explaining juveniles' attitudes toward the police -...

This article was downloaded by: [T&F Internal Users], [Margaret Moore]On: 10 May 2013, At: 07:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Justice QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20

Explaining juveniles' attitudestoward the policeMichael J. Leiber a , Mahesh K. Nalla b & Margaret Farnworthc

a University of Northern Iowab Michigan State Universityc Sam Houston State UniversityPublished online: 18 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Michael J. Leiber , Mahesh K. Nalla & Margaret Farnworth (1998):Explaining juveniles' attitudes toward the police, Justice Quarterly, 15:1, 151-174

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093671

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use ofthis material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093671

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EXPLAINING JUVENILES' ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POLICE*

MICHAEL J. LEIBER** University of Northern Iowa

MAHESH K. NALLA*** Michigan State University

MARGARET FARNWORTH**** Sam Houston State University

Past studies of juveniles' attitudes toward the police suggest a single-cause model that implicates personal interactions with the police. We propose that attitudes toward authority and agents of social control develop in a larger, soc~iocuttural context. Specifically we hypothesize that juveniles' attitudes develop as a function of socialization in their communities' social environment, of their deviant subcultural '~preferences," and of the prior effect of these sociocultural factors on juveniles' contacts with the police. We conducted analyses addressing these hypotheses with a population of males sampled within stratified populations of known delinquents. We found that social background variables, particularly minority status, and subcultural preferences, particularly commitment to delinquent norms, affected juveniles' attitudes toward the police both directly and indirectly (through police-juvenile interactions). We consider directions for improving police relations with juveniles in the context of apparent sociocultural and experiential contingencies to attitude development.

Citizens' attitudes toward the police have been surveyed exten- sively in the last few decades (e.g., Brandl et al. 1994; Erez 1984;

* The authors would like to thank Thomas Winfree, B. Keith Crew, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of the manu- script. Funding for the research came in part from the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Statistical Planning, Des Moines, and the Graduate College at the University of Northern Iowa. The points of view expressed here are those of the authors.

** Michael J. Leiber, Ph.D. in criminal justice from SUNY-Albany, is an associate professor and coordinator of the graduate program in sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. He conducts research and publishes in the areas of delinquency theory and juvenile justice, with a particular interest in race and social control.

*** Mahesh K. Nalla is an associate professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. His research and publications pertain to policing and private security. He is co-author (with Graeme Newman) of Primer in Private Security.

**** Margaret Farnworth, Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, is a past direc- tor of the survey research program in the Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston University. At present she is the associate Dean for academic adm~rdstration and a professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. She conducts research and writes primarily on theory development, correlates of crime, social inequality, and survey research.

JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 15 No. 1, March 1998 © 1998 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

152 JUVENILES' ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POLICE

Frank et al. 1996). These surveys reflect growing public concern with the accountability of taw enforcement agencies and the improvement of police-citizen relations through innovations such as community policing (U.S. Department of Justice 1996). In keeping with these concerns, adults in the general population have been surveyed to determine community satisfaction and citizens' responses to different policing styles (e.g., Brandl et al. 1994; Smith, Graham, and Adams 1991). Juveniles' attitudes, however, may be more important for law enforcement because juveniles make up a disproportionately large segment of the population subject to police contacts and arrests (Snyder and Sickmund 1996).

Studies of juveniles' attitudes have moved beyond the descriptive statistics of adult public opinion analyses to estimate the effects of police-juvenile encounters on subsequent evaluations of police performance (e.g., Griffiths and Winfree 1982). Studies of this type are interesting to criminologists and policy analysts alike because early contacts with the police are likely to have lasting effects on juveniles' relationships with agencies of social control and on their long-term attitudes and behavior (Keane, Gillis, and Ha- gan 1989). Thus, societal reaction theories (e.g., Lemert 1951; Pa- ternoster and Iovanni 1989) direct attention to the effects of police encounters on youths' attitudes toward self and society. In a spiral- ing pat tern of deviance and official responses to deviance, Lemert (1951) hypothesized increasing levels of juvenile hostility and resentment, culminating in secondary deviance and increased deviant behavior. According to this perspective, juveniles' attitudes toward the police after police intervention are useful indicators of juvenile hostility conducive to further offending.

Most juvenile studies to date, however, are limited by the implied assumption that personal interaction with the police is the sole or primary determinant of juveniles' attitudes toward the police. If police encounters are the only important consideration in the development of negative attitudes toward the police, then the improvement of police relations with the public depends on the development of better policing styles and practices.

Although police contacts are likely to influence attitudes, Brandl et al. (1994) found in their survey of adults that global attitudes toward the police affect assessments of specific contacts: "[T]hose who hold generally favorable views of the police are more likely to evaluate their contacts with the police more favorably, and those who hold generally unfavorable views are more likely to evaluate their contact unfavorably" (p. 131). Brandl and colleagues con- clude by stating that future research should be directed toward understanding more clearly how global attitudes toward the police

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 153

are formed; a potentially informative approach would be the analyses of socialization with a focus on the family, peers' attitudes, and experiences (p. 132).

Here, we propose that attitudes toward authority and agents of social control develop in a larger, sociocultural context. We hypothesize that juveniles' attitudes toward the police develop as a function of multiple factors: the direct and indirect effects of the social environment in which juveniles are socialized; the direct and indirect effects of commitment to a delinquent subculture, as reflected in juveniles' attitudes and behaviors; and the direct effect of juveniles' personal interactions with the police.

The theoretical and empirical literatures, described below, support an additional hypothesis: that sociocultural environments and experiences are race-specific to some extent. With this premise, we conduct the analyses first for the full sample and then in separate models for whites and for minorities. Larger police issues are involved ff negative attitudes toward the police derive from deviant subcultural values that develop in certain social environments. In such a case, workable and lasting solutions would need to address broader problems, conflicts, and socialization influences in the community. On a theoretical level, indications that social and cultural forces combine with police encounters to determine juveniles' nega- rive attitudes toward the police would suggest the possibility of in- tegrating theories of societal reaction. Such theories would emphasize criminogenic responses to juvenile justice intervention; subcultural theories would emphasize the behavioral implications of values, norms, and beliefs.

T H E O R E T I C A L C O N T E X T

We draw on traditional subcultural theories to support the premise guiding this study; this premise implicates sociocultural forces as partial determinants of juveniles' attitudes toward the police. In reviewing the development of attitudes in general, Halloran (1967) emphasized the importance of cultural contexts during early socialization. Theories of delinquency draw on this premise to posit a sequence in which deviant subcultures reinforce values, norms, and beliefs that develop in certain social environments. In the present study we focus on those aspects of subcultural theories which describe the development of negative attitudes toward authority as a result of socialization associated with a deviant subculture.

