U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Community Policing and

”The New Immigrants“:

Latinos in Chicago

research report

 COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart

Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Cover photographs copyright © 1998 Digitalstock, and background photo © 1994 PhotoDisc, Inc. 
Community Policing and

”The New Immigrants“:

Latinos in Chicago

Wesley G. Skogan, Lynn Steiner, Jill DuBois,

J. Erik Gudell, and Aimee Fagan

Institute for Policy Research

Northwestern University

July 2002

NCJ 189908
Sarah V. Hart

Director

This program was supported under award number 94–IJ–CX–0046 by 

the National Institute of Justice, with funds transferred from the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the

authors and do not reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

and the Office for Victims of Crime.
iii

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A look at the Nation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A look at Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Characteristics of Latinos in Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The CAPS Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Problems in Chicago’s Latino Neighborhoods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Results from evaluation surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Results from city service records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Results from official crime reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Latinos’ Responses to the CAPS Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Integrating Latinos into CAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Awareness of CAPS among Latinos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Participation of Latinos in CAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Perceptions of the quality of policing among Latinos. . . . . . . . 17

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Latinos in Chicago

Summary

The influx of immigrants and the corresponding changes in the racial

and ethnic composition of the Nation’s population have placed significant demands on the infrastructure of the Nation’s public service

sector, particularly the criminal justice system. This is evident in

Chicago, where shifting population patterns are dictating how police

initiatives are being implemented.

The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy, known as CAPS, was

instituted on an experimental basis in a few police districts in April

1993. The initiative was designed to improve police effectiveness by

identifying and prioritizing problems and working with the community to solve the problems. When CAPS became a citywide effort in

spring 1995, law enforcement looked for ways to incorporate the city’s

diverse population in the initiative. An evaluation of the CAPS program—performed by Northwestern University and supported by the

National Institute of Justice, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information

Authority, and private organizations—began before CAPS was initiated citywide and continues to monitor its progress. From the evaluation, it has become clear that not all residents are reporting the same

benefits from the CAPS program.

This NIJ Research Report, the third in a series of four reports on community policing in Chicago, summarizes key findings from the evaluation to determine the extent to which CAPS has involved and/or

benefited different population groups and highlights the experiences

of Chicago’s “new immigrants,” particularly its burgeoning Latino

population.1 As summarized below, the evaluation found that despite

aggressive efforts, CAPS experienced difficulties integrating Latinos

into the program. More specifically, the evaluation found that—

● Latinos are one of Chicago’s most troubled populations, and they

have reaped comparatively fewer benefits than those enjoyed in

many other city neighborhoods, such as declining crime rates and

generally improving conditions.

● Awareness of CAPS was generally high, due in part to the city’s

aggressive marketing campaign. However, English-speaking Latinos

1
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

2

were far more aware of the program than Spanish-speaking Latinos

and depended less on television and radio to learn about the program. In fact, television did not prove to be an effective vehicle for

encouraging involvement in CAPS.

● Community involvement in CAPS was closely related to the violent crime rate in a particular neighborhood. Despite Latinos’ general perception that their neighborhoods were particularly problem

prone, their attendance at neighborhood beat meetings was relatively low. Such modest involvement by the Latino community

has been one of the program’s shortcomings.

● Chicago residents generally perceived that the quality of policing

improved during the 1990s. Perceived levels of police corruption

and misconduct remained stable. In contrast to the view of Chicago’s white residents, however, Latinos and blacks were still

skeptical about the quality of policing in their neighborhoods at

the end of the decade.

Before examining these results in more detail, this report describes

national and local population trends and characteristics of Chicago’s

Latino residents in an attempt to put the implications of this evaluation into clearer perspective. Because the changing composition of

Chicago’s population is representative of nationwide trends, these

findings may be relevant to a wider audience. The report then briefly

describes the CAPS program and discusses the crime problems of

Chicago’s Latino neighborhoods before noting how Chicago’s Latinos

view and have participated in CAPS.

Population Trends

An examination of the Nation’s and Chicago’s population trends

shows the implications of this evaluation. Because Chicago’s large and

diverse population is consistent with nationwide population patterns,

other jurisdictions may use the results of this evaluation when planning and implementing similar community policing initiatives.
Latinos in Chicago

A look at the Nation

Between 1990 and 1998, the Hispanic population in the United

States grew by an estimated 35 percent and the Asian population

grew by 41 percent. Currently, the U.S. population is approximately

12 percent Hispanic and 4 percent Asian. These groups—younger

and with larger families—are projected to account for more than half

of the Nation’s population growth over the next 50 years. The U.S.

Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the U.S. population will be 25

percent Hispanic and 8 percent Asian; non-Hispanic whites will constitute a bare majority, at 52 percent.

