Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Police Strategies And Management:Vol23.Issue4.2000:

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

Perceptions of neighborhood
problems and their solutions:
implications for community
policing

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
439

Robert M. Bohm, K. Michael Reynolds and
Stephen T. Holmes
Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Central
Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Keywords Police, Community policing, Community relations
Abstract This exploratory study tests one of the key assumptions of community policing: that
there is a relatively high level of consensus both within and between community groups, or
stakeholders, about community problems and potential solutions. Results show that in the target

community there is some consensus about social problems and their solutions. However, the study
also reveals that the consensus may not be community-wide, but may exist only among a relatively
small group of ``active'' stakeholders who differ significantly about the seriousness of most of the
problems and the utility of some solutions. Implications for community policing are discussed.

Introduction
This exploratory study tests one of the key assumptions of community
policing. The assumption is that there is a relatively high level of consensus
both within and between community groups, or stakeholders, about
community problems and potential solutions. This assumption has not
received much attention either in the scholarly literature or in implementation
efforts (but see Mastrofski, 1991; Cordner, 1991; Weatheritt, 1991; Murphy,
1991, 1988; Bayley, 1991). If the assumed intra- and inter-group consensus does
not exist, community policing, as the concept is generally operationalized[1],
may be difficult if not impossible to implement. It may also succeed, but to the
dismay and detriment of some community groups (more about this later). For
purposes of this study, a consensus (or agreement) is defined in the traditional
democratic way as support by a majority or more than 50 per cent of a group.
Community policing is the latest philosophy or approach to policing.
Considerable resources are being expended on its development and

implementation. For example, since the passage of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, more than $3.3 billion has been awarded
directly to about 9,000 police departments to hire 61,000 additional officers
dedicated to community policing. An additional $1.5 billion has been spent on
specific community policing projects (Taylor et al., 1998, p. 5)[2]. Unlike
traditional or ``professional'' policing which emphasizes responding to calls for
The authors wish to thank Mark Lanier and R. Cory Watkins for their helpful suggestions.

Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, 2000, pp. 439-465.
# MCB University Press, 1363-951X

PIJPSM
23,4

440

service and is widely regarded as having failed (Bayley, 1991, p. 225; but see
Mastrofski, 1991), community policing involves proactive crime prevention

through a visible police presence in neighborhoods, efforts to solve crimeproducing problems, arresting law violators, maintaining order, and resolving
disputes (US Department of Justice, 1992, pp. 2-3; also see Goldstein, 1987)[3].
More importantly, for purposes of this study, community policing is supposed
to be based on a shared responsibility for community safety and security. Law
enforcement and other community stakeholders are to be partners or ``coproducers'' in the establishment and maintenance of peaceful neighborhoods
(Hartnett and Skogan, 1999, p. 5; Bayley, 1991, pp. 226-7; Wycoff, 1991, pp. 105-6;
Oettmeier and Brown, 1991, p. 126; Klockars, 1991, p. 247; Skolnick and Bayley,
1986, p. 213; Wilson and Kelling, 1982). As noted above, such a partnership
presumes at least minimal agreement about what the problems and potential
solutions are.
A community's social problems and their solutions: consensus or
conflict?
Skogan claims that numerous studies (albeit older ones) show that the
American public, regardless of race or class, almost universally condemns
crimes involving theft and violence (1990, p. 5). He also notes that most people
agree about the relative severity of various types of crimes as well as the
punishments appropriate for different kinds of offenders (Skogan, 1990, p. 5).
However, community-policing scholars (see, for example, Mastrofski, 1991;
Weatheritt, 1991), relying mostly on anecdotal evidence, contend that no such
agreement exists about what Skogan calls ``social disorders.'' Yet, the

identification and amelioration of social disorders, considered crime-producing
problems by community-policing proponents, is a principal goal of community
policing[4].
Skogan (1990, p. 4) identifies two types of social disorder: social and
physical. Social disorder involves behavior: ``you can see it happen (public
drinking, or prostitution), experience it (catcalling or sexual harassment), or
notice direct evidence of it (graffiti, or vandalism).'' Physical disorder is
identified by ``visual signs of negligence and unchecked decay: abandoned or
ill-kept buildings, broken streetlights, trash-filled lots, and alleys strewn with
garbage and alive with rats''[5]. Skogan considers physical disorders as
generally ongoing conditions and social disorders as mostly episodic events.
For Skogan, social and physical disorders are distinct problems with different
solutions. Nevertheless, both types of disorder share in common a number of
undesirable consequences for community residents: anger (of being crowded
out of community life), demoralization (``no one cares'' and ``nothing can be
done''), fear (of violence), more disorder (the problem is contagious), and
stigmatization (of the area and its residents) (Skogan, 1990, pp. 46-50). This
study aims not only to determine whether a community's stakeholders agree
about crimes and crime control policies, but also whether they agree about
social disorders and solutions to those disorders. In this study, the term ``social