Subcultural theories of delinquency (Cloward and Ohlin 1960); Cohen 1955; Miller 1958) differ in their views of the origins and development of delinquent subcultures. They agree, however, in describing three identifying characteristics: The norms or rules of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


conduct in a delinquent subculture are conducive to deviant behavior; delinquent subcultures involve delinquent behavior; and lower- class juveniles are most likely to exhibit the deviant norms and behavior consistent with a delinquent subculture. 1 In addition, the deviant norms and behaviors that characterize delinquent subcultures affect juveniles' attitudes toward adult authority in general and official social control in particular. Certain features of juveniles' environments and social backgrounds affect their attitudes toward the police indirectly through their influences on subcultural norms and behaviors.

Cohen (1955), for example, explained the origin of delinquent subcultures as a solution to the "status frustration" experienced by lower-class males. He then described values within a delinquent subculture as negativistic and generally opposed to conventional standards. These values include a commitment to "group autonomy" and "intolerance to restraint" (1955:31). Cohen specifically related these countercultural values and norms to cultural diversity in our society and to subsequent attitudes toward agents of social control:

It is true that some ethnic groups look more tolerantly on certain kinds of delinquency than other do . . . . ( a n d ) . . . that respect for the courts and the police are [sic] less well established among some g r o u p s . . . (1955:34).

Cohen implied that lower-class and minority juveniles are more likely than other youths to adhere to the negative norms and values associated with delinquent subcultures, and that these social groups therefore would express greater tolerance for delinquency and less respect for the police.

Miller (1958) proposed that certain 'Tocal concerns" of the lower class explain their tolerance for and involvement in delinquency. As one such focal concern Miller cited a tendency toward autonomy, expressed in resentment toward "external controls, restrictions on behavior, and unjust or coercive authority" (p. 13). Thus, like Co- hen, Miller implied that members of the lower class were more likely than others to express norms and behavior consistent with a delinquent subculture, and to harbor negative attitudes toward the type of authoritative behavioral control personified by the police.

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) proposed a typology of delinquent subcultures to explain different types of gang-related delinquent behavior. They hypothesized that juvenile members of a conflict subculture are alienated and isolated from the adult world. These

1 In applying the propositions of subcultural deviance to delinquent gangs, the notion of group cohesion is sometimes implied as a defining characteristic (e.g., Cloward and Ohlin 1960). We follow Hagan's (1991) precedent, which emphasizes deviant subcultural "preferences" and related behavior.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 155

scholars suggested that members of a criminal subculture exhibit '~hostility and distrust toward representatives of the larger society" (p. 23). Cloward and Ohlin hypothesized further that lower-class juveniles tend toward subcultural deviance because of their failure to achieve conventional goals, and attribute the cause of their failure to the social order ra ther than to their own shortcomings. Their "sense of injustice" and "withdrawal of attributes of legitimacy" (p. 126) would logically explain negative attitudes toward the police because "[W]hen a person ascribes his failure to injustice in the social system, he may criticize that s y s t e m . . . " (p. 126).

Subcultural theories implicated minority youths indirectly through the empirical reality that lower-class juveniles in undesir- able communities tend to overrepresent minority groups (Wilson 1987). Several observers, however, have noted that values and attitudes are contingent on cultural norms, social structures, and social events that differ across racial as well as class lines (Hagan and Albonetti 1982; Kluegel and Smith 1986; Willie 1991; Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967; Zinni 1995). The conflicting demands on young Af- rican-Americans may cause a lack of commitment to or acceptance of conventional, middle-class American norms and opportunities (Hagedorn 1994; Sampson and Wilson 1995). Minority youths are particularly interesting in the study of police-citizen interactions because nonwhites and the poor experience the most frequent contact with the juvenile justice system (Erez 1984; Leiber 1995a, 1995b). Further, highly publicized incidents of questionable police practices involving members of minorities, as in the Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson cases, tend to generate mistrust, suspicion, and prejudice among minority youths. This situation, in turn, may reduce their respect for the law and for the personifica- tion of the law represented by police officers.

EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POLICE

Subcultural theories describe circumstances that can lead to negative atti tudes toward authority figures such as the police. Era- pirical studies, in contrast, support the notion that the public over- all holds quite positive atti tudes toward the police. Research in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom reveals that the general public's attitudes toward the police tend to be favorable (Dobash et al. 1990; Jefferson and Walker 1993). In some in- stances, however, these findings are conditioned by respondents' race, community context, or police contacts. Members of minorities, for example, express less favorable attitudes toward the police than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


do whites (Mirande 1980; Smith et al. 1991). Juvenile studies, re- viewed below, indicate that atti tudes toward the police are affected by personal contacts with the police.

Research by Griffiths and Winfree (1982) and Winfree and Griffiths (1977) has established that attitudes toward the police are affected significantly by the positive or negative nature of police- citizen interactions, even after controlling for race, gender, socioeconomic status, and place of residence. Similarly, an additional study with a sample from the general population revealed that positive contacts resulted in more positive attitudes toward the police (Scag- lion and Condon 1980).

The positive nature of police contacts is less effective, however, in reducing negative views toward the police held by African-Ameri- can youths (Rusinko, Johnson, and Hornung 1978) or by delinquent juveniles (Cox and Falkenberg 1987). Further, Frank et al. (1996) found that racial differences in atti tudes were conditioned by the racial makeup of the communities studied and by the frequency of police-citizen interactions. Minority members' attitudes toward the police were more strongly negative among residents of predomi- nantly nonwhite neighborhoods, and among those who had experienced more frequent personal contacts with the police (Jefferson and Walker 1993; Smith et al. 1991).

LIMITATIONS IN PAST RESEARCH

In the present study we build on past studies of attitudes toward the police. We move beyond those studies by using theoretical framework for analysis and operationalizing key concepts, by focusing on a sample of delinquent juveniles, and by employing multivariate analyses to describe processes involved in the development of atti tudes toward the police. Past studies were guided by a rather narrow conceptualization of atti tude development (e.g., Cox and Falkenberg 1987). In the present study we are guided by theses drawn from the criminological literature; we theo- rize that juveniles' social environment and their delinquent attitudes and behavior affect attitudes toward the police both directly and through the intervening impact of personal contacts with the police. In effect, we propose that personal contacts with the police, which influence atti tudes toward the police, are determined in part by the juveniles' social background and by their tendencies toward delinquent attitudes and behaviors.

Much of the research on attitudes toward the police has had only limited relevance for delinquency theory and policy because it has tended to focus on the views of adults in the general population (e.g. Erez 1984; Flanagan and Longmire 1995; Frank et al. 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 157

Studies of juveniles have tended to focus on students in a high school (Dobash et al. 1990; Winfree and Griffiths 1977). Juveniles who are not in school, including those in custody, have been largely neglected. These juveniles are of special interest because they make up a disproportionately large part of the population who experience police contacts and arrests (Snyder and Sickmund 1996). Therefore the development of delinquent youths' attitudes toward the police is likely to include an important experiential component. Further, youths with official records have experienced the strongest effects of intervention in the earliest, most impressionable years of their offending careers. To address this limitation, we focus on the attitudes of juveniles who have been defined officially as delinquents.

