policing is more the rule than 

the exception." Rural people are accustomed to working with police. McDonald (1 996) e 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
states that "rural criminal justice generalists seem to be much more a part of their 

community than their urban brethren who appear to be more aparl from the 

communities." McDonald (1 996) further states that "perhaps the rural professional 

practitioner can provide some valuable insights to the urban administrators and 

functionaries who are seriously challenged by the public's alienation from metropolitan, 

sophisticated criminal justice services." Rural police have a propensity for community 

policing strategies - it's a mandate because they are working with friends, relatives, and 

neighbors that have traditionally depended on various levels of social cohesion for 

survival. Citizens depend on police for the co-production of justice. The County Sheriff 

is more accessible than other elected county officials. 

Summary 

a 

The metropolitan fringe is an important issue in criminal justice today. The 

absence of rural-oriented research has limited the capacity of smaller police 

departments to systematically develop and conduct policy-relevant evaluations. 

Studies in reducing the fear of crime have focused on foot patrol and other community 

policing strategies. Assessing citizen fear of crime in rural areas may reveal surprising 

and conflicting results. Community policing strategies come naturally to small and rural 

police departments, but they must be tailored to suit the needs of the neighborhood. A 

high degree of citizen satisfaction with the delivery of police service comes naturally 

when the community is involved with the co-production of justice. (See Appendix 2 for 

complete statistical data.) 

a 

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
PROJECT B: Ada County Sheriffs Office Internet Site 

The Internet Site Research Project 

a 

The purpose of this report is to document the development and current status of 

the Ada County Sheriffs Office Internet site. Research for developing a Home Page 

was completed in Part 2 of the “Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff 

Services” survey. 

Community-Focused Internet Site: Purposes 

The Home Page was designed to address issues of interest to Ada county, 

including the metropolitan areas of Boise, Garden City, and Meridian. The Internet site 

was conceptualized as a mechanism to engage the public directly in the affairs of the 

department. Interest in exploring the utility of an Internet site to interactively share 

information with the public stemmed from our sense of the limitations of other methods 

- the press, for example, that sometimes only provides citizens with anecdotal and 

encapsulated “sound-byte” information about police services and activity. The Sheriffs 

Office “wanted to communicate directly with their clients without media censorship.” 

(Bowers:1998 p. c.) A Home Page has become an active component of communication 

for policing that offers the opportunity for the Sheriff’s Office to engage directly with 

whomever is hailing it - a private citizen or a member of the media. The Home Page is 

still in the process of development, and many of the interactive components have not 

yet been implemented. 

Implementation of the Web Site & Construction of the Home Page 

e 

In October, 1997 Ada County received an Internet address through IDNET 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
(Idaho Network). It is on the same wire with the Idaho Department of Transportation 

and other state agencies. It was at this same time that the capacity for a Home page 

for the Sheriffs Office became available. Mr. Daniel Bohner, a research assistant 

assigned to work with the grant, was responsible for the development and 

implementation of the Internet site. 

8 

Sgt. Gary Raney constructed the Home Page. The development involved the 

initial construction of the page itself and the implementation of a secondary address 

accessible from the Home Page. It was constructed with three goals in mind: making 

information available to a general audience, inviting participation from a county-wide 

audience, and providing information for particular audiences in need of special services. 

Each is discussed below. 

Providing Information to a General Audience 

Before the Home Page was constructed, information about the Sheriffs Office 

was published in a regional newspaper. A crime report of districts across the county 

was published weekly. A computer disc was provided weekly to the media that 

a 

summarized departmental activities. A disc was used to protect the department from 

security problems. The Home Page assumed these activities, expanding them into 

community policing and human interest stories available to the public. Stories and 

events regarding community meetings, neighborhood watches, drug interdiction 

programs, and the various school programs are presented at the site or at addresses 

accessible through the site. 

Generating Community Reciprocity a 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The Home Page does not simply dispense information to the public. Public 

involvement is encouraged through a variety off mechanisms. Citizens are invited to 

contact the Sheriff's Office, and e-mail is screened regularly. Information about current 

events involving the department and various community-oriented initiatives are provided 

to invite participation and feedback. Sites that encourage feedback from the public are 

listed below. 

0 Organizational Information: 

a 

About Our Past 

0 Our Services: 

Traffic Enforcement Program 

Gang Unit 

Victim-Witness Coordinator Unit 

Narcotics Unit 

Civil Section 

Important Numbers 

0 News & Information: 

Ada County Local Talk 

News & Events 

Sheriffs Civil Process Sales 

Idaho & L. E. Links: 

Law Enforcement Agencies, Other Organizations, Other Links 

0 

0 New Look With Java: 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Same web site with a different format 

Recently the Sheriff‘s Office began printing the Internet web site address on 

sheriff‘s deputies patrol cars. The address is printed on the trunk in order to maximize 

visibility to the public. The Internet web site address was designed so that observers 

may see it easily and remember the address. Printing the address on the vehicle is well 

received, as suggested by one of the feedback comments ( see “Home Page 

Feedback,” p. 48). 

Screening for a Specialized Audience 

The Sheriff’s Office has a need to deal with specialized audiences that can be 

addressed with the development of a secure Internet address. A large number of 

citizens need prompt access to traffic accident reports, particularly of the “fenderbender” variety. Reports are also needed by insurance companies for residential and 

vehicle burglaries. The State Department of Transportation can also be contacted to 

coordinate the disposal of these cases. The Sheriff’s Office has been considering 

making these records available only at the main office, and then only when the 

appropriate security codes are satisfied and after the records are downloaded 

unplugged from the main computer. 

e 

One of the Sheriff’s Office original goals for the web site was to provide public 

information access for these records. Unfortunately, the limitations of downloading and 

problems in constructing an effective “fire-wall” have complicated this aspect of the web 

page development. Besides the sheer volume of these files, written requests for many 

types of public information must be submitted. It still remains more practical to access 

these types of public information from the Sheriff’s Office on Barrister Street. For 

37 

0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
example, businesses and citizens that require security codes to access appropriate 

computer records must still obtain those codes from the Sheriffs Office in person. As 

indicated in the original application, this is the most technically challenging component 

of the Internet site and development is complicated by the limited technology available. 

Evaluation of Home Page Effectiveness 

a 

Effectiveness is conceived in terms of public use, media responsiveness, and 

departmental attitudes toward the Home Page. 

Daily usage counts. Daily usage counts provide a direct measure of public use 

of the Home Page. Since January, 1998 the Home Page has received an average of 

five or more e-mail messages per week. The Oatest count to the Home Page was 5,997 

visitors as of June 16, 1998. 

Media response. Media response to the Home Page has been sketchy. We 

contacted each of the three television stations that services Ada County. One of our 

local television stations does not have an Internet site established, which prevents it 

from accessing the Home Page. Another of the stations contacted has their own web 

site, but their access to the Internet is limited because of dated technology. They plan 

to get a new server that would allow everyone at the station Internet access. A third 

news station stated that the web site was not yet a valuable source for them at this 

time. When asked what they thought would make the web site more valuable, we were 

told to call back. We have been unable to obtain a further response from this station. 

In short, the Sheriffs Office technological development seems to have out-paced the 

information capacity of local television stations. 

e 

38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Internal review. Sergeant Gary Raney conducted an internal poll of the Internet 

web site among command staff. He asked, “What has the contribution of the Home 

e 

0 

Page been to various endeavors, particularly to those involving community policing and 

crime prevention initiatives?” The responses he received are listed below. 

0 The web page has taken the Ada County Sheriffs Office into the 

21st century of law enforcement. Community Policing starts with honesty 

in law enforcement, and for us to tell people so much about or department 

and not hide anything says a great deal about the department. The public 

is looking for us to spend more time with them and be a greater part of the 

community. Through the web page we can communicate with a larger 

audience as our deputies create more and more contacts. 

Establishment of the Ada County Sheriffs home page on the 

Internet has had considerable positive effects on the Administrative 

Services Division. This Division consists of the following law enforcement 

services: 

a) 91 1 emergency communications 

b) Police records and reports 

c) Driver’s license services 

e)Human resources/ 

personnel 

9 Employee training 

d) Police evidence and property g) Computer services 

The first and mast important consequence of the home page to all 

services listed above is perhaps the most difficult to measure. It is the 

positive public image and affirmative relationship that the home page 

generates between citizens of the community and their need for, and use 

39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
of police services. Web browsers who spend any time at all on the on the 

Sheriff's home page will soon become familiar with not only the varied 

extent of services we provide, but also the background and detail 

surrounding those services. 

For example, if a caller must dial 91 1, the trauma of the situation is 

not reduced because of the home page, but having read and exposed 

him/herself to the Sheriff's 91 1 web site information, the citizen will know 

and understand what to expect when calling for emergency help, what 

questions will be asked, and why certain seemingly unimportant 

information is needed. Callers will know that as the 91 1 call taker asks 

questions, the dispatcher has already sent a fireman, policeman, or 

paramedic, and that emergency help is on the way, even as questions are 

being asked. 

The Sheriffs home page also affords an excellent opportunity for 

citizens to offer direct feedback to their local law enforcement agency. 

And not only does the person seeking information benefit, but all other 

web site visitors gain knowledge by the same process. For example, our 

Driver's License Office also issues concealed weapons permits. Recent 

information posted by the Sheriffs Office in answer to a viewer's question 

gave substantial background on the law and requirements for obtaining a 

concealed weapons license. UnUike a telephone call, all visitors to the 

Sheriffs home page gain knowledge and information as a result of other's 

inquiries. 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Our Human Resources Office has found there is considerable use 

and interest by the public in employment information contained on the 

Sheriffs home page. This has resulted in labor savings to the Sheriffs 

Office because home page information picked up by people interested in 

employment translates directly into cost savings in secretarial time not 

needed for telephones and answering written inquiry. This fact not only 

holds true for Human Resources, but many other public services provided 

by the Sheriff as well. 

I think we are just beginning to see the tremendous value of the 

Sheriffs home page. With time, more and more information will be 

added, and as use and popularity grow, so will the Sheriffs reputation as 

a dedicated and responsible elected official serving the law enforcement 

needs of the community. 

In my opinion, one of the most important elements in community 

policing is the establishment of two-way communication between the law 

enforcement community and the citizens it serves. I feel our web page 

has opened a whole new area of communications with the public. It 

provides a great deal of useful information, such as: who should someone 

contact for a particular type of service provided by the Sheriffs Office, 

when are jail visiting hours and so on. The home page also allows 

citizens to ask questions and give their input on various issues. The more 

that citizens sense a partnership with the department, the more willing 

they are to provide information to the officers and become involved in 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
crime prevention and crime investigation efforts. As more people become 

aware of the home page and begin using it, I feel that the Law 

Enforcement -citizen partnership will become even stronger. 

The Home Page: Up and Running 

When the grant proposal was first discussed, the Ada County Sheriffs staff 

expressed hesitation about the Home Page implementation. Though all were in favor 

of it in principle, there were concerns about the time required to create and maintain the 

project. There were also concerns about the lack of expertise and staff to dedicate the 

time to build the site. 

Initial construction of the Home Page began at Boise State University. In 

December of 1997 the Sheriffs Office took the lead in the site development. One of the 

full-time computer staffers for the Sheriffs Office internal help desk actualized the web 

site during his off-time and thus provided the critical “spark” for the practical 

development of the Home Page. 

a 

Currently the Sheriffs Office has a “Webmaster” (Sgt. Gary Raney) whose time 

is devoted both to the Home Page and to his other duties at the Sheriffs Office. 

Sergeant Raney is a highly motivated officer who is self-taught in Internet construction. 

Currently he updates the Home Page at least three times per week. His energy and 

skill, complimented by support from his immediate supervisors, have made the Internet 

site a departmental and community success. 

Sergeant Raney writes many of the articles featured in the News and Information 

section. Other personnel in the Ada County Sheriffs Office have also contributed 

articles for the same section. a 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The Sheriffs Office Home Page currently consists of Four sections: 

Organizational Information; Our Services; Jail Information; and News and Information. 

0 

The News & Information and Jail Information sections are updated regularly. The 

Links section offers direct links to other web sites including the CIA, FBI, The Worlds 

Most Wanted Organization, Idaho Peace Officer’s Memorial Page, Idaho Supreme 

Court, and the Idaho Winter Road Report just to name a few. 

Internet feedback for the web site has been positive. The following section 

highlights comments the site has received. 

Home Page Feedback 

Comment: Nice home page. Friendly greetings from South Africa. My name is Fanie Faul and I am a 

traffic officer in Caledon South Africa. 

Comment: Your Sheriff is at our office this week in Tonopah, Nevada (Nye Co.). I would never tell him 

personally, but he seems to be a great guy. I ride a scooter with our department. When he returns tell 

him Bubba said howdy. Your web page is GREAT. One of the best I have seen. 

Comment: Very nice web site. Excellent format. 

0 

Comment: I was giving a term report in college and found your info. The most interesting and very 

interesting. Thank You. 

Comment: The page entitled “duties of a sheriff was great. Sgt. Johnny Miller, Mobile Co. Sheriffs 

Office. 

Comment: Thank you for the excellent page. As a former communications tech. With the state of 

California and with San Luis Obispo, CA, I was especially interested in the communications portion, 

particularly since my work takes me to Boise fairly often. When I get the opportunity I intend to visit your 

site again to learn more about your department. Putting your address on the back of your units was an 

excellent idea. That‘s how I learned of your site. 

Comment: The schedule and page for the terrorism conference looks great! Thanks a lot! Tim Rhodes, 

43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Paramedics 

Comment: Very nice web page, good work. Greetings from Belgium. 

Comment: Great history! The Sheriff Updyke story would make a great western movie. You should 

submit it to Hollywood. 

Comment: Thank you for this very informative web page. This is a top notch job to keep up the excellent 

work. 

Comment: Nice page guys. It is the best I have seen in quite a while. Keep up the great work. 

Comment: Like your web-site address on the trunk lid of your Crown Vickies!! Paul Shampine, Reserve 

Deputy, Walla Walla County, Washington Sheriffs Office. 

Comment: I saw your site on the Crime Scene Investigator’s car and thought I would check out the site. 

Comment: Great web page!!!!! My children love it. I think is VERY important for children to see the 

police exactly as they are ... our friends and the people who give their lives to keep the citizens of Boise 

safe. Larry Paulson ... keep up the good work, and thank you. 

Comment: Wow, what a page. Someone really put in a lot of work and they did a heck of a great job, 

0 very impressive. 

Future Goals 

Future goals for the web site include being able to update information more 

often, particularly under the “Our Services” section. The department would like to 

include an active warrant roster. 

There is also interest in the provision of a list of sex offenders on the site, but the 

legality of a public listing is unclear. During a recent legislative session the Sheriffs 

Office lobbied the state legislature to make these records available to the public. As of 

July 1 , 1998 the Sheriffs Office will be able to provide public access to information 

contained in the central sexual offender registry. 

only. The Sheriffs Office plans to lobby the next 

This service will be by written request 

legislative session in Spring of 1999 to 

44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
provide even more public access to these records. a 

Discussion 

Under the thoughtful leadership of Captain Gil Wright, the Home Page has been 

successfully implemented. The Sheriffs Office Home Page has become a creative way 

to transmit information to the general public. The Home Page emphasizes the delivery 

of information to the community and contains a rapid feedback component through the 

encouragement of e-mail responses. The web site has gained the attention sf viewers 

from the U. S. and other countries. 

The Home Page is still in its infancy, and a great deal of work lies ahead. In a 

short period of time, the Sheriffs Office has put into place a quality Internet site. 

However, in the area of interactivity, much still remains to be done. This is to be 

expected, as the Sheriffs Office becomes more versed in Internet skills and in what the 

viewing public would like, and as the central technology of the Internet itself moves 

forward. 

8 

Importantly, the work accomplished by the Sheriffs Office in the site reflects a 

deeper, underlying commitment to engage the public in an impartial and open dialogue. 

It is clear that the Sheriff's Office is doing the essential, thoughtful groundworlk 

necessary to convert successfully to a community policing model of service delivery. 

Summary 

The Internet site complemented the survey in several ways. Where the survey 

represented a now widely recognized way to obtain community feedback regarding 

45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
ongoing department initiatives, the Internet site was viewed as a creative way to 

transmit information to the general public about police activities and to acquire public 

feedback on those activities. The Home Page emphasized the delivery of information 

to the community and contained a feedback component through the encouragement of 

e-mail addressed to the Internet site on diverse topics. The Home Page would bring 

the community closer to the Sheriffs Office by providing a forum where citizens can 

openly speak their feelings. 

a 

The two projects have contacted different audiences. The citizen’s survey 

contacted a random sample of citizens across the rural areas of the county. The 

Internet site captured a self-selected audience interested in Sheriffs affairs. 

Consequently, the site has reached a wider audience not tapped by the limited 

geographical boundaries of the survey. It has also provided for ongoing citizen contact 

where the survey tapped citizen input at a single point in time. (See Appendix 3 for 

complete survey and statistical data.) 

0 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
PROJECT C: Performance Criteria Under a Problem Oriented Policing Model: A 

Report Prepared for the Ada County Sheriff's Office 

Overview 

0 

In the Winter of 1987, the Ada County Sheriffs Office (ACSO) initiated a review 

of then current patrol procedures. In late spring of 1988, the department began to 

consider transformation of patrol service delivery to a "beat integrity" model organized 

to facilitate problem oriented policing (POP). The ACSO selected a generalist rather 

than a specialist model of organizational transFormation, adapting the work of all patrol 

officers to a POP service model. 

In the spring of 1988, the Sheriffs Office was collaborating with the Department 

of Criminal Justice at Boise State University on a partnership grant (grant # 96-IJ-CX0085). The principal tasks of the project had been completed. The project manager, 

Dr. John Crank, was invited by Commander Bill Chalk, personnel director of the ACSO, 

to assist in the development of performance evaluation criteria for deputies working 

under a POP model. The ACSO Personnel Director asked Dr. Crank to provide a 

review and recommendations for performance evaluations in a POP environment with 

the following considerations in mind: 

a 

1. Provide recommendations on a personal development assessment 

program that also will have credibility with the rank-and-file. 

Suggest a process that employees can use to improve areas of 

weakness. 

Expand the skill set assessed by peer evaluation to include problem 

2. 

3. 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
oriented policing. 

Dr. Crank contacted Dr. Jeffries at the National Institute of Justice, and approval 

was provided to conduct this task and produce a product for the ACSO as part of the 

partnership grant. The enclosed document is that product. The National Institute of 

Justice approved an extension of the partnership grant so that Dr. Crank could assist in 

the development of evaluation protocols for the ACSO. 

a 

This document represents the findings and recommendations produced by Dr. 

Crank. It is organized into 4 parts. Part I is a brief statement of the purposes of the 

document. Part II describes current efforts of the ACSO to change to a problem 

oriented policing service delivery style. Part Ill discusses the role of performance 

evaluation in a problem oriented policing context. Particular issues pertinent to the 

evaluation of problem oriented policing are discussed. The contributions of each rank 

to problem oriented policing are developed, with consideration given to how that rank 

can also contribute to performance evaluation. Part IV examines performance 

evaluation measurement processes and products. Three different processes and two 

products are presented for deputies. Team and sergeant performance evaluation are 

also considered. Recommendations are presented throughout the text of the 

document. 

Part I: Purposes 

0 

Three general considerations guide this product. First, the development of 

performance criteria under a problem oriented policing model is not clearly 

distinguishable from the development of a task structure needed to implement problem 

oriented policing. This report takes a broad view of the development of performance 

criteria as a corollary outcome of problem oriented policing. Simply put, officers should 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
be measured by what they do. 

Second, performance evaluation under a POP model is more than a 

reconsideration of measurement criteria -- it also reflects a different way to think about 

a 

police work and accountability for the work product. Consequently, this document also 

considers fundamental philosophical issues and problems associated with POP 

implementation. Developing criteria for assessment necessitates that I also consider 

the POP task structure implemented by the ACSO. 

