Adapting Police Services to New Immigration (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III A Series from LFB Scholarly ...

Author: Leigh Culver

38 downloads 687 Views 1022KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration

Leigh Culver

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2004

Copyright © 2004 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Culver, Leigh, 1971Adapting police services to new immigration / Leigh Culver. p. cm. -- (Criminal justice: recent scholarship) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-59332-043-4 (alk. paper) 1. Police-community relations--Missouri. 2. Latin Americans-Missouri--Social conditions. 3. Missouri--Emigration and immigration. 4. Missouri--Ethnic relations. I. Title. II. Series: Criminal justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC) HV7936.P8C844 2004 659.2'93632'089680778--dc22 2004011083

ISBN 1-59332-043-4 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 2

Setting the Context: Latinos and the Police Latinos and the Criminal Justice System Police-Minority Community Relations Immigration to the Midwest Rural Communities Current Study

7 7 14 31 40 50

CHAPTER 3

Study Design Research Questions Research Design Site Selections Data Collection Data Analysis Theoretical Perspective

51 51 52 53 55 61 67

CHAPTER 4

Police-Latino Community Relations Law Enforcement Agency Documents and Records Field Observations of Law Enforcement Patrol Personnel Law Enforcement Patrol Personnel Interviews Community and Government Leader Interviews Community Member Focus Groups

73

114 141

Conclusion: Bridging the Gap between Latinos and the Police Principal Findings Methodological Concerns and Limitations Bridging the Gap Recommendations for Future Research

165 166 176 177 179

CHAPTER 5

1

NOTES REFERENCES

73 75 79

181 185 v

vi APPENDICES

INDEX

Table of Contents A Patrol Officer Interview Form B Community/Government Leader Interview Form C Community Focus Group Interview Form

215 219 221 223

LIST OF TABLES Table

Page

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Police Service Calls by General Problem Types Police Officer Demographics Frequency of Officer Contact with Latinos Frequency of Officer-Latino Contacts with Language Barriers 4.5 Patrol Officer Perceptions of Ways Departments Can Improve Police-Latino Interactions 4.6 Patrol Officer Perceptions of Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship 4.7 Patrol Officer Perceptions to Improve the Police-Latino Relationship 4.8 Community and Government Leader Perceptions of Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship 4.9 Community and Government Leader Perceptions to Improve the Police-Latino Relationship 4.10 Summary of Barriers Cited by Patrol Officers, Community and Government Leaders, and Focus Group Members

vii

76 80 82 82 88 98 110 130 135

162


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe many people my thanks and gratitude for their help in the completion of this book. Thanks to the chiefs, sheriffs, police officers, and sheriffs’ deputies at the Warrensburg Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, Knob Noster Police Department, Sedalia Police Department, and the Pettis County Sheriff’s Office who made me feel welcome and contributed valuable information for this research. The information provided by community and government leaders and residents, in Sedalia, Knob Noster and Warrensburg, Missouri is also greatly appreciated. Thanks to my long time friend Gary Schmidt who provided me a home during my data collection and did not complain about the inconvenience. I am indebted to Sam Walker, Jihong “Solomon” Zhao, Cassia Spohn, and Robert Meier for their guidance and invaluable advice throughout my graduate career, and continued support and friendship. Thanks to the Center for Great Plains Studies who provided funding for this research and to the criminal justice faculty members at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, who nominated me to receive the University Presidential Graduate Fellowship, which also provided funding for this project. Special thanks to Hank Robinson for inspiring me to be the “unreasonable one” and to Colleen Cunningham who always, despite many challenges, manages to keep the Juvenile Justice Institute from going “A.O.L.” I greatly appreciate the help of Ruohui “Ruth” Zhao who spent too much of her time at the library for me and to Elizabeth Elliott for her assistance in editing the book. This book is dedicated to my family who has always encouraged my education and ambitions and to my husband Steve who continues to fill my life with laughter and love. I can do all things through Christ which strengthens mePhilippians 4:13 ix


CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The face of America is changing. Immigration patterns have brought to the United States an increased number of new residents and people from a wide variety of countries and cultures. A large number of immigrants1 from Latin American, Balkan and Asian countries, in particular, have moved to states like Missouri and Nebraska in search of job opportunities, due in part to the relocation of large meat and poultry processing companies. As a result of the large influx of immigrants, law enforcement agencies are now faced with new challenges in addressing the needs of immigrant communities. These challenges include acknowledging language and cultural barriers and creating effective police-community relations with immigrant communities, while maintaining current relationships with the majority communities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of new immigration patterns on police-community relations and the related impact on police organizational change in small Midwestern law enforcement agencies. Much of the research on police and community relations in the United States has focused on large police agencies located in metropolitan areas. This research suggests that demographic change and new industrialization waves have a significant influence on police-community relations and police agency operation. Much less attention, however, has been drawn to the relationship between demographic change and police response in small communities, particularly in the Midwestern region of this country.

1

2


Latinos in the United States Due to both immigration and natural increase in birthrate, Latinos are the fastest growing minority group in the United States. The Latino population grew from 22.4 million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000, an increase of roughly 58 percent (Armas 2001).2 The most recent 2002 data from the Bureau of the Census reported that there were 37.4 million Latinos in this country, or 13.3 percent of the total population (Ramirez and de la Cruz 2002). In other words, Latinos represent more than one in eight persons in the United States (Ramirez and de la Cruz 2002, 1). As a result of this growth, Latinos outnumber African Americans as this nation’s largest minority group. It is estimated that by 2025, the Latino population will reach 61 million and will represent 18 percent of the U.S. population (Pew Hispanic Center 2002). The migration of undocumented workers to the United States has also played a major role in the substantial increase of the Latino population. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) estimates that in January, 2000 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants were residing in the United States (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 2003). More recent estimates, however, indicate that the number of undocumented immigrants is closer to 10 million and steadily increasing. “The numbers are very, very large, and they continue to grow with perhaps as many as 800,000 new immigrants arriving every year...” (Urban Institute 2004). Mexican immigrants represent 55 to 60 percent of this total (Urban Institute 2004). It is widely believed that official census data underreport the actual Latino population. Some estimates report that minorities in general are overlooked five times more often than whites in the U.S. Census (Ogawa 1999, 11). For example, the Census Bureau reports that in the 2000 census, the net national undercount was approximately 3.3 million or 1.2 percent of the U.S. population, an improvement from the undercount of 4 million (1.6 percent) in 1990 (Armas 2001). Census officials estimate that citizens most likely to be missed are minorities and the poor (Armas 2001; El Nasser 2001). Latinos, in particular, may not participate in census because of their inability to speak English (Ogawa 1999), experiences with corrupt governments from their native

Introduction

3

countries (Sanchez 2001) or fear of disclosing immigration status (Ogawa 1999, 12). New immigrants also move frequently (Sanchez 2001), which makes capturing their representation in the census difficult at best.

Latinos and the Police The growing representation of Latinos in this country clearly has many social, economic, and political implications. Investigating Latino participation in the criminal justice system, specifically their interactions with the police, is becoming increasingly important. Although there is a large literature on race and criminal justice, virtually all of it deals with African Americans (Walker, Spohn, and Delone 2004). Further, the experiences of the Latino community within the criminal justice system and with the police in particular, is different than that of other minority groups in several respects (Walker, Spohn, and Delone 2004). The primary difference between Latinos and other groups that has a potentially important impact on interactions with the police is barriers to communication because of language. These barriers can range from crime victims seeking help to issues with drivers’ licenses and records (McCartney 2003). Nationally, from 1990 to 2000, the percentage of the total population speaking Spanish at home has increased from 7.5 percent to 10.7 percent (Marotta and Garcia 2003). Bondavilli and Bondavilli (1995, 192) suggest that the inability to communicate with Spanish-speaking citizens creates potential communication problems and misunderstandings in police-citizen encounters. As Grey (2002, 26) explains, if newcomers do not speak English and law enforcement does not speak newcomers’ language, “it is difficult to explain why their (newcomers) behavior is inappropriate or why they are under arrest and what will happen to them in our criminal justice system.” Duignan and Gann (1998) observe that public confidence in the police will be best fostered if Latino citizens can interact with Spanishspeaking police officers. Unlike other minority groups, cultural barriers can create additional challenges to police and Latino community interactions. The transition from a cultural system that has different values, language, and political system, contributes to the unique experience of Latinos with the criminal justice system (Carter 1983; Lorenzo-Hernandez 1998). Family traditions and values in the Latino culture may also

4


affect interactions with the police. Language and cultural barriers have an even more significant impact for police agencies in communities that have recently experienced a large influx of Latinos. In McMinnville, Tennessee, the Latino population has dramatically increased due to the wholesale nursery industry. The growing population, “almost nonexistent only a decade ago-has placed new stresses on a police department that is utterly unequipped to deal with barriers of language and culture” (Sack 2001, 12). Within the last decade, some police departments across the country have started to teach their officers “Survival Spanish,” a course on how to communicate in basic Spanish for routine responsibilities such as making an arrest, conducting a basic interrogation and assisting victims (Sack 2001). Some departments have provided incentives for officers who can speak both English and Spanish. Employing officers with Spanish language skills, however, may prove difficult in small rural areas that do not have the resources to hire these officers. For example, in a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) (1998) on the effect of Latino immigration in Nebraska and Iowa counties, interviews with chief law enforcement administrators revealed that they had taken several steps to help mitigate problems associated with the increase in immigrant workers. One of the objectives was to recruit badly needed bilingual officers to establish relations with minority communities. According to the police chiefs in these communities, the greatest problem with bilingual officer recruitment is that they “have been very difficult to recruit and retain because officers with this skill are in great demand and can obtain higher pay from some jurisdictions” (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998, 13).

Current Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of new immigration patterns on small-town police agencies in the Midwest. Presently, little is known about the impact of new immigration patterns on police operations in rural areas (Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995; Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000). Further, it is unclear as to whether and to what extent police agencies have adapted to changing demographics of the citizens they serve. The sites for this study were three rural communities located in central Missouri: Sedalia, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Preliminary investigation of these small

Introduction

5

towns provided evidence that within the last decade there has been a significant growth of Latino immigrants in these areas. Moreover, in initial communication with chief law enforcement administrators in these towns, all indicated that the increase in the Latino population has placed new demands on the provisions of police services. It is important to note, however, that the preliminary investigation revealed no evidence of a history of conflict between law enforcement and the Latino population in these communities. The theoretical perspective for this study was an adaptation of the “muddling through” approach. This perspective suggests that when political and organizational decision-makers are faced with complex policy changes, they are more likely to make small or incremental changes rather than major comprehensive reforms (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). Unlike extreme overhauls in organizational policy, incremental adjustments allow administrators to make gradual policy changes when more information is learned, and permits these modifications to be implemented more quickly and effectively than drastic, less frequent changes (Lindblom 1979). For the current study, the muddling through approach provided a framework for examining the policy changes, if any, that rural police agencies implemented to respond to their changing demographic environment. Chapter 2 highlights the historical relationship between the police and minorities with a specific focus on police relations with the Latino community. The impact of the new immigration, particularly as it relates to small Midwestern communities is also discussed. Finally, the potential impact of the new Latino immigration on rural police agency operation will be addressed.


CHAPTER 2

Setting the Context: Latinos and the Police

Historically, most research on police and Latino community relations takes place in large metropolitan areas. As newly arrived immigrants continue to move to the rural Midwestern communities in the United States, however, it becomes increasingly important to investigate how smaller law enforcement agencies will adapt to recent demographic changes in their environment. This chapter begins with a review on existing research on Latinos in the criminal justice system with a specific emphasis on the history of police and Latino community relations. A brief description of the growing Latino representation in the Midwest and their participation in the food processing industry in this region will follow. Finally, characteristics of rural communities and the impact of an increase in the Latino population on police-community relations in these areas are discussed.

Latinos and the Criminal Justice System Few issues spark more debate in criminology than the relationship between race/ethnicity, crime and justice (Spohn 2000). Most examinations of minorities in the criminal justice system, however, have only compared outcomes of African Americans and whites, therefore neglecting other groups such as Latinos, Native Americans and Asians (Holmes and Daudistel 1984; LaFree 1985; Muñoz, Lopez, and Stewart 1998; Myers, Cintron, and Scarborough 2000; Sampson and Lauritsen 1997; Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001; Walker, Spohn, and Delone 2004). 7

8


Several shortcomings in criminal justice system data, governmental crime information, punishment statistics and documents have contributed to the limited research on the Latino population (Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001). No national data source provides arrest statistics for Latinos. As a result, few conclusions can be drawn about their patterns of law breaking in the United States (Hagan and Palloni 1999). In addition, due to the relatively small number of Latinos in many localities, they are often classified under “other” in official statistics (Myers, Cintron, and Scarborough 2000), may be excluded all together, or are grouped with white defendants (Farnworth, Teske, and Thurman 1991; Walker, Spohn, and Delone 2004; Zatz 2000) or African American defendants (Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001, 148). “Consequently, we do not know how ethnicity influences criminal justice decisionmaking and are left with only the simplest of race effects” (Zatz 2000, 510). In a similar vein, the problem with classifying Latinos and other groups into one category is that the diverse and unique cultural characteristics of Latinos cannot be isolated (Myers, Cintron, and Scarborough 2000). Existing research on Latinos in the criminal justice system generally focuses on the judicial stage, particularly sentencing. Findings from this area, however, are inconsistent. Some studies show direct or indirect evidence of ethnic bias (Albonetti 1997; Farnworth, Teske, and Thurman 1991; Holmes and Daudistel 1984; Holmes et. al 1993;1996; Johnson 2003; LaFree 1985; Muñoz, Lopez, and Stewart 1998; Nobling, Spohn, and Delone 1998; Pasko 2002; Spohn and Delone 2000; Spohn and Holleran 2000; Steffensmeier and Demuth 2000; 2001; Ulmer and Johnson 2004) while others find no conclusive evidence of systematic discrimination against Latino defendants (Hebert 1997; Muñoz 2000; Zatz 1984). Although much research suggests that minorities suffer from discrimination and disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system, social conditions, coupled with stereotypes, may operate in several ways to further disadvantage Latinos compared with African Americans. First, because “social and economic position in our society tends to correlate negatively with minority position” there are a disproportionate number of the poor, school dropouts, and the unemployed among both Latinos and African Americans (Farnworth, Teske, and Thurman 1991, 56; Healey 1995). Further, the educational

Setting the Context

9

attainment of working-age Latinos is lower than similarly-aged whites and African Americans (Camarillo and Bonilla 2001; Marotta and Garica 2003; Slack and Jensen 2002; Thomas-Breitfeld 2003). Finally, the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the national average (Marotta and Garcia 2003) and compared to whites and African Americans, Latino workers are more likely to earn lower incomes and be poor (Camarillo and Bonilla 2001; Slack and Jensen 2002; ThomasBreitfeld 2003). A consequence of their large representation among the poor is that Latinos are more likely to experience pretrial detention due to their inability to post bail (Diaz-Cotto 2000, 59; Spohn 2000). This in turn increases the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment (Hood 1992; Petersilia and Turner 1986; Spohn 2000). Although not explicit discrimination, for minorities less able to pay bail, this “disparate impact may amount to a form of de facto racial and ethnic discrimination” (Demuth 2003, 877). Demuth’s research on racial and ethnic minorities and pretrial release revealed that compared to white defendants, African American and Latino defendants were more likely to be denied bail, and were also more likely to be held on bail because of their inability to post bail. For Latino defendants specifically, they were less likely than either white or African Americans to be released on nonfinancial terms (e.g., released on own recognizance), and bail required for release was higher than that for whites. In other words, compared to other groups, Latinos faced a “triple disadvantage” in pretrial release (Demuth 2003, 899). The problem with pretrial release is even more acute for Latino defendants who “are illegal aliens, non-citizens, new citizens or temporary residents employed sporadically as migrant workers” (Farnworth, Teske, and Thurman 1991). In their study on immigration and crime, Hagan and Palloni (1999, 625) found that in one jurisdiction, while 50 percent of other offenders bailed out from jail only 14 percent of illegal immigrants were released prior to trial. In their interpretation of this finding, the authors describe how pretrial detention can create a “cumulative disadvantage” (Zatz 1987) for immigrants: This difference may be associated with the fact that the Immigration and Naturalization Service1 can place ‘holds’ on illegal immigrants, that illegal aliens are financially less able

10

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration to post bail, that illegal immigrants are less likely to have the community ties often required for release, and that illegal immigrants and immigrants more generally are therefore more likely to be judged potential ‘flight risks’ from the time of arrest to final court disposition. The problem is that when accused persons are unable to obtain release they have greater difficulty generating resources to defend themselves in court, making them more vulnerable to conviction, and ultimately to imprisonment.

Stereotypes also operate to the disadvantage of both African Americans and Latinos during criminal justice processing. The portrayal of young, minority urban males as criminal offenders has long been used in media and political arenas to advance various agendas (Hendricks and Nickoli 2000; Myers, Cintron, and Scarborough 2000). Latinos, however, are victims of a common stereotype held by the criminal justice system that members of this ethnic group are disproportionately narcotic users and drug traffickers (Mann 1993; Mann and Zatz 2002; Morales 1972; Pasko 2002; Portillos 2002). "This erroneous belief is maintained despite the fact that there is little difference between their alcohol or drug usage and that of any other American group" (Mann 1993, 148). Stereotypes of Latinos as drug traffickers, in particular, coupled with recent media and law enforcement attention on the “war on drugs,” may also result in more severe sanctioning for Latino defendants convicted of drug offenses (Pasko 2002; Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001; Zatz 1987). In her study of drug offenses and the federal sentencing guidelines, Pasko (2002, 321) found that while Latinos were “less likely to be represented in the drug offender populations with the most severe sentencing policy attached (i.e., crack cocaine and methamphetamine)” they received longer sentences (approximately 6.8 months) than similarly situated whites. She suggested that discretionary factors (i.e., career offender status, acceptance of responsibility) coupled with the historical stereotypes of Latinos as drug traffickers and criminals played a role in the labeling of Latinos as “villains” in drug offenses. Pasko (2002) concluded that this study illustrated the importance of considering how disproportionate drug-sentencing policies affect ethnic groups, specifically Latinos.

Setting the Context

11

Fourth, there is the general misperception that there is a strong relationship between Latino immigrants and criminal behavior (Hagan and Palloni 1999). Martinez and Lee (2000) suggest that it is reasonable to believe that involvement in crime among immigrants is greater than that of native-born Americans. Immigrants may experience acculturation and assimilation problems, and are more likely to reside in disorganized neighborhoods characterized by crime, poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and young males (Martinez and Lee 2000, 485-486). In their study of crime and immigration, Hagan and Palloni (1999) point out that between 1960 and 1990 both the immigration rates to the United States and the homicide rate doubled; the number of immigrants in local, state and federal prisons greatly increased as well. These authors argue that these trends are often misinterpreted on two grounds. First, the increase in the number of homicides and imprisonment in the 1960s was not because of immigrants, but was due to the fact that there was a large increase in crime among both young, native, African American and white American males in this country. This increase coincided with the increase in the rate of immigration at this time. Second, because Latino immigrants are more vulnerable to pre-trial detention, conviction and imprisonment than native-born offenders, their growing presence in correctional institutions had more to do with the increase in Latino immigration rather than their overrepresentation in crime. The findings of this research are consistent with empirical studies conducted over the last century that demonstrate that compared to other similarly situated groups, immigrants are generally underrepresented in crime statistics (Hagan and Palloni 1998; Martinez and Lee 2000, 515). Other research on violent crime has also found that recent immigration does not increase homicide in multiethnic cities (Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld 2001; Martinez 2003). Finally, unlike African American defendants, Latinos may experience communication problems due to language barriers that create potential challenges as non-English-speaking defendants reach the judicial stage (Bondavilli and Bondavilli 1995; Farnworth, Teske, and Thurman 1991; Pasko 2002). One of the greatest concerns is the inability of Latino defendants to understand characteristics of the court process such as the subtleties of plea bargaining. Language barriers for Latinos present a disadvantage in plea negotiation, since the terms “are communicated in subtle ways requiring knowledge of the multiple

12


meanings and intricacies of the English language” (Zatz 1987, 80). Even in cases where court interpreters are provided for non-English speaking defendants, language barriers may affect the quality of legal representation. Further, courts must be vigilant in finding interpreters that are truthful and qualified and do not jeopardize cases by inaccurate interpretation (McCartney 2003; Reynoso 2002). Diaz-Cotto (2000, 60) describes, for example, how in some situations interpreters appointed by the court have convinced undocumented workers that it is in their best interest “to answer all the judge’s questions and not involve an attorney in their case even when the answers could lead to continued detention and/or subsequent deportation of the worker.” Despite the higher likelihood that Latinos may not receive equal treatment due to language barriers, the courts have determined that there is no constitutional right for non-English speaking persons to have an interpreter in administrative and civil proceedings. In general, states have left this decision to the trial court’s discretion (Piatt 1990).2 Recognizing the need for professional court interpreting services, however, many states across the country have implemented training and certification, continuing education programs and codes of professional responsibility for court interpreters (National Center for State Courts 2003). Cultural differences may create additional challenges for Latinos at this stage in the criminal justice process. For instance, when questioned by police, prosecutors, or judges, traditionally raised Latinos will avoid eye contact because it is a sign of disrespect (Diaz-Cotto 2000) whereas, “in the dominant European American culture, not looking an authority figure in the eye suggests the opposite-that one is lying” (Zatz 2000, 534). Therefore, it is essential that the courtroom workgroup recognize cultural differences even within the same racial and ethnic groups (Zatz 2000). Latino Victimization In addition to the growing presence of Latinos as defendants within the criminal justice system, there is also mounting concern about their representation as victims. According to recent data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), both violent and property crime fell significantly throughout the last decade. In comparing years 19992000 to 2001-2002, the rate of violent crime declined significantly for males, females, whites, African Americans and non-Latinos. For

Setting the Context

13

violence against Latinos, however, the rate only slightly declined (Rennison and Rand 2003). In addition, compared to non-Latinos, Latinos were more likely to be victims of aggravated assaults (Rennison and Rand 2003). Recently, immigrants have become targets of both violent crime and fraud. Latino immigrants are more likely to carry large amounts of cash and are often distrustful of banks. Besides not having the proper paperwork to open bank accounts, some immigrants fear that they will not be able to get their money back from the bank if they are deported (Paschenko 2003). As a result, the immigrants face higher rates of armed robbery (Brett 2004; Davis and Erez 1998; Kennedy 2002; Sack 2001). In Charlotte, North Carolina, the number of Latino victims of armed robbery reported in 2000 was 527, up from 137 cases in 1997 (Sack 2001). North Charleston, South Carolina has the third largest Latino population in the state. In 2002, 35 percent of all robbery victims there were Latino. In Houston, Texas, in 2000, of the 9,000 reported robberies in the city, 45 percent of the victims were Latino. As a result, a Latino Squad was created in the robbery division (Axtman 2002). It is estimated that because Latinos underreport crime, these figures do not represent the actual numbers. Compounding the problem of victimization, Latinos face barriers to reporting these crimes to the police which include language, culture, lack of understanding of laws and the criminal justice system, and in many cases a questionable legal status (Brett 2004; Saiz, Godard, and Saunders 2003). Latino immigrants often become victims of fraud through the selling of fake documents, misrepresentation of legal services, not being paid for work they performed and selling faulty merchandise (Aizenman 2001; Arcury and Elmore 2001; Jordan 2004; Pratt 2002). Immigrants trying to obtain legal status are particularly vulnerable to thieves who promise to help them obtain U.S. citizenship (Ko 2002; St. John 2003). Like robbery, this crime is also underreported; however, the reason for underreporting is different in that the victims may not recognize fraud as a crime. “Unfortunately, while they feel taken advantage of, many Latinos do not consider fraud or being taken advantage of as crimes, and so do not report fraud when it occurs” (Arcury and Elmore 2001, 3). The growing representation of Latina women as victims of domestic violence is also an important concern. Latina victims face

14


several challenges to receiving assistance from law enforcement. Immigration status often prevents Latina victims from calling the police for help (Coleman 2003; McLaughlin 2003; Pratt 2002). If the abuser is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, he may threaten to report her undocumented status to INS, revoke residency sponsorship or refuse to file petitions that would help her gain lawful U.S. status (Shetty and Kaguyutan 2002). A victim may also be reluctant to leave for fear of losing custody of her children, the challenge of language barriers, economic factors and unfamiliarity with the American criminal justice system (Erez 2000; Shetty and Kaguyutan 2002). In their research on victimization of immigrant populations, Davis, Erez, and Avitabile (2001) found that 67 percent of police chiefs, and court personnel from the 50 largest cities believed that recent immigrants were less likely to report crimes than other victims, and that Asians and Latinos were the groups most likely to underreport. Domestic violence and gang violence were the two crimes most likely to be underreported by immigrants. The most common hardship (noted by 47 percent of officials) for immigrants reporting crime to the police was language communication problems. Other challenges included cultural differences and lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system. To a lesser extent (though still a challenge), immigrants feared authorities or deportation and did not believe the criminal justice system was responsive to the needs of immigrants.

Police-Minority Community Relations Tension between the police and racial/ethnic minority communities is one of the most pressing issues in American police organizations (Bass 2001; Holmes 2000; Skolnick and Fyfe 1993). Most literature on conflict between police and minorities, however, focuses on police and African Americans (Bass 2001; Holmes 2000). For example, the riots in the 1960s in many large cities across the country were the result of racial conflict between minorities, particularly, African Americans and the police (Walker 1999). In a study of the 1960s U.S. riots, the Kerner Commission documented many instances where police-related incidents ignited riots. “We have cited deep hostility between the police and ghetto communities as a primary cause of the disorders surveyed by the Commission” (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968, 157). Furthermore, this tension was increased by the

Setting the Context

15

disproportionate presence of police patrol in minority and lowsocioeconomic status neighborhoods. Early research revealed that police officers were more likely to use aggressive or punitive measures in ethnic or low-income areas (e.g., Bayley and Mendolsohn 1968; Reiss and Bordua 1967) and that police officers have to maintain “street justice” in order to control minority residents and the poor (Van Maanen 1978). The 1968 Kerner Commission report estimated that about 40 percent of riots in the 1960s were sparked by the police (also see Greene 1989; Walker 1999). To address the racial tension between African Americans and the police, the Kerner Commission (1968) recommended that policecommunity relations programs be created. Because the police had not encountered the same type of conflict with white communities as they did with minority communities (Walker 1999, 212), community relations programs were designed to target police-community interactions in ethnically diversified communities. As a result, most large law enforcement agencies across the country established policecommunity relations units that focused on the quality of interactions between police officers and minority residents (Greene 1989). These units often established store-front police stations and implemented ridealong programs. The efficacy of these programs was questioned by some experts (U.S. Department of Justice 1973) and many of them were reduced in scope or even abolished in the 1970s (Klyman and Kruckenberg 1979). Beginning in the 1980s, programs designed to improve policecommunity relations were developed under the rubrics of fearreduction, community policing and problem-oriented policing. Despite decades of effort, however, police-community relations problems remain. Major controversies have erupted over police use of deadly force and physical force in some of the nation’s largest cities (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 2000). There is a special concern about relations between police and Latino communities (National Council de La Raza 1999). Research on Latinos and the Police Similar to the well-cited conflict between police and the African American community during the 1960s, the relationship between police and Latino communities during this time appeared equally hostile.3 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1970, 88) cited several patterns

16


of misconduct against Mexican-Americans in the Southwest: (1) incidents of excessive police violence against Mexican Americans; (2) discriminatory treatment of juveniles by law enforcement officers; (3) discourtesy toward Mexican Americans; (4) discriminatory enforcement of motor vehicle ordinances; (5) excessive use of arrests for “investigation” and of “stop and frisk”; (6) interference with attempts to rehabilitate narcotics addicts; and (7) inadequate police protection. The National Hispanic Conference on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (1980, 369) noted that there is a constant tension between police and Latinos that is characterized by suspicion, fear and hostility. “This feeling is exacerbated by the fact the police are often seen as oppressors who do not speak the language, do not understand the culture, and lack empathy and sensitivity when acting in what otherwise would be a minor or routine situation.” Similarly, some scholars argue that the conflict between the two groups is due to the fact that Latinos view the police as an outside oppressive force (Mirande 1981; Morales 1972). The National Minority Council on Criminal Justice (1982, 92) concluded that “More than any other agency, the police draw the ire of Hispanic communities.” In short, due to lack of power and influence, ethnic minorities feel disenfranchised from the white power structure and view police officers as symbols of racism and repression (Duignan and Gann 1998). In more recent research, public opinion surveys report that Latinos consistently rate the police less favorably than white Americans, although not as unfavorably as African Americans (Huang and Vaughn 1996; Lasley 1994; Maguire and Pastore 2002). Latinos are also more afraid than whites of being stopped and arrested by the police when they are completely innocent, yet not as fearful as African Americans (Maguire and Pastore 2002). On the other hand, some research indicates that Latinos have more negative views of the police than that of whites and African Americans. A survey in Chicago revealed that compared with whites (10 percent) and African Americans (33 percent) 40 percent of Latinos believed the police in their area “were too tough on people they stop” (Skogan et al. 2002, 18). In their study of attitudes toward the police, Jesilow, Meyer, and Namazzi (1995) found that African Americans and Anglos had more positive views about the police than Latinos. Carter (1983) similarly found a negative view of the police in a study of attitudes

Setting the Context

17

toward crime and the criminal justice system among Latinos in Texas, with Latinos evaluating the police lower than the general population. Moreover, Latinos stated that they did not have adequate police protection. Of the respondents indicating a fear of crime, virtually all (98.8 percent) cited inadequate police protection as the reason (Carter 1983, 225). In their survey on attitudes toward police in New York City, the Hispanic Federation (2001) found that 71 percent of the Latino respondents believed the police treat them worse than whites. Further, 41 percent believed it was either very likely or somewhat likely that they would be stopped by the police without sufficient reason. Arcury and Elmore (2001) found in their study on Latinos and the police in North Carolina that many of the Latino respondents feared the police for various reasons. “Foremost among these is their experiences with police in their home countries…police were corrupt and robbed them and demanded bribes.” In addition to the abuse they experienced, most Latinos in the study stated that they were unsure if it was legal to bribe a police officer in the United States and assumed that the police and the Immigration and Naturalization Service worked together which made them hesitant to contact the police for help (Arcury and Elmore 2001). There is also evidence that the views and expectations of the police differ according to culturally distinct neighborhoods. In their study on five neighborhoods in Miami, Dunham and Alpert (1988) found that among three racial/ethnic groups, Cubans were more likely to believe that the primary responsibility of the police was crime control and supported active police patrol strategies. Anglos and African Americans, however, disagreed with this assessment. Cubans also supported more police discretion in police practices whereas African Americans were “more skeptical of the ability of the police to use discretion without ethnic discrimination” (Dunham and Alpert 1988, 520). In sum, Dunham and Alpert (1988) argue that the results of their study provide some evidence that both neighborhood and racial/ethnic variations should be an important consideration in policing strategies. In addition to variations in attitudes toward the police by race/ethnicity and neighborhood, the race/ethnicity of the officer may also play a key role in policing styles. In her study of Latino police officers Irlbeck (2000) found that despite their similar ethnic identities, officers do not share a common vision of their police role in the Latino