In the present analysis we include a measure of the frequency of self-reported delinquent behavior to reflect commitment to a delinquent subculture. Research and delinquency theories reinforce the need to measure respondents' history of offending because views and attitudes differ across nonoffenders, one-time offenders, occasional offenders, and persistent or chronic offenders (Hagan 1991; Hagan and Palloni 1990). When past models of youths' attitudes toward the police have included delinquency, it has been measured typically as a "yes" or "no" condition (e.g., Winfree and Griffiths 1977). The delinquency scale of offending frequency in this study has greater potential for detecting important distinctions in histories of offending among officially defined delinquents.

Past studies also have varied in the adequacy of measures used as indicators of two central concepts: police contacts and attitudes toward the police. Several studies failed to control for the type and nature of police contacts or employed only a single indicator of the encounter (e.g., Cox and Falkenberg 1987). The encounter is sometimes defined simply as positive or negative (e.g., Dobash et al. 1990); this fails to capture the range of experiences with the juvenile justice system. In this analysis we measure police encounters with three different indicators reflecting the extent of the interactions and juveniles' interpretations of the encounters.

Several studies have used only one measure of attitudes toward the police, operationalized as a dichotomy of negative versus positive views (e.g., Griffiths and Winfree 1982). This assumes that various types of attitudes are equivalent and interchangeable, an assumption belied by findings from political surveys. Different attitudes also may have different origins. For example, respect (or lack of respect) for the police may stem from the nature of police-citizen interactions or from generalized perspectives associated with delinquent subcultures. Perceptions of fairness and discrimination, on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


the other hand, may be tied more closely to racial and sociocultural backgrounds and to the differential exposure to values and beliefs associated with those backgrounds. Operating on these premises, we include three separate measures of attitudes toward the police: respect for the police, perceptions of police fairness, and perceptions of police discrimination.

Finally, most previous studies have relied on descriptive analyses (e.g., Jefferson and Walker 1993) rather than on multivariate procedures that make it possible to describe attitude formation. The research of Winfree and Griffith (1977) and Brandl et al. (1994) represents a significant departure in that both estimated multivariate models. Although Winfree and Griffith's study lacked a theoretical framework for understanding the results and described youths' relations with the police 20 years ago, it laid the foundation for the present study. Similarly, the work of Brandl and associates (1994) focused on adults and operationalized global attitudes in the form of responses to general questions about the degree of satisfaction with the police. Even so, we use their concept of global attitudes and the sources of those attitudes to further understand attitudes of juveniles toward the police.

METHOD

Data and Sample

The data for this analysis were collected as part of a larger study focusing on the overrepresentation of minority youths in secure facilities in Iowa (Leiber 1993, 1994, 1995a; Leiber and Wacker 1997). The sample consists of 337 male youths either accused of delinquency or adjudicated as delinquent in one of four Iowa counties. We found these youths in the state training school, in detention centers, in group or youth homes, in residential treatment centers, in drug and alcohol treatment programs, or through the juvenile court.

Minority youths make up about 4 percent of Iowa's population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). Because we wish to understand racial differences in youths' attitudes toward the police, we selected as study sites four counties with relatively large proportions of minority juveniles. The counties represented here have t0 to 13 percent minority populations (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). To ensure further that we included enough cases to support racial com- parisons, we oversampled members of minorities in the juvenile justice system in these counties. This point is particularly important because research often includes only small numbers of minority youths (Elliott 1994) despite extensive interest in minority

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 159

overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system (Leiber and Jam- ieson 1995; Pope and Feyerherm 1992). such oversampling makes it possible to conduct comparative analyses without weighting the data artificially. In addition, although the sample may not represent a general population of youths, we believe that the respondents included in this survey reflect the traditional correlates of delinquency (e.g., lower class, male, nonwhite, prior delinquent involvement) and those who most often come into contact with the police (Sampson 1986).

The survey targeted a randomly selected sample of juveniles within a racially stratified population of known delinquents. Be- cause of concern for the vulnerability of human research subjects, participation among those contacted for inclusion was voluntary. 2 The resulting sample for analysis consists of 131 minority-group members (of whom 97% are African-American) and 206 white juveniles. Because of the relatively small number of females in the sample, they were not included in the analysis.

The literacy of the targeted sample was questionable; therefore we conducted interviews to elicit information about the juveniles' experiences, attitudes, and perceptions relevant to this analysis. Specific attitudes, such as those held toward the police, are assumed to be contemporaneous with the administration of the survey. Descriptions of experiences (such as self-reported delinquent behavior and juvenile-police encounters) and ongoing statuses describing social background were worded so as to capture information about conditions preceding the formation of attitudes toward the police. The cross-sectional nature of the data, however, does not assure that juveniles' atti tudes toward delinquency precede attitudes toward the police. In this regard, our assumed sequence in the development of attitudes toward the police is theoretically im- posed, drawn from subcultural theories described earlier. Follow- ing that theoretical precedent, we hypothesize that delinquent attitudes are part of a tendency toward a delinquent subculture, and that such a subcultural tendency engenders a cynicism and resistance to authority that leads to negative evaluations of the police.

2 As in any social science survey, the necessity of voluntary part icipation ad- mits the possibility of self-selection bias. This type of bias cannot be resolved easily; therefore we are guarded in general izing to any known population. It can be determined t ha t all of the sample respondents are "known delinquents" who are s imilar in t h a t they have broken the law and consequently have had interact ions wi th the police. Why, however, do members of this group, who are s imilar in some ways, differ in the i r a t t i tudes toward the police?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


Variables for the Analysis

Table 1 describes the variables for the analysis. The youths' social environment is described with four measures: their race/ ethnicity, their family's economic position, their family's structure, and the character of the neighborhood where they live. Race/ ethnicity (X1) distinguishes between whites and minority-group members. Family economic position (X2) is a composite measure based on parents ' employment, family's receipt of government assistance, and residence in a rented or an owned home. 3 Family structure (X3) is measured as single- versus a two-parent house- hold. The type of neighborhood (X~) is measured with subjects' descriptions of good and bad features of the communities where they live.

The theoretical l i terature is inconsistent in defining deviant subcultures either as nonnormative views or as nonnormative behavior (Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Cohen 1955). Hagan (1991:573) proposed that a deviant subculture entails both a psychological dimension ("subcultural preferences" or attitudes) and the expression of those norms in delinquent behavior. Following this precedent, we use two measures to reflect a deviant subculture: responses concerning the "wrongness" of a series of illegal behaviors (X~) and the frequency of self-reported delinquent behavior (X6).