problems'' is used to denote both crimes and social disorders (both social and
physical disorder).
To date, evidence from community-policing projects suggests that the
consensus within and between stakeholder groups needed to make community
policing work should neither be assumed nor considered easy to achieve. For
example, in a community-policing project in Seattle, community residents and a
precinct captain disagreed about which physical disorders were more
important. The precinct captain's top priority was abandoned cars used for
drug dealing; residents were more concerned with the overall appearance of the
neighborhood. Officers assigned to the neighborhood complained that they had
little input into the identification of neighborhood problems. (US Department of
Justice, 1992, pp. 12-13)
An evaluation of community policing in Houston found that the program
favored the community's dominant groups (i.e. whites over other racial and
ethnic groups and homeowners over renters). Researchers in Houston
discovered that a consensus about neighborhood problems and their solutions
was difficult to achieve (it was not achieved!) in neighborhoods divided by race,
class, and lifestyle differences (Skogan, 1996, p. 32; Wycoff, 1991, p. 116).
Evaluations of other community-based programs corroborate this observation.

Indeed, the research shows that ``community-based programs are very difficult
to launch in low-income, heterogeneous, high-turnover, high-crime
neighborhoods'' ± the very neighborhoods that need the programs most
(Skogan, 1990, p. 17; also see Sherman, 1997, pp. 2-10).
Class bias seems to be a frequent problem with attempts to implement
community policing. To get programs started, the easiest strategy for the police
is to identify existing community organizations and to work with their
leadership and members. Most members of community organizations,
especially in disadvantaged communities, are white and more affluent
homeowners who live in the better parts of the targeted areas and community
business owners who live outside the community. These ``active'' stakeholders,
who generally comprise no more than 10 to 20 per cent of all community
residents (Skogan, 1990, p. 133), are more likely to be aware of the community
policing programs and participate in them. Minorities and the poor frequently
are unaware of the programs and are excluded from participation or exclude
themselves (see Skogan, 1990, pp. 16, 106-7; Mastrofski, 1991, p. 51). In some
cases, new renters are not contacted because it is assumed that they will not be
in the area long. The police also may be responsible for some of the exclusion.
The police report that they generally find it easier to work with the more
affluent white homeowners than with other residents of targeted communities

(see Skogan, 1990, p. 16; Mastrofski, 1991, p. 52; Weatheritt, 1991, p. 172;
Bayley, 1991, p. 233). Another reason for the exclusion in heterogeneous
communities may be that minorities and the poor sometimes become targets of
the programs rather than beneficiaries of them (see Skogan, 1990, p. 109;
Bayley, 1991, pp. 232-3). Whatever the reason, most of the desirable benefits of
the programs accrue to only two segments of the community ± the more

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
441

PIJPSM
23,4

442

affluent white homeowners and community business owners (see Bayley, 1991,
pp. 233-4).
Even when there is relative racial and class homogeneity in a community,

consensus about community problems is not guaranteed. For example, an
analysis of community-policing projects in eight cities revealed considerable
conflict among community leaders and residents about what problems to
address, as well as other strategic and tactical issues. At several of the sites,
residents refused to get involved with the community-policing projects because
of personality conflicts with community leaders (Sadd and Grinc, 1996).
The police, themselves, also resist community-policing programs (see, for
example, Skogan, 1990, p. 123; Oettmeier and Brown, 1991). Based upon
standard police performance criteria (e.g. making arrests and clearing cases),
many of the programs are considered ``inefficient'' (Skogan, 1990, p. 123). Many
programs run counter to police culture, appearing ``soft'' and, therefore, difficult
for some officers to accept (Skogan, 1990, p. 123). Many programs require
decentralization of decision-making and placing officers in communities for
longer periods rather than rotating them. Historically, police departments went
to centralization of decision-making and the constant rotating of officers to
control police corruption and to sever the ties between officers and local
politicians (see, for example, Skogan, 1990, p. 123; Farrell, 1991; Bayley, 1991, p.
235; Klockars, 1991, p. 253). Decentralization of decision-making also threatens
the authority and control of middle managers, such as lieutenants and captains
(Skogan, 1990, p. 123). For these reasons, and others, the police themselves

often resist community-policing initiatives and become a source of conflict.
As the aforementioned examples suggest, numerous conflicts can plague
efforts to implement community-policing projects. A consensus among
community stakeholders is by no means guaranteed. Conflicts may exist both
among and between community residents, police supervisors, police officers,
community leaders, community business owners, as well as the perpetrators of
a community's problems. Thus, it would seem that conflict about a
community's social problems and their solutions, rather than consensus, may
be the norm (Sadd and Grinc, 1996, p. 14).
Stakeholder conflict should not be surprising for at least two reasons. First,
and philosophically, policing has always been about the resolution of conflicts,
by force if necessary (Weatheritt, 1991, pp. 172-3; Klockars, 1991, p. 257).
Because the police may be called upon to use force to resolve problems, many
police organizations deliberately remove themselves from the community and
the daily lives of citizens (Kelling, 1985; Moore and Kelling, 1983). A problem
for many advocates of community policing is that they have largely ignored the
combative and adversarial aspects of the police role; for them, those aspects
have simply ceased to exist (Weatheritt, 1991, p. 173).
Second, and theoretically, people, and the groups of which they are a part,
frequently perceive the social world differently. This is a source of much