18


community. For example, most of the officers in the study who shared a salient ethnic Latino identity endorsed an “integrative service approach” whereby the special needs of the community are taken into account when policing Latino neighborhoods. Officers who espoused an Anglo or ambivalent Hispanic/Latino identity, on the other hand, took a more traditional law enforcement approach. Irlbeck (2000, 98) concluded that the use of the integrative service approach among Latino officers demonstrates how they are able to translate ethnic-based skills into human and social capital to meet the needs of Latino residents. “By integrating those attributes into the traditional police role, Latino officers are negotiating their vision of the police role in the Latino community. They are able to mobilize their familiarity, sensitivity, and experience acquired among this social group.” Because the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) do not report arrest rates by ethnicity, we do not know whether Latinos have higher rates of arrest compared with other groups. There is some evidence that Latinos interact with the police at higher levels than either whites or African Americans. The findings from the Contacts Between the Police and the Public survey revealed that in vehicle stops by the police both African Americans and Latinos were more likely than whites to be arrested (Langan et al. 2001). In addition, Latinos were more likely to be ticketed by police (65.6 percent) than either African Americans (60.4 percent) or whites (51.8 percent) (Langan et al. 2001). A study of interactions between youths and police in Chicago found that Latino youths were frequently stopped by police, although not as often as African Americans and white youths. But when stopped, the level of disrespect experienced by Latino youth was as high as that experienced by their African American and white counterparts (Friedman and Hott 1995). Petersilia (1983) found that charges against Latinos and African Americans in California were more likely to be dismissed either before prosecutorial review or were subsequently dismissed by the prosecutor. She speculated that this was due to the fact that racial and ethnic minorities were more likely to be arrested on weaker evidence that later resulted in dismissal. Racial Profiling Racial profiling is one of the most significant and debated issues in law enforcement today (Smith and Alpert 2002; Smith and Petrocelli 2001). Underlying the controversy on racial profiling is the issue of whether

Setting the Context

19

law enforcement may use race/ethnicity as a proxy for an increased likelihood of criminal behavior. Critics charge that police stop African Americans on the basis of their race; for “driving while black” or, in the case of Latinos, “driving while brown.” Racial profiling is generally defined as: …any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity (Ramirez, McDevitt and Farrell 2000, 3). The position of law enforcement on racial profiling is that the disproportionate number of vehicle stops of minorities simply reflects patterns of arrests, convictions and sentencing among minority members (Harris 1997; Kennedy 1997). Because minorities are over represented in these statistics, this view holds that the disproportionate number of vehicle stops is not discriminatory but merely the practice of effective law enforcement (Harris 1997; 2002) or “good police work” (Meehan and Ponder 2002). Some also argue that the use of stereotyping in police work contributes to the racial profiling problem (Kennedy 1997; Skolnick 1975; Thompson 1999). Kennedy (1997) suggests that officers may use proxies or cues to calculate the risk an individual may pose. In some situations these proxies may involve race or ethnicity. Thompson (1999) also posits that police officers may correlate certain traits (e.g., language, modes of dress, mannerisms) with criminal behavior. As a result, officers may target members of these groups because their characteristics differ from those of the officers. “The resulting mindset makes it more likely that officers will associate difference with deviance. One of the salient cues for difference often is race” (Thompson 1999, 987). Finally, Skolnick (1975, 45) suggests that because officers are trained to identify persons who may represent a source of danger, minority group members may be categorized as “symbolic assailants,” a stereotype which results in inequitable treatment when contacted by the police. On the other side of the controversy, critics of racial profiling argue that the law enforcement position is based on misinformed assumptions that minorities commit more crime (i.e., especially drug

20


offenses) and should therefore be targeted by law enforcement (Harris 1999; 2002; Walker 2001). According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2002), the current rates of illicit drug use are 8.5 percent for whites, 7.2 percent for Latinos and 9.7 percent for African Americans. In short, the assumption that minorities use drugs at disproportionately high rates is incorrect (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund 2000). A similar assumption is that most minorities are involved in criminal activity and that random vehicle stops of African Americans and Latinos are likely to yield arrests. After being disproportionately stopped and searched, however, “most blacks and Latinos are not arrested because the vast majority of those stopped are actually innocent of the conduct the police suspected they were engaged in” (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund 2000). Finally, as some legal scholars argue, when officers use race/ethnicity as a proxy for an increased risk of criminality, they are targeting all African Americans and Latinos because some are criminals. This reasoning assumes that all members of these groups share a general propensity to commit crime (Harris 1997; Kennedy 1997). A growing body of statistical evidence suggests that both African Americans and Latinos are substantially more likely than whites to be stopped, questioned and searched based on minor traffic offenses, in large part because police assume they are more likely than whites to be engaged in drug and other criminal activity (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund 2000). Recently, several traffic stop studies have been conducted to document the existence of racial profiling. Although some studies have been mandated by consent decrees to include data collection (Walker, 2001) (e.g., Maryland, New Jersey), other departments have voluntarily collected their own data (e.g., San Jose, San Diego). Traffic stop data from the San Jose Police Department, for example, reveals that although there are some disparities in the proportion of minorities stopped, there is no clear evidence of discrimination. The methods employed to make this conclusion, however, have been questioned (see Walker 2001). Similarly, in her review of several traffic stop studies, which included the Maryland and New Jersey State Police, Ekstrand (2000) argues that due to methodological and measurement problems, it was not possible to

Setting the Context

21

conclusively determine if racial profiling occurred. In light of the inconsistent evidence, however, “the cumulative results of the analyses indicate that in relation to the populations to which they were compared, African Americans in particular, and minorities in general, may have been more likely stopped on the roadways studied” (Ekstrand 2000, 10). Harris (2002, 161-162) argues that although it is important to consider if motorists are initially stopped based on their race and/or ethnicity, what occurs after the stop is equally important. “Speaking to African Americans and Latinos makes clear that it is often these aspects of the interaction that they feel most deeply aggrieved about, not the stop itself.” For example, in a Missouri traffic stop data study, Rojek, Rosenfeld, and Decker (2004) found that compared to whites, African Americans were 17 percent more likely to be pulled over by police and 55 percent more likely than Latinos. While Latinos were less likely to be stopped relative to whites and African Americans, once stopped, however, both Latinos and African Americans were approximately twice as likely to be searched and arrested (Rojek, Rosenfeld, and Decker 2004). Rojek and his associates suggested that this finding could be due to a larger proportion of Latino and African American drivers with arrest warrants. The searches would then be justified subsequent to arrest. Discriminatory treatment could still exist, nonetheless, if the arrests of African Americans and Latinos were later withdrawn or not proven valid. A study in Richmond, Virginia by Smith and Petrocelli (2001) revealed that minority drivers were more likely to be stopped than white drivers. Once stopped, however, minorities were less likely to experience consent searches and half as likely to be subjected to a legal sanction (arrest, ticket) than whites. The authors suggested that the officers could have altered their behavior due to the study or that minorities were more likely to be stopped on weaker evidence that would not withstand legal scrutiny. In another effort to measure the prevalence of racial profiling, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), as part of its national household survey on police and public contacts, recently began collecting data on characteristics of motorists and the nature of traffic stops. The results of the survey indicate that although white and Latino drivers did not substantially differ in their chances of being stopped at least once (10.4 percent of whites and 8.8 percent of Latinos), African American drivers had higher chances than whites of being stopped at least once (12.4

22


percent) and being stopped more than once (3.0 percent of African Americans and 2.1 percent of whites) (Langan et al. 2001). The survey also revealed that African Americans (11.0 percent) and Latinos (11.3 percent) had a higher probability than whites (5.4 percent) of being physically searched or having their vehicles searched. Moreover, the study found that police were more likely to search vehicles driven by Latinos (9.7 percent) and African Americans (8.5 percent) than by whites (4.3 percent). The authors concluded that although there were racial disparities in the number of stops and the proportion of vehicles and drivers searched, the data were limited in several respects and could not provide conclusive evidence that racial profiling exists. Evident throughout this discussion is that one of the greatest obstacles to providing consistent evidence of racial profiling research is methodology issues (Batton and Kadleck 2004; Engel and Calnon 2004; Engel, Calnon, and Bernard 2002; Meehan and Ponder 2002). These include problems with the lack of consensus on the definition of racial profiling (Batton and Kadleck 2004; Rojek, Rosenfeld, and Decker 2004; Smith and Alpert 2002), identifying the appropriate data for “benchmark” comparisons (e.g., census data, observations of roadway usage, assessments of traffic-violating behavior) (Engel and Calnon 2004; Ramirez, McDevitt, and Farrell 2000), potential officer disengagement (Ramirez, McDevitt, and Farrell 2000), and accuracy and reliability of the data (Smith and Alpert 2002; Smith and Petrocelli 2001). Further, as Smith and Alpert (2002, 701) explain, there are significant risks for law enforcement agencies that conduct racial profiling studies and uncover negative results. Changing discriminatory police practices and creating sound policies to address the use of race in police decision-making, however, outweigh these risks (Smith and Alpert 2002). The Courts have allowed the police to use race/ethnicity as a signal of increased risk of criminality as long as it serves the purpose of effective law enforcement and is not the only reason for the stop (Kennedy 1997). For example, in State v. Dean (1975), the Arizona Supreme Court condoned the stop of a Latino male in a predominately white neighborhood. The Court stated that the ethnicity of the subject was one of several factors that prompted officers to stop the male and reasoned that a person “observed in a neighborhood not frequented by persons of his ethnic background is quite often a basis for an officer’s initial suspicion.” The Court concluded that not allowing officers to

Setting the Context

23

conduct these types of stops “ignores the practical aspects of good law enforcement.” Unlike African Americans, Harris (2002, 130) argues that immigration concerns near this country’s borders mean that Latinos “actually bear another burden, one that is exclusively theirs.” One year after Dean, the Supreme Court sanctioned another case of ethnicdependent policing in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976). In this case, the Court stated that even lacking any individualized suspicion that particular vehicles contain illegal aliens, all vehicles could be stopped at permanent checkpoints near the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicles’ occupants. They argued that the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great and the limited intrusion in these checkpoint stops does not interfere with Fourth Amendment rights. Kennedy (1997), however, argues that it is not the intrusion of a single stop, but that Latinos, in particular, are subject to a lifetime of numerous stops. “A person will not cease to be of apparent Mexican ancestry after the first instant of being pulled aside for questioning. In the eyes of the Border Patrol, his looks will continuously mark him as more suspicious than his similarly situated white Anglo counterpart” (Kennedy 1997, 157). Police Use of Force Police use of force against racial and/or ethnic minorities is another long-standing issue of concern. Some studies of police use of force and minorities have found that African Americans and Latinos were more likely than whites to be victims of police shootings (Geller and Karales 1981; Geller and Scott 1992; Jenkins and Faison 1974). Prior survey research, has also found that Latinos believe they are subjected to excessive physical force by the police more frequently than any other group (Bayley and Mendolsohn 1968). Results from a BJS survey on contacts between the police and the public estimated that under 1 percent of all contacts with the police involve use of force (Langan et al. 2001). Two percent of African Americans and Latinos reported that they had experienced police threat or use of force during their contacts with police compared to whites who had less than 1 percent (Langan et al. 2001). An analysis conducted by the Austin-American Statesman newspaper revealed that between 1998 and 2003, compared to whites, African Americans were twice as likely to experience use of force by police. Latinos were 25 percent more likely to experience use of force by officers (Rodriguez and Alford 2004).

24


Holmes (1998) found in his study of a U.S.-Mexico border community that ethnicity and locale had an important effect on perceptions of abusive police practices. This research indicated that Latinos residing both in and outside of the “barrio” locale perceived greater police misconduct and abuses than their white counterparts. Further, because Latinos may be fearful of reporting abuse, Holmes asserted that official data may underestimate abusive police practices. A focus group in one Midwestern city found that Latinos had little understanding of the police complaints process and were generally fearful that police contacts could result in immigration or employment problems (Walker 1997). For undocumented workers, they lack the resources and familiarity with the legal system, and are not likely to report abuse by the police for fear of deportation (Mirande 1987). Mirande (1987) argues that the unequal treatment of the Latino community by the police stems from the initial treatment of Latinos caused by the United States invasion of Mexico and the Treaty of Guadalupe. Not only was Mexican land annexed into the United States, but the treaty left its citizens dispossessed and displaced from their land and possessions and subjected to an “alien culture, language, and legal and judicial system” (Mirande 1987, 2). As a result, Chicanos became subject to a double standard of equity-“gringo justice”- where one system of justice is applied to the Anglo-American and another one to the Chicano. Mirande (1987, 23) describes how stereotypes of Chicanos as criminals or bandits at the beginning of the 20th century continue to be perpetuated by the treatment of the police and legal system through gringo justice: Thus, images of Chicanos as criminal, violent, and lawless have persisted well into the twentieth century, in the face of widespread patterns of abuse and lawlessness perpetrated against them, and a double standard of justice. The double standard of justice that emerged was not an arbitrary or random occurrence but one intended to systematically maintain the subordination of the Chicano. Inasmuch as economic and political power was held by Anglo-Americans, the legal and judicial system, rather than striving for justice and impartiality, became a vehicle for advancing the interests of the dominant group.

Setting the Context

25

Morales (1972) similarly argues that due to feelings of alienation and isolation, Mexicans display an intense mistrust of and disrespect towards the police. In his study of police-Latino relations in East Los Angeles, he found that Latinos had a significantly higher rate of arrests for interfering with the police (58 percent) than either African Americans (24 percent) or whites (18 percent). Mirande (1981) also studied police-Chicano community relations in a barrio in the Southwest; he found that Latino residents believed that the conflict between their community and the police could be attributed to harassment, prejudice and overpatrolling by the police. When community residents were asked how to resolve the barrio-police conflict, most residents who responded stated that there was a need to improve communication with the police or to reform them. Many residents did not believe that the police were poorly trained or inept; rather, they stated they simply wanted to be treated with respect by the police, and to be treated the same as other citizens; they also believed that officers should have a better understanding of barrio residents. There is evidence that Latinos’ views of the police are not always negative. The National Center for State Courts found that in their multicultural survey of perceptions of the courts, 48 percent of Latino participants had positive views of the police; twice as many as those who had negative perceptions of the police (24 percent) (de la Garza and DeSipio 2001).4 Eight-five percent of Latino participants in a Chicagoland study stated that they have confidence in their local police and many respondents welcomed the high level of police presence in their neighborhoods (United Neighborhood Organization 2002). In a survey conducted by the Hispanic Federation (2001) in New York City, 51 percent of the Latinos in the study stated that the job the police are doing in their neighborhoods is “good” (51 percent) while 11 percent rated it as “excellent.” Latinos also had positive perceptions about the police in research attitudes toward police work and the police profession in Texas (Cheurprakobkit and Bartsch 1999, 99). These authors suggested that “Although not totally clear, it appears that Spanish-speaking Hispanics who are facing greater cultural barriers (especially language) understand police work and are willing to cooperate with the police in any reciprocal activities.” Finally, findings from a similar study on attitudes toward the police among whites, African Americans, and Latinos revealed that, although not statistically significant, Spanish-

26


speaking Latinos rated the police higher than any other group on fifteen police attributes (e.g., fairness, politeness, level of police protection, concern, quality of service, honesty, ability to fight crime) (Cheurprakobkit 2000). Barriers to Latino-Police Relations Perhaps the most relevant factor to how new immigrants perceive crime and the police in the United States stems from experiences in their home land (Menjívar and Bejarano 2004). In many native Latino countries, the police are the arm of a politically repressive government (Shusta et al. 2002) where corruption and abuse and mistreatment of Latin Americans are common (Hinkle 1991; Human Rights Watch 2003; Jordan 2004). “Thus, criminal activity and actions of police authorities back home leave indelible marks in the immigrants, who then rely on this lens to assess what they confront in the United States” (Menjívar and Bejarano 141, 2004). Hinkle (1991, 54) further notes that, unlike this country’s system of justice in which all persons are innocent until proven guilty, in Latin America, “the burden of proving your innocence falls on you. Thus, if you are a Hispanic you may wish to avoid the police at all costs.” A national survey of police and community contacts revealed that compared to whites and African Americans, Latinos have lower-self initiated contact with the police; a pattern which may be attributed to the combination of language and cultural barriers and experiences with police in their native countries (Greenfeld et al. 1997) Carter (1983, 215) suggests that because the United States’ legal system is focused on Anglo-American norms and values, cultural differences contribute to the unique experience of Latinos with the criminal justice system. Therefore, “it may be reasonable to assume that any disenchantment and conflict with the criminal justice system by Hispanics may be founded upon cultural variables.” LorenzoHernandez (1998) adds that one of the major issues for immigrants coming to the United States is the transition from a cultural system that has different values, language, political system and other attributes. “Many Hispanic families encourage the use of Spanish, emphasize the supremacy of cultural foods, and maintain other ethnic practices at home. The maintenance efforts are extended to the community if they live in Hispanic neighborhoods” (Lorenzo-Hernandez 1998, 46). Carter (1983) further explains that culture conflict between Latinos and

Setting the Context

27

the police is due to the failure of the dominant Anglo group to recognize Latino cultural differences and traits. The perception of time, for example, may have culturally different meanings for Latinos and whites (Hennessy 2000; Hinkle 1991; Quintanilla 1983). While Anglos may view time in precise units, time for Latinos is more fluid rather than specific (Hennessy 2000; Quintanilla 1983): This means that when officers ask a Hispanic a question about time, such as, ‘At what time did you leave the house?’ the answer, in most cases, will not be concrete. The person may answer ‘between 3:00 and 6:00,’ as opposed to ‘around 3:30.’ As a result, Anglo officers may perceive this indirect answer as an indication of the person’s unwillingness to cooperate (Quintanilla 1983, 4). Family traditions and values in the Latino culture also affect relations with the police. The father is traditionally considered the decision maker, disciplinarian and the head of the household (Shusta et al. 2002). Therefore, “the arrest of a Hispanic father may be seen as an attack on the authority figure which must be resisted in order for status to be maintained” (Carter 1983, 217). Further, in general law enforcement contact with Latino families, addressing the father first may be more culturally appropriate (Shusta et al. 2002). Family honor and personal reputation is also very important (Hennessy 2000); an individual’s honor is represented by the entire family. Consequently, if a family member’s honor is violated, the family may seek retribution without the involvement of the police and may not provide the offender’s name to the police (Hinkle 1991). In sum, the Latino culture is highly ethnocentric and is characterized by group solidarity. This solidarity in turn may be viewed as symbolic resistance to the dominant culture, which reinforces prejudice against Latinos (Carter 1986). Hinkle (1991, 55) states, “The police should remember that these traditions are many centuries old and do not change overnight when people cross national borders” and that, therefore, it is important for police to recognize these deeply embedded values when interacting with the Latino community. Language is one aspect of culture that has the potential to create barriers to effective communication between the Latino community and law enforcement (Arcury and Elmore 2001; Diaz-Cotto 2000; Herbst

28


and Walker 2001; Shusta et al. 2002). Police officers may become frustrated at the inability to communicate (Arcury and Elmore 2001; Herbst and Walker 2001). Street and patrol interactions such as vehicle stops and criminal investigations can be particularly problematic for non-English speaking persons and officers who do not speak Spanish. Herbst and Walker (2001) interviewed officers on interactions with non-English speaking Latinos. Several officers in the study stated that they, or other officers they knew, were hesitant to stop vehicles with Latino drivers because of the inability to communicate with them or obtain basic information. Another officer stated that although he was not reluctant to stop vehicles where the Latino driver could not speak English, the language barrier made it difficult to conduct the stop and subsequently explain the violation on an issued ticket. The officer described that in a previous situation, “We issued a citation, but I honestly don’t know if they understood. We tried to explain it the best we could…there is nothing more frustrating than not being able to communicate, it limits your ability to do things” (Herbst and Walker 2001, 9). Officers who can not communicate with non-English speaking Latino residents cannot provide information, ask or answer questions or complete crime reports (Arcury and Elmore 2001). Arrest situations are equally problematic. If a non-English speaking citizen is arrested, officers may be unable to advise him/her of constitutionally protected rights (Diaz-Cotto 2000). For non-English speaking Latino residents, the language barrier may result in few, if any, calls for police assistance (Herbst and Walker 2001), affect attitudes toward the police, and participation in community policing initiatives (Skogan et al. 2002). Verbal and non-verbal communication barriers which may lead to anger and negative interactions between Latinos and non-Spanish speaking police can also impede attempts to de-escalate conflict situations (Hammer and Rogan 2002). The inability to communicate with the police also may affect citizens’ fear of crime and perceptions of criminal activity in their neighborhood. For example, Skogan and Wycoff (1987) found in their study of a victim callback program that compared to whites and African Americans, Latino and Asian citizens who rated their English proficiency as fair or poor had more negative perceptions of personal crime problems and were more dissatisfied with their neighborhood. These authors suggested that when these victims were recontacted, language and/or cultural barriers may have prevented them from

Setting the Context

29

understanding the intent of the callback program (Skogan and Wycoff 1987, 500). In their research on the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), Skogan and his colleagues (2002) also found that language barriers affected perceptions of crime and interactions with the police. Spanish-speaking Latinos were more likely than Englishspeaking Latinos and African Americans to report serious problems in the condition of their neighborhoods. Perceptions of worsening crime conditions, lack of participation in CAPS, and less positive views of the police were also attributed to language barrier issues. Skogan et al. (2002, 22) concluded that, “These findings may be symptomatic of a speculative unwillingness among Latinos to contact police and to report crimes.” In another study of fear of crime and perceptions of the police among Latino and Vietnamese residents in a large apartment complex in California (Torres and Vogel 2001), Latinos had a more positive response to a community policing intervention and more positive views of the police than the Vietnamese residents. This finding might reflect the fact that one of the officers who participated in the experiment could speak Spanish. Torres and Vogel (2001) concluded that although more research is needed to examine the benefit of using bilingual officers, the results of their study had important policy implications for law enforcement agencies interested in improving relations between the police and Latino community. Many scholars argue that community policing offers the potential for law enforcement to meet the needs of diverse, multicultural communities (Alpert and Dunham 1988; Bondavilli and Bondavilli 1995; DeGeneste and Sullivan 1997; Hennessy 2000). The philosophy of community policing is based on the premise that police and citizens must work together as co-producers of crime prevention (Skolnick and Bayley 1986). If the police and community cannot communicate each other’s objectives, it will be difficult for either group to become involved in a reciprocal relationship of police-public interaction. “Effective policing of a community is impossible if officers cannot talk to its members. At worst, mistrust and fear result. At best, crime control efforts and attempts at problem solving are severely limited” (DeGeneste and Sullivan 1997, 17). DeGeneste and Sullivan (1997) also argue that the likelihood of building an effective community policing partnership is enhanced if the police reflect the community they serve. This does not necessarily

30


mean that police agencies must proportionally represent each racial and ethnic group in the community, but that the service given to the community must be distributed equally regardless of race and ethnicity (DeGeneste and Sullivan 1997, 16). In addition, cultural awareness training is also an integral element of the police organization’s community policing philosophy (Alpert and Dunham 1988). “No police officer can effectively address a community’s needs if she or he does not understand the cultural traditions, mores and values of that community” (DeGeneste and Sullivan 1997, 17). DeGeneste and Sullivan (1997) finally contend that because frustration can stem from language and communication difficulties, community policing can greatly benefit the police and Latino community if language training is administered to newly hired police officers with additional refresher courses throughout an officer’s career. Although some police departments have adopted incentive programs to attract Spanish-speaking officers, most officers in the United States do not speak Spanish. Police department recruiters report that finding job candidates that meet all of the requirements to become officers and are fluent in two languages is challenging (Sherman 2003). DeGeneste and Sullivan (1997) report that many police departments utilize phone company interpretationservices, civilian translators, and offer bonuses for bilingual employees. The prevalence and efficacy of these programs is not known, however. Finally, immigration issues may be a significant barrier in building effective police-Latino community partnerships. Immigrants with questionable legal status in particular may perceive that contact with local law enforcement will bring attention from immigration officials (Jordan 2004; Menjívar and Bejerano 2004). In their study on the impact of community policing for Latino and Vietnamese residents in a large residential complex in California, Torres and Vogel (2001) found that many of the Latino residents were illegal aliens who were in violation of immigration laws. Perceiving that this might be a potential problem in building the necessary trust with residents for the community policing experiment, officers informally communicated to residents that immigration status would not be the focus of their law enforcement duties. Similarly, in a study of police-Latino interactions in a Midwestern city, patrol officers stated that they did not ask about immigration status because they felt that the issue of illegal immigration was beyond their control and that performing their tasks

Setting the Context

31

despite the issue was a top priority. As one officer stated, “We tell them (Hispanics) that we don’t care if they are illegal aliens because there is nothing we can do about it, we just want to get the information.” He added that telling this to Latino residents who might be illegal immigrants facilitated their job. “They are more willing to answer questions knowing they will not be deported” (Herbst and Walker 2001, 10). The dramatic increase in the Latino population in the United States, coupled with the evidence of conflict between the police and the Latino community, demonstrates that police-Latino community relations will become an even more salient issue in American policing in the years to come. As noted above, it is important to recognize that most research on Latinos and the police has been conducted in large metropolitan areas that are generally accustomed to racial and ethnic diversity. The next section focuses on police-minority community relations in the Midwestern region of the United States; traditionally a largely racial and ethnic homogeneous area that has only recently experienced a dramatic increase in the Latino population.

Immigration to the Midwest In 1848, the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo not only marked the end of the Mexican-American war, but also signaled the movement of the Latino population in the Southwest region (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) of the United States (Bean and Tienda 1987; Durand, Massey, and Charvet 2000).5 Much of this migration was caused by the need for labor in the mining frontiers in the western United States (Arreola 2000). In the early 1900s, the construction of railroads in this region connected agricultural and mining industries to thriving industrial cities in the Northeast and Midwest (Durand, Massey, and Charvet 2000). This created a greater demand for workers, who over the turn of the century were recruited from Mexico and Puerto Rico to fill positions in agricultural fields, mines, industrial labor and nearly all types of skilled and unskilled occupations (Durand, Massey, and Charvet 2000; Santiago 1990). Attracted by an increasing number of jobs in manufacturing, railroad construction, and harvesting of agricultural crops (e.g., sugar beets) in the early 1900s, many Latino immigrants relocated from the Southwest into the Northern and Midwestern regions (Santiago 1990;

32


Santos 1989; Valdés 2000). Moreover, during the 1920s, Latino laborers were recruited to fill manufacturing jobs in the meatpacking industries and steel mills in Chicago, auto industry assembly lines in Detroit, and meatpacking plants in Kansas City (Maldonado 1985; Valdés 2000). Despite the continuous migration of Latinos to the Midwest during this time, it has only been in the postwar period that this region has experienced a massive influx of Latinos from Mexico, Puerto Rico and other regions of Central and South America (Santiago 1990). Due to both immigration and natural increase, the 1970s in particular, witnessed an enormous growth of the Latino population in the United States (Bean et al. 1989). The 1980 census revealed that from 1970 to 1980, the Latino population increased by 61 percent and the non-Latino population grew by only 9 percent (Bean et al. 1989, 66). Further, from 1980 to 1990, over half of the total population growth in the Midwest was primarily due to Latino immigration (Aponte and Siles 1997). Improved manufacturing conditions in the Midwest played a key role in attracting displaced agricultural workers and Latino laborers from the Southwest and Northeast (Santos 1989; Valdés 2000). In addition, the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 “have allowed many new immigrants to stay in the United States and venture outside traditional receiving states such as California and Texas” (Gouveia and Saenz 1999, 6). Although Chicago experienced much of this growth, 6 more recently a large number of Latinos, largely of Mexican origin, are moving into the more rural areas of the Midwest (Aponte and Siles 1997). As evidenced by the 2000 census, the increase in the Latino population in the Midwestern region of the United States, often termed the “browning” of the Midwest (Aponte and Siles 1994; Rochín, Siles, and Gomez 1996; Rosenbaum 1997) has received much attention. The 2000 census confirms the projected trend that many Latinos are moving from the gateway states such as California, Texas, and New Mexico into “non-traditional” areas like the Midwest (Pew Hispanic Center 2002). Although the Midwestern Latino population is far less than that of California, states such as Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa experienced greater growth rates through the 1990s (Armas 2001; Gouveia and Saenz 2000).7 In Nebraska, for example, there was a 108 percent increase in the Latino population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000).

Setting the Context

33

Three of the four counties with the largest percentage increases among Latinos from 1990 to 2000 are located in Nebraska (Alden 2001). The Latino population in Dixon County, Nebraska, increased from four in 1990 to 348 in 2000, the largest increase of any county in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, cited from Alden 2001). The increase in the Midwest Mexican population was so dramatic, that a Mexican Consulate was opened in Omaha to serve Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas (Pierre 2003). In addition to economic opportunities, “the combination of slow growth in the overall population and the increasing presence of Latinos in this region have resulted in the Latino population making an indelible demographic mark on the region’s ethnic face” (Gouveia and Saenz 2000, 356).8 Food Processing in the Midwest One of the primary factors contributing to the substantial increase in the Latino population in rural areas of the Midwest is the relocation and expansion of food processing plants. Unlike the traditional economic expansion typically experienced in major metropolitan centers, within the last couple of decades, this growth, particularly in agribusiness, has occurred in small and medium sized and rural communities in the Midwest (Johnson, Johnson-Webb and Farrell 1999). In rural America, approximately 1 of every 16 manufacturing jobs is in the meatpacking industry (Drabenstott, Henry, and Mitchell 1999). The Midwest itself is home to approximately 58 percent of all meatpacking jobs (Drabenstott, Henry, and Mitchell 1999). Meatpacking and poultry processing plants have become major industries in the rural Midwest for several reasons. First, meatpacking plants need to be near large supplies of livestock, which is usually associated with inexpensive sources of feed grains frequently found in the Midwest (Grey 1997). Further, because the primary market for meat production is in the United States, plants must be able to deliver their product to consumers in a short period of time (Grey 1997; Grey and Woodrick 2002). In order to minimize transportation costs and damage, many of the slaughterhouses once located in metropolitan areas where they were close to labor have relocated to more rural communities in the Midwest where they are closer to the animals (Broadway 1995; Cooper 1997; Drabenstott, Henry, and Mitchell 1999; Gouveia and Stull 1995; Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992). Many large processing companies like Iowa Beef Processing (IBP) have

34


moved their operations from Chicago, Kansas City, Omaha, and Minneapolis to these small communities to maximize profits (Bjerklie 1995). The movement of these plants to rural areas has also been facilitated by both the innovation of boxed beef by IBP in 1967 and the introduction of disassembly line technology where work previously done by skilled butchers was broken down into tasks that can be performed by unskilled and semi-skilled workers (Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992; Valdés 2000; Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). Three corporations, IBP, Cargill’s Excel Corporation, and Monfort Incorporated, dominate the $95 billion per year meat processing industry; 70 percent of the cattle slaughter and 35 percent of the hog slaughter in this country is controlled by these companies (Dalla, Cramer, and Stanek 2002). The population declines and low unemployment rates experienced by many rural areas of the Midwest, coupled with the decline in meatpacking wages during the last decade, however, created a shortage in the number of local workers for the plants. As a result, these beef, pork and poultry processing plants actively recruited foreign workers to relocate to the Midwest to fill these employment vacancies (Cooper 1997; Valdés 2000). Lacking a continuous local labor force, IBP recruits packers through word of mouth and advertisement in packing towns and in areas of high unemployment (Gouveia and Stull 1997; Martin, Taylor, and Fix 1996; Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992). “Recruiters take to the road as needed, and if labor supply is down they may offer to cover some initial expenses against wages” (Gouveia and Stull 1997, 4). Bonuses offered to Latino employees to attract relatives and friends through social networks has also been a common practice among plants (Valdés 2000). In a 1998 report on meatpacking in Nebraska and Iowa counties, the General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that meatpacking officials are increasingly relying on minority and immigrant workers to fill vacancies in the factories. This reflects both the fact that there are not enough local area residents to fill the positions and the fact that local residents are unwilling to fill the positions at starting pay levels (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998). This has resulted in meatpacking plants hiring minorities and immigrants from Texas, California, Mexico (Dalla and Baugher 2001) and as far away as Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998, 405).