Juvenile-police interactions are operationalized with three separate variables. The first variable 0(7) measures the frequency of police encounters in which the juveniles were warned and released; the second variable (Xs) measures the frequency of encounters in which juveniles were taken to the police station. 4 The third measure of police contacts (Xg) reflects juveniles' perceptions that they were wrongly accused by the police.

Three dependent variables measure different dimensions of juveniles' at t i tudes toward the police: their respect for the police (Y1), their perceptions of police fairness (Y2), and their perceptions of police discrimination toward minorities (]73). Appendix Table A1 lists the questions used to measure these att i tudinal variables and

3 Individual effects may be obscured by including in one scale the variables mother / fa ther employment, parent(s) receipt of government assistance, and rent ing or owning a home. Reest imation wi th each individual variable, however, failed to yield more accurate models t han those es t imated wi th the economic security scale. Precedent for the scale rests wi th prior research (Leiber and Wacker 1997).

4 Distr ibut ions were skewed for the number of t imes youths were warned and released by police, the number cf t imes youths were t aken to the police station, and del inquent offending. We logged each variable. We also performed analysis wi thout the na tu ra l logs, which did not change the results presented in the text.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL.

Table 1. Dis t r ibu t ion of Var iables (N = 337) a

161

Variable Description N % Mean STD Range

Xa Race/ethnicity

X2 Economic position

X3 Parents present

Xa Neighborhood

Delinquent Subculture X~ Delinquent

attitudes X~ Delinquent

behavior

1 = white 206 61 2 = minority 131 39 Higher scores, more 6.87 1.17 4-8 economic security 1 = two parents 116 34 2 = single parent 221 66 Higher scores, less 2.28 1.12 1-5 desirable neighborhood

Higher scores, more 10.25 4.43 5-25 tolerance for del. b

Higher scores, more 3.58 1.72 0-6.82 self-reported delinquency

Juvenile-Police Interactions X7 Warned/ Higher scores, more .84 .98

released times X8 Police ~tation Higher scores, more 1.45 1.17

times X9 Wrongly 1 = no 271 80

accused 2 = yes 66 20 Attitudes toward the Police

Y1 Respect Higher scores, less 6.37 2.18 2-10 respect

I72 Fairness Higher scores, less 2.90 1.16 1-5 fairness perceived

Y8 Discrimination Higher scores, more 4.68 1.93 1-9 discrimination perceived

0-3.91

04.60

Appendix Table A1 describes the construction of composite scales. Survey questions that are the basis for the delinquency measure are available from the first author on request.

b Logged because of skewed distribution.

presents factor scores and Chronbach's alpha coefficients for the composite measures (Y1 and ]73). 5

RESULTS

The first question for research addresses the following hypothesis:

Hi: Juveniles' attitudes toward the police develop as a function of three sets of variables: socialization in different social environments, tendencies toward a delinquent subculture, and juveniles' personal interactions with the police.

We employed ordinary least squares analyses in separate models for each dependent variable to estimate the direct effects of each of

5 Init ial ly we identified the var ious scales by m e a n s of an or thogonal (var imax) factor-analytic solut ion of a n u m b e r of i tems related to each concept included in the self-report. The scales were defined mathemat ica l ly by the factor analysis. We used additive computa t ion to const ruct the sales, and per formed reliability t es t s for validity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


these three fhctors on the development of at t i tudes toward the police (Table 2). 6

Of the three sets of explanatory variables in Table 2, commitment to delinquent subcultures, particularly delinquent at t i tudes (b = .39, p = .01) is most efficient in predicting respect toward the police (R 2 = .23). Delinquent behavior is significant (b =. 17, p = .01) but less strong in its effects than delinquent att i tudes. These effects are in the expected direction: The greater the juveniles ' commitment to delinquent at t i tudes and behavior, the less their respect for the police.

Police contacts explain 15 percent of the variance in respect for the police. This outcome was explained significantly by the frequency of being taken to the police station (b = .31, p = .01) or of

Table 2. Effects o f Soc ia l E n v i r o n m e n t , D e l i n q u e n t Cultures , and J u v e n i l e - P o l i c e In terac t ions o n At t i tudes t o w a r d the Po l i ce (N = 337)

Standardized Regression Coefficients

Police Respect for Police Fai rness Discrimination Police (Y1) (Y2) (Y3)

Social Env i ronment X1 Race ethnici ty .14" .19"* .18"* X2 Economic -.06 -.12" -.11 X~ Parents .05 -.04 -.01 X4 Neighborhood .27** .05 -.02

R 2 .11"* .07** .05**

Del inquent Subcul ture X5 Del. a t t i tudes .39** .28** .25** X6 Del. behavior .17"* .09 -.12

R 2 .23"* .10"* .05**

Juvenile-Police Interact ions X7 Warned]released .17"* .30** .11 Xs Police s ta t ion .31"* .17"* .01 X9 Wrongly accused .06 .21"* .17"*

R 2 .15"* .19"* .05*

*p_<=.05; * * p g . 0 1

6 The use of ordinal-level variables in regression analysis, which assumes interval-level variables, has been an issue in sacial science research for more t h a n two decades (e.g., Bohrns ted t and Borgat ta 198:t; Labovitz 1970). We follow the present- day convention on the basis of the position t aken by Anderson, Basilevsky, and Hum, who hold t h a t "the consequences of assuming data are interval when in fact they are ordinal are so small in most cases t ha t the gain in s tat is t ical elegance and power justifies any distort ion produced by the more pretent ious measurement assumption" (1983:247). In addition, an examinat ion of the zero-order correlations and the col- l ineari ty diagnostic statist ics indicates acceptable levels of shared correlation and rules out concerns of d iscr iminant validity or multicollinearity. The zero-order cor- relat ion matrices are available from the first au thor on request.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 163

being warned and released (b = .17, p = .01). The social environment explains 11 percent of the variance with two significant variables: neighborhood of residence (b = .27, p = .01) and race/ethnicity (b = .14, p = .05). Minority youths and those living in less desirable neighborhoods expressed less respect for the police than whites and residents of better neighborhoods.

Perceptions of police fairness are affected most strongly by juvenile-police interactions (R 2 = . 19, p = .01), but delinquent cultures (R 2 = .10, p = .01) and social environment (R 2 = .07, p = .01) are also significant. The more frequent the police contacts, whether they involve release or a trip to the police station, and the stronger the juveniles' belief that they were wrongly accused, the greater their perceptions of police unfairness. Juveniles with greater tolerance for illegal behavior, minority-group juveniles, and those from lower socioeconomic groups perceive less police fairness.

Social environment, delinquent subcultures, and police contacts were equally important in explaining juveniles' perceptions of discrimination by the police (R 2 = .05). Minority status, greater tolerance for illegal activity, and feelings of false accusations by the police all increased these perceptions.