More difficult to project is the impact that immigration could have on

these figures. About 9 percent of the U.S. population is foreign born,

and the bulk of immigrants now arriving come from Spanish-speaking

and Asian nations. As the growth of the white and black populations

slows, the traditional concepts of “majority” and “minority” will

change continually.

A look at Chicago

Chicago mirrors these national trends. Long an entrepôt, Chicago is

the third most popular destination city for new immigrants. Since the

1990 census, the city has become home to tens of thousands of newly

documented immigrants from Mexico alone, and large numbers of

undocumented immigrants. Smaller numbers of immigrants also have

arrived from the Middle East, the Philippines, and Poland. The city’s

Chinatown neighborhood is expanding in several directions, and

refugees from Southeast Asia are forming new communities of their

own. Members of each group arrive with established views of how to

relate to the police—and government in general—and find themselves

accommodating these views to a new environment and America’s

big-city problems.

3
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

4

Characteristics of Latinos in Chicago

In 2000, the city’s Latino population (754,000) exceeded the total

population of all but 13 U.S. cities. Exhibit 1 illustrates the police

beats in Chicago with the largest concentrations of Latinos; many

others can be found scattered throughout the city’s racially diverse

areas or in predominantly white beats.

Most of Chicago’s Latinos are of Mexican heritage. In 2000, about 15

percent were of Puerto Rican origin, a percentage that had declined

since 1990. The study found that more of the expanding Latino population preferred to speak Spanish rather than English, as a significant

number of survey respondents wanted to be interviewed in Spanish.

Based on this measure, the percentage of Latinos who preferred to

speak Spanish grew from 35 to almost 60 percent (or 14 percent of 

all adult Chicagoans) during the 1990s. In this report, this group is

referred to as “Spanish speakers.”

Surveys indicated that Latino households differed in significant ways

from those of whites or blacks in the city. During the 1990s, Latino

households in Chicago averaged more children per household than

either white or black households. As a result of this and continued

immigration, the Latino fraction of the population grew from 20 to 26

percent during this period. Latinos were less likely to have much formal education than either whites or blacks. In 1999, more than 45

percent of Latinos surveyed reported that they did not graduate from

high school, and less than 10 percent had a college degree. They were

also the lowest income group of the three; 44 percent said they earned

less than $20,000 per year, compared with 38 percent of blacks and

16 percent of whites.

In general, Latinos were younger and spent less time in their current

residences than other population groups. At the same time, they were

most likely to live as married couples with children. In 1999, almost

70 percent of the Latino households surveyed included children, compared to just 22 percent among whites and 44 percent among blacks.

Of those surveyed, Latino women were by far the most likely to report

that their job was “keeping house.” Despite this finding, Latinos 

were still as likely as whites to be employed; relatively few of those
Latinos in Chicago

interviewed were retired or out of work. These distinctions turn out 

to be important, because the experiences of Chicago’s Latinos in 

general—and Spanish speakers in particular—differ from those of

other groups.

The CAPS Program

Chicago’s community policing initiative includes features designed to

increase police effectiveness by identifying and prioritizing problems

5

Exhibit 1: Concentration of Latinos in Chicago’s Police Beats

40–49% Latino

50–69% Latino

70% or more Latino
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

6

and working with the community to solve them. Teams of patrol officers assigned to each of the city’s 279 police beats provide coverage

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These turf-based beat teams were created so that officers could become more attuned to local conditions. A

sergeant coordinates work across shifts, and all officers on the team

meet quarterly to review priorities and discuss tactical plans.

To accommodate these teams, an easy-to-use crime analysis and mapping system was developed by the department and installed in every

district station to help beat officers identify local crime patterns and

suspects. Dispatching procedures usually keep these units in their

beats when they are on assignment, freeing up time from answering

calls and giving them more time to engage in proactive communityoriented work. Excess calls and some low-priority matters are handled

by roving rapid-response units.

Team members and their sergeants attend community meetings held

regularly (usually monthly) in each beat. Beat meetings provide an

important opportunity for neighborhood residents to meet and hear

from the police who work in their neighborhood. Here, residents can

voice their concerns and get involved in problem-solving efforts with

the police. Because many problems that residents consider important

are beyond the scope of traditional police mandates, the city created

a special service-request process that enables officers to mobilize

other city agencies that may be better able to handle such problems.

Furthermore, special problem-solving training sessions are held for all

officers, and yearly retraining programs are held for beat sergeants.