Setting the Context

35

Processing plant employers target newly arrived immigrants as a potential labor source for several reasons. First, employers are aware that newcomers often lack basic English language skills which generally leaves them few alternatives in the United States’ job market (Grey 1997), and is not required for work in meatpacking plants (Grey and Woodrick 2002; Rochín 2000). Second, immigrants from different countries are less likely to form unions than would be the case with a homogeneous work force (Griffith, Broadway, and Stull 1995). Lack of unionization leaves Latinos vulnerable to meet increasing productivity quotas set my management (Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). Third, although wages in meatpacking plants are considered low by Anglo standards, immigrants do not have high wage expectations; they consider what pay they earn in meatpacking much higher than what they would earn in their respective countries (Grey 1997; Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992) and more stable than what they could earn as seasonable farm workers (Rochín 2000). Finally, rural areas have a large representation of low-skill workers which would appear to match with the low-skill tasks found in food processing plants (Schluter and Lee 2002). It is difficult, however, to attract local workers to fill low paying jobs which require slaughtering livestock and processing meat (Drabenstott, Henry, and Mitchell 1999; Schluter and Lee 2002). Many who have responded to the recruitment efforts have been Latino immigrants. From 1990 to 2000, the Latino population in Lexington, Nebraska, home to an IBP beef packing plant, increased from 329 to more than 5,100 residents; Latinos now represent more than 51 percent of Lexington’s population (Schmid 2001). A Swift pork packing plant in Marshalltown, Iowa, employs approximately 900 Mexican workers (Grey and Woodrick 2002). In 1990, 0.9 percent (248) of the town’s 25,178 residents was Latino; in 2000, 12.6 percent (3,265) of the 26,009 residents were Latino (Grey and Woodrick 2002). In Madison, Nebraska, population of 2,300, a pork processing plant operated by IBP has 1,000 employees. Approximately 65 percent of the workers are Latino or Mexican. Of the 200 students in the elementary school, more than 60 percent are from Spanish-speaking households (Dalla, Cramer, and Stanek 2002). In Missouri, the number of Latino residents has almost doubled from 61,702 in 1990 to 118,592 in 2000; this increase was caused by job availability in the state’s beef and poultry processing plants (Halladay 2001). Other rural communities that opened meatpacking plants experienced similar

36


demographic changes (see Aponte and Siles 1997; Grey 1997; Martin, Taylor, and Fix 1996; Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992). Some argue that in light of the substantial increase in the Latino population reflected in the 2000 census, there is a serious undercount of Latino workers and their families in the Midwest (Halladay 2001). For example, as noted earlier, the 2000 census reported 3,265 Latinos in Marshalltown. Given the reluctance of undocumented immigrants to participate in the census, leaders in Marshalltown estimate the number of Latinos to be 4,500 to 5,000 (Grey and Woodrick 2002). The large influx of Latino immigrants to rural areas in the Midwest has produced significant changes in these communities. First, as noted above, small rural areas that recently experienced the opening of meatpacking plants are no longer as racially and ethnically homogenous as they might have been. For example, the GAO (1998) reports that during the 1980s, minority populations, as a percentage of their respective county populations, increased in all sixteen Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking work forces (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). Gouveia (2002) reports that in less than ten years, the Latino population in some Midwestern states, such as Nebraska, grew by as much as 400 percent. Other rural states in the Midwest such as the Dakotas, Minnesota, Kansas, and Missouri experienced similar demographic shifts in their populations (Cooper 1997, 12). Estimates of Latino workforce representation in meatpacking plants ranges from 50 percent to 95 percent (Gouveia 2002; Gouveia and Saenz 1999; Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). In one large Midwestern plant, the proportion of ethnic minority workers increased from 18 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 1996 (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). Similarly, Garden City, which has a meatpacking plant, is the first school district in Kansas where ethnic minorities make up the majority of students (Gouveia and Stull 1995; Grey 1997). Second, because the wages for production workers in food processing plants are very low, Latino laborers who have immigrated to the Midwest to work in these plants have encountered economic hardship. Within the last two decades, wages in meatpacking plants have fallen dramatically. In 1980, the industry’s hourly wage, including benefits, peaked at $19 (Grey 1997). Between 1972 and 1992, real wages in packing plants dropped from as low as 20 percent to as high as 50 percent (Drabenstott, Henry, and Mitchell 1999;

Setting the Context

37

Schluter and Lee 2002). By 1992, the pay had decreased to $12 and continued to fall (Cooper 1997). Even with double shifts and overtime, “laborers average $12,000 to $16,000 a year annually, enough to minimally support a family” (Dalla, Cramer, and Stanek 2002, 20). In some plants, benefits become available only after six months of employment (Rochín 2000; Stull and Broadway 1995). The yearly income of many immigrant families is below the poverty line, which requires them to depend on social welfare (Cooper 1997). In 13 of 23 counties with large meatpacking work forces, the increase in the number of Medicaid recipients per 1,000 population exceeded the statewide increase of 54 percent in Nebraska and 39 percent in Iowa (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). Gouveia and Stull (1995) similarly found that when the Lexington IBP plant opened its doors in 1990, a state-sponsored community services program experienced a 1000 percent increase in its homeless program and a 405 percent increase in its food pantry allocations. From 1989 to 1992, general-assistance applications within this community also tripled (Gouveia and Stull 1995). Another impact of the new immigration is the high mobility experienced by rural communities with food processing plants. The GAO (1998) found that in Iowa and Nebraska, yearly turnover rates in plants ranged from 18 percent to 83 percent of the workforce; one company vice president stated that his company experienced turnover rates of 100 percent per year (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998, 5). Estimates for annual turnover are generally 20 percent to 80 percent (Dalla and Baugher 2001). Other recent case studies have confirmed that monthly turnover rates have ranged from 12 percent at the IBP plant in Lexington, Nebraska to a monthly turnover rate of 60 percent at the IBP plant in Finney County, Kansas (Gouveia and Stull 1997). Grey (1999, 19) reported that in one Iowa meatpacking plant, on a typical day, “25% of workers had been on the job for less than one month, and 60% had been employed less than one year!” In Marshalltown, Iowa, home to a pork processing plant that employs approximately 1800 workers, Grey (1997) used school enrollment as a proxy for turnover rates. He found that in the two schools that had the highest number of children with at least one meatpacking parent, 48 percent of the elementary students had transferred in or out of the district during the 1995-1996 school year.

38


High turnover rates in these communities are due in part to the physically demanding and dangerous work at the plants (Cooper 1997; Dalla and Baugher 2001; Fink 1998; Grey 1999; Rochín 2000). Characterized by heavy manual labor and repetitive tasks (Fink 1998), meatpacking is ranked as one of the most hazardous jobs in the nation (Valdés 2000). The most recent data from the United States Department of Labor report that in 2002, there were 14.9 work-related injuries or illnesses per 100 full-time workers for meatpacking and 9.7 for poultry processing, compared to 7.2 in general manufacturing. Midwestern states such as Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, have experienced a disproportionate number of work-related deaths in their meatpacking plants within the last two decades (Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). Grey (1997) explains that unlike older plants, newer pork plants with increasingly advanced assembly line technology can slaughter and process up to 1,000 hogs per hour. Higher capacity rates and faster disassembly lines mean that packers must perform repetitive tasks at high speeds, which often lead to hand, arm, and wrist disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome (Grey 1999; Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992; Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). Near fatal accidents resulting in chemical burns, asphyxia and amputation are also not uncommon in Midwestern meatpacking plants (Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000). High injury rates coupled with the stress caused by difficult repetitive motions often translates into high employee turnover. This often means that many workers are employed for only a few months before they either quit or are forced off the job by the company (Cooper 1997). Some research suggests that the high rate of death and injury for Latinos in the meatpacking plants is attributed to “corporate attempts to maximize productivity and profits in an increasingly competitive market” (Wahl, Gunkel, and Sanchez 2000, 332). A final consequence of the high turnover rate is the inability of Latino newcomers to fully integrate into the meatpacking communities. Stull and his colleagues (1992, 59) contend that the lack of socialization of immigrants with established residents can be attributed in part to the long hours of work required at the packing plants: It is not surprising that the workers feel little attachment. They work long and grueling hours on the line-six days a week during much of the year. Many work the B shift from 3:00P.M. until midnight; still others work cleanup on the C

Setting the Context

39

shift (midnight till 6:00AM), or swing shifts. Little time is left to meet and socialize with people outside of work. Socializing is often limited to having a beer or two after work; playing in a softball or bowling league with coworkers; shopping, doing laundry, or going to the park on Sunday-the only day off when the plants are running at capacity. Many workers live in trailer courts on the outskirts of town, in apartment complexes hastily constructed to meet the demands of rapid growth, or in run-down residential motels-their neighbors most often line workers like themselves. Often they speak little or no English and must rely on their children or friends to translate when they do business in the majority community. As in any packinghouse town, packers carry a certain stigma, regardless of income or ethnicity. The absence of assimilation coupled with high turnover rates in the plants often means continuous mobility for many of the workers. Moreover, given the language and cultural barriers between the workers and the predominately Anglo communities, it is little wonder that stable and meaningful relationships between workers and community residents never really form (Stull, Broadway, and Erikson 1992).9 Discrimination, debate over the use of public services, housing shortages, and complaints that the needs of immigrant children (i.e., Limited English Proficiency) in the school systems are overwhelming, have created conflict and tension among immigrant families and longterm rural residents (Dalla and Baugher 2001). In light of the large numbers of Latinos in the meat and poultry plants, Latino representation in the employment sector is not limited to the food processing industry (Valdés 2000). In 2001, one in three (31.3 percent) Latinos were employed in private households of the service industry. One in five (20.3 percent) workers in the agricultural industry was Latino. Latinos also comprised 15.8 percent of the workers in the construction industry and 15.1 percent of employees in the nondurable goods sector of the manufacturing industry (Thomas-Breitfeld 2003, 10). Similar to work in the meatpacking plants, the majority of these jobs require few skills or command of the English language. Rochín, Siles, and Gomez (1996) add that Latinos not only hold lower paying jobs because of limited language fluency, but that lack of educational

40


attainment, and discrimination and bias against this group in many employment areas are contributing factors as well. It is important to note that not all immigrant workers who have relocated to the Midwest during the 1990s are newcomers to this country. Many of these workers are U.S. citizens who have moved with their families from the traditional gateway states, like Texas and California. Because many of the immigrants cannot speak English, however, “there is a tendency to assume that all Hispanics are immigrants, and thus exaggerate the number of immigrants in some towns” (Martin, Taylor, and Fix 1996, 5). Some families may move to the Midwest seeking better job opportunities (increased pay, benefits, etc.) and to move away from the problems (crime, overcrowding) associated with large metropolitan areas. For example, when asked about the move from Los Angeles to Wakefield, Nebraska, a Latina employee of the Waldbum egg processing plant replied, “They’re too rowdy down there. There’s drive-by shootings and things like that. We don’t have those here” (Alden 2001). Although much research suggests that the new immigration has created dramatic social and economic changes in rural meatpacking communities, few studies have examined its specific impact on policecommunity relations. Unlike large municipal police agencies that are accustomed to continuous change in the demographic environment, rural police agencies are characterized by stable, homogenous and informal police operations. The next section provides a brief overview of rural community culture and structure. Characteristics of police agencies and the impact of the recent immigration will also be discussed.

Rural Communities Traditional descriptions of rural communities generally include characteristics such as geographic isolation, low population density, and occupational structures such as farming and other agricultural industries (Bealer, Willits, and Kuvlesky 1965; Weisheit and Wells 1996). More recent discourse suggests that although rural communities still remain a large part of the country’s landscape, there is no longer a definitive contrast between the rural and urban environment (Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000) As Deavers (1992, 184) explains, for most Americans today, the concept of rural “is not shaped by personally

Setting the Context

41

living or working in a rural area, but rather by what they see when they visit the country or when they hear their grandparents recount their childhoods spent on farms.” Moreover, in light of modernization and industrialization, communities once defined as “rural” are now more often referred to as “nonurban” or “not quite so urban” (Weisheit and Wells 1996, 386). Literature on rural communities, however, defines some features of culture and structure that generally distinguish rural from urban areas. First, the term “rural” is often used to describe areas that are geographically isolated from large metropolitan centers and have a small population of residents (Bealer, Willits, and Kuvlesky 1965; Miller and Luloff 1981; Small 2000). Although most people live in nonrural places, most areas in this country are rural (Weisheit and Wells 1996). For example, 76 percent of counties in the United States are nonmetropolitan counties (i.e., counties with less than 50,000 residents) (Weisheit and Wells 1996). In addition, although not all small communities are located in rural areas, 88 percent of these communities have fewer than 10,000 people (Weisheit and Wells 1996). Geographic isolation and low population density not only leads to self-sufficiency but usually requires that rural communities individually provide for their own services (e.g., wells for water), and to travel considerable distance to receive other assistance (e.g., advanced medical treatment) (Deavers 1992). In addition, rural communities, particularly in the Midwest are overwhelmingly white, with little racial and ethnic diversity (Salamon 1995). Second, economic specialization remains an essential element in rural communities. Land and nature resource-based economies such as farming, fishing and mining products have traditionally played a strong role in rural communities. It is important to note, however, that in light of technological and economic changes, the role of agriculture in contemporary society has changed (Deavers 1992; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995). Although farming continues to be an integral component of rural America, the number of families living on farms is declining (Small 2000). Approximately 10 percent of rural residents work in agriculture (Weisheit and Kernes 2003) and less than one fifth of all rural counties depend on farming as a primary economic source (Deavers 1992, 184). Deavers (1992) notes that in spite of the declining dependence on farming in rural communities the small size of

42


towns in this areas and the remoteness from large metropolitan centers still characterize most communities as “rural.” Finally, one of the most often cited characteristic of rural community culture is the close interconnected relationships among residents. It is not uncommon to hear rural citizens state they “know just about everyone” in the community (Krannich and Greider 1990; Salamon 1995; Weisheit and Wells 1996). In contrast to the segregated and specialized social networks among urban dwellers, rural residents have intimate connections with one another through social institutions characteristic of these communities such as family, church and work (Salamon 1995). Freudenburg (1986) calls this type of relationship “density of acquaintanceship” (the extent to which people in a community know each other) which signifies that residents share a “common identity and belonging to the group” (Weisheit and Wells 1996). This density of acquaintanceship in rural communities also serves as an informal means to control deviance, monitor youth and care for dependent residents (Salamon 1995). In short, the strong social and community ties in small towns and rural areas contrasts with social interaction in urban communities; which Wirth (1938) described as impersonal and transitory. Policing in Rural Communities Most of the literature on policing in America focuses specifically on large police agencies situated in urban environments (Maguire et al. 1991). Within the last decade, however, small-town and rural police operation has been the subject of several studies (Brock et al. 2001; Christensen and Crank 2001; Frank and Liederbach 2003; O’Shea 1999; Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994; 1995). This research reveals several characteristics which help define small-town and rural police agencies. First, in one of the most comprehensive examinations of rural policing, Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (1995) found that unlike urban settings where municipal agencies are primarily responsible for police services, sheriffs’ departments play a far greater role in the administration of law enforcement in rural communities. In addition to law enforcement duties, for instance, most sheriffs’ departments are responsible for court-related functions that generally include arrest warrants, serving civil process documents and providing court security (Hickman and Reaves 2003). Moreover, many small communities rely

Setting the Context

43

solely on the county sheriff for law enforcement assistance. “Where many small villages, towns, or small cities cannot afford full-time police coverage, the county sheriff’s office may provide many basic policing services” (Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995, 59). As a result, deputies are more likely to rely on personal skills and problem solving because assistance from other officers, rapid back up, and two person patrol cars are not the norm (Christensen and Crank 2001). State police agencies also are a key law enforcement agency in rural policing. Officers in these agencies regularly provide patrol coverage on open roads and highways, and state conservation agents routinely enforce wildlife and gaming laws (Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995). Second, police work in rural areas is very informal. In his research on small town police agencies, Sims (1988, 86) found that police officers generally know every resident in town. Interaction between residents in general is very casual and informal and “friendliness is the expected norm.” In addition to close ties between people, the policecommunity relationship is very familiar (Hawkins and Weisheit 2003); police are more likely to engage in informal interactions with citizens they know (Frank and Liederbach 2003). Although police officers in large cities are often viewed as outsiders, in rural communities, they are considered an essential part of the community by local residents (Decker 1979; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994). Individual police officers in small towns and rural areas also are more likely than those in large cities to be respected by community residents (Decker 1979). Likewise, Christensen and Crank (2001) found that unlike hostile police-community relations in large urban areas rural officers have more positive perceptions about the citizens they serve. This close relationship between rural residents and local law enforcement also produces greater help and support among residents to report suspicious activity (O’Shea 1999), and assistance to police with crime prevention and criminal investigation (Jiao 2001). Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (1994, 556) additionally found that the informal network is also strengthened by the police department’s hiring of local citizens. Unlike large urban areas, it is not unusual for police to personally know offenders and their families (Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000), or for citizens to personally know rural officers by name. “It also appears rather common for a citizen to consider a particular police officer his or her officer and to request him or her by name when problems arise” (Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994, 558).

44


Similarly, when an officer arrests a resident, everyone knows both the arresting officer and the offender (Brock et al. 2001). Therefore, officers may exercise more informal control rather than official sanctions to maintain good relations with rural residents (Brock et al. 2001). Finally, unlike urban agencies, police officers in rural agencies may perceive more public support. In their comparison of urban and rural police officers, Kowalewski et al. (1984) found that virtually all (94.4 percent) of the rural officers interviewed believed they received strong support from the public. Another characteristic of rural police agencies is that officers in these communities are expected to perform a broad range of duties. Because the police are the only government service available 24 hours a day, rural police agencies must provide a wide variety of services that are unavailable or not provided by other government social agencies (Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994; 1995). As a result, officers perform as generalists rather than specialists; citizens in rural communities believe that this type of policing is appropriate (Maguire et al. 1991). In his study of officer attitudes toward police work, O’Shea (1999) found that compared to urban officers, rural officers were more likely to believe that non-crime fighting functions and handling non-criminal activity was part of their patrol function. This observation is also consistent with public opinion surveys in small towns that indicate that most residents want police to perform a wide range of services that focus on order-maintenance and problemsolving (Flanagan 1985). Problem solving, for example, is part of this general approach to police work in small towns. In their study of rural counties in Illinois, Maguire et al. (1991) found that residents in these areas expected the police to “do everything” and believed that all functions of the police ranging from law enforcement to keeping order were important. In a similar vein, Sims (1988) and Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (1994; 1995) report that unlike the narrow focus on law enforcement activities customarily found in large urban areas, police officers in rural communities more frequently respond to calls that are considered “non-police” problems. This perception of rural law enforcement functions is also supported by Jiao’s (2001), research on preference for police orientations among urban, suburban, and rural residents. While urban and suburban residents strongly favored community policing and police professionalism, respectfully, the

Setting the Context

45

strongest police orientation preference among citizens in rural areas was problem-solving. Due to the informal nature of rural police work, and the generally positive relations between residents and the police, community policing practices occur naturally in these settings (Christensen and Crank 2001; Hawkins and Weisheit 2003; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994). “Effective community policing must be tailored to the needs and wishes of each individual community, just as rural police tailor their activities to their local communities.” Although they do not suggest that rural policing is identical to community policing, Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (1994) found that sheriffs and chiefs from rural agencies believe that strong police-citizen relations and the ability to pay individual attention to cases help them implement community policing principles. In line with the community policing philosophy, Meagher (1985) also found officers in large urban agencies were more likely to focus on enforcing the law and crime control, whereas officers in small police agencies engaged more frequently in crime prevention and preventative patrol activities. A final characteristic frequently discussed in literature on rural police agencies is that the crime rate is lower in rural than in urban areas (Donnermeyer 1995; Duhart 2000; Smith and Lab 1991; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995). Research on fear of crime in rural communities, however, has produced mixed findings. Although some studies find that fear of crime is lower in rural areas than in urban ones (Belyea and Zingraff 1988; Lee 1982; Skogan and Maxfield 1981), other researchers conclude that fear of crime in rural areas and small towns may not be lower than in large cities (Bankston et al. 1987; Smith and Lab 1991; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1995). Weisheit and Donnermeyer (2000) suggest that in general, there is less crime in rural than in urban areas, but that there are exceptions. In addition, given the variations in rural areas such as economics, geography, and culture, crime levels and crime types vary as well (Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000). Studies on the energy boomtown phenomenon experienced in many western rural communities in the 1980s, for instance, reveal that residents in these communities, which experienced rapid population growth, had substantially higher levels of fear of crime than residents of more stagnant, stable communities (Freudenburg 1986; Krannich, Greider, and Little 1985; Murdock and Leistritz 1979). In their review

46


of case studies on rapid community growth and crime in boomtowns, Freudenburg and Jones (1991) found that in twenty-one of the twentythree studies, there were increases in crime rates. The findings of more recent research, however, suggests that while social disruptions (i.e., fear of crime) may occur in boomtown periods, their effect is only temporary (Smith, Krannich, and Hunter 2001). Smith and Lab (1991) posit that despite the geographic and structural differences between urban and rural areas, fear of crime in both areas appears to have similar roots. They found that although there were clear differences in crime rates between the two areas, similar factors influenced urban and rural residents’ fear of victimization. “Both direct and vicarious victimization result in higher levels of fear for rural and urban residents. Whites, males, and individuals with more education and higher incomes tend to be less fearful, regardless of their place of residence” (Smith and Lab 1991, 211). Finally, Bankston et al. (1987) report that not only were rural residents more fearful of crime than in those large urban areas, but there were differences among rural farm and non-farm residents; rural farm residents were more fearful than non-farm residents of rape and break-ins occurring when they were home. These authors concluded that other factors (i.e., media exposure) should be examined to explain why the perception of crime is greater than actual crime rates in rural communities. Impact of Immigration on Rural Policing Having established characteristics of rural communities and the environment in which rural police agencies operate, it is important to examine the effect of the new patterns of immigration on these communities. Although there is limited research on policing in rural areas, there is virtually no research on the impact of immigration on police-community relations. The information that exists is generally found in case studies of rural meatpacking communities. This literature suggests that the recent influx of newcomers into rural communities has had a significant impact on crime and on the nature of policecommunity relations. The GAO (1998) report on counties with meatpacking plants in Iowa and Nebraska, showed that from 1986-87 to 1994-1995 serious crime increased in nine of the ten Nebraska counties, exceeding the statewide average increase for these time periods. In addition, although

Setting the Context

47

six of the counties averaged crime rates below the statewide average in 1994-1995, four of the counties exceeded the state average of 44.7 crimes per 1,000 in the population. Using the same time frame, the state of Iowa indicates similar results: in the 1994-1995 time period, four of the nine counties with meatpacking forces exceeded the statewide average of 37.4 crimes per 1,000 population; the remaining five counties were less than the statewide average. Although law enforcement officials attributed some of the increases in crime to the influx of meatpacking plant employees, the GAO (1998) noted that statistics on individual offense rates were not available. Rural police departments may not have the resources to provide their officers with special language skills necessary for communicating with immigrant groups where many members do not speak English (Herbst and Walker 2001; U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). As a result, administrators in these communities may begin to recruit bilingual officers or volunteer translators (Saitz and McHugh 2001) and to provide “Survival Spanish” guides for their personnel. Undocumented residents and driver’s license issues may also be problematic for small town law enforcement agencies. In his research on Latinos in Southwest Missouri, Wirth (2002) found that language barriers (35 percent) and legal and documentation issues (15 percent) (immigration, no social security number, and no driver’s license) were the most important concerns facing Latinos in this area; both of which can affect relationships with local law enforcement. Rural police may also be less likely prepared to address populations with different cultural characteristics (Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000). For example, while Americans spend much of their free time at home, Latinos enjoy spending free time in public with friends-a practice that is often misinterpreted by community residents and police as loitering (Edwards 2000). In a similar vein, Grey (2002, 26) explains that it is not unusual for large groups of newcomers to gather together on Sunday afternoons, drink beer, play soccer and socialize. But established residents in some Iowa communities find “these gatherings inappropriate or even threatening, even if no laws are being broken.” Additional challenges to rural police agencies may include addressing higher levels of fear of crime among rural residents. Referring once again to the literature on boomtowns, Krannich and Greider (1990, 70) state that when a small community’s population doubles or triples over a short period of time, “many of the chance

48


encounters in daily life will inevitably involve contact with strangers rather than those who share a mind-set of familiarity.” As a result, a high density of acquaintanceship may be replaced with distrust, hostility and fear of strangers (Krannich, Greider, and Little 1985). Because the new residents will differ from established residents in terms of demographic characteristics, values, and norms, one consequence of this change may be an elevated and exaggerated fear of crime. This may be especially true in rural communities “that are suddenly inundated with a large number of immigrants who are apt to be temporary residents, highly transient and culturally distinct from established residents” (Krannich, Grieder, and Little 1985, 195). Police officers themselves may also be fearful or suspicious of newly arrived immigrants who are different from other residents of the communities they serve. Although Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (1994) note the benefits associated with informal policing in rural communities, they also contend that outsiders, such as immigrants, may be at risk for unequal treatment. Case studies of meatpacking communities reveal some evidence that police agencies are responding to the changing demographic environment. Gouveia and Stull (1995) found that after the 1990 opening of the IBP plant in Lexington, Nebraska, crime rates rose dramatically: from October of 1988 to October of 1991 monthly police bookings increased by 61 percent. In addition, although non-Latino whites accounted for most of the crime between 1989 and 1993, Latinos comprised increasingly large proportions of those cited for traffic offenses. Gouveia and Stull (1995, 96) attributed this in part to, “ignorance of local ordinances, lack of proper documents, and insufficient funds upon arrival to secure necessary insurance and driver’s licenses.” To deal with these issues a video tape was produced in Spanish by law enforcement and other groups to educate newly arrived Latinos on local ordinances and regulations (Gouveia and Stull 1995). Faced with language barriers between police and Spanishspeaking residents in this community, the police department has hired a bilingual officer and provides its 14 officers with pocket translators (Stocking and Garcia 1998). In 1995, the city of Storm Lake, Iowa, home to another large IBP processing plant, responded to the dramatic increase of Latino residents in its community by establishing a Community Service Officer (CSO) program in which one of the CSO’s is bilingual in Spanish and English

Setting the Context

49

(Walker, Herbst, and Irlbeck 2002). Of the little over 10,000 residents in this community, as many as 40 percent speak little or no English (Hupp 2002). Currently, the Marshalltown, Iowa police department is creating a “welcome to Marshalltown” video in Spanish and English to introduce residents to police department services and to local laws and ordinances (Walker 2003). Although there is not an abundance of literature on the impact of Latino immigration on rural police agency operation, there is evidence that larger metropolitan departments across the country are responding to the multicultural changes in their communities. In St. Paul, Minnesota, fourteen officers at the police department participated in an eight week Spanish immersion program that was held at a local elementary school. The program was funded by grants but also required a commitment by the department; officers were taken off the street and attended classes eight hours a day for two months (Estrada 2003). Recently, the Colorado Springs Police Department created a video for the Latino community which gives instructions on how to report crimes, provide crime prevention tips, and generally allay fears of police as immigration enforcement, among undocumented residents (Ragan 2003). Pager numbers for volunteers who speak Spanish are also included in the video. The department’s Espanol Service Program (ESP) also helps officers utilize Spanish-speaking volunteers with investigations (Ragan 2003). Programs which send police officers to Mexico for Spanish language immersion training is increasingly common in departments across the U.S. (Tompkins 2003). Other outreach efforts across the nation include Spanish-language citizen police academies which serve as a way to familiarize Latino residents with the police and educate them on police practices and procedures in their communities (Halladay 2004; Ley 2003; Walker, Herbst, and Irlbeck 2002). In 2003, the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) with support of a state department of public safety grant initiated El Projecto Seguro-The Safe Project. In addition to its Spanish-language citizen police academy MPD conducted workshops that focus on personal and home safety, “how to call 911,” and business owner workshops to share tips on how to deter robberies and theft. MPD also partnered with local churches to disseminate information, meet with residents and together, sponsor a picnic for Latino residents (Minnesota Office of Justice Programs 2003).

50


Many large metropolitan police agencies have also changed hiring practices to reflect the need for officers who have special language skills. These practices generally include incentives such as bonus points or salary enhancements for bilingual officers (PolicyLink 2001). In San Jose, California, hiring preference is given to applicants who are certified in one of six second languages, whereas the Boston Police Department, through its language certification process, deploys officers to particular neighborhoods based on their ability to speak the predominant languages spoken there. Hiring officers with special language skills results in “a corps of officers more reflective of the communities served not only in terms of racial and ethnic composition, but also languages spoken” (PolicyLink 2001, 5).

Current Study The purpose of this study was to examine how and to what extent rural police agencies have addressed recent demographic changes in their communities. By focusing on the current state of rural police agency operation and the status of police-Latino community relations, this study fills a significant void in the police literature. First, unlike most studies of police-minority community relations this research specifically examined the relationship between the police and Latino community. Issues such as language and cultural barriers that are particularly salient to the police-Latino community relationship were addressed. Second, this research was conducted in rural communities in the Midwest; areas that are traditionally characterized as homogenous and generally isolated from large urban centers. Finally, this study investigated how rural police agencies have adapted to the influx of Latinos in their communities.

CHAPTER 3

Study Design

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the new immigration on police-Latino relations in rural Midwestern communities. To investigate this phenomenon, multiple sources of data were collected from three rural communities in Missouri: Sedalia, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Due to the expansion and/or relocation of food processing plants, each of these communities recently experienced an increase in the Latino population. A case study approach was used to provide insight into how rural police agencies adapted to the significant demographic change in their communities.

Research Questions To examine the current status of police and Latino community relations in small rural Missouri areas, the following research questions were investigated: 1) What is the official response of local law enforcement agencies in the rural Midwest to the new Latino immigration? One of the primary objectives was to document the manner in which rural police agencies in the Midwest have responded to the recent influx of Latinos into their communities. For example, what programs or policies, if any, have these law enforcement agencies specifically designed to meet the needs of the Latino community? Such programs may include special human relations and/or language training for sworn officers, special liaison persons or units to relate to new immigrant communities, community outreach programs (e.g., regular

51

52


community meetings) designed to improve relations with new immigrant communities, and the employment of sworn or non-sworn personnel with special skills relevant to new immigrant communities. 2) How does law enforcement perceive the relationship between the police and Latino residents? A second objective was to determine how members of rural police agencies (e.g., patrol personnel, police administrators) view the relationship between law enforcement and the Latino community. All law enforcement personnel were interviewed about their experiences with Latino residents. They were asked to describe the nature of their interactions with Latino residents; they were also questioned about conflict with Latinos and communication problems stemming from language barriers and their perceptions of police-Latino community relations. 3) How do community members and leaders perceive the relationship between police and Latino residents? The final objective of this study was to examine how community members and leaders view the police-Latino relationship. For example, how do citizens and community leaders categorize the current relationship between these two groups? What do citizens and community leaders believe is the greatest challenge to creating a cooperative relationship between the police department and the Latino community? Both community members and leaders from both the Anglo and Latino communities were interviewed.

Research Design To investigate the research questions, a qualitative research approach was utilized. Qualitative methods are most commonly used when the purpose of the research is to “understand the meanings which people attach to phenomena (actions, decisions, beliefs, values, etc.) within their social worlds” (Snape and Spencer 2003). Qualitative researchers are interested in how people in various settings make sense of themselves, their lives, and others (Berg 2001). In qualitative research an inductive approach is used; research begins with initial observations and then develops into general themes and patterns (Patton 2002;

Study Design

53

Schutt 1999). This contrasts with quantitative methods in which a deductive approached is used; researchers specify main variables and design hypotheses before data collection begins (Schutt 1999). Within the qualitative research framework, a case study approach was used for this study. Case Study Method A case study is a common qualitative research method that involves an in-depth investigation of a social phenomenon (Marshall and Rossman 1999; Stake 1998; Yin 1989). The defining features of a case study are that it involves multiple sources of data (e.g., interviews, field observations, records, etc.) and represents a collective picture of the phenomenon rather than an individual one (Creswell 1998; Maykut and Morehouse 1994; Stake 1998). Frequently used in the fields of medicine, psychology, business and law, “case study methods involve systematically gathering enough information about a particular person, social setting, event, or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how it operates or functions” (Berg 2001, 225). Because the methodology for this study relied on gathering multiple sources of data the case study approach was well suited for this research. In addition, although this study reports results for each individual community, the findings suggest a more comprehensive understanding of police-Latino community relations in the rural Midwest.

Site Selections Three Midwestern communities in Missouri were selected for this study: Sedalia, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Due to the construction and/or expansion of food processing plants within the last decade, each of these rural communities has experienced a substantial increase in the Latino population. Despite the growth of the Latino population, little is known about their participation in the social and economic markets in these communities. In addition, although recent census data indicates that each community has experienced a large growth of Latinos, an accurate number of Latino residents in each community is not known.