A comparison of the variance explained by each model indicates the most efficient predictive models of at t i tudes toward the police. The best predictors of respect for the police (Y1) are subcultural variables, namely delinquent at t i tudes and behavior (R 2 = .23, p = .01). Perceptions of police fairness (Y2 = .19, p = .01); each set of explanatory variables explains 5 percent of the variance in perceptions of police discrimination. A comparison of variance across models of different at t i tudes reveals tha t commitment to delinquent subculture (R 2 = .23) was a more accurate predictor than police contacts (R 2 = .15) in determining respect for the police, and tha t delinquent subcultures and social environment were equally important in explaining perceptions of police discrimination (R 2 = .05). Juve- nile-police interactions were most efficient in determining perceptions of police fairness (R 2 = .19).

Standardized regression coefficients within each model reveal which indicators best explain the formation of at t i tudes toward the police. The most consistent social environmental predictor across all dependent variables was race/ethnicity; delinquent at t i tudes also were consistent in predicting all three types of at t i tudes toward the police. All three police contact variables predicted police fairness; respect for the police was affected by two contact measures. Feeling falsely accused was the only police contact significant for perceptions of discrimination. Together the findings reported in Table 2 support our first hypothesis tha t att i tudes toward the police

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


develop as a function of multiple factors beyond the expected effects of interacting with the police.

We hypothesized further:

He: The social environment operates both directly to influence atti tudes toward the police and indirectly through de- l inquent subcultural commitments and the prior influence of the social environment on juvenile-police contacts.

This hypothesis is addressed by analyses reported in Table 3. We estimated sequential OLS models to separate the total, direct, and indirect effects of the social environment on attitudes toward the police, following Alwin and Hauser's (1975) analytical precedent. The upper panel of Table 3 partials the total, direct, and indirect effects of the social environment on police attitudes with delinquent cultural variables intervening. The lower panel partials the total, direct, and indirect effects of the social environment with police contacts intervening.

The addition of delinquent subcultural measures to the social environment model (upper panel) increases the variance explained in respect for the police from 23 percent to 32 percent. Almost the entire effect of race/ethnicity on respect is direct, but about one-fifth of the effect of neighborhood is mediated by subcultural variables. The addition of juvenile contact measures to the social environment model (lower panel) increases the variance explained in respect for the police by only 2 percent, from .23 to .25. Almost half of the effect of minority status is indirect, through minority juveniles' contacts with the police. Police contacts do not mediate the total effect of bad neighborhoods on juveniles' respect for the police.

Minority youths' tendency to perceive police unfairness is virtually unaffected by delinquent subcultural atti tudes or behavior, but more than half the effect of lower economic position on police unfairness is expressed through the intervening effect of delinquent subcultural preferences (upper panel). Minority status also has a direct effect on police fairness when police contacts are added to the model, but almost the entire effect of economic position is expressed through juvenile-police interactions (lower panel). A small part of the minority effect on perceptions of police discrimination (less than 25%) is explained by delinquent subcultural variables (upper panel); none of the minority effect can be explained as a function of juvenile-police interactions (lower panel). The third hypothesis guiding this analysis is as follows:

H3: Delinquent subcultural attitudes and behavior operate both directly to influence attitudes toward the police and indirectly through the prior influence of delinquent subcultural tendencies on juvenile-police contacts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 165

Table 4 reports the total, direct, and indirect effects of delinquent subcultures on attitudes toward the police, with social environments controlled and with juvenile-police interactions included as intervening variables. Even when social background effects are controlled, delinquent attitudes and delinquent behavior affect juveniles' respect for the police and their perceptions of police fairness. Delinquent attitudes, but not delinquent behavior, are significant for perceptions of discrimination.

The tendency of delinquent attitudes to decrease respect for the police is not moderated in any important way by the number of police contacts or by feeling wrongly accused. About one-quarter of more frequent offenders' tendency to express a lack of respect for the police is explained by these juveniles' greater tendency to have

Table 3. Total, Direct , and Indirect Effects o f the Socia l E n v i r o n m e n t on Att i tudes t o w a r d the Po l i ce (N = 337)

Effects of Social Environment, with Delinquent Culture Intervening


Respect for Police Police Fairness Police Discrimination (Y1) (Y2) (Y~)

Tot. Dir, Ind. Tot. Dir. Ind. Tot. Dir. Ind.

Social Environment

X1 Raoe/ethnicity .14"

X~ Ecznomic -.06

Xs Parents .05

X4 Neighborhood .27**

Delinquent Culture

X5 Del. attitudes X~ DeL behavior

R 2 .23**

.12" .02 .19"* .17"* ,02 .18"* .14" .04

-.05 ,01 -.13" -.08 .05 -.00 -.10 ,10

.03 .02 -.04 -.06 ,02 -.01 -.02 ,01

.22** ,05 .05 -.02 .03 -.02 -.04 ,02

.32** ,23** ,25**

.22'* ,14" -.12

.32** .10"* .15"* .05** .11"*

Effects of Social Environment, with Police Contacts Intervening


Respect for Police Police Fairness Police Discrimination (Y0 (](2 (Y~)

Tot. Dir. Ind. Tot. Dir. Ind. Tot. Dir, Ind.

Social Environment

X1 Race]etlmicity .14" .08

X2 Economic -.06 .03

Xs Parents ,05 ,03

X4 Neighborhood ,27** .20**

JuveniIe-Police Interactions

X~ Warned/ .17"* released

Xs Police station .29**

X~ Wrongly -.01 accused

R ~ .23** .25**

.06 .19'* .18" .01 .18"* .20*

.09 -.13" -.02 .11 -.00 -.05

.02 -,04 -.10 .06 ~.01 -.00

,02 .05 ,05 ,00 -,02 -.07

.25** .02

.20** .02

.15" .17"

.10"* .22** .05** .09"

,02

.05

.01

.05

* p -~ = .05; ** p -~ = .01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

Tab

le 4

. T

otal

, D

irec

t, a

nd

In

dir

ect

Eff

ects

of

Del

inq

uen

t A

ttit

ud

es

and

Beh

avio

r on

Att

itu

des

to

war

d

the

Pol

ice

(N =

337

)

Eff

ects

of

Del

inq

uen

t C

ult

ure

, w

ith

Pol

ice

Co

nta

cts

Inte

rven

ing

(C

ontr

olli

ng f

or S

ocia

l E

nv

iro

nm

ent)

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffic

ient

s

c~

Res

pec

t fo

r P

olic

e P

olic

e F

airn

ess

Pol

ice

Dis

crim

inat

ion

(Y

1)

(Y~)

(Y

3)

Tot

. D

ir.

Tot

. In

d.

Dir

. In

d.

Tot

. D

ir.