conflict. The list of social policies over which there are substantial differences
and conflicts among people and groups is nearly endless. An interesting

question is why such differences and conflicts exist when everyone presumably
lives in the same social world. The answer, of course, is that people perceive
things differently. What people know about the social world is a product of
how they interpret what they observe. What is observed depends on such
things as cognitive apparatus, past experiences, and the social context in which
the observation is made. It may also depend on such things as social status in
the community. Because of such differences in perception and knowing, people,
to varying extents, socially construct their own unique worlds (see, for
example, Blumer, 1969; Cooley, 1964; Goffman, 1959).
This social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; also see
Quinney, 1970) can become troublesome in a democratic society when it comes
to formulating and implementing public policy, such as community policing.
Such constructions and differences make conflicts possible. This potential for
conflict makes it incumbent on community-policing policymakers in a
democratic society to address the following questions:
(1) Do a community's stakeholders agree on the identification of social
problems and their solutions?

(2) If they do not agree, which stakeholder's perceptions will be used?
(3) If there is no agreement, can a consensus be created?
This study focuses on the first question, and only briefly considers the other
two.
The present study
This study examines what stakeholders living and working in an urban
community in the southeastern United States perceive as the community's
social problems and as the best solutions for resolving those problems. The
stakeholders in this study are:
.
community residents;
.
community business owners;
.
community leaders;
.
law enforcement personnel who work in the community; and
.
area prostitutes.
Based on evidence from previous research and philosophical and theoretical
expectations, we expect to find significant differences within and between the
five groups of stakeholders in the identification of the community's social
problems and solutions.
The target community
The target community of this study is an area of 4.38 square miles. It lies in the
shadows of the downtown business and entertainment district to the north and
a huge tourist area to the south[6]. Bounded to the north by the city limits, the

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
443

PIJPSM
23,4

444

area is entirely under the county's jurisdiction. It consists of a mix of low-tomoderate income housing, commercial property, and light industry. An
interstate highway divides the area in half. The commercial property is located
primarily on both sides of a major thoroughfare with residential areas located
on the side streets to the east and west. Marginal uses and high vacancy rates
have characterized the commercial property. Residential areas lack sanitary
sewers, many side streets are unpaved, there are few sidewalks, there are open
drainage ditches, and there is inadequate street lighting. Absentee landlords
own a high proportion of the low-income rental properties. Despite exploding
population growth in surrounding areas, residential areas of the target
community have experienced little or no population growth over the last three
decades. The population of the area is ethnically diverse with a high percentage
of minorities. Because of the many social services found in the area (e.g. food
pantries, labor pools, rescue missions), there are also many homeless people
and transients. A large county jail near the area provides a continuous supply
of recently released ex-offenders.
Many people perceive the community as a blighted, high-crime area. Even
though it is the smallest of the 27 geographical sheriff's office zones within the
county and is not densely populated, it has consistently generated the highest
number of calls for law enforcement service for nearly two decades. Many of
the calls for service involve order maintenance issues (e.g. disorderly conduct,
loitering, trespass), but the area has always ranked high in index offenses. For
example, in 1998, the zone ranked first in murders, rapes, robberies, and
aggravated assaults, ranked second in burglaries and motor vehicle thefts, and
ranked eighth in larcenies.
Two of the more pervasive crime problems in the area are prostitution and
drug offenses. The numerous run-down motels in the area have long provided a
haven for those activities. However, since the mid-1980s, the emergence of
crack cocaine in the area has combined with prostitution to create a new
problem of crack-addicted prostitutes. The combination of crack-addicted
prostitutes, crack dealers and crack houses, ``johns,'' transients, and homeless
people, and the robberies, thefts, assaults, and disputes among and between
them have contributed to the downward spiral in the area. Many residents,
particularly the older ones, are afraid to leave their homes or venture into their
yards, and property values have declined to the point where many residents
cannot afford to move. Law-abiding residents live under a siege mentality, and
despite considerable expenditures of time, effort, and money, including the
demolition of more than 100 crack houses, law enforcement efforts to address
the problems have been largely ineffective.
Also, since the mid-1970s, the area has been home to about 65 per cent of the
county's adult entertainment establishments (``nudie'' bars, adult bookstores,
massage parlors), which add to the area's poor reputation. The adult
entertainment businesses are believed to contribute to the prostitution and
drug problems and are blamed for the decrease in residential property values
and the difficulty in selling homes. After years of court battles, the adult

