Another Look at Varieties of Police Behavior

8/13/2019 Another Look at Varieties of Police Behavior

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/another-look-at-varieties-of-police-behavior 1/22

http://pqx.sagepub.com/ Police Quarterly

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/11/4/447The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1098611108314567

2008 11: 447 originally published online 29 February 2008Police Quarterly John Liederbach and Lawrence F. Travis III

Wilson Redux: Another Look at Varieties of Police Behavior

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Police Executive Research Forum

Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

can be found at:Police Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/11/4/447.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 29, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 29, 2008Version of Record>>

by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pqx.sagepub.com/



http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/11/4/447


http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://www.policeforum.org/

http://www.acjs.org/

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/11/4/447.refs.html


http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/02/29/1098611108314567.full.pdf


http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/11/4/447.full.pdf








































































http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav




http://www.acjs.org/

http://www.policeforum.org/

http://www.sagepublications.com/





447

Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Liederbach,

Department of Human Services, Criminal Justice Program, 236 Health Center, Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH 43403-0148; e-mail: [email protected].

Police Quarterly

Volume 11 Number 4

December 2008 447-467

© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/1098611108314567

http://pqx.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Wilson Redux

Another Look at Varieties

of Police Behavior

John Liederbach Bowling Green State University

Lawrence F. Travis IIIUniversity of Cincinnati

Since the publication of Varieties of Police Behavior more than four decades ago,

Wilson’s theory concerning the link between local political culture and police styles has

had a significant and enduring impact on police scholarship. However, there have been

surprisingly few empirical tests of Wilson’s assertions, and of those limited number of

studies, only a small number provide even partial support for the model. The current study

provides a test of Wilson’s theory using a unique measure of police style derived from

observational data rather than official arrest/citation statistics. Perhaps more important,

we discuss our findings within the context of previous research that has failed to support

Wilson’s theory and present a critical assessment of the requirements of a valid test of this

theory. We argue that Wilson’s model retains an intuitive appeal to those interested inexplaining the relationship between local community context and police behavior.

Keywords: James Q. Wilson; varieties of police behavior; police styles; police and

community variation; systematic social observation

In 1968, James Q. Wilson published Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of

Law and Order in Eight Communities. This book is a classic of the policing liter-

ature and is widely known and studied. In Varieties, Wilson sets out to investigate

some of the core issues associated with understanding the police including (a) how

police organizations influence the street-level actions of officers, (b) the factors that

limit organizational control of individual officer behavior, and (c) how the contex-

tual influences of community and political culture contribute to defining certain

“organizational styles” exhibited by local police agencies. In Wilson’s (1968) words,

The purpose of this book is to describe how the police patrolman behaves with respect

to the more frequently applied laws; to analyze the problems facing the police admin-

istrator both in deciding what the patrolman ought to do and in getting him to do it; to



discover how, if at all, patrolmen in various cities differ in performing their functions;

and finally to inquire whether—or under what circumstances—such differences as exist

are based on explicit community decisions. (p. 4)

In the pursuit of these goals, Wilson identified the primary functions of the local

police as law enforcement, order maintenance, and service delivery. He studied how

police officers in different departments interacted with citizens noting that these

interactions varied in terms of frequency and formality. In some communities the

police interacted with citizens often, whereas in other places police rarely dealt with

citizens. In some communities, police interactions with citizens typically involved

the application of the law through arrests and/or citations, and in other places these

interactions were more informal and law enforcement outcomes were rare.

Ultimately, Wilson identified what he described as three distinct “operational styles”

of policing based on the frequency and formality of police–citizen interactions.

Where police interacted frequently with citizens, and in a formal manner, Wilson

identified a Legalistic style. In communities where police dealt with citizens

frequently, but were typically more informal and did not invoke the law, he identified

a Service style. Finally, Wilson said a Watchman style characterized communities

where the police infrequently encountered citizens.

Four decades after the publication of Varieties, Wilson’s conceptualization and

description of the police in the United States has become part of what might be

called the “common knowledge” of policing. As Hassell, Zhao, and Maguire (2003)

note, almost every textbook on American policing provides an overview of Wilson’s

three operational styles, and Wilson’s contributions have been routinely described as

“classic,” or encompassing “perhaps the most important” or “prevailing view” concerning

the organizational influences on police behavior (Carter, 2002, p. 129; Roberg, Novak,

& Cordner, 2005, p. 277; Walker & Katz, 2008, p. 369). Moreover, the ideas put

forth in Varieties appear to have had a “deep and broad impact,” so much so that the

book still ranks among the most commonly cited works in the police studies literature,

and it has obviously contributed to Wilson’s stature among the most influential policing

scholars (Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998; Wright & Miller, 1998, p. 249). In short,

“everyone” knows that there are three different styles of policing in America.

The question that remains, of course, is what explains these differences? Wilson

observed that police styles appeared to be related to the characteristics of the

community within which the department operated, including the form of local gov-

ernment. He argued that police departments were constrained by what he called the

“local political culture.” Police activity, according to Wilson, was rarely directed by

conscious choices and direct political intervention. Rather, “the prevailing political

culture creates a ‘zone of indifference’ within which the police are free to act as they

see fit” (Wilson, 1968, p. 233). Wilson found support for the notion that police style

was a function of local political culture using city and official arrest statistics from

1960 for 146 cities with populations ranging from 25,000 to 100,000.

448 Police Quarterly



Given the significant and enduring impact of Varieties, as well as the limitations

associated with what Wilson characterized as his own “crude and inadequate” test,

there have been surprisingly few studies designed to test Wilson’s assertions, and of those limited number of studies, only a few provide even partial support for the model

(Crank, 1990, 1992; Langworthy, 1985; Pursley, 1976). For example, on the basis of

his analysis, Langworthy (1985) concluded that Wilson’s theory was more one of

central tendency than of constraint. Likewise, Crank’s (1990) test provided only

qualified support for the notion that local political culture influences the street-level

behavior of officers. Perhaps even more disconcerting is the fact that the more recent

tests to confirm Wilson’s theory have failed (Hassell et al., 2003; Zhao & Hassell,

2005; Zhao, He, & Lovrich, 2006). Indeed, Zhao and Hassell (2005) characterized

their null findings as indicative of a more general “move toward a falsification of Wilson’s seminal work” (p. 423).

This situation has created an obvious contradiction; that is, the huge imprint that has

been left by Wilson’s theory on police scholarship can scarcely be justified by the

somewhat tepid support it has thus far garnered in the empirical literature (Slovak,

1996; Zhao et al., 2006). Certainly, there may be valid explanations for the general lack

of existing empirical support. For example, the general state of knowledge concerning

the relationship between officer behavior, organizational factors, and the wider com-

munity context has been characterized by some as “not well developed” (National

Research Council, 2004, p. 156). Others have pointed to a variety of factors that haveworked to alter policing since the publication of Varieties, including the movement

toward police professionalism and the increasing influence of the federal government

in local policing (Hassell et al., 2003; Zhao & Hassell, 2005; Zhao et al., 2006).

These explanations probably have some merit given both the time elapsed since

Varieties’ publication and the enormous changes that have occurred in policing over

the course of that time; however, the relative lack of empirical support for Wilson’s

model may also be due in part to the manner in which existing tests have operational-

ized his conceptualization of police style. Specifically, previous studies designed to test

for community and/or organizational correlates of police style have exclusively usedofficial arrest/citation statistics as the indicator of police style (see, e.g., Crank, 1990,

1992; Langworthy, 1985; Zhao et al., 2006). Though Wilson (1968) himself used offi-

cial statistics in his own test, he recognized the inadequacy of the measure:

It must be emphasized, however, that police style is not always best measured by arrest

rates, even for high discretion offenses. Albany and Oakland both arrest a lot of drunks,

as we have seen, but for quite different reasons, and those reasons are relevant to the

likelihood that any given drunk will be arrested. (p. 272)

This exercise has also confirmed the judgment offered in the beginning of this

study—that a full explanation of police style requires first hand observation of the

behavior of the police in order to discover what that style is. (p. 277)

Liederbach, Travis / Wilson Redux 449



Wilson realized that official statistics fail to capture a range of officer behaviors

that are indicative of different styles of policing. For example, official statistics will not

provide information regarding citizens who the police encounter outside the traditionallaw enforcement realm, including disputants or other types of criminal suspects who are

not arrested and/or cited, service recipients, witnesses or third parties not contained

in official reports, and citizens who encounter officers on a casual and/or personal

basis. In short, official statistics cannot directly measure the frequency and formality

of police–citizen interactions because they provide information only on the relatively

small percentage of encounters in which an officer formally invokes the law.

One objective of the current study is to provide a test of Wilson using a more

direct measure of police style based on data derived from the systematic social

observation (SSO) of police officers in 20 suburban and small-town agencies. SSOallows for the collection of data that are difficult or impossible to collect through

official statistics, especially information that pertains to police–citizen encounters

that would otherwise be of low visibility to the researcher. We are aware of no existing

tests of Wilson’s theory that incorporate a measure of police style other than those

derived exclusively from official statistics.

A second and perhaps more important goal of our research is to present a critical

assessment of the requirements of a valid test of Wilson’s model. Such an assessment

appears to be long overdue given the enduring impact of Varieties and the scant level

of existing empirical support for the model. This discussion could be used not onlyto identify the shortcomings of existing tests but also to provide a “roadmap” for

future research designed to test Wilson’s seminal ideas. In this way, police scholars

could more accurately evaluate the relative merits of one of the most influential theories

of police behavior and begin to formulate ongoing judgments as to whether the theory

should continue to hold sway. Before describing the methods used in the current

study, we begin with an overview of Wilson’s theory of police style and the studies

designed to test its basic assumptions.

Wilson’s Theory and Previous Tests

In Varieties, Wilson established that local police agencies differ among themselves

in terms of the ways in which they approach the tasks of policing, and he identified

and defined three distinct police styles: legalistic, service, and watchman. The differences

among these styles are not based on the different activities performed by the agency

because every police agency must serve the three functions of law enforcement, service

delivery, and peacekeeping. Rather, police agencies differ in terms of the ways in

which officers employed by the agency approach police problems. Thus, the distinc-tion is not so much what they do but how they do it (Travis & Langworthy, 2008).

Wilson arrived at these styles using a 2 × 2 typology based on the frequency and

formality of police–citizen interactions. For example, officers in a legalistic agency




intervene frequently and formally with citizens. Employees of a legalistic style agency

rely on the formal criminal law as a definition of not only what situations merit their

attention but also in what manner they should intervene. Hence, a legalistic departmentis characterized by officers who issue many citations and make many arrests. Officers

in a service style agency also intervene frequently with citizens, but they do so infor-

mally. The officers in a service style department treat every citizen complaint as

requiring a police response; they do not rely on the criminal code to define police

issues. As the label suggests, these agencies stress the service delivery function of

police. Officers in a watchman style agency do not interact with citizens frequently.

These agencies stress the peacekeeping function of policing. Officers in a watchman

style department exercise considerable discretion in defining whether a situation

requires a police response and what that response should be; therefore Wilson didnot specifically describe the formality of police–citizen interactions within these

departments (Travis & Langworthy, 2008).

Wilson theorized that these styles were related to the characteristics of the popula-

tion and the form of local government existing within the city. For his test, Wilson used

data from 146 cities with between 25,000 and 100,000 residents for which he could

obtain measures of government type as well as Uniform Crime Report data. Wilson

eliminated cities that were either very rich or very poor, or had a non-White population

in excess of 5% of the total. By eliminating these cities he hoped to control for the effect

of actual crime rates. His measure of political culture included type of local government,professionalism of the manager, and form of local elections. Local political culture was

ultimately classified in terms of four categories: partisan mayor-council (or “tradi-

tional”), nonpartisan mayor-council, council-manager with professional managers (or

“professional”), and council-manager with low levels of professionalism. He opera-

tionalized police style using official arrest data for larceny, drunkenness, driving while

intoxicated (DWI), disorderly conduct, and simple assault.

Wilson found support for the theory when the analysis showed higher levels of

arrest for larceny, drunkenness, and DWI for “professional” government cities and

higher levels of arrest for disorderly conduct in partisan government cities. In general,professional government cities demonstrated legalistic styles and partisan cities

showed watchman styles. In what he called intermediate cities (those with managers

who did not score on measures of professionalism or places with nonpartisan

elections) the arrest rates were mixed. These cities demonstrated high rates of arrest

for drunkenness and larceny, and all manager cities (regardless of level of profes-

sionalism) showed higher rates of arrest for DWI.

Previous Tests

Studies designed to test Wilson (1968) have focused on the relationship between

local political culture and (a) organizational characteristics and structures, and (b)

police style. In terms of tests concerning influences on police organizations, Pursley




(1976) found that the number of police departments with “reform” police chiefs was

significantly higher in communities with professional governments than in those having

traditional mayor-council governments. Langworthy (1986) tested the relationshipbetween local political culture and the organizational arrangements of police orga-

nizations. His findings did not support Wilson’s theory that police organizations are

constrained by type of local government. More recently, Hassell et al. (2003) found

that local political culture had no significant impact on the organizational structures

of a sample of 401 large police agencies.

More closely related to our purposes, a few existing studies have specifically

tested Wilson’s hypotheses regarding the relationship between local political culture

and police style (Crank, 1990, 1992; Langworthy, 1985; Zhao & Hassell, 2005; Zhao

et al., 2006). As noted previously, all these tests use a measure of style derived fromofficial arrest/citation statistics. Langworthy (1985) used data on 152 large cities

(population > 100,000) and found that local government type and police style (DWI

and disorderly conduct arrests) are correlated, but that political culture is not sufficient

to explain agency style. That is, cities with professional forms of government tend

to display legalistic policing, and cities with traditional forms of government tend to

display a watchman style; however, within group variation was substantial such that

“city options tend to be congruent with a particular political culture, but do not

appear to be constrained to do so” (p. 98).

Crank (1990) tested the influence of organizational factors, local government, andselected community structural characteristics on the arrest rates for minor crimes

(disorderly conduct, trespass, cannabis control, motor vehicle offenses). He found that

the presence of professional local governments was associated with more legalistic

police styles. Moreover, environmental factors (e.g., local government type, racial/

cultural heterogeneity, economic conditions) appeared to exert more influence on the

style of “rural” rather than “urban” departments. Similar to his earlier test, Crank (1992)

found that local government structure (city manager form) was associated with legalism

in terms of the arrest rates for more serious crimes such as aggravated assault, burglary,

and theft. As Zhao et al. (2006) point out, however, these tests did not employ Wilson’s(1968) original measure of political culture that includes election type (partisan or

nonpartisan).

More recently, Zhao and Hassell (2005) studied the style of approximately 500

police agencies that employed 100 or more officers similar to Langworthy (1985).

They trichotomized local government type into good government, traditional, and

mixed. They concluded that their analysis showed “little support” for a relationship

between local political culture and police practices (p. 411). Zhao et al. (2006) tested

the relationship between local political culture and police practices in 281 munici-

palities with populations of more than 25,000 using a three-wave panel survey andofficial arrest statistics. Specifically, they tested for a relationship between form of

local government and the official arrest rates for larceny/DWI (legalistic style) and

drunkenness/disorderly conduct (watchman style). They found no evidence of an




effect of local government on police practices, and they identified a need for addi-

tional tests of Wilson since their analyses revealed “little evidence” to support the

application of Wilson’s theory to contemporary policing (p. 577).

The Present Study

The research reported here relies on data collected during direct observations of

police officers conducted by a research team from the University of Cincinnati,

Division of Criminal Justice, as part of a larger project funded by the National

Institute of Justice.1 The police departments included in the present study are located

in Southwestern Ohio within the greater Cincinnati Metropolitan area, but not thecity of Cincinnati (see Table 1). The departments employ an average of fewer than

20 sworn officers (386 total) and serve a combined population of approximately

219,000. The jurisdictions include 15 suburban communities located in Hamilton

County (Ohio) and four communities located in Clermont County, which borders

Hamilton County to the east and is more geographically isolated from Cincinnati’s

urban core. The remaining study site straddles the borders of three adjacent counties

(Hamilton, Clermont, and Warren counties).

The study sites are all small in terms of their population compared with more

urbanized central cities and most are homogeneous in terms of their racial composi-tion (more than 90% White on average); however, they are fairly diverse in terms of

the other demographic and structural characteristics listed in Table 1. In purely

descriptive terms, these sites include two affluent residential suburbs (Amberley

Village, Terrace Park), five middle-class residential suburbs (Colerain Twp., Delhi

Twp., Loveland, Milford, and Forest Park), two middle-class suburbs that are highly

commercialized (Blue Ash and Sharonville), six working-class suburbs (Cheviot,

Deer Park, Reading, Arlington Hts., Fairfax, and Lockland), and five small towns

that are more sparsely populated and rural in character than the suburban jurisdic-

tions (Amelia Village, Goshen Twp., Harrison, Felicity, and Williamsburg).

Data and Methods

The methodology used in the field was systematic social observation (Mastrofski

et al., 1998). The main procedures used in SSO include the development of instru-

ments to collect and record observations systematically, and the subsequent investi-

gation of those activities through direct observation (Reiss, 1971). SSO differs from

the qualitative and ethnographic methodologies used by researchers to study patrol

officers in the 1960s and 1970s in terms of (a) the use of predesigned protocols anddata collection instruments, (b) the employment of a large number of observers, and

(c) the inclusion of large samples of officers (National Research Council, 2004).




454

T a b l e

1

T h e S t u d y S i t e s

M e d i a n

( % )

( % )

P o p u l a t i o n

( % )

( % ) L a n d

( % ) N o

S w o r n

H o u s e h o l d

W h i t e

O w n e r

C h a n g e

N o n -

( % )

U s e

M e d i a n

( % ) A g e

( % ) A g e

( % ) C o l l e g e

H . S .

O f f i c e r s

P o p u l a t i o n

I n c o m e

C o l l a r

O c c u p i e d

1 9 9 0 - 2 0 0 0

W h i t e

M a r r i e d

R e s i d e n t i a l

A g e

<

2 1

>

6 5

G r a d u a t e

D e g r e e

A m b e r l e y V i l l a g e

1 5

3 , 4 2 5

$ 8 1 , 4 9 2

6 0 . 6

9 8 . 0

1 0 . 2

1 3 . 1

7 5 . 2

9 1

4 8 . 2

2 4 . 6

2 4 . 4

6 3 . 5

5 . 3

A m e l i a

4

2 , 7 5 2

$ 4 4 , 9 0 0

2 9 . 0

5 4 . 4

4 9 . 8

3 . 7

5 8 . 1

n / a

2 9 . 1

3 2 . 3

7 . 6

1 3 . 8

1 6 . 5

A r l i n g t o n H t s .

1 3

8 9 9

$ 3 0 , 2 8 8

1 4 . 9

5 6 . 5

– 1 7 . 1

8 . 1

4 4 . 9

4 9

3 4 . 6

3 0 . 1

1 2 . 2

4 . 6

3 1 . 8

B l u e A s h

3 4

1 2 , 5 1 3

$ 6 1 , 5 9 1

5 3 . 2

7 4 . 3

5 . 5

1 3 . 6

5 9 . 6

4 2

3 9 . 4

2 8 . 2

1 4 . 2

4 8 . 7

9 . 2

C h e v i o t

2 3

9 , 0 1 5

$ 3 5 , 1 5 0

2 7 . 4

6 1 . 6

– 6 . 2

3 . 7

5 0 . 2

7 5

3 5 . 5

2 5 . 6

1 7 . 8

1 6 . 4

2 2 . 8

C o l e r a i n T w p .

2 4

6 0 , 1 4 4

$ 4 9 , 9 6 0

2 9 . 2

8 1 . 3

n / a

1 2 . 2

5 8 . 5

7 7

3 5 . 8

3 1 . 0

1 1 . 9

1 8 . 8

1 6 . 4

D e e r P a r k

1 1

5 , 9 8 2

$ 3 9 , 6 9 2

2 9 . 1

7 1 . 9

– 3 . 2

3 . 9

5 0 . 5

7 8

3 8 . 0

2 4 . 4

2 0 . 3

1 6 . 9

2 0 . 0

D e l h i T w p .

3 2

3 0 , 1 0 4

$ 5 5 , 0 5 2

3 1 . 9

8 4 . 9

n / a

2 . 3

6 2 . 4

8 6

3 6 . 7

3 2 . 7

1 4 . 7

2 3 . 7

1 1 . 3

F a i r f a x

1 2

1 , 9 3 8

$ 4 1 , 4 1 8

3 1 . 8

8 0 . 8

– 4 . 5

3 . 6

5 2 . 5

4 5

3 6 . 3

3 0 . 8

1 4 . 7

1 5 . 7

2 6 . 1

F e l i c i t y

2

9 2 2

$ 2 0 , 7 8 1

2 2 . 1

4 4 . 8

7 . 7

3 . 1

4 8 . 2

n / a

3 1 . 1

3 4 . 9

1 2 . 3

6 . 7

4 2 . 9

F o r e s t P a r k

4 0

1 9 , 4 6 3

$ 4 9 , 2 9 8

3 4 . 3

6 2 . 5

4 . 6

6 3 . 9

5 2 . 1

5 5

3 3 . 9

3 0 . 7

9 . 1

2 6 . 2

1 1 . 7

G o s h e n T w p .

7

1 3 , 6 6 3

$ 4 6 , 3 1 4

1 8 . 6

8 7 . 2

n / a

1 . 8

6 3 . 8

n / a

3 4 . 2

3 2 . 5

8 . 4

8 . 4

2 4 . 1

H a r r i s o n

2 1

7 , 4 8 7

$ 4 6 , 1 0 7

2 5 . 5

7 2 . 0

– 0 . 4

2 . 2

5 7 . 9

n / a

3 2 . 4

3 5 . 1

9 . 3

1 1 . 9

2 2 . 0

L o c k l a n d

1 8

3 , 7 0 7

$ 2 8 , 2 9 2

1 7 . 8

4 7 . 9

– 1 4 . 9

3 0 . 1

4 0 . 5

4 7

3 5 . 6

2 8 . 0

1 1 . 9

8 . 6

2 8 . 6

L o v e l a n d

2 3

1 1 , 6 7 7

$ 5 2 , 7 3 8

3 8 . 5

7 4 . 6

1 6 . 9

5 . 1

6 1 . 2

8 2

3 5 . 8

3 2 . 4

1 1 . 0

3 5 . 0

1 0 . 4

M i l f o r d

1 4

6 , 2 8 4

$ 3 1 , 9 2 3

3 1 . 7

4 9 . 8

1 1 . 0

5 . 5

5 0 . 2

n / a

3 9 . 1

2 5 . 7

2 1 . 3

2 3 . 9

2 2 . 1

R e a d i n g

1 8

1 1 , 2 9 2

$ 3 9 , 1 4 0

2 5 . 1

5 9 . 2

– 6 . 2

8 . 6

4 9 . 8

6 3

3 7 . 6

2 6 . 7

1 6 . 0

1 5 . 9

2 1 . 0

S h a r o n v i l l e

5 6

1 3 , 8 0 4

$ 4 7 , 0 5 5

4 0 . 8

6 3 . 6

4 . 9

1 2 . 5

5 3 . 2

3 8

3 9 . 1

2 3 . 6

1 7 . 1

3 3 . 8

1 2 . 2

T e r r a c e P a r k

1 4

2 , 2 7 3

$ 9 5 , 5 3 0

5 9 . 9

9 5 . 0

6 . 6

1 . 8

7 3 . 5

9 7

3 8 . 7

3 8 . 0

1 2 . 4

7 1 . 0

1 . 5

W i l l i a m s b u r g

5

2 , 3 5 8

$ 3 7 , 1 1 5

2 0 . 1

6 0 . 0

1 . 6

1 . 4

5 1 . 5

n / a

3 3 . 4

3 1 . 2

1 0 . 9

1 0 . 4

2 6 . 8

S o u r c e : 2 0 0 0 U . S . C e n s u s : H U D S t a t e o f t h e C i t i e s

D a t a S y s t e m s ( S O C D S ) .

n / a =

n o t a p p l i c a b l e .



Observed officers were accompanied by trained observers who recorded every-

thing the officers did during their entire shift, including the activities that the officers

performed and information regarding the nature of their interactions with citizens.2

The present study uses a framework similar to that outlined by Mastrofski et al.

(1998) to systematically organize and record the observer’s field notes into reliable

coded data. Coding instruments were developed to record information regarding the

officer’s interactions with citizens including (a) the encounter/activity instrument

and (b) the citizen instrument.

The encounter/activity instrument accounted for every minute of the observed

officer’s shift time, whether they were in direct contact with citizens or performing

tasks that did not include citizens, such as motor patrol, report writing, or driving en

route to and from locations. A citizen instrument was completed for every citizenencountered by the observed officers. The citizen instrument provided information

concerning the nature and character of the interaction including the citizen’s demo-

graphic characteristics, demeanor, offenses (if any), types of problems encountered,

and other situational factors related to each encounter. These situational factors

included requests made by citizens to the officer, police law enforcement actions

(e.g., arrests, citations, searches, use of force), officer requests made to citizens, and

factors surrounding any disputes that occurred among citizens.

Data were collected over a 14-month period between April 1999 and May 2000.

The research team randomly selected shifts to be observed within the 20 agencies tocomplete 2.5 observations per month per department over the course of the 14-month

project.3 Observations were made with 213 individual officers employed by the

sampled agencies. A total of 583 observations were completed encompassing 4,813 hr

of observation, or the equivalent of over 611 8-hr shifts.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Observational Data

In terms of the present study, the primary advantage of observational data is that

it allows the researcher to collect information on citizens who interact with thepolice and who are not arrested and/or cited, including criminal suspects/disputants

who were not arrested and/or cited, witnesses and/or third parties, victims, service

recipients, and citizens who encounter police on a casual basis or as friends. The

inclusion of these citizens improves on existing methodologies that have used

official arrest/citation records as an indicator of police style in at least two ways.

First, the observational data provide a more valid measure of “frequency” since

information on police–citizen encounters that fall outside the realm of traditional law

enforcement are included. This advantage is especially evident in cases in which

police interact with citizens informally and/or those encounters that involve citizenswho are primarily recipients of police services rather than criminal suspects. Second,

the observational data allow for a measure of “formality” that is relative to all other

observed police–citizen interactions, and hence controls for frequency of interaction.




In contrast, official arrest/citation statistics cannot provide this type of measure

because they do not contain information on situations wherein officers choose not to

arrest and/or cite citizens who have violated the law.Although observational data can be an especially effective means to garner informa-

tion on citizen encounters that would otherwise be of low visibility to the researcher, the

method does lend itself to the danger of reactivity. An officer and/or citizen may change

his or her behavior simply because of the presence of the observer. The research team

endeavored to limit the danger of reactivity by several means: (a) The research team

promised confidentiality to individual officers who were observed as is required by the

federal sponsoring agency. Confidentiality agreements were signed by all observers in

accordance with these requirements. (b) A certain level of confidence and familiarity

between the observers and the officers was established. All observers were instructed tooutline the confidential nature of the information they obtained to the officer at the

beginning of each shift, and they told officers that they were free to view the observer’s

notes at any time during the observation. (c) Observers were instructed to avoid taking

notes while in the presence of citizens, so as to avoid citizen inquiries and/or influenc-

ing the events that were observed. If necessary, observers would record information

immediately after the encounter occurred, or while the officer performed routine patrol.

Observers were instructed to indicate whether or not they believed observed officers

and/or citizens had altered their behavior because of the observer’s presence. Indications

of reactivity on the part of either the observed officer and/or citizens that were apparentto the observer occurred very infrequently. Observers indicated that some sort of reac-

tivity occurred in 34 of the 17,480 observed officer activities and citizen interactions

recorded over the course of the study.

Observational data also have a potential problem with reliability in terms of main-

taining consistent coding procedures across observers. The research team endeav-

ored to limit these concerns through observer training courses conducted prior to and

during the study period. As Reiss (1971) suggests, observers viewed videotapes to

practice coding typical police activities. In addition to these training sessions,

observer data were reviewed and cleaned on an ongoing basis during the length of the project to ensure that all observers were following the coding standards set forth

during the training sessions, thus providing a continuing check on the reliability of

the observation data.

Measure of Police Style: The Frequency and

Formality of Police–Citizen Interaction

We developed a measure of police style based on the observed frequency and

formality of police–citizen interaction in the 20 jurisdictions (see Table 2). We initiallycalculated frequency as the total number of police–citizen encounters within each

jurisdiction per standardized 8-hr shift.4 This measure of frequency includes not only

those encounters that included an arrest and/or citation, but also all other types of




police–citizen encounters that occurred during the observed shift. Following Wilson’s

2 × 2 conceptualization of police style, we subsequently calculated the average

number of citizen interactions across the 20 sites. Jurisdictions in which police–citizenencounters exceeded the median were ranked “high” on frequency with the remainder

being ranked “low.”

Similarly, we calculated formality in terms of the number of encounters that

involved an arrest and/or citation in the 20 jurisdictions per standardized 8-hr shift.

To obtain a measure of formality that was standardized relative to frequency, we

divided the number of encounters with an arrest and/or citation per shift by total

encounters per shift for each department. Once again following Wilson’s 2 × 2

scheme, we ranked the study sites relative to the median in terms of “high” and

“low.” Table 2 presents the rankings of the 20 study sites in terms of frequency/for-mality and corresponding police style, including five “legalistic” agencies (high fre-

quency/high formality) and five service agencies (high frequency/low formality).

The remaining 10 agencies were defined as “watchman” because they exhibited

infrequent citizen interaction relative to the other agencies; however because we had

a measure of formality based on outcomes of citizen encounters, we were able to

identify two different types of “watchman”: (a) a traditional Wilsonian “watchman”

with low frequency and low formality and (b) a “formal watchman” where interac-

tions with citizens were infrequent, but tended toward formal outcomes.

Findings

We sought to identify correlates of police–citizen interaction based on our classi-

fication of the agencies in terms of frequency and formality. Initially, we investigated

for any association between the local political culture of the 20 communities and

police style. We collected information pertaining to the local political culture of each

of the communities including form of local government and type of local election.

Table 3 presents a classification of the 20 communities in terms of local political cul-ture.5 As Table 3 indicates, four communities conform to Wilson’s professional type

of local political culture with council-manager forms of government and nonpartisan

elections (Amberley Village, Forest Park, Loveland, and Milford). Likewise, six

communities conform to Wilson’s traditional type of local political culture with

mayor-council forms of government and partisan elections (Cheviot, Deer Park,

Harrison, Lockland, Reading, and Sharonville). Of the remaining communities, six

exhibited a “mixed” political culture with mayor-council forms of government and

nonpartisan elections (Amelia, Arlington Hts., Felicity, Fairfax, Terrace Park, and

Williamsburg). There were four communities that did not readily fit Wilson’sscheme. The city of Blue Ash has a council-manager form of local government with

partisan elections. Colerain, Delhi, and Goshen are townships that are governed by

either a professional administrator or a township trustee.6




458

T a b l e 2

P o l i c e S t y l e : F r e q u e n c y a n d F o r

m a l i t y o f C i t i z e n I n t e r a c t i o n s

E n c o u n t e r s

O b s e r v e d

T o t a l

F r e q u e n c y

E n c o u n t e r s

w / a r r e s t / c i t e

F o r m a l i t y

S h i f t s a

E n c o u n t e r s

F r e q u e n c y b

R a n k

w

/ a r r e s t / c i t e

p e r S h i f t

F o r m a l i t y c

R a n k

S t y l e

C o l e r a i n T w

p .

3 3 . 0 0

2 3 0

6 . 9 6

H I G H

4 6

1 . 3 9 3 9

. 2 0 0 2

H I G H

L E G A L I S T I C

F o r e s t P a r k

3 2 . 4 2

1 8 4

5 . 6 7

H I G H

4 0

1 . 2 3 3 8

. 2 1 7 6

H I G H

L E G A L I S T I C

G o s h e n T w p

.

2 2 . 3 1

1 4 6

6 . 5 4

H I G H

3 8

1 . 7 0 3 2

. 2 6 0 4

H I G H

L E G A L I S T I C

H a r r i s o n

3 0 . 7 9

2 0 2

6 . 5 6

H I G H

6 6

2 . 1 4 3 5

. 3 2 6 7

H I G H

L E G A L I S T I C

S h a r o n v i l l e

3 2 . 6 4

2 0 5

6 . 2 8

H I G H

4 3

1 . 3 1 7 4

. 2 0 9 7

H I G H

L E G A L I S T I C

D e e r P a r k

2 9 . 8 9

1 6 6

5 . 5 5

H I G H

2 4

0 . 8 0 2 9

. 1 4 4 6

L O W

S E R V I C E

D e l h i T w p .

3 3 . 6 3

1 9 9

5 . 9 1

H I G H

3 4

1 . 0 1 1 0

. 1 7 1 0

L O W

S E R V I C E

F e l i c i t y

2 1 . 2 7

1 5 6

7 . 3 3

H I G H

1 0

0 . 4 7 0 1

. 0 6 4 1

L O W

S E R V I C E

L o v e l a n d

3 2 . 0 6

2 0 0

6 . 2 3

H I G H

3 4

1 . 0 6 0 5

. 1 7 0 2

L O W

S E R V I C E

R e a d i n g

3 2 . 3 6

2 0 7

6 . 3 9

H I G H

3 9

1 . 2 0 5 1

. 1 8 8 5

L O W

S E R V I C E

A m b e r l e y V

i l l a g e

2 8 . 4 7

9 3

3 . 2 6

L O W

7

0 . 2 4 5 8

. 0 7 5 3

L O W

W A T C H

A r l i n g t o n H

t s .

3 0 . 4 0

1 2 5

4 . 1 1

L O W

1 7

0 . 5 5 9 2

. 1 3 6 0

L O W

W A T C H

B l u e A s h

3 0 . 5 1

1 6 8

5 . 5 0

L O W

3 2

1 . 0 4 8 8

. 1 9 0 6

L O W

W A T C H

M i l f o r d

3 2 . 7 4

1 5 7

4 . 7 9

L O W

2 0

0 . 6 1 0 8

. 1 2 7 5

L O W

W A T C H

W i l l i a m s b u r g

2 8 . 9 5

1 4 3

4 . 9 3

L O W

2 1

0 . 7 2 5 3

. 1 4 7 1

L O W

W A T C H

A m e l i a

3 1 . 9 7

1 2 3

3 . 8 4

L O W

2 8

0 . 8 7 5 8

. 2 2 8 0

H I G H

W A T C H

( f o r m a l )

C h e v i o t

3 0 . 2 2

1 5 9

5 . 2 6

L O W

3 1

1 . 0 2 5 8

. 1 9 5 0

H I G H

W A T C H

( f o r m a l )

F a i r f a x

3 2 . 9 1

1 6 1

4 . 8 9

L O W

6 3

1 . 9 1 4 3

. 3 9 1 4

H I G H

W A T C H

( f o r m a l )

L o c k l a n d

3 2 . 0 2

1 5 6

4 . 8 7

L O W

4 3

1 . 3 4 2 9

. 2 7 5 7

H I G H

W A T C H

( f o r m a l )

T e r r a c e P a r k

3 3 . 2 7

1 5 0

4 . 5 0

L O W

3 7

1 . 1 1 2 1

. 2 4 7 1

H I G H

W A T C H

( f o r m a l )

a . 8 - h r s h i f t

e q u i v a l e n t .

b . E n c o u n t e r s p e r s t a n d a r d i z e d 8 - h r s h i f t .

c . E n c o u n t e r s r e s u l t i n g i n a n a r r e s t a n d / o r c i t e p

e r s t a n d a r d i z e d s h i f t / E n c o u n t e r s p

e r s t a n d a r d i z e d 8 - h r s h i f t ( p e r c e n t a

g e o f e n c o u n t e r s r e s u l t i n g i n f o r m a

l a c t i o n ) .



The right-most column of Table 3 lists the previously identified style of the agen-

cies and can be used to provide a crude examination as to whether or not the styles

are related to political culture in our sample. For example, Wilson suggests that a

professional local political culture tends to be correlated with either a legalistic or

service style; however, in our sample two of the four communities with a profes-

sional local political culture exhibited a watchman style, one agency was legalistic,

and the remaining agency exhibited a service style. Likewise, Wilson suggests that

a traditional local political culture tends to be correlated with the watchman style,

but only two of the six communities with a traditional political culture in our sam-

ple exhibited a watchman style, two were legalistic, and the remaining two agencies

exhibited a service style. Wilson found no consistent patterns for cities with a mixed

or intermediate local political culture in his test. In our sample, these communities

tended to be “low” in terms of police–citizen interaction, and hence watchman.

There were no patterns in terms of formality, as three of the six mixed communities

were “formal” watchman, two were low formality Wilsonian watchman, and one

exhibited a service style. The four communities that did not fit Wilson’s political cul-

ture scheme evidenced no pattern in terms of police style.

We next sought to identify correlates of police style using local political culture

and its indicators (election type, type of local government), as well as the general


Table 3

Police Style and Political Culture

Government Type Election Type Political Culture Style

Amberley Village Council-manager Nonpartisan PROFESSIONAL WATCH

Forest Park Council-manager Nonpartisan PROFESSIONAL LEGALISTIC

Loveland Council-manager Nonpartisan PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Milford Council-manager Nonpartisan PROFESSIONAL WATCH

Cheviot Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL WATCH (formal)

Deer Park Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL SERVICE

Harrison Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL LEGALISTIC

Lockland Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL WATCH (formal)

Reading Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL SERVICE

Sharonville Mayor-council Partisan TRADITIONAL LEGALISTIC

Amelia Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED WATCH (formal)

Arlington Hts. Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED WATCH

Fairfax Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED WATCH (formal)

Felicity Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED SERVICE

Terrace Park Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED WATCH (formal)

Williamsburg Mayor-council Nonpartisan MIXED WATCH

Blue Ash Council-manager Partisan OTHER WATCH

Colerain Twp. Professional administrator Nonpartisan OTHER LEGALISTIC

Delhi Twp. Professional administrator Nonpartisan OTHER SERVICE

Goshen Twp. Township trustee Nonpartisan OTHER LEGALISTIC



community characteristics presented in Table 1 for the 20 communities. Chi-square

analyses were performed on the data to discern the degree of association between

police style and these community characteristics (see Table 4). As Table 4 shows,

type of election (partisan or nonpartisan), type of government (council-manager or

mayor-council), and local political culture (professional, traditional, or mixed) were

not significantly associated with police style (legalistic, service, watchman).

Of the remaining 13 community characteristics, only population (χ2 = 8.800,

p < .05) and median household income (χ2 = 6.800, p < .05) were significantly associatedwith police style. In terms of population, all five legalistic departments (frequent

police–citizen interaction) were above the median for population, and 8 of the 10

watchman departments (infrequent police–citizen interaction) were below the median

for population. In terms of median household income, all five legalistic departments

were above the median, and 7 of the 10 watchman departments were below the median.

As these findings indicate, population and median household income were highly

correlated in our sample, with 8 of the 10 largest communities in terms of population

having higher than median incomes. An additional chi-square analysis was performed

using “formal” watchman as a fourth distinct style, which resulted in population beingthe only community factor significantly associated with style.


Table 4

Community Characteristics and Police Style*

df N a χ2 p

Population 2 20 8.800 .012*

Median household income 2 20 6.800 .033*

Number of sworn officers 2 20 3.600 .165

Median age 2 20 3.600 .165

Political culture 4 16 3.593 .464

Greater than 65 (%) 2 20 2.400 .301

Married (%) 2 20 2.400 .301

Residential (%) 2 20 2.400 .301

Type of election 2 20 0.952 .621

Owner occupied (%) 2 20 0.800 .670

No h.s. diploma (%) 2 20 0.800 .670

College grad. (%) 2 20 0.800 .670

Less than 21 (%) 2 20 0.800 .670

Non-White (%) 2 20 0.400 .819

White-collar (%) 2 20 0.400 .819

Population change (1990-2000) 2 17 0.275 .871

Type of local government 2 17 0.234 .889

a. Table incorporates “formal watchman” into the “watchman” category.

* p < .05.



Discussion

For almost 40 years, one conception of local policing has dominated thinking aboutwhat police agencies do and how they do it. Few empirical tests of this conceptual-

ization have been reported, and of those none completely supports the dominant

model. This article adds to that body of work reporting a test of the model derived from

the observation of officers from a sample of small-town and suburban police depart-

ments. In contrast to previous tests, the present study uses a unique measure of style

derived from the observational data. Our results, like those of earlier tests of Wilson’s

(1968) model, failed to provide support for the hypotheses that local political culture

is related to police style. Local government characteristics such as partisan elections

and type of local government were not correlated with either frequency of interaction,formality of interaction, or police style.

We did identify variation in the frequency and formality of police–citizen interactions

suggesting the existence of different police styles. We found a significant relationship

between population size and style of policing. The larger communities tended toward

the legalistic style whereas smaller communities tended toward the watchman style.

Since population and median household income were highly correlated in our sample,

the less wealthy communities—which also tended to be among the smallest in our

sample—were more likely to exhibit a watchman style.

In his description of the various styles, Wilson describes expected links betweenorganizational characteristics and police style. He suggests that police style will be

associated with specialization in the department and with the level of pay and benefits

offered to officers. In short, the ability of the organization to reward or punish officer

behavior influences the ability of the police administrator to direct that behavior. While

we did not have the data required to test for this relationship, anecdotal information

suggests that the smaller, poorer agencies had little specialization and paid relatively

low police salaries. It is interesting to note that larger communities (and normally

larger police agencies with more specialization) tended toward the legalistic style of

policing. Unfortunately we were unable to directly assess these issues with the dataavailable.

Still, overall our findings mean that once again, Wilson’s model was not supported

by an attempt to replicate his original test of the theory. There are several possible

explanations for this, including the possibility that Wilson’s explanation of police

organizational styles is wrong. In fact, others who have recently conducted tests that

have failed to support Wilson’s work have intimated that the accumulation of mostly

negative findings in the existing literature has moved us closer to a falsification of

Wilson’s ideas (Zhao et al., 2006; Zhao & Hassell, 2005). Certainly, findings from

this study could be used as additional evidence in favor of abandoning what has beenone of the most influential theories of police behavior.

We would argue, however, that a summary dismissal of Wilson (1968) based on the

evidence provided by existing tests would be premature on several grounds. First, we




believe that no one, ourselves included, has managed to faithfully replicate Wilson’s

original test. When Wilson first subjected his theory to an empirical test, he recog-

nized that his observations might be limited to the eight communities that had beenstudied in depth for the book (p. 271). He suggested that measuring political culture

would require extensive surveys of the public and that measures of police policies

would be even more difficult. He stated that police agency style is not always best

measured by arrests since what matters is not the number or rate of arrests, but

rather, the reasons that such arrests are made (p. 273). Nonetheless, arrest rates for

offenses that allowed high levels of police discretion were his measure of agency

style. Wilson attempted to control for differences in the true crime rate by limiting

his sample to medium-sized, middle class, predominantly White cities. He used a

four-category scheme to operationalize local government type.Given these parameters, no one has fully replicated the original test. For instance,

Langworthy (1985) studied cities with a population of 100,000 or more and was

unable to measure the professionalism of city managers. He did not control for

median family income or for percentage non-White. Zhao and Hassell (2005) studied

police agencies (not cities) employing 100 or more officers. These agencies tend to

serve municipalities with populations of 50,000 or more. They, like Langworthy (1985),

trichotomized local government type into good government, traditional, and mixed.

In this study, we examined police styles in midwestern towns and suburbs with com-

paratively small populations and police organizations that employed relatively fewofficers. Owing to the constraints associated with conducting large-scale observa-

tional studies, there were only 20 communities in our sample, and it could be argued

that all of them lack the cultural and racial heterogeneity needed to discern substantive

differences in police styles. Though we believe our measure of police style more

directly indicates the frequency and formality of police–citizen interaction, it is not

the measure that was used by Wilson.

Each of these studies contained important departures from Wilson (1968),

whether in the selection of communities, sampled agencies, or in the measurement

of key variables. It may well be that structural characteristics such as population, thepercentage of non-White residents, and aggregate income levels are not simply correlates

of crime rates as originally hypothesized by Wilson, but also correlates of political

culture as well. Beyond that, Wilson’s original description of political culture and

how it influenced police style included discussions of population homogeneity in

race, class, and income as well as police organizational characteristics such as officer

salary, specialization, centralization, and civilianization. Neither Wilson nor any of

those following his first empirical test has included these factors in the analysis.

Though the absence of any true replications of Wilson (1968) makes us hesitant to

support notions of a movement toward falsification, we would also argue that negative judgments as to the original validity of Wilson’s work seem misplaced given the time

that has elapsed since the initial publication of Varieties. As others have already

noted, large-scale changes have occurred within the political, social, and occupational




context surrounding policing (Hassell et al., 2003; Zhao & Hassell, 2005; Zhao et al.,

2006). These changes have probably altered the manner in which policing is accom-

plished since the 1960s, so much so that our ability to “recapture” what Wilsonobserved four decades ago has probably been irrevocably lost.

For example, Hassell et al. (2003, p. 244) highlight changes that have occurred in the

relationship between police and the local political culture, whereby progressive-era

reforms designed to limit political influences on police organizations have clearly

solidified since the 1960s. It may also be that Wilson’s (1968) measurement of local

political culture is too simplistic for the study of contemporary political arrangements

(Hassell et al., 2003). In terms of the social context, it is likely that public expectations

of the police have become more homogenized with the advent of mass culture depictions

of policing and their wide-scale dissemination through television, movies, and otherforms of media. Likewise, the advent of the “information age” and associated growth in

communications technologies may have reduced the isolation, and hence uniqueness,

of many smaller police agencies. DWI, for example, is probably not the “highly dis-

cretionary” situation that it was in earlier years because changes to the sociolegal

definition of DWI appear to have altered public perceptions concerning the relative

seriousness of the offense. Finally, police styles have almost certainly been altered

by changes to the occupation itself, including (a) growth in the number of woman

and minority officers, (b) more demanding educational and training requirements,

(c) the advent of nationwide recruitment of officers, and (d) the steadily expandinginfluence of state and federal governments through funding incentive programs and

the spread of “unfunded mandates.”

The development and spread of higher education for law enforcement personnel

and the standardization of police training curricula also work to reduce variation in

police behavior across jurisdictions. Contemporary police officers are likely to be

recruited from outside the jurisdiction in which they will serve and be trained under

a statewide curriculum. When Varieties was published, it was more common for

police agencies to recruit locally and to provide agency-specific, idiosyncratic training.

So too, changes in the preparation of city officials, especially the growth in the numberof “professional (college trained)” city managers has greatly reduced the likelihood

of finding variation in types of local government structure. Jurisdictions that have

manager-council forms of government overwhelmingly employ what Wilson defined

in 1968 as “professional” managers.

Given these and countless other shifts within the context that surrounds police work,

it is probably too much to expect that Wilson’s conceptualization would survive the

test of time unscathed. Nor should it be surprising that a 40-year-old model cannot

adequately explain policing styles in contemporary American society. In this respect,

current failures to replicate Wilson (1968) should probably not be interpreted asadditional fodder toward the ultimate falsification of his theory, but rather, as evidence

attesting to the fact that things have indeed changed, and as a call to action for contem-

porary police scholars to set on the task of updating Wilson’s theory and explaining how

these changes impact the behavior of today’s police.




To this end, Wilson’s broad ideas should retain an intuitive—albeit quantitatively

challenged—appeal. Wilson himself recognized the complexities associated with

studying the relationship between political culture and police style, as well as thecrudity of his own measures. In describing the connection between local political

culture and police styles, Wilson (1968) had this say,

The most important way in which political culture affects police behavior is through the

choice of police administrator and the molding of the expectations that govern his role.

Just as the most important decision a school board makes it its choice of superintendent,

so the most important police decision a city council makes (or approves) is the selection

of chief. In some communities, it is expected that he will be the “best man available”; in

others it is that he will be the “deserving local fellow” or the man “closest to the party.”

And once in office, the chief will confront a zone of community indifference to hispolices of varying dimensions . . . the political culture acts as a filter, different for each

community, that screens out certain complaints and demands, leaving the chief free to

ignore them, and passes through (or even amplifies) others. (pp. 233-324)

Thus, it is likely that this “filtering” process—whereby local community norms

and values are distilled in a manner that is unique to each community—makes it

exceedingly difficult to understand the connection between communities, political

culture, and police behavior in purely quantitative terms. The study of local political

culture, Wilson (1968, p. 277) wrote, requires “firsthand” knowledge of the communityand a full understanding of police style requires “firsthand observation.” In short,

Wilson described a qualitative phenomenon best studied with qualitative methods.

Attempts to test or validate Wilson’s theory with limited quantitative measures are

not likely to capture the nuanced nature of local political culture and the links

between that culture and police practice.

One of the important limits of the extant research is the failure, as in our own case,

to measure the mechanisms through which local political culture can be transmitted

to individual officers. Wilson devoted considerable attention to the organizational

and structural characteristics of the different types of police departments. His modelspecifically states that the link between local political culture and police style is indirect.

Future research should attempt to specify the paths through which local political

culture influences police behavior.

Laura Huey recently studied police practices on “skid row” in three locations:

Edinburgh, Scotland; San Francisco, California; and Vancouver, British Columbia.

Her ethnographic study involved observation and interview techniques and revealed

important differences in how the police dealt with citizens on skid row in the three

locations. Huey (2007) concludes that “perhaps the most important conclusion that

I took away from this research: the idea that communities articulate their valuesthrough their policing practices” (p. 210). Forty years after the publication of

Varieties, Huey’s research indicates that local variation in police practice remains.




In our own study, anecdotal and experiential knowledge of the local communities

helps to explain the differences in style. For instance: the palpable suspicion of an

affluent suburb; the busy transience of commercial hubs; the emptiness of some ruraltowns. Likewise, so does firsthand knowledge of the activities officers typically perform

in different agencies, like controlling weekend crowds of unruly juveniles, enforcing

traffic codes along a local stretch of interstate highway, or the casual greeting of

familiar citizens along a main street. This firsthand knowledge can often provide more

powerful explanations than correlational analyses. Of course, these explanations are

colored by our understanding of Wilson’s original model and may reflect more of

our application of Wilson’s theory than an independent confirmation of the theory.

At the end of the day what remains are two observations. First, whether the product

of local political culture or some other factor, most observers of police, and the Americanpolice in particular, accept that there is variation between local police departments.

Second, both the understanding of that variation and its explanation are likely to be

qualitative phenomena for which we have not yet developed sufficiently precise

measures to enable sophisticated quantitative analyses. To understand variation in

local policing, we may need to devote more time to the refinement of the theory

before we can accomplish empirical testing.

Notes

1. “Policing in a Community Context: An Observational Study of Suburban, Rural, and Urban

Policing” (Grant #98-IJ-0063) included 21 police agencies in the Greater Cincinnati area. Data collected

during observations of the Clermont Co. Sheriff’s Office are not included in this study.

2. A total of 43 observers participated in the project. All observers were affiliated with the University

of Cincinnati either pursuing their PhD degree (27.9%), masters degree (41.8%), or undergraduate

degrees (30.2%).

3. The observation schedules were constructed on a monthly basis. Agencies that used a standard 8-hr

shift were randomly assigned ride dates and shift times to complete the goal of 2.5 observations per month.

Agencies that did not employ a standard 8-hr shift (e.g., 10- or 12-hr shifts) were randomly scheduled for

either one or two observations per month on a rotating basis to obtain the 8-hr shift equivalent of 2.5 shifts

per month. The choice to randomly select shifts to be observed (rather than officers) was primarily driven

by practical concerns. The observed agencies routinely employed only a few officers on patrol during any

given shift, and these assignments were often made no more than 1 week in advance. Thus, observations

were conducted with officers who were assigned to patrol on randomly selected dates and shifts, and the

research team reviewed the observation data on an ongoing basis to ensure that a representative sample of

officers were observed within each sampled agency.

4. Encounters often involve multiple citizens. Table 2 discusses encounters as a whole, rather than

individual citizens.

5. Wilson’s measure of political culture included indicators of the “professionalism” of the city manager

in terms of (a) attainment of a college degree and (b) ICMA membership. In consideration of earlier

findings indicating that virtually all city administrators today possess a college degree (see, e.g., Zhao, 1996)

and consistent with Zhao et al.’s (2006) recent test of Wilson, we excluded college degree attainment from our

measure of political culture. Likewise, there was no variability in our sample in terms of ICMA membership,

as all of the city managers in our sample were members.




6. Township jurisdictions include all municipalities and unincorporated areas in a given township

lying within a particular county. This is a popular policing arrangement in several midwestern states,

including Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002).

References

Carter, D. L. (2002). The police and the community (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Wright, R. A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice.

Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Crank, J. (1990). The influence of environmental and organizational factors on police style in urban and

rural environments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27 , 166-189.

Crank, J. (1992). Police style and legally serious crime:A contextual analysis of municipal police departments.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 401-412.

Falcone, D., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). Small-town police department. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 371-384.

Hassell,K. D.,Zhao, J., & Maguire, E. R. (2003). Structural arrangements in large municipal police organizations:

Revisiting Wilson’s theory of local political culture. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management, 26 , 231-250.

Huey, L. (2007). Negotiating demands: The politics of skid row policing in Edinburgh, San Francisco, and

Vancouver . Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.

Langworthy, R. H. (1985). Research note: Wilson’s theory of police behavior: A replication of the

constraint theory. Justice Quarterly, 2, 89-98.

Langworthy, R. H. (1986). The structure of police organizations. New York: Praeger.

Mastrofski, S. D., Parks, R. B., Worden, R. E., DeJong, C., Snipes, J. B., & Terrill, W. (1998). Systematic

observation of public police: Applying field research methods to policy issues. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice.

National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

Pursley, R. (1976). Community characteristics and policy implementations: Some exploratory findings

about two categories of municipal departments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 291-301.

Reiss, A. J. (1971). Systematic observation of natural phenomena. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological

methodology (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roberg, R., Novak, K., & Cordner, G. (2005). Police and society (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Slovak, J. S. (1996). Styles of urban policing: Organization, environment, and police styles in selected American cities. New York: New York University Press.

Travis, L. F., III, & Langworthy, R. H. (2008). Policing in America: A balance of forces. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2008). The police in America. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (1998). The most cited scholars and works in police studies. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21, 240-254.

Zhao, J. (1996). Why police organizations change: A study of community oriented policing. Washington,

DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Zhao, J., & Hassell, K. D. (2005). Policing styles and organizational priorities: Retesting Wilson’s theoryof local political culture. Police Quarterly, 8, 411-430.

Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. (2006). Effect of local political culture on police behaviors in the 1990s:

A retest of Wilson’s theory in more contemporary times. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 569-578.




John Liederbach is an associate professor in the Criminal Justice Program at Bowling Green State

University. His primary research interests include the study of police behavior across community types, sub-

urban and rural policing, and medical crime. He has published in numerous professional journals, including

Justice Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , Criminal Justice

Review, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice. He is also coauthor of the forthcoming book Police

Patrol Allocation & Deployment (Prentice Hall).

Lawrence F. Travis III is a professor of criminal justice and director of the Center for Criminal Justice

Research in the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. He formally worked as the

research director of the Oregon State Board of Parole, and as a research analyst with the National

Parole Institutes. He is the author of Introduction to Criminal Justice (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson),

coauthor with Robert Langworthy of Policing in America (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), and editor

of Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. He has published on a variety

of criminal justice topics.


Documents

Another Look at Varieties of Police Behavior