Public Attitudes Toward City Police in a Middle-Sized Northern City?

Charles H. McCaghy, Ph.D.* Irving L. Allen, Ph.l). J. David Cdfax, Ph.D.

In recent years the police in the United States have attained a cer- tain prominence in the eyes of their public. The mass media have docu- mented charges of police dishonesty and outright criminality in cities such as Denver and Chicago. The TY screen provides front row views of police confrontations with civil rights demonstrators, dissentient stu- dents on campus, and protestors of the \let h’am War. We hear frequent claims of police brutality against minority group members and we see news photos of police crouching behind cars to avoid snipers’ bullets during racial rioting. And, finally, recent widely publicized Supreme Court decisions are cleurly predicated on the conclusion that hereto- fore police have not respected the rights of citizens during arrest and interrogation.

Not only have police had greater exposure to the general public, but their role toward that police has been changing. IVith a proliferation of regulations which they must enforce, the police have been increasingly cxpected to impose their authority upon citizens who are not clearly “criminal” in the traditional sense of that term. Ttday’s social unrest has brought the police into even greater conflict with the “law-abiding” citizen. In other words, the policeman’s role cannot be idealized as being a bulwark between society and those who seek to destroy it. An analogy suggested by Lord Devlin is that of the sheepdog who was originally employed to keep off the wolves but now strictly controls and harries the sheep themselves.’ According to Devlin, this change in the function of the police has profound negative effects on their relationships with the public. As James Q. \l’ilson succinctly put the problem: “The fact that the police can no longer take for granted that noncriminal citizens are also nonhostile citizens may be the most important problem which even the

tFrom a paper presented at the annual meetings of The Soclety for the Study of Social Problems in San Franclsco. August, 1967.

Funds for this research were provided in part by National Science Foundation Institu- tional Grant #1896 made to Western Reserve University and by United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 0ff:ce of Education’s Cooperative Research Program.

technically proficient department must face.”* Thus it appears that the public image of the policeman is assailed by

bad publicity and increased conflict with the nominally non-criminal seg- ment of society, The purpose of the study reported in this paper was to determine by interview survey the extent to which hostile attitudes to- ward police exist in a medium-sized Northern city, namely Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford had a population of 162,000 according to the 1960 census. In 1966 we estimate that about 25 percent of the population were Negro. At the time of the survey, June and July of 1966, there was little overt evidence of dissatisfaction with the police by Hartford residents. Later events, however, indicated there had been a growing dissatisfaction, particularly among the Negroes. This change is best illustrated by com- paring reactions to Kegro charges of police brutality in 1964 and in 1967.

In the summer of 1964, a short-lived militant civil rights group, desperate for a program that would mobilize community support among the nearly 40,000 Negroes in the north end ghetto section of Hartford, launched a campaign charging police brutality. They urged residents to report “all cases of brutality, rough treatment, name calling and abuse” to the organization. The choice of this strategy seems to have been dictated largely by esternal events. This was a summer of numerous civil rights demonstrations in Mississippi and a time when charges of police brutality were beginning to be heard in many major cities. When ques- tioned about the local basis for the charges, however, the group was unable to provide any evidence of such behavior by Hartford police, and the group, consequently, was subjected to considerable derision. Clearly, at this point the local police had not become a legitimate target of civil rights protest.

A year later, during the week of the Watts riots, several former members of the now-defunct group moved throughout the north end calling for similar action. They were arrested on charges of inciting not, and their cases dismissed several months later. Again, national events had prompted local efforts that apparently failed to take into account local conditions. Nevertheless, another link had been forged between the national racial scene and local anti-police activities.

It was not until September, 1966, two months after our survey had been completed, that an incident occurred that provided a focus for Negro anti-police sentiment; ironically, it involved the state police and a state-wide civil rights group. When a group of welfare recipients, pri- marily from New Haven, staged a sit-in at the state welfare commission- er’s office in Hartford, the state police were called in to expel them. Seventeen persons were arrested and several allegedly were beaten and injured by the police. Given the nature of the issue and the lack of com-

15

munity support for the demonstrators, little more than a formal investiga- tion resulted from the incident. Nevertheless, it provided evidence that the police would be used against demonstrators.