entertainment establishments are now regulated by county ordinance, but
damage to the area, according to some observers, has been done.
Methods
Data about stakeholders' perceptions of the community's social problems and
their solutions were collected during the summer and fall of 1998 primarily
from a series of focus groups and personal interviews. The researchers also
attended community organization meetings and obtained further information
from documents and data supplied by community organizations and law
enforcement agencies. From these data, resident and law enforcement survey
instruments were constructed. A slight alteration in wording to make items
relevant to both groups and the deletion of a few resident survey items not
applicable to the law enforcement officers were the only differences between
the two instruments. Additional survey items were adapted from the national
crime victimization survey and from McGarrell et al. (1997).
The survey instruments were pre-tested using target area residents and
sheriff deputies. Pre-test feedback served as the basis for constructing the final
survey instruments, which were distributed during the spring of 1999. (Sample
survey instruments are available from the authors.)
All of the sheriff's deputies who routinely patrol the target community (N =
15) were given survey instruments by the patrol captain. The response rate was
100 per cent.
The resident sampling frame was obtained from a commercial electronic
telephone directory. The directory, updated quarterly, contained the addresses
and phone numbers of all current county residents. A list of about 4,000 target
community residences was culled from the directory. From that list, a sample of
250 addresses was chosen using a random number generator. A return postage
paid envelope was included with each survey. Fifteen days after the initial
mailing, a follow-up reminder post card was mailed to non-respondents. Thirty
days after the initial mailing, a full replacement survey was mailed to nonrespondents.
Fifty-eight resident surveys were returned ± a return rate of 23 per cent.
Thirty-eight were returned marked undeliverable for various reasons leaving a
total of 154 non-responses after an initial 15-day follow-up and 30-day full
replacement mailing. The sampling error (standard error) is 6.56 per cent (see
Maxfield and Babbie, 1998, p. 215). Given the poor response rate typical of
areas like the target community, the final sample size seemed reasonable
enough for drawing tentative conclusions. Survey responses were coded and
statistically analyzed.
Demographic characteristics of the resident and law enforcement samples
are shown in Table I. Unfortunately, the resident sample is not representative
of the study population. For example, there were no black resident responses
and this could have skewed the results (more about this later).
Data were analyzed using several descriptive procedures. Except for the
unrepresentativeness of the resident sample, no data abnormalities were

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
445

PIJPSM
23,4

446

Table I.
Demographic
characteristics of
resident and law
enforcement officer
samples

Residents (N = 58)
(%)

Officers (N = 15)
(%)

Age
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
Over 55

0
0
16
19
16
50

0
0
60
33
7
0

Gender
Male
Female

40
60

NA
NA

Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other

87
0
5
4
4

92
0
8
0
0

Education
8th grade or less
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed college
Some graduate work

3
3
24
31
11
28

0
0
0
43
35
22

Time in community
Less than 6 months
6 months-1 year
1-2 years
2-5 years
5 years or more

2
2
5
17
67

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Characteristic

revealed. Survey responses of residents and law enforcement officers were
compared using the Mann-Whitney U Test for small samples (Lee and
Maykovich, 1995, pp. 372-6). Significant differences were defined as differences
of p = 0.05 or less (two-tailed test of significance).
Findings
The community's social problems
Table II provides a list of the 23 social problems identified by the stakeholders.
It also includes the percentage distributions for the resident and officer survey
response categories and results of significance tests regarding the seriousness
of the problems for residents and law enforcement officers.
Community residents. As shown in Table II, none of the problems rates as a
serious one by a majority of residents. The problems identified as serious by
the largest percentage of residents (percentages in parentheses) are drug
dealing (43 per cent), the bad reputation of the area (42 per cent) and illegal drug

Residents
Social problems
Burglary (breaking into houses to take
something of value)
Robbery (taking something of value from
YOU by force or threat of force)
Assault (someone attacked you personally
with or without a weapon)
Drinking in public
Strangers out on the street
Criminals living in the area
Absentee landlords
Labor pools
Lack of home ownership
Youth gangs
Illegal drug use
Bad reputation of area
Vacant or abandoned houses
Garbage/litter on streets and sidewalks
Drunk drivers
Prostitution
Drug dealing
Kids bothering people
Adult businesses
Inadequate county police services
Lack of police interest in community problems
Lack of community interest in crime prevention
Lack of political support for neighborhood problems

A serious
problem
(%)

Officers

A problem No problem
(%)
(%)

A serious
problem
(%)

A problem No problem
(%)
(%)

p

33

44

23

40

53

7

0.088

22

30

48

87

13

0

0.000

17

31

51

47

53

0

0.000

23
38
36
34
11
11
22
41
42
30
30
25
34
43
30
22
17
13
24
23

29
30
18
30
28
37
35
26
18
30
23
31
25
17
23
22
37
32
32
38

48
32
46
36
61
52
43
32
40
41
46
43
41
40
47
56
46
55
44
39

56
40
73
73
40
40
20
100
73
60
20
13
87
100
47
33
15
20
40
47

53
47
27
27
53
53
60
0
27
40
80
80
13
0
40
60
70
13
60
53

0
13
0
0
7
7
20
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
13
7
15
67
0
0

0.001
0.302
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.170
0.000
0.004
0.002
0.066
0.117
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.003
0.075
0.849
0.002
0.002