In 1995 and 1996, thousands of community residents were trained for

their role in the community policing process. Teams of civilian and

uniformed training officers conducted evening and weekend training

in virtually every beat in the city. After an orientation meeting, trainees

completed three problem-solving sessions organized around the department’s four-step problem-solving model and the “crime triangle”

(victim-offender-location).
Latinos in Chicago

7

Problems in Chicago’s Latino

Neighborhoods

The CAPS evaluation has several sources of data on the extent of

problems facing Chicago residents, including the results of evaluation

surveys, city service records, and crime reports. These sources all point

to the same general conclusion: Chicago’s Latino communities are

among the city’s most troubled groups, and by and large they have

not experienced the same general improvement in neighborhood

conditions as other groups.

Results from evaluation surveys

Exhibit 2 presents trends in perceptions of neighborhood conditions

reported by residents since 1994. The yearly surveys targeted 13 potential problems, including violent and property crimes, social disorder

(e.g., public drinking and loitering groups), and physical decay (e.g.,

abandoned buildings and trash-strewn vacant lots). Respondents were

asked whether each was a big problem, some problem, or no problem

in their neighborhood. Based on the surveys, Latinos topped 11 of 13

problem categories, often by a wide margin. They scored slightly below

blacks on two problems: street drug sales and loitering groups.

Both Latinos and blacks fared visibly worse than the city’s white residents, who were best off in every category. White residents had fewer

problems to begin with, but they still saw statistically significant

improvements on 10 of the 13 measures. From 1994 to 2001, Chicago’s

black neighborhoods saw more substantial improvements, albeit 

from a more troubled base near the beginning of the 1990s. Reported

decreases in gang violence in black neighborhoods meant that by

1997, Latinos considered gang violence a greater problem than blacks

did. Aside from gang violence, surveys revealed that Latinos had the

greatest concern about burglary and car theft (not shown in exhibit 2),

a finding that contrasted with the declines in concern registered by

others in the city. Street drug dealing became a more serious problem

for Latinos during the study period, as the number of Latinos concerned

about drug dealing doubled. Latinos’ concerns about abandoned cars in
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

8

their neighborhood also grew throughout the evaluation, and they did

not share in perceived improvements in the maintenance of order in

and around the city’s schools. For the most part, Latinos surveyed saw

the severity of problems as stable or increasing as the decade continued.

Exhibit 2: Trends in Perceptions of Neighborhood Problems

Gang violence Street drug dealing

Percent rating condition a big problem

Percent rating condition a big problem

Percent rating condition a big problemPercent rating condition a big problem

Percent rating condition a big problemPercent rating condition a big problem

Burglary

Abandoned cars 

School disruption

Graffiti

199419951996199719981999

0

10

20

30

40

50

199419951996199719981999

Whites Blacks Latinos

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

2001

2001

Whites Blacks Latinos

Whites Blacks Latinos Whites Blacks Latinos

Whites Blacks Latinos Whites Blacks Latinos

1994199519961997199819992001199419951996199719981999

2001

19941995199619971998

19992001

1994

19951996199719981999

2001

Note: No survey data were collected in 2000.
Latinos in Chicago

9

Language. Language played an important role in resident perceptions

of the extent of neighborhood problems. The Latino community was

deeply divided on this variable. Spanish speakers were much more

likely than others to report that conditions were bad. On every measure, Spanish speakers rated neighborhood problems as more serious

than English-speaking Latinos and blacks. 

Exhibit 3 illustrates the magnitude of some of these differences across

race and language. The differences depicted between English and

Spanish speakers are typical: On 8 of 13 survey questions (only four

are presented in exhibit 3), the latter were at least twice as likely to

perceive that problems in their neighborhood were serious. Whites

always reported the most favorable conditions. The responses of blacks

were varied, but in each case their level of concern was far lower than

that of Spanish-speaking Latinos.

Graffiti. Graffiti is a fact of life in many neighborhoods. Chicagoans

read graffiti as a sign that gangs are moving into their area or growing

more confident of their control over the neighborhood. Graffiti is

Street drug dealing Graffiti Gang violence Burglary

Percent rating a big problem in 1998–99

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Whites Latinos in English

Blacks Latinos in Spanish

Note: Data are from 1998 and 1999 surveys that were combined to increase the 

number of Latino respondents with different language preferences.

Exhibit 3: Perceptions of Neighborhood Problems by Race and Language
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

10

believed to be infectious; where it appears and is not quickly erased,

its presence will rapidly stimulate still more graffiti. Yet it did not go

unnoticed in Chicago as graffiti was the subject of a surprising number

of beat meetings. In 1994, graffiti was perceived to be the greatest

problem among Latino respondents. The city’s white residents also

considered it one of the biggest problems in their neighborhoods,

albeit at a significantly lower level. As exhibit 2 showed, the only

improvement perceived by Latinos over time was in the level of 

graffiti, although concern increased slightly in 2001.