It was not surprising, therefore, that the charge of police bnitality carried considerably more credence when it set off the not in July 1967 than it had a few years before. Between 1964 and 1967, anti-police senti- ment in the ghetto had become institutionalized. A sufficient number of events had occurred to provide a rationale for such attitudes, and,.al- though the local police may have done little if anything to deserve such animosity, they had came to represent oppressive authority to a sizable minority of ghetto residents.

The Sample Survey Data

The data for this study were collected as a part of a multi-purpose sample survey in the central city of Hartford, Connecticut, during June and July, 1966. The sample is a self-weighting two-stage stratified area probability sample of households. The first stage was a sample of all square block areas in the city. The primary units were selected with probabilities proportionate to the number of households on each block. At the second stage, every dwelling unit in each of the 100 selected pri- mary units was listed, and the lists of dwelling units were subsampled. The resulting overall sampling fraction was about 1/73. The sample was drawn such that about seven dwelling units were selected on each block, and interviews were completed in about six households. One respondent was randomly selected from all adults 30 years of age or over within each sample household. The sample is self-weighting for households but not for indivitluiil respondents, as each respondent had a probability of selection that was inversely proportionate to the number of adults in his housrhold.3 Interviews were conducted and wmpleted with 618 re- spondents which reprcsents an 85 percent completion of the drawn sample.

Satisfaction With Policemen’s Job

Despite the proliferation of criticism directed toward policemen, the citizens of Hartford on the whole appear to be satisfied with their performance. When asked, “How do you feel about the kind of job the police are doing here in Hartford?” 65.0 percent of the subjects were satisfied, 23.1 percent were somewhat satisfied, 7.9 percent were dissat- isfied, and 3.9 percent were unsure. In other words, nearly two-thirds of the respondents espressed unri~~alified satisfaction with the job their city policemen were doing. These figures bear a remarkable similarity to results on a nationwide NORC poll for the President’s Crime Commis-

16

sion in response to “Do you think that the police here do an excellent, good, fair, or a poor job of enforcing the laws?.’ To this, 67 percent answered excellent or good, 24 percent fair, and S percent poor.4

It has been argued that the “problem” of police-community relations is primarily one of poor relations between the police and minority groups? Other studies have indicated that non-whites tend to be more critical of police than wliites.6 The present study reveals no esception to this conclusion; while 52.5 percent of the Negro sample ( N = 120) were satisfied with the police job, 68.1 percent of the whites (N = 498) were.

In other studies, ses of respondent was found to be related to satis- faction with police performance. Gourley, in his Los Angeles study, found men to be more favorable toward police; but women were more likely to claim ignorance about police.? An NORC poll indicated that Negro women were more critical than Negro men but that little differ- ence existed between white men and women.* The results for our study are: 72.4 percent of the 2-46 males expressed satisfaction while 60.2 per- cent of the 372 females did so. While controlling for race, our data fail to reveal that Negro women are more critical than Negro men. Instead, we find that among Negro females, 9.9 percent were “unsure,” while their proportions in the “Somewhat satisfied” and “Dissatisfied” cate- gories were nearly identical to Negro males. -4inong white females 5.5 percent were “unsure” while the rest of the distribution indicated a slightly more critical attitude than white males. Nevertheless, the most significant aspect of the sex variable appears to be the professed ignor- ance of women concerning policemen’s performance.

In his Los Angeles survey, Gourley found some evidence of an in- verse relationship between occupational status of respondents and favor- able attitudes toward police.9 Specifically, he found public servants ( most of whom were policemen) and unskilled laborers to be most favorably inclined toward police while professionals, students, and Iiousewives were least favorably inclined. Because Gourley classified his respond- ents in terms of their own occupation, however, it is questionable whether his results accurately reflect attitudes by class or occupational level, es- pecially since “housewives” and “stuclents” constitute 32.2 percent of Iiis sample. In the present study respondents are classified according to oc- cupation of head of lzouseliold.~Q Occupations were ordered according to IIollingshead’s scale.”

Differences in satisfaction with the police’s job by occ~ipational levels are not statistically significant at the .05 level. Despite some evidence‘ of varying depees of satisfaction by occupational level, there does not appear to be a linear relationship between occ~~pational level and satis- faction with police performance.