Ind

.

Soc

ial

En

vir

on

men

t )(

i R

ace/

ethn

icit

y -.

12"

.06

.06

.17"

* .1

9"

.02

.14

.15"

.0

1 X

2 E

cono

mic

-.

05

-.03

.0

2 -.

08

.04

.12

-.10

-.

04

.06

X3

Par

ents

,0

3 .0

4 .0

1 -.

06

-.09

.0

3 -.

02

-.02

,0

0 X

4 N

eigh

borh

ood

.22*

* .2

0**

.02

-.02

.0

1 .0

3 -.

04

-.05

.0

1 D

elin

quen

t C

ult

ure

X

5 D

el.

atti

tud

es

.32*

* .3

0**

.02

.23*

* .0

6 .1

7 .2

5**

.16

.09

X2

Del

. b

ehav

ior

.22*

* .1

6"

.06

.14"

,1

4 .0

0 -.

12

-.04

.0

8 Ju

veni

le-P

olic

e In

tera

ctio

ns

X7

War

ned

/rel

ease

d

-.06

.2

6**

.02

Xs

Pol

ice

stat

ion

.1

5"

.05

-.05

X

9 W

ron

gly

acc

used

-.

05

.17"

.1

5 R

2

.32*

* .3

5**

.15"

* .2

2**

.11"

* .1

lns

o~

©

*p

<=

.05

; **

p_<

.01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 167

been taken to the police station. The significant total effects of delinquent attitudes and behavior on perceptions of police fairness were reduced to nonsignificance when measures of juvenile-police interactions were added to the model. This finding indicates that juveniles committed to delinquent subcultural attitudes and behavior tend to perceive greater police unfairness because of the greater likelihood that they were warned and released by the police and because of their belief that they were wrongly accused. Juveniles with delinquent attitudes are more likely than others to believe that the police discriminate against minorities; this belief is not affected by juveniles' contacts with the police.

Analyses addressing the second and third hypotheses suggest that processes of attitude development differ somewhat, depending on the dimension of attitudes toward the police on which the analysis focuses. Respect for the police (Y1, R 2 = .35) was determined by residence in bad neighborhoods, delinquent attitudes, and the tendency of minority youths and more delinquent youths to experience more frequent contacts with the police. Perceptions that the police were unfair (Y2, R 2 = .22) are more frequent among members of minorities; they are determined in part by the tendency of juveniles from less affluent homes and juveniles committed to delinquent subcultures to have had more frequent police contacts or to harbor perceptions of wrongful accusations. Perceptions of police discrimination (Y3, R 2 = .11) are related to beliefs of wrongful accusations and are affected by minority members' greater commitment to delinquent attitudes.

Thus support for the second and third hypotheses was mixed, but the related analyses provide a useful description of the multivariate developmental processes leading to juveniles' attitudes toward the police. Differences in the efficiency of the models and in the sequential process involved in determining different kinds of attitudes toward the police support the notion of multidimensionality in measuring attitudes toward the police.

Past findings on the importance of racial differences in attitudes toward the police were supported in analyses to this point conducted with the full sample. The final hypothesis elaborates the minority effect:

H4: The process of attitude development differs for minority and for white youths.

The analyses reported in Table 5 examine the effect of minority status in models estimated separately for whites and for members of minorities. We report unstandardized regression coefficients to al- low a comparison of effects across race-specific models.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


Table 5. Racial-Ethnic Dif ferences in the Effects o f Social Environment , De l inquent Cultures, and Pol ice Contacts

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Whites Minorities Whites Minorities Whites Minorities (N = 206) (N = 131) (N = 206) (N = 131) (N = 206) (N = 131)

Dependent Variable = Respect for Police (Y~)

Social Environment X2 Economic X3 Parents X4 Neighborhood

Delinquent Culture X5 DeI. attitudes X6 Del. behavior

Juvenile-Police Interactions X7 Warned/released Xs Police station X9 Wrongly accused

R z

-.26 .05 -,18 -.02 -,19 -,15 .13 .51 ,24 .26 .20 .23 .58** .40* ,27"* ,14 .37* .35

.13"* ,18"* .10" .22"*

.37** ,13 .40** -.06

.12"* .06ns ,38"* .20**

Dependent Variable = Perceptions ofPolice Fairnees(Y2)

.47* -.33

.22 ,59* -,23 -.68 .49** .27"

Social Environment X2 Economic X~ Parents X4 Neighborhood

Delinquent Culture Xs Del. attitudes X6 Del. behavior

Juvenile-Police Interactions X7 Warned]released X s Police station Xo Wrongly accused

R ~

-.16 -.10 -.06 -,09 .03 .00 -.10 -.10 -.19 -~11 -.26 -.15 .06 .06 -.03 -.00 .02 -.00

.08** ,03 .01 .02 ,10 .09 .10 .07

.03ns A0ns ,18"* .05ns

Dependent Variable = Discrimination (Ys)

.51"* ,06 ,05 .08 .46 .35 .29** .05ns

Social Environment X~ Economic -.20 -.17 -.17 -.15 -.14 A5 X3 Parents .08 -.23 -.00 -.21 -.13 .16 X4 Neighborhood .00 -.08 .02 -.18 .02 -.26

Delinquent Culture Xs Del. attitudes .10'* .12 .06 ,10 Xs ])el. behavior -.17 -A0 -.08 .02

Juvenile-Police Interactions X~ Warned/released .20 -.12 Xs Police station -.02 p.21 X9 Wrongly accused A5 .58

R 2 .02ns .02ns .07ns .0gns ,05ns . l lns

* p < - . 0 5 ; **p<.01

The importance of race is underscored by the fact that several of the models are reduced to nonsignificance when the race/ethnicity variable is removed. The most striking finding in the race-specific analyses is that none of the models of perceived police discrimination are significant. That is, within each of the racial subsamples, other aspects of the social environment, delinquent attitudes and behavior, and juvenile-police interactions are virtually irrelevant in explaining why juveniles perceive racial discrimination in law enforcement, with one minor exception: Delinquent attitudes in the white subsample are significant for perceptions of racial discrimination (but the model including this effect is not significant).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 169

With the exception of the social environment reduced-form model for minorities, all of the race-specific models of respect for the police were significant. A comparison of R 2 values reveals that the models for whites are more efficient than those for minorities in explaining respect or disrespect for the police. In the full models, for example (Models 2 and 3 in Table 5), the R 2 for whites was .49 (p = .01), compared with an R 2 of .27 (p = .05) for minorities. We also found several racial differences in the processes leading to the development of respect for the police. For white juveniles, the impact of bad neighborhoods on reducing respect for the police is both direct and indirect, through their delinquent attitudes and delinquent behavior. For minorities, residence in bad neighborhoods decreases respect for the police; this effect is expressed through delinquent atti tudes (but not delinquent behavior) among minority youths from bad neighborhoods. Juvenile-police interactions do not diminish these effects of social environment and delinquent subcultures for either whites or minorities, but the significant police contacts differ for the two groups. For whites, the important police contact that diminishes respect is being warned and released; for minorities, the important police contact is the experience of being taken to the police station.