Graffiti presented an important test of the effectiveness of the city

service component of CAPS. The city’s antigraffiti program involves

rapid cleanup strategies and a city ordinance that bans the sale of

spray paint. Rapid cleanups are a direct response to the contagion theory. Perhaps the most visible element of the city’s graffiti elimination

program is teams of “graffiti blasters” armed with high-pressure soda

sprayers. Paint and supplies also are available for community groups

that organize cleanup efforts.

Results from city service records

Based on records from Chicago’s Department of Streets and Sanitation,

researchers in this study were able to monitor the distribution of 

graffiti cleanup efforts by city workers and see how closely efforts were

aligned with need. Exhibit 4 examines perceived graffiti problems and

site cleanup rates and how they are related to the concentration of

Latinos in each beat. In the left graph of exhibit 4, the vertical axis

displays the average graffiti problem rating for each beat, on a scale

ranging from 1 (no problem) to 3 (big problem). The horizontal axis

displays the percentage of Latinos in each beat. According to this

graph, nearly all heavily populated Latino beats rated graffiti as a

problem. Furthermore, it documents the strong relationship between

the size of the Latino population and resident’s overall rating of graffiti problems in each area.

The right graph of exhibit 4 examines graffiti-site cleanups by city

workers. Again, the graffiti cleanup rate is depicted on the vertical

axis and the percentage of Latinos in each beat is scaled on the 
Latinos in Chicago

horizontal axis. This relationship is less dramatic than that shown in

the left panel because many beats with relatively low concentrations

of Latinos had relatively frequent cleanups. Although this is consistent with the general decline in graffiti problems perceived by all

major groups, it is clear that most heavily populated Latino beats are

near the top of the service scale.

Results from official crime reports

Regardless of how they are measured, crime trends in Chicago present

a mixed and not always favorable picture of conditions in the city’s

Latino neighborhoods. To some degree, the official crime reports contradict the perceptions of Latinos, as reported in the evaluation survey.

Based on 10 years of official crime reports, the city’s heavily populated

Latino beats fell in the middle on many measures (see exhibit 5).2

Official figures for rape and auto theft were down in these areas, along

with robbery and burglary (not shown in exhibit 5). Homicide rates

were stable in Latino communities but did not decline as elsewhere.

11

Exhibit 4: Graffiti and Chicago‘s Latino Community

Graffiti problems

City: Graffiti site cleanup rate 1997–98

(per 10,000 residents)

Site cleanups

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Survey: Average 

0 20 40 60 80 100

graffiti problem in the beat 

(1 = none; 3 = big)

Percentage of Latinos per beat Percentage of Latinos per beat

Note: Data for 199 beats with 

at least 15 survey respondents, 

1997–99

Note: Data for all 270 residential 

beats based on 179,000 site 

cleanups 

2.8

3.0
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

12

Assault rates, on the other hand, rose sharply in Latino areas (not

shown), contrasting with declines reported in other areas.

Researchers created special analytic categories of crime from the data

that show the same mixed pattern. Exhibit 5 shows declining rates

for gun-related crimes in Latino areas, but crimes that took place in

schools and threats falling short of the assault category rose (not

shown), the latter by 36 percent. The city’s predominantly white beats

saw small percentage declines in nearly every category, but they began

at a much lower level at the beginning of the 1990s. Exhibit 5 shows

that blacks were the major beneficiaries of declines in recorded crime

from 1991 to 2000, a finding that was duplicated in the survey measures. Nevertheless, crime rates in all categories remained significantly

higher among black residents than in white, Latino, or mixed areas.

Latinos’ Responses to the CAPS Initiative

Citizens must know about CAPS to get involved in its activities, but

how is such knowledge delivered to the public? The evaluation examined marketing efforts to integrate Latinos into the CAPS program

and monitored both public awareness of the program and participation in monthly beat meetings as a result of such efforts. In keeping

with a key tenet of community policing (i.e., improving relations

between the public and police), researchers also tracked the public’s

perceptions of the quality of police service.

Integrating Latinos into CAPS

Chicago uses an aggressive marketing campaign and diverse servicedelivery personnel to integrate Latinos into the CAPS program. The

marketing program to bring the diverse community closer to CAPS

began in 1996. It features radio and television announcements, print

and billboard advertising, and the distribution of CAPS paraphernalia

such as T-shirts and refrigerator magnets. The 1997 CAPS media budget was more than $1.5 million, and it exceeded $2 million in both

1998 and 1999. All promotional materials are produced in Spanish

and English, and poster ads and newsletters have been distributed in
Exhibit 5: Trends in Recorded Crime Rates

Latinos in Chicago

Korean, Chinese, and Polish. Spanish ads are aired on appropriate

radio and cable television stations. Civilian CAPS outreach workers

regularly attend festivals, parades, marches, rallies, and assemblies during the summer to distribute fliers and promotional items. Spanish

and English materials also are distributed through schools, churches,

and supermarkets in heavily populated Latino areas. Promotional

materials come stapled to pizza delivery boxes and have been mailed

along with bills from cable television systems, cellular telephone companies, and the city’s water department.