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems

447

Table II.
Seriousness of social
problems identified by
stakeholders

PIJPSM
23,4

448

use (41 per cent). However, a majority of residents do agree about 18 less
serious problems. They are (in parentheses are the combined percentages of
those responding either ``a serious problem'' or ``a problem'') burglary (77 per
cent), prostitution (69 per cent), strangers on the street (68 per cent), illegal drug
use (67 per cent), absentee landlords (64 per cent), lack of political support (61
per cent), drug dealing (60 per cent), bad reputation of the area (60 per cent),
vacant or abandoned housing (60 per cent), youth gangs (57 per cent), lack of
community interest in crime prevention (56 per cent), inadequate county police
services (54 per cent), criminals living in the area (54 per cent), drunk drivers
(54 per cent), kids bothering people (53 per cent), garbage/litter on streets and
sidewalks (53 per cent), drinking in public (52 per cent), and robbery (52 per
cent). For a majority of residents, five of the identified problems are not
problems (percentage selecting ``not a problem'' in parentheses): labor pools (61
per cent), adult entertainment businesses (56 per cent), lack of police interest in
community problems (55 per cent), lack of home ownership (52 per cent), and
assault (51 per cent).
Area law enforcement officers. By contrast, a majority of the area's law
enforcement officers feel that seven problems are serious ones (see Table II).
They are illegal drug use (100 per cent), drug dealing (100 per cent), robbery (87
per cent), prostitution (87 per cent), criminals living in the area (73 per cent),
absentee landlords (73 per cent), and vacant or abandoned houses (60 per cent).
Moreover, there is near unanimity among law enforcement officers that all
but one of the 23 problems identified are at least problems, if not serious
ones. The only issue that a majority of the officers do not feel is a problem is a
lack of police interest in community problems (only 33 per cent feel it is a
problem).
Community residents vs area law enforcement officers. There is a consensus
among both community residents and the area's law enforcement officers that
19 of the area's 23 social problems are indeed problems (see Table II). However,
the two groups differ substantially about the seriousness of most of those
problems. For example, both groups consider drug dealing and illegal drug use
as problems, but only 43 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively, of residents feel
the problems are serious ones compared to 100 per cent of the area's law
enforcement officers. The only ``problems'' about which residents and officers
disagree are even problems are assault, labor pools, lack of home ownership,
and adult entertainment businesses. In each case, a majority of law
enforcement officers perceive the issues as problems, while a majority of
residents do not.
Regarding the relative seriousness of the problems, both groups agree about
only seven of the 23 problems and consider none of them as serious. They agree
about burglary, strangers out on the street, youth gangs, garbage/litter on the
street, drunk drivers, and inadequate county police services. They also agree
that a lack of police interest in community problems is not a problem.
Community business owners[7]. Community business owners complain
about three major problems: prostitutes (``streetwalkers''), drug dealing

(especially crack cocaine), and transients. The owners maintain that transients
are attracted to the area because of the resources available to them, especially
the labor pools ± which the owners consider as another problem. The lack of
building code enforcement is also cited as a big problem. The first two
problems are interrelated. Most of the prostitutes are crack users who ply their
trade to support their drug habits. These crack users (not necessarily
prostitutes) are also believed to commit many of the robberies in the area to
support their habits. The sale of crack cocaine in the area is a major business
that utilizes ``crack houses'' (frequently abandoned houses), and boys on
bicycles who sell the drug. The bicycle boys are part of an elaborate security
system designed to protect the major dealers. The business owners relate that
businessmen and tourists are told that the area is where to go to get prostitutes
and drugs.
The major complaint about transients is that they sleep, urinate, and loiter
on the streets. Many customers and community residents feel threatened and
repulsed by their presence. One business owner blamed the liberal media and
groups such as the ACLU for the problem because they defend the right of the
transients to be in the area.
Lack of political support to clean up the area is another problem cited by the
business owners, as is the absence of a consistent commitment by law
enforcement to the area's problems. Some business owners and other
community stakeholders believe that county officials have adopted an
unwritten policy to contain the social problems within the area rather than to
eradicate them. Perhaps paradoxically, most of the business owners do not
consider the adult entertainment businesses a problem.
Because information from business owners was obtained in a focus group
rather than by survey, responses of the business owners are not directly
comparable to those of community residents and the area's law enforcement
officers. Still, it appears that the business owners share many of the concerns of
the other two groups. For example, in no particular order there appears to be a
relative consensus about the problems of robbery, transients (strangers on the
street), illegal drug use, the bad reputation of the area, prostitution, drug
dealing, inadequate county police services (business owners focus on lack of
building code enforcement), and lack of political support. The three groups
differ only about two issues. First, a majority of law enforcement officers
believe that the adult entertainment businesses are a problem, while a majority
of residents and business owners do not. Second, law enforcement officers and
residents believe that officers are more committed to solving the area's
problems than the business owners believe the officers are. The list of problems
cited by the business owners is also much shorter than the list of problems
identified by either residents or law enforcement officers, probably reflecting
the more narrow interests of the business owners and the data collection
method[8].
Community leaders[9]. The community leaders are all homeowners in the
area who actively promote the betterment of the community. Like the