Third, a comprehensive implementation of POP affects all positions and ranks in 

an agency. Consequently, to develop performance criteria it becomes necessary to 

think about and assess the contributions of all ranks, including the Sheriff and 

commanders, to POP. A need exists to consider performance criteria for all agency 

ranks, a task included in the report. 

This paper provides a review of literature on performance evaluation and 

provides recommendations for the development of performance criteria for the 

evaluation of problem oriented policing in the ACSO. This task must of necessity deal 

with the reward/discipline infrastructure as it affects deputies and the implementation of 

community problem-solving. This document consequently addresses issues of problem 

oriented policing implementation as well as broad accountability processes. 

a 

This document contains discussions of many elements pertinent to the 

implementation of POP, as well as of infrastructural career development, of which 

performance is a part. While this document is discursive at times, I believe that it can 

be constructive in the development and presentation of recommendations. 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Performance evaluation criteria, to be relevant, must be designed in the spirit of both the 11 

a process and the philosophy of Problem Oriented Policing under a SARA model. 

Many researchers describe performance appraisal in terms of the agency itself. 

According to this idea of performance evaluation, public surveys are used to asses the 

extent to which the department is successful in improving quality of life or in reducing 

fear of crime. Citizens are also frequently asked about the quality of their relationships 

with deputies. A consideration of this dimension of performance evaluation is beyond 

our purposes, though I will briefly discuss public surveys in the section on middle 

manager accountability. The task assigned herein is to provide a means to asses the 

performance of individual officers. For that reason, broader considerations of 

organizational outputs and how they're received by citizens will generally not be 

considered. 0 

Part II: The Ada County Sheriffs Office And POP: The Transition 

Overview: problem oriented policing. In the first part of this document I will 

review the current efforts of the ACSO to shift its service delivery style to a POP model 

based on the concept of "beat integrity." The ACSO has initiated substantive changes 

toward the adoption of a community policing model. This section will document the 

history and nature of the changes the Sheriffs Office has undertaken in its efforts to 

shift the delivery of patrol services to problem oriented policing. 

The Ada County Sheriffs Office (ACSO) is in the process of dramatic changes in 

its patrol services division. Traditionally, the ACSO has provided patrol services 

consistent with a traditional model of reactive policing. However, the Sheriff has 

recently initiated steps toward the provision of community policing and problem-oriented 0 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
policing strategies to complement traditional patrol. In the small communities of Eagle 

and Kuna the ACSO is establishing a police sub-station and assigned personnel to the 

station. The ACSO is also implementing problem-oriented policing among its patrol 

off ice rs . 

0 

Traditional delivery. The ACSO has provided patrol services using a 

traditional, time-honored delivery system. The traditional delivery of patrol services is 

as follows. Ada County was divided into 5 areas of responsibility, along with two small 

contract cities, Eagle and Kuna. A "North Area" car was responsible for the North side 

of Ada County, and a "South Area" car was responsible for the South side. The 

remainder of cars on patrol were designated "rove," and could go wherever they wanted 

to in the county. They were not specifically assigned responsibility for any of the 

designated county areas. The rovers did random preventive patrol and provided 

assistance when needed. Nor were the North and South cars restricted to those areas: 

They could go where they wanted to if needed. On any particular shift, there would be 

a total of 3 to 6 cars on patrol across the county. 

0 

Beats were assigned primarily on the basis of seniority. The Sergeants could 

select whom they wanted to serve on patrol across the beats. There was, as I was told, 

no "beat integrity," a sense of personal responsibility for particular beats. Officers were 

rotated across locations and allowed to rove where they wanted. There was no sense of 

accountability linked to particular geographic locations, including the five areas. 

Moreover, if an officer was needed to backup another officer, the closest officer would 

provide backup. This could result in a circumstance in which large sections of the 

county were effectively unpoliced for short periods of time. 

a The transition. The following is a brief history of the transition to a "beat 

51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
integrity" model of service delivery. In December, 1997, the ACSO was informed that 

the city of Eagle was looking for other contract services. The ACSO entered into 

negotiations to redesign their services there in order to retain the contract. At the time, 

two deputies were assigned to Eagle. 

@ 

The Sergeant currently in charge of the transition to POP, Sergeant Freeman, 

had recently moved from a jail supervisory responsibility to patrol supervision. He was 

asked to assess the Eagle contract and provide recommendations. He met with the 

mayor and city council and discussed the possibility of moving to a service deUivery 

model tied to principles of community policing. A third deputy was also assigned to 

Eagle. 

A small group of officers began to reconsider the traditional delivery of services. 

Sgt. Freeman met with Lieutenant Bowers and a School Resource Officer in Muna, who 

was beginning to implement innovating programs consistent with community policing. 

The Sheriff and Captain Douthit also became involved, and the Sheriff indicated a 

strong interest in the shift in patrol services. Following these deliberations, in mid 

January, 1998, the Sheriff decided to initiate a county-wide change in patrol services. 

In May, the Sheriff made Sgt. Freeman the patrol Commander, who at that point 

expanded training and review in preparation for the county-wide change in patrol 

services. 

a 

The WRICOPS report. In March, 1998, the Western Regional Institute for 

Community Oriented Public Safety (WRICOPS) was invited to conduct an assessment 

of the preparedness of the ACSO for community policing. WRICOPS produced a 

"Community Policing Assessment Report" whose purpose was to "build a 

comprehensive picture of the community policing efforts" of the ACSO (WRICOPS, e 

52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
1998: 4). A full review of that report is beyond the purposes of this document. 

However, it called for general organizational changes consistent with contemporary 

conceptions of community policing, including the decentralization of command authority 

to the line level, the training focused on community policing, clarification of the roles of 

deputies under a community policing philosophy, and development of performance 

guidelines. 

The latter WRICOPS recommendation, the development of performance 

guidelines, identifies the following "strategic recommendations:" It is reprinted here 

because it reflects the current spirit and purpose of the document I am preparing here, 

and locates this document in the historical context of Sheriffs efforts to convert to a 

community policing model. The ACSO is currently addressing these recommendations 

in the recommended spirit. 

1. Both the process and criteria for evaluation of Deputies should reflect the 

vision, mission, and value statement, and should measure employee 

actions that further the community policing mission (See Part IV of this 

document). 

The department should evaluate the potential effectiveness and negative 

impact of the new evaluation system being considered. Particular 

concerns were raised about the perception that the new system was 

negative, "only focusing on ... negatives of the individual." (WRICOPS, 

1998: 24). (This concern is common to POP implementation and 

evaluation, and is discussed throughout this document). 

Community policing principles should be integrated into the evaluation 

instrument and process. "Focus on results in addition to, or in lieu of, 

0 

2. 

3. 

53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
counting statistics such as the number of arrests, citations, traffic stops, 

etc." (WRICOPS, 1998: 24). 

The ACSO has undertaken a redesign of the delivery of patrol services. Teams 

will be responsible for the delivery of patrol services. An officer on each team is 

assigned to each area, with only a few officers assigned to STEP (selected traffic 

enforcement patrol). This redesign is intended to provide deputies on patrol with "beat 

integrity." Beat integrity means that officers will be responsible for their particular areas. 

This is intended to reinforce deputies' commitments to and concerns with the problems, 

people, and issues that occur in the various areas of the county. 

The new design coincides with the shift to a problem oriented policing (POP) 

model of policing. Officers are currently undergoing monthly block training for the 

SARA model of problem identification and resolution. The beat integrity model of 

patrol, providing officers with locatable responsibilities within the county, will dovetail 

with an expanded mission aimed at increasing their skills in problem solution. The 

model contains both expanded responsibilities and greater empowerment of deputies. 

It is a true community policing model, thoughtfully applied to a predominantly rural 

environment by committed leadership. 

The new team structure facilitates cost-efficient training. The ACSO provides a 

training intensive environment, requiring in-service block training monthly. This has 

been expensive, because work schedules did not permit for patrol coverage and 

training. Training had to be conducted on overtime hours, in order to preserve county 

wide patrol coverage. Under the new model, two teams are responsible for services on 

each shift The teams overlap schedules one day each week. This design facilitates 

training by permitting officers to break away during overlapping shifts to take training 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
without losing patrol coverage. In this way, the new model of service delivery is cost- 

@ efficient. 

The press conference. On Wednesday, August 19, Sheriff Vaughn Killeen held 

a press conference announcing the restructuring of patrol and the transition to a POP 

model of service delivery. The press conference was held in the small town of Eagle, 

one of the communities that had contracted with the ACSO for services and was to be a 

primary beneficiary of the expanded services. 

Sheriff Killeen noted that the patrol style currently in place, a team style of 

county-wide patrol, did not provide the level of community responsiveness currently 

needed in Ada county. 

Exhibit 2 

The Transition To Community Oriented Policing 

We want to take the department as a whole and immerse it in community policing so that 

the direction isn't coming from me anymore, but from members of the communities we're servicing. 

a 

Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, Idaho Statesman, August 20, 1998. 

The Sheriff announced that the entire department was decentralizing the 

decision-making process to provide deputies wider discretion in problem identification 

and solution. The two contract cities, Kuna and Eagle, would receive expanded, 24 

hour coverage by the ACSO. Funded by a $450,000 grant from the National Institute of 

Justice, the ACSO was assigning 3 new officers to Kuna and three to Eagle. 

Also present at the press conference were Bob Wright from WRICOPS, the 

mayor and city council president of Eagle, and the mayor of Kuna. Both Kuna and 

Eagle representatives mentioned the positive aspects that they anticipated from the 

55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
expanded coverage. Of particular interest was the establishment of permanent substations. Bicycle patrols were in place in Eagle, and substations were being established 

in both communities. 

0 

Exhibit 3 

The transition from reactive patrol to problem oriented policing 

Problem oriented policing is a fundamentally different kind of police service delivery. Arrests 

cease to be a criteria of good policing. Solving problems is a sign of good policing. Indeed, over the 

long term, increases in arrests are a sign of bad policing - problems are not being solved. Arrests, 

stops, and the like are a measure of police processes. Outcomes, on the other hand, are measures 

of policing's impact on its most important constituency - the citizens it polices. Departments that 

continue to believe that making arrests is the primary measure of police activity are, by these 

standards, not doing good policing. This has several implications. 

1. The hearts and minds of patrol officers has to be sold on the change. They have to 

understand and believe in it. 

Traditional performance measures -- the accumulation of statistics concerning 

stops, arrests, and the like -- should be de-emphasized in favor of measures of the 

outcomes of police behavior on citizens. 

The most important police service is improved quality of life through lowered fear of 

crime for citizens. 

2. 

3. 

The SARA Model 

The ACSO is adopting what is widely called the SARA model of problem-solving 

(Goldstein, 1990). This model is frequently described in the following way (Stephens, 

1996; from Eck and Spelman, 1987). 

Scanning represents the part of the process where problems are identified. 

63 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Rather than focusing exclusively on a specific call or crime, officers are 

expected to group these incidents together and attempt to define the 

problem in a more precise manner. 

Analysis is the stage of the process where (information is gathered) on the 

problem in order to gain a much better understanding of the underlying 

conditions. The analysis includes searching for information from a variety 

of sources, including the community. 

Response is the part of the process where solutions are developed and 

implemented. The solutions are tailored to the specific problem, based on 

knowledge gained from the analysis stage. 

Assessment is the stage where officers are expected to determine if the solution 

that was implemented had any impact on the problem. 

Accompanying the implementation of SARA is a genuine effort to decentralize 

decision-making in the department. Managers provide deputies with a limited authority 

to make decisions about strategy and resources traditionally reserved for the middleranks. Decentralization is still in the incipient stages and the form it will mature into 

remains to be seen. Deputies are also reallocating their activity, expanding problemidentification activities and seeking ways to de-emphasize enforcement activities. This 

also is in its incipient form and the department continues to sell the viability of 

alternative activity structure to the rank-and-file. 

a 

Problem Oriented Policing affects more than changing the quantity of time 

officers spend on different activities. Under a POP model, traditional activities are 

recast so 

0 asked on 

that new kinds of information can be required. Different questions must be 

calls and follow-up investigations. Stephens (I 996: 126) identifies these as 

57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
follows: 

1. Have we been here before? 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

What is causing this situation to occur or recur? 

How can it be prevented? 

What should the police do? 

What should the caller do? 

What should the community do? 

What should the victims do? 

Part 111: Performance Evaluation In A Problem Oriented Policing Context 

PART Ill contains two sections. Section A deals with issues in the development 

of performance evaluation criteria. Section B considers performance evaluation by 

rank, and provides an overview of appropriate criteria for each organizational level. 

Section A: Issues in the Development of Evaluation Criteria 0 

POP as accountab,iIity. The activity of problem-solving and the deveUopment of 

performance evaluation measures are highly interrelated tasks. In Exhibit 4, Sparrow, 

Moore, and Kennedy (1 990) capture the task similarity in their efforts to identify criteria 

to evaluate the performance of officers doing problem oriented policing: 

We can see in Exhibit 4 that the tasks associated with the SARA model of POP 

and measures of performance evaluation are similar. In this similarity, we also see the 

overlap of problems faced by management and line-officers. The task of "What do I 

do?" is equivalent to "What am I being held accountable for?" Answer one, and the 

other is also answered. But if the department hasn't sold the troops on problem 

oriented policing, it will alienate them in any evaluation efforts. 

a' Recommendation: Before instituting evaluational programs, make sure 

58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
that the rank-and-file are behind the POP transition. 

Exhibit 4 

Developing Performance Measures 

A meaningful monitoring and appraisal system for beat officers should exhibit 

features such as the following: 

1. Measure their knowledge about their area, its residents and their problems, 

and its community institutions. 

Log problems, not just incidents. 

Record the process of problem-solving through steps like: 

a. Problem identification 

b. Analysis of causes. 

C. 

d. 

2. 

3. 

Design and implementation of action. 

Monitoring of the action's effectiveness and subsequent 

reassessment. 

4. It could emphasize initiative and avoid penalizing officers for trying solutions 

that fail. 

It could formally measure community satisfaction with the officer's work. 

This assessment inevitably involves some kind of public canvassing - either 

random or representative. 

It could provide a regular opportunity for the community to highlight any 

problems that, in its view, are receiving inadequate or unsuitable police 

attention. 

5. 

6. 

Bevond 91 1 : A New Era for Policinq. Sparrow, Moore, and Kennedy. 1990: 227 

We also see in Exhibit 4 an example of the problem of concretely identifying 

tasks suitable for doing POP and for measuring it for evaluational purposes. The a 

59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
advice provided above by Sparrow and his colleagues is more of a general statement of 

POP evaluation measurement rather than a practical set of constructive guidelines. 

Officers reading this are going to wonder What do I do, and How is if going fo be 

measured? Translated into the language of street police culture, the latter question 

becomes How is it going to be used against me? In Part IV of this document, we will 

suggest some evaluation criteria. 

Oettmeier and Wycoff (1 995: 136) add ,that the adoption of innovative police 

procedures and tactics, to be successful, requires changes throughout the 

organization's infrastructure. A performance evaluation process was viewed as a 

critical element of the adoptive process: 

... a personnel performance measurement process designed to reflect and 

reinforce the functions that officers are expected to perform can provide 

structural support for a philosophy of policing and can be a valuable aid in the 

implementation of organizational change. 

The most compelling problem confronting Sheriffs Deputies is in convincing 

them that the model is relevant to their work. Clearly, part of the answer to this problem 

is in convincing them about the viability of the SARA model as a problem solving 

protocol. Another part of the answer is in integrating community policing and problemsolving into their traditional work-related evaluation criteria. In other words, they are 

more likely to commit themselves to POP if they believe that (1) it is important, and (2) it 

is tied to raises and promotions. 

What can be accomplished by evaluation? Oettmeier and Wycoff (1997: 12) 

observe that performance measures should be tied to the reasons for collecting the 

e data. For agencies moving to a community policing model of service delivery, they 

60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
identify three important reasons: 

1. Socialization. The evaluation should "convey expectations content and 

style of (an officer's) performance" and reinforce the mission and values 

of the department. 

Documentation. Evaluations should record the types of problems and 

situations officers encounter in their neighborhoods and their approaches 

to them. This also allows for officers to have their efforts recognized. 

System improvement. What organizational conditions impede improved 

line-officer performance? 

@ 

2. 

3. 

In this context, evaluation is not simply a basis for discipline and reward, but 

serves other important organizational objectives. Deputies should recognize that 

evaluation can make positive contributions to both organizational goals and to anticrime activity and not necessarily be a basis for personal discipline. @ 

What criteria should evaluational instruments meet? Mastrofski and 

Wadman (1991) identify the following problems for the development of POP 

performance evaluations. 

1. Validity. The evaluation accurately reflects the content of the work the 

employee is expected to do. 

a. 

b. 

Task analysis: what work is an employee expected to do? 

Feedback from employees describing frequency and criticality of 

assigned tasks. 

Tasks are prioritized, and KSA's (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) 

are identified for evaluation. Note: the performance evaluation 

should not be fixed, but should be flexible to adapt to changing job 

c. 

61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
considerations. However, in a POP context, the work product is 

variable. Officers may work together. Evaluations consequently 

must be flexible, not of fixed content. 

2. Equity. 

a. Evaluators need to provide the same performances the same way. 

This is particularly difficult in a community policing context where 

officers deal with their assignments in different, often creative 

ways. 

Individual considerations should be considered in work 

assignments. "The underlying theory here is that certain types of 

people are more likely to perform in desirable or undesirable ways 

depending on the kinds of work environments and specific people 

and problems they encounter." Geller and Swangler, 1996: 153. 

b. 

3. Reliability. Raters need to evaluate outcomes in the same way. The 

problem with reliability is that it biases raters toward measurable 

phenomena like arrests, stops and the like. These are enforcement 

criteria and will not assist in the evaluation of community policing or POP 

objectives. Indeed, one of the key problems or in the establishment of a 

new system is breaking away from traditional, law-enforcement criteria 

whose measurement is straightforward. 

As Wycoff (1982) noted, when important behaviors cannot be counted, those 

that are countable tend to become the important ones. She notes that quantifiable 

criteria tend to fall into two groups: 

a. Crime-fighting: rapid response, numbers of arrests, numbers of 

62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
stops. 

b. Administrative regulations: sick time, accidents, tardiness. 

Neither of these provide insight into the degree to which officers are effectively or 

creatively performing community policing or POP activities. Agencies wedded to these 

criteria may inhibit the willingness of their officers to adopt new strategies and tactics 

not so readily measurable. If deputies are permitted to develop their own evaluational 

means and criteria, commanders should review it closely for compliance with relevant 

policy and law. 

4. Legalify. Some requirements of the evaluation system may be 

established by law. 

Utility. What is the purpose of the evaluation? If it is not used for some 

identifiable goal, it lead to hostile feelings about employers by line 

personnel. 

5. 

Community policing: specialists or generalists? Departments deciding to 

implement community policing and problem-oriented policing (POP) protocols confront 

an immediate decision. Should specialists in POP or community policing be hired, 

trained, and assigned to specific assignments? Or should POP and community policing 

be introduced across the organization, so that all personnel are responsible for 

implementation. The latter route -- agency-wide implementation -- is more difficult in 

the short term. Managers and commanders can’t pick and choose among potential 

line-level candidates for community policing and POP assignments, but must convince 

the rank-and-file of the value of innovation in their traditional patrol techniques. Yet 

implementation across-the-board is widely viewed as a preferable route. As Oettmeier 

0 and Wycoff observe, when officers are selected for specialized positions, 

63 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Confusion, frustration, and animosity among personnel are common 

results of this specialization, and frequently there is a lack of service 

delivery at the local level. Oettmeier and Wycoff, 1997: 2. 

The transition to community policing and problem solving is a fundamental 

change in philosophy, organizational design, and activity. Agencies that haphazardly 

clapboard community policing onto traditional reactive policing patrol can create many 

long term problems vis-a-vis mismatched and inconsistent organizational functions and 

stigmata assigned to specialized community policing officers by the traditional rank-andfile. This is not to say that agencies cannot benefit through a specialist approach. 