13

Homicide Gun crime

Crime rate (per 100,000 residents) Crime rate (per 100,000 residents)

Crime rate (per 100,000 residents) Crime rate (per 100,000 residents)

Rape Auto theft

19911992199319941995199619971998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Whites Blacks Latinos

Diverse areas

19911992199319941995199619971998

19911992199319941995199619971998199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

1998

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

50

100

150

200

Note: Data collection began in 1991 and is based on individual crime incidents geocoded 

to a consistent set of beat boundaries.

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

19992000

70 3,500

250

Whites Blacks Latinos

Diverse areas

Whites Blacks Latinos

Diverse areas

Whites Blacks Latinos

Diverse areas
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

14

In addition to marketing, the city’s emergency communications system

is staffed to handle foreign-language calls, and the police department

employs approximately 800 Spanish-speaking officers. Beat meetings

held in predominantly Latino areas routinely are conducted in both

languages. The department’s cadet diversity training also includes

role-playing exercises that address language issues. Despite these

efforts, the integration of Chicago’s Latino residents into CAPS has

been difficult.

Awareness of CAPS among Latinos

Awareness of community policing in Chicago is high. In 1998, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed residents of 12 cities about their

relations with police. That study ranked Chicago at the top in terms

of the percentage of respondents who knew about their city’s community policing program and who had heard about and attended a community anticrime meeting. This high level of awareness reflects the

city’s marketing effort in support of the program. 

Exhibit 6 illustrates recent trends in awareness of CAPS among

Chicago’s major racial and ethnic groups.3 In 1996, about half of

adults recalled hearing about the city’s program. There was little 

Exhibit 6: Awareness of CAPS

Percentage of all adults aware of CAPS

1996199719981999

Blacks

Whites Latinos in English

Latinos in Spanish

2001

Note: No survey data were collected in 2000.

40

50

60

70

80

90
Latinos in Chicago

difference between whites, blacks, and Latinos in this regard. As awareness rose, however, a visible gap opened between Spanish-speaking

Latinos and others. It became noticeable during the course of the evaluation when Latinos of Mexican heritage preferred a Spanish-language

interview. By 2001, CAPS recognition among most population groups

hovered around 80 percent. The notable exception, however, was the

Spanish-speaking Latino population, who as a group fell behind by

about 19 percentage points from 1996 to 2000. By 2001, blacks were

most aware (by a slim margin) of the CAPS program. Thus, although

the city’s marketing campaign increased levels of awareness dramatically, differences in market penetration accounted for a noticeable

split among language groups in terms of program awareness.

Exhibit 7 details how respondents recalled hearing about the program, based on surveys taken from 1997 to 1999. Survey respondents

described up to 5 sources of awareness, which were coded by interviewers into 1 of 14 categories. Exhibit 7 presents data on 6 sources that

were mentioned by at least 10 percent of those responding. Less frequent sources of information included billboards; posters in the rapid

transit system; police car logos; booths at neighborhood festivals,

marches, or rallies; announcements at church; and materials brought

home from school. Compared with other groups, Chicago’s Latinos

15

Exhibit 7: Major Sources of CAPS Awareness by Race, by Percentage

Television 50 44 51 62 55 68

Heard from 

someone else 27 25 32 23 28 17

Fliers, brochures, 

or newsletters 18 18 19 15 17 13

City or local 

newspapers 17 28 10 8 8 7

Posters 13 16 12 9 12 6

Radio 12 14 9 16 11 21

Latinos Latinos Latinos

Sources of Total Whites Blacks Total in English in Spanish

Awareness (n = 6,594) (n = 2,783) (n = 2,221) (n = 1,103) (n = 583) (n = 520)

Note: Values are percentages based on respondents in combined 1997–99 citywide surveys

who had heard of CAPS; weighted estimates.
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

16

depended heavily on television and radio for their knowledge of police

matters. This was especially true for Spanish speakers, more than 60

percent of whom relied on television and more than 20 percent on

radio. Newspapers were ineffective at reaching Latinos compared with

whites, and there appeared to be less informal conversation about

CAPS within the Spanish-speaking community (only 17 percent of

Spanish-speaking respondents said they heard about it from someone

else). Differences in how various groups heard about CAPS are significant because awareness is linked to actual program involvement.