54


Sedalia, Missouri Situated 77 miles east of Kansas City in Pettis County, Sedalia, Missouri has experienced a dramatic increase in the Latino population within the last decade. According to the 2000 Census, Pettis County is one of the 15 Missouri counties with the greatest increase in the Latino population. Of Sedalia’s 20,339 residents, 5.6 percent (1,129) are Latino (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a). The “official” count, however, under represents the actual number of Latino residents. One agency official of the Pettis County Community Partnership (PCCP) explained that the Spanish language barrier makes it difficult to determine the exact number. She estimated that there are approximately 3,000 to 5,000 Latino workers residing in Sedalia. She added that a more accurate estimate should consider two to three family members for each worker. Using the conservative number of 3,000 with two family members per worker indicates that Sedalia’s Latino population is approximately 6,000. The major employer of Latino newcomers in this community is the Tyson plant which opened in mid 1980s. The PCCP official states that of the 1850 employees at the plant, 50 percent are Latino whereas the rest of the employees are comprised of whites, African Americans and a small representation of other racial/ethnic groups. Tyson Foods is the nation’s largest poultry processor and about 20 percent of its 71,000 employees are Latino (Rural Migration News 1998). In addition to Tyson, some of the Latino population residing in Sedalia commutes to neighboring rural towns for employment. For example, Rose Acres, an egg plant located near Knob Noster, an Excel plant in Marshall, and a Cargill turkey plant in California all provide job opportunities for Latinos residing in Sedalia. Knob Noster, Missouri Located 19 miles west of Sedalia in Johnson County, Missouri, Knob Noster has a population of 2,462; 15.1 percent of the residents are Latino (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a). Many Latino residents in this community are employed at Rose Acres, a local egg plant located on the outskirts of town. According to a law enforcement administrator from Knob Noster, most of the police interactions with Latino residents in this community involve ordinance violations such as driving without a valid license or lack of vehicle insurance. Recently, a Baptist church in the community that delivers sermons in Spanish held information

Study Design

55

meetings for residents on local traffic ordinances. This has helped reduce the number of traffic violations for Latino residents in this community. In addition, other community organizations such as the West Central Learning Tree-an adult literacy group-have been created to teach Spanish-speaking Latinos English and to help them assimilate into the community. When asked about interpretation assistance for police officers in Knob Noster, one law enforcement official stated that personnel from the security forces at the local air force base are paid $10.00 per hour to respond to interpret. Warrensburg, Missouri Located 50 miles east of Kansas City, Warrensburg is the county seat for Johnson County, Missouri. The 2000 Census reveals that 2.4 percent of Warrensburg’s population of 16,340 is Latino (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a). Preliminary interviews with law enforcement administrators indicated that there were not a substantial number of Latino residents in Warrensburg. Many of the Latino residents who do live in the community reside in two trailer parks located in the northern section of the town. Although Warrensburg does not have a substantial residential population of Latinos, one law enforcement official stated that many Latinos travel from surrounding communities (i.e., Sedalia and Knob Noster) to frequent shops, restaurants and businesses in the community. This, in turn, results in frequent interactions between Latinos and law enforcement patrol personnel. In addition, one county administrator stated that approximately a dozen Latinos are processed through the county correctional center monthly. When translators are needed for non-English speaking Latinos, local community volunteers are contacted.

Data Collection Data was collected from five sources: (1) law enforcement agency documents and records; (2) field observation of law enforcement patrol personnel; (3) interviews with law enforcement patrol personnel; (4) interviews with community and government leaders; and (5) focus groups with community organizations. Purposive sampling (Patton 2002) or criterion based (LeCompte and Preissle 1993) design was the sampling method for each of the data sources. “This is a strategy in which particular settings, persons, or events are selected deliberately in

56


order to provide important information that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (Maxwell 1996, 70). This type of sampling also increases the likelihood that various perspectives expressed by the study participants will be represented in the data (Maykut and Morehouse 1994). In short, the data for this research were gathered from sources that provided the best information on how the new immigration has affected police agencies in rural communities. 1) Law Enforcement Agency Documents and Records Five law enforcement agencies which consist of both municipal police and sheriffs’ departments were included in the study: Warrensburg Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff’s Department, Knob Noster Police Department, Sedalia Police Department and the Pettis County Sheriff’s Department. Documentation and records in the form of memoranda, reports, correspondence etc. are a particularly valuable component of case studies. They can provide background and detail, and knowledge about the history of the setting (Morse and Richards 2002) and can also give information about decisions, policies and practices, and other processes within an organization (Patton 2002). For example, memoranda can reflect the work atmosphere and can contain information that helps a researcher understand organizational elements such as the communications network and leadership hierarchy (Berg 2001). Finally, documentation and records can be used to corroborate and supplement information obtained from other sources (Yin 1989). All agency records that pertained to the development and/or implementation of programs or materials designed to assist policeLatino community interactions were obtained from the five law enforcement agencies. For example, records may have included evidence regarding proactive programs designed to meet the needs of the Latino community, such as: 1) providing special cultural awareness training for sworn officers; (2) establishing formal liaisons with new immigrant communities; and (3) employing sworn or non-sworn personnel for the specific purpose of maintaining liaisons with new immigrant communities. Proactive programs may be labeled by the agencies adopting them as “community policing,” “problem-solving,” or “police-community relations.” Other records may include items such as Miranda warnings; traffic ticket information and other law enforcement material translated into

Study Design

57

Spanish; documentation and/or memoranda on community programs and forums conducted with Spanish-speaking residents; and pocket translators provided for officers. All records provided by each law enforcement agency did not contain sensitive or confidential material. Newspapers and other media sources were also examined to identify public accounts on the status of police-Latino community relations. The records and documents obtained for this study were used to determine the extent to which police officers in these communities are prepared for interactions with Latino residents. For example, do police officers receive Spanish language training? Are the officers provided cultural diversity training to assist in understanding the Latino culture? What is the protocol when non-English speaking residents are arrested or ticketed? Are bilingual interpreters available to assist? 2) Field Observation Relations between the police and Latino communities and policecitizen interactions were investigated through direct observation of police patrol work in these three communities. Direct observation is a central activity in qualitative research; it enables the researcher to gain insight and perspective about events and actions that is not available through other sources of data (Marshall and Rossman 1999; Maxwell 1996). Direct observation through “ride-alongs” with patrol officers is a standard research strategy in the field (Mastrofski and Parks 1990). The method of systematic social observation (SSO) was used throughout the field observation. Often used to study subjects in a natural setting, SSO first became popular among police researchers in the 1960s and 1970s (Mastrofski et al. 1998). SSO has several features that lends itself well to observational studies of the police. First, rather than depending on interviews or verbal accounts of police activity, researchers directly observe the actions of the police in their natural environment. By conducting “ride-alongs” with police officers, observers “record events as they see and hear them and do not rely upon others to describe or interpret events” (Mastrofski et al. 1998). Second, due to the systematic recording of events in SSO, many observers (e.g., research teams) who witness these events will reach the same conclusions. For example, if a researcher notes that a complainant is “uncooperative” toward the police, the researcher defines this term so that others observing this situation would also note that the complainant was uncooperative. Mastrofski and his colleagues (1998, 2), state that

58


SSO techniques allow observers to define events that can later be used for scientific inferences: For example, suppose one wishes to measure the amount of public disturbance observed by police serving a given patrol beat. The unit of observation-what is being observed (e.g., a public disturbance)-must be defined in such a way that it can be distinguished from other kinds of events (i.e., citizens engaged in activities that are not public disturbances). Once the unit of observation is defined and distinguished from the stream of other citizen behaviors that might be observed, the researcher may begin to make decisions about how to obtain a representative sample. Finally, SSO allows researchers to reach their own conclusions about officers’ actions. In essence, the researcher does not have to depend on the officer’s account of whether he/she was disrespectful to a witness; the researcher makes this determination for him/herself (Mastrofski et al. 1998). The application of SSO in the field observations of this study allowed me to observe interactions and draw conclusions about the nature of the police-Latino community relationship. Forty-eight hours of ride-alongs were conducted in each of the three sites (six tours x eight hours). I asked to accompany two officers on each shift. Given the small size of the sheriffs’ offices and police departments in the study (10 to 30 sworn officers), I was able to ride-along and conduct interviews with most of the patrol officers and deputies in each department. Information recorded during the observation included the frequency of police-Latino contacts, officer vs. citizen-initiated contacts, the nature of the incident (e.g., law enforcement, order maintenance, service), the disposition of the incident (e.g., arrest, warning, etc.), and the contacts with majority residents vs. members of new immigrant communities. The quality of each police-citizen interaction was recorded (civil vs. non-civil), as was the nature of the citizen response (cooperation, resistance). Interactions with members of new immigrant communities were coded in terms of the presence of language and/or cultural barriers. Problems arising from these barriers were coded in terms of delay in completing the police service, officer or citizen frustration stemming from the barriers or conflict between the police and Latino citizens.

Study Design

59

3) Interviews with Law Enforcement Personnel Interviews are an essential source of data for case studies and allow researchers to gain insight on respondents’ perceptions and experiences of particular events (Yin 1989). Semistructured interview (Morse and Richards 2002; Schensul, Schensul, and LeCompte 1999) questionnaires were used to investigate respondents’ perceptions of the impact of the new immigration on police-community relations, their knowledge of and beliefs about any problems that exist, and their knowledge of any formal steps taken to alleviate such problems. Although the questionnaire for this type of interview consists of predetermined open-ended questions that are arranged in a logical order (Berg 2001; Morse and Richards 2002), both the interviewer and the respondent at their discretion can expand beyond the standardized questions (Berg 2001; Morse and Richards 2002; Schensul, Schensul, and LeCompte 1999). In the course of the police patrol observation, interviews were conducted with each of the officers. Officers were asked about their perceptions of the impact of Latino immigration on the delivery of police services, current relations with Latino citizens, and language and/or cultural barriers in the performance of their law enforcement duties. In sum, the field observations of law enforcement personnel coupled with interviews provided a comprehensive understanding of police-Latino interactions-and officers’ perceptions of these interactions-in their communities. 4) Interviews with Community and Government Leaders Community and government leaders of both the majority and immigrant communities were interviewed. Community leaders included leaders of religious organizations, business leaders, and the heads of private charitable and social service agencies. Within the immigrant communities, these individuals included identifiable religious leaders, group advocacy leaders, and leaders of other social service and community organizations. Government leaders included a mayor, city council members and chief administrator of each law enforcement agency, public school administrators and city and county administrators of health and human service agencies. Both groups of leaders were identified through newspaper and other media sources, telephone directories and the Chamber of Commerce in each community. Upon identification, I requested

60


interviews with each of the leaders. With the permission of the participants, all interviews were tape-recorded. Eight to eleven interviews were conducted in each of the three jurisdictions. 5) Focus Groups with Community Organizations Focus groups with identifiable Latino and majority community groups and their leaders were also conducted for the study. Unlike field observation and individual interviews, focus groups provide the opportunity to receive simultaneous input from several participants who represent a variety of different perspectives on a particular topic (Maykut and Morehouse 1994; Morgan 1997). As opposed to numerous time-consuming individual interviews, a primary benefit of focus groups is that they are efficient; a lot of information can be learned over a short period of time (Schensul et al. 1999). The purpose of the focus groups for this study was to determine Latino and majority citizens’ perceptions of relations with the police and possible problems and challenges, such as language and cultural barriers, which might impede these relations. Recruiting participants through public advertising was rejected because of potential selection bias. Using established organizations does pose the problem of selection bias, insofar as it tends to exclude persons who are socially isolated. Community groups were identified through newspaper and other media sources, telephone directories and the Chamber of Commerce in each community. Further, because religion plays an important role in the lives of many Latinos (Maldonado 2002; Moore and Pachon 1985) churches that conduct services in Spanish were also contacted. This provided an additional sample of Latino residents for focus group sessions. For focus groups with Latino organizations, arrangements were made to have an interpreter present; the interpreter was compensated for each focus group. There is some debate among researchers regarding the appropriate number of focus groups. Morgan (1997) suggests that three to five focus groups generally satisfies the saturation point-the extent to which conducting more focus groups does not provide any new insights and no longer generates new information. Many researchers also maintain that the number of participants in a focus group is an important consideration (Krueger and Casey 2000; Maykut and Morehouse 1994; Morgan 1997). For example, if participants do not feel involved in the

Study Design

61

discussion, or are hesitant to share their opinions among other individuals, maintaining active discussion in small groups may prove difficult (Morgan 1997). On the other hand, larger groups prevent participants from being involved in the discussion and are often difficult for the moderator to manage (Morgan 1997). Groups with no fewer than four and no greater than twelve generally ensure an effective discussion where all participants can be actively involved (Krueger and Casey 2000; Marshall and Rossman 1999; Morgan 1997; Schutt 1999). Following these suggested guidelines, I had planned to conduct three to five focus groups for each majority (Anglo) and minority (Latino) group, in each community. When I arrived at each of the sites, however, I found that there were few organizations of Latino residents from which to conduct focus groups. Therefore, 3 Latino focus groups were conducted in Knob Noster and Sedalia. With the permission of the participants, all focus groups were tape-recorded. To ensure confidentiality, participants were not asked to identify themselves. Confidentiality and Informed Consent The investigative nature of qualitative research often raises complex ethical issues (Schutt 1999). Confidentiality and anonymity of research participants, for example, are particularly important concerns. In order to assure all participants in this study of confidentiality and anonymity, officers, citizens encountered on police patrol observations, interviewees and participants in community focus groups were not identified in the study. All names of community group leaders, elected officials and civic leaders were also anonymous. No identifiers were used to associate interview or survey instruments with research participants. In the data analysis no individual names were identified. All research participants received an “Informed Consent” form that advises them that survey and interview questions are voluntary and confidential. In addition, all participants received a copy of the “Rights of Research Participants” as suggested by the University of Nebraska Internal Review Board.

Data Analysis In qualitative studies, data analysis begins in the early stages of data collection and is considered an ongoing research activity (Maykut and Morehouse 1994). This not only provides an opportunity to become

62


immediately familiar with the data, but also allows the “research design to emerge over time, suggesting the direction for subsequent data collection efforts” (Maykut and Morehouse 1994, 123). The purpose of the case study analysis is to investigate participants’ perspectives and how these perspectives translate into actions (Maxwell 1996). For this study specifically, the purpose was to determine whether rural police agencies have adapted to the recent demographic changes in their communities and the process that has led to these changes. Data collected through interviews of law enforcement patrol personnel were coded for descriptive analysis. I first transcribed all field observations, interviews and focus group data. Next, using a constant comparative method (Creswell 1998; Maykut and Morehouse 1994), this data was coded into broader themes and categories. The benefit of this method is that it allows the researcher to identify “salient themes, recurring ideas, or language, and patterns of belief that link people and settings together” (Marshall and Rossman 1999, 154). The constant comparative method was applied using the following procedures (Maykut and Morehouse 1994): 1) Through inductive category coding, recurring concepts and themes that emerge from the data will be identified and provisionally placed in broad categories. 2) As more data is collected, the continuing themes and concepts will placed in the existing categories. New categories may evolve as the data collection proceeds. 3) Propositions will be designed that interpret the meaning of the various categories. 4) The refinement of categories will be executed to provide concrete meanings of the data collection. 5) The exploration of relationships and patterns across categories will be reported as analysis for the study. It is important to note that the purpose of coding in qualitative research is not to produce a “count” of items but to link the information gathered in the data to “relationships that connect statements and events within a context into a coherent whole” (Maxwell 1996, 79). Finally, analysis of law enforcement documents and records and public documents related to police-Latino community interactions were used to supplement findings from all other data sources used in the study.

Study Design

63

One of the most frequently cited concerns in all research is the validity and the reliability of the findings generated from the study. Because there is a lack of consensus in the research community on the appropriate criteria and standards for qualitative research, reliability and validity are particularly important issues (Merriam 1998). The following discussion highlights how these issues applied to the current research. Ways to mitigate potential threats to validity and reliability are also addressed. Internal Validity Internal validity refers to how accurately research findings reflect the phenomenon being studied (Lewis and Ritchie 2003; Morse and Richards 2003). Due to the primary focus on causal or explanatory relationships between events, discussions on internal validity are traditionally found in quantitative research. As Yin (1989, 43) explains, internal validity becomes a concern for quantitative studies when researchers try to determine if event x led to event y. “If the investigator incorrectly concludes that there is a causal relationship between x and y without knowing that some third factor-z-may actually have caused y, the research design has failed to deal with some threat to internal validity.” Because case studies are not concerned with causal statements, threats to internal validity are not generally applicable (Yin 1989). In addition, unlike quantitative research where the focus is on measurement tools (i.e., survey items, test questions, etc.), in qualitative methods the researcher is the instrument (Morse and Richards 2002; Patton 2002). For case study methods in particular, the researcher often makes inferences about actions that cannot be directly observed. Therefore, threats to internal validity may apply. Investigators in case studies often “‘infer’ that a particular event resulted from earlier occurrence, based on interview and documentary evidence collected as part of the case study” (Yin 1989, 43). To mitigate threats to internal validity, triangulation was employed in this study. Triangulation first involves using multiple methods to collect information and data from a diverse range of individuals and settings (Meadows and Morse 2001; Stake 1998). Next, results from one source of data are corroborated or cross-checked with results from a different source of data (Creswell 1998; LeCompte and Schensul 1999; Schensul et al. 1999). In short, triangulation allows the investigator to increase the quality and credibility of the research

64


findings (LeCompte and Schensul 1999; Patton 2002). The use of multiple data sources (a rigorous research design) and triangulation in this study helped create a comprehensive picture of police-Latino community relations in these rural Midwestern communities. External Validity A study’s external validity or generalizability is another concern often raised in qualitative research. External validity asks whether the findings are applicable or transferable to other settings (Lewis and Ritchie 2003; Morse and Richards 2002; Schensul, Schensul, and LeCompte 1999). Critics of qualitative research argue that single cases do not provide an adequate basis for generalizing (Yin 1989). In addition, because qualitative research typically focuses on small numbers of individuals, no explicit claims that the results can be generalized to other research settings can be made (Maxwell 1996; Weiss 1994). Stake (1998, 104) argues, however, that “The purpose of the case study is not to represent the world, but to represent the case.” Berg (2001) adds that while generalizability is important, there is value in understanding one single event, setting or group. Although this study investigated rural communities in Missouri, small communities across the Midwest and the country as a whole have been affected by the combined impact of changing economic opportunities and the new immigration. Likewise, even though there may be different industries and different immigrant groups in other parts of the country, the findings related to the law enforcement response to community change here, have general applicability. Reliability Reliability refers to the degree to which research findings can be replicated (Lewis and Ritchie 2003; Merriam 1998). In other words, the assumption is that if a study is repeated with the same methods, the findings should yield the same results (Merriam 1998; Morse and Richards 2002; Yin 1989). The primary goal of reliability in qualitative research, therefore, is to reduce the possibility for errors and biases in the study (Yin 1989). Merriam (1998, 205) argues, however, that because a key feature of qualitative research is to describe the experiences and perspectives of participants, replications of the same study will not always produce the same results. “Since there are many interpretations of what is happening, there is no benchmark by which to

Study Design

65

take repeated measures and establish reliability in the traditional sense.” Although some scholars suggest that replication is not a primary issue in qualitative research, I applied two methods to enhance reliability. First, an “audit trail” was created (Meadows and Morse 2001; Merriam 1998). This account described the strategies used to collect and analyze the data, and what decisions were made throughout the study that led to the outcomes and conclusions of the research (Meadows and Morse 2001; Merriam 1998). Second, as mentioned previously, the current study involved multiple methods of data collection. Triangulation strengthened the reliability of the results by allowing me to cross-check the data. In short, this method helped mitigate the potential for error or biases in the research findings. Researcher Bias A key component of data collection for this study was field observations and interviews with patrol personnel, and law enforcement administrators. I am a former police officer from Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg and have worked with other police officers in Sedalia and Knob Noster, and sheriff’s deputies from Johnson and Pettis counties. Because I knew several of the law enforcement officers and administrators participating in the study, researcher bias was a potential concern. My familiarity with the subjects involved could have conceivably prejudiced the results. As Maxwell (1996) argues, however, qualitative research assumes that investigators will bring their own expectations and values into the study; it is therefore important that researchers understand how these expectations and values might influence the outcome and conclusions of the study (Maxwell 1996; Patton 2002). As several authors have noted, the most effective strategy to mitigate potential researcher bias is to outline the role of the investigator in the research. Gold (1958) and Junker (1960) suggest that the role of the observer can range along a spectrum that includes four roles: 1) complete participant, 2) participant as observer, 3) observer as participant, and 4) complete observer. When researchers assume the role of complete participants, they become active members of the group or phenomena they are studying. Often termed as “going native” (Creswell 1994) the purpose of this role is to “develop an insider’s view of what is happening” and experience what it feels like to be a

66


part of the participants’ lives and activities (Patton 2002). Next, researchers who become participants as observers are to some extent involved in a group’s activities, but do not fully participate in the groups’ values and goals. Third, the researcher’s role as an observer as participant, makes his/her role known to the group, and is generally sponsored by the group or phenomena under study (Junker 1960). Finally, a complete observer records actions and events as they happen without disturbing study participants (Schutt 1999). In this study, I assumed the role of observer as participant. Although I interacted closely with police officers in the study, the primary objective of this role was to observe and record events and information. In addition to defining and understanding my role as the observer, I made a concerted effort to record accurate observations that were not biased by the participants or the settings. Reactivity Reactivity or the influence of the researcher on participants or settings studied is another issue to consider in qualitative studies (Creswell 1998; Maxwell 1996; Schutt 1999). Reactivity can be problematic if the presence of the researcher affects the responses of the research participants. Maykut and Morehouse (1994) suggest that the researcher should assume that his/her presence will affect participants to some degree. They state, however, that as participants become more familiar with the researcher and his/her objectives for the study, the researcher becomes less conspicuous. The issue of reactivity was a particularly salient concern in field observations and interviews with patrol personnel in this study. Mastrofski and Parks (1990, 476) note that reactivity is a genuine concern when outsiders accompany the police. “Officers are known for their concern with secrecy and protection from misinterpretation of their actions.” In their study of police observation by researchers, however, they found that 75 percent of the officers reported they did not feel uneasy with observers debriefing them after incidents and 80 percent responded that these debriefing questions did not alter how they handled future incidents (Mastrofski and Parks 1990). As a former officer in this community I made officers aware that I was merely observing and not “critiquing” or “grading” them on their performance. This helped mitigate any effects of researcher reactivity.

Study Design

67

Reactivity was also a potential concern in interviews and focus groups with Latino residents; I am Anglo and in addition to the focus group participants, several leaders I interviewed were Latino. Weiss (1994) suggests that this may affect the quality and effectiveness of the interactions. Marin and Marin (1991) also state that unlike other racial and/or ethnic groups, researchers should expect that Latinos in particular are hesitant to participate in social science research for two primary reasons. First, many Latinos fear that personal information such as income and immigration status might be used against them. Even if they are legal immigrants, Latinos are always fearful of being stopped by INS agents and questioned about their immigration status. Second, hesitancy on the part of Latinos to participate in research may be a product of governmental actions in their native land. As Marin and Marin (1991, 43) state, suspicion of government is likely when Latino residents come from “political climates where oppressive governments make use of informers and home visits to gather compromising information to be used in surveillance, social control, or other abuses of a person’s rights.” Yet, in spite of this wariness, Latinos are generally willing and interested to participate in research and, in many situations, have agreed to participate at higher rates than Anglos (Marin and Marin 1991). At the beginning of the focus groups I advised the participants that no questions regarding demographic information or other personal information (e.g., citizenship status) would be asked. In addition, as mentioned previously, I assured all participants that their identities would remain anonymous, and their responses, confidential. Informing respondents, particularly Latino residents, of these guidelines helped mitigate any concerns regarding focus group participation.

Theoretical Perspective The theoretical framework for this study was an adaptation of the “muddling through” approach. Primarily used in the political science and public administration fields, muddling through or “incrementalism” was first coined by Charles Lindblom (1959) to explain how political leaders and public administrators implement legislative and policy changes. This perspective suggests that when political and organizational decision-makers are faced with complex policy changes, they are more likely to make small or incremental changes rather than

68


major comprehensive reforms (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). Political change in the United States, for example, is characterized by small incremental change. Although the two major political parties may agree on the fundamentals of certain issues, each party endorses slightly different changes to appeal to their respective voters (Lindblom 1959). “Both parties favor full employment, but they define it somewhat differently; both favor the development of water power resources, but in slightly different ways; and both favor unemployment compensation, but not the same level of benefits” (Lindblom 1959, 85). In short, in legislative policy-making, both parties may work to achieve the same objective. The process for reaching that objective, however, is characterized by decisions made gradually through incremental change. Braybrooke and Lindblom (1963) highlight several features of the muddling through approach that make it an ideal method for organizational administrators faced with complex policy decisions. First, when confronting a decision that requires new (and often rapid) policy-making, most administrators lack the time and resources to develop an adequate and complete understanding of the problem. These constraints often preclude administrators from implementing a policy that will address all concerns related to the issue. Initiating small incremental policy changes allows the administrator to make gradual changes when additional information is obtained. Therefore, the process of muddling through “is exploratory in that the goals of the policy-making continue to change as new experience and policy throws new light on what is desirable and possible” (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963, 71). A second benefit to the muddling through approach is that a small change that later proves to be ineffective or unpopular can be altered quickly without suffering the consequences inherent in trying to alter a drastic policy change. As Lindblom (1959, 85) states, policy-making is a process of events that continually undergo change and reconsideration until the desired goal is reached. “Policy is not made once and for all; it is made and remade endlessly.” In effect, by using the muddling through approach, administrators can continually implement and improve smaller policy changes, which ultimately lead to the solution to a given problem (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). Finally, small incremental policy changes that are implemented quickly can be more effective than drastic, less frequent changes

Study Design

69

(Lindblom 1979). Incremental change not only enables administrators to achieve policy objectives more quickly; incremental modifications do not “rock the boat” or generate as much antagonism as do radical policy changes (Lindblom, 1979, 520). In light of the benefits of the muddling through approach, Braybrooke and Lindblom (1963) point out that administrators must consider several factors before implementing this type of policymaking. For example, organizational decision-makers should not assume that exploring the effects of small policy changes can be substituted for long-term planning. Incrementalism “should not be identified simply as a strategy for attending to the short run in hope that the long run will take care of itself” (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963, 90). After implementing a small policy change, administrators must continually monitor and follow-up on the change to ensure that it is a step toward achieving the ultimate solution to the problem. Organizational decision-makers also must consider whether they have the means to achieve the incremental policy change and then must be able to see the results of the change (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). This first entails determining the cost and feasibility of the policy. If decision-makers do not have the means (e.g., fiscal resources) to effect small incremental policies, it is unrealistic to assume that they can begin working work toward larger policy goals. Second, decision-makers must be able to measure the outcome of the change. Changes in policy, “have very little meaning unless one can see just what some degree and kind of accomplishment of the objective looks like” (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963, 97). Therefore, by taking small steps toward a solution to the larger problem, decision-makers may need to spend extra time to ensure that both the means and outcome of their incrementalist approach are realistic strategies for their organizations (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). The diffusion of innovation among police agencies, for example, is one approach that law enforcement administrators may use to gauge the means and potential outcomes of incremental change. Weiss (1998) argues that police agencies engage in both formal and informal systems of information sharing which serve to disseminate new ideas in policing and provide resources for issues in police management. Formal systems rely on information that is distributed from national professional organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Police Executive Research Forum

70


(PERF). Informal systems, on the other hand, consist of a network where police planners contact other law enforcement agencies to receive information and ideas to deal with issues in their own departments. In his study of informal information sharing among police agencies, Weiss (1998) surveyed police planners in 360 organizations to examine the type, mode and frequency of contacts among law enforcement agencies. Weiss (1998) found that agency similarity and an organization’s reputation are the primary determinants of who an organization contacts. For example, as one of the spousal assault replication projects, the Milwaukee Police Department was cited as a resource for information on domestic violence programs. This author also found that approximately 40 percent of the respondents contacted another law enforcement agency at least once a month and typically used the telephone as the primary means of contact. Weiss (1998) concluded that future research should examine how this type of informal system serves as a resource in planning and research for police agencies. “This network of police planners is a significant resource for the police community, particularly to the extent that it facilitates the diffusion of new ideas” (Weiss 1998, 26). An issue not addressed by Weiss (1998), but one relevant to this study, is the extent to which small town police chief executives participate in state-level professional associations and/or informal personal relationships in their state or immediate region. Both formal and informal systems of information sharing have important relevance for small town police departments. Due to the lack of resources and/or the inability to conduct research in their own agencies (Weiss 1998), participating in a social system where ideas are communicated among its members (Rogers 1983) may serve as the most viable means of learning about new ideas for small police departments. Agencies that participate in a communications network outside of their social system or “cosmopolites” (Rogers 1983) are more likely to have established relationships with state or national professional organizations that are more likely to adopt proactive approaches to handle the impacts of immigration. “Locals” or local-oriented isolated police departments may not engage in this dissemination of information and therefore may not implement innovative policing strategies. Collaboration in the formal and informal social network of police contacts has an important impact on how small town agencies (Weiss

Study Design

71

1998) have incrementally adapted to the new influx of immigrants in their communities. By communicating formally or informally with other law enforcement organizations, these agencies may, for example, enact a small policy change such as the hiring of a liaison officer to investigate interactions between the police and Latino residents. Or perhaps, if rural police administrators are aware that the language barrier is problematic in traffic stops of drivers who do not speak English, providing “Survival Spanish” training to all of the patrol officers is an example of another small incremental change. Once these incremental policy changes are evaluated, police administrators may then create other incremental policy changes (e.g., police-Latino community programs, contacting Latino community group leaders) in an attempt to further understand how police-Latino relations can be improved. In sum, despite the fact that rural police agencies may not have the resources to enact radical or drastic changes to immediately serve the needs of the Latino community, by using the incremental approach, they can create small policies that will lead to effective police-Latino community relations. Using the case study method of qualitative research, this study will provide an in-depth analysis of the impact of the new immigration on police-Latino relations in rural Midwestern communities. In addition, the “muddling through” perspective will provide a framework for examining the policy changes, if any, that rural police agencies have implemented to respond to their changing demographic environment. The participation in the process of diffusion may serve as a key determinant in whether these agencies have implemented strategies to serve the needs of their changing communities or have resisted change and been left behind in police innovation.


CHAPTER 4

Police-Latino Community Relations

This chapter presents the case study findings regarding the ways in which the new immigration has affected police agencies in three rural Midwestern communities in Missouri: Sedalia, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Five law enforcement agencies serving these three communities were included in the study: Pettis County Sheriff’s Department, Sedalia Police Department, Knob Noster Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff’s Department and the Warrensburg Police Department. Interviews and focus groups with residents in these communities were also conducted. Five sources of data were collected for the study: (1) law enforcement agency documents and records; (2) field observation of law enforcement patrol personnel; (3) interviews with law enforcement patrol personnel; (4) interviews with community and government leaders; and (5) focus groups with community organizations. Because the groups interviewed for this study offered their own unique perspectives on police-community relationships, the findings for each group will be discussed separately.