However, it is recommended that departments that so start should develop plans to 

extend it to the rest of the department. Departments adopting POP and community 

policing reform need to anticipate and make allowances for the breadth of 

organizational change involved in the transition. 

The ACSO elected to integrate POP standards into the daily routines of all patrol 

officers. The implementation process is current, and at the present time POP protocols 

are in the immediate pre-implementation stage. Goldstein's model of POP is being 

used by the ACSO. Officers are learning about the SARA model, and they are 

developing strategies for the codification of problems in Ada County. 

For those agencies implementing a generalist approach, McGarrell and his 

colleagues recommend that 

management must ensure that these generalists have adequate training 

and the time to actually engage in community policing activities. Finding 

champions of community policing within the ranks who can model the new 

role will be important. McGarrell, Langston, and Richardson, 1997: 64. 

64 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
b Recommendation: The current transition to a generalist mode of POP 

implementation is the recommended program 

implementation procedure. The development of 

performance evaluation criteria should follow the 

same generalist strategy. All line officers and 

sergeants should be involved in a practical capacity 

in the selection of evaluation criteria. 

The effectivenesslrelevance dilemma. The development of any performance 

evaluation confronts a widely recognized problem. Although performance criteria may 

be well designed, the extent to which they distinguish between individuals depends on 

the personnel conducting the performance evaluations. Many observers of 

performance evaluations have lamented that it is nearly impossible to actually acquire 

outcomes that are simultaneously effective and relevant. If evaluations for POP are to 

be effective, evaluators should be willing to distinguish between the people who they 

are evaluating, and have to be willing to provide information that may not be well 

received. Evaluators have to be willing to be critical of those they evaluate. Yet 

evaluators are often unwilling to write critical evaluations if they will affect the ratees 

chances for promotion or for raises, and especially if the evaluation might be used in a 

way to discipline the ratee. Lawler (1971) describes this as a conflict between objectivity 

and trust: the greater the subjectivity, the greater the trust; the greater the objectivity, 

the less the trust. The dilemma is this: How can an evaluation be conducted so that it 

will be objectively conducted by raters, and at the same time be recognized as a 

document that will be used to discipline or reward officers? 

0 

a Marx identifies some of the problems of rater subjectivity in performance 

65 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
evaluations: 

When one considers only a supervisor's rating, other problems come to 

mind. For instance, each supervisor has different standards and frames 

of reference. These subjective opinions are prone to an individual's 

possible bias, indifference, or lack of knowledge regarding an offficer's 

actual performance. Also, a supervisor might hesitate to criticize his 

officers either because he fears it would alienate them or because he 

thinks it would reflect negatively on his ability to supervise. These 

difficulties are enhanced by the fact that few, if any, police departments 

provide a means of assessing the reliability or validity of these 

evaluations. Marx, 1986: 161. 

a 

F Recommendation: Deputies should be involved in the development of 

evaluation criteria and in the decision about who will conduct evaluations and 

how they are conducted. This will commit deputies to the process and, I think, is 

most likely to balance trust and objectivity. 

Individual versus team evaluations. Evaluations used to "grade" employees 

may be problematic in organizations that place premiums on team-work. This may be 

the case with community policing initiatives, where police must work closely with each 

other and with the community to achieve important objectives. Scholtes (1 987) has 

cautioned us about the dangers of performance evaluations. They can be a divisive 

influence, inhibiting the ability of individuals to work together. 

t Recommendation: Use team pedormance as an evaluative outcome in 

addition to individual evaluations. 

Oettmeier and Wycoff (1997: 11) also identify purposes that evaluations can 

66 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
serve that are different from traditional, "individual" criteria of discipline and reward. 

1. 

2. 

Inform governing bodies about the work of the organization. 

Determine the nature of problems in neighborhoods and the 

strategies that offer promise in addressing them. 

Permit officers to "exhibit' the work they are doing. 

Determine career objectives and progress of individual employees. 

e 

3. 

4. 

b Recommendation: Identify specific uses of evaluation that will not be 

used to discipline and/or reward. 

The cultural limitations of performance appraisal. Many commanders have 

lamented the way in which police culture protects line officers from managerial 

directives. This is particularly the case when directives expand internal accountability 

procedures. Consider the following words: 

The self-protectiveness of the police subculture and the fact that little 

depends on the evaluations means that many departments have abandoned 

these ratings or, at best, they have become empty rituals where almost 

everyone's performance is rated as satisfactory. Marx, 1986: 160. 

The willingness of line officers to be sold on POP, and to be evaluated for their 

0 

performance for POP activities, depends a great deal on the extent to which managers, 

especially the chief, actively seek their advice in implementation procedures. The most 

effective strategies for avoiding resistance are co-optive. By bringing line officers into 

the implementation process, and by letting them make important decisions about 

evaluation, a great deal of line resistance can be overcome. 

b Recommendation: Inevitably, some commanders are going to resist 

some of the recommendations put forth by a task 

67 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
force of deputies. My recommendation is that, on 

significant differences of opinion, ask the Sheriff 

himself to acit as arbiter. This will convey to both the 

line and management personnel that the Sheriff cares 

about the POP venture and how officers are being 

evaluated for it. 

Exhibit 5 

Rewarding What Matters 

Another way to put the challenge of reinventing performance appraisal standards and 

systems is that police departments need to reward the things that matter. In community problemsolving systems, what matters includes contributing manifestly to community safety and fear 

reduction through criminal justice and noncriminal justice tactics; providing other emergency 

services; officers' knowledge of and involvement in the community in various appropriate ways; the 

adequacy of problem-solving efforts from the point of view of those who live and work in the affected 

neighborhoods; officers' behavior towards the public; officers' initiative in tackling problems ... By 

contrast, things that don't matter - or are downright harmful - to a community policing implementation 

effort include precipitous and glutinous use of arrest and other criminal justice system resources, 

meaningless paperwork and other "CYA' activities; running breathlessly and unthinkingly to every 

call for service without regard to its nature; and excessive emphasis on officers' attitudes rather than 

behaviors - since attitudes are likely to change after behaviors do. 

W.A. Geller and G. Swanger.1996: 151. Innovation in Policing: The Untapped Potential of the Middle 

Manager. Washington, D.C.: PERF. 

Section B: Tailoring Evaluation to Rank 

The roles and associated accountability standards of line officers change under 

68 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a POP style of service delivery. Traditional law enforcement criteria are de-emphasized 

in order to provide opportunity for crime prevention and order-maintenance activities as 

well. Under a proactive POP model, line personnel need expanded time in order to talk 

to residents, to keep logs of problem activity, to meet with community figures, and carry 

out a large number of associated responsibilities. Accountability has to refocus on 

these items, so that reward structures and advancement within the organization is 

associated in some meaningful way with the work officers do. 

0 

Changes in role and accountability among other department personnel are less 

well understood. This is unfortunate. When comprehensively implemented, problem 

oriented policing realigns the responsibilities at all rank levels in a police organization. 

The organization is at once more fluid and relaxed in internal command structures and 

more penetrated by community influences. It is important that administrators don't view 

the expansion of line activity under a POP model as an opportunity to hold officers 

more accountable for a wider variety of criteria than in the past. 

0 

Given the tendency of police organizations to use bureaucratic accountability 

policy as a base for punishment, expanded accountability protocols can undermine any 

program during its implementation phase. One of the lessons of successful programs 

has been the ability of managers to relax, to permit mistakes to happen, and to create a 

positive working environment that encourages good outcomes. In the following section, 

I will present a discussion of the responsibilities associated with all ranks in a 

department, with a focus on performance evaluation of the work appropriate to that 

level. 

The Role of the Sheriff 

The contribution of the chief executive is of inestimable importance. The Sheriff 

69 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
establishes the commitment the organization makes to any innovations occurring in the 

department. If the Sheriff wavers in his commitment to POP, innovations will fail 

however great their promise. With thoughtful, patient, and energetic leadership, the 

chief executive can accomplish a great deal. Even in the current age of program 

decentralization, the chief executive plays a pivotal role in the moral and spiritual wellbeing of the agency. 

In a previous article, I described the important contribution that agency 

executives can make. I include it here, presented in the spirit of decentralized decisionmaking. The expansion of innovation at the line ranks will be futile if officers aren't also 

provided the opportunity to err. Evaluation should not be used to stifle creativity and 

innovation among officers. 

Chief John Turner of Mountlake Terrace, Washington, is an 

eloquent advocate of administrative innovation for community policing. 

He exhorts administrators to learn how to relax their group on line 

behavior, to cease trying to control everything that line officers do. His is 

a forceful view, and it is a vision central to the theme of this paper. If 

street cops are to be advocated to change, they have to be trusted. It is 

not enough to speak in lofty platitudes about their contribution to local 

communities. Management has to learn to trust their rank and file. They 

have to accept and live with mistakes, knowing that mistakes go with the 

territory. 

Administrators face a dilemma - on the one hand, they want to 

employ community policing strategies and reap the positive press that 

tends to accompany such ventures. On the other, they want to hold police 

70 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
officers accountable to be sure that they are doing community policing 

and that they do not "screw up" in the process. This latter goal, 

accountability, can stifle innovation. Rather than facilitating community 

policing, it can encourage the most hostile aspects of the police culture 

and close the door on all efforts to create a viable community policing 

program. Crank, 1997: 56. 

The agency executive is more than a spiritual leader. Sheriffs and Chiefs are at 

the top of the organization, and power emanates from the top. The executive is 

capable of, and should engage in substantive action aimed at assessing program 

innovation success. This extends to performance evaluation as well. In the following 

figure, program planning guide published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance suggests 

the practical role that an executive of a small department can play in the 

0 implementation of community policing. 

71 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Exhibit 6 

Chief Executives and Evaluation in Small Departments 

Astute police leaders recognize that large gaps can exist between what policy dictates and 

what personnel do. Management must take nothing for granted in the implementation of 

Neighborhood Oriented Policing (NOP) policies and procedures. In one form or another, the chief 

must constantly ask "How are we doing? Are we on track? What problems are occurring? What 

help is necessary?" 

In smaller and moderate-sized departments, this critical assessment can be accomplished 

through the chief's "management by walking around," stopping by at offices of key managers and 

groups to get on-the-spot reports on implementation efforts. The chief can also talk with patrol 

officers to get their views of how implementation is proceeding. In any size organization, the chief 

executive can hold useful regular meetings with those responsible for overseeing implementation of 

NOP and ask for their reports in a setting that reinforces accountability and allows for immediate 

discussion of ways to deal with problems. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1 994), Neighborhood Oriented Policing in Rural Communities: A 

Program Planning Guide. p. 64. 

It is clear in the early stages of POP innovation that Sheriff Killeen has taken an 

active leadership role. He has also demonstrated the capacity to permit decentralized 

decision-making. This is an important threshold requirement for PO, and encourages 

optimism that the dramatic changes being undertaken by the Sheriffs Office will 

succeed. 

The Role of Middle Managers 

The role of middle managers in police innovation is understudied and poorly 

understood. The traditional tendency is to view middle managers, like police culture, as 

72 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a powerful source of resistance to change (see Kelling and Bratton, 1993). Other 

observers have a different view. As Geller and Swangler (1 995: 102) observe, don't 

accept "middle manager's" resistance to change as the definition of the problem. 

Managers can be resources for the adoption of meaningful POP performance 

evaluation just as they can assist in the implementation of POP itself: Middle managers, 

Geller and Swanger (1 995: 149-1 50) note, can foster first-line supervision that, in turn, 

0 

a Exhibit 7 

What can be accomplished by performance evaluation 

Administrators are often so constrained by personnel rules, labor contracts, and other 

restrictions on their opportunities to offer rewards and impose penalties that they may wish to 

refocus the department's performance appraisal system on helping employees improve. 

Mastrofski and Wadman, 1991: 365 

In the ACSO, captains and to a lesser degree lieutenants are responsible for 

developing strategy and forecasting strategy to fit the budget. The change over to POP 

will affect them as well. Deputies will be promoted from a POP working environment. 

Managers will have to provide command authority over officers working in a POP 

environment. What can they contribute? Consider the following items, many 0 

73 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
mentioned by Geller and Swanger (1 95). 

1. Help sergeants enhance their credibility with deputies. Become familiar 

with POP and display clear support for the organizational changes that 

sergeants have to implement. 

Assist in the development of comprehensive performance evaluation 

packages for first-line employees and their supervisors. We argue 

elsewhere in this document that deputies must themselves take the lead 

in this task. Performance evaluation, however, must be consistent 

throughout the organization. Managers working with the personnel 

director can insure that the recommendations of deputies are 

systematized into department policy, and can provide important feedback 

on the legality and practicality of proposed evaluation criteria. 

Develop criteria to appraise overall organizational performance for 

community feedback. The organization itself should be responsive to the 

community. While deputies must take the lead on developing records of 

their work, managers can provide access to critically needed resources to 

convey departmental activities to the public. The following Exhibit 

suggests a relatively inexpensive means to develop community feedback 

through questionnaire surveys. 

a 

2. 

3. 

74 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Exhibit 8 

Using citizen surveys to measure feedback. 

Central to POP is the role of citizen input into police activity. It is becoming increasingly 

commonplace to tap citizen satisfaction with police services and in order to find out how well the 

police are doing. Mastrofski (1989) discusses the use of scientific polls to measure citizen 

satisfaction. Chief Couper provided an alternative way to measure citizen satisfaction that might be 

more useful for many departments. The survey used by Chief Couper in Madison is reprinted in the 

appendix. 

Madison, Wisconsin Chief David Couper began mailing questionnaires to 

every 50th person who filed a report with the department in early 1987. This 

amounted to about 160 surveys mailed each month. They received a return of 35 to 

40 percent. The survey asked citizens to rate the police response on a scale of one 

(poor) to five (excellent) on seven areas, including concern, knowledge, quality of 

service, solving the problem, putting citizens at ease, and professional conduct. An 

open-ended question, How can the police improve? was also included in the survey. 

The responses were routed back to the chief, who read them all. Couper and 

Lobitz, 1991; in Stephens, 1996: 113. 

The Sheriffs Office has already begun the work of collecting and analyzing data suitable for 

assessment of citizen attitudes. In July, 1998, under a National Institution of Justice Grant, a 

community survey was conducted. In the spirit of the partnership grant - long-term collaboration 

between the ACSO and BSU - the Sheriffs Office might consider asking BSU to (1) revise the survey 

so that officers could themselves distribute it and (2) provide data resources for the collation of 

findings. 

4. Be publicly visible. Make yourself physically present to deputies and to 

the public they serve. If deputies are attending and/or developing 

community meetings, show up on occasion. This will convey that 

command is in the spirit of the program. Close the gap between the 

75 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
ACSO and its customers. 

Some problems encountered by deputies will require contacts or 

resources from different functional units of the ACSO. Managers can 

assist in the coordination of these resources. Deputies in the 

implementation phase of POP often lack access to critically needed 

resources to deal with problems. Middle managers are the knowledge 

brokers in an agency, and can assist in these kinds of problems. 

Assist in the development of educational seminars or classes for deputies. 

This is already carried out to a large extent by monthly block training 

provided for deputies by the ACSO. 

Be a "buffer." Protect deputies from pressures that subvert efforts to 

implement and carry out problem oriented policing. The following Exhibit 

5. 

6. 

7. 