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
449

PIJPSM
23,4

450

previously discussed stakeholders, the community leaders view drug dealing
and prostitution as two of the area's major problems. They observe that the
clients of the drug dealers and prostitutes come from outside the area. The
community leaders believe that drug dealing and prostitution contribute to
violence and the dangerous reputation of the area. One leader noted that the
community is considered so dangerous that pizza companies will not make
deliveries in the area.
Other problems cited by community leaders are street people
(homelessness), lack of home ownership and strong family units (too many
renters and broken homes), adult entertainment businesses (that attract a bad
element that wants drugs and prostitutes), area politicians (especially county
commissioners) who will not support zoning changes or the blocking of
through streets, and the failure of law enforcement to achieve results. At least
one community leader believes that the lack of political support for the area is
the most fundamental problem. Regarding the failure of law enforcement, it
was noted that although there is a law enforcement presence in the area,
officers do not respond quickly or effectively to problems. The leaders
complain that despite undercover operations, reverse stings, ``sweeps,'' and
conventional arrests, they see the same prostitutes and drug dealers all the
time. Moreover, law enforcement officers have told residents that before
residents call the sheriff's office for help, residents must first see people with
drugs and that before sheriff's deputies can intervene, deputies must catch the
drug dealers and users in the act. The problem is that the drug dealers have an
elaborate surveillance system that makes it difficult to catch them in the act.
Community leaders maintain that area residents are treated as second-class
citizens. Two examples illustrate this point. First, postal employees do not get
out of their cars when delivering mail; instead, they simply drive across
residents' lawns. Second, the area's children are subjected to an inferior
education. Students are rarely given homework primarily because there are not
enough books for all students. Children make the school's honor roll even
though they cannot read. Parents rarely complain.
According to community leaders, effectively organizing community
residents to improve the area and quality of life is made difficult by community
fragmentation along racial and ethnic lines. A white female noted that most of
the blacks in the area are renters and do not particularly care about the area
because they do not believe that they will be there very long. One of the more
interesting and serendipitous findings from the community residents' survey
was that no black residents returned a questionnaire. One possible reason could
be that black residents are so apathetic or alienated they had no interest in
responding (more about this issue later). Another reason may be that some
black residents were not able to read the survey instrument. (These reasons
could explain why non-black residents failed to respond as well.) In any event,
two other impediments to organizing are that most of the long-time residents
have given up hope and that many of the senior citizens are so afraid that they
have barricaded themselves inside their homes and will not come out at night.

In sum, community leaders identified some of the same problems cited by
the other stakeholders, but they also identified some additional ones such as
lack of home ownership (identified as a problem by law enforcement officers
but not by community residents or business owners), treatment of residents as
second-class citizens, and difficulties in effectively organizing community
residents. The four groups of stakeholders agree about the following problems:
strangers on the street (transients), the bad reputation of the area, prostitution,
drug dealing, inadequate county police services (building code enforcement for
business owners and lack of results for community leaders), and lack of
political support. A lack of community interest in crime prevention was cited as
a problem by a majority of residents, law enforcement officers, and community
leaders but was not mentioned by business owners (but see note 8).
Area prostitutes[10]. The prostitutes mentioned many of the same problems
identified by the community residents. Perhaps this is because five of the six
prostitutes are residents themselves who have lived in the community from one
to seven years. When asked why they prostituted in the target community, they
responded that the area has a widespread reputation (for prostitution and other
vices), that the area is where the money is, that it is the only area they know, or
they have never tried another area. None of them feels safe prostituting in the
area; only one of them has a pimp. Their clients are both from the neighborhood
and elsewhere (outsiders). The primary reason why all of them are prostituting
is to get money to support their drug (mostly crack cocaine) habits. One of them
volunteered that she initially began prostituting simply to get money. Now,
however, she prostitutes to support her crack cocaine habit.
Solutions to social problems
Table III presents ten potential solutions identified by the stakeholders and the
degree to which residents and the area's law enforcement officers agree about
their utility.
Community residents. Table III shows that there is no strong agreement
among a majority of residents about any of the ten proposed solutions. The
solution agreed upon most strongly by the largest percentage of residents is
tearing down crack houses, supported by 50 per cent of them. There is,
however, at least some agreement (combining ``strongly agree'' and ``agree''
categories) among residents about seven of the ten solutions (see Table III). The
three solutions about which a majority of residents do not agree (percentage
agreeing in parentheses) are closing down adult entertainment businesses (50
per cent), blocking off streets to through traffic (33 per cent), and improving the
physical appearance of the area (29 per cent). Regarding improving the
physical appearance of the area and blocking off streets to through traffic, it
should be noted that 50 and 46 per cent of residents, respectively, do not know
about their utility. In the case of closing down adult entertainment business,
26 per cent of residents do not know.
Area law enforcement officers. In contrast to residents, a majority of the
area's law enforcement officers strongly agree with two of the proposed

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
451

A
(%)

Deputies patrolling on bikes are a good way to reduce
crime in the area

33

38

26

Tearing down crack houses is a good way to reduce
crime in the area

50

31

A sheriff's precinct in the area would be a good way
to reduce crime

36

The best way for the sheriff's office to solve problems
in the area is to have deputies specifically assigned
to the area

Officers
DK
D
(%)
(%)

SD
(%)

SA
(%)