Our findings are also at variance with Gourley’s finding that there is

17

an inverse relationship between education and satisfaction with police.’2 Gourley also found that respondents aged 55 or over were most satisfied with police’3; our data fail to reveal any relationship between either edu- cation or age and satisfaction with police. The most striking aspect of the age distribution is an increased proportion of “unsure” responses after age 60.

In order to ascertain sources of dissatisfaction with the police, the 192 respondents who were “somewhat satisfied” or “dissatisfied were asked: “What in your opinion.would be the single best way in which the work of the Hartford police department could be improved?“ Most sug- gestions cxmcern practical manpower problems and enforcement proce- dures: increase size of force, increase patrols, and stricter enforcement policies amount for 58.3 percent of the responses. On the other hand, suggestions concerning need to improve officer quality, to end discrimi- natory practices, to end brutality, and to eliminate political interference accwrint for 111.8 percent of the responses. It appears, then, that the primary reasons for public unhappiness with the police involve their inability or unwillingness to act as law enforcers; abuse of role pre- rogatives constitutes only a minor issue.

When esamining suggestions for improving police performance ac- cording to the race of the respondents, we find that both Negroes and whites ( 34.3 and 34.7 percents, respectively) were primarily concerned with increasing the size of the force.’The second largest proportion of whites (16.S percent) inade suggestions in a similar vein by asking for increased number of patrols, whereas the secmd highest proportion of Negroes (26.5 perccmt ) were concerned itbout improvement of officer quality, again demonstrating a relationship between race and unfavorable attitude toward police. The third largest proportion of white responses (14.7 percent were either “don’t know’s” or too vague to be coded; among the Negroes identical proportions (12.2 percent) were found in this latter category and that in suggesting stricter enforcement policies.

Some Specific Issues Asking subjects to simply evaluate the job which the local police

are doing has obvious limitations. In the first place, there may be wide variation among subjects’ conceptions of what the policeman’s job should be. Furthermore, some subjects may feel one can judge the policeman’s job only in a relative fashion, since they perceive all policemen as labor- ing under certain intellectual and personality handicaps. It is doubtful, in other words, whether such a question really taps the basic attitudes which subjects have toward police and the way they perform their role. Therefore, subjects were questioned on specific criticisms which are popularly directed toward police. Eight sentences, such as ‘Policemen

18

are not understanding and helpful” were used to represent these critic- isms. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each sentence.

The criticism receiving the largest percentage of agreement (34.3 percent ) concerned the policeman’s contact with citizens over relative- ly minor considerations: “Policemen spend too much time worryjng about the little crimes and not enough time trying to prevent the big ones.” It has been pointed out by Reiss and Bordua that some police depart- ments, in order to maintain an image of success, build up their “produc- tion” volume through misdemeanors rather than felonies, especially those involving traffic and juveniles.14 It is easy to see that under pressures for production, which may include a quota system for traffic tickets, the individual policeman may come to view the number of arrests as the criterion of his own success. But zeal in enforcing minor regulations has consequences for the public’s opinion of the police. Skolnick has noted that traffic patrols play a major role in alienating the policeman from the respectable community; that the policeman steps on the good citizen’s toes when he “directs” him or restrains his freedom in crowds, bothers him when he is drunk, or harasses him in “lovers’ lane.”l5 The good citizen may not understand why he or his child should be treated for a trivial offense in the same manner as a persistent and presumably deliberate offender. Why should his liberty be interfered with when there are cer- tainly far more serious criminals abroad?16

The second highest percentage of agreement (33.5) concerned the statement: “If you know the right people you can do what you want and the police won’t bother you.” As Banton indicates, a police force may be efficient, brave, kind, and possess many other virtues, yet some kinds of criminal activity may operate with virtual immunity.17 It is no doubt a source of scepticism for the public that both they and the police know who the criminals are and where they operate, yet neither seems able to do anything about them. Apparently, the public sees what Tannenbaum called a “web of corniption”: protection for certain ac- tivities whose source ranges from the very top of the political establish- ment down to the individual patrolman who is forced to serve corrupt influences.18 The extent to which political influence protects criminal activities in Hartford was not explored in this study, but it is evident that a sizable proportion of Hartford citizens do believe such influence exists.