S U M M A R Y A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Previous research (e.g., Brandl et al. 1994) and the first hypothesis guiding this research were clearly supported. Attitudes toward the police do not develop simply as a function of actual contacts with the police. All of the social environment variables ex- cept family structure were significant for some type of attitude. Mi- nority youths consistently expressed more negative views of the police than did whites, and race/ethnicity was the strongest predictor of perceptions of police fairness and police discrimination. Greater commitment to delinquent norms consistently predicted negative attitudes toward the police.

These findings suggest that juveniles' characteristics and community circumstances, as emphasized in subcultural theories of delinquency, are useful in explaining juveniles' unfavorable views of law enforcement officers. These findings also imply that, quite aside from the nature of police encounters with juveniles, the impo- sition of legal authority and social control in certain neighborhoods engenders a pervasive resentment and resistance, and that youth- ful residents of those neighborhoods harbor a general disrespect for the law itself. Delinquency theory might benefit by extending the definition of subcultural attitudes and beliefs to include not only juveniles' respect for the moral authority of the law, but also their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


responses to police officers who personify that authority in day-today interactions. Societal reaction theories might include youths' attitudes toward the police as a measure of resentment toward the larger society; such resentment is hypothesized to transform occasional offenders (primary deviants) into habitual offenders (secondary deviants). In sum, these findings offer the possibility of including juvenile justice principles concerning attitudes toward the police in the theoretical frameworks of criminological theories that seek to explain juvenile delinquency and crime.

Yet the fact that social environments and deviant norms pre- dict attitudes toward the police does not diminish the importance of juveniles' encounters with the police. All of the police contact variables were significant for some type of attitude, and juvenile-police interactions were more effective than the sociocultural variables in explaining different perceptions of police fairness. This finding sup- ports the notion that efforts to improve juveniles' attitudes toward the police cannot disregard the nature of encounters with the police. One possible strategy for dealing with the sources of youths' dissatisfaction with the police is to consider various programs under the general rubric of community policing and problem-oriented policing. Goldstein (1990), for example, argued for redefining interactions between the police and the community to maximize the possibility of cultivating positive relationships. This redefinition could also enhance the role of the police in making communities coproducers of social control. In this context, police would work with youth groups, especially members of minorities and youths in- clined toward delinquency, to establish mutually positive attitudes.

The results of the analysis provided only mixed support for our hypothesis that sociocultural factors operate both directly and indirectly to determine atti tudes toward the police. The results, however, provide insight into the processes involved in the development of attitudes toward the police. Members of minorities expressed less respect for the police than did whites, partly as a function of police contacts; youths from bad neighborhoods had less respect for the police because of delinquent norms and delinquent behaviors leading to police contacts. Minority youths and those from poorer families were likely to view the police as unfair; and this finding was explained in part by these youths' commitment to delinquent norms, which in turn affected their interactions with the police. Mi- nority youths and those more tolerant of delinquency were more likely than other juveniles to report perceptions of police discrimination.

These findings also illustrate the need for separate models in analyzing slightly different kinds of attitudes toward the police.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 171

The variables in this analysis explained differences in respect for the police more efficiently than perceptions of police fairness or discrimination. Contact experiences were important for perceptions of both fairness and discrimination, but pMice-juvenile interactions varied in their relative importance, even for these two seemingly similar aspects of atti tudes toward the police.

Race ethnicity was the most consistent predictor of all three atti tudes toward the police. The explanatory value of the models decreased appreciably for minorities when this variable was removed from the models. The inefficiency of the models explaining minority youths' attitudes, relative to the models for whites, rein- forces past findings that minority status in itself differentiates public responses to law enforcement.

We suspect that this effect is part of a larger, societywide problem in relations between the races. For this reason, efforts to mod- ify minority members' perceptions of the police through juvenile justice policy may be slow and, at best, incremental. Nonetheless, cultural sensitivity training and empowerment through the crea- tion of multiracial citizens' boards could improve communication between the police and the community, and could foster mutual understanding (Walker and Bhumpus 1991). Whether the method is community policing, innovative police programs, cultural sensitivity training, or multiracial boards, police, parents, and the youths themselves must work together to improve relations and community awareness. Programs such as Police-School Liaisons, the Po- lice Athletic League (PAL), and Youth Advocacy represent promising efforts in this direction.

In view of our findings that sociocultural contexts affect the development of juveniles' attitudes toward police, we concede that specific and localized programs alone cannot resolve the root problems of poverty and racial tension that cause disenchantment among juveniles from depressed communities. In the absence of re- sources for a holistic resolution of community problems, however, constructive local programs are society's best hope for interrupting the sequence that transforms today's disenchanted youths into to- morrow's career criminals.

REFERENCES

Alwin, D. and R.M. Hauser. 1975. "The Decomposition of Path Effects." American Sociological Review 40:37-47.

Anderson, A., A. Basilevsky, and D. Hum. 1983. "Measurement: Theory and Tech- n~ques." Handbook of Survey Research, edited by P.H. Rossi, J. Wright, and A. Anderson.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

172 JLWENILES' ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POLICE

Borhrnstedt, G. and E.F. Borgatta. 1981. "Level of Measurement: Once Again." So- cial Measurement: Current Issues, edited by G. Borhrnstedt and E.F. Borgatta. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Brandl, S.G., J. Frank, R.W. Worden, and T.S. Bynum. 1994. "Global and Specific Attitudes toward the Police: Disentangling The Relationship." Justice Quarterly 11:119-34.

Cloward, R. and L. Ohtin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delin- quent Gangs. New York: Free Press.

Cohen, A. 1955. Delinquent Boys. New York: Free Press. Cox, T.C. and S.D. Fatkenberg. 1987. "Adolescents' Attitudes toward Police: An Em-

phasis on Interactions between the Delinquency Measures of Alcohol and Mari- juana, Police Contacts and Attitudes." American Journal of Police 6:45-62.

Dobash, R.P., R.E. Dobash, S. Ballintyne, S. Schumann, K. Reiner, and H. Guth. 1990. "Ignorance and Suspicion: Young People and Criminal Justice in Scotland and Germany." British Journal of Criminology 30:306-20.

Elliott, D. 1994. "Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Ter- minat ion-The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address." Criminology 32:1-21.

Erez, E. 1984. "Self-Defined 'Desert' and Citizens' Assessment of the Police." Jour- nal of Criminal Law and Criminology 75:1276-99.

Flanagan, T.J. and D. Long~aire, eds. 1996. Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey. London: Sage.