discusses this important responsibility: 

~~~~ 

Exhibit 9 

On Being a Buffer: Commanders as Protectors. 

One of the more difficult, risky tasks that middle managers may need to perform to assist 

the implementation of community problem solving is protecting (and seeking help from senior 

managers in protecting) problem -solving officers from pressures to revert to traditional methods. 

Those pressures may be imposed by the officers' peers, other managers, sister city agencies, 

politicians, the media, and others with power. Mastrofski (191) suggests that the challenge "is in 

buffering [community policing] experiments from the demands of organizational routine and a public 

that is not so tolerant of trial and error." 

Geller and Swanger, Managing Innovation in Policing, 1996: 167. 

76 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The contributions listed above are general, and are included to spark discussion 

@ on performance criteria appropriate for measurement. As with deputies, we 

recommend that the actual performance criteria are selected by the commanders 

themselves, as well as the means for assessing the performance. 

The Role of the Sergeant 

POP innovation has a large impact on the responsibilities of the Sergeant. It 

requires a reformulation and broadening of the Sergeant's role. Oettmeier and Wycoff 

(1997) identify several dimensions of change involving the role and responsibilities of 

the sergeant. 

1. Sergeants have to support the greater discretion associated with 

community policing. 

Accountability of individual officers has to occur in a broader sense of 

officers discretion. 

Be more efficient managers and group facilitators. 

Active participants in the development of POP solutions. 

Sergeants need more effective means of getting information about 

community means. Three recommendations: 

a. Community meetings. 

b. 

c. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Door-to-door surveys conducted by officers. 

Scientific surveys. We have conducted such a survey here. The 

sergeant in charge, Sgt. Ron Freeman, might review the survey in 

order to assess the county's (1) perceptions of problems; (2) 

relations with deputies; (3) satisfaction; (4) improvements in 

service. (Note that I earlier recommended that surveys be a 

77 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
responsibility of mid-level managers, who are the only group that 

can allocate scant resources for their collection.) 

These changes require that sergeants have wider access to pertinent information 

than in the past. In ways central to the success of POP, line-officers have to be able to 

approach their Sergeant as a broker of knowledge and information about the 

community. Indeed, in important ways the role of the sergeant is empowered to a 

greater degree than are line-officers under a POP organizational philosophy. Oettmeier 

and Wycoff (1997: 141-142) describe the way in which the role of the sergeant is 

broadened. 

The community policing sergeant would need to be familiar with the 

area the officers works, the problems and concerns within that area, and 

the efforts made by the officers to address those issues. Considerable 

knowledge would most effectively be derived from frequent conversations 

between the sergeant and the officer. These discussions could be quided 

bv usinq weeklv or monthlv assessment forms that tarqet specific 

problems, activities, and expected results. 

Sergeants are the first "clearinghouse" resource for officers who 

think they have identified a problem. They consequently need wide 

access to information about what is going on in the community as well as 

what their officers are doing. The (following recommendations) describe 

several means to acquire) information about officers performance: 

1. Direct entry of information by other sergeants into a computer using 

a predefined software format. 

2. Maintaining a "log" of observations about officers 

78 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
recommendations, accomplishments, and failures ascertained from 

frequent coaching sessions between the officers and sergeant. 

Input from the "community" that could be obtained through 

a. 

3. 

Direct communication between the sergeant and community 

rep resen tat ives. 

Citizen letters directed to the officer, sergeant, division 

commander, or chief of police. 

Survey responses from service recipients; comments from 

citizens attending community meetings. 

b. 

c. 

d. News stories. 

Verbal or written communication with other agencies, inclusive of 

other city departments and private sector organizations. 

An officer "resumell in which the officer periodically would report 

career progress and significant events or activities of which the 

officer would want the sergeant and organization to be aware. 

4. 

5. 

The Role of Deputies 

Mastrofski and Wadman (1991) observe that peer assessment -- in the ACSO, 

by other deputies -- is increasingly a routine, informal feature of police life. 

Consequently, if peers are included in the department's formal performance appraisal, 

routine, informal practices are simply formalized. Further, peer appraisals are as 

reliable as supervisors ratings (Farr and Landy, 1979). Peer reviews are also 

empowering for line officers. Mastrofski and Wadman (1991: 373) note that "If peer 

appraisals are used to supplement supervisory appraisals, supervisors could be a 

86 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
required to take peer appraisals into account and justify significant differences between 

their own and the per ratings." 

b Recommendation: 

e 

Incorporate peer appraisals into evaluation 

procedures. The Personnel Director has suggested 

that 360 evaluations can provide a means for peer 

appraisal. This is a sound idea that can be 

reasonably be put into practice. After review by 

deputies, this or a similar peer review system should 

be implemented. 

Line resistance to performance criteria. Line officers resist performance 

evaluation for a variety of reasons. Mastrofski (1 996: 222-223 ) identifies two: 

... street officers resent and invalidate any attempt to assess their 

performance, unless the evaluator is a skilled police officer also present. But 

that is probably not their strongest objection. It is, rather that authorities (both 

inside and outside the department) are unable to provide workable performance 

priorities a priori (Brown, 1981). Instead, managers review police performance 

only when things go awry and establish priorities ex post facto. Mastrokki, 1996: 

222-3. 

This has implications for the likely success of efforts to introduce policing 

in novation: 

Developing systematic performance measures at the encounter 

level without strong leadership that establishes priorities through policy 

80 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
mandates, guidelines, and training will doom the endeavor to tremendous 

rank-and-file resistance. Without such leadership, performance 

measurement will be viewed as another way to increase officer 

vulnerability without any appreciable benefit to those whose work is being 

assessed. 

b Recommendation: Organizational leadership should take a strong, 

proactive stance in supporting the development of 

peer evaluation systems. Deputies will have many 

ideas that they do not know how to implement or lack 

to resources to do so. Managers should make 

resources -- particularly their time -- available to 

officers. 

Part IV: MEASUREMENT PROCESS AND PRODUCT 

The development of measurement criteria is a 2-step process. The first step is 

the process used to select criteria. The second step involves the identification of 

relevant measurement criteria. 

In the following sections, I will review various alternatives for both the process 

and the product. It is my opinion that the selection of both the process and the product 

should be determined by the officers who will be evaluated in collaboration with 

organizational managers, so I will not recommend either a specific process or product. 

By presenting alternatives for both process and product tat I believe are viable and that 

have worked in other organizations, I hope to provide ACSO officers with "stepping 

81 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
stones,” ways of thinking about how other organizations or individuals have solved 

these problems. In the spirit of problem oriented policing, the final selection of product 

and process is up to the officers involved in the implementation of POP. 

Part A. Measurement Process 

0 

In this part I discuss three processes for the development of performance 

evaluation. The first recommends a task force, the second is an expert system, and the 

third is a blend of expert-personnel director involvement. 

Model 1 : Oettmeier and Wycoff. These authors describe a task force approach 

to the development of performance criteria. The task force is made up of both line level 

and management personnel. 

Purposes of task force. 

1. What is the nature of activities being conducted by officers 

trying to implement the POP philosophy? 

What are the challenges to measuring these activities? 

A list of tasks, roles, and skills essential for officers 

implementing the POP component of patrol need to be 

developed. 

2. 

3. 

How to carry out the activities. 

Develop a task force of personnel involved: sergeant and line 

officers. The role of the project director is critical. Project manager 

develops a data collection instrument to capture detailed 

information about the behavior of officers, including supervisors, 

82 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
involved in POP. 

Caution: It should not be expected that this process can be carried 

out quickly. 

Model 2: Mastrofski. Sometimes, "experts" -- highly regarded line personnel in 

the department -- can make a significant contribution to the development of 

performance evaluation criteria. Mastrofski (1 996) identifies the following contributions 

that "expert" officers can make toward developing their own criteria. He describes a 

seminar type laboratory setting in which highly regarded officers systematically develop 

performance criteria. 

1. Identify who the highly skilled officers are - the craftsmen. There 

tends to be a high consensus about who they are in the department 

(Bayley and Garofalo, 1989). These leaders may disagree on what 

constitutes good performance. This provides an opportunity to 

develop diversity in considering what constitutes good problemsolving. 

The temptation to develop all-purpose performance criteria should be avoided at 

all cost. 

2. The police "experts" should openly discuss their views, and clarify 

differences. Mastrofski recommends a "seminar" kind of 

circumstance where individual officers are encouraged to spell out 

their ideas and differences. 

3. The deliberations should be structured in a way as to develop 

performance criteria. This can be done in two ways. 

83 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a. identify general traits that are considered good or bad 

performance. 

Discuss specific incident types and develop what would be 

considered good and bad responses. I recommend the 

latter; it is more consistent with the way in which knowledge 

develops from beat encounters with the service population 

(Crank, 1998). 

b. 

4. 

5. 

Seminar participants develop the set of performance criteria. 

Social scientists develop data collection instrument from 

performance criteria. This is where the department needs to lean 

of the local university resources. 

The instrument is pilot tested among selected police officers. 

Review reactions of officers to the instrument. 

Review by departmental management, then field test agency wide. 

6. 

7. 

Exhibit 10 

Management-Line Disagreement Over Evaluational Criteria 

... master craftsmen may generate performance criteria and measures distasteful to the top 

leadership or important department constituents. Although management may reject such measures 

or demand alterations, it can hardly be regarded as a major advance in employee-manager relations 

to engage in this endeavor only to stoke controversy and combativeness. 

Mastrofski, 1996: 233. 

84 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Model 3: Fine. The following model was discussed in a police context by 

Mastrofski and Wadman (1991: 367). The strength of this system is that it includes an 

analysis of performance for POP in the broader context of the development off 

0 

performance criteria for all patrol activities. 

Sidney Fine, a proponent of functional job analysis, suggests a multi-step 

process that makes use of extensive in-house expertise and does not require 

sophisticated statistics. 

1. Preliminary orientation of the job analyst himself or herself and 

invitation of subject-matter experts to participate. 

Group interviews in which experts are asked to list job outputs, 

knowledge, skills, and abilities required. 

Creation of an inventory OF tasks based on the previously 

generated list, continuing until the group is satisfied that 95% of the 

job is covered. 

Grouping and rank ordering (or weighing) of tasks. 

Identification of performance criteria by asking experts to indicate 

how they would distinguish levels of work quality for each group of 

tasks. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. Reliability check, in which the analyst sends the subject-matter 

experts an edited task inventory for each part of the job, with 

performance standards for each category, for final review, revision, 

and approval. 

7. Validity check, in which the revised inventories are sent to a 

85 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
separate sample of employees who are subject-matter experts for 

verification. 

~ ~~ 

Exhibit 1 I 

A word of caution in the use of BARS (Behaviorally Anchored Ratings). 

At first blush both behavioral-based scales and goal-based scales seem very attractive for 

police use, but it is important to sound a note of caution concerning these two types of 

appraisals ... The problem with using highly specific behaviors to establish points on a rating scale, as 

required by a BARS format, is that it is virtually impossible to rate the desirability of various police 

alternatives without extensively discussing the subtle particulars of each case. Imagine, for example, 

trying to specify good, mediocre, and poor police actions in handling domestic disputes. What may 

be just right for one situation may be the worst possible choice for another. This view of the 

importance of the particular circumstances is pervasive among line officers ... 

Mastrofski and Wadman, 1991. 

Part B: Performance Measures 

Measuring deputy performance. Below are two models for measuring deputy 

performance. The models are similar in goal, differing primarily in simplicity and detail. 

The first model is more elaborate but somewhat complicated. The second does not 

provide the depth of objective criteria but is simpler to employ. 

Model I :Performance evaluation task-activity measurement model. The 

measurement of performance of police under a POP model ties them directly to the 

communities they serve. Police are traditionally evaluated for "process" variables, such 

86 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
as the number of arrests, traffic stops, and the like. Police agencies have confronted 

the anomalous circumstance that measures of "process" improve but neighborhood 

quality of life declines (Stephens, 1996). What is needed is a measure of "effects, 

outcomes, and impacts of officers' efforts" (Oettmeier and Wycoff, 1995: 143). Put 

differently, police typically deal with the observable outcomes of problems, and their 

work is to respond to those outcomes. But the underlying problems go unaddressed. 

The measurement process it to evaluate officers for the consequences of their 

e 

behavior for the public they serve. Performance evaluation, like POP, must tap 

outcomes. However, some processes have to be in place to achieve outcomes. 

Officer's can't be "turned loose" to learn on their own how to do POP. Structures exist 

for carrying out POP, the most well known of which is Herman Goldstein's (1990) SARA 

model. Line officer performance criteria, developed from that model, consequently a 

represent both outcomes and processes measures. 

The chart below, copied from Oettmeier and Wycoff (1997) describes a task 

structure under a SARA model. This is the model that the ACSO is implementing. It 

might be possible for the ACSO to leap-frog through some of the implementation 

problems in order to develop performance criteria. This chart embodies the operative 

principle under which this paper is written: Performance evaluation criteria, to be 

effective, must be directly tied to the goals and objectives of patrol work. The 

evaluational criteria below link patrol evaluation to a POP-SARA environment. 

87 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Tas ks-Activities 

Activities are listed beneath the tasks they are intended to accomplish. Several 

activities could be used to accomplish a number of different tasks. 

1. Learn characteristics of area, residents, businesses. 

a. Study beat books. 

b. 

C. 

d. Talk with community representatives. 

e. Maintain areakuspect logs. 

f. Conduct area surveys. 

g. Read area papers. 

h. 

I. 

j. 

Become acquainted with leaders in area. 

a. 

b. 

C. 

Make residents aware of who officer is and what s/he is trying to accomplish in area. 

a. Initiate citizen contacts. 

b. Distribute business cards. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. Contact home-bound elderly. 

g. 

Analyze crime and calls-for-service data. 

Drive, walk area, and make notes. 

Discuss area with citizens when answering calls. 

Talk with private security personnel in area. 

Talk with area business owners/managers. 

2. 

Attend community meetings, including service club meetings. 

Ask questions in survey about who formal and informal area leaders are. 

Ask area leaders for names of other leaders. 

3. 

Discuss purpose at community meeting. 

Discuss purpose when answering calls. 

Write article for local paper. 

Encourage officers to contact citizens directly. 

4. Identify area problems. 

88 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a. Attend community meetings. 

b. 

C. Contact citizens and businesses. 

d. 

e. 

Communicate with supervisors, other officers and citizens about the nature of the area and its 

problems. 

a. 

b. 

C. Discuss area with supervisor. 

Investigate/do research to determine sources of problems. 

Analyze crime and calls-for-service data. 

Conduct business and residential surveys. 

Ask about other problems when answering calls. 

5. 

Maintain beat bulletin board in station. 

Leave notes in boxes of other officers. 

6. 

a. Talk to people involved. 

b. Analyze crime data. 

C. Observe situation if possible (shakeout). 

0 7. Plan ways of dealing with problem. 

a. Analyze resources. 

b. 

C. 

Provide citizens information about was they can handle problems (educatelempower). 

Discuss with supervisor, other officers. 

Write Patrol Management Plan, review with supervisor. 

8. 

a. Distribute crime prevention information. 

b. Provide names and number of other responsible agencies: tell citizens how ta approach 

these agencies. 

9. Help citizens develop appropriate expectations about what police can do and teach them how to 

interact effectively with police. 

a. Attend community meetingdmake presentations. 

b. Present school programs. 

C. Write article for area paper. 

89 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a IO. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

d. 

Develop resources for responding to problem. 

a. 

b. 

Implement problem solution. 

a. 

Assess effectiveness of solution. 

a. 

Hold discussions with community leaders. 

Talk to other officers, detectives, supervisors. 

Talk with other individuals or agencies who could help. 

Take whatever actions are called for. 

Use data, feedback from persons who experienced the problem, and/or personal 

observation to determine whether problem has been solved. 

Keep citizens informed. 

a. Officers tell citizens what steps have been taken to address a problem and with what 

resu I ts. 

b. Detectives tell citizens what is happening with their cases. 

90 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Model 2: A qualitative assessment, adapted from Portland Police 

Department. Portland's police department uses a reporting and tracking form to 

assess progress on problems identified by police officers. It contains the following 

com pone nts : 

a 

Problem Solving: Portland, Oregon 

Reporting and Tracking Form 

I. Problem as agreed on by Involved Parties 

A. Short Description 

B. Long Description 

II. Major goal(s) 

Ill. Actions Taken (Strategies) 

A. Starting Date 

B. Completion Date 

List in chronological order the strategies taken to address the problem and meet the goal(s). 

Date: Activity: 

IV: Resources for Strategies. 

A. Law Enforcement Agencies: Role in Activities: 

B. Other Government Agencies: Role in Activities: 

C. Other Organizations: Role in Activities: 

Use additional sheets for Resources for Strategies as needed. 

V. Individuals Involved in Partnership. 

Name: 0 rga n iza tion: Phone: 

91 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Portland's problem solving form is intended to track progress of officers in their 

work on particular problems. It is clearly not designed to assess non-POP activities, 

and is inadequate as a "stand-alone" document to evaluate overall police performance. 

However, it has three strengths particularly useful for evaluators. 

1. It provides a sergeant with a written document assessing when a deputy 

is actually doing with regard to problems. With this sort of document, the 

implementation of POP and its evaluation become virtually equivalent. 

It is designed to be descriptive, with both short descriptions and long 

descriptions. This is particularly suitable for the evaluation of POP. A 

frequent complaint about evaluation is that it "shoehorns" police activities 

into narrow and inappropriate categories that don't capture the variety of 

police work. A descriptive docurrient such as this one does. 

It is a relatively brief document. It doesn't require a lot of time to write, an 

important feature for deputies who must add POP paperwork to the 

docket of existing paperwork. 

2. 

3. 

F Recom men da ti on : The performance criteria above are intended to be 

suggestive. Though well-designed, these criteria 

were developed for a municipal agency in a city 

environment and may not adapt well in a more rural 

setting with a Sheriffs Office. Performance criteria 

should not be accepted until after a task force 

92 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
comprised of deputies has had the opportunity to 

carefully weigh them. The list above, it is hoped, will 

provide a "head-start" in the rough process 

developing criteria relevant to deputies' tasks in a 

POP agency environment. 

Measuring team performance. It is recognized that team efforts may 

occasionally be involved in dealing with problems. It should not be surprising if officers 

working the same areas across shifts encounter the same problem, or if some problems 

involve deputies across different areas. The Sheriffs Office should encourage the 

development of team as well as individual effort, and provide them with recognition 

through performance measurement. The following criteria are adapted from 

recommendations by Oettmeier and Wycoff (1 995) for measuring the performance of 

teams. 

e 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Ability of the group to work together. 

Effective use of individual skills. 

Competence in addressing community issues, ranging from the 

performance of daily tasks to complex projects. 

Ability to engage neighborhood and small town groups, to 

coordinate activity in rural and neighborhood communities. 

Ability of the team to function as a part of the organization. 

4. 

5. 

6. Ability to identify problems. 

7. Ability to reach agreement on possible methods for problem 

identification and response. 

93 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
8. Outcomes produced by the team. 

b Recommendation: Since individuals make varying degrees of 

contributions to teams, it is recommended that 

records be kept of individual as well as team efforts in 

the evaluational process. 

Measuring sergeant performance. The sergeantk role is critical and central in 

the success of COP endeavors. His or her pedormance should also reflect POP 

activity. The following criteria are recommended by Oettmeier and Wycoff (1 995) for 

assessing Sergeants. 

1. Communication with deputies about strategic and tactical 

responses to neighborhood crime and disorder problems. 

Interaction with community leaders to develop a global perspective 

of needs and demands. 

Leadership qualities appropriate to the assigned area. 

Knowledge of what deputies need (including system changes) in 

order to accomplish jobs. 

Coordination of deputies' efforts across multiple assignments. 

Monitoring the "appropriateness" of deputies' relationships with 

community representatives. 

Familiarity with what deputies have done, are doing, and would like 

to do. 

Ability to encourage the development of new skills within their 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

94 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
off ice rs . 

F Recommendation: Review with Sergeant and his commandeers the 

appropriateness of performance criteria. Provide 

deputies the opportunity to review the performance 

criteria for the Sergeant. Deputies may feel more 

comfortable with these criteria knowing that their 

evaluator will himself or herself also be evaluated. 

What's good for the goose ... 

See Appendix 4 for evaluation documents. 

95 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION V SECONDARY GRANT PROJECTS e 

PROJECT I: Community Gang Prevention 'Team Survey 

After our first survey for the Ada County Sheriffs Office was completed, we were 

asked to conduct another survey for the Community Gang Prevention Team. This 

survey represents the continuing effort of Ada County citizens, state and local 

governments, community action agencies, and the Ada County Sheriffs Office to 

identify problems and develop responses to gangs and teen-age drug use. Citizens 

were asked about issues of drugs, gangs, and youth in their neighborhoods and in Ada 

County gene rally. 

Survey method 

From August 14, 1997 through September 19, 1997, approximately 270 citizens 

e responded to a random mail survey conducted by Dr. John Crank at Boise State 

University. Dr. Kay Carter assisted in the design of the instrument questions. The 

survey was conducted by mail using methods proposed by Dillman (1984). 679 surveys 

were mailed to a randomly selected list of Ada County residents. Three hundred 

surveys were returned with 270 being valid for a 42% return rate. The Sheriffs Office 

provided funds for printing costs, and the survey was conducted pro bono by Boise 

State University: 

Findings 

We first asked respondents about their fears of youth crime in the area where 

they live. Residents were asked about 28 different crime related problems. The five 

most frequently cited concerns are listed below. 

96 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
b Speeding was described as a problem by 86 percent (86.2%) of the 

respondents. 

Profanity or foul language by students in public areas was described as a 

problem by eighty percent (79.6%) of the respondents. 

The majority (75.6%) of respondents felt teenagers using drugs or alcohol was a 

problem. 

A lack of recreation for kids was noted by seventy percent (69.5%). 

Unsupervised youth, especially after school was noted as a problem by seventytwo percent (71 5%) of the respondents. 

0 

b 

t 

t 

t 

The top five issues that were viewed as being no problem are listed below. 

t 

t 

Seventy percent (70.2%) responded that gunfire was no problem. 

Sixty-nine percent (68.8%) felt there was no problem with gangs trying to take 

over the neighborhood. 

Sixty-three percent (62.5%) felt that crack houses were not a problem. 

Sixty-one percent (60.7%) felt that people being robbed or attacked was not a 

problem . 

Fifty-eight percent described shootings and violence by gangs as not a problem. 

e t 

t 

t 

How concerned were residents about gang and drug related crimes? 

t Six out of 10 (58.5%) of the respondents stated that drug dealing on the streets 

was a problem where they lived. Eleven percent thought it was a big problem. 

Forty-two percent of the residents saw a problem with shootings and violence by 

gangs where they live. Six percent (6.3%) thought it was a big problem. 

t 

Residents were asked if they had observed gang and drug activity in their 

97 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
neighborhood. a - 

t Twenty percent (1 9.9%) stated that they had observed gang activity. 

t Twenty-five percent stated that they had observed drug activity. 

t Four percent (4.1 %) responded that they or a member of their family had been 

threatened or bothered by a gang member in the past twelve months. 

Next we asked about community group's efforts to combat drugs and gangs. We 

asked respondents about the contribution of 11 different agencies and community 

efforts in solving problems having to do with drugs and gangs. 

Of the 11, the five most helpful with regard to gangs were: 

t 

t 

t 

t YMCA(72.9%). 

t DARE programs (71.2%). 

The five most helpful with regard to drugs were: 

t The Police (82.5%). 

t 

t 

t DARE programs (79.4%). 

t YMCA (71.5%). 

Residents provided information about their recreational activities. We found that Ada 

County residents were recreationally active outside of their homes. 

t 

The Police (selected by 81 % of the respondents). 

Churches and church-sponsored activity (78.1 %). 

"Enough is Enough" and other community action programs (77.4%). a 

"Enough is Enough" and other community action programs (81 3%). 

The Church and church-sponsored activities (80.1 %). 

Most (91.8%) recreate outside the house, but in the neighborhood. 

98 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
t Ninety-two percent stated they walk, jog, or ride a bike in the daytime, 81% 

participate in these activities in the evening, and 49.7% at night. 

e t Seventy-eight percent (77.6%) stated they participate in social activities in their 

neighborhood. 

t Only seven percent (6.9%) of the respondents do not watch television. 

In the third section we asked about safety and fears of victimization. Residents were 

asked if safety in their neighborhood and Boise was changing. 

t Seven percent (6.8%) felt their neighborhood was becoming more dangerous 

during the day, 18.8% thought their neighborhood was becoming safer during the 

day. 

t Twenty-four percent (23.8%) felt their neighborhood was becoming more 

dangerous after dark. 

t Sixteen percent (1 5.9%) felt that downtown Boise was becoming more 

4D 

dangerous during the day, while 64.4% felt downtown Boise was becoming more 

dangerous after dark. 

We asked residents about their fear of crime and being victimized. 

t 

t 

Seventy-six percent feared being the victim of a non-gang crime. 

Sixty percent (59.9%) of the respondents feared being the victim of a gang 

crime. 

Sixty percent (59.4%) worried that gang members would hurt some member of 

their household. 

t 