Less than a fifth of the sample agreed, and over half disagreed, with each of the remaining six criticisms. In an attempt to discover the subjects’ opinions on police arrogance they were presented with the statement: “Policemen usually think they are better than anybody else.”19 Only 20.7 percent agreed with this statement; approximately the same proportion (20.1 percent) agreed that police are unnecessarily brutal:

19

“Policemen use force more often than they need to.” One of the most frequently heard criticisms of the police is that in

one way or another they discriminate against socially disadvantaged per- s o n ~ . ~ ~ To discover the estent of agreement on this claim, the Hartford respondents were asked their opinion on: “The police often take advan- tagc of poor people” and “Policemen usually do not treat Negroes as fair- ly as they do whites.” There was agreement of 16.0 and 14.7 percent, respectively.

The lowest percentages of agreement concerned statements regard- ing nideness and lack of intelligence ainong police, 13.1 percent of the respondents agreeing that “Policemen usually are not understanding and helpful,“ and 12.3 percxmt agreeing that “Policemen usually are not very intelligent.”

In making inferences from o w sample to the whole population of Hartford, it is evident that even on issues for which police are wually critidzed, the p q i l c of I-Iartforrl tend to view their police force in a favorable light, On only two issues, those of political influence and clis- proportionate attention to minor crime, did more than a third of the popu- lation flatly agree with the critical statements. On the other hand, it should be noted that the percentage of clisugreoiicnt never reached seventy percent. V’hen over thirty percent of the population is critical of, ambivalent toward. or iinsiire about police prrformance, this hardly con- stitutes a n overwhelmiiig endorsement.

Turning nest to the variable of respondent’s race, we find that first, proportionately morc Nrgroes than whitc.s agree with all specific critic- isms of the po1ic.r and scvond, there are varying degrees of difference hetween Segroes and whites depending on the specific criticism. The first fincling inc1icatc.s that, conipired to whitc~s, Negro attitiides toward police are more nc*gativc not only ir i goierul ( a s discussed earlier), but also on spccific i.ssrtes. The second observation suggests that certain criticisms of the police are more rc4cviint than others to the social position of the respondents.

Wheii cq)mparing Kegrocs with whitcs on specific statements, we find that the greatest differences (over 20.0 percent) occur on the ques- tions of disproportionate attention t o minor crimes, brutality, and dis- crimination against Xegroes. ~ 1 - r ~ ~ ~ criticisms are relatively consistent with a perception of police liimusmcnt of a minority group. On the other hand, there is relative agreement ( less than 5.0 percent difference) between Kegroes and whites about police activity which is either readily observable to the general public or is not directed specifically at minor- ities. Such questions are those concerning political influence and lack of intelligence among the police.

30

Conclusion

Whether there is a “problem” of police-community reIations in Hartford and cities similar to Hartford depends much on how you look at it. From the broadest perspective, approximately two-thirds of the population are clearly satisfied with the performance of their city police, and a similar proportion generally disagrees with criticisms commonly leveled against police. From the Negro viewpoint, however, the picture is somewhat different: less than half are clearly favorable toward police. If, in fact, this critical group represents a major portion of the population with which police must deal, then from the policeman’s standpoint there is a serious problem in police-community relations in such communities.

Other studies have indicated that policemen are very conscious of citizen hostility,21 yet studies such as Gourley’s, NORC, and ours indicate that dissatisfaction with the police is an isolated, not a widespread phenomenon. The importance of this dissatisfaction and what it repre- sents should not be. underestimated, however; althongh isolated, it is concentrated in a relatively homogeneous segment of the population and it reaches its focal point among those with whom police have their day-to-day contacts. The task of better police-community relations must begin here. When a charge of police brutality set off the July, 1967 riots in Hartford, it became clear than even in those cities with a ma11 nonwhite population and a relatively uneventful history of race relations, anti-police sentiment, possibly stemming from routine contacts with police, can become the vehicle for expressing the more general minority group frustration and hostility.

0 0 0 0

NOTES

1. Patrick Arthur Devlin, “The Police in a Changing Society,” Joorrrnul of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 57 (June, 1966). 124.