Law Enforcement Agency Documents and Records Records and documents regarding the development and/or implementation of programs or materials designed to assist policeLatino community interactions were requested from each of the five law enforcement agencies. The purpose of this request was to determine what proactive steps, if any, these agencies have initiated to develop a relationship with the Latino community. The results indicate 73

74


that the law enforcement agencies in the study have somewhat, yet not fully, adapted to the needs of the growing Latino population in their communities. None of the law enforcement agencies had any programs that had established a formal liaison with the immigrant communities. Further, none of the agencies had employed sworn or non-sworn personnel for the specific purpose of maintaining a liaison with new immigrant communities. Despite the absence of formal programs or liaisons, however, each law enforcement agency had either some type of reference material translated in both Spanish and English or had access to bilingual material to assist in booking and processing procedures. The Sedalia Police Department, for example, had an information report in which questions were first printed in English, immediately followed by the Spanish translation. An officer from this department explained that when a non-English speaking Latino individual is placed under arrest and transported to the department, the arrestee is administered the form to complete. In the event the arrestee refuses to complete the form, or is unable to read or write, the arresting officer, a translator and/or, in some cases staff from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (who are contacted by phone) can complete the form. Information on the form includes routine booking and processing questions such as demographics, occupation, work and home addresses and phone numbers and vehicle information. This department also utilized an “Officer Bilingual Contact Form” and a Miranda warning that is printed in both English and Spanish. The Knob Noster Police Department, Warrensburg Police Department, Pettis County Sheriff’s Department and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department also had access to bilingual Miranda forms and implied consent forms used in driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests. A second means of adapting to the new immigration patterns was evident in formal officer training. The amount and consistency of the training varied, however. Interviews with patrol officers1 and law enforcement administrators revealed that most officers had received cultural diversity training either through basic academy training and/or through training required by the state of Missouri. Fewer officers in the study had attended Spanish language training. Finally, all of the law enforcement agencies had access to interpretation assistance from residents in the community. Each


75

department had a list of interpreters who could be called if needed. Most of the law enforcement agencies paid interpreters to respond. The Knob Noster Police Department and the Pettis County Sheriff’s Department paid interpreters $10.00 per hour; interpreters for the Sedalia Police Department earned $15.00 per hour. Interpreters for the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department and the Warrensburg Police Department were volunteers within the community.

Field Observations of Law Enforcement Patrol Personnel Field observations of uniformed patrol officers were conducted in August and September of 2001. The observations consisted of 48 hours of ride-alongs for each department that were divided among two eight-hour day shifts and four eight-hour night shifts. Night shifts and weekends were over sampled because of higher rates of contact with citizens during those hours (Police Executive Research Forum 1990). I requested to accompany two officers (four hours each) on each shift.2 Due to scheduling issues or department size some officers were observed more than once. A total of 48 officers were observed. At the beginning of each field observation the officer was requested not to alter his or her “routine” patrol duties because of my presence. The purpose of this request was to “avoid creating artifactual police or citizen actions in reaction to the observer’s presence” (Mastrofski and Parks 1990). All police actions were recorded, including citizen-initiated calls for service and police-initiated actions. I accompanied officers on the majority of all calls for service. Calls that did not result in police officer contact with a citizen were eliminated from the study. A total of 149 police actions were observed among all five departments. One hundred eleven of these involved officer-citizen contacts. The 111 calls represent an average of less than one call (.46) per hour and 3.7 calls per eight-hour shift. The majority of the calls observed were law enforcement related (57.7 percent). Order maintenance comprised 15.3 percent of the calls and 27 percent were service calls. As indicated in Table 4.1, none of the observed calls involved violent crime. Nonviolent crime, which included property crimes such as burglary, theft and motor vehicle theft accounted for 14.4 percent of all calls. Calls

76


involving interpersonal conflict (13.5 percent) consisted of situations such as domestic and non-domestic arguments and fights. More calls (28.8 percent) were observed in the traffic related category than any other. These included vehicle (e.g., no vehicle registration) and moving violations (e.g., speeding), traffic accidents and abandoned vehicles. Over 65 percent of these calls, however, were traffic stops for moving violations. Nuisance types of calls (10.8 percent) included incidents such as annoyance or harassment, noise disturbance, and trespassing. Suspicious persons, property and vehicles comprised 7.2 percent of all observed calls. Finally, situations involving requests for police Table 4.1 Police Service Calls by General Problem Types _________________________________________________________ Type of Problem N Percent of Total 1. Violent Crime 0 0% 2. Nonviolent Crime 16 14.4% 3. Interpersonal Conflict 15 13.5% 4. Medical Assist 1 0.9% 5. Traffic Problems 32 28.8% 6. Dependent Persons 1 0.9% 7. Public Nuisances 12 10.8% 8. Suspicious Circumstances 8 7.2% 9. Assistance 26 23.4% _________________________________________________________ assistance such as property checks, escort/transport and motorist assist accounted for the second highest proportion of calls (23.4 percent). Most of the calls (63.1 percent) were dispatched to patrol officers. Officer-initiated calls comprised 32.4 percent of the calls and 4.5 percent were citizen-initiated. These findings are consistent with Parks et al. (1999), who found that patrol generalist officers initiated 35 percent of their encounters during an eight-hour shift, compared to 60 percent of encounters initiated by community policing specialist officers. Spanish Language Barrier Calls One objective of the patrol officer field observation was to determine the frequency of police-citizen interactions where Latino residents


77

could not speak English and where no police officer could speak Spanish, thereby creating a potential language barrier in the delivery of police services. Several measures were used to determine how the Spanish language barrier affected the delivery of police services (Herbst and Walker 2001). Spanish language calls were defined as those calls in which the citizen who was the subject of the call did not speak English. Spanish language calls were then classified as “language barrier” or “non-language barrier” calls. Language barrier calls were defined as those calls where the officer could not speak Spanish and could not communicate with the citizen who was the subject of the call. Language barrier calls were then classified as “problem” and “no-problem” calls. Problem calls were defined in terms of observed delay, frustration, or conflict resulting from the calls because of the language barrier. Calls involving observed delay due to language barrier (but not other factors unrelated to language) were classified in terms of major delay or minor delay. Major delay was defined in terms of officers having to spend more than 20 minutes at a call, with the delay resulting from language problems and not some other factor. The 20-minute threshold was based on previous research indicating that officers spend an average of 20 minutes completing calls for service (Kelling et al. 1974). A minor delay was recorded if the call took 20 minutes or less with some observed delay due to language barrier. If the language barrier did not have any effect on the call completion time, it was classified as no delay. Calls involving observed frustration were classified in terms of major or minor frustration. Major frustration was defined in terms of evidence that either an officer or a citizen was extremely agitated or upset as a result of the language barrier alone. Minor frustration was defined in terms of evidence that either an officer or a citizen was irritated or mildly upset because of language problems. Conflict was defined in terms of evidence of anger and/or extreme agitation on the part of either an officer or a citizen, to the point that either the citizen or the officer used force, or I had reasonable belief that there was a potential for use of force by one side or the other. I also recorded how officers handled language barrier situations. Officer responses were categorized in terms of (1) “muddling through,” defined as using “Survival Spanish,” or (2) using outside resources, such as (a) assistance from another police officer who spoke Spanish,

78


(b) assistance from a bystander or family member who spoke Spanish, or (c) any other additional outside interpretation assistance. Of the 111 observed calls involving police-citizen encounters, four (3.6 percent) were classified as Spanish-language related incidents. One of the calls involved a suspicious person in which the contact was officer-initiated, two calls stemmed from vehicle stops which were dispatched to officers and a fourth call, which was officer-initiated, was a motorist assist: Call #1: While walking in a downtown area, the officer noticed a Latino male subject sitting on the sidewalk. The officer thought he recognized the subject as someone who was wanted by the police on an arrest warrant. The officer, who knew a little Spanish, contacted the subject and asked for identification. The subject appeared to understand the officer and produced a Tyson’s employee card. The officer read the card and asked the subject where he lived. The subject appeared confused by the question and was silent for a few moments. The subject then mentioned the name of a nearby trailer court (which was approximately half a mile away) and then proceeded to point directly across the street at a restaurant. The officer was confused by the subject’s directions and tried again to ask the subject, in Spanish, where he lived. The subject shook his head with a puzzled look on his face. Frustrated, the officer left the area. The officer later stated that he could not understand the subject and was unsure if he lived in the trailer court or perhaps behind the restaurant. Call #2: In the late evening hours, dispatch notified the officer that a citizen reported a vehicle driving on a nearby state highway without headlights. The officer stopped the vehicle. I did not accompany the officer to the vehicle. When debriefed after the stop, the officer stated the driver was Latino and could speak little English. The officer asked the driver in English if he knew why he (the driver) had been stopped. The driver stated, “No headlights.” When the officer asked the driver for identification, however, the driver seemed confused and did not respond. A young child in the back seat of the vehicle then spoke up and interpreted for the driver. No ticket was issued.


79

Call #3: Dispatch notified the officer of a report of careless and imprudent driving in a nearby trailer park area. Upon arrival, two Latino males exited a vehicle that was stopped in the middle of a roadway in the trailer park. Another officer who had previously arrived on the scene was holding a set of keys. When the officer and I arrived, both officers tried to tell the driver of the vehicle that they were taking the keys with them. They further tried to explain to the males that a licensed driver who was not intoxicated would have to come to the police department to get the keys. One of the subjects spoke to the officer in Spanish, loudly at times, but neither officer could understand. One of the officers parked the van and the keys were taken to the police department. Call #4: An officer spotted a van parked on the side of a highway with the hood up. The officer stopped to see if he could offer assistance. Three Latino males were standing by the vehicle. The officer asked one of the men (subject #1) if he could help or call a tow truck. Subject #1 looked at the officer with a confused looked on his face. Not knowing Spanish, the officer again repeated his question in English. After a few minutes, another man spoke in Spanish to subject #1 who then shook his head and stated, “No.” The officer then left the scene. None of the calls involved a major delay because of the language barrier. Three of the four calls involved a minor delay. Yet, the delay was only a couple of minutes and did not significantly affect the outcome of the call. As indicated above, officers in calls #1 and #3, attempted to communicate or “muddle through” with the non-English speaking Latinos without any outside assistance. Officers in calls #2 and #4, however, received assistance from other persons at the scene.

Law Enforcement Patrol Personnel Interviews Interviews with each of the 48 patrol officers (Warrensburg Police Department, n=13, Johnson County Sheriff’s Department, n=8, Knob Noster Police Department, n=7, Sedalia Police Department, n=11, Pettis County Sheriff’s Department, n=9) in the study were conducted during ride-alongs (see Appendix A). The first section of the interview instrument requested demographic information about the officers. As

80


Table 4.2 demonstrates, most of the officers in the study were male (91.7 percent) and 8.3 percent were females. Regarding the racial/ethnic makeup of officers, 85 percent were white, African American and Latino officers each comprised 4.2 percent of the sample, and three officers (6.3 percent) were Native American. There were 17 (35.4 percent) officers in each of the age 21-30 and 31-40 Table 4.2 Patrol Officer Demographics _________________________________________________________ Sex Male Female

N 44 4

Percent 91.7% 8.3%

Race/Ethnicity White African American Latino Native American

41 2 2 3

85.4% 4.2% 4.2% 6.3%

Age 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

17 17 10 4

35.4% 35.4% 20.8% 8.3%

Rank Patrol Officer/Deputy Sheriff Corporal Sergeant

36 6 6

75.0% 12.5% 12.5%

Years Employed less than 1 year 5 10.4% 1-5 years 26 54.2% 6-10 years 6 12.5% 11-15 years 5 10.4% more than 15 years 6 12.5% _________________________________________________________


81

categories. Ten (20.8 percent) officers were ages 41-50 and four (8.3 percent) officers were in the 51-60 age category. Most of the officers (75.0 percent) in the study held a patrol officer /deputy sheriff position. Six (12.5 percent) of the officers were corporals, and another six (12.5 percent) were sergeants. Five (10.4 percent) of the officers interviewed had been employed in their respective departments for less than one year. More than half (54.2 percent) of the officers in the study had been on the department from one to five years. Six (12.5 percent) of the officers had been employed on the department for six to ten years, five (10.4 percent) for 11 to 15 years and six (12.5 percent) had been on the department for more than 15 years. Police-Latino Interactions The second section of the patrol officer interview instrument was designed to determine the frequency of interactions with Latino residents, the presence of language barriers in police-citizen encounters, and the availability of interpreters to assist with translation, if needed. As shown in Table 4.3, there was a wide variation among officers regarding their contact with Latino citizens. Although ten (20.8 percent) officers stated that they rarely had contact with Latino citizens, 12 (25.0 percent) indicated that they had contact with Latino citizens approximately once a week. Fourteen (29.2 percent) officers reported that they had contact more than once a week. Seven (14.6 percent) officers stated they had daily contact with Latino citizens. Five (10.4 percent) officers in the study stated that their contact with Latinos occurred in “spurts.” For example, a couple of officers explained that they might have few contacts with Latinos during an extended amount of time and then several contacts in a short time period. As one officer stated, “It comes in bunches . . . it will happen once a month and then half a dozen times the next month.” Another officer similarly stated, “Sometimes you have contact three or four times a week and then not have contact at all for the next two weeks.” Other officers responded that they might have contacts during the weekend nights (when there are more calls for service) but little, if any, contact during the weekdays. Officers were next asked about the frequency of communication problems due to language when they encountered Latino residents.

82


Table 4.3 Frequency of Officer Contact with Latinos _________________________________________________________ Frequency N Percent Rarely 10 20.8% Once a week 12 25.0% More than once a week 14 29.2% Daily 7 14.6% “Spurts” 5 10.4% _________________________________________________________ Eighteen (37.5 percent) of the officers responded that they sometimes have difficulty communicating because of the language barrier. Ten (20.8 percent) stated they often had communication problems. Twenty (41.7 percent) stated they had problems most of the time (see Table 4.4). Some officers believed that on occasion, to avoid punishment (e.g., tickets, arrests, etc.) Latinos pretended not to speak or understand English when contacted by the police. As one officer stated, “If they perceive that you’re there to deal with them related to police powers, then they can’t speak English.” Other officers stated that when first contacted by the police, Latinos would pretend not to speak English. Table 4.4 Frequency of Officer-Latino Contacts with Language Barriers _________________________________________________________ Frequency N Percent Sometimes 18 37.5% Often 10 20.8% Most of the time 20 41.7% _________________________________________________________ When they realized they were not subject to an enforcement action (i.e., arrest), however, they would begin speaking in English. One officer believed that when this occurred, “they know what you’re getting at and they ‘hable’ English. There are some that don’t understand. But for the most part I think most of them understand.” Other officers


83

expressed similar feelings such as one sergeant who stated, “All of the officers get the feeling that they can speak English until officers contact them.” Intepretation Assistance To determine the presence of interpretation services, officers were asked about the availability of translators in a police-Latino language barrier encounter. As noted earlier, all of the law enforcement agencies in the study had access to interpreters via police departments’ lists. Although all of the officers were aware of this access, many expressed concern about the convenience of contacting interpreters, particularly on the night shift. “On the midnight shift it’s kind of hard to get people sometimes,” one officer observed. “A lot of times they won’t answer the phone when they’re called to interpret.” Another officer similarly stated, “There is [sic] two or three (translators) but just like anyone else, when we call them in the middle of the night, they don’t want to come out.” When interpreters responded, officers indicated that they would briefly explain the situation to the interpreters and tell them what information they needed. Officers would then ask questions and have them interpreted. Although the majority of officers expressed their appreciation for interpretation assistance from community members, some were concerned specifically about the veracity of the interpretation. On more than one occasion officers encountered situations where they believed the interpreter did not directly interpreter the officers’ words. An officer explained that in one case, an interpreter told the Latino subject (in Spanish), who was under arrest, that he had been wrongly accused and that he shouldn’t tolerate this mistreatment by the police. “So instead of translating, the interpreter was having a conversation with the Latino and essentially acting as his attorney.” When the officer suspected that the interpreter was not directly translating, he confronted him and asked what he told the Latino. The interpreter responded, “nothing.” The Latino subject, who could speak some English, later recounted the interpreter’s conversation with the officer. On occasion, some sheriffs’ deputies stated that Latino inmates might be used to interpret in booking procedures. They were clearly hesitant, however, to rely on inmates for interpretation. “For one, you don’t know what they’re in for,” one deputy explained. “You don’t know whether they are telling them what I want them to. I mean, they

84


may be telling them something off the wall, and I have no idea what they’re saying.” Other officers were similarly suspicious if it appeared that an interpreter communicated with the subject longer than they believed the question required: With an interpreter you have them ask a question and then they are talking for three minutes! That’s the thing that bothers me with interpreters, is I never know what’s going on…what they’re saying to the Latino. It is hard to find interpreters you trust. Aside from the department-paid interpreters, some officers mentioned others who might help interpret when needed. Occasionally, spouses of officers who spoke Spanish were called to interpret, typically over the phone. When serving court papers to non-English speaking Latinos, one deputy explained that he would also call interpreters on the phone and have them speak directly to the individual being subpoenaed. Other officers stated that because many of the school-aged Latino children in their communities were bilingual, they occasionally might use them to interpret for their parents or other family members. Officers were concerned, however, about using children as interpreters. “Kids generally do the translating for us,” one officer explained. “And we don’t like to do that because there is a lot of stuff that kids shouldn’t be involved in. But sometimes we don’t have a choice. I mean we’re talking about eight and nine-year old kids.” Several officers also mentioned that friends and/or family members at the scene would often volunteer to interpret if needed or would interpret upon officer request. Contacting the INS by phone to interpret was a common response among many officers working for the Sedalia Police Department and the Pettis County Sheriff’s Department. “We call INS all the time,” a Sedalia officer stated. “If they (officers) can’t communicate with them then INS will speak to the subject and then tell the officer what was said-essentially serve as a translator.” Though less frequent, some officers at the Knob Noster Police Department had contacted INS for interpretation assistance. Officers at this agency stated they also might contact front gate personnel at Whiteman Air Force Base for assistance if necessary. Finally, officers at the Sedalia Police Department explained that because their Chief had a moderate Spanish language proficiency, he was occasionally asked to assist.


85

Officers were next asked how they handled situations when interpretation assistance was needed, but unavailable. Fourteen (29.2 percent) officers stated that they had never encountered this type of situation and explained that if they could not handle the call on their own, there was usually someone available to interpret. This was typically an interpreter who was called by the police department, or someone (friend, family member, etc.) at the scene. Most officers (70.8 percent) stated they had experienced situations where an interpreter was unable to respond and assist. These officers were subsequently asked to describe the encounter and the action they took to remedy or handle the language barrier situation. A stop for a traffic offense, particularly DWI, was the most commonly mentioned situation. Several officers explained that they could communicate well enough with a non-English speaking Latino driver to perhaps conduct preliminary field sobriety tests (FSTs) to determine whether the driver was intoxicated. Once the DWI suspect was arrested and transported to the department, however, officers explained that trying to complete the AIR (alcohol influence report) and other booking forms-documents that require in-depth questioning-and conduct a BAC (blood alcohol content) test was a major hurdle. In these situations, officers typically requested interpreters to assist them at their police departments. Yet, many officers recounted DWI situations where an interpreter was not available and they simply had to release the driver without any further action. Officers explained that in the presence of a language barrier on a vehicle stop, and without the assistance of an interpreter, they attempted to use other methods to communicate. First, some officers explained that they would “stumble through” or “muddle through” by using a combination of speaking slowly and using hand signals such as the gesture of “slowing down” (by raising their hands and then lowering them) or “stopping” (by putting their hands up). Other officers stated they might point to the speedometer on the driver’s vehicle to indicate the reason for the stop. When asking for drivers’ licenses one officer stated he would take out his own license and point to it, whereas another would frame his fingers in the shape of a card and then make the motion of driving a car. “Between talking and sign language,” he said, “you just kind of get through.” Second, officers might find the phrase or question they wanted to communicate to the driver in some type of translation device (e.g.,

86


Speedy Spanish book) and then point to it so the driver could read it. Similarly, if officers believed that they could at least communicate to the subject that they needed his/her name, date of birth, etc. they would have the individual write down the information. Finally, if the nonEnglish speaking Latino was arrested and/or issued a summons that required a court appearance, some officers indicated that they might tell the Latino to “take this to an interpreter,” point to the date on the summons, and then point out the location of the courthouse in which the subject was to appear. One officer explained he did this because he believed the large number of Latinos arrested for “failure to appear” warrants for their court dates was due to not understanding the court process. “I’m tired of arresting Hispanics for FTAs (failure to appear) when they just didn’t know they were supposed to appear for court or pay a fine.” As noted earlier, all of the law enforcement agencies in the study had made efforts to provide officers with access to bilingual booking forms and Miranda warnings. But as several officers pointed out, even if they could read the questions to the subject in Spanish, they were not necessarily going to understand Spanish responses. “It is easy to get someone arrested,” one officer commented. “It is even easy to process someone in most cases because the forms are translated. But the problem is, what good is having the forms translated if I am not going to understand their response?” Although officers sometimes attempted to complete the booking process with translated forms, they indicated that they were more comfortable calling a translator for assistance. Officer Training Interviews with officers confirmed that their respective police departments did not have any programs that had established a formal liaison with the immigrant communities, and had not employed sworn or non-sworn personnel for the specific purpose of maintaining a liaison with new immigrant communities. Although not in house, most of the officers commented on training that they or other officers had attended, which addressed interactions with non-English speaking Latinos. The most common type of training officers had attended was a class on cultural diversity. Many officers mentioned that they had attended a cultural diversity class at the police academy and/or had recently attended classes to fulfill the Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training Program (P.O.S.T.) requirements. 3


87

Fewer officers in the study stated they had attended some form of Spanish language class, or what many referred to as “Survival Spanish.”4 Survival Spanish is typically an eight-to-16 hour Spanish language course that is designed to teach officers certain phrases that are applicable to most law enforcement situations. Officers are taught, for example, how to ask someone in Spanish their name, address, telephone number and other necessary administrative information. Officers are also taught commands in Spanish such as “stop,” “put your hands up” and “get out of the car,” how to conduct traffic stops, and obtain basic information. Several officers who attended cultural diversity and/or language classes questioned their helpfulness and utility in interacting with nonEnglish speaking Latinos. Most of the officers who had attended Survival Spanish stated that in some cases, the instructors merely read the Spanish phrases to them. Others argued that they could not be expected to learn enough Spanish in such a short period of time to comfortably interact with Latinos. “The problem with the language stuff is that they try and give a day or two class and expect that you are just going to learn it,” one officer explained. “Language isn’t something that you pick up in a day or two. It’s a long term proposition.” Only one officer in the study who attended Survival Spanish a few years earlier found the class helpful. This officer explained that he selected Spanish phrases from the class that he would use most often and still practices them when he has the opportunity. Several officers who had not received language training expressed an interest in attending a class. But, due to the lack of departmental resources and personnel to cover all of the shifts, they were unable to attend. According to a couple of officers: That’s just part of small government but I guess we have to start somewhere. I think we should have a class that is funded by the federal government. I just try and educate myself because I don’t want to wait around for them (the department) to do anything. I think there is always a responsibility to keep the officer well trained. The least they could do is keep you current on training and stuff that is happening in society.

88

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration If I was an administrator I would be concerned about how much cost is involved, and the amount of hours and resources it takes to get every officer trained.

Given the lack of department resources to send officers to language classes, one officer suggested that police agencies could call on community members to help create in-service training. This type of training, he suggested, “would benefit the officers and the citizens immensely. I would think there are both white Spanish-speaking and Hispanic English-speaking citizens who would love to serve the community in that capacity if asked.” Improving Officer-Latino Interactions: Department Assistance When asked how their departments could help improve officer interactions with the Latino community, more than half of the officers (56.2 percent) stated that because communication is such an integral part of police work they would like to receive Spanish language (i.e., Survival Spanish) and cultural diversity training (see Table 4.5). Some of the officers who advocated more training argued that their departments had an important responsibility to train officers and provide them with the necessary skills to interact with the Latino community. Moreover, they suggested that because officers were not equipped with Spanish language skills, the Latino population was not Table 4.5 Patrol Officer Perceptions of Ways Departments Can Improve Police-Latino Interactions* ________________________________________________________ Improvement N Percent of Total Training (language, cultural diversity) 27 56.2% Increased Interpreter Availability 10 20.8% Hire Bilingual Officers 9 18.7% Dual Responsibility of Latino Community 6 12.5% Nothing 5 10.4% _________________________________________________________ *some officers suggested more than one improvement


89

receiving the same type of police service afforded to English-speaking communities: The bottom line is we’re dealing with people first and foremost and we need to be training our people. We spend money on computers and stuff but we need to be spending money on training for officers. The elected officials and command level officers have a huge responsibility to the community as a whole and the Spanish speaking community in part that they receive the same type of service when the police are summoned. When we expect officers to deliver professional service we give them extensive training before they go out on the street. So why should they not give us sufficient training to deal with the Hispanic community? Like it or not, they’re a community and they deserve to be served just like anyone else. As long as they’re part of the community I serve, I gotta be able to talk to them. Something should be done. If we are going to give the same type of service that we give to the whites and the blacks then the language barrier has to be broken. Instead of optional post-academy training, some officers stated that language training should be required in the basic police academy. If this were to occur, all officers would receive the training and departmental concerns about spending extra resources and maintaining appropriate personnel levels would be minimized. Some officers questioned their need to attend Spanish classes and generally believed that if Latinos choose to live in the United States, they should be responsible for learning English. “I think they (officers) have the attitude that ‘if they are here in my damn country they should learn English,’” asserted one officer. “I think that keeps them from wanting to take Survival Spanish and learn it.” Officers who shared

90


this attitude generally noted that if they went to live in a non-English speaking country, they would make the effort to try and learn the language. Other officers similarly commented that they or other patrol personnel would resist attending language and cultural diversity classes: To a certain extent, I think language training is more of a hindrance than a help. If you don’t use it, you lose it. I would much rather have an interpreter respond than try and use a few words in Spanish and get myself into trouble. Even if they made it (language training) available, officers would say, ‘I have enough stuff to do.’ Officers would think it was a burden…it all comes back to attitude. These officers suggested that departments should send officers who are interested in training and would have a propensity to apply what they’ve learned to interact with the Latino community. Ten of the officers in the study (20.8 percent) recommended improved access and availability of interpretation services. They suggested that the departments obtain more interpreters on department contact lists and create an on-call list so that there is greater coverage and interpretation availability for all shifts. Other officers (18.7 percent) suggested that their departments hire bilingual officers so that there would be at least one officer on each shift who could interpret if needed. In addition, they suggested that a bilingual officer could also serve as a liaison between the police department and the Latino community. Most of the officers interviewed in this study were not aware of any departmental efforts to seek out potential bilingual applicants. The inability of the departments to hire and retain any officers regardless of whether they possessed a foreign language skill appeared to be a higher priority. Officers cited the low salary as the reason for the inability to attract potential applicants. “I think right now, they’re looking for someone who is going to stick around,” explained one officer. Another officer stated, “They just want warm bodies at this point. Hiring a bilingual officer is really not an option.” Many officers stated that most potential applicants in the Central Missouri area would choose to go to a larger department in more urban


91

areas than smaller agencies in rural places. According to a sergeant, “We can’t hope to compete with places like Kansas City, Columbia and Springfield…we don’t have the ability to attract others. We don’t have the money coming in to have the salaries comparable to the big cities.” In a similar vein, officers who thought their departments were attempting to recruit bilingual officers also cited lack of incentive pay for language skills. In other words, officers did not think their smaller departments could compete with larger police agencies that could provide more pay for officers with Spanish language proficiency. As one officer explained, “People like that are going to large departments where they are going to get paid a lot more. Our department doesn’t pay enough let alone pay for someone who has that skill.” Six (12.5 percent) officers argued that the effort to improve interactions with the Latino community should not be merely the law enforcement agency’s responsibility but one that is also shared by the Latino community. As one officer explained, “It’s a dual responsibility. They (Hispanics) should go out and seek assistance in English and should learn what officers want from them.” Another officer similarly stated: I believe it works both ways. If they come to our country then they should try and learn our language. I really feel bad because they don’t understand. But I also get aggravated because they sometimes act like they don’t understand English when they really do. Finally, five (10.4 percent) officers interviewed for this study did not believe that there was a need for more departmental efforts to improve police and Latino interactions. A patrol sergeant stated that he did not believe there were any major problems with Latinos at the time, but that, “it’s kind of like the weather, it could change all of a sudden.” Other officers similarly believed that their departments were trying to the best of their ability to address all of the problems (i.e., language barrier, officer training, etc.) that might affect their interactions with the non-English speaking Latino community. Police-Community Relations The remainder of the patrol officer interview instrument focused on the officers’ perceptions of their relationship with the entire community,

92


followed by a more specific focus on police-Latino community relations. This included questions pertaining to language barrier issues and challenges to creating a working relationship between the police and Latino community. Most officers perceived the relationship between the police and the entire community as positive and supportive. Many of these officers explained that it was not uncommon for them to receive commendations from their departments (stemming from citizen appreciation) and thank you cards from the community residents. Several reasons were offered for the positive relationship. First, officers were “highly visible” in their small communities. Therefore, citizens had the opportunity to interact with and personally get to know individual officers. Second, officers participated in off-duty activities in the community such as the local Special Olympics, youth sports and charitable events. This not only provided additional officer exposure to the public but signaled to residents that officers had a vested interest in their communities. One officer explained, “I see a bond between the community and the police department because of the officers. They care and show compassion . . . the officers care about the community.” Third, some officers stated that their departments have made continual efforts to make proactive contacts and establish a positive rapport with community residents. As one officer from the Knob Noster Police Department stated, “I think for the most part, people are confident in us and see us as a competent police department. In the general majority, we have a good rapport . . . I think it’s because a lot of officers use community policing techniques, and stop and talk to people.” The relationship with the public, according to several officers in each community, has improved only within the last several years. Most of the respondents attributed this former negative image to officers’ lack of respect for the public, use of excessive force to accomplish their goals and unprofessional attitudes. According to these officers: I think law enforcement is still overcoming yesteryear attitudes of officers not treating the public that good. And I think part of that is just hiring good people. There are still people here and throughout the country that still think police are similar to what they were in the past. We can win them over one contact at a time.


93

The time I was hired to be an officer was a transition time. Police were large husky males whose competence was to get into fights. I don’t think seeking intelligent officers was a major priority. Shortly after I was hired, there was a movement that police officers needed to be able to look at all sides of the problem but be ready for physical force if needed. The emphasis was being able to move away from fists to words. Now I think the police are professional but the public still sees us as blue collar and that attributes still to the low pay. I think one of the things that has helped our image is that the old timer officers have left who had the idea of ‘beat them bloody and let them lay’. Other officers similarly believed that the traditional “good ole’ boys” image of law enforcement in their departments was disappearing. Therefore, citizens were beginning to view them as competent and professional rather than as brutal and inept. A few officers believed that some community residents had a negative opinion of the police. Some officers stated that residents who had regular contact with the police for law enforcement matters (citations, arrests, searches, etc.) viewed the police more negatively than those who had little contact. In Warrensburg, for example, both city police officers and Johnson County Sheriff’s deputies had frequent contact with college students on a two-block stretch of Pine Street that has several bars and restaurants. Because these contacts routinely involved alcohol enforcement (minors in possession of alcohol, DWI), the officers believed that college students had a more negative view of law enforcement than non-college students. Several officers from all departments believed that the African American communities they served had less than positive attitudes toward the police. Officers in the Sedalia Police Department, for example, stated that members of the African American community did not believe that the police were serving their needs, yet they refused to assist in a recent death investigation. One sergeant from this department explained, “For quite some time we’ve had statements from the black community on the North side that we’re not doing anything. We recently just had a homicide of a black drug dealer and they didn’t

94


want to help us with that.” Officers from the other law enforcement agencies also stated that the relationship with the African American community was characterized by conflict and mistrust. Some officers attributed residents’ negative opinions of their departments, to the behavior and attitudes of individual officers. As one officer stated, “I think we have a good relationship with the public . . . there are some officers that don’t have a good relationship because of their demeanor, the way they act.” Another officer stated, “Some officers become ‘cold’ towards the public . . . it just depends on the officer.” Other officers suggested that the negative views reflected the fact that not all officers lived in the communities they policed; they stated that those who lived and worked in the same communities were more concerned about creating and maintaining positive interactions with the public. As one officer explained, “I feel like this is my town, this is my community. I arrest someone on Friday, they bond out on Saturday, and then I stand behind them in line at the IGA.” A few officers in each of the departments were well known for either receiving citizen complaints or generating negative opinions of their departments. Finally, several deputies suggested that their departments’ lack of personnel and resources occasionally led to negative feedback from county residents. It was not uncommon for relatively few deputies to be responsible for calls for service and general patrol duties for their entire county on a busy weekend night. As a result, they were unable to quickly respond to all calls for service. As one deputy explained, “Sometimes when I get there on a call they are upset that it took me so long to get there…they don’t understand that there are only two deputies on duty.” Another deputy similarly stated, “If someone isn’t happy, it’s because of budgetary restraints. For example, tonight we have three guys on . . . it’s Saturday night and we have 720 square miles to cover. Overall the community is pretty happy with what we have but it could be better with more resources.” Deputies believed that residents who had recently moved to their counties from municipalities where they were accustomed to faster police response were more likely to complain. Once they learned that it might take longer for county deputies to respond to calls, however, deputies believed that residents became more understanding of time constraints.