In the fourth section we asked about knowledge of drugs and crime, and fear 

concerning respondent’s children. Forty percent (39.6%) of the respondents have e 

99 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
children. These residents were asked about their fears that their children would 

become involved in gang or drug activities. Parents were more worried about drug 

involvement than gang involvement. 

t 

e 

About two-thirds (68.2%) worried about their children getting involved with drugs. 

Seventeen percent (17.3%) were very worried. 

Slightly under half (48.2%) worried about their children getting involved with 

gangs. Ten percent (9.5%) were very worried. 

Sixty-four percent were afraid their children would be hurt by a gang member. 

Six out of ten (62.2%) parents stated that there were certain areas of the 

community where their children were afraid to walk. 

Four out of ten (38.8%) personally know someone - a family member, friend, 

neighbor -- who now uses cocaine, marijuana, heroin, meth, or other illegal drug. 

Two out of ten (18.4%) know of a person or family member where drugs are 

sold. 

t 

t 

t 

t 

t 

I) 

We asked about their children's knowledge of drug and gang activity. 

t 

t 

Twenty-nine percent stated that their children had seen drug activity at school. 

Thirty-five percent (34.7%) stated that their children had seen evidence of gang 

activity at school. 

t Less that one out of ten (9.5%) thought there was too much concern over gangs 

and drugs. 

Eighty-five percent thought that their chilld or children felt safe at school. t 

Next we asked about their child's's reporting of drug or gang activity. 

t Children were most likely to report activity to a parent (21 5%). 

100 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
t One out of twenty (5%) had reported drug or gang activity to their school 

resource officer. 

t Four percent had reported drug or gang activity to their teachers. 

Finally we wanted to find out about the characteristics of participants in the survey. Part 

five provides a description of our respondents. 

t 

t 

*t 

Most respondents (95.3%) identified themselves as CaucasianWhite. 

Females accounted for 48.8% of the respondent sample. 

Eight-on percent (80.8%) of the respondents had college experience, with 49% 

having a college degree of Associates (2 year) or higher. 

Most respondents identified themselves as white collar workers (23. I %). 

Business owners were second (1 5.8%), followed by homemakers (1 3.8%). 

Eighty-six percent of the respondents were homeowners, and 84.1% lived in 

single family dwellings. 

The typical respondent lived in Ada County for an average of 18.7 years, and in 

their current neighborhood for 10.3 years. 

t 

t m t 

Summary 

Findings revealed widespread concern over drugs and gangs. Six out of ten 

respondents stated that drug dealing on the streets was a problem where they lived. 

Four out of ten respondents personally knew someone who used cocaine, marijuana, 

heroin, meth, or other illegal drug and two out of ten respondents knew of a person or 

family member where drugs were sold. Sixty-three percent of respondents felt that 

crack houses were not a problem. Forty-two percent of respondents felt that shootings 

and violence by gangs where they live was a problem, but sixty-nine percent felt there 

101 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
was no problem with gangs trying to take over their neighborhood. 

Although people in Ada County see drugs and gangs as potential problems, they 

don't feel directly threatened by them. Respondents were more likely to be concerned 

about other people's children getting involved with drugs than their own children. 

The findings suggest that rural residents carry a certain amount of responsibility 

for areas that go beyond their doorsteps. This sense of protectiveness extends past 

material goods to their children and other people's children as well. They take action 

when the feel their territory is being threatened by intruders. 

Our data also shows that people are concerned about the lack of recreation for 

youth, unsupervised youth after school, and increased teenage use of drugs or alcohol. 

With no public transportation and two working parents in the household, it is more 

difficult for young people to become involved in productive after school activities. This 

creates an inviting arena for rural gang activities. Lack of supervision also accounts for 

many of the problems with vandalism and may account for more drug and alcohol 

problems for teenagers. The Community Gang Prevention Team is currently working 

on implementing more after-school programs in some of the lower income schools in 

rural Ada County. There are community action programs being piloted for teenagers in 

rural areas on weekends. (See Appendix 5 for complete survey and statistical details.) 

0 

102 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
PROJECT 2: Deputies' Perceptions of Citizens' Attitudes Toward Service 

In a subsequent meeting between the Sheriffs Office and BSU staff, the 

question was raised as to the extent to which Sheriffs deputies' attitudes mirrored 

citizens' attitudes. We were curious about whether Sheriffs deputies had accurate 

perceptions of citizens' attitudes. We decided to produce a third project that emerged 

naturally from the research frame. This reflected a two-part query of substantive policy 

importance: (1) were deputies giving citizens the service they wanted, and (2) did 

deputies have accurate perceptions of citizen's service needs? This document is a 

summary of our findings. 

Methodology 

In meetings with the Sheriffs Office and Boise State University personnel, 

various parties indicated an interest in Deputies' perceptions of services. Since we had 

data on citizens' attitudes about services, we wondered if deputies shared citizens' 

views or were aware about how citizens perceived their work. We were also curious 

about whether or not deputies' perceptions of citizen's attitudes were consistent with 

what citizens actually thought. We took questions 91 through 107 under subtitle 

Section I/: Sheriffs Office Service Needs from the citizen's survey. These questions 

assessed the general public's perceptions of Sheriff's services. This part of the survey 

became the instrument that we distributed to Sheriff's deputies. 

@ 

One of the methodological issues we addressed was if we should ask deputies 

about their perceptions of the importance of these items, or if we should ask them how 

they thought citizens would respond. The two questions would provide different kinds 

103 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
of information. The first -- what deputies thought -- tells us about differences in 

perspectives between Sheriff deputies and citizens. The second -- Sheriffs deputies 

perceptions of citizens’ attitudes --tells us about the extent that deputies correctly 

assessed citizens’ perceptions. We decided to ask the second question. 

loi 

The deputy’s survey was dispersed by team sergeants at the Ada County 

Sheriffs Office. Deputies were asked by the sergeants to respond in terms off how they 

thought citizens would answer the questions in the citizen’s survey. Fifty-six surveys 

were distributed and 41 were returned for a response rate of 73%. 

Items in both surveys were scaled on a five point Likert Scale, with a range of 1, 

“strongly disagree” to 5, “strongly agree.” All items were scored so that higher values 

indicated agreement with the questions being asked. Surveys were compared using a 

two-tailed t-test for equality of means assuming non-equal variances. 

Findings 

4P 

Findings are organized into two sections. Part 1 looks at questions where there 

are significant differences between deputy and citizen perceptions. Part 2 looks at 

areas where there were no differences between deputy and citizen perceptions. For 

complete statistical and survey information see Appendix 6. 

Part 1 : Significant Differences 

The following are summary statements from questions that showed significant 

differences between citizen’s responses and how deputies thought citizens would respond. 

b Citizens were much more interested in the problems faced by the Sheriff than deputies 

thought they would be. 

104 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
b Deputies under-judged citizen's perceptions of dependable ties between 

them. Citizens were more positive than deputies thought they would be. 

Though the difference was small, citizens thought that it was slightly more 

difficult to form friendships with deputies than deputies expected. 

Citizens thought deputies were content staying in their patrol cars to a 

greater degree than deputies. the implication is that citizens are 

supportive of more personal; interactions with police. 

Deputies were more intimidating than they thought they were. 

Citizens thought that deputies were concerned to a greater degree than 

deputies expected. 

Deputies underestimated how important citizens thought it was to talk to 

people about their problems. 

Citizens were more crime-control oriented on tickets than deputies 

thought they would be. 

t 

t 

t 

t 

t 

t 

Part 2: Non-Significant Differences 

In the following summary statements of questions, citizens' actual responses 

were not significantly different from what deputies thought they would be. In other 

words, there was a high correspondence between deputy and citizen perceptions. 

t 

t 

Deputies underestimated how courteous citizens perceived them to be. 

Deputies thought citizens would see them as more honest. 

t Deputies thought citizens would see them as being more fair. 

t Deputies underestimated the importance of time working with individuals 

105 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
and groups to solve problems was to citizens. 

Deputies underestimated how important it is to citizens and Sheriffs 

deputies to work together in solving problems. 

b 

Discussion 

Overall, deputies' estimations of citizens' attitudes were remarkably close to how 

citizens actually felt. Where we found differences, those differences usually occurred in 

a way that showed higher levels of positive sentiments from citizens than deputies 

expected. 

The following implications can be drawn from the data: 

Across all scores, both significant and non-significant, citizens showed higher 

scores than deputies thought they would. This means that they consistently felt 

stronger about the items than expected. This is particularly the case with regard 

to the question asking about how intimidating deputies were. This suggests that, 

in deputy-citizen interactions, deputies have a stronger impact on citizens than 

they think they do. Deputies should recognize that, even in the most friendly 

encounters, citizens are intensely aware of who they are dealing with and are 

sensitive to even the smallest gestures. 

Four questions assessed citizens perception of ethical qualities of deputies. 

There were courtesy, honesty, fairness, and concern. These four items were the 

highest scoring of all items in the survey, scoring over 4 in each case -- meaning 

that the most likely outcome was "strongly agree," followed closely by "agree." 

These are very strong findings, and speak favorably about the Sheriff's Office's 

training and conduct in citizen-deputy interactions. 

a 

a 

113 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
0 Citizens would like to have more contact with deputies than they currently have. 

They are interested in working with deputies to identify and solve problems they 

confront. This kind of contact is always a dilemma for the police, since their 

extra and unsupervised time is limited, and usually spent on patrol or doing 

paperwork. However, any activity that increases citizen contact would be wellreceived by citizens. Findings also suggest that citizens would be receptive to 

the kind of police-citizen programs characteristic of community policing 

endeavors . 

Citizens are more supportive of crime control than deputies think they are. This 

is not surprising. Other surveys have found that citizens are more supportive of 

"tough" law enforcement than police expect them to be. Also, it is not surprising 

that citizens support traffic tickets for even "minor" offenses, since the #I 

problem identified in the original citizen survey was "speeding." 

0 

0 

107 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
SECTION VI SCHOLARLY PRODUCTS 

Product 1 : Assessing Fear of Crime in a Rural Setting 

e 

Does community policing have anything to offer rural settings? This question 

becomes increasingly important as grantors and policy-makers seek to expand 

community policing initiatives into a variety of rural environments. Needed is a 

perspective of crime and disorder in rural life that can be addressed under the broad 

umbrella of community policing philosophy and strategy. In the present research we 

develop a perspective of contemporary rural environments that focuses on rural crime 

and disorder, and rural growth and its degrading impact on traditional rural 

communities. This perspective is a rural variant of a "broken windows" model of qualityof-life degradation. Using survey data, we assessed the impact of neighborhood crime 

problems on fear of victimization and changes in recreational and social out-of-door 

activity. Some findings provide support for a broken windows model of rural fear of 

crime. Others point to an altruism effect that supersedes crime fear and involves 

community members in out-of-doors activity in spite of increasing concerns of 

victimization. 

Product 2: Police Work and Culture in a Rural Environment 

0 

Research on small police departments is virtually unknown. This absence is 

striking in view of the large number of rural departments in the United States. Most 

police departments are small. Conventional attitudes towards rural policing are that 

rural environments are provincial. Unstudied is the way in which police adapted to the 

rural environments they police, or how their perceptions are altered by work in a rural 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
setting. Policy on rural policing has failed to recognize the extent to which the rural 

landscape is itself undergoing profound changes. 

0 

The purpose of this project was to conduct ethnographic research with deputies 

in a rural environment. This research describes deputies' work and its associated 

meanings so that we can begin to construct an informational base through which we 

can think about the viability and meaningfulness of policy. For policy to be effective, it 

has to be consistent with the meanings that officers carry about their work (Crank, 

1998). These meanings are most effectively studied through ethnographic research 

aimed at identifying meanings held by participants in any particular setting. 

0 : 

109 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 1 

Research Partnership Recommendations: 

1, Educational Television for Criminal Inmates: 

Does providing educational television to jail inmates v. allowing them to choose 

their own programming have an impact upon recidivism, the acquisition of life skills, the 

acquisition of improved social skills, etc.? Within each dormitory of the county jail we 

can provide cable or taped programming. We wonder if providing educational 

programming v. the normal run of cartoons and daytime television have an effect upon 

the life skills of the inmates. We have the opportunity to provide an experimental group 

and a control group. Our thought is that this would need to be a fairly long-term project, 

perhaps two years or more. 

2. Community Policing Enhancement: 

The partnership grant could be used to enhance our community policing program 

and support our COPS federal grant, while at the same time provide valuable 

information for us to use in directing the Sheriffs Office. We propose a comprehensive 

survey of Ada County citizens in which they are asked a number of questions, the 

answer to which will tell us: 

a 

b) 

c) 

What is the citizens' level of satisfaction with law enforcement? 

What do the citizens expect from law enforcement? 

What are the citizens' greatest concerns/fears that law enforcement 

should address? 

d) How can law enforcement improve its imagelstature with the public? 

cx 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
e) Would the public support local substations in de-centralized locations of 

the county? 

A survey such as this should have additional questions which provide pertinent 

demographic information. If publicized and explained adequately, the percentage of 

response could be greatly increased. Results could give information necessary to plan 

how to effectively deploy community policing officers. A follow-up survey in three to five 

years would give some indication of the results of our efforts. 

3. Public Access to Records: 

Technological issues should be explored which will allow the Sheriffs Office to 

provide needed information to the public, such as copies of accident reports for 

insurance/medical needs. With the ability to scan police reports and edit the 

information electronically when needed, the public should be able to obtain copies of 

accident reports and other police report information by modem, thus eliminating the 

need to visit the Public Safety Building. This data base would be kept short-term, 

perhaps 90 days, only for public access. The public would then be referred to the 

Department of Transportation, which is the legal office of record. The grant could pay 

for coordinating this effort with the transportation Department computer system. 

Taxpayer costs of duplicating the archival of reports by the Sheriff would be cut, and a 

quicker turn around time would be realized on analyses of accident criteria by traffic 

safety specialists. 

4. Radio Frequency Usage Plan: 

a 

The partnership grant could be used in support of developing a radio frequency 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
usage plan for all emergency services in Ada County. This plan should include an 

engineering study for proper placement and use of all conventional radio systems. 

Detail a concept of all emergency services being on one conventional frequency band 

and used to determine the need to migrate to a more sophisticated radio network. 

This may require the university to work with other institutions to gather the data 

necessary. Once developed, this study would require updating each two to three years 

to account for community expansion into rural areas not presently occupied, requiring 

radio frequency coverage, changes in the environment and upgrades in technology. A 

related topic would be exploring the consolidation of non-emergency radio networks 

such as the bus system, library vans, sewer trucks and other public works vehicles 

belonging to both the city and the county. This information would be gathered in order 

to present a well thought out approach to implementation. 

5. Management and Administration: 

01 

The partnership research program offers an opportunity to study the Sheriffs 

Office administration and organization for improvement, if such is necessary. Under 

direction of the Sheriff, the department now operates through three primary divisions, 

each headed by a commissioned officer of the rank of captain: (I) the Field Services 

Division, (2) the Security Services Division, and (3) the Administrative Service Division. 

Within each division there are individual sections headed by either a civilian 

commander or a commissioned lieutenant. These sections focus divisional 

responsibility on specific tasks, such as patrol, detectives, communications, records, 

jail, and so on. How effective is this organizational structure? Is there a way to improve 

the internal management of the Sheriffs Office, thereby enhancing job performance 

Ill 

0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
and overall efficiency? Is there unity of command and the correct span of control? 

6. Prisoner Population: 

e 

How can we explain the current drop in inmate population at the Ada County 

Jail? All previous forecasts have called for a progressive increase in the number of jail 

inmates housed. Contrary to these projections, we are finding that the population of the 

county jail is going down instead of up. What is contributing to this abnormality? Will it 

increase? Continue decreasing? Should current plans for expansion of the jail be 

revised downward to reflect a reduction in prisoner housing for Ada County? 

7. Employment: 

One of the most important aspects of Ada County government is employment of 

the men and women who will become deputy sheriffs and work for the county on a fulltime, permanent basis. The partnership study program presents an ideal opportunity to 

evaluate the current employment process and closely examine the Sheriff's preemployment procedures. Are employment applicants being handled in the most 

expedient manner? What can be done to better match the applicant with the job 

opening available? Is the Sheriffs current program of testing and evaluating applicants 

functioning at the optimum level? Can attrition be reduced by improving the 

employment process? 

8. Paperless Office: 

a 

This research project ties closely with Topic #3 "Public Access to records'' as 

listed on the previous pages of this correspondence. Although the paperless office has 

been the subject of much research by governmental agencies as well as private 

IV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
business, it may be actually possible to achieve an 'almost' paperless office within local law enforcement agencies. This 

is due primarily to current efforts by the Sheriff's Office to fully automate as many police records and functions as 

possible. The Sheriff has already taken a step in this direction by signing a computerlsoftware contract with PRC, Public 

Sector, Inc., a facilitator company headquartered in McLean, Virginia. 

This project would likely involve a multi-year commitment. The acquisition of computer hardware and software 

appropriate for the task at hand is time consuming, dedicated work if the results are to be successful. The study should 

yield: 

a) Analysis of paper flow within each division and section of the Sheriff's Office. 

b) Analysis of paper flow between divisions and sections. 

c) Analysis of paper flow between the Sheriffs Office and outside organizations, such as the courts, other 

governmental agencies, private business and the public. 

d) Implementation strategies. 

e) Costs - hardware, software, transition and training 

9 Legal questions or hurdles to overcome. 

9. Media Relations: 

One of the most beneficial things any law enforcement agency can do is foster, encourage and maintain a positive 

V 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
program of relating directly to all members of the local news media, both print and 

electronic. The Sheriff's Office's current method of dealing with the news media during 

both emergency and non-emergency situations should be examined. A study needs to 

be undertaken in which members of the news media are asked a host of specific 

questions bearing on this topic. What can local law enforcement do to enhance media 

relations? How can police be more responsive to media dateltime deadlines? How can 

information be made more immediately available? Is there some form of mutually 

beneficial technology that can be implemented on a cost-sharing basis? 

e 

VI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 2 

Project I: Full Statistical Findings 

"Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey" 

Section I: Citizen Fear of Crime 

Interviewer: How important are the following problems in the neighborhood where you live? On a 

scale of 7 to 5, where 5 is a big problem and 7 is a small one, please tell me the number that best 

describes your feelings on the issue. 

~ 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

1. People's home are being broken into and things stolen. 

2. People being robbed or having their purses or wallets stolen. 

3. People breaking into cars. 

4. Auto theft. 

Averaqe 

2 

1.69 

- 3 - 

1.37 

7.75 

1.43 

54 

1 

1 .I 

- 

2.0 9.9 

31.5 

54.1 

0.4 

0.5 2.7 

15.8 

78.2 

2.2 

3.7 9.9 

25.3 

56.9 

0.4 

0.4 2.5 

10.4 

VI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
6. Domestic violence. 

7. Drunk drivers. 

8. Child abuse or neglect. 

9. Vandalism -that is, breaking windows, writing things on walls, damaging 

mailboxes or other property. 

81.4 

1.98 1.0 

1.9 7.9 

19.1 

56.9 

1.93 2.2 

6.01 1.3 

21 .o 

55.0 

1.90 1.4 

2.0 6.5 

15.6 

64.6 

1.92 3.1 

5.713.3 

31.345. 

7 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

IO. Inadequate patrol services. 

Averaqe - 5- 4 32 

1.87 5.7 

4.8 9.7 

16.3 

Vlll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
11. Inadequate city government services. 2.03 

12. Physical decay - such as abandoned cars, run-down buildings, houses or farm 

buildings in disrepair. 1.58 

13. Lack of community interest in crime prevention activities. 

@ 14. Police-citizen relations. 

15. Garbage or litter on the streets or in front of someone's house. 

16. Parking problems. 

17. Bicycle violations or safety. 

1.95 

I .60 

1.58 

1.36 

1.61 

60.7 

3.8 

2.5 9.4 

12.4 

62.3 

2.4 

2.91 1.8 

15.567. 

4 

4.1 

3.210.8 

11.0 

63.6 

2.5 

1.5 6.1 

7.976.9 

2.4 

2.410.4 

18.6 

66.0 

1.7 

2.5 5.8 

10.3 

79.7 

3.2 

3.3 9.1 

IX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
18. Stray animals. 

19. Speeding. 

20. Excessive noise, such as barking dogs, loud parties, and loud car stereos. 

15.4 

68.0 

2.13 7.4 

7.216.1 

29.5 

39.7 

2.86 15.818. 

421.723 

.320.7 

1.99 

4.7 7.1 

13.530. 

044.4 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

32 

21. Poaching. 

Averaqe - 5 - 4 

1.18 

22. Disruption around schools; are young people hanging around making noise, 

vandalizing, or starting fights. 1.70 

- 1 

0.1 

0.4 1.0 

3.692.8 

0.9 

2.1 4.7 

X 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
23. Truancy; that is, kids not being in school when they should be. 

24. Shootings and violence by gangs. 

25. Drug dealing. 

26. Car being vandalized -- things like radio aerials or windows being broken. 

27. People or landlords allowing their property to become run down. 

28. Students fighting or causing disturbances on the way to and from school. 

29. Profanity or foul language by students in public areas. 

14.4 

70.7 

2.16 1.0 

2.9 7.2 

13.0 

60.8 

1.16 0.4 

0.2 2.4 

6.090.4 

1.80 3.0 

2.9 6.7 

9.870.3 

1.59 

2.0 2.6 

8.218.5 

67.2 

1.70 3.2 

4.110.9 

20.0 

61.2 

1.53 1.0 

1.2 4.7 

12.4 

75.9 

2.00 6.0 

8.71 0.7 

17.1 

XI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
e 30. Teenagers using drugs or alcohol. 

31. Teenagers hanging out. 

32. Gang violence. 

34. Graffiti. 

55.2 

2.17 5.0 

4.71 0.7 

15.1 

55.2 

1.73 2.7 

5.6 8.7 

16.4 

64.1 

1.26 0.6 

0.6 2.7 

4.589.3 

1.27 0.9 

1.2 3.3 

12.5 

81.9 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

35. Crack houses or Meth labs. 

36. Streets too dark at night. 

Average - 5 - 4 32 

1.35 1.2 

0.2 1.1 

2.989.7 

1.96 10.0 

5.81 1.5 

XI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
37. Homeless people or vagrants. 

38. Unsupervised youth, especially after school. 

39. Lack of recreatidn areas for kids. 

1.07 

1.89 

2.93 

12.7 

59.4 

0.1 

1.1 3.6 

3.695.0 

4.0 

5.012.8 

18.7 

56.7 

24.2 

11.419. 

71 0.2 

32.1 

Almost Every Day 2 or 3 Times a Week Once a Month Every Few Months Neve 

r 

5. 4 3 2 1 

Averaq 

---- e543

2-i 

41. How often do you observe what you think is gang activity in your neighborhood? 1.23 0.51.4 

4.0 8.4 

85.6 

1.62.5 

5.612.0 

42. How often do you observe what you think is drug activity in your neighborhood? 1.40 

Xlll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
77.8 

Interviewer: Next I would like you to assess the contribution of different groups and agencies to 

solving problems having to do with drugs and gangs. Please rate how you think the groups or 

programs below are helping with problems of teen-age drug use and with gangs. A 5 means thaf 

it is an importanf contribufion, a 3 means that if has no effect on the problem, and a I means that 

it is making the problem worse. 

Important Contribution Nothing Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 '3 2 1 

d) Gangs 

43. The Sheriffs Office. 

45. Local Business. 

47. The criminal justice system in general. 

Averaqe 3 4 

- 321 

4.37 30.8 

38.41 5. 

9 1.3 

0.6 

3.89 

7.428.8 

40.0 

4.71.5 

3.60 12.4 

33.622. 

513.3 

XIV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
* 49. YMCA. 

51. "Enough is Enough" and other community actions. 

53. DARE programs. 

55. The Juvenile court. 

57. The new state department of Juvenile Corrections. 4.20 

59. Churches and church-sponsored activity. 

61. The school district. 

63. Local treatment and rehabilitation programs. 

xv 

7.8 

4.39 27.932. 

420.2 

1.30.5 

4.52 41.3 

29.014. 

4 0.5 

0.6 

4.43 34.1 

31.716. 

3 1.6 

0.8 

3.65 10.6 

27.726. 

112.4 

8.2 

10.1 23.5 27.5 

4.84.2 

4.28 

32.141. 

814.6 

2.00.9 

4.01 22.0 

37.222. 

I 6.2 

2.3 

4.19 14.6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
31.724. 

5 4.2 

2.5 

Drugs 

44. The Sheriffs Office. 

46. Local Business. 

48. The criminal justice system in general. 

4.14 21.5 

37.223. 

2 3.3 

1.4 

3.71 

6.126.6 

43.3 

6.62.8 

3.62 11.0 

33.527. 

910.9 

6.6 

Important Contribution Nothing Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 3 2 1 

50. YMCA. 

52. "Enough is Enough" and other community actions 

XVI 

Averaqe 

4.32 

4.48 

54 

- 321 

24.034. 

322.6 

0.80.9 

39.1 

32.41 3. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
54. DARE programs. 

56. The Juvenile court. 

58. The new state department of Juvenile Corrections. 

60. Churches and church-sponsored activity. 

62. The school district. 

64. Local treatment and rehabilitation programs. 

4.42 

3.69 

4.19 

4.00 

4.20 

6 1.1 

0.5 

32.7 

33.716. 

2 1.8 

0.5 

10.0 

30.428. 

411.1 

6. I 

9.1 

25.126. 

3 5.6 

4.0 

4.26 

29.943. 

114.1 

2.41.1 

20.1 

40.221. 

6 5.6 

2.5 

17.2 

37.821. 

6 2.9 

2.1 

XVI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Interviewer: The following questions ask generally about neighborhood safety. On a scale of I to 

5, where I means never, and 5 means very often, please fell me how often you personally do the 

following. 

Very Often Occasionally Never 

5 4 3 2 1 

Ave 1 ra Q e - 5- 4 - 3- 2 - 

65. Social activity in the Neighborhood. 

66. Walk, jog, or ride a bike in the daytime. 

67. Walk, jog, or ride a bike in the evening. 

68. Walk, jog, or ride a bike at night. 

2.62 7.3 

1 5. I 32. 

420.2 

24.6 

3.34 23.4 

27.424. 

8 7.7 

16.5 

2.87 12.7 

20.331. 

311.9 

23.7 

1.91 

5.2 7.1 

15.41 7. 

754.5 

XVI I I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
70. Worry about other children. e 

71. Recreate outside the house but in the neighborhood. 

72. Recreate by watching television. 

73. About how many hours3 week do you watch television? 

3.30 17.4 

24.635. 

613.4 

8.6 

3.28 17.1 

29.429. 

91 0.5 

12.9 

3.40 

15.931. 

034.414 

.6 4.0 

Mean Hours 

27.93 Median 

hours 

10.00 

Interviewer: In the following set of questions I am going to ask you about safety in your 

neighborhood. I want to know if you think it's very safe, somewhat safe, neitherparficularly safe 

or dangerous, a ljttle dangerous, or very dangerous. 