A
(%)

3

0

66

33

0

10

5

3

61

33

29

19

10

5

44

36

46

15

3

0

If the adult entertainment businesses were closed down,
crime would decrease

29

21

26

19

Efforts to improve the physical appearance of the area
have been effective in reducing crime in the area

3

26

50

Neighborhood watch programs are a good way to
reduce crime in the area

33

48

If additional street lights were installed, I would feel
safer in the area

33

If zoning and building code violations were enforced
the area would be safer
If streets were blocked off to through traffic, the
area would be safer

Potential solutions

PIJPSM
23,4

452

Table III.
Potential solutions to
social problems
identified by
stakeholders
Residents
DK
D
(%)
(%)

SA
(%)

SD
(%)

p

0

0

0.002

5

0

0

0.184

27

16

5

0

0.727

45

33

0

22

0

0.896

5

33

28

11

22

6

0.795

17

3

6

22

28

22

22

0.066

12

7

0

28

50

17

5

0

0.784

41

16

9

2

33

50

0

17

0

0.895

34

22

32

10

2

41

59

0

0

0

0.019

14

19

46

20

2

22

28

33

17

0

0.491

solutions and at least agree (combining ``strongly agree'' and ``agree'' categories)
with six others (see Table III). The two solutions with which a majority of
officers strongly agree are patrolling the area on bikes (66 per cent) and tearing
down crack houses (61 per cent). A majority of officers also at least agree with
enforcing zoning and building code violations, installing additional street
lights, establishing neighborhood watch programs, having a sheriff's precinct
office in the area, having deputies specifically assigned to the area, and closing
down adult entertainment businesses. The two solutions about which the
officers do not agree are blocking off streets to through traffic (50 per cent
agree) and improving the physical appearance of the area (only 28 per cent
agree). Officers seem more certain about the solutions (i.e. fewer do not knows)
than do residents.
Community residents vs area law enforcement officers. There is a relative
consensus between residents and the area's law enforcement officers about the
effectiveness of seven of the proposed solutions and about the ineffectiveness of
two of them (see Table III). The two groups differ only about the utility of
closing adult entertainment businesses. Although a majority of neither group
feels strongly about closing adult entertainment businesses, a majority of law
enforcement officers support it, while a majority of residents do not. Still, 50 per
cent of residents support it, and 26 per cent do not know; so the difference
between the two groups on the issue may not be difficult to overcome. The two
groups agree about deputies patrolling on bikes, tearing down crack houses,
having a sheriff's precinct office in the area, having deputies assigned
specifically to the area, establishing neighborhood watch programs, installing
additional street lights, and enforcing zoning and building codes. There is also
a relative consensus between the two groups about the probable ineffectiveness
of two proposed solutions: improving the physical appearance of the area and
blocking off streets to through traffic. However, 50 per cent of residents do not
know about beautification, 46 per cent of residents do not know about blocking
streets, and 50 per cent of officers support blocking streets. (Thus, it may not
take much to convince a majority of both groups to support both proposals.)
Other differences between residents and officers. For the most part, officers
believe they are doing a much better job than residents believe the officers are
doing (see Table IV). For example, when asked whether the county sheriff's
office does a good job reducing crime in the area, 83 per cent of officers either
strongly agree (39 per cent) or agree (44 per cent) that it does, while only 53 per
cent of residents either strongly agree (5 per cent) or agree (48 per cent) that it
does. When asked whether the sheriff's office drug and vice units have done a
good job at reducing crime in the area, 67 per cent of officers either strongly
agree (22 per cent) or agree (45 per cent) they have done a good job, while only
31 per cent of residents either strongly agree (3 per cent) or agree (28 per cent)
that officers have done a good job. To the statement that the sheriff's office is
doing a good job working together with the residents of the area to solve local
problems, 61 per cent of officers either strongly agree (17 per cent) or agree (44
per cent) with the statement, while only 34 per cent of residents either strongly

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
453

A
(%)

The sheriff's office does a good job of reducing
crime in the area

5

48

29

The sheriff's office drug and vice units have done
a good job at reducing crime in the area

3

28

The sheriff's office is doing a good job working
together with the residents of my area to solve
local problems

7

I feel satisfied with the job the sheriff's office is
doing in the area to reduce crime

5

SA
(%)

A
(%)

15

2

39

44

11

50

17

2

22

45

27

53

12

2

17

32

30

29

3

39

Residents
Better Worse Same
(%)
(%)
(%)
How would you describe the general condition of the
area over the past year?