Frank, J., S.G. Brandl, F.T. Cullen, and A. Stichman. 1996. "Reassessing The Im- pact of Race on Citizens' Attitudes toward the Police: A Research Note." Justice Quarterly 13:321-34.

Goldstein, H. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Griffiths, C.T. and L.T. Winfree. 1982. "Attitudes toward the Police---A Comparison

of Canadian and American Adolescents." International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 6:128-41.

Hagan, J. 1991. "Destiny and Drift: Subcultural Preferences, Status Attainments, and the Risks and Rewards of Youth." American Sociological Review 56:567-82.

Hagan, J. and C. Albonetti. 1982. "Race, Class, and the Perception of Criminal In- justice in America." American Journal of Sociology 88:329~55.

Hagan, J. and A. Palloni. 1990. 'The Social Reproduction of a Criminal Class in Worldng-Class London, circa 1950-1980." American Journal of Sociology 96:265-300.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1994. "Homeboys, Dope Fiends, Legits, and New Jacks." Criminol- ogy 32:197-219.

Halloran, J.D. 1967. Attitude Formation and Change. Leicester, UK: Leicester Uni- versity Press.

Jefferson, T. and M.A. Walker. 1993. "Attitudes to the Police of Ethnic Minorities in a Provincial City." British Journal of Criminology 33:251-66.

Keane, C., A.R. Gillis, and J. Hagan, 1989. "Deterrence and Amplication of Juvenile Delinquency by Police Contact." British Journal of Criminology 29:336-49.

Kluegel, Ji and E. Smith. 1986. Beliefs about Inequality: Americans' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine.

Labovitz, S. 1970. "The Assignment of Numbers to Rank Order Categories." Ameri- can Sociological Review 36:515~24.

Leiber, M. 1993. "The Disproportionate Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Secure Facilities: A Survey of Decision-Makers and Delinquents." Prepared for the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Des Moines.

- - - - . 1994. "A Comparison of Juvenile Court Outcomes for Native Americans, African Americans, and Whites." Justice Quarterly 11:257-79.

- - - - - - . 1995a. "Toward Clarification of the Concept of 'Minority' Status and Deci- sion Making in Juvenile Court Proceedings." Journal of Crime and Justice 18(1):79-108.

- - - - - - . 1995b. A Guide to Addressing the Disproportionate Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Secure Facilities. Community Research Associates.

Leiber, M. and K_ Jamieson. 1995. 'Mace and Decision-Making within Juvenile Jus- tice: The Importance of Context." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11:363- 88.

Leiber, M. and M.E. Wacker. 1997. "A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Power-Control Theory and Single-Mother Families" Youth & ,Society 28:317~50.

Lemert, E. 1951. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

LEIBER ET AL. 173

Miller, W.B. 1958. "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delin- quency." Journal of Social Issues 14:5-19.

Mirande, A= 1980. "Fear of Crime and Fear of Police in a Chicano Community." Sociology and Social Research 64:528-41.

Paternoster, R. and L. Iovanni. 1989. T h e Labeling Perspective and Delinquency: An Elaboration of the Theory and an Assessment of the Evidence." Justice Quarterly 6:359-94.

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. 1992. Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. Rock- ville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice.

Rusinko, W.T., K.W. Johnson, and C.A. Hornung. 1978. "Importance of Police Con- tact in the Formulation of Youths' Attitudes toward Police." Journal of Crimi- nal Justice 6:53-67.

Sampson, R. 1986. "Effects of Socioeconomic Context on Official Reaction to Juve- nile Delinquency." american Sociological Review 51:876-86.

Sampson, R. and W. Wilson. 1995. ~Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality." Pp. 37-54 in Crime and Inequality, edited by J. Hagan and R. Pe- terson. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Scaglion, R. and R.G. Condon. 1980. "Determinants of Attitudes toward City Po- lice." Criminology 17:485-94.

Smith, A.D., N. Graham, and B. Adams. 1991. "Minorities and the Police: Attitudi- nal and Behavioral Questions." Pp. 22-35 in Race and Criminal Justice, edited by M.J. Lynch and E.B. Patterson. New York: Harrow and Heston.

Snyder, H. and M. Sickmund. 1996. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. U.S. Dept. of Justice. 1996. Cops, Community Policing and 100,000 Officers: Re-

building the Bond between Citizens and Their Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Waddington, P.A.J. and Q. Braddock. 1991. "Guardians' or "Bullies'? Perceptions of the Police amongst Adolescent Black, White, and Asian Boys." Policing and So- ciety 2:31-45.

Walker, S. and V. Bhumpus. 1991. Civilian Review of Police: A National Survey of 50 Largest Cities. Omaha: Center for Public Affairs Research.

Willie, C.V. 1991. A New Look at Black Families. New York: General Hall. Wilson, W. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and

Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Winfree, L.T. and C.T. Griffiths. 1977. "Adolescent Attitudes toward the Police--A

Survey of High School Students." Juvenile Delinquency--Little Brother Grows Up, edited by T.N. Ferdinand. Newbury Park, CA= Sage.

Wolfgang, M. and F. Ferracuti. 1967. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock.

Zamble, E. and P. Annesley. 1987. "Some Determinants of Public Attitudes toward the Police." Journal of Police Science and Administration 15:285-90.

Zinni, F. 1995. "The Sense of Injustice: The Effects of Situations, Beliefs, and Iden- tity" Social Science Quarterly 76(2):419-37.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3


Appendix. Construction of Scales

Factor Scales Loadings

Family Economic Position Scale Is your mother working now? (1 = no, 2 = yes) Is your fa ther working now? (1 = no, 2 = yes) Do your parent(s) ren t or own the home you live in?

(1 = rent , 2 = own)

Alpha = .57

Moral Evaluat ions

How often do you think it is wrong t o . . . (1 = always, 2 = most o f the time, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost never, 5 = never)

Use a weapon to get money from people? Attack wi th a weapon to seriously hu r t someone? Hit and hu r t someone badly enough to need medical help? Take a car or motorcycle for a ride wi thout the owner's permission? Damage or destroy someone else's property on purpose?

Alpha = .65

Att i tudes toward the Police

Response 1 = always~ 2 = most o f the time, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost never, 5 = never

Respect Do you have a lot of respect for the police? If you needed help, would you go to a police officer?

Alpha = .65

Perceptions of police fairness (single question) Do you th ink the police t r ea t yon fairly?

Perceptions of police discr iminat ion Do you th ink the police a r res t people jus t because they are black? Do you feel t h a t the police are always picking on blacks?

Alpha = .77

.73

.54

.58

.75

.74

.74

.63

.61

.61

.64

.79

.78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mar

gare

t Moo

re]

at 0

7:34

10

May

201

3

explaining juveniles' attitudes toward the police -...

Documents