Participation of Latinos in CAPS

The manner in which people heard about the program and its efficacy

at getting them to attend beat meetings can be explored statistically.

Because different groups of people heard about the program in different

ways, the analysis involved first controlling for important individual

characteristics related to program awareness and turnout. The list

included age, income, sex, home ownership, education, length of residence, and language preference, among others. Taking these factors

into account, Latinos who heard about the program on television were

less likely to attend than most other groups. Those who heard about

the program from someone else or who received a newsletter or flier

were more likely to attend. These findings are provisional because only

randomized experiments can yield unambiguous findings about the

effects of media exposure, but they suggest that the dependence of

Chicago’s Latinos on television did not mobilize them in support 

of CAPS.

Exhibit 8 depicts trends in beat meeting turnout as recalled by survey

respondents. Turnout was highest among blacks over the entire period,

followed by English-speaking Latinos, whites, and Spanish-speaking

Latinos. This pattern is significant because statistical analyses of

attendance rates at thousands of beat meetings over this period found

that a driving force behind participation was violent crime. This

explains, perhaps, the high levels of involvement by blacks. Rates 

of beat meeting attendance were lowest in the city’s relatively welloff white neighborhoods, where residents perceived that they were

much safer. 
Latinos in Chicago

As noted earlier, Chicago’s Latinos view their neighborhoods as

decidedly problem prone, yet their level of awareness of and involvement in community policing is limited, principally because of linguistic disadvantage. The city has attempted to respond to this issue. In

addition to the widespread availability of CAPS promotional materials in Spanish, translators usually are available at beat meetings held

in predominantly Latino areas. Furthermore, those police districts

have a large proportion of the department’s Spanish-speaking officers.

Police emergency and city-service dispatchers have the capacity to

handle Spanish calls. Despite these factors, the limited involvement

of Latinos in Chicago’s program remains noticeable, especially in light

of the problems they face.

Perceptions of the quality of policing among Latinos

Results from experimental districts. Although surveys point to high

levels of CAPS recognition among Chicagoans, they also document

an enormous gulf between racial and ethnic minorities and white residents in their views of the quality of police service and the demeanor

of police toward citizens. In surveys conducted in the city’s experimental districts before CAPS began, Latinos were found to be nearly

17

Percentage of all adults who attend beat meetings

1996199719981999

2001

Note: No survey data were collected in 2000.

5

10

15

20

25

Blacks

Whites Latinos in English

Latinos in Spanish

Exhibit 8: Attendance at Beat Meetings
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

18

3 times more likely than whites to think that police working in their

neighborhood were impolite and 2.5 times more likely to think that

police were unfair, unhelpful, and not concerned about their problems. Latinos were more negative than blacks on two of these four

measures.4 A 1998 survey found that 40 percent of Latinos thought

that police in their area were “too tough on people they stop,” compared with 10 percent of whites and 33 percent of blacks.

Results from the citywide evaluation. The CAPS citywide evaluation surveys asked respondents to assess the quality of service delivered by police working in their neighborhood. Questions asked how

effectively police responded to crime, street disorder, and victims’

needs; how polite, fair, concerned, and helpful they were when dealing

with area residents; and how effectively they worked with residents 

on problems that concern the community. Another set of questions

probed the extent to which communities perceived police corruption

and misconduct toward residents.

In the main, Chicagoans perceived improvements in the quality of

police service during the 1990s and stable levels of police corruption

and misconduct. Trends depicted in exhibit 9 illustrate typical patterns of change in opinion between 1993 and 2001. Exhibit 9 shows

gains among all groups in their perceptions of police cooperation with

the community. This is illustrated by the graphs at the top of exhibit

9 that chart responses to questions about whether police were doing a

good job “working together with residents . . . to solve local problems”

and “dealing with the problems that really concern people in [the]

neighborhood.” Among Latinos, perceptions of the quality of police

service improved by about 10 percentage points between 1993 and

2001. There is, however, plenty of room for improvement because 

a gap as much as 20 percentage points still exists between the percentage of Latinos and the percentage of whites who rate police

favorably on these measures.

Questions about police demeanor—represented in exhibit 9 by responses to a question about how politely police deal with people in

the neighborhood—typically gathered more positive reviews during

the reporting period. Finally, popular assessments of the extent of

police misconduct or corruption changed little during the 3 years
Latinos in Chicago

19

questions were asked about these topics. This is illustrated in exhibit 9

by trends in queries about “police stopping too many people . . . without good reason” in the neighborhood and “police using excessive

force . . . being verbally or physically abusive to people in your neighborhood.” Gaps among the races on these measures were as large as

any in the survey and did not close over time.