~~~~~~~~ 

Very Safe Neutral Very Dangerous 

5 4 3 2 1 

XIX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
77. How safe is your neighborhood during the day? 

78. How safe is your neighborhood after dark? 

79. How safe is downtown Boise during the day? 

e 80. How safe is downtown Boise after dark? 

Averaqe 5 4 

321 

4.55 61.2 

34.9 

2.5 1.0 

0.5 

4.19 36.5 

49.51 0. 

2 3.1 

0.5 

4.16 20.6 

49.415. 

I 3.5 

1 .o 

3.36 3.3 

26.229. 

924.7 

4.0 

interviewer: Now I'm going to read some statements people have made about crime. For each 

please fell me how worried or concerned you are. Please score from I to 5, where a score of 5 

means that you are very worried and a score of 1 means that you are not worried at all. 

Very Worried Somewhat Worried Not Worried 

5 4 3 2 1 

Ave ra q e - 5 - 4 22 

xx 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
81. I’m worried about being a victim of a gang crime. e 

82. I’m worried about being the victim of a non-gang crime. 

84. 

85. 

2.46 

5.820.1 

16.429. 

528.2 

2.90 8.6 

33.41 5. 

824.3 

17.9 

I’m worried that gang members will hurt some member in the household. 2.43 8.3 

19.510. 

928.8 

32.3 

I might be afraid if a stranger stopped me to ask for directions. 2.70 10.7 

25.212. 

524.4 

26.8 

Do you have any children? Yes - Yo - N No “/o (N) 

53.6 (432) 46.4 (374) 

IF YES: How many do you have? 

0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children - 6 

Childre 

- n7 

C hildre 

- n 

32.4 (140) 37.7 (163) 20.1 (87) 5.3 (23) 3.0 (1 3) 0.9 

(4) 0.2 

XXI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
(1) 

IF RESPONDENT HAS CHILDREN, COMPLETE NEXT FIVE QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE SKIP THEM. 

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

5 4 3 2 1 

89. I worry about my children getting involved in drugs. 

90. I worry about my children getting involved in gangs. 

83. I'm afraid that a gang will hurt my child or children. 

Averaae 5 3 

- 321 

3.38 29.6 

31.7 

6.01 1.6 

20.8 

2.62 15.7 

20.8 

8.119.2 

35.9 

3.1~ 16.0 

34.01 1. 

320.8 

17.6 

88. There are certain areas of the community where my children are afraid to walk. 2.51 9.3 

14.414. 

421.1 

XXI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
' Section II: Sheriffs Office Service Needs 

36.8 

Listed below are some questions that let us look at the relationship between the Sheriffs Office 

and the general public. When selecting the best answer, please try to answer ONLY in terms of 

the Sheriff's Office. While you may have had good or bad incidents with other departments, on 

this survey please gauge your answer in terms of the Sheriff's Office. They are distinguished by 

the brown uniforms and red shoulder patches that they wear. Please tell me if you strongly 

disagree, disagree, are neutral, agree, or strongly agree with the following statements. 

Strongly Agree Neutral 

5 4 3 2 

Strongly Disagree 

1 

Average 

91. Most citizens are really interested in the problems faced by the Sheriffs Office. 3.45 

a 

92. There are few dependable personal ties between the Sheriffs deputies and the 

public. 3.24 

93. Friendship between the Sheriffs Office and citizens is easy to develop. 3.53 

54 

321 

17.1 

36.220. 

71 9.4 

5.2 

9.1 

27.524. 

820.5 

11.2 

21 .o 

33.01 8. 

416.9 

7.6 

94. Deputies seem content staying in their patrol cars rather than interacting with 

xxlll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
citizens. 

95. Citizens and Sheriffs Deputies work together in solving problems. 

96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 

100. 

101. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually fair. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually courteous. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually honest. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually intimidating. 

In general, Deputies treat all citizen equally according to the law. 

Deputies show concern when asked questions. 

3.24 15.6 22.3 22.8 20.0 13.5 

3.75 20.3 38.5 22.5 10.8 

3.5 

4.05 28.2 45.7 15.6 4.6 2.1 

4.28 41.2 42.4 10.3 2.0 1.5 

4.18 33.4 43.4 16.0 2.0 1.1 

2.96 12.4 24.4 17.2 24.7 18.5 

3.64 22.2 37.3 14.4 13.5 8.3 

4.11 30.4 43.7 15.8 2.9 2.4 

Strongly Agree 

5 4 

Neutral 

3 2 

Strongly Disagree 

1 

Ave raq e - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

103. Deputies should spend more time talking to people about their problems. 3.78 24.2 30.6 25.1 8.7 5.3 

104. Deputies should spend more time than they do investigating serious crime, 

serious criminals, and suspicious persons. 3.60 20.5 32.5 23.7 11.7 7.2 

Deputies should spend more time working with individuals and groups to solve 

problems. 3.90 24.7 38.7 21.5 6.7 3.3 

105. 

XXlV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
106. Deputies should give tickets for even minor law violations so that people will 

obey laws in the county. 

107. Deputies should spend more time on traffic enforcement. 

2.89 

3.16 

12.4 22.0 18.0 27.2 

18.5 

13.5 26.3 23.1 23.7 

10.8 

Interviewer: The Sheriff's Deparfment is preparing to launch an Internet site web page in September. We are trying to find out what kinds 

of information the public would like to see on it. Please tell me how much you would be interested in the following information, where a score of 5 

means that you would be very interested and a score of 1 means that you have no interest whatsoever. 

Very Interested Somewhat Interested N eu tra I Somewhat Interested No Interest 

5 4 3 2 1 

108. 

109. 

Current crime reports in Ada County. 

A description of the different programs offered by the Sheriffs department. 

1 IO. Activities and meetings of neighborhood watch groups. 

Average 

3.94 

4.17 

4.04 

- 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

29.4 42.7 7.9 4.2 10.2 

37.2 41.3 6.3 2.1 

7.1 

33.4 40.8 7.3 4.0 8.7 

xxv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
111. 

112. 

113. 

114. 

115. 

116. 

More information about the jail. 3.15 12.8 29.7 16.6 12.9 

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Neutral Somewhat Interested No Interest 

5 4 3 2 1 

Averaqe - 5 

Current news -- for example, what some of the officers are doing, awards, 

current training activity. 3.62 16.7 

More information on bicycle and horse patrols. 3.39 15.4 

More information on DARE. 3.87 27.5 

A question and answer section where I can ask questions. 4.28 49.0 

Information about community policing and crime prevention activity. 4.21 39.8 

- 4 

45.0 

35.9 

40.1 

31.1 

40.9 

- 3

12.5 

14.9 

9.1 

4.2 

3.5 

- 2 

6.6 

10.0 

5.1 

1.4 

2.0 

22.2 

- 1 

13.4 

17.9 

11.5 

8.6 

7.8 

Interviewer: The following questions ask about any recent contacts you might have had with the Sheriff's Depatfment. If you have had any 

of the following kinds of contact, please tell me if the service you received was very bad, somewhat bad, neutral, good, or excellent. 

~ ~ ~ 

Very Bad Somewhat Bad N eu t rat Good Excellent 

1 2 3 4 5 

Was there contact for: If there was contact, quality of contact: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
120. 

122. 

124. 

126. 

128. 

130. 

132. 

- % 

Traffic violation. 

Information/request for service. 20. I 

Visited the jail. 2.7 

Incarcerated in jail. 0. I 

Arrested. 0.7 

Reported crime. 

Dispatch -- 91 1 (all calls go to the 

county dispatcher first). 

11.5 

0% 0 

10.4 (84) 88.7 

(162) 79.2 (638) 

(22) 96.5 (778) 

(1) 99.1 (799) 

(6) 98.5 (794) 

16.6 (134) 82.8 

(93) 87.7 (707) 

Ave raq e 

(71 5) 

4.15 

3.86 

3.00 

4.00 

(667) 

4.33 

- 5 - 4 - 3- 2 - 1 

3.55 3.3 23.8 19.0 11.9 

11.9 

45.1 38.3 7.4 4.9 4.3 

18.2 45.5 22.7 9.1 

100.0 

50.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 

3.96 40.3 37.3 8.2 6.0 

8.2 

55.9 32.3 4.3 4.3 3.2 

Section 111: The Community Policing Mandate 

Interviewer: Now I'm going to ask if you are familiar with some programs run by the Sheriff's Depattment. Please answer according to 

your degree of knowledge about fhe program. 

I or my Family Participate or Have Heard of it I Have Heard of it, Some Knowledge 

5 4 3 2 

I am Not Familiar 

1 

133. School Resource Officers. 

Averaqe - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

2.30 42.8 43.8 13.2 

XXVl I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
134. 

135. 

136. 

137. 

138. 

139. 

140. 

141. 

Neighborhood Watch. 2.03 19.5 

Vacation Watch. 2.69 74.4 

Home-business Security Surveys. 2.84 85.5 

Crime Stoppers. 2.23 29.2 

Employee Robbery Prevention Training. 2.79 83.3 

Inmate Training programs. 2.75 76.4 

Inmate Substance Abuse programs. 2.70 71.7 

Landlord-tenant Dispute Resolution. 2.77 79.5 

Interviewer: The Sheriff's Office is adding programs that are guided by a philosophy called Communify Oriented Policing. 

63.9 16.5 

20.0 5.5 

12.4 2.0 

64.0 6.7 

12.5 4.1 

21.6 1.9 

26.2 1.9 

17.7 2.6 

These programs 

are increasingly popular in major cities, and they are guided by police-citizen cooperative arrangements. Some of the programs that have 

evolved from this philosophy that the Sheriff's Office currently has in place are the neighborhood watches, crime prevention programs, 

DARE programs, home-business security surveys, and dispute resolution between landlords and tenants. Please indicate whether you 

strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about police priorities and Community 

Oriented Policing programs. 

Strongly Agree 

5 

Agree 

4 

Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 

3 2 1 

Averaqe 

142. I think police should concentrate more on catching criminals than on working 

XXVl I I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
143. 

144. 

145. 

146. 

147. 

148. 

with the public. 

I think Community Oriented Policing is a good use of resources if it can be 

shown that these programs lead to reduced crime. 

I think police should put more officers on the streets even if it means reducing 

other services such as traffic control, crime analysis, volunteer services, and 

other non-patrol functions. 

I think Community Oriented Policing is just another name for coddling criminals 

and people on welfare. 

I think Community Oriented Policing sounds like the direction all police will have 

to take if we are to reduce drugs, gangs, and crime. 

I think that the County should hire more police officers even if other essential 

services have to be cut. 

I think citizens must take more responsibility through programs such as 

Neighborhood Watch for the safety of their neighborhoods. More police officers 

alone can never solve the problem of crime. 

2.79 

4.42 

2.92 

2.33 

4.03 

2.93 

9.3 20.5 24.6 29.4 15.9 

51.5 40.7 5.3 0.9 1.1 

9.9 23.0 22.6 29.2 13.6 

4.2 6.8 16.9 24.3 40.2 

33.4 41.2 14.4 7.3 1.7 

8.8 23.1 24.9 25.4 15.0 

4.54 62.8 31.1 3.3 1.9 0.7 

Interviewer: The average offender in the Ada Countyjail has 14 prior arrests, including driving with a suspended license, DUl, petty theft, 

possession of rnarguana, and failure to appear. Do you believe that a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail for this offender, with time off for 

good behavior, is too harsh, about right, or too lenient? 

XXlX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
~ 

Too Harsh About Right Too Lenient 

3 2 1 ~ 

Averaqe 

A maximum penalty of one year for this offender is ... 1.54 

2 - 1 

5.1 29.5 60.5 

- 3 - 

Don’t Know Alternative Jail 

3 2 1 

Averaqe 

If you had to choose between jail and alternative, non-incarceration punishments, 1.97 

which would you choose? 

2 - 1 

9.7 63.9 21.7 

- 3 - 

Section IV: Background Questions, 

Interviewer: These final questions deal with aspects of your personal background. This information is needed in order to make sure that 

people from all walks of life are represented in the survey. 

