DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02800
title: Evaluation of Community Policing Initiatives in Jefferson County, West Virginia, 1996-1997
title: Archival Version

description: This data collection was designed to evaluate the
 implementation of community policing initiatives for three police
 departments in Jefferson County, West Virginia: the Ranson Town Police
 Department, the West Virginia State Police (Jefferson County
 Detachment), and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. The
 evaluation was undertaken by the Free Our Citizens of Unhealthy
 Substances Coalition (FOCUS), a county-based group of citizens who
 represented all segments of the community, including businesses,
 churches, local law enforcement agencies, and local governments. The
 aim was to find answers to the following questions: (1) Can community
 policing have any detectable and measurable impact in a predominantly
 rural setting? (2) Did the police department do what they said they
 would do in their funding application? (3) If they were successful,
 what factors supported their efforts and were key to their success?
 and (4) If they were not successful, what problems prevented their
 success? The coalition conducted citizen surveys to evaluate how much
 of an impact community policing initiatives had in their county. In
 January 1996, research assistants conducted a baseline survey of 300
 households in the county. Survey responses were intended to gauge
 residents' fear of crime and to assess how well the police were
 performing their duties. After one year, the coalition repeated its
 survey of public attitudes, and research assistants interviewed
 another 300 households. The research assumption was that any change in
 fear of crime or assessment of police performance could reasonably be
 attributed to these new community policing inventions. Crime reporting
 variables from the survey included which crime most concerned the
 respondent, if the respondent would report a crime he or she observed,
 and whether the respondent would testify about the crime in
 court. Variables pertaining to level of concern for specific crimes
 include how concerned respondents were that someone would rob or
 attack them, break into or vandalize their home, or try to sexually
 attack them/someone they cared about. Community involvement variables
 covered participation in community groups or activities, neighborhood
 associations, church, or informal social activities. Police/citizen
 interaction variables focused on the number of times respondents had
 called to report a problem to the police in the last two years, how
 satisfied they were with how the police handled the problem, the
 extent to which this police department needed improvement, whether
 children trusted law enforcement officers, whether police needed to
 respond more quickly to calls, whether the police needed improved
 relations with the community, and in the past year whether local
 police performance had improved/gotten worse. Specific crime
 information variables include whether the crime occurred in the
 respondent's neighborhood, whether he/she was the victim, if crime was
 serious in the respondent's neighborhood versus elsewhere, whether the
 respondent had considered moving as a result of crime in the
 neighborhood, and how personal safety had changed in the respondent's
 neighborhood. Variables relating to community policing include whether
 the respondent had heard the term "community policing" in the past
 year, from what source, and what community policing activities the
 respondent was aware of. Demographic variables include job
 self-classification, racial/ethnic identity, length of residency, age,
 gender, martial status, educational status, and respondent's town of
residence.
description: Community policing to date has been primarily an
 urban phenomenon, without much attention to its applicability to small
 towns or rural settings. This study offered a test of the
 transferability of the community policing practices to a rural
 community. Police executives in Jefferson County, West Virginia, had
 identified the need to improve the relations between the police and
 the community for several reasons. First, the problem of crime was
 growing faster than police resources. This fact necessitated better
 utilization of community resources in the form of volunteers,
 neighborhood watches, and open communication between police and
 citizens. Second, past public support of the advocacy of local police
 had been poor. Lastly, local police desired more open dialogue with
 the African-American sectors of the county. During the summer of 1995,
 most local police forces in Jefferson County received federal funding
 from the United States Department of Justice to implement community
 policing. In applying for these funds, each department outlined
 specific tasks it intended to undertake with the funds. The Free Our
 Citizens of Unhealthy Substances Coalition (FOCUS), a county-based
 group of citizens who represented all segments of the community
 including businesses, churches, local law enforcement agencies, and
 local governments, observed and evaluated the implementation of
 community policing initiatives for three police departments in
 Jefferson County. Through use of citizen surveys, the coalition set
 out to evaluate how much of an impact community policing initiatives
 had in their county. The aim was to find answers to the following
 questions: (1) Can community policing have any detectable and
 measurable impact in a predominantly rural setting? (2) Did the police
 department do what they said they would do in their funding
 application? (3) If they were successful, what factors supported their
 efforts and were key to their success? and (4) If they were not
successful, what problems prevented their success?
description: Community policing initiatives in Jefferson County
 were not implemented until late January or February 1996. The FOCUS
 Coalition conducted a baseline telephone survey of public attitudes
 between funding in mid-1995 and implementation in early 1996. In
 January 1996, research assistants surveyed 300 households in the
 county. Survey responses were intended to gauge residents' fear of
 crime and to assess how well the police were performing their
 duties. After one year of community policing, the FOCUS coalition
 repeated its survey of public attitudes, and research assistants
 interviewed another 300 households. The research assumption was that
 any change in fear of crime or assessment of police performance could
 reasonably be attributed to these new community policing
 inventions. The telephone interviews were conducted during evenings
 and weekends to assure the inclusion of those who worked during the
 day outside the home. Quality assurance for the interview was provided
 through pretraining and test interviews, direct supervision, and a
 comparison of results between interviewers. The interviews were
 conducted by three research assistants who were hired and trained for
 that purpose. The interviewers identified the FOCUS coalition as the
 entity conducting the survey, and provided both its phone number and
that of the county sheriff for verification purposes.
description: Crime reporting variables from the survey included
 which crime most concerned the respondent, if the respondent would
 report a crime he or she observed, and whether the respondent would
 testify about the crime in court. Variables pertaining to level of
 concern for specific crimes include how concerned respondents were
 that someone would rob or attach them, break into or vandalize their
 home, or try to sexually attach them/someone they cared
 about. Community involvement variables covered participation in
 community groups or activities. Police/citizen interaction variables
 focused on the number of times respondents had called to report a
 problem to the police in the last two years, how satisfied they were
 with how the police handled the problem, the extent to which this
 police department needed improvement, whether children trusted law
 enforcement officers, whether police needed improved relations with
 the community, and in the past years whether local police performance
 had improved/gotten worse. Specific Crime information variables
 include whether the crime occurred in the respondent's neighborhood,
 whether he/she was the victim, if crime was serious in the
 respondent's neighborhood versus elsewhere, whether the respondent had
 considered moving as a result of crime in the neighborhood, and how
 personal safety had changed in the respondent's
 neighborhood. Variables relating to community policing include whether
 the respondent had heard the term "community policing" in the past
 year, from what source, and what community policing activities the
 respondent was aware of. Demographic variables include job
 self-classification, racial/ethnic identity, length of residency, age,
 gender, martial status, educational status, and respondent's town of
residence.
description: Response Rates: There was a 30-percent response rate for both 
the 1996 and 1997 surveys.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Random sample.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Evaluation of Community Policing Initiatives in Jefferson County, West Virginia, 1996-1997
description: All Jefferson County residents in 1996 and 1997.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instrument are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The
 PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
 accessed using PDF reader software, such as Adobe Acrobat
 Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.