95

Police-Latino Community Relations The majority of officers interviewed perceived that their relationship with the whole community was positive. Yet, there was wide variation in their views of the relationship with the Latino community. As indicated in the following discussion, officers believed that several challenges and barriers impeded the development of a cooperative police-Latino community relationship. Most of the officers believed that fear and distrust of the police was one of the greatest (if not the greatest), challenges to creating a relationship with the Latino community. They suggested that this perception stemmed from several factors. First, some officers believed that Latinos had experienced police brutality and corruption in their native countries. Therefore, when Latinos came to the United States, they transmitted that suspicion and fear to police in this country. As one officer stated, “There is a huge fear of the police. The Hispanics have a very different view of the police than what the American public has and many times it is a fearful view. When I come out in my uniform with a smile they may be fearful because they’re not sure what I’m going to do.” Officers believed that as a result, few Latinos initiated contact with the police. “They pretty much stick to themselves,” one officer stated. “They’re scared to death of any law enforcement, probably because of the treatment by the Mexican Federal Police.” Officers felt that if they could communicate with the Latino community then they could assure them that policing in this country is different from Latin American countries. As one officer stated, “I would like to be able to communicate with them and let them know that we are not going to beat the shit out of them.” Another deputy similarly believed that Latinos’ fearful image of law enforcement affects calling the police for assistance and makes interacting with the police problematic: The Mexican community have instilled in the young people that they are to fear police officers. They intimidate their kids by telling them that the police are going to do bad things to them, and maybe it’s because of the way they were treated by the police in their own country. When you drive by a group of four or five, they just give you a stare, like they don’t trust you. And when you try to question them as witnesses it’s kind of like us against them.

96


A few officers reported that they had experienced vehicle stops where Latino drivers offered them money to prevent being ticketed, which they attributed to the fact that Latinos were accustomed to bribing police officers in their native countries. “Their police departments are so corrupt and because they are such a monetary society, they will hand me money with their driver’s license,” one officer stated. “And I don’t mean $20. They would empty everything in their pockets.” As another officer explained, “I have had other officers tell me that they have been slipped $50 under their (Latinos) driver’s license or glued to their driver’s license. When they ask about the money, the Hispanics say, ‘well you know, I am taking care of the ticket.’” Officers believed that a second factor affecting their relationship with the Latino community was the perception that Latinos who were not legal in this country would be deported if their immigration status were revealed. As one officer explained, “They think if they call us that we have INS on the ringer and are going to call them and come and get them in mass quantities.” As noted earlier, INS was considered a useful resource for interpretation assistance. In cases where it was determined that a Latino individual did not have legal status, however, many officers voiced frustration over the lack of INS response. Several officers mentioned that they had heard either informally through training they had attended, or from the INS agents themselves, that if an undocumented individual was arrested, INS would respond only if the crime was a serious felony. INS informed them that otherwise, they would respond once the suspect had been processed through the criminal justice system and had completed his/her sentence. Similar to the following incident, officers recounted several situations where they had arrested Latinos who were not legal and contacted INS only to be told to release them: A few years ago, an officer stopped a van on Highway 50 that had several Hispanics in it. There was no one to help translate, none of the occupants of the van could speak English and none of them were legal. I had dispatch call INS and ask them what we should do with the occupants. INS told us if they hadn’t committed any crime then we should let them go. So we got all of them out of the van-there was about 13 people, only two of them were women-lined them up and took


97

pictures of them on the side of the highway. When we searched the van we found an additional four to five Hispanics hiding in the back of the van on the floorboard. We didn’t really have any problems with them…we couldn’t communicate with them and had no idea what else to do, so we just let them go. Because INS had informally (and in some cases, formally) made it known that they would not respond, several officers believed that undocumented Latinos could commit any crime and not receive additional penalties for their non-legal status. As one officer stated, “Generally it works to their advantage. Even though they come to our country they are protected under our laws and yet they don’t have to abide by our laws. As long as they haven’t killed anybody, they are perfectly safe. No one will ever deport them.” Several officers felt that regardless of the INS response, Latinos who were living in the United States should be legal citizens. “I don’t care if they’re here to work and I don’t care if they don’t speak English,” one officer explained, “I just think they should be here legally.” Another officer similarly stated, “My family came from Norway to the U.S., but they came legally. I don’t have a problem with Hispanics coming into the United States, but why can’t they come legally?” There did not appear to be any law enforcement effort to detain Latinos who did not have any immigration status, in this study. It was not clear, however, if officers did not detain illegal immigrants because they did not believe it was a priority or because they were already aware that INS would not respond. Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship The officers interviewed for this study were asked to identify the most important barrier to creating a cooperative relationship between the police and the Latino community. As shown in Table 4.6, 85 percent of the officers cited communication problems due to language. Other barriers mentioned by the officers were driving offenses, the use of fake identifications, domestic violence and the perceived close-knit nature of the Latino community. Officers perceived that the language barrier not affected verbal communication, but had a direct impact on their police duties and responsibilities as well. First, the language barrier caused a substantial

98


time delay in completing calls for service, traffic stops, arrest booking procedures, etc. Officers estimated that, in general, it took at least twice as much time to complete a call with a non-English speaking Latino (with whom they could not communicate) than with a person who spoke English. Table 4.6 Patrol Officer Perceptions of Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship* _________________________________________________________ Barriers N Percent of Total 1. Language 41 85.4% 2. Driving Offenses 26 54.1% 3. Fake I.D.s 13 27.0% 4. Domestic Violence 12 25.0% 6. Close-Knit Community 16 33.3% _________________________________________________________ *some officers cited more than one barrier In the event of an arrest, for example, time delay factors could include language difficulties in the initial contact, attempting to explain the reason for the arrest, and contacting an interpreter to help complete the booking forms and to explain to the suspect why he/she has been arrested, where to appear in court, and how to post bond. Some officers explained how the language barrier affected their time: A normal DWI stop will take you two hours. If you have a non-English speaking Hispanic it may take you five to six hours. No matter if they are a reporting party, a victim, a suspect, or someone with a medical assist…the contact with the person could double in time due to the language barrier…especially if the person is excited. When they get to speaking Spanish so fast, there is no way in the world to understand them. A lot of times when I walk up to a vehicle and see that the driver is Hispanic, I will say to myself, ‘oh no’ because I know I am going to be tied up for a while.


99

I go to someone’s house and ask them what happened . . . it takes me three times as long to figure out what is happening when I could have asked you that question immediately. A second impact of the language barrier, according to officers, was that for traffic stops in particular, non-English speaking Latinos were treated more leniently than persons who could speak English. That is, had the driver been able to speak English the outcome of the traffic stop would have been different. Some officers stated that they would release the suspect without further investigation if they could not communicate with the Latino driver, and a translator was not available: After 10-15 minutes, when you can’t get a hold of anyone to interpret, it’s wrong, but I just say go home. I have cut people loose that I wouldn’t normally have. A lot of times I have seen other times I have seen other officers let a Hispanic go because of the language barrier when I thought they should have arrested them. Sometimes I am just stuck on traffic situations . . .when I just have to let them go and I don’t know if I have just let a felon go or not. In a related type of leniency, officers indicated that if they did not think the Latino individual would understand how to dispose of a traffic ticket (i.e., appear in court, pay a fine, etc.), they would not issue one. For example, one officer described responding to a possible DWI accident in which a Latino male had wrecked his vehicle approximately three feet off the roadway: I was trying to determine if he was drunk or not. I was trying to tell him that I was getting an interpreter to come. I finally went through the car and found a phone number. I called him and was able to communicate enough with him to have him come pick up the DWI suspect. He (the suspect) probably would have blown above the legal limit…anybody else probably would have arrested him.

100


When asked why he did not arrest the DWI suspect, the officer stated that he did not believe the suspect would understand the charges. “I want everyone to know what they’re being charged with and for them to understand what is going on.” The officer added that he would “just as soon let them go” than to arrest someone who did not understand the criminal justice process. Another officer described a similar encounter involving a traffic stop for speeding in which the Latino driver spoke very little English and had only a driver’s license from Mexico. The officer explained that he had planned to write the driver a speeding ticket and spent an additional 15-20 minutes trying to explain the ticket in what little Spanish he knew. Finally, the officer let the driver go without a ticket. “I don’t know enough Spanish to explain anything to anyone…I could not write it and feel comfortable in explaining it.” A third officer stated that he did not ticket a Latino driver who had failed to obey a “yield” sign. “Because you can’t get all of the information, you don’t want to write them up if they don’t know what the signs meant.” This officer added that unlike white or African American drivers, “you might give Hispanics more breaks.” The language barrier also affected general officer performance. Officers explained that in some situations, they or other officers avoided or tried to minimize contact with non-English speaking Latinos. Because officers were afraid that the driver would not speak English, intentionally failing to stop a visibly Latino driver who had committed a traffic violation was a common occurrence: I know there are times when I am tired and have had a bad day and I see a Hispanic commit a traffic violation and I think ‘Oh I am not going to be able to communicate with them anyway.’ Whereas with someone white, I would pull them over. Personally, if I see a van with Hispanics, I will turn around and go the other way. You’ll see a car (with a Hispanic driver) that is stoppable and if it is close to the end of your shift I am not going to stop them because I know that it is going to take forever because of the language barrier. I have stopped cars where the driver is totally drunk and I will make them walk just so I don’t have to go through with towing their car, etc.


101

Some officers asserted that the language barrier would not prevent them from stopping the vehicle. They noted that the nature of these contacts was traditionally brief, and that they were comfortable enough with their Spanish language ability to make simple requests such as producing a driver’s license or insurance card and to inquire about the ownership of the vehicle. Other commands in Spanish such as “get out of the vehicle” or “put your hands up” were also well known among many officers. These officers explained, however, that any type of interviewing beyond simple requests would require an interpreter. Therefore, they would not attempt to have an in-depth conversation that might lead to probable cause to question further, search the vehicle, or perform any extra investigative functions: On a traffic stop, I know enough to get me through. But on medicals, domestics, etc. my Spanish is so weak that it gets to be a problem. I know enough to hack my way through a call, but when it comes to really in depth like warrants, posting bond, etc., I call for a translator. To a degree because of the language barrier it could tie you up for hours. I think some officers would cut an investigation short because of the language barrier and because they just don’t want to jack with it. In short, the routine procedures of a traffic stop with an Englishspeaking driver would be substantially abbreviated with a non-English speaking Latino driver. Further, as discussed previously, officers in these situations were less likely to issue tickets or make arrests because of the language barrier. A few officers stated that they or other officers avoided other types of contact where a potential language barrier might arise. This included not driving through areas or neighborhoods where Latinos lived, and trying to avoid working particular “zones” or sections of the community that had a high concentration of non-English speaking Latinos:

102

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration If I have trouble communicating with somebody, I try to avoid that type of contact. To me, it seems like a waste of time to stand on the side of the road and try to communicate…they would get frustrated and so would I. It’s useless when he can’t communicate with me and I can’t with him. I think it (the language barrier) changes the mechanics of the contact…if you’re dealing with someone you can readily communicate with the contact will go smoother…for example, you can stop a vehicle, give someone a ticket, go out and talk to people. You’re less likely to get out and talk with Hispanics if you cannot readily communicate. Everybody stays away because of the language. It would be hard to go to their neighborhood and get out and talk to them.

A fourth impact of the language barrier, according to the officers interviewed for this study, was the lack of citizen-initiated calls by Latinos. As addressed below, the majority of the contacts between the Latino population and the police occurred through police-initiated actions (i.e., driving offenses). Very few interactions resulted from Latino resident-initiated contact. Some officers believed that the low number of citizen-initiated contacts could be attributed to Latinos’ fear of the police. Others, however, asserted that Latinos perceive that when they call their police/sheriffs’ departments, they will not be able to communicate initially with dispatch or the officer who will subsequently respond to the call. As one officer stated, “They don’t call us very often and the language barrier is the reason. In their minds, they think, ‘well I am going to call them over here and then I’m not going to be able to talk to them anyway, so what’s the use?” Fifth, absent the language barrier, many officers believed that their relationship with the Latino community would be different in terms of initiating more informal contacts with Latinos and practicing more community policing and crime prevention outreach. As one officer explained, the language barrier prevents disseminating crime information from the police department to the Latino community. “When we have crime areas (i.e., car theft, bicycle thefts) as a community police officer, you should inform people of thefts or


103

problems going on in the neighborhood. If we can’t communicate . . . it is impossible to do that with the Hispanic community.” Some officers also believed that the language barrier prevented them from explaining their presence in certain law enforcementoriented situations. More specifically, officers were unable to explain to members of the Latino population why they were stopped or arrested for offenses that may not have been enforced in their native countries. Consequently, as one officer stated, the Latino community perceived that the police were harassing them. “Some (Hispanics) think we don’t like them because they think we’re picking on them because the laws we enforce here may be tolerated or at least not enforced there.” Other officers believed that the relationship between the police and the public has long been perceived as the “us vs. them” mentality. The language barrier only aggravated this problem with the Latino community: Without the language barrier, we would be explaining it to them…‘this is what we’re here for, this is what we’re doing.’ I know they perceive us as some type of Nazis…it seems to them that every time we show up someone goes to jail and they don’t know why. I really like to explain things to people on the job, and with them I can’t. It’s really a problem. I think their view would improve if we could communicate with them. For example, we can’t explain why they are going to jail. Their view is when they see the sheriff’s department, somebody goes to jail, and we can’t explain why we are arresting them. Until we break the language barrier I think their view will remain negative of the sheriff’s office. If we were able to converse with them like we could with the English-speaking, they would see us in a lot different light…they would see us as more approachable. A final consequence of the language barrier, according to some officers, was that their inability to communicate with a non-English speaking Latino might raise questions about the legality of the police action. One of the responsibilities of many sheriffs’ departments, for example, is to serve civil documents and subpoenas that mandate a

104


court appearance. When a document or subpoena is served, deputies must verify that the paper is being served to the correct individual. In most cases, this requires a signature from the recipient. One deputy described an incident where she attempted to serve civil process papers in a trailer occupied by seven non-English speaking Latino males. In addition to trying to figure out on which of the residents the papers should be served, she was faced with the task of attempting to explain the purpose of the papers. The deputy asked the residents to accompany her to the police department, at which time an interpreter was requested. The deputy stated that although she eventually may have been able to figure out which resident should be served, she believed the legality of the service might be questioned if she could not explain the purpose of the papers. The legal admissibility of interpretation provided by children, neighbors and friends was also a concern among some officers. One deputy stated that although he had never appeared in court where the interpretation by these parties was disputed, he questioned whether an arrest based on interpretation by a child, for example, is legally valid. “Relying on neighbors or kids of Hispanics to translate is not going to cut it if we ever have to go to court.” Finally, certain police actions such as conducting a breath test for blood alcohol levels in alleged DWI cases must occur within a specified time frame (Missouri Revised Statutes, 2001). In one situation, a deputy explained that because he was unable to contact an interpreter, the breath test could not performed and the alleged Latino DWI driver had to be released without any charges. The deputy explained that he released the driver because he did not know whether the inability to find an interpreter was an exception to the time limit. Other Barriers to Creating a Cooperative Relationship Although most of the officers in the study believed that language was a major barrier, they also suggested other issues that hindered creating a cooperative police-Latino community relationship. These issues primarily revolved around the officers’ contact with the Latino community in a law enforcement context. These contacts, for the most part, were related to specific criminal offenses such as driving and/or vehicle violations, identity theft and domestic violence. In their opinion, officers had the majority of their contact with the Latino community through driving and/or vehicle offenses such as not


105

having a valid driver’s license, insurance and/or vehicle registration. Due to the high number of contacts with Latinos in these contexts some officers felt that the Latino community was not aware of their need to obtain these types of documentation. “I don’t know if when they get a visa they think that grants them driving privileges?” one officer asked. “I think occasionally some of them understand that they need to take a driver’s exam-and I tell them that.” Similarly, another officer stated: If they understood that they need a driver’s license then it would be different, but no one has showed them how to do it. We have to remember that this is a whole different world for them. It’s like sending me to Germany and then I drive. I don’t know, can I drive on a Missouri driver’s license? Many officers believed that Latinos needed to be informed on what is required to operate a motor vehicle and suggested that there be some type of instructional program offered in the community. Several officers argued that in light of the high number of contacts with Latinos through driving offenses, the recent enactment of a state “racial profiling” law, has affected the number of vehicle stops. On August 28, 2000 Missouri enacted a statute that requires “all peace officers in the state report specific information including a driver’s race for each traffic stop made in the state” (Missouri Attorney General’s Office, 2002).5 Some officers stated that because they are required to complete and file with their departments traffic stop data on drivers’ race and ethnicity, they had witnessed officers who altered their statistics so as not to reflect a disproportionate number of Latino stops. As one officer noted, “Some officers are actually keeping tabs on how many Hispanics, blacks, etc. they stop. I have seen officers check the white male box if the Hispanic doesn’t have a Spanish surname, and the officer will say, ‘oh, that guy looked white.’” Other officers believed that concerns about racial profiling discouraged officers from stopping visibly Latino drivers. “If there is any hesitation, it’s because of the racial profiling” one officer commented. “They don’t want their statistics to look like they are stopping a lot of Hispanics.” Because traffic stop data analysis compares the proportion of traffic stops to the proportion of racial and ethnic groups in the population, officers asserted that this does not reflect an accurate representation of drivers stopped. For example, as

106


one officer in Knob Noster argued, due to work schedules at the Tyson’s plant, the representation of the Latino population may vary greatly throughout the day. “What they don’t take into consideration here is that the population changes here every eight hours. When there is a shift change at Tyson then the Knob population changes.” Other officers similarly argued that because some Latinos did not have valid driver’s licenses or did not officially reside in their communities, there was no way to determine the true population of their respective communities. Finally, a few officers believed that since the enactment of the statute, Latinos had become aware of general allegations of racial profiling and, consequently, accused officers of stopping them because they were Latino. As one sergeant reported, “Now they are jumping on the bandwagon. We are getting to the point where we will stop them and they will say, ‘well you’re just pulling me over because I’m Mexican’. See, now they have learned the system.” Officers were particularly irritated if a Latino driver who was not a legal citizen accused them of being discriminatory. One officer commented, “Here I have someone who is illegal and he’s calling me prejudiced and he doesn’t even belong here! He has the same rights and a lot of times more rights than me. And that really frustrates me. Once they come over here and learn the system, they really work it.” One of the most frustrating aspects for officers in their encounters with some members of the Latino community is the use of fake and/or multiple identifications. Several officers reported situations such as vehicle stops where they would search the Latino driver and find several different identification cards all indicating various names, information (e.g., dates of birth) and photos. These identification cards ranged from false drivers’ licenses, immigration cards, employee identification cards (e.g., Tyson) and state identification cards. As one sergeant stated, “We don’t know who anybody is . . . everyone has a bad I.D. . . . sometimes they have five or six I.D.’s. It doesn’t create a lot of trust on our part.” This scenario appeared to be such a common experience for officers in this study, particularly in driving offenses, that when they encountered Latinos and asked for their identification, they expected to be presented with a false and/or multiple identifications. As one sergeant confirmed, “I think officers think that when they pull over Hispanics, there are going to be using different I.D.’s.”


107

Frustration over the identification issue was further intensified, as one deputy explained, when officers recognized that an individual was arrested, booked and processed under different names and identities. “I think that other officers get frustrated because at times they (Hispanics) will be booked under one name and then come in again a few weeks later under a different name.” Most of the departments in this study had some type of computer program to scan and catalogue booking photos and personal information. Yet, it was often difficult to determine which photographs were associated with the correct names and information. Responding to calls regarding domestic violence is another area in which officers had a high number of contacts with the Latino community. Officers who spoke about this issue believed that the abuse of Latino women by their husbands/boyfriends was prevalent and regarded it as a product of the Latino culture. As one officer stated, “Especially with domestics . . . we have to realize it is a part of their culture-that they ‘beat up on their spouses.” These officers further explained that in the event a Latino husband was arrested for domestic abuse, it was not uncommon for him to be confused about why he was arrested for such an offense. Officers assumed it was because this type of abuse was not penalized in their native countries. “We have a terrible problem with domestic abuse,” explained one officer. “Hispanics may not understand why they are under arrest for slapping their wives when they get away with it in Mexico.” Officers explained that during these calls, they regularly informed members of the Latino household that regardless of the laws in their native countries, domestic violence was not permitted in the United States. As several officers stated, “you tell them you can do it there, but not here.” A final challenge to creating a cooperative relationship with the Latino community is what officers termed as “close-knit” and “they stick together.” Officers believed that as part of their culture the Latino community was very family-and group-oriented and therefore wanted to handle problems internally. As a result, they resisted outside interference from governmental authority such as the police and rarely initiated any type of contact with the officers. As one officer commented, “They’re a close-knit community and family group . . . if you are not already a part of their community or family group you are an outsider. If you are lucky enough to break that barrier then there might be a relationship.” Officers explained that in situations where they needed to interview witnesses or victims, Latinos were reluctant to

108


speak to the police and were not likely to volunteer any additional information. In short, officers perceived that the Latino community was so unified that even if the language barrier between the two groups were overcome, developing a working partnership would be difficult. Despite the apparent frustration among officers in the study on issues such as the language barrier, driving offenses and the use of false/multiple identifications, many officers appeared to sympathize with the working and housing conditions experienced by newly arrived Latino immigrants. Most of the Latinos who lived in each of the communities were employed at either the Tyson’s poultry processing plant located a few miles outside of Sedalia, or Rose Acres, an egg plant located near Knob Noster. Many officers believed that Latinos came to their communities to work for low pay and filled positions in packing plants that were shunned by local white and African American residents. In addition, officers appeared to admire the work ethic of the Latino community: They come up here, take the crap-shit jobs that no one else wants, and then bust their humps…then when they get paid, they put $100 in their pocket and send the rest of it home. To me, it is totally amazing. The Hispanic folks will work, and the Americans will not work. Americans will not do the work that Hispanics do. They’re doing the jobs that Americans don’t want to do. Ninety-eight percent of Mexicans that come up this far (to Central Missouri) are just looking for a place to make a decent living, raise their kids and be a productive member of society. I don’t have a problem with that. I admire them because they come up here and work really hard. Look at the Hispanics they’re working at Rose Acres and Tyson’s 16 hours a day. Now why can’t whites and blacks do that? In addition to working many hours for low wages, officers commented that the majority of newly arrived Latino immigrants lived in trailer park housing in all three communities. They recounted stories of


109

deplorable housing conditions in which as many as 15 to 20 Latinos would live in trailers that had poor plumbing, broken windows, large holes in the side of the trailers, doors that did not secure or lock, and decks that slumped. On one ride-along through a trailer park where most Latinos lived in one of the communities, I commented to the deputy that the trailers appeared empty and abandoned. He explained that all of the trailers were occupied and stated: How can people live in these conditions? These are trailers that Americans won’t live in, but yet Mexicans live in them and Americans run them. And people wonder why Mexicans don’t trust white Americans. Well look at the conditions they make them live in. If you brought in brand new trailers, I think the Mexicans would treat them better than most whites and blacks. Officers explained that even though many Latinos lived in one trailer, it was rare for all of the residents to be there at one time. Because their positions at Tyson were predominately shift work, half of the occupants in a trailer would work the day shift while the other half slept. Nightshift hours brought the same residential turnover. Improving the Relationship When asked to share their opinions on how the relationship between law enforcement and the Latino community could be improved, 20 (41.6 percent) of the officers suggested setting up informal meetings sponsored by the police department (see Table 4.7). Officers indicated that they would first contact the leaders among the Latino community (i.e., informal leaders, church leaders) and request their assistance in setting up the meetings in “neutral” locations such as the park or library. The purpose of these meetings would be two-fold. Officers would begin by asking Latino residents about their expectations for the police and/or sheriff’s department and what they perceived as problems among their community. As one officer explained, “You would have to sit down and ask where do you think we’re at? What do you expect from us? . . . get a really good grasp as to the direction we need to go.” Second, officers believed the meetings would give them the opportunity to explain laws and ordinances so that Latinos could be educated on a variety of issues including obtaining a driver’s license

110


and vehicle insurance and combating domestic violence. Officers stated that these meetings would provide an opportunity for both the police and Latino community to interact and learn from one another: If they know what’s going on and can be informed and educated then maybe they would change their perceptions about us and we would change our perceptions about them. Show them that ‘hey, we’re not just the jerks that arrest them’ and that we are people too. Twenty-three officers (47.9 percent) suggested that because training all officers to speak Spanish would be impractical, hiring bilingual officers to go out into the Latino neighborhoods and setting up programs or neighborhood meetings would establish an initial rapport with the police departments. The bilingual officers could then be assigned to Latino residential areas not only to serve as liaisons, but to provide police services when needed. Table 4.7 Patrol Officer Perceptions to Improve the Police-Latino Relationship* _________________________________________________________ Improvement N Percent of Total Meetings/Programs with Latino Community 20 41.6% Hire Bilingual Officers 23 47.9% Initiate Informal Contact 13 27.1% _________________________________________________________ *some officers suggested more than one improvement Finally, 13 (27.1 percent) of the officers suggested that initiating more informal contact would help improve their relationship with the Latino community. As one officer commented, rather than contacting Latinos solely through law enforcement contexts, officers should “drive through their communities and instead of throwing a wave at them, actually put the car in park and get out and talk to them.” Another officer similarly stated that although neighborhood policing is practiced in white and African American communities, it should be applied to


111

Latino communities as well. “You use neighborhood policing in regular policing, why can’t you use neighborhood policing in the Hispanic community? It’s important for them to understand that the police are there for them.” Officers who endorsed initiating informal contact and neighborhood policing in Latino residential areas felt that the language barrier would be the primary obstacle. They suggested, therefore, that interpreters could either accompany them periodically or that officers themselves would attempt to identify Latino residents who were bilingual and were interested in serving as informal liaisons for the police department. Despite the absence of consistent and close interactions with the Latino community, most of the officers believed that, if asked, some-if not all-Latino residents would work with the police department to solve community problems. They believed that, first, Latino residents had the same desire as the officers to create open lines of communication and mutual understanding. “I’m sure they have the same questions about us as we have about them,” one deputy explained. “They want to talk to us as bad as we want to talk to them. I think they would at least try and work with us.” In addition, officers stated that the more interactions and communication the Latino community had with the police, the less fear they (Latinos) would have of them. Second, because officers perceived that all racial and ethnic groups in the community want to have a working relationship with the police, even in light of the language and cultural barriers, they argued that Latinos should not be viewed as any different. For example, just like white or African American communities, the Latino population may be interested in creating a neighborhood watch program. Third, officers suggested that asking Latino residents to work with the police would not only provide them with an opportunity to learn more about law enforcement, but also would facilitate their integration into the community. In other words, by working with the police department to solve problems, they would begin to perceive themselves as stakeholders of their community and ultimately become involved in other community sponsored organizations and activities. As one officer stated, “They came to America because they want to be here. I would think they would want to do anything they can to make it better.” Other officers noted that some Latino residents would respond to their department’s request for help on community problems if they

112


could convince undocumented Latino residents that the police were not attempting to determine immigration status that might lead to deportation: There is so much distrust now that even if you found someone to be the focal point, it would be hard to develop that trust. When you can’t understand their fear of being deported, where do you go? I mean, I don’t understand what it is like to be pulled from my home. The first thing that is going to have to be done is build up a communications channel or a trust so that they know we’re not here to deport them and that we’re here to serve them just like everybody else in the community. In short, because of fear and mistrust some Latinos would be suspicious of the police initiating contact and asking for their assistance. Similarly, Latinos who had been arrested or had contact with the police stemming from law enforcement matters such as driving offenses or false identification would potentially be less willing to work with the police. Next, the willingness to work with the police, according to some officers may depend on characteristics of segments within the Latino community. Unlike many young, single males who were planning to work and then return to their native countries, couples with children and Latinos who were long-term residents would be more likely to consider themselves as owners of the community and therefore be interested in assisting law enforcement. Finally, some officers did not think the Latino population would work with them to solve community problems. They stated that many Latinos still harbored negative feelings about the police in their native countries and perceived American police in the same light. Therefore, if they had problems within their own community, they would address the problems themselves without any assistance from law enforcement. According to these officers, because the majority of Latino residents are also focused on working and making money to send back to family members and/or save for their own return to their countries, they lack the time and motivation to see themselves as members of the larger community. One officer described what he believes is the culmination of all these factors. “I think they would just like to go to work, come


113

home, and just stick to themselves. Their thinking is, ‘I don’t want anyone knowing who I am . . . I don’t want any special attention paid to me.’” Summary Interviews with patrol officers from the five police agencies indicated that they believed that the overall relationship between law enforcement and community residents was amicable and supportive. They attributed this relationship to the fact that they often received positive citizen feedback, they were highly visible in their communities, they participated in community activities off-duty, and they routinely interacted both formally and informally with community residents. A minority of officers suggested that negative attitudes toward the police in their communities stemmed from contacts with certain segments of the communities which involved law enforcement actions, the behavior and attitudes of individual officers, and, for sheriff’s deputies in particular, the lack of personnel and resources. Unlike their generally positive interactions with the overall community, the officers’ relationship with the Latino community appeared less amicable. Although there did not appear to be any significant conflict between the police and the Latino community, officers interacted regularly with Latinos in potentially negative encounters involving such offenses as driving/vehicle violations, domestic violence and use of false identifications. More importantly, because officers did not have a relationship with the Latino community outside of these offenses, they tended to frame their experiences and views of the Latino community through these types of contacts. In addition, although the immigration status of some members in the Latino population did not have a direct bearing on officers’ duties, many expressed frustration over the lack of assistance from INS in addressing this issue, particularly when undocumented Latinos were arrested for a crime. Officers cited communication problems due to language as the primary challenge to developing a relationship with the Latino community. Other barriers included the Latino population’s fear and distrust of the police, and the perceived “close-knit” trait of the Latino community. Despite the evident frustration, all officers in the study appeared interested in developing a working relationship with the Latino community. They suggested that even though their departments

114


could improve their interactions with the Latino community through language and cultural training, greater accessibility to interpretation assistance, and the hiring of bilingual officers, the Latino community also shared some of the language responsibility. Officers further believed that by meeting with the Latino community in informal settings, they could create an open dialogue with the Latino community and learn their expectations of the police. Finally, officers perceived that the Latino community would be willing to assist the police with community problems if asked. This would not only help foster a police-Latino community partnership, but lead to community integration for the Latino population as well.