Language issues resurface. Language preferences again divided

Latinos in their views of police. These differences, however, were not

as extreme as the differences noted earlier regarding neighborhood

problems. There was no real difference between English- and Spanishspeaking Latinos on 6 of 13 evaluative questions about police. On the

remaining seven questions, however, English speakers remained more

Exhibit 9: Trends in Perceptions of Police

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1993199419951996199719981999

1993199419951996

199719981999

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Deal with problems that 

concern people

Work with residents

 to solve problems

Percentage of residents Percentage of residents

Percentage of residents Percentage of residents

Polite dealing with neighbors

1997

1998

1999

Good or very good job Good or very good job

Polite or very polite Some or big problem

2001

2001

2001

2001

1997

1998

1999

2001

Whites Blacks Latinos Whites Blacks Latinos

Whites Blacks Latinos Whites Blacks Latinos

Stop too

 many people

Excessive verbal 

or physical force

Note: No survey data were collected in 2000.
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

20

positive by an average of approximately 7 percentage points. Language

was related to perceptions of police helpfulness, concern, and fairness

and the extent to which they seemed responsive to neighborhood

problems. Of note, the perceptions of Chicago’s Spanish-speaking

population closely resembled those of blacks on dimensions of the

quality of police service.

Conclusion

The data used by the CAPS evaluation to monitor trends in neighborhood conditions and police-public relations in Chicago point to 

a number of favorable trends. Many patterns revealed by the Latino

community may be linked to demographic changes taking place in

the city. This change is fueled to a significant extent by immigration,

which is signaled by an increasing preference for the Spanish language

among Latinos. As the rate of immigration and the proportion of

Spanish speakers have increased, the evaluation also found that levels

of education and real income have decreased among the city’s Latinos

over time. Poverty and education are closely tied to neighborhood

problems and involvement in CAPS, so demographic trends among

Chicago’s Latinos may be working against rather than for them.

Overall throughout the city, crime is down, neighborhood conditions

have improved, awareness of and involvement in the city’s community

policing program are stable at a high level, and perceptions of the

quality of police service have become more favorable. Yet, not all of

the city’s communities have enjoyed the benefits of these trends.

In particular, Chicago’s large and growing Latino community has fallen behind. By century’s end, Latinos reported worsening conditions

on many measures of crime and disorder problems. Furthermore,

homicide and assault rates in heavily populated Latino beats did not

mirror declines noted in other city neighborhoods.

Latinos were the least likely to be familiar with Chicago’s community

policing initiative, and they did not attend beat meetings at a level

commensurate with their perceived problems. Interestingly, despite

widespread discussion of the distrust that Latino immigrants have of
Latinos in Chicago

police in their home country—including expectations about indifference, corruption, and abuse of power—Latinos’ views of police in

Chicago do not differ much from and are, in general, slightly more

favorable than those of native-born blacks. These findings suggest that

negative views of police can be “home grown” as well as imported.

By 2001, CAPS achieved mixed results in improving the perception

of police by residents. Generally, CAPS accomplished an overall

degree of success in terms of citizen satisfaction. More pointedly, the

community’s perceptions of police cooperation moved into a positive

range even among the most dissatisfied groups. Although responses

to questions about police helpfulness, fairness, and concerns showed

parallel improvements, a large gulf still existed in the perceptions of

police by the city’s white and minority residents. This was particularly

true of responses to questions aimed at police misconduct, which registered little improvement in the views of Latinos and blacks over the

latter half of the reporting period.

Latinos’ views of police service improved somewhat by many measures, but about half the Latino population was still dissatisfied. These

views did, however, grow more positive during the course of the

study, as they did for all major groups. Chicago’s Latinos shared with

blacks—but not with the white population—a deep skepticism about

the quality of police service in their neighborhoods, creating a gulf

between Latinos and the city’s white population that did not close

appreciably by 2001.

Language was found to affect perceptions of crime and police involvement in the CAPS program. English-speaking Latinos reported steadily

improving crime conditions. On the other hand, Spanish-speaking

Latinos reported worsening crime conditions. Because the latter make

up an increasingly large percentage of Chicago’s Latino population,

survey results for Latinos as a whole diverged from official police

crime figures. This contrast results from whites and blacks; each group

showed declines in crime and concern about crime in both survey

results and official crime figures. Because the crime data in this

report are categorized only by ethnicity, a finer breakdown of crime

in Chicago than is possible with existing census data may make survey

findings from Latinos match official crime figures.

21
Community Policing and ”The New Immigrants“

22

Additionally, Spanish-speaking Latinos were less positive in their views

of police and less involved in CAPS than their English-speaking

counterparts. These findings may be symptomatic of a speculative

unwillingness among Latinos to contact police and to report crimes.