2. James Q. Wilson, “Police Morale, Reform, and Citizen Respect: The Chicago Case,” The Police: Six Sociolog&al Essays, ed. David J . Bordna, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), 158.

3. A more complete discussion of the field and interviewing procedures will be found in: Inring L. M e n and J. h v i d Colfax, Urban Sample Suruey Field Pro- cedures: Materialr and Strategies, Urban Research Report No. 12, May, 1967, Community Structure Series: No. 2 (Storrs, Conn.: Institute of Urban Research, University of Connecticut).

4. The President’s Commission on Law Ehforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Cavernment Printing Office, 1967), 145.

5. James J. Allman, “Some Aspects of the Public Attitudes Toward Police,” Potice and the Changing Community, ed. Nelson A. Watson, (Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, lW), 22-27 and The Resident’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), 99-10.

21

6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

Ihitl .; Pliilip 11. Ennis, “Crimes, Victims nnd the Policc,” ’l’r~im~ictioii 4 ( ]me 1987), 41-42; c. hug1ns Goiirky, Pithkc Rchrtioiiv f r r i d t/rc P o h ( Springficsltl, 111.: Char1c.s C. Thomiis, 1953), 75-77; aiid Jiick 1. h i s s iu id Iloward J. Ehrlich, An Excrnriiirition of Rob Theory: The Case of the Strite Policc (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, l966), 136-137. Gourley, 72-74. Ennis, 42 Gourlcy, 85-92 If the rcspondcmt \viis mtile, his occupation w a s used; if the res ndcnt was fcmult-, itlid at the time of the interview wns single, se areted, or gorcerl, lier occupation was nsed. Husl>nnd’s occupation was use% for femnle respondents who were married iind living with sponse, or were widowed. Al1gnst B. IIollingsheiid. “Two Factors Index of Social Position,” mimeographed, New Huvcn. 1957. Courlcy, 79-82. Ihid., 63-67. Allicrt J. Iiciss, Jr. imd Dnvid J. Borduii, “Environment iind 0rg;uiizatiori: A Yrrs wctive on the Police,” Tlir Police: Six Sociologicrrl E.vscty.t, ed. Diivirl J. Bordiin, (New York: John Wiley nnd Sons, 1967). 3437. .Jcromc ‘ I I. Skolnick, ]ti.uticc Withotit Tricil: Lmr: Enforcoiicnt iii Doitocrntic Socicf!y (Nrw Tork: John Wiley and Sons, l!)G6), 55-56. AIichocl B;inton, The Po/iccvncin in the Coitiiiittnity (New York: Biisic Rooks, hie., lOCri), 135; aiitl P. h.1. W. Voelcker, “The Teenuge Sliint.” Thc Pollcc nnd fhc Piiblic rd. C. 11. Rolph, ( London: Hainemnnn, 1962), 90. Biinton, 92-95. Friiiik l’onnrnlxium, Critire mid the Coninirtnit!/ ( Rtiston: Ginn i d Co., 1938),

For csiimplc*s o f suc4i cliiims s(.e Riclrard Hnmmcr, “Hcyort From ii Spanish 1 Iiirlem ‘Fortrcss’ ”, Nric York Titirev Afrrguziiie, Jan. 5, 1964, 39; iind Gertriidc S;iniwls, “ ‘I Don’t Think the Cop is M y Friend,’ ” New l’ork Tiiiics Afogrrzilre, Murch 29, 1964, 28-36. For tliscllssioirs of clocilmmtccl caws of lmlict: discrimiliation ;igiiinst cthnic minoritics ;i~rci tlic. ccoiiomicall! disndvantagcd s r c Ed Criiy, ?‘/I(. Big H l r t r Line ( Kc\v YI&: Co\\.;~rcl-hlcCaiin, Inc., 1967), p m v i i i i . Also see Biintoii, 174-17’5

153-173.

Dr. hicCaghy is iin Assistant Professor of Sociology of Case Western Reserve L’niversity, Cleveland, Ohio. Both Dr. Allen and Dr. Colfiis ure Assistant Professors of Sociology at the I’niversity of Connrctic*ut, Storrs, Coni~ectic~~t.

22