DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02612
title: Impact of Community Policing at the Street Level: An Observational Study in Richmond, Virginia, 1992
title: Archival Version

description: This study's purpose was twofold: to investigate the nature
 of police patrol work in a community policing context and to
 field-test data collection instruments designed for systematic social
 observation. The project, conducted in Richmond, Virginia, where its
 police department was in the third year of a five-year plan to
 implement community policing, was designed as a case study of one
 police department's experience with community policing, focusing on
 officers in the patrol division. A team of eight researchers conducted
 observations with the police officers in the spring and summer of
 1992. A total of 120 officers were observed during 125 observation
 sessions. Observers accompanied officers throughout their regular work
 shifts, taking brief field notes on officers' activities and
 encounters with the public. All of an observed officer's time during
 the shift was accounted for by either encounters or activities. Within
 15 hours of the completion of the ridealong, the observer prepared a
 detailed narrative account of events that occurred during the
 ridealong and coded key items associated with these events. The study
 generated five nested quantitative datasets that can be linked by
 common variables. Part 1, Ridealong Data, provides information
 pertinent to the 125 observation sessions or "rides." Part 2, Activity
 Data, focuses on 5,576 activities conducted by officers when not
 engaged in encounters. Data in Part 3, Encounter Data, describe 1,098
 encounters with citizens during the ridealongs. An encounter was
 defined as a communication between officers and citizens that took
 over one minute, involved more than three verbal exchanges between an
 officer and a citizen, or involved significant physical contact
 between the officer and citizen. Part 4, Citizen Data, provides data
 relevant to each of the 1,630 citizens engaged by police in the
 encounters. Some encounters involved more than one citizen. Part 5,
 Arrest Data, was constructed by merging Parts 1, 3, and 4, and
 provides information on 451 encounters that occurred during the
 ridealongs in which the citizen was suspected of some criminal
 mischief. All identification variables in this collection were created
 by the researchers for this project. Variables from Part 1 include
 date, start time, end time, unit, and beat assignment of the
 observation session, and the primary officer's and secondary officer's
 sex, race/ethnicity, years as an officer, months assigned to precinct
 and beat, hours of community policing training, and general
 orientation to community policing. Variables in Part 2 specify the
 time the activity began and ended, who initiated the activity, type,
 location, and visibility of the activity, involvement of the officer's
 supervisor during the activity, and if the activity involved
 problem-solving, or meeting with citizens or other community
 organizations. Part 3 variables include time encounter began and
 ended, who initiated the encounter, primary and secondary officer's
 energy level and mood before the encounter, problem as radioed by
 dispatcher, and problem as it appeared at the beginning of the
 encounter and at the end of the encounter. Information on the location
 of the encounter includes percent of time at initial location,
 visibility, officer's prior knowledge of the initial location, and if
 the officer anticipated violence at the scene. Additional variables
 focus on the presence of a supervisor, other police officers, service
 personnel, bystanders, and participants, if the officer filed or
 intended to file a report, if the officer engaged in problem-solving,
 and factors that influenced the officer's actions. Citizen information
 in Part 4 includes sex, age, and race/ethnicity of the citizen, role
 in the encounter, if the citizen appeared to be of low income, under
 the use of alcohol or drugs, or appeared to have a mental disorder or
 physical injury or illness, if the citizen was representing an
 establishment, if the citizen lived, worked, or owned property in the
 police beat, and if the citizen had a weapon. Also presented are
 various aspects of the police-citizen interaction, such as evidence
 considered by the officer, requests and responses to each other, and
 changes in actions during the encounter. Variables in Part 5 record
 the officer's orientation toward community policing, if the suspect
 was arrested or cited, if the offense was serious or drug-related,
 amount of evidence, if the victim requested that the suspect be
 arrested, if the victim was white, Black, and of low income, and if
 the suspect represented an organization. Information on the suspect
 includes gender, race, sobriety level, if of low income, if 19 years
 old or less, if actively resistant, if the officer knew the suspect
 adversarially, and if the suspect demonstrated conflict with
 others. Some items were recoded for the particular analyses for which
the Arrest Data were constructed.
description: At the time of this study there had been no
 systematic accounts of American street-level police work conducted in
 a community policing framework. This study's purpose, therefore, was
 twofold: to learn something about the nature of police patrol work in
 a community policing context and to field-test data collection
 instruments designed for systematic social observation. The project,
 conducted in Richmond, Virginia, where its police department was in
 the third year of a five-year plan to implement community policing,
 was designed as a case study of one police department's experience
 with community policing, focusing on officers of the patrol
 division. The instruments were designed to capture the enduring
 features of police work (e.g., "encounters" between police and
 public), plus other features that might arise out of the new
 directions of community policing (special community policing
 "activities," such as dealing with community groups and
 problem-solving). Additionally, the project attempted to introduce
 several data collection refinements, including a detailed accounting
 of how officers spent their work time, debriefing officers after some
 of their encounters with the public, and employing a coded data entry
 system using CODIT, a specially developed software package for
 IBM-compatible personal computers. The methods used guided field
 researchers in their observations to systematically record information
 on what police officers do, how they interact with members of the
 public, and what the immediate consequences are on the scene. The
 researchers also sought to capture how and where officers spend their
 time when not engaging the public. The data enable researchers to
 learn more about differences in how the officers reacted to community
 policing, their degree of support for the community policing
 "environment" provided by the program, how officers exercised their
 discretion, what accounted for variations in officer behavior, and how
citizens responded to police.