Were the favorable citywide crime trends described here caused by

community policing? The downward shift in crime rates since 1991

began well before CAPS was inaugurated, so any effects of CAPS

need to be separated from the forces that pushed crime trends in a

favorable direction. Survey measures of neighborhood conditions and

perceptions of the quality of police service have moved in a generally

favorable direction as well. However, like crime, they are affected by

forces beyond—and perhaps more powerful than—community policing. Therefore, identifying the effects of CAPS on them also involves

more detailed analysis. Before-and-after surveys point to a number of

positive conclusions. The final report in this series will examine the

long-term trends described here for comparable evidence of program

effectiveness.

Suggested Reading

Skogan, Wesley G. “Community Policing in Chicago,” in Community

Policing, ed. Geoffrey Alpert and Alex Piquero, Prospect Heights, IL:

Waveland Press, 1997:159–174.

Skogan, Wesley G., and Susan M. Hartnett. Community Policing,

Chicago Style. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T.

Comey, Karla Twedt-Ball, and J. Erik Gudell. Public Involvement:

Community Policing in Chicago. NIJ Research Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000, NCJ 179557.

Skogan, Wesley G., Lynn Steiner, Jill DuBois, J. Erik Gudell, Aimee

Fagan, Jinha Kim, and Richard Block. Community Policing in Chicago,

Year Seven: An Interim Report. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice

Information Authority, 2000. This report, one of a series, is available

free of charge from 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1016, Chicago,

IL 60606.
Latinos in Chicago

23

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T. Comey,

Marianne Kaiser, and Justine H. Lovig. On the Beat: Police and

Community Problem Solving. Boulder, CO: Westview Publishing Co.,

1999.

———. Problem Solving in Practice: Implementing Community Policing in

Chicago. NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, 2000, NCJ 179556.

Notes

1. In this report, “Latino” refers to historically Spanish-speaking 

people from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central and South America, and

the Caribbean.

2. Data presented in exhibit 5 result from the division of the city’s 270

residential beats into 63 predominantly white areas; 121 heavily populated black areas; 56 areas where Latinos account for an average of 60

percent of the population; and 30 diverse beats that average 40 percent white, 25 percent black, and 20 percent Latino. Rates were calculated from the total number of crimes and residents in each of these

aggregated areas using yearly population estimates. Nine nonresidential

beats remained unclassified.

3. The most accurate measure of program awareness stems from surveys

beginning in 1996. The measure combines responses to a question

about hearing of “the city’s new community policing program” with 

a followup specifically asking whether they had heard of the CAPS

program.

4. Skogan and Hartnett, 1997, 31.
About the National Institute of Justice

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice and is solely

dedicated to researching crime control and justice issues. NIJ provides objective, independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly

at the State and local levels. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3722).

NIJ’s Mission

In partnership with others, NIJ’s mission is to prevent and reduce crime, improve law enforcement

and the administration of justice, and promote public safety. By applying the disciplines of the social

and physical sciences, NIJ—

• Researches the nature and impact of crime and delinquency.

• Develops applied technologies, standards, and tools for criminal justice practitioners.

• Evaluates existing programs and responses to crime.

• Tests innovative concepts and program models in the field.

• Assists policymakers, program partners, and justice agencies.

• Disseminates knowledge to many audiences.

NIJ’s Strategic Direction and Program Areas

NIJ is committed to five challenges as part of its strategic plan: 1) rethinking justice and the processes that create just communities; 2) understanding the nexus between social conditions and crime; 3)

breaking the cycle of crime by testing research-based interventions; 4) creating the tools and technologies that meet the needs of practitioners; and 5) expanding horizons through interdisciplinary

and international perspectives. In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the

following program areas: crime control and prevention, drugs and crime, justice systems and offender

behavior, violence and victimization, communications and information technologies, critical incident

response, investigative and forensic sciences (including DNA), less-than-lethal technologies, officer

protection, education and training technologies, testing and standards, technology assistance to law

enforcement and corrections agencies, field testing of promising programs, and international crime

control. NIJ communicates its findings through conferences and print and electronic media.

NIJ’s Structure

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The NIJ Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S.

Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. NIJ actively solicits the views of criminal justice

and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge and tools to guide 

policy and practice.

NIJ has three operating units. The Office of Research and Evaluation manages social science research

and evaluation and crime mapping research. The Office of Science and Technology manages technology research and development, standards development, and technology assistance to State and local

law enforcement and corrections agencies. The Office of Development and Communications manages

field tests of model programs, international research, and knowledge dissemination programs. NIJ is a

component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.