149. Ethnicity 

%(N) “/om 

xxx 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
150. 

151. 

- % 

2.9 

4.2 

10.3 

152. 

- % 

0.2 (2) Black/Afro-American 

1 .I (290) Native Americanhdian 

94.7 (763) CaucasianMIhite 

1 .o (8) Mexican-American-Hispanic 

1 .o (8) Other 

1 .I (9) Asian American 

Gender 

%(N) "/om 

36.0 (290) Male 64.0 (516) Female 

Please check the highest level of schooling you have achieved: 

0 "/om 

(23) Not a High School Graduate 16.0 (129) Bachelor Degree 

(34) Some Graduate course work 32.0 (258) Some College 

(83) Associate Degree 1.4 (11) Other 

What is your present occupation? Please select only one. 

m %(N) 

9.4 (76) Self Employed 24.7 (19s 

16.7 (135) Homemaker 

1.9 (15) Farmer, rancher, fisher, etc. 15.0 (121 

%(N) 

25.4 (205) High School GraduateIGED 

7.8 (63) Graduate Degree 

%(N) 

Professional (lawyer, 11.3 (91) 

accountant, doctor, etc.) 1.6 (13) 

White collar (office 0.2 (2) 

XXXl 

Manual worker (blue collar) 

Business Owner 

Executive 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
2.6 (21) Student 

13.5 (109) Other 

worker, Staff, etc.) 2.6 (21) Unemployed 

Please indicate your approximate family income before taxes in 1996: 

Median Income: $25,000 to $29,000 Mean Income: $30,000 to $49,000 

Percentaae Income Ranqe Percentaqe Income Ranqe Percentaqe Income Ranqe 

1.5 less than $4,000 4.8 $10,000 to $14,999 8.6 $25,000 to $29,999 

1.7 $4,000 to $6,999 5.3 $15,000 to $19,000 

1.9 $7,000 to $9,999 6.6 $20,000 to $24,999 32.6 $50,000+ 

29.3 $30,000 to 49,999 

154. Are you a homeowner or a renter? %(N) %30 

86.6 (698) Homeowner 12.4 (100) Renter I 

155. Type of residence (check one). 

%(N) %(N) - % 0 

2.6 (21) Apartment 7.4 (60) Mobile Home 87.0 (701) Single Family Home 

0.7 (6) Condominium 1.2 (IO) Duplex I .o (8) Other 

XXXl I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
156. How long have you lived in Ada County? 

Median years: 14.0 Mean Years: 82.57 

157. How long have you lived in your current neighborhood? 

Median Years: 5.0 Mean Years: 8.53 

158. What is you age? 

Median Years: 42.50 Mean years: 44.66 

XXXl I I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 3 

Project Ill: Ada County Sheriff's Office Internet Site 

"Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey" 

Stat istica I Summary 

Interviewer: The Sherivs Deparfment is preparing to launch an Internet site web page in September. We are trying to 

find out what kinds of information the public would like to see on it. Please tell me how much you would be interested in 

the following information, where a score of 5 means that you would be very interested and a score of 7 means that you 

have no interest whatsoever. 

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Neutral Somewhat Interested No Interest 

5 4 3 2 1 

108. Current crime reports in Ada County. 

109. A description of the different programs offered by the 

Sheriff's department. 

110. Activities and meetings of neighborhood watch groups. 

Average - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2- 1 

3.94 29.4 42.7 7.9 4.2 10.2 

4.17 37.2 41.3 6.3 2.1 7.1 

4.04 33.4 40.8 7.3 4.0 8.7 

XXXIV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Ne u t ra I Somewhat Interested No Interest 

5 4 3 2 1 

11 1. More information about the jail. 

112. Current news -- for example, what some of the officers 

are doing, awards, current training activity. 

113. More information on bicycle and horse patrols. 

114. More information on DARE. 

115. A question and answer section where I can ask questions. 

116. Information about community policing and crime prevention 

activity. 

Average - 5 - 4- 3 - 2 - 1 

3.15 12.8 29.7 16.6 12.9 22.2 

3.62 16.7 45.0 12.5 6.6 13.4 

3.39 15.4 35.9 14.9 10.0 17.9 

3.87 27.5 40.1 9.1 5.1 11.5 

4.28 49.0 31.1 4.2 1.4 8.6 

4.21 39.8 40.9 3.5 2.0 7.8 

xxxv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 4 

Performance and Evaluation Documents 

PERFORMANCE APPWSAL 

Name Assignment 

Rank Supervisor 

AppraisaI Date Prior Supervisor 

Date last Appraisal 

Overall Rating: 

Below Above 

Standard Standard Standard NIA 

Overall Performance Rating 

_1 

] General Field Operations 

a XXXVl 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Below 

Standard 

- 

Standard 

r 

Above 

Standard 

I 

N/A 

- 

.- I 

0 XXxVl I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Ill. Physical Disorder 

A. Types of group activities aimed at the problems of physical disorder. 

IV. Anti-Drug Initiatives 

A. Types of individual and group initiatives aimed at drug use (demand). 

B. Types of individual and group initiatives aimed at low-level drug dealing 

(supply). Number of drug houses closed, number of arrests, number of 

open drug markets closed. 

XXXVI I I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
XXXIX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
V. Special Groups (Juveniles, youth gangs, women, the elderly, the disabled, the 

unemployed, the poor, etc.). 

A. Individual and group proactive initiatives aimed at the special needs of 

the fragile, troubled or uniquely vulnerable groups. 

B. Note in particular those occasions when the community police officer 

provided specific support to fami0ies. 

VI. Networking 

A. Types of contacts (in person, telephone, correspondence) with: citizens, 

community leaders, business owners/managers, corporate officials, and 

other social service or city service providers. 

XL 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
XLI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
VI I. Referrals 

A. Type of referrals to other agencies (private and public). 

VIII. Intelligence Gathering/lnformation Sharing 

A. Occasions when the officer received useful information that contributed to 

resolving a crime, disorder or drug problem. Number of occasions 

information was shared with others in the department. 

IX. Innovation 

A. Documentable incidents where the community policing officer has 

demonstrated an imaginative approach toward problem solving. 

XLll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
X. Overall Performance Ratings a 

A. Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory (Explain) 

Supervisor 

Division Commander 

Community Officer 

Chief of Police 

e XLlll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
LUMBERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Community Police Officer 

Perform an ce Eva I u at i o n 

Officer's Name 

From To 

Eva I uat io n Period 

Date Completed 

I. Communications 

A. Community Meetings. (How many, what kind, number of people in 

attendance. Did officer attend, organize or both?) 

B. Newsletters (Size, Frequency, Number of Readers) 

C. Presentations. (Number of group, size of audience, subject, time spent) 

XLlV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
D. Security surveys. (Number of security surveys conducted to enhance 

crime prevention activities) 

E. Media contacts. (News releases, interviews, etc.) 

F. Neighborhood surveys. (Location and results of neighborhood surveys) 

II. Social Disorder 

A. Types of group projects aimed at the problem of social disorder 

XLV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
a 

XLVl 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
H citizen satisfaction. 

H repeat business. 

R displacement. and 

R neighborhood indicants (e.g., truancy rates. traffic pacterns, occupancy rates, presence and actions 

taken by neighborhd groups. etc.) 

The Houston task force (WycoFfand Oettmeier 1993a) based the creation of new performance criteria on tasks 

FIGURE 7 

Tas ks/Activities 

Activities are listed beneath the tasks they are intended to accomplish. 

Several activities could be used to accomplish a number of different tasks. 

1. Learn characterlstics Of area, residents, businesses 

a Study beal books 

b. Analyze crime and calls-for-service data 

c. Drive. walk area and make notes 

d. Talk with community representatives 

e. Condua area surveys 

f. Maintain arealsuspecl logs 

g. Read area papers (e.g.. 'shopper' papers) 

h. Discuss area with citizens when answering calls 

1. Talk with private security personnel in area 

j. Talk with area business ornerdmanagers 

2. Become acquainted with leaders In area 

a. Attend community meelings. including service club 

meelings 

b. Ask questions in survey abcut who formal and informal area leaders are 

c. Ask area leaders for names of other leaders 

3. Make residents aware of who offlcer is and what 

she Is trying to accornpllsh In area 

a Initiate citizen contacts ' 

b. Distribute business cards 

c. DISCUSS purpose at cwnmunity meeting 

d. Discuss purpcse when answering calls 

e. Write article !or lccal paper 

f. Contact homebound elderly 

g. Encwrage citizens to contact offlcer directfy 

4. Identify area problems 

a Attend community meetings 

b. Analyze crime and calls-for-sewice data 

c. &tact citizens and businesses 

d. Conduct business and residential surveys 

e. Ask about other problems when answering calls 

5.' Communlcate with supervlsors, other officers 

and citizens about the nature of the area and its 

problems 

a Maintain beal bulletin board in station 

b. Leave notes in boxes of other officers 

c. Discuss area with supervisor 

6. Investlgatddo research to determine sources of 

problems 

a Talk lo people invclved 

b. Analyze crime data 

c. Observe situation if possible (stakewt) 

7. Plan ways of dealing with problem 

a. Analyzeresources 

b. Discuss with supervisor. mer officers 

c. Write Patrol Management Plan, rsw'ew with 

supervisor 

8. Provide citizens information about ways they can 

handle problems (educatdempower) 

a. Distribute crime prevention information 

b. Pm.de names and number of other respwible 

agencies: teli citizw hav to approach these 

agencies 

9. Help citizens develop appropriate expectations 

about what pollce can do and teach them how to 

Interact effectively wlth pollce 

a Attend community meetings/ make presentations 

b. Present school programs 

c. Write micle for area paper 

d. Hold discussions with community leaders 

. 1 .- 

10. Develop resources for responding to problem 

a TaJk with other onicers, detectives. supemisors 

b. Talk with other agencies OT individuals who could help 

11. Implement problem solution 

a Take whatever actin are called for 

12. Assess effectiveness of solution 

a. Use data, feedback frwn persons who experienced 

the problem. andor personal observation to determine 

whether problem has been solved 

13. Keep citizens Informed 

a Off ken tell citizens what steps have been taken to 

address a problem and with what results 

b. Detectives tell citiiens what is happening with their 

CaSeS 

XLVlI 

0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 5 

Project II: Full Statistical Findings 

"Community Gang Prevention Team Survey" 

Section I: Fear of Crime 

How imporfant are the following problems in the community or area where you live? Please use the following scale to write the number 

that best describes your feelings. 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

Ave raq e 

I. Disruption around schools; are young people hanging around making noise, 

vandalizing, or starting fights. 2.13 

2. Truancy; that is, kids not being in school when they should be. 2.26 

3. Shootings and violence by gangs. 1.76 

4. Drug dealing on the streets. 2.26 

5. Gangs trying to take over the neighborhood. 1.54 

6. Cars being vandalized -- things like radio aerials or windows being broken. 

- 5 

3.6 

5.6 

6.3 

10.9 

2.9 

2.31 

10.3 

6.0 

3.5 

10.1 

4.2 

7.7 

- 3 

21.7 

27.4 

11.0 

15.7 

5.8 

11.8 

- 2 

27.3 

31.5 

21.2 

21.8 

18.3 

13.4 

- 1 

37.2 

29.4 

58.0 

41.5 

68.8 

38.2 

28.9 

XLVIII 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
7. Cars being stolen. 1.67 4.1 4.1 7.4 26.7 57.6 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

People being attacked or robbed. 

People or landlords allowing their property to become run down. 

Students fighting or causing disturbances on the way to and from school. 

Profanity or foul language by students in public areas. 

Teenagers using drugs or alcohol. 

Teenagers hanging out. 

Gang violence. 

Overgrown or vacant lots. 

Gang activity. 

Graffiti. 

Crack houses. 

Meth labs. 

Homeless or vagrants. 

Averaqe 

1.68 

2.21 

1.85 

2.99 

2.78 

2.49 

1.82 

1.78 

1.79 

1.86 

1.75 

2.07 

1.97 

- 5 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

4.1 5.8 7.0 22.3 60.7 

5.6 9.3 21.8 27.0 36.3 

3.8 5.8 12.9 27.9 49.6 

21.6 18.0 20.8 19.2 20.4 

14.3 19.7 21.4 20.2 24.4 

8.7 16.5 21.1 23.6 30.2 

4.6 7.1 10.8 22.4 55.2 

4.5 4.1 10.7 27.0 53.7 

4.6 5.0 12.0 24.5 53.9 

3.3 8.2 13.5 25.0 50.0 

9.1 3.9 6.5 18.1 62.5 

11.2 8.2 10.7 12.9 57.1 

5.4 9.1 15.4 19.5 50.6 

XLlX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Big Problem Somewhat of a Problem No Problem 

5 4 3 2 1 

Averaae - 5 4 - 3 

21. Unsupervised youth, especially after school. 2.58 15.3 14.0 15.3 

22. Lack of recreation areas for kids. 2.67 15.6 14.4 22.2 

23. Gunfire. I .54 5.4 1.7 7.0 

24. Speeding. 2.99 15.0 18.2 32.4 

25. In the past 12 months, have you or any member of your family been threatened or bothered by a gang member? 

- YES - NO - Mean Median 

4.4 (1 1) 95.6 (241) I .96 2.0 

Please use the following 5-point scale to respond to the questions below. 

- 2 - 1 

26.9 28.5 

17.3 30.5 

15.7 70.2 

20.6 13.8 

Almost Every Day 2 or 3 Times a Week Once a Month Every Few Months Never 

5 4 3 2 1 

26. 

27. 

How often have you observed gang activity in your neighborhood? 

How often have you observed drug activity in your neighborhood? 

Average - 5 - 4 - 3 

1.31 1.2 2.4 3.6 

1.37 1.6 2.0 

- 2 - 1 

12.7 80.2 

3.6 17.9 

75.0 

L 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
The following 5-point scale refers to the questions below it. Please rate your thoughts about gang and drug activity in your neighborhood. 

Gone up a lot About the Same Gone Down a lot 

5 4 3 2 1 

Averaqe - 5 3 - 3 - 2 - 1 

28. During the past six months, do you think that gang activity in your 

neighborhood has gone up, stayed the same, or gone down? 2.81 2.6 3.9 74.6 11.0 7.9 

During the past six months, do you think that drug activity in your 

neighborhood has gone up, stayed the same, or gone down? 2.85 3.5 3.1 76.9 8.3 8.3 

The following 5-point scale measures the contribution of different groups and agencies to solving problems of drugs and of gangs. Please 

rate how you think the groups or programs below are helping with problems of teen-age drug use and with gangs. 

29. 

Gangs 

30. The Police. 

31. Local Business. 

Important Contribution No Contribution Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 3 2 1 

Averaqe - 5 - 4 - 3- 2 - 1 

4.21 50.2 30.8 12.2 1.4 5.4 

3.40 10.4 27.0 55.0 6.2 

LI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
32. The criminal justice system in general. 3.13 9.0 38.2 22.6 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

Important Contribution No Contribution Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 3 2 1 

YMCA. 

The City Recreation Department. 

“Enough is Enough” and other community action efforts. 

DARE programs. 

The Juvenile Court. 

The new state Department of Juvenile Corrections. 

Churches and church-sponsored activity. 

The School District. 

Local treatment and rehabilitation programs. 

Average - 5 

3.94 24.8 

3.80 20.4 

4.08 38.0 

3.94 30.7 

3.15 10.6 

3.26 11.4 

4.10 

3.50 15.2 

3.65 15.3 

- 4 

48.1 

43.2 

39.4 

40.5 

33.2 

34.6 

38.6 

39.3 

45.8 

- 3

24.3 

32.0 

18.1 

23.9 

28.8 

31.4 

39.5 

31.3 

29.1 

15.1 

- 2 

1.9 

2.9 

2.8 

2.9 

13.5 

11.9 

18.1 

9.5 

6.9 

1.4 

15.1 

1 

1 .o 

1.5 

1.9 

2.0 

13.9 

10.8 

2.8 

- 

0.9 

4.7 

3.0 

Important Contribution No Contribution Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 3 2 1 

LI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Drugs 

42. The Police. 

43. Local Business. 

Average - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - I 

4.27 53.1 29.4 11.4 1.8 4.4 

3.43 9.3 32.1 51.6 6.0 

0.9 

Important Contribution No Contribution Making the Problem Worse 

5 4 3 2 1 

44. 

45. YMCA. 

46. The City Recreation Department. 

47. 

48. DARE programs. 

49. The Juvenile Court. 

50. 

51. Churches and church-sponsored activity. 

The criminal justice system in general. 

“Enough is Enough” and other community action efforts. 

The new state Department of Juvenile Corrections. 

52. The School District. 

Averaqe - 5 

3.09 9.7 

3.89 21.5 

3.78 19.1 

4.20 44.9 

4.08 35.0 

3.15 12.6 

3.25 12.1 

4.1 1 

3.49 14.9 

4 

37.3 

50.0 

44.0 

36.9 

44.4 

31.2 

33.2 

36.9 

39.1 

- 3 

20.3 

25.2 

32.5 

14.7 

16.4 

27.9 

32.1 

43.2 

33.0 

- 2 

16.1 

2.8 

2.9 

I .8 

2.8 

13.5 

11.1 

16.2 

7.0 

1 

16.6 

0.5 

1.4 

1.8 

1.4 

14.9 

11.6 

2.7 

- 

0.9 

6.0 

Llll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
53. Local treatment and rehabilitation programs. 3.73 15.9 51.7 23.2 6.3 2.9 

The following questions ask generally about neighborhood safety. Please use the following 5-point scale to indicate how often you 

personally do the following. 

Very Often Occasionally Never 

5 4 3 2 1 

54. 

55. Social activity in Boise. 

56. 

Social activity in the Neighborhood. 

Walk, jog, or ride a bike in the daytime. 

Ave raq e - 5 

2.63 7.2 

3.14 16.4 

3.53 32.2 

Very Often Occasionally Never 

5 4 3 2 1 

57. 

58. 

Walk, jog, or ride a bike in the evening. 

Walk, jog, or ride a bike at night. 

Averaqe - 5 

2.95 15.6 

1.94 

4 

11.4 

18.7 

15.2 

4 

17.1 

6.5 

- 3 

38.8 

39.7 

34.1 

- 3 

34.2 

4.2 

2 

20.2 

15.3 

10.6 

- 

- 2 

I 

22.4 

9.9 

8.0 

- 

- 1 

14.1 19.0 

17.6 21.4 

50.4 

LIV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
59. 

60. Worry about other children. 

61. 

62. Recreate by watching television. 

Worry about the safety of your children. 

Recreate outside the house but in the neighborhood. 

3.00 24.2 13.1 26.7 11.9 24.2 

3.21 22.7 16.2 33.1 16.5 11.5 

3.32 18.1 27.4 29.7 16.6 8.1 

3.25 14.9 27.2 32.6 18.4 

6.9 

Please use the following scale to describe how fear of crime has caused a change in daily activities. 

Reduced Activities About the Same More activities 

5 4 3 2 1 

62. You personally. 

63. Your children. 

64. Others in the neighborhood. 

Averaqe - 5 4 - 3- 2- 1 

.3.03 4.7 8.1 77.9 4.7 4.7 

3.14 7.6 14.7 68.7 3.3 5.7 

3.02 2.6 10.7 77.8 4.7 4.3 

Is safefy in your neighborhood changing? Please use the scale below to answer the following questions. 

Becoming Safer About the Same More Dangerous 

5 4 3 2 1 

65. How safe is your neighborhood during the day? 

Averaqe - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

3.19 7.9 10.9 74.3 5.7 1.1 

LV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
66. 

67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 

73. 

74. 

75. 

76. 

How safe is your neighborhood after dark? 

How safe is downtown Boise during the day? 

How safe is downtown Boise after dark? 

2.81 2.3 7.2 66.8 16.6 7.2 

3.1 1 7.0 14.8 62.3 13.6 2.3 

2.23 2.0 6.7 26.9 40.3 24.1 

I’m going to present some statements people have made about crime. For each please use the following scale to indicate how worried or 

concerned you are. 