Officers
DK
D
(%)
(%)

SD
(%)

12

32

52

PIJPSM
23,4

454

Table IV.
Other differences
between residents and
officers
Residents
DK
D
(%)
(%)

SA
(%)

SD
(%)

p

6

0

0.000

22

11

0

0.008

44

28

11

0

0.142

44

11

6

0

0.000

Officers
Better Worse Same
(%)
(%)
(%)
40

20

40

0.061

agree (7 per cent) or agree (27 per cent) with it. When asked if they are satisfied
with the job the sheriff's office is doing to reduce crime in the area, 83 per cent
of officers either strongly agree (39 per cent) or agree (44 per cent) they are
satisfied, while only 37 per cent of residents either strongly agree (5 per cent) or
agree (32 per cent) they are satisfied. When asked to describe the general
condition of the area over the past year, 12 per cent of residents compared to 40
per cent of officers believe it is getting better, 32 per cent of residents and 20 per
cent of officers believe it is getting worse, and 52 per cent of residents and
40 per cent of officers believe it is about the same.
There are also significant differences between residents and officers about
the level of cooperation or support residents are likely to provide in addressing
the area's social problems (see Table V). Law enforcement officers are much
more pessimistic about the area's residents than the residents are about
themselves. For example, when queried whether residents or business owners
are bound to call the police if a suspicious person is hanging around the area, 50
per cent of residents either strongly agree (18 per cent) or agree (32 per cent)
they will, while only 20 per cent of officers agree (none of them strongly agree)
that residents will (not in Table). When asked what residents of the area would
most likely do if they were having trouble with rowdy teenagers in front of
their homes, 3 per cent of residents but 40 per cent of officers respond that
residents would do nothing. By contrast, 78 per cent of residents but only 53
percent of officers believe that residents will call the police. A total of 6 and 7
per cent of residents and officers, respectively, believe residents will confront
rowdy teenagers, and 13 per cent of residents but no officers believe that
residents will get other neighbors and confront them. When asked what
residents would most likely do if they learned that people were selling crack
cocaine from a home in their neighborhood, 4 per cent of residents but 67 per
cent of officers believe that the residents will do nothing. By contrast 93 per
cent of residents but only 3 per cent of officers believe that residents will call
the police. When asked whether people in the area ``help each other'' or ``go their
own way,'' only 33 per cent of residents and no officers believe people help each
other.
The area's residents and its law enforcement officers also perceive the area
and its dangers differently (see Table VI). When asked whether the area is ``a
real home'' or ``just a place to live,'' 39 per cent of residents responded that it is a
real home, while no officers responded that way. When asked how safe they
feel walking alone in the area during the day, 57 per cent of residents feel either
very safe (16 per cent) or safe (41 per cent), while only 7 per cent of officers feel
safe (none feels very safe). When asked how safe they feel walking alone in the
area at night, 24 per cent of residents feel either very safe (7 per cent) or safe (17
per cent), while only 7 per cent of officers feel safe (none feels very safe).
One area in which there appears to be a relative consensus between both
groups is whether criminals feel safer in the targeted area than in other areas of
the county. A total of 49 per cent of residents and 40 per cent of officers agree

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems
455

Call
police
(%)

Do
nothing
(%)

Officers
Get other
neighbors
Confront
and
them
confront
(%)
(%)

PIJPSM
23,4

456

Table V.
Differences regarding
levels of cooperation or
support
Do
nothing
(%)

Residents
Get other
neighbors
Confront
and
them
confront
(%)
(%)

Call
police
(%)

p

If residents of the area were having
trouble with rowdy teenagers in
front of their homes, which of the
following would they most likely do?

3

6

13

78

40

7

0

53

0.005

If residents of the area learned that
people were selling crack cocaine
from a home in their neighborhood,
which of the following would they
be most likely to do?

4

0

3

93

67

0

0

33

0.000

Residents

How would you describe the area?

Officers

People help
each other
(%)

People go
their own
way
(%)

People help
each other
(%)

People go
their own
way
(%)

p

33

67

0

100

0.052

Residents

Do residents feel the area is

Officers

A real
home
(%)

Place to
live
(%)

A real
home
(%)

Place to
live
(%)

p

39

61

0

100

0.012

Residents

How safe do you feel
walking alone during
the day in the area?
How safe do you feel
being outside and alone
in the area at night?

Officers
Very
unsafe Very safe

Very safe

Safe

Neither

Unsafe

Safe

Neither

16

41

22

16

5

0

7

27

7

17

19

26

31

0

7

7

Very
unsafe

p

53

13

0.000

26

60

0.004

Unsafe

Perceptions of
neighborhood
problems

457

Table VI.
Perceptual differences
of the area

PIJPSM
23,4

458

that criminals feel safer in the targeted area; however, 22 per cent of residents
and 20 per cent of officers do not know (not in Table).
Community business owners. Among the solutions cited by business owners
are more aggressive building code enforcement, greater political support, zero
tolerance for crime, a more consistent commitment by law enforcement, and
better coordination of community resources.
Community leaders. Solutions suggested by community leaders include
getting rid of adult entertainment businesses or making it costlier for them to
do business, getting rid of prostitutes and drug dealers or at least providing
stiffer penalties for them, changing the street layout by blocking off streets,
stiffer penalties for absentee landlords who allow their properties to be used for
criminal activities, improved infrastructure including a branch bank, a library,
a grocery store (one is supposedly coming), and a local voting place (most
residents cannot get to the current voting place which is six miles away
because of lack of transportation).
Area prostitutes. As noted previously, because five of the six prostitutes are
area residents, it is not surprising that they identified many of the same
solutions to the area's problems as did other community re