Community and Government Leader Interviews Twenty-nine interviews with community and government leaders from Sedalia (n=11), Knob Noster (n=8) and Warrensburg (n=10) were conducted in October and November of 2001. Interview participants consisted of law enforcement administrators, public service leaders, court administrators and personnel (judges, prosecutors, etc.) city administrators and managers, Spanish interpreters, and leaders of community organizations and churches. Community and government leaders who appeared to have the most information about general community police relations and policeLatino relations were chosen for the interviews. Twenty-one of the leaders were white and eight were Latino. Although some leaders were selected because of my personal knowledge of their influence in the community, most the leaders were referred by law enforcement patrol personnel and previously interviewed leaders. Police-Community Relations Community leaders were first asked a series of interrelated questions that were used to create a comprehensive picture of the overall policecommunity relationship (see Appendix B). The majority of these leaders believed that, in general, most of the residents in their communities supported local law enforcement and considered the police-community relationship to be positive. This was evident in that, first, most leaders thought that citizens felt comfortable contacting the


115

police if they had any problems. Some court and law enforcement administrators stated that citizens occasionally contacted them if they had police-related concerns. This suggested to them that residents not only felt comfortable calling a general police department number but that the lines of communication between citizens and their government representatives were open. In addition, community leaders believed (and had witnessed) that residents did not hesitate to call their local departments on matters other than serious criminal incidents. For example, citizens regularly called their local police departments about a variety of issues, such as requests for information, relatively minor complaints such as barking dogs, loud noise, or suspicious persons, or to simply seek advice on how to address a particular situation such as dealing with troubled teenagers. The community leaders also believed that the relatively small size of their communities resulted in a closer working relationship between law enforcement and citizens. They stated that smaller communities allowed police officers and administrators alike to interact frequently with residents and to learn their expectations of local law enforcement. As one chief stated, “We have a lot of time to spend with citizens as opposed to a big city. In a small town we can go in and meet them, their problems become our problems.” Similarly, leaders also believed that because most of the officers resided in the small communities where they worked, residents were more likely to know most, if not all, personnel at the police/sheriff’s departments. “It’s a small town. In general, if they don’t know the individual police officers they at least know of them,” one court administrator explained. “And they’ve learned that it is a very cooperative type of community.” Leaders commented that officers and citizens regularly interacted, and that it was not uncommon for residents to request police services from specific officers in each department. Law enforcement administrators stated that another indication of positive police-community relations was the direct feedback from community residents. Law enforcement administrators and/or officers consistently received thank you cards or letters from citizens, even for seemingly small things like unlocking a car. Residents also wrote “letters to the editor” in the local newspapers demonstrating their support and appreciation of the departments. One law enforcement administrator stated that even without the cards and letters of support, he felt the community was behind the departments. “I don’t think

116


necessarily we’re unappreciated because the citizens don’t always respond. It’s kind of like your parents, they always took care of you but you take them for granted sometimes.” Finally, some community and government leaders cited the professionalism of their law enforcement agencies and their respective administrators as an important factor in the positive relations with local residents. Compared to former law enforcement administrators, leaders believed that the current sheriffs and chiefs in all three communities were concerned about serving the needs of the public, were open to citizen feedback, and tried to attain higher standards for their departments’ performance. Law enforcement administrators also noted that residents often commented on how much the quality of police services had improved. Furthermore, law enforcement administrators seemed particularly concerned that residents of their communities view them as professional and worked towards eliminating the stereotype often associated with rural policing. As one sheriff stated, “I think by and large, rural law enforcement, we’re viewed in a different light. People in the city . . . their image of the sheriff is a guy who’s wearing a cowboy hat and wearing a six-gun on his hip and smoking a cigar.” Other law enforcement administrators also felt it was important that residents perceive them to be as qualified as their large city counterparts. As one administrator commented, “We want to have a professional image and do well for the citizens. It’s not always the easiest task.” An environment in which residents felt comfortable to file a complaint was another measure used to gauge the police-community relationship. Law enforcement administrators stated that although they had not received many complaints, they felt that most citizens would feel comfortable filing one with their agencies. They suggested that this was due in large part to their policy of encouraging citizens to come in and file complaints. As some law enforcement administrators explained, their departments have created an environment where citizen complaints are taken seriously: I always reassure them that I appreciate the time they took to file a complaint because that’s the only barometer that I have to gauge how my officers are being viewed in the community. And if they take the time to pick the phone up when they have a problem with a particular officer or a particular incident, it


117

does a tremendous amount of good for me to able to sit down and visit with those folks and get their opinions. So I think they are very comfortable in how we handle those complaints. Well, it’s always a hard thing I would think to come down and make a complaint at the police department or at our sheriff’s department. But part of our policy is not to discourage that from taking place. The sheriff has strived to do that and we look into every complaint that is made, whether major or minor and then come to a conclusion. In Knob Noster, citizens who wish to file a complaint contact the police department. The investigation of the complaint, however, is conducted through the city administrator’s office. One law enforcement administrator from this department believed this approach sends a message to the citizens that their complaints will be investigated fairly. “Because citizens file complaints outside our department, they feel they are getting a fair chance. I think it is good because citizens don’t have any fear of retaliation from the officers. I don’t think it’s right to investigate a complaint within the department.” A city administrator in this same community noted that although the department felt the handling of complaints was principal, more importantly, it’s philosophy was to prevent complaints: First off, we don’t want anybody to follow through with a complaint. We get a lot of folks coming in to pay fines, or parking tickets or speeding tickets, saying ‘Those are the nicest police officers that I have ever encountered.’ So we’re trying to get the atmosphere where they don’t file a complaint. But if they do, we will react. Similar to the other law enforcement agencies, the Sedalia Police Department has also developed an “open door policy” for complaints. Consequently, they have seen an increase in the number of complaints within the last several years. An administrator here stated that the increase is partly attributed to requiring officers to make citizens aware that if they are not satisfied with the police service(s) they received, they have a method of redress:

118

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration Over the last six years of people getting the word out, we have probably received more of them. It’s not saying that all of them are valid or anything else, but just that people feel that they can come down and do them and even our supervisors have been trained a little bit better to where as they actually let the people know that ‘you do have an option’. You know, ‘if you don’t feel like you received that service we have a process’ and they’re required to explain the process to people.

Other community leaders in the study felt that most citizens would either directly call the police with a complaint or might contact them. These leaders had heard of complaints being filed and believed that they were thoroughly investigated and handled well by the law enforcement agencies. In addition, a leader in Warrensburg believed that local law enforcement administrators welcomed complaints as a type of citizen feedback or evaluation of their departments: I think the atmosphere is open for community complaints. I think the community would perceive the departments in this area being open to complaints about officers…criticism. Even though we don’t really have a strong civilian review board type of apparatus, I think many of them wouldn’t fear reporting-making matters known to both the sheriff’s department and the local police department-because I don’t think they fear any type of retaliation by agencies. I think that they would feel pretty comfortable that agencies would investigate it and do the right thing. Another indication that the law enforcement agencies welcomed feedback from the community was the fact that they had administered public perception surveys. In Knob Noster, for example, a survey was distributed a few years ago to identify citizens’ concerns.6 At the time of this writing, a citizen’s advisory board to the Warrensburg Police Department was also preparing to distribute a perception survey to its residents. According to the chief, the survey will be used to determine what citizens want from their police department. Overall, community and government leaders believed that their local police/sheriffs’ agencies work well with citizens and indicated that they saw officers informally interacting with residents on a regular


119

basis. “I think they’re doing a good job,” one city administrator commented. “I think the community sees that they’re out there, they’re all over town, they’re talking to folks. I think they do a good job of working with the community.” Law enforcement administrators and other leaders also cited examples of community-policing-oriented activities that they believed help law enforcement establish a working relationship with residents. These activities included partnerships with schools such as School Resource Officers (SROs) and officers who taught Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.); “public safety” days where citizens could interact not only with law enforcement but the fire department and EMS units; and community presentations on law enforcement topics by police officers and/or administrators. As one law enforcement administrator from Sedalia stated, their agency’s contact with the community through officer escorts for walk-a-thons, parades, etc. not only served a security function but also provided more interaction with local residents: It is primarily a public safety thing. It’s much easier to do that and protect your citizens than it is to come and investigate afterwards for the accident. But a part of it is the exposure and just the interaction with the police. And again that goes back to the philosophy of the more they need to know about us the more they support us, and the more exposure we have to them the more likely they are to support us. And some of it’s even to do some personal, individual activities to foster that same kind of thing. One of his methods to ensure that deputies were interacting regularly with residents, according to a law enforcement administrator in Johnson County, was through the use of business cards: We buy all of our deputies business cards…and they know my feeling on that. If they’re driving down a county road and they see John Q. Farmer out there on his lane working on his combine, to stop the car, get out, introduce themselves, ‘Hi, I’m deputy so and so. This is my patrol area. Let me give you my business card. If there’s anything I can do to help you, please don’t hesitate to give us a call.’ So yeah, I do

120

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration encourage that, I encourage that greatly, on a daily basis to interact with the public.

All of the law enforcement administrators appeared to place a high value on their officers becoming involved in community organizations. To them, this was an indication that officers not only worked for residents in a law enforcement capacity but had a sense of ownership to their community as well. Although most leaders perceived that the majority of community residents had supportive attitudes toward local law enforcement, they acknowledged that some residents had more negative attitudes, which they attributed to two factors. First, some citizens may not fully understand the constraints on and/or responsibilities of law enforcement. That is, they may not realize that resources-especially personnel-are limited or understand the distinction between how police are to address criminal and civil matters. Therefore, some citizens may misinterpret a delay in responding or a referral to another agency as apathy towards the public: My personal opinion is that they’re very in tune to with what the citizens want…but sometimes that perception may not be the same by citizens, because they may not fully understand why certain things are done. And they perceive that as an inability or lack of desire to appease the community on the part of the agencies, when it may very well be not that they don’t desire to do something, but their hands are tied because of various legal restraints and things of that matter. Things that are not criminal in nature, investigations that might be civil, we have to make referrals. Probably, the general public is not aware of how law enforcement works specifically to handle situations and they’re thinking that we can handle every situation that comes across, and that’s not always true. But we are in a position where they’d call us and we can at least direct them whatever the matter might be. Second, the nature of the contact between law enforcement personnel and certain segments of the community may lead to negative views of law enforcement. Warrensburg, for example, is home to


121

Central Missouri State University, a four-year institution that serves approximately 11,500 students. Johnson County law enforcement personnel (both county and municipal) generally have a high number of contacts, especially on weekend nights, with students on Pine Street, a popular downtown area dominated by bars and restaurants. Some leaders in this community stated that the residents believed that too much police attention was focused on enforcement of alcohol-related laws such as driving while intoxicated and minor in possession. As a court administrator from this community, commented: There is perhaps a feeling that local law enforcement devotes an inordinate amount of its time and resources to policing the activities of those persons and that perhaps neighborhoods maybe don’t get the attention that they should because the resources are focused on a more concentrated demographic area and geographic area of the community. Although the community leaders did not suggest ways that time and resources could be more evenly distributed throughout the community, they did state that they thought that many residents believed that the focus on the student population overshadowed other law enforcement activities. The relationship between the police/sheriffs’ departments and the African American population in all three communities also concerned the community and government leaders. They stated that that the African American residents were highly distrustful of law enforcement and were not likely to view their relationship with the police as positive. Several leaders in Sedalia, for example, described a drugrelated shooting incident in which the victim was an African American male. When the police attempted to contact several members of the African American community for assistance, they received little cooperation. Most of the leaders in each community suggested that one of the primary factors contributing to the tense relationship was the lack of African American representation among officers in the police/sheriffs’ departments. Law enforcement administrators emphasized that despite their continual effort to recruit members of various minority groups, they rarely received applications for officer positions from African American community members. Law enforcement administrators

122


believed that members of minority groups would apply to departments in larger cities that provided a higher salary and other incentives such as better promotional opportunities. As evidenced above, community and government leaders in all three communities believed that that the relationship between residents and local law enforcement was generally positive and cooperative. Although there was some conflict between specific populations (i.e., college students and African Americans) and the police, leaders felt that law enforcement administrators and their respective departments encouraged citizen input and attempted to provide quality police services to their communities. Police-Latino Community Relations In addition to general police-community relations, community and government leaders were specifically asked about the relationship between the police and the Latino population in their communities. Similar to patrol officers, leaders believed that several challenges and barriers had to be addressed before a partnership between the two groups could be established. Because the accuracy of the census count is widely debated, particularly for the representation of minority groups (Armas 2001; El Nasser 2001; Ogawa 1999), leaders were first asked to what extent they believed the census accurately reflected the Latino population for their communities. As noted earlier, according to the 2000 census figures, Latinos represented 5.6 percent (1,129) of Sedalia’s population, 15.1 percent (371) of Knob Noster’s population and 2.4 percent (398) of Warrensburg’s population. Most of the leaders believed that the census underestimated the number of Latinos in their communities. In some cases, they believed the population could be as much as double the official census figures. In Sedalia, for example, some leaders estimated that the Latino population was at least 3,000 persons and could number as many as 6,000. The potential language barrier and the hesitancy of Latinos to reveal their immigration status were cited as the most common reasons for the undercount. Others believed that Latinos feared their landlords would find out that as many as eight to 12 individuals lived in one trailer. Finally, as a city administrator commented, because the Latino community may not have understood the purpose of the census, the result is that “You don’t know how many people are in the household or if they understood and


123

a lot of them don’t. That’s a real problem.” One interpreter explained that during the census-taking process, some of the Latinos in the community came to her because they were suspicious about the information needed for the form. “They would bring the paperwork to me and ask, ‘what are they going to do to us?’ because they did not understand why the government needed that information. I used to complete the paperwork for them and then send it off.” Some leaders, such as a city administrator from Knob Noster, suggested that agricultural work and other factors affected the movement of Latinos in and out of the area. The high mobility of the Latino community, therefore, may also have contributed to the inaccurate count: You could have 300 in town today and you may have 500 tomorrow and you may have 100 the next day. Depending on what they’re doing and what the season is, they more or less follow the agricultural aspects of it. When it’s growing season or harvesting season they’re here, but during the winter, the count goes way down. Although few leaders believed the census count for Latinos in their community was correct, they explained that because city planning, budgeting, and resources depended on these numbers, they had no other option but to rely on them. Further, they had no suggestions as to how to reconcile the difference in the census figures and the true numerical representation. Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship Similar to the challenges of obtaining an accurate count of the Latino population in these three communities, community and government leaders believed the overall relationship between the police and Latino community involved several obstacles that impeded the development of a cooperative partnership. These challenges were first manifested in the fact that very few Latinos initiated contact with the police. Clearly the most important obstacle in initiating contact with the police, mentioned by all leaders, was communication problems due to the language barrier. Many leaders perceived that only Latinos who spoke English or those who had some type of interpretation assistance (i.e., English-speaking family member or friend) would contact the

124


police department if they had problems or needed assistance. As one law enforcement administrator explained, “Spanish-speaking people will fail to contact the police even when they should or might be inclined to simply because they expect the experience not to be so good since they can’t communicate what they want.” It is important to note that leaders did not believe that the Latino community’s reluctance to contact the police was a direct fault of law enforcement. In other words, it was not that the police agencies discouraged Latino residents from calling for assistance, but that the language barrier made initiating contact with the police rare. All of the community leaders believed that regardless of English language proficiency or other available interpretation assistance Latinos would not contact law enforcement agencies to file a complaint. Like the officers, they hypothesized that the Latino community associated law enforcement in this country with the police in their home countries. Some leaders described the police in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, as corrupt: You can be parked in the right place and they will come and take your license plate off your car. And they say, ‘Well, do you want to pay this fine here, or do you want to go up to the police headquarters and it will be double?’ They are used to paying there . . . they have a lot of corruption. Police officers in Mexico are not seen as friends. They are somebody that you avoid because they’re generally seen as corrupt. So I don’t imagine that they would feel any differently about American ones because of their experience in their own country. Other leaders, particularly interpreters, characterized the police in Mexico as brutal and stated that some members of the Latino community had recounted stories of being beaten by the police. Finally, if citizens in Mexico called the police for assistance in emergency situations, it was not uncommon for the police to respond slowly or not at all. Abuse by the police in Mexico and other Latin American countries are well documented (see Human Rights Watch 2003). In sum, because of these perceptions held by the Latino community, particularly, newly arrived immigrants, leaders believed


125

Latinos feared repercussions or no response if they were to file a complaint against an officer and/or the police department. Fear and mistrust, according to some community leaders, was not limited to the police, but reflected a general apprehension towards any agency or organization that represented governmental authority. An administrator from the Pettis County Community Partnership (PCCP) a social service agency in Sedalia, for example, explained that when their agency first began working with the Latino community, their office was housed in the basement of Federal Building, which she described as “very official, governmental.” Because very few Latinos initiated contact with the agency, staff members would often provide services in residents’ homes. When the agency moved to a former grocery store, however, “people just started streaming in the door. It is amazing that the shift has been made from working in their homes to working in our setting now.” The administrator stated that through conversations with Latino residents the agency realized that they were distrustful of the government and that regardless of the relationship that had developed between the Latino community and the PCCP, “it was really just the appearance of the building.” Another factor that explained Latinos’ reluctance to contact law enforcement is the insularity of the Latino community, or as some leaders described it, “they take care of themselves.” Latinos generally dealt with their own problems (e.g., crime) and rarely consulted others outside the Latino community for assistance. As one law enforcement administrator in Knob Noster explained, “We never get any calls from the Hispanic community. They are not going to call for help. They take care of their own problems within the community . . . they are very self-contained.” Leaders believed that this solidarity and group cohesiveness was due in large part to cultural values, but also attributed it to their perception as feeling like outsiders in a foreign land. These characteristics, coupled with their experiences with the police in their native countries, therefore, made it difficult, if not impossible, for Latino residents to initiate contact with the police. Finally, many community and government leaders stated that because a majority of the Latino community was not legal citizens, they feared that initiating contact with the police would lead the police to inquire about their immigration status. This might ultimately lead to deportation and a loss of income for themselves and their families. As

126


a result, Latinos tried to avoid attracting the attention of the police. As one city administrator explained: They try to keep a low profile because of the police’s ability to return them to where they come from. And they’re afraid to make a scene or create an element that would bring attention to themselves. They just don’t want to do that. They’re here to work, try to make money for their family and get a better life than where they came from. None of the leaders believed that police officers purposely detained Latinos to determine their immigration status. They had also never heard or known of any formal or informal policy that directed officers to conduct stops of pedestrians and vehicles for the purpose of checking immigration status. Nonetheless, the leaders realized that the Latino community believed that the police had the power and authority to enforce immigration violations. Law enforcement administrators stated that Latinos’ reluctance to initiate contact with the police meant that they rarely, if ever, received any input from the Latino community in terms of police performance, crime concerns, or other issues that law enforcement should address. As one law enforcement administrator explained: That’s what makes it difficult to judge how you’re performing in terms of Hispanics, is that they don’t express themselves as readily as other ethnic groups will. And it makes it difficult because their silence, and virtually that’s what you deal with is their silence, it’s a huge roadblock. So it’s difficult to gauge how we’re viewed in the Hispanic community because they are so quiet. In addition, unlike other groups in the community, law enforcement administrators rarely heard any requests for community policing programs or crime prevention activities (e.g., neighborhood watch) from the Latino community. Although the communication problems due to the language barrier had a significant impact on Latino-initiated contact with law enforcement, leaders believed it also affected both police officer performance and their general interactions with Latinos. First, some


127

believed the language barrier resulted in Latinos receiving differential treatment in the form of leniency. According to some community leaders, officers were more likely to ignore minor violations of laws and ordinances if they could not communicate with the non-English speaking Latino who was the subject of the stop: You wonder how much is being done to use discretion to drop the situation because the officers can’t understand the language so they go ‘uh, okay, well here’s your driver’s license back, just slow down’…they can’t deal with it. I think that officers will sometimes pass up minor kinds of things, infractions, traffic infractions, stuff like that, simply because they don’t want to get tied up in it. Some leaders stated that the prevalence of this led Latinos to believe that they would not be arrested and/or cited if they pretended they did not speak English: I would say there has been a fair amount of folks who have either gotten away with things, whether they just throw their hands up and officers give them their license back or their I.D. and say ‘see ya’ on down the road’. I’d say that it has happened more than a fair amount of times because the officers get frustrated. And if I was Hispanic and I was concerned about the system and all that stuff too I might throw my hands up and act like I didn’t know what the cop was telling me. And I’m sure that word of mouth has spread that if you do that there’s a fair chance especially in some smaller communities without the resources, they’re going to get tired of you and either drive you to the city limits or you tell you to beat it and don’t come back. Other leaders suggested that the inability of the police to communicate with non-English speaking residents might result in a more prolonged and less effective provision of police services than would normally be afforded to English-speaking residents. This included the inability to assess a situation quickly and to take appropriate action to remedy immediate problems:

128

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration A lot of what the police have to do is not something where you can sort of sit down and take the time to make sure somebody understands. If they’re out in the field dealing with the situation, that language barrier can become very important- if somebody can’t appropriately assess the situation-whether that’s an officer or whether that’s somebody that’s involved on the other side.

Community leaders also noted that the fact that officers could not quickly and appropriately assess a situation because of language problems also created a potential safety issue that could affect both the officer and the Latino individual. “If the police say in English ‘stop, put your hands up,’ and somebody doesn’t speak English, put yourself in the officer’s position,” a court administrator said. “They don’t know if this person is not putting their hands up because they don’t understand or because they’re about to grab a gun or knife out of their pocket.” Although the leaders believed that by maintaining interpretation services the departments had made efforts to mitigate problems due to language, they were concerned that inevitably, emergency situations would arise where the police and Latino residents’ inability to communicate could have dire consequences. Finally, the community and government leaders interviewed for this study believed that because police officers could not speak Spanish, they were less likely to go out into the Latino communities and make proactive contact with residents. As one law enforcement administrator stated, “The daily ‘how are you doing, how is your family’ just doesn’t happen like it does with the rest of the community. We are missing out on a lot.” Leaders suggested that whereas officers might frequently initiate contacts with residents of English-speaking communities, they would tend to avoid contacts with Latinos that would necessitate verbal communication. Court administrators interviewed for the study shared a similar concern about the language barrier when non-English Latino defendants appeared in court. Interpretation assistance in municipal court situations was generally available from friends or family members that accompanied the defendant or from a roster of interpreters in their communities.7 In felony and/or other serious criminal cases, interpretation assistance could be provided from the state court administrator’s office in Jefferson City. Administrators


129

believed that the use of interpreters in court clearly made the proceeding more time consuming than cases involving Englishspeaking defendants: It slows things down from the practical point of view of having to get somebody up here to provide the translator services, and sometimes that can cause a delay. It slows things down as far as how a matter works when it’s in court because instead of saying something once, it’s having to be repeated from the person speaking English through the translator to the non-English speaking person and then back and giving that to the court whether it’s an attorney asking questions . . . it makes the proceeding take a little bit longer for that reason. Some court administrators also stated that many of the Latinos for whom they obtained interpretation assistance had a greater understanding of English than they acknowledged and believed that pretending not to know any English would somehow work to their advantage: We have cases where there is no doubt in my mind that these defendants can speak and understand English because you say the question in English and the translator translates it into Spanish and we have had times where the defendant answered before the translation was even done. And then I ask the question ‘did you hit him?’ and the defendant would say ‘si’ and the translation hasn’t even started so you know he knows what’s going on. Some don’t understand, but some do I think use that to their advantage on occasions. Court administrators stated that in all cases, regardless of whether they believed the Latino defendant understood English or not and regardless of the time needed for cases involving interpreters it was imperative that both English and non-English speaking defendants understand the charges against them and the outcome of their cases. As one judge pointed out, “We take whatever efforts we need to make sure these people know why they’re here and what’s going on.”

130


Other Barriers to Creating a Cooperative Relationship Leaders cited other barriers to the development of a working relationship between the police and the Latino community. These included the high number of contacts with police that involved law violations, the transient nature of Latinos, and the lack of leader representation among the Latino community (see Table 4.8). Table 4.8 Community and Government Leader Perceptions of Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship* _________________________________________________________ Barriers N Percent of Total 1. Language 29 100% 2. Nature of Contacts 14 48.0% 3. Transient Nature 7 24.1% 4. Lack of Community Representation 12 41.3% _________________________________________________________ *some leaders cited more than one barrier

Almost half (48 percent) of the leaders believed that most of the contacts with Latino residents in each of the communities consisted primarily of traffic stops that resulted in law violations such as driving without licenses and insurance and use of false identifications. Due to the disproportionate number of interactions involving these types of offenses and therefore, the higher likelihood of negative contacts, leaders perceived that it was difficult for the police and the Latino community to create a cooperative and positive relationship. In other words, the primary contact between the police and the Latino community revolved around law enforcement related actions, not activities that led to positive interactions. Moreover, as a result of these interactions leaders believed that police officers were more likely to view their relationship with Latinos as negative. Police had the majority of their contacts with Latinos through traffic stops in which officers frequently found that Latino drivers did not have operator’s licenses, vehicle registration, and/or vehicle insurance. Most leaders believed that in general, because motor vehicle laws were not enforced in their native countries, many Latinos did not understand that these items were required to operate a motor vehicle in


131

this country. As one law enforcement administrator explained, “Having a driver’s license isn’t that important in Mexico. Paying the officer is going to take place whether you have a driver’s license or not. Therefore, the license is purely optional and that does not translate into the United States.” Contacting Latino drivers who did not have insurance was another common occurrence for officers. Similar to driver’s licenses, leaders believed that newly arrived Latinos in particular, were not aware that insurance was required. A Latino leader explained that buying insurance in Latin American countries like Mexico was considered “just for rich people…they figure out in their home countries that they don’t need to have insurance.” Due to the high number of contacts with Latino drivers without insurance, as one law enforcement administrator explained, officers were more likely to sympathize with victims of car accidents where a Latino driver caused the accident, but did not have insurance: You have a wreck, and not only is there another person who’s a victim of the collision but now they’re a victim because there is no insurance to cover it and that sort of thing. And so I think police officers tend to sympathize with the victim a lot. I think that’s what we do in our business. You know there are certain things that we distance ourselves from so that we don’t become involved with every victim but there are just certain things that to us are not fair and that seems to be a ‘not fair’ thing. The use of false identifications also generated a negative perception of the Latino community by law enforcement officers. Leaders believed that the Latinos carried false identifications and/or lied about their true identities so that police could not determine their immigration status and/or ascertain any prior criminal history that may lead to an arrest. As one court administrator stated, this type of offense occurred frequently on vehicle stops: We have a lot of cases where like a trooper stops somebody, a Hispanic individual that is driving, and he gives a name and social security number and it comes back ‘not on file’ and things like that and there’s no way to verify it. We have a lot

132

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration of cases where we have no idea if this is the right person or not. And that really hinders law enforcement I think.

According to some Latino leaders, although it was not uncommon for individuals to pay as much as $600 for false identifications (birth certificates and social security numbers), taking on the identity of another person sometimes had an opposite effect. As one Latino leader commented, individuals might buy identifications of persons who already had prior arrests and/or active warrants: They will buy documentation and slap their picture on it and then they’ll get stopped by the police and find out that the name on the I.D. has a warrant out for their arrest and unless they have a photograph or fingerprints they have no way to prove that they are not the person who is wanted for the warrant. Leaders suggested that even though determining the true identity of an individual was problematic in vehicle stops, it became more significant when an officer made an arrest. First, it was not unusual for officers to arrest a Latino individual with identification one week, and then arrest the same individual the following week with a different identification. Second, officers frequently encountered Latinos who had several identifications with different information (names, dates of birth, etc.) on each. As one leader stated, “They’ll arrest the same guy over and over again and he’s got 15 different I.D.’s, so every time they arrest him he’s somebody else. So that has to be frustrating for them.” Finally, some community and government leaders said that they sympathized with officers who were under the assumption that particular individuals had been deported due to identity theft or other crimes, only to see them return within a short period of time. As one court administrator stated: That’s the thing that frustrates me. Like when we try to get an individual kicked out (deported) and I see them back again, they drove drunk again or something like that. I don’t think that paints me as an anti-Hispanic though, I don’t want it to come out that way. But that’s a frustrating thing for me and


133

that’s got to be for the police too, to deal with these people on a daily basis. In sum, leaders believed that officers’ negative perceptions of the Latino community were shaped by the high proportion of contacts involving traffic-related offenses and identification issues. They further suggested that officers were frustrated and felt powerless to prevent these types of violations. In addition to the potentially negative nature of contacts, seven (24.1 percent) leaders stated that another challenge to the development of a cooperative relationship between the police and Latino community was the transient nature of the Latino population. Leaders perceived that the majority of Latinos moved to the area to work long enough to save money and eventually return to their native countries. Some leaders believed that if there were enough employment opportunities, Latinos might stay in their communities for several years. Others, such as a city administrator in Knob Noster, observed that Latinos in his community tended to stay less than a year. “Every 6 months they are either going back to Mexico or going somewhere else . . . they are a very transient population. Very few Hispanics stay for a long amount of time.” Leaders believed that the transient Latino population was comprised of primarily young males. Families with children appeared to be more likely to move to their communities and stay permanently. One of the indicators of high mobility among the Latino population was reflected in housing status. Leaders from each of the communities stated that most Latinos rented apartments or trailers in which several individuals would live, often for only a few to several months at a time. Because these Latinos either had no desire to establish permanent residency in their communities or did not have sufficient income or savings to put them in the position for home ownership, it did not appear likely that they would purchase homes. Some leaders contrasted the mobility of the Latino community with that of racial and ethnic groups who immigrated to this country in the early 20th century. As one leader noted: You know 100 years ago, when you immigrated to America, the idea was becoming an American, it was the idea that you were going to get the American dream, and you were going to become an American and your children were going to become

134

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration American citizens. And I don’t think that’s the same goal that a lot of them have. I see a lot more people, especially men, coming, earning money to send back to their families and then they take vacations to go back to their families. And they really don’t have any intentions of becoming American citizens. Now of course sometimes that ends up happening and they end up staying forever and they don’t intend to. But here, I see a lot more transients.

Leaders suggested that due to high mobility, the Latino population was less likely to socially integrate or become stakeholders in the larger community. In turn, they would be less likely to be interested in entering a working relationship with local law enforcement. Finally, a major hurdle to creating a working relationship with the police, according to 12 (41.3 percent) of the community and government leaders, was a lack of community representation among the Latino population. If, for example, there was an issue or crime concern that needed to be addressed between the police and the white and African American communities, police administrators could readily contact formal or informal leaders of these groups. It was difficult, however, to identify individuals who represented the Latino community. According to leaders interviewed for this study, there was very little Latino representation in the three communities in terms of formal positions such as city government, school boards, and other community organizations. There appeared to be some informal leadership among Latinos, particularly in Sedalia and Knob Noster, (e.g., interpreters, restaurant owners, church leaders) but law enforcement administrators felt they relied too heavily on just a few people to represent the entire community. As one of the few Latino leaders in Sedalia noted, “We need more leaders in the community. I would like to have more leaders because there is a lot of work to be done.” Another leader in Knob Noster also commented that leadership was essential to develop an open dialogue between the Latino community and the police: We don’t have very many (Hispanics) that are able to come to the police and say, ‘hey, you know what would be great is if you guys would do this and we could help you this way.’ And I don’t see that right now in our community, the people aren’t


135

there for it on the Hispanic side. I’ve never met a Hispanic community leader. And I would love for there to be one. But at this point in their development, there isn’t one. Other leaders suggested that it would take time for leadership to develop among the Latino community and that future leaders who would establish a relationship with local law enforcement might emerge from educated bilingual children of Latino families. Improving the Relationship As indicated in Table 4.9, when asked about ways to improve the relationship between the police and the Latino community, more than half (55.1 percent) of the leaders believed that both law enforcement and the Latino community should work together, or as what some leaders termed it “meet in the middle.” Leaders suggested that both law enforcement and the Latino community should take responsibility to mitigate any potential conflicts stemming from language barriers and/or cultural differences. Some community leaders suggested that informal information sessions, for example, could be held where law Table 4.9 Community and Government Leader Perceptions to Improve the Police-Latino Relationship* _________________________________________________________ Improvement N Percent of Total Meet in the Middle 16 55.1% Hire Bilingual Officers 15 51.7% Officers Learn Spanish 7 24.1% Education 11 37.9% _________________________________________________________ *some leaders suggested more than one improvement enforcement personnel would receive language training, learn more about Latino customs and culture, and learn about Latino community expectations regarding the police. At the same time, Latino residents, alongside officers, could also receive some language training and learn about local laws and ordinances such as driving and vehicle registration and insurance issues, and what to expect when stopped by the police.