description: The methods and instruments employed for this
 study were derived from the systematic social observation process used
 as a means of applying methodological rigor to "quantitative"
 research. Observations were conducted in the spring and summer of
 1992, providing a cross-sectional picture of patrol practices during
 one brief time period. A team of eight researchers conducted
 observations: the principal investigator, the site director (a
 graduate student), and six observers (three graduate students, two
 recently graduated honors undergraduates, and one currently enrolled
 undergraduate). The race/gender breakdown of the research team was
 three white males, two Black males, and three white females. The field
 researchers were employed full-time on the project during field
 observation. Observers reported to the precinct station at least 15
 minutes before roll call, reporting to the sergeant in charge of the
 incoming squad. Observation began at the beginning of the official
 start time of the shift and ended when the officer ended his or her
 tour of duty. A total of 120 officers were observed during 125
 observation sessions. Officers were given a brief, one-page
 description of the study before observations began and fuller
 explanations of the project, including information on confidentiality
 and legal issues, as soon as time permitted. Observers accompanied
 officers throughout their regular work shifts, taking brief field
 notes on officers' activities and encounters with the public,
 generally at times and in a manner that would not distract the officer
 or citizens. All of an observed officer's time during the shift was
 accounted for by either encounters or activities. Observers also
 interviewed officers about their views of community policing at
 convenient times during the ridealong (usually at the beginning as
 part of the introduction to the study). Within 15 hours of the
 completion of the ridealong, the observer prepared a detailed
 narrative account of events that occurred during the ridealong and
 coded key items associated with these events according to a protocol
 available on personal computers at the research office. The study
 generated five nested quantitative datasets that can be linked by
 common variables. Part 1, Ridealong Data, provides information
 pertinent to the 125 observation sessions or "rides." Part 2, Activity
 Data, focuses on 5,576 activities conducted by officers when not
 engaged in encounters. Data in Part 3, Encounter Data, describe 1,098
 encounters with citizens during the ridealongs. An encounter was
 defined as a communication between officers and citizens that took
 over one minute, involved more than three verbal exchanges between an
 officer and a citizen, or involved significant physical contact
 between the officer and citizen. Part 4, Citizen Data, provides data
 relevant to each of the 1,630 citizens engaged by police in the
 encounters. Some encounters involved more than one citizen. Part 5,
 Arrest Data, was constructed by merging Parts 1, 3, and 4, and
 provides information on 451 encounters that occurred during the
 ridealongs in which the citizen was suspected of some criminal
mischief.
description: Variables from Part 1 include date, start time, end
 time, unit, and beat assignment of the observation session, and the
 primary officer's and secondary officer's sex, race/ethnicity, years
 as an officer, months assigned to precinct and beat, hours of
 community policing training, and general orientation to community
 policing. Variables in Part 2 specify the time the activity began and
 ended, who initiated the activity, type, location, and visibility of
 the activity, involvement of the officer's supervisor during the
 activity, and if the activity involved problem-solving, or meeting
 with citizens or other community organizations. Part 3 variables
 include time encounter began and ended, who initiated the encounter,
 primary and secondary officer's energy level and mood before the
 encounter, problem as radioed by dispatcher, and problem as it
 appeared at the beginning of the encounter includes at the end of the
 encounter. Information on the location of the encounter includes
 percent of time at initial location, visibility, officer's prior
 knowledge of the initial location, and if the officer anticipated
 violence at the scene. Additional variables focus on the presence of a
 supervisor, other police officers, service personnel, and bystanders
 and participants, if the officer filed or intended to file a report,
 if the officer engaged in problem-solving, and factors that influenced
 the officer's actions. Citizen information in Part 4 includes sex,
 age, and race/ethnicity of the citizen, role in the encounter, if the
 citizen appeared to be of low income, under the use of alcohol or
 drugs, or appeared to have a mental disorder or physical injury or
 illness, if the citizen was representing an establishment, if the
 citizen lived, worked, or owned property in the police beat, and if
 the citizen had a weapon. Also presented are various aspects of the
 police-citizen interaction, such as evidence considered by the
 officer, requests and responses to each other, and changes in actions
 during the encounter. Variables in Part 5 record the officer's
 orientation toward community policing, if the suspect was arrested or
 cited, if the offense was serious or drug-related, amount of evidence,
 if the victim requested that the suspect be arrested, if the victim
 was white, Black, and of low income, and if the suspect represented an
 organization. Information on the suspect includes gender, race,
 sobriety level, if of low income, if 19 years old or less, if actively
 resistant, if the officer knew the suspect adversarially, and if the
 suspect demonstrated conflict with others. Some items were recoded for
the particular analyses for which the Arrest Data were constructed.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Richmond, Virginia, was chosen as the research site
 because it was a medium-sized center city that was experiencing many
 of the problems for which community policing was designed. The
 Richmond Police Department was selected because it expected all
 officers to engage in its practices and had initiated implementation
 of its community policing program more than two years prior to the
 research project's data collection. To obtain a representative sample
 of police patrol behavior, each beat and special unit was
 observed. The sample reflected a race and sex profile similar to that
of the entire patrol division.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Ridealong Data
DS2: Activity Data
DS3: Encounter Data
DS4: Citizen Data
DS5: Arrest Data
description: All patrol officers in the Richmond, Virginia, Police
Department in the spring and summer of 1992.
description: (1) Detailed description and instructions for using
 the CODIT software package is available separately (Snipes and Ritti,
 1993). (2) Narratives from this project will be available once the
 Secure Data Enclave at ICPSR becomes operational. (3) The user guide,
 codebook, and data collection instrument are provided by ICPSR as
 Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
 developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
 reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
 to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.