Very Worried Somewhat Worried Not Worried 

5 4 3 2 1 

I’m often worried about being a victim of a gang crime. 

I’m often worried about being the victim of a non-gang crime 

I’m afraid that a gang will hurt my child or children. 

I’m worried that gang members will hurt some member in the household. 

I might be afraid if a stranger stopped me to ask for directions. 

There are certain areas of the community where my children are afraid to walk 

I worry about my children getting involved in drugs. 

I worry about my children getting involved in gangs. 

Ave raq e 

1.98 

2.45 

2.28 

2.13 

2.41 

2.40 

2.72 

2.12 

- 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

3.8 2.7 22.4 30.0 41.1 

4.9 12.9 27.8 30.4 24.0 

8.1 11.9 15.7 28.4 36.0 

5.4 9.7 17.1 27.2 40.5 

6.1 9.5 29.9 26.5 28.0 

10.2 10.7 26.0 15.3 37.7 

17.3 12.3 23.6 15.0 31.8 

9.5 10.5 12.3 15.9 51.8 

For the following questions, please mark the appropriate answer. 

LVI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
- Yes No 

77. Do you personally know someone -- a family member, friend, neighbor --who now uses cocaine, marijuana, heroin, 

Meth or other illegal drug? 38.8 61.2 

Do you personally know of any family where a child or teenager (under 18) is selling drugs? 6.7 

93.3 

11.7 88.3 

8.3 91.7 

78. 

79. 

80. 

Do you personally know of anyone 18 or over selling drugs? 

Have you seen drug dealing in your neighborhood? 

81. 

82. 

Do you believe that there is drug dealing in your neighborhood? 

Do you have children that are currently in school or were in the past year (1996)? 

Please indicate the number of children in each grade and what school they attend: (frequencies are in parenthesis) 

0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 

83. Grade School 77.6 7.3 (18) 0.8 (2) (191) 14.2 (35) 

85. Middle School 86.3 (207) 9.6 (23) 2.9 (7) 1.3 (3) 

0.8 (2) 87. High School 84.0 (200) 12.6 (30) 2.5 (6) 

Please mark a box below, fo the best of your knowledge. 

yes& 

42.5 57.5 

38.6 

61.4 

LVI I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
- Yes 

- % - N 

89. Has your child seen drug dealing at school? 29.0 (29) 

90. Has your child seen evidence of gang activity at school? 34.7 (35) 

91. Was or is your child afraid to go to particular places at school 

because of gang activity? 7.1 (7) 

92. 

93. Does your child feel safe at school? 85.0 (85) 

Do you think that there is too much concern over gangs and drugs? 9.5 (IO) 

- No Missin_g (without 

children) 

N - N 

71.0 (71) 170 

65.3 (66) 169 

- % - 

92.9 (92) 171 

90.5 (95) 165 

15.0 (15) 170 

To the best of your knowledge, has your child reporfed either drug or gang activity to any of the following? Please mark the best answer. 

94. Teacher. 

95. School Resource Officer. 

96. Your parents. 

97. Your friends. 

- Yes - No Missing (without children) 

- %N- % N - N 

4.0 (4) 96.0 (96) 170 

5.0 (5) 95.0 (95) 170 

10.0 (IO) 90.0 (90) 170 

7.0 (11) 93.0 (146) 113 

LVI I I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
98. A parent - you or other parent. 21.5 (34) 78.5 (124) 112 

These final quesfions deal with aspecfs of your personal background. This information is needed in order to make sure that people from all 

walks of life are represented in fhe survey. 

99. Ethnicity 

0.8 (2) Asian American 0.8 ‘(2) Native American/lndian 

0.4 (1) BlackIAfro-American 0.4 (1) Other (Eastern Indian?) 

95.3 (245) CaucasianNhite 2.3 (6) Mexican-American-Hispanic 

100. Gender 51.2 (133) Male 48.8 (127) Female 

101. Please check the highest level of schooling you have achieved (frequencies in parenthesis). 

2.3 (6) 

13.0 (34) 

31.8 (83) 

8.8 (23) 

Not a High School Graduate 

High School Graduate or GED 

Some College (degree not completed) 

Associate Degree 

18.4 (48) 

8.4 (22) 

13.4 (35) 

3.8 (IO) 

Bachelor Degree 

Some graduate course work 

Graduate Degree 

Other 

102. What is your present occupation? Please select only one of the following. 

LIX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
1.5 (4) Farmer, rancher, fisher, etc. 8.5 (22) Manual worker (blue collar) 15.8 (41) Other 

11.2 (29) Professional (lawyer, accountant, 15.8 (41) Business owner 2.3 (6) Student 

doctor, etc). 23.1 (60) White collar (office worker, staff, etc) 13.8 (36) Homemaker 

6.5 (17) Executive 1.5 (4) Unemployed 

103. Please record the number of school age children living in your household: (Frequencies are in parenthesis) 

0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 

60.4 (151) 17.6 (44) 16.4 (41) 

5 Children 7 Children 15 Children 

0.4 (1) 0.8 (2) 0.4 (1) 

104. Please indicate your approximate family income before taxes in 1996: 

-- %N Rancre - % - N Ranae 

2.1 (5) less than $4,000 2.9 (7) $10,000 to $14,999 

0.4 (1) $4-000 to $6,999 1.6 (4) $15,000 to $19, 999 

2.1 (5) $7,000 to $9,999 5.8 (14) $20,000 to $24,999 

3 Children 4 Children 

2.4 (6) 1.6 (4) 

- % 

7.4 

28.8 

49.0 

- N Ranqe - N 

(18) $25,000 to $29,999 (27) Missing 

(70) $30,000 to $49,999 

(119) $50,000+ 

105. Are you a homeowner or a renter? Homeowner Renter 

86.3 (226) 13.7 (36) 

LX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
106. Type of residence (check one). 

- % - N 

6.2 (16) Apartment 

84.1 (217) Single family home 

3.1 (8) Duplex 

107. How long have you lived in Boise? 

18.7 (mean) 14.0 (median) in Years. 

- %- N 

2.7 (7) Mobile Home 

2.7 (7) Condominium 

1.2 (3) Other 

108. How long have you lived in your current neighborhood? 

10.3 (mean) 5.0 (median) in Years. 

LXI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

IO. 

APPENDIX 6 

Project IV: Full Statistical Findings 

Part One: “Sheriffs Deputy Survey’’ 

Strongly Agree Neu t ra I Strongly Disagree 

5 4 3 2 I 

Most citizens are really interested in the problems faced by the Sheriffs Office. 

There are few dependable personal ties between the Sheriffs deputies and the public. 

Friendship between the Sheriff‘s office and citizens is easy to develop. 

Deputies seem content staying in their patrol cars rather than interacting with citizens. 

Citizens and Sheriff‘s deputies work together in solving problems. 

Sheriff deputies are usually fair. 

Sheriff deputies are usually courteous. 

Sheriff deputies are usually honest. 

Sheriff deputies are usually intimidating. 

In general, deputies treat all citizens equally and according to the law. 

Average 5 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

2.71 0 26.8 24.4 41.5 7.3 

2.56 2.4 9.8 41.5 34.1 12.2 

3.85 24.4 46.3 19.5 9.8 0 

2.66 0 22.0 26.8 46.3 4.9 

3.46 4.9 48.8 17.1 26.8 

0 

4.29 43.9 46.3 7.3 0 2.4 

4.20 26.8 68.3 2.4 2.4 0 

4.32 46.3 43.9 4.9 4.9 0 

2.07 0 7.3 19.5 46.3 26.8 

3.76 14.6 58.5 14.6 12.2 0 

LXll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
11. Deputies show concern when asked questions. 3.83 12.2 61.0 24.4 2.4 0 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree 

5 4 3 2 1 

Averaqe 5 4 

Deputies should spend more time talking to people about their problems. 3.10 4.9 29.3 

Deputies should spend more time than they do investigating serious crime, serious criminals, 

and suspicious persons. 

Deputies should spend more time working with individuals and groups to solve problems. 

Deputies should give tickets for even minor law violations so that people will obey laws in 

the county. 

Deputies should spend more time on traffic enforcement. 

3.44 17.1 

3.59 17.1 39.0 

2.41 2.4 12.2 

3.10 7.3 

- 3 

48.8 

34.1 

34.1 

31.7 

26.8 

2 

9.8 

31.7 

4.9 

29.3 

39.0 

1 

7.3 

- 

9.8 

7.3 

4.9 

24.4 

22.0 

4.9 

LXlll 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Question 

Part Two: Independent Samples Test 

Mean Mean Mean 

Difference (Citizens) (Deputies) 

Most citizens are really interested in the problems faced by the 

Sheriff's Office. .74 

There are few dependable personal ties between the Sheriffs deputies and 

the public. 

Friendship between the Sheriff's office and citizens is easy to develop. 

Deputies seem content staying in their patrol cars rather than interacting 

with citizens. 

Citizens and Sheriff's Deputies work together in solving problems. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually fair. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually courteous. 

Sheriff Deputies are usually honest. 

.68 

-.33 

.58 

-.25 

.08 

-.13 

3.45 

3.24 

3.53 

3.24 

.28 

4.05 

4.28 

4.18 

2.71 

2.56 

3.85 

2.66 

3.75 3.46 

4.29 

4.20 

4.32 

LXlV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
w Sheriff Deputies are usually intimidating. .88 

w In general, Deputies treat all citizens equally according to the law. -.I1 

w Deputies show concern when asked questions. .29 

Deputies should spend more time talking to people about their problems. e .51 

Question Mean 

Difference 

w Deputies should spend more time than they do investigating serious crime, 

serious criminals, and suspicious persons. 

Deputies should spend more time working with individuals and groups to 

.34 

rn 

solve problems. 

rn Deputies should give tickets even for minor law violations so that people 

will obey laws in the county. 

Deputies should spend more time on traffic enforcement. 

.47 

.31 

.06 

2.96 

3.64 

4.12 

3.61 

Mean 

/Citizens1 

3.78 

2.89 

3.90 

3.16 

2.07 

3.76 

3.83 

3.10 

Mean 

lDeputiesl 

3.44 

3.59 

2.41 

3.10 

LXV 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Part Three: "Citizen Fear of Crime and Satisfaction With Sheriff Services Survey." 

91. 

92. 

93. 

94. 

95. 

96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 

100. 

101. 

Strongly Agree 

5 4 

Neutral 

3 2 

Strongly Disagree 

1 

Averaqe 3 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 

Most citizens are really interested in the problems faced by the Sheriffs office. 3.45 17.1 36.2 20.7 19.4 5.2 

There are few dependable personal ties between the Sheriffs's deputies and the public. 3.24 9.1 27.5 24.8 20.5 11.2 

Friendship between the Sheriffs office and citizens is easy to develop. 3.53 21.0 33.0 18.4 16.9 7.6 

Deputies seem content staying in their patrol cars rather than interacting with citizens. 3.24 15.6 22.3 22.8 20.0 13.5 

Citizens and Sheriff's deputies work together in solving problems. 3.75 20.3 38.5 22.5 10.8 

3.5 

Sheriff deputies are usually fair. 4.05 28.2 45.7 15.6 4.6 2.1 

Sheriff deputies are usually courteous. 4.28 41.2 42.4 10.3 2.0 1.5 

Sheriff deputies are usually honest. 4.18 33.4 43.4 16.0 2.0 1.1 

Sheriff deputies are usually intimidating. 2.96 12.4 24.4 17.2 24.7 18.5 

In general, deputies treat all citizens equally according to the law. 3.64 22.2 37.3 14.4 13.5 

8.3 

Deputies show concern when asked questions. 4.11 30.4 43.7 15.8 2.9 2.4 

LXVl 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
103. 

104. 

105. 

106. 

107. 

Deputies should spend more time talking to people about their problems. 3.78 24.2 30.6 

Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree 

5 4 3 2 I 

Averaqe 3 - 4 

Deputies should spend more time than they do investigating serious crime, serious criminals, 

and suspicious persons. 

Deputies should spend more time working with individuals and groups to solve problems. 

Deputies should give more tickets for even minor law violations so that people will obey 

laws in the county. 

Deputies should spend more time on traffic enforcement. 

3.60 20.5 

3.90 24.7 38.7 

2.89 12.4 22.0 

3.16 13.5 

25.1 

- 3 

32.5 

21.5 

18.0 

26.3 

8.7 

- 2 

23.7 

6.7 

27.2 

23.1 

5.3 

- 1 

11.7 

7.2 

3.3 

18.5 

23.7 

10.8 

LXVl I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Ada Planning Commission (1 996) Demographic Profile of Ada County. Public Record 

File. 

Albert, Geoffrey P. and Roger G. Dunham (1 988) Policing Multi-Ethnic Neighborhoods. 

New York: Greenwood Press. 

Bayley, D. and J. Garofalo (1 989) "The Management of Violence by Police Patrol 

Officers." Criminology 27: 1-26. 

Brown, M. K. (1981) Workinq the Street: Police Discretion and the Limits of Reform. 

New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1 994) Neiqhborhood Oriented Policing in Rural 

Communities: A Program Planninq Guide. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 

Research Forum. 

Cordner, Gary and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (I 994) "Neighborhood-Oriented 

Policing in Rural Areas: A Program Planning Guide." Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Govern men t Printing Off ice. 

Couper, D. and S. Lobitz (1991) Qualitv Policing: The Madison Experience. 

Washington, D.C. Police Executive Research Forum. 

Couper, D. and S. Lobitz (1993) "Leadership for Change: A National Agenda." The 

Police Chief (December) 15-1 9. 

Crank, John P. (1 990) "The Influence of Environmental and Organizational Factors on 

Police Style in Urban and Rural Environments." Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency 27: 166-89. 

LXVIII 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Crank, John (I 997) Celebrating Agency Culture: Engaging a Traditional Cop's Heart in 

Organizational Change. PP. 49-57 in Q, Thurman and E. McGarrell (eds.), 

Communitv Policinq in a Rural Setting. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. 

Crank, John (I 998) Understandins Police Culture. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. 

Crank, John and Michael Caldero (1999) The Corruption of Noble Cause: Police and 

a 

the Ethics of Power. Forthcoming. 

Dillman, Don (1984) Mail and Telephone Survevs: The Total Design Method. New 

York: John Wiley. 

Eck, J. and W. Spelman (1987) Problem-Solvinq: Problem Oriented Policinq in Newport 

News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Farr, James L. and Frank J. Landy (1979) ""The Development and Use of Supervisor 

and Peer Scales." Pp. 73 in C. D. Spielberger (ed.), Police Selection and a 

Evaluation: Issues and Techniques. New York: Praeger. 

Fine, Sidney (1986) "Job Analysis." Pp. 54-60 in R. A. Berk (ed.), Performance 

Assessment: Methods and Applications. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 

Press. 

Geller, W.A. and G. Swanger (1996) Innovation in Policinq: The Untapped Potential of 

the Middle Manaqer. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Goldstein, Herman (1 990) Problem Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Idaho Department of Law Enforcement (1995) Crime in Idaho. 1994. Meridian, Idaho: 

Bureau of Criminal Identification. 

Jolin, Annette and the Portland Police Bureau (1 995) Assessment of Community 

Policing Performance Within the Portland Police Bureau Domestic Violence a LXlX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Reduction Unit. PPB NIJ Project. School of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland 

State University. 

0 

Kelling, George and William Bratton (1 993) "Implementing Community Policing: The 

Administrative Problem." Perspectives on Policing # 17. Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice. 

LaFree, Gary and the Institute of Social Research (1 992) Citizen Satisfaction With the 

Police. Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center. 

Lawler, E, Ill (1971) Pav and Oraanizational Effectiveness: A Psvcholoqical View. New 

York: McGraw-Hill. 

Marx, Gary (I 986) "Alternative Measures of Police Performance." pp. 159-1 69 in M. 

Pogrebin and R. Regoli (eds.), Police Administrative Issues: Techniques and 

Functions. Millwood, NY: Associated Faculty Press. 

Mastrofski, Stephen D. (1 996) "Measuring Police Performance in Public Encounters." 

pp. 207-241 in L. T. Hoover (ed.), Quantifvinq Quality in Policinq. Washington, 

D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

0 

Mastrofski, Stephen D. and Robert C. Wadman (1 991). "Personnel and Agency 

Performance Measurement." Pp. 363-397 in W. Geller (ed.), Local 

Governmental Police Manaqement. Washington, D.C.: International City 

Management Association. 

McDonald, Thomas D. (1 996). "Some Economic Realities of Rural Criminal Justice." In 

Thomas D. McDonald et al, eds. Rural Criminal Justice. Salem, Wisconsin: 

Sheffield Publishing Company. 

McGarrell, Edmund, Elizabeth Langston, and Deborah Richardson (1 997) e LXX 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
"Implementation Issues: The Specialized Unit or Department-Wide Community 

Policing?" pp. 59-64 In Q. Thurman and E. McGarrell (eds.), Communitv Policing 

in a Rural Settinq. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. 

Moore, Mark H. and Robert C. Trojancowicz (1988). Policinq and the Fear of Crime. In 

Perspectives on Policing, U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government. 

Oettmeier, Timothy and Mary Ann Wycoff (1 995). "Police Performance in the Nineties: 

Practitioner Perspectives." Pp. 131-156 in G. W. Cordner and D. J. Kennedy 

(eds.), Manaqinq Police Organizations. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. 

Oettmeier, Tim and Mary Ann Wycoff (1 997) Personnel Performance Evaluations in the 

Communitv Policinq Era. Washington, D.C.: Community Policing Consortium. 

Scholtes, Peter (1987) A New View of Performance Evaluation. Paper presented to 

William G. Hunter Conference on Equality. Available from Joiner and 

0 

Associates, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 

Shoemaker, Donald J. and Clifton D. Bryant (1988) Crime in Virqinia. A Survey 

Conducted by the Department of 

Experiment Station at Virginia Tech, Virginia. 

Sims, Victor H. (1988) Small Town and Rural Police. Springfield, IL: Charles C. 

Sociology and the Agricultural 

Thomas. 

Sparrow, Malcolm, Mark Moore, and David Kennedy (1990) Beyond 91 1: A New Era for 

Policinq. United States: Harper Collins/Rasic Books. 

Stephens, Darrell (I 996) "Community Problem-Oriented Policing: Measuring Impacts." 

Pp. 95-130 in L. Hoover (ed.), Quantifyiriq - Qualitv in Policinq. Washington, D.C.: 

LXXl 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Police Executive Research Forum. 

Swanson, Charles R. and Leonard Territo (1 980) "Agricultural Crime: Its Extent, 

Prevention, and Control." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 49% 8-1 2. 

Thompson, Kevin M. (1996). "The Nature and Scope of Rural Crime." In Thomas D. 

McDonald et ai, eds. Rural Criminal Justice. Salem, Wisconsin: Sheffield 

Publishing Company. 

Weisheit, Ralph, David Falcone, and L. Edward Wells (1994) Rural Crime and Rural 

Policinq. Research in Action Brief, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

----, ----, ----, (I 995) Crime and Policinq in Rural and Small-Town America: An Overview 

of the Issues. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing a 

Office. 

Western Regional Institute for Community Oriented Public Safety (1 998) "Community 

Policing Assessment Report." Spokane, WA: WRICOPS. 

Wycoff, Mary Ann (I 982) "Improving Police Performance Measurement: One More 

Voice." The Urban Interest. Spring. 

Wycoff, Mary Ann and Timothy N. Oettmeier ('1993) Evaluatinq Patrol Officer 

Performance under Community Policinq: The Houston Experience. Research in 

Brief. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation. 

LXXl I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
ENDNOTES 

1 .The Ada County Sheriff's Office is currently changing its patrol style to one that 

provides beat integrity. Officers will received long-term assignments in the county and 

in Eagle and Kuna. 

LXXlil 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.