136


Most of the community and government leaders suggested that their local law enforcement agencies should be responsible for initiating contact with the Latino community and begin developing a relationship. Approximately half (51.7 percent) of the leaders stated that the first step would be to assign a bilingual officer to serve as a liaison to the Latino community. Given the community’s lack of trust of law enforcement, these leaders believed that if the Latino community could communicate freely with at least one officer in each department, a better rapport between the police/sheriffs’ agencies and Latino residents could be established. As one court administrator commented, the liaison could “reach out into the Hispanic community and make those proactive types of interaction rather than the reactive ones. And I think that would do a better job of promoting better relations.” Although a few leaders (24.1 percent) believed that all officers should receive Spanish language training and learn Spanish, others argued that it is unreasonable to expect that all officers are interested in and/or can learn Spanish. Therefore, more effort should be put into hiring bilingual officers so that one of these officers could be assigned to each shift. According to law enforcement administrators in all three communities, it would be difficult to hire bilingual officers. First, most administrators stated that there appeared to be little interest among the Latino community, in police officer positions. Sedalia Police Department administrators, however, stated that although there has been some interest from Latino community members, potential applicants either are not U.S. citizens, or do not meet the minimum educational requirement of 60 hours of college. Second, law enforcement administrators believed that officers who were Latino and/or bilingual would probably apply to larger police departments that provided both higher pay for beginning officer positions and an additional incentive pay for bilingual officers. These problems notwithstanding, all of the enforcement administrators stated they believed bilingual officers would greatly improve the relationship between their departments and the Latino community. In addition, as one administrator noted, “you want your department to mirror the community you serve.” Eleven (37.9 percent) of the community leaders commented that in addition to short-term solutions such as trying to obtain more interpreters and hiring bilingual officers, there should be a greater focus


137

on illiteracy among the Latino community. Some leaders pointed out that many Latinos in their communities could not read or write English or Spanish and few were formally educated. Therefore, leaders felt it was important to ensure that while in this country, children of newly arrived Latino immigrants attend school. Some leaders suggested that there should be educational opportunities for parents as well. As one Latino leader noted, however, because the majority of the Latino population focused their efforts on work and earning money, the adult population would not want to pursue an education or learn English: Some people don’t think they need to learn English. It’s because many people don’t come here to live, they just come here to work and they come with the idea to go back. So they think they will come here and make a fortune and then they can go back. So they say, ‘oh, I came here to work, so why bother going to school when I can be making money.’ According to other leaders, combating illiteracy would help the Latino population learn English and serve as a means to assimilate into the community: For non-English speaking people whoever they are, to integrate and to feel comfortable they have got to be able to communicate. They have got to be able to communicate, orally for sure, in writing, I think that’s important . . . reading and writing in the English language. So whatever we can do to make learning the English language accessible, I think is critical. Leaders suggested that through educational efforts, more Latinos would feel comfortable communicating with others in their community and that such effort would eventually lead to building a better relationship with local law enforcement. All of the community and government leaders believed that if asked, the majority of the Latino community would work with law enforcement to solve community problems. Several commented, however, that some issues would have to be addressed before the police could expect cooperation and assistance from the Latino community. As mentioned previously, it is more likely that the Latino community

138


would cooperate if, first, a bilingual officer contacted them and established a positive rapport. Second, because immigration status is an overwhelming concern in the Latino community, law enforcement would have to convince Latino residents that the purpose of their contact was to seek their assistance and not to determine citizenship status. This would require, according to a city administrator, that law enforcement meet Latino residents in their neighborhoods rather than in an environment that represented police and/or government authority (i.e., police department, city municipal building, etc.): If you went to them, I think they would. Now say they were going to do this at city hall, I don’t think you would get them to come there because they may feel it as [sic] a trap, that maybe INS is in the building and they are all going to get deported back to Mexico. But if you go down to their turf, I think they’d feel more comfortable . . . they may be more receptive to it. Some leaders cautioned that unlike other racial and ethnic groups, it may take time for the Latino community to respond to law enforcement efforts and that no one should assume that the relationship can be built overnight. Law enforcement “would really have to gain their trust first,” a community leader explained, “to know them on a personal basis.” This leader added that it would be difficult to quickly develop any type of relationship because she believed that many Latinos would assume that the police had a “hidden agenda” and were only interested in associating with them for future law enforcement purposes (i.e., immigration violations, criminal investigations, etc.). Another community leader similarly stated, “Old mind sets die hard. They’ve got it in their heads that ‘police are not good people.” Noting that work and religion appeared very important to much of the Latino community, leaders suggested the possibility of fostering requests for assistance through these efforts. If supervisors, formal and informal leaders at Tyson, and/or leaders from predominately Latino churches, for example, convinced the Latino community that law enforcement wanted to develop a relationship with them, there would be a higher likelihood that Latinos would respond. Despite the significance of communication problems due to language and other barriers, some leaders in Sedalia and Knob Noster


139

believed that the relationship between the police and Latino residents in their communities was improving. This was due in part to the creation of more community services for Latinos, the establishment of bilingual interpreters who essentially served as informal liaisons to the law enforcement agencies, and other means to educate Latinos on issues that traditionally lead to more contacts with the police. One of the many functions of the Pettis County Community Partnership (PCCP) in Sedalia, for example, is to provide information and resources in areas such as housing, employment, transportation, and food services for the Latino community. An additional means of educating Latinos has been through a Saturday morning radio program in Sedalia that is hosted by two of the leaders in the Latino community. Some programs have specifically focused on how Latinos can obtain driver’s licenses and vehicle insurance, the problems of DWI, and referrals to resources that can assist Latinos in becoming U.S. citizens. These programs have included interviews and appearances by local law enforcement personnel, including the chief of the Sedalia Police Department. Interpreters8 also believed that their informal role as police-Latino community liaisons helped to educate Latinos on the availability of police services. Interpreters explained that in the past Latinos were reluctant to contact the police about any problems or even to learn about how to obtain a driver’s license. If they did consider contacting the police, it was not uncommon for them to take the time to go to another person or several people and ask their advice before initiating contact. Now, however, many residents in the Latino community have learned that there are Latino bilingual interpreters that work with the police department. When approached by the Latino residents seeking information about and assistance with contacting local law enforcement, the interpreters stated that they strongly encouraged and in many cases told the Latinos to initiate contact themselves. As one interpreter stated, the result is, “Now they’re starting to learn the policies, the rules we have here.” In addition, more familiarity with the laws has impacted some victim concerns such as domestic violence. One interpreter explained that within the last year, more females have began to call the police when they are assaulted by their husbands or boyfriends:

140

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration This year, they have called the police…some of the Hispanic guys beat their wives when they’re drunk and they (the wives) were scared to call, but now they call even though they don’t speak English because they know that I work there and they know that there are other people that can help them. And that’s good because they know they don’t have to put up with it from their husbands.

There were also other means to educate Latinos on issues that traditionally led to more Latino contact with the police. As one community leader in Knob Noster commented, in the past no one made the effort to educate Latinos on presumably small issues such as vehicle licensing: Like license plates . . . they would come here from Mexico and they would be given two license plates, but nobody ever explained to them that they go on the front and back of the car, so they would put them on two cars. I think now that they understand kind of what the rules are that the whole relationship has gotten better. You still have those few that just can’t get it. These leaders suggested that through word of mouth, social services, contact with interpreters, and contact with the police agencies and the court system, Latinos were beginning to learn this country’s laws and rules. Summary The relationship between the overall community and the police, according to the community and government leaders interviewed for this study was described as supportive and positive. They believed that open communication lines, the small size of their communities, positive citizen feedback and the professionalism of the law enforcement administrators helped foster a cooperative partnership between the police and community residents. Further, leaders suggested that law enforcement agencies maintained an “open door” policy for citizen complaints and encouraged citizen input on police performance and expectations. Leaders suggested that negative attitudes toward the police were more likely to come from citizens who did not understand


141

the financial and resource limitations of the departments or legal restraints on the police. Like patrol officers, leaders also perceived that certain segments of the community (college students, African Americans) held more negative attitudes toward the police. The relationship between the Latino community and police, on the other hand, was characterized by leaders as problematic and wrought with challenges that included communication problems due to language, Latino population mobility, and lack of community representation. In addition to these challenges to establishing partnerships with the police, leaders suggested that because police officers experienced the majority of their contact with the Latino community through law enforcement related matters, there was little room for positive interactions with the Latino community. Community leaders asserted that hiring bilingual officers who could serve as liaisons to the Latino community, “meet in the middle” by conducting information sessions which involved both law enforcement and the Latino community, and providing language training to officers would be important steps in establishing a working relationship. Finally, and again consistent with the views of patrol officers, most leaders believed that the Latino population would assist the police in solving community problems if asked. They offered, however, that issues involving immigration, lack of trust on the part of the Latino community and the belief that a cooperative partnership between the two groups would develop quickly, had to be overcome.

Community Member Focus Groups In order to obtain a more comprehensive view of police-community relations in the three communities being studied, 11 focus group sessions were held in October of 2001. Participants included members of church, social, civic and service organizations. A list of potential focus group members was compiled from community lists of organizations and through referrals from law enforcement personnel and community and government leaders. Eight of the groups involved predominately white community residents whereas three focus groups were composed of Latino residents.9 The number of participants for the focus groups ranged from four to 11 members and each session lasted from one to one and a half-hours. All participants in the focus groups

142


received five dollars; in some cases the participants requested that a donation be made to the group’s organization instead. In focus groups with non-English speaking Latino residents, interpreters helped with interview questions and responses and were compensated for their assistance. Police-Community Relations: White Resident Perceptions The format for the focus groups was similar to the interview protocol for community and government leaders. Focus group members were first asked to characterize the overall relationship between the police and residents in their communities (see Appendix C). The majority of white members described residents’ relationship with the police as “good” and generally favorable. Several factors reflected this overall positive police-community relationship. First, members stated that they would be comfortable calling the police department if they needed any type of assistance. Although most focus group respondents had never called the police for assistance or service, those who had stated they were very satisfied with their experience. Requests for police assistance from focus group members generally were for minor problems such as barking dog complaints, suspicious persons, and vehicle lockouts. To these members, a rapid response time appeared to be the most important factor shaping their opinion of the police. For example, some stated that if security alarms were activated in their businesses or their organization’s building, the police were quick to respond. As one member of a local VFW stated, “I’ve always got a prompt reply from them. In fact when our alarm has gone off out here a couple of times, they were here before I got here. They’re pretty quick in their response.” Some respondents stated that in a few situations, officers were unable to respond immediately. They were satisfied, however, when they were informed by police dispatch that there would be a delay and stated they understood that there were occasions when the police were busy with other calls. Second, similar to focus group respondents who requested assistance by the police, community residents who were stopped or contacted by the police were satisfied with their treatment by the police. Several members stated that were stopped for traffic violations and believed the officers on these stops were respectful and polite. Finally, several participants recounted incidents where they believed officers were professional and went beyond what was required to


143

ensure that they and other residents in the community received quality police service: I live out in the county and one day I was painting inside the house and left the windows open. It was a windy day and the curtains were blowing. We left the house and four hours later when we came back, there were three state patrol and two sheriff’s cars sitting in the driveway. They asked us if anything was wrong, if someone was hurt, or if something was going on where we needed help. I was impressed that they cared enough to stop and check on the house. They’re very professional and they’re responsive. They’re very nice to you and respond quickly. People lock their keys in their cars at my business and the police come down and cheerfully help them get in, and that is something that you don’t have in other cities. They’ve really been very nice, treated all my customers with respect, treated us with respect throughout our problems. If the door gets left unlocked, they’ve stayed there and watched it and called us to come down there at the building . . . really, they’ve been very good. A visible police presence and participation by the police in community activities also were cited to explain the positive relationship between police and residents. Activities such as crime prevention programs and presentations, D.A.R.E. instruction in the schools, and the development of neighborhood watches by the police were very important to focus group members in the study. These activities educated residents about certain crime and safety issues and indicated that local law enforcement agencies were concerned about the welfare of community residents. Members of several organizations stated that law enforcement administrators and/or officers had spoken at their meetings and for one organization provided training upon request. As one focus group participant explained, local law enforcement personnel interact well with the community and have made the effort to focus on events such as parades, high school football games, and other venues “where they are visible and make their presence known. They just don’t come in to arrest people. They want people to know them as individuals rather than the militia.”

144


Other focus group members emphasized the importance of the accessibility of the police to residents, which allowed the police to handle proactively any potential problems in the community. In other words, consistent interaction provided the police with citizen feedback on law enforcement issues and concerns. Some members believed that because of these activities, citizens were more likely to assist the police when requested. As one member from Knob Noster stated, “I think that the citizens of Knob Noster are more willing to work with the police because around a lot of neighborhoods I have seen them set up neighborhood watches and things of that nature.” In addition to patrol officer visibility, several focus group participants noted that the law enforcement administrators met with community groups and organizations on several occasions. They believed that this indicated that administrators were making an effort to stay connected with community residents. As one member commented on the police chief, “He treats us I think like he would like to be treated if he was just an ordinary citizen here in town.” Finally, focus group members attributed community satisfaction with the police to police effectiveness in solving crimes and conducting law enforcement functions. Residents from both Knob Noster and Johnson County, for example, stated that several robberies had occurred in their communities in recent years and that they were impressed that the police were quick to solve the crimes. Further, participants from all of the communities felt that officers were effective at traffic enforcement, particularly speeding violations. A few members believed that the police should devote more time to traffic enforcement; they stated that many residents in their communities called the police for frivolous incidents such as animal complaints, problems with a water main, or other issues that could be handled by public service agencies other than the police. According to these members, this kept the police from engaging in more law enforcementoriented tasks. Focus group members also stated that they would not hesitate to call their local law enforcement agencies with a complaint, and they believed that most residents in their communities would also not hesitate to file a complaint. Only a few members had called with a complaint and stated that they were pleased with the manner in which the complaint was handled. “I received a good response,” one respondent stated. “I was mostly pleased with the fact that they took a


145

humanistic approach and that people could call them for stuff like that.” Other members believed that due to the size of their communities, if the complaint involved any type of police misconduct it would not go unnoticed. A Knob Noster member stated, “Oh, I’d say if we had one here that wasn’t doing his job or was picking on someone, they would soon find about it.” Another member in the same group added, “I think that everybody who knew about it would complain.” Further, these members said that the small size of the communities would deter potential officer misconduct. A member explained, “The town being small like it is, it’s like any other small town, they don’t dare get out of line too much because everybody knows everybody.” Some respondents stated that they or other residents might call the police department to file a complaint only in the case of serious officer misconduct. If, for example, an officer was verbally and physically abusive, most residents would contact their department. As one member stated, “They wouldn’t have any problems with calling and checking things out. And if they felt like they were being abused, they would complain.” For minor discourtesies or officer rudeness, however, most members did not believe that residents would contact their departments. The biggest concern among community members, particularly in Knob Noster and Warrensburg, was the lack of police department resources, which resulted in low patrol officer salaries and high officer turnover rates. Members believed that a key element to maintaining a positive relationship between residents and the police was to hire patrol officers who were planning to stay in the community. They suggested, however, that potential applicants could command higher salaries in other communities. In addition, in their experiences, officers who were hired in their local departments traditionally stayed long enough to gain some police skills and training and then left. As one member stated: We serve more or less as a training ground here for police. Most of them are young, lots of them are ex-members of the military, and they come here and work six months or a year and first thing you know, they got a little training and went to whatever schools they’re required to go to and they’re off somewhere else for a better job.

146


Other members similarly stated that many officers were currently working towards or had recently received their bachelor’s degrees from CMSU. Immediately on completion of their degrees or a few years after, these officers left to take positions at larger police agencies. Members suggested that if salaries were increased, more officers would consider staying in their local departments permanently or at least for several years rather than one or two. Their concerns about high turnover rates notwithstanding, most residents felt that departments made the most of what resources they had and served the community well. One resident stated, “You know, coupled with the fact that the resources they have and the amount of money that they make and the limited personnel that they have, they do a damn good job.” In sum, the majority of white focus group members believed that most residents were supportive of their local law enforcement agencies and were not reluctant to contact the police if they had any concerns and/or complaints. The emphasis on quick response times and the efforts that their departments made to interact with residents to ensure that the community received quality police services appeared to be the most important factors shaping perceptions of the police. Police-Latino Community Relations Focus group participants also were asked to discuss their perceptions of the relationship between the police and the Latino community. The majority of members did not perceive any significant conflict between the police and the Latino community. They noted, however, that the police appeared to interact with the Latino community primarily through traffic violations such as DWI, not having a driver’s license or insurance, and seat belt violations. This was evidenced by daily police arrest reports in the local newspapers. Members who commented on the reports pointed out that Latino surnames were always listed and suggested that given their percentage in the community, they were over represented in the reports. As a Sedalia member stated: I get the paper and every night I just skim the police reports and there’s always a Hispanic name and if you look at how small a percentage of our population . . . there’s always an arrest and it is usually traffic violations, alcohol or drunk driving or occasionally public disturbance. It is very rare that there is not a Hispanic name in the police reports. Sometimes


147

it’s half the reports. Of the six or seven reports three might be Hispanic names. I know they are not that much of a population but yet they’re half of the arrests every day. Participants were divided on the reasons for the disparate numbers of Latino arrests. Some members asserted that the Latino community was not concerned about or motivated to learn laws and ordinances, particularly those pertaining to traffic. Others, however, suggested that the Latino community was simply not aware of the laws and that no one had made the effort to explain the laws to them: What I think about that is, I go back to that cultural aspect…do they understand our laws, do they even know what they’re doing is illegal? Is what they’re doing perfectly okay in their little town in Mexico or wherever they come from? That’s why I think if there was somebody in the police department that could do some education and say, ‘you can’t just stand on the corner and drink’ or ‘you can’t drive your car when you’re drunk.’ I don’t know if that is against the law in different places. I just wonder if they knew, would they still be getting arrested? Aside from their perceptions that the primary contact between the police and Latinos was through traffic offenses, white focus group members did not have a lot of interaction with the Latino community. Although some members had contact with Latinos through services in the community or employment, very few had social connections or personally knew residents, specifically, non-English speaking Latinos. Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship Consistent with the views of patrol officers and community and government leaders, focus group members believed that several factors hindered the creation of a positive police-Latino relationship. These challenges included the language barrier, immigration issues, and distrust between both the white and Latino communities. According to these community members, the most significant barrier affecting the police-Latino relationship was language. They asserted that, first, if the police and Latino residents could not verbally communicate with one another on a basic level, establishing a working

148


relationship between the two groups would be difficult. As one member stated, “It’s like trying to talk to someone who is deaf and you don’t know sign language.” Members further suggested that the language barrier combined with the unfamiliarity of a different culture could create fear among officers when interacting with the Latino community. A participant from Warrensburg, who was a former police officer in another city, explained: The thing we need to understand about police officers dealing with Hispanics, it’s not just Hispanics, it could be any different culture. The problem with that is if you don’t understand their language and you don’t understand their culture you have some fear dealing with those kind of people. And until you understand a little bit more about them . . . I’d be scared dealing with different cultures, especially at night. You don’t understand what they’re saying, you don’t know if they’re saying, ‘hey let’s get ‘em’, that type of thing. Despite the fact that all members agreed that the language barrier impeded contact between the police and the Latino community they differed on solutions to this problem. A few members thought it would be beneficial if one or a couple of police officers in each department could speak Spanish. They suggested that their departments should attempt to recruit Spanish-speaking Latino officers. “I think the police should grow with the community,” one member stated, “and growing with the Hispanic population, there should be Hispanic people on the police force.” Another member in the same group added, “I do too. I think to a degree that the police should learn some Spanish to enhance public relations and work within the community.” Although these members were not aware of attempts to hire Latino officers or if Spanish language training was provided for existing officers, they believed it was important for local law enforcement agencies to focus on these efforts. Most respondents, on the other hand, were adamant in their view that regardless of the country of origin, people who come to the United States to live should speak or learn to speak English:


149

I don’t think the police department should be responsible for learning Spanish. I think the people when they come over here they ought to learn our language. It would help a lot if they would learn the English language and adhere to our customs the way we do here and where I’m coming from on that, as an old G.I., every foreign country I went to, I had to learn their language to survive. So why doesn’t that apply here? English is this country’s language and those who come here should learn our language as soon as possible. I know they can’t do it overnight. But they should at least maybe enroll in a class or something, at least to learn enough to understand what we’re talking about. I think that when we started immigration, people had to have a certain amount of English before they could become a citizen and I think we don’t do that . . . part of what made America strong was that everybody could speak the same language. And I think we’re losing that to some of these cultures that aren’t learning to speak English and I think if they’re going to be here and be citizens and work, they should be able to speak English. I think that they need to make the effort to learn to speak English and it would help to resolve some of those cultural conflicts, some of the language barriers, etc. I really believe that, that should be enforced. We have got to get people to take it upon themselves. If they’re going to become citizens of this area or this society then they have got to figure out some way to fit in. And it isn’t going to be just like putting people together, they have to have some language training. These focus group members additionally argued that the police should not have to add to their law enforcement responsibilities by taking Spanish language training. In a focus group in Warrensburg, for example, members began discussing officer salaries. One member, who was surprised by the low pay said that he believed the community

150


was expecting too much from their officers. “Think about it, that’s poverty level. Can you live on $350 take home a week? But then we want them to be professional, we want them to be able to communicate with everybody, we want them to be able to handle all situations. We’re asking for the moon.” In sum, because local law enforcement agencies were having a difficult time hiring and keeping officers, these members argued that expecting existing officers to learn Spanish was unreasonable. Immigration appeared to be another point of contention among focus group members in the study. Several voiced concern over what they perceived to be a large population of illegal Latino residents in their communities. They argued that if people from other countries were going to live in the United States, they should work to obtain temporary legal status or U.S. citizenship. Some participants suggested that even if communication problems due to the language barrier were not an issue, the fear of deportation would prevent Latinos from cooperating with the police. As one community member from Warrensburg, whose employer conducted business with the Latino community, stated: Even if you had somebody on the police department who was bilingual, I don’t think that even if they could speak or talk to them, they (the police) would get that much information about a crime. How many Hispanic people at Tyson Food have a green card? You would be surprised at how many do not. None of the members had ever known immigration status to be a law enforcement priority among their local departments. Yet, for a cooperative relationship to develop, they believed the police would have to assure the Latino community that immigration laws would not be enforced. A final challenge affecting the relationship between police and Latinos, according to white focus group participants appeared to stem from the larger issue of community resentment towards the Latino population. In other words, respondents believed that there were negative attitudes, particularly among white residents, toward the influx of Latinos into their communities.10 This is not to say that the local law enforcement agencies and their personnel held this perception, but that community residents would be less likely to support the use of already


151

limited police resources to fund efforts tailored to the Latino community. Focus group participants gave several explanations for this. First, some members from Sedalia believed that resentment towards the Latino community was due to the fact that Latinos were segregatedsocially and geographically-from the white community. Their community was composed predominately of white residents who espoused “small-town” attitudes, and who were resistant to welcome outside cultures. This, coupled with the language barrier, made the transition of Latinos into the community more difficult. “Some people in our community tend to be close-minded. It is very new to our community,” a member from Sedalia stated. “Imagine how much harder it is for somebody who is totally foreign to our culture and language to integrate into this community. There is a lot of resistance.” This member added that when a local radio station began broadcasting a two-hour program in Spanish on Saturday mornings, a community resident commented, “They are taking over our radio station.” The member remarked, “It’s that kind of attitude” that prevents Latino residents from integrating into the community. Members who spoke of the white residents’ animosity suggested that residents who did not make any effort to interact with Latinos residents or to participate in community activities where they might be exposed to the Latino population were more likely to feel resentment. Some members speculated that resentment towards the Latino community stemmed from residents’ perception that Latinos were taking jobs away from American citizens. As one member said, “Because they’re bringing in the Mexicans for the jobs and they’re getting that pay of course, there is a lot of resentment there. Especially the people that are in the lower income bracket.” Other members in the same group responded, however, that most white and African American residents felt these positions were beneath them and would not fill these jobs. As one member stated, “The Hispanics come in and take these [sic] below minimum wage work a lot of times just to do that kind of work, just to have work, where the rest of us, you know, ‘we’re too good for that, we don’t want to stoop that low in life’ but they are willing to do that.” Finally, some members suggested that a general lack of trust between white and Latino residents perpetuated community resentment. As one member stated, “There are some people that just don’t trust

152


them and they may not trust us.” Others, like a Knob Noster member, added that built in prejudices coupled with a lack of understanding about one another’s cultures needed to be overcome in order for Latinos and whites to coexist in their communities. “Built in prejudice . . . and it’s going to be different on both sides. I think it’s a lack of understanding the cultures and the failure of all cultures to adapt a little.” Members believed that even though all resentment would never be completely eliminated, the continuous Latino presence would lead to a greater acceptance by most community residents. Improving the Relationship Like the patrol officers and leaders, most focus group members suggested that one method of improving the police-Latino relationship was to hire a bilingual officer at each department to serve as a liaison to the Latino community. Assigning an officer to Latino neighborhoods as part of the liaison responsibilities, according to one member in Sedalia, would be an important step toward establishing rapport between Latino residents and local law enforcement: Having a police officer assigned to a particular area…and that group of people that live in that area instead of it being the police department, it would be an individual that they know by name and that addresses them, like riding their bike through the neighborhood or whatever that contact may be. It might be another way to build a relationship there. Some respondents further suggested that if an officer was hired for this position, he/she should be provided extra pay to discourage him/her from leaving for another department that provides salary incentives for officers with Spanish language skills. Developing some type of police-sponsored outreach program for the Latino community was a second suggestion offered by focus group members. Because there is a not a large resident population in Warrensburg, members in this community did not feel there was a need for outreach. Participants from Knob Noster and Sedalia, however, suggested that the police and Latino community might sponsor an “open house” where they could discuss issues (i.e., crime concerns, driving laws and ordinances) and begin to socialize with one another in an informal environment. Some members believed that because of


153

concerns over immigration status, the open house would not be well attended by many members of the Latino community. Nonetheless, they believed that the fact that the police department was attempting to include them in community affairs would be viewed positively by the Latino community. Other participants believed that if Latinos were encouraged to participate in existing community activities and organizations, they would be more likely to take part in police-sponsored activities such as neighborhood watches and other crime prevention initiatives. Some members argued that although residents may perceive that the Latino community should make some effort to work with law enforcement, the police department had the bulk of the responsibility for initiating a relationship: The (Hispanic) community has some responsibility to meet them out there in the middle someplace. But I think the police department has the lion’s share of that and that ultimately the community is going to hold them responsible to see to it that it gets done. You know, I can’t hold Joe Blow down there in that $200 a month apartment responsible, but I can hold the mayor and the chief of police responsible. I think it’s a little of both, but if I had to put a weight measurement on it, I think the police have more responsibility . . . they are public servants. When asked if the Latino community would work with the police department to solve any community problems, most focus group respondents believed that the police would first have to gain their trust and assure them that they were welcome in the community. Further, as discussed above, most members believed the first step in earning the trust was assigning an officer to serve as a liaison to the Latino community. Enlisting the help of an interpreter to provide interpretation services also appeared important in establishing a policeLatino community relationship: If they had someone who was an interpreter or someone that they could trust, then they would have someone in that community liaison kind of role. And you don’t know it might

154

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration take years or at least months to do that. There would have to be something pretty specific to help build that trust.

Other members suggested that the police should not assume that the Latino community would respond on the first attempt. “I think it would take more than one time,” a member stated. “The police department would have to prove that they could be trusted and be consistent with what they do.” Finally, members suggested that the police needed to communicate to the Latino community that their concerns about crime or other issues (i.e., driving offenses) were equally important as concerns among other racial and ethnic groups. Police-Community Relations: Latino Resident Perceptions Focus groups with Latino residents in both Knob Noster and Sedalia revealed that few members had ever called the police for assistance or service. The nature of calls from members who had called the police primarily involved emergency assistance (e.g., pregnant mother going into labor or an injured child). Like the white members, these Latino members stated they were satisfied with the police response. Further, although they had little English language proficiency, members stated that the police dispatch and responding officers were patient in trying to communicate with them.11 One member who had called for medical assistance for a neighbor’s injured child, stated, “I called the police and they were very helpful. Even though I did not speak much English, they came and helped me.” Members who had no English language proficiency and had never called the police stated that they would feel comfortable calling the police and would ask a bilingual neighbor, family member or friend to make the call. In addition to calling the police for assistance, Latino respondents stated that they would also contact their departments to file a complaint if they felt they were treated badly by police. Some members noted, however, that due to the treatment by police in Central America, Latino residents from this region would not be likely to complain about misconduct by American police. “If they call the police department, the police are not going to do anything about it,” one member stated. “They don’t believe that the police department is going to do anything against another officer.” Members additionally noted that the language barrier was another potential hurdle to calling the police to file a complaint. As one member stated, “Because they cannot speak English,


155

they are afraid no one will understand.” None of the Latino members in this study had ever filed a complaint with their police department, nor did they know of other residents who had contacted the police with a complaint. Although there were few citizen-initiated contacts, several participants stated that they had been stopped by the police for traffic violations. Although most of these members believed they generally were treated well during the stops, some participants stated that the language barrier (where the member could not speak English or the officer could not speak Spanish) made the experience confusing and affected the outcome of the stop. A member who could speak a little English, for example, was stopped by police for turning left on a red light. She did not understand why the turn was illegal and tried to ask the officer questions. She and the officer both became upset because they could not communicate with one another. She was subsequently issued three tickets for the stoplight violation, driving with only a learner’s permit, and seatbelt violations. Although the participant did not question the tickets, she commented that the interaction between the officer and herself would have been less tense if they had spoken the same language. In addition, she stated that she would have had a better understanding of the reason for the initial stop. Another member recounted a similar situation in which a non-English speaking Latino friend was stopped and was asked to produce proof of insurance for the vehicle. Due to the language barrier, the driver did not understand the officer’s request. He was issued a ticket for ‘no insurance,’ even though the insurance certificate was in the vehicle. A few of the Latino focus group participants perceived that Latino residents may be treated differently than white residents when stopped and/or arrested by the police. One member, who was stopped for speeding, did not understand why the police had searched her car and believed that only Latino residents had their cars searched. “When the police see that they are Mexican,” she stated, “they stop them, they check their car.” Another member reported that a resident who was arrested for driving without a license was handcuffed. The driver relayed to the member that the police treated him satisfactorily. But neither he nor the member understood why the driver was handcuffed after being arrested for a minor violation. In other words, the member associated being handcuffed with having committed a serious offense

156


and questioned whether the driver was handcuffed because he was Latino. In spite of the fact that most Latino residents came into contact with the police through traffic violations and despite the language barrier, most members believed that their local police officers cared about the Latino community and would assist them when needed. Some members who had recently moved to the Sedalia-Knob Noster area believed that, compared to officers in other states, the police there were more “human” and cared more about their community. One member stated, “They respect people in the community.” In addition, these members stated that compared to other places they had lived before residing in this area, because they perceived that their police departments were effective in protecting residents and combating crime, they felt safe enough to leave their vehicles and homes unlocked. Barriers to a Cooperative Police-Latino Relationship Although the language barrier to some extent hindered non-English speaking Latino residents from calling the police, Latino focus group respondents believed that the majority of the Latino community would contact bilingual friends or neighbors if they needed assistance in contacting the police. Most members interviewed for this study were also aware that their local law enforcement agencies had access to interpreters. Some members knew interpreters who worked for the police and felt that they could refer to them if they had any questions about the police. As indicated above, however, on-the-street encounters that often occurred without the assistance of an interpreter were problematic. In addition to traditionally brief encounters such as traffic stops, members believed the language barrier affected police-citizen encounters that required more in-depth investigation. In other words, in cases involving non-English speaking Latino victims/suspects, police officers who did not know Spanish might not be able to complete an investigation thoroughly. For example, a focus group member (who spoke some English) recounted a hit-and-run vehicle accident, in which an English-speaking female was the victim: When the police responded, the woman pointed to a Latino male that was walking down the sidewalk near the parking lot


157

and stated he was the one who had struck her vehicle. The officer wrote a ticket to the Latino male for leaving the scene of an accident. The subject told the member at the scene (in Spanish) that he had been sleeping in his vehicle during the accident and was not driving the car. The member then relayed this to the police officer and told the officer he had issued a ticket to the wrong person. The officer told the member that he had the right person and left the scene. The member believed that had the police officer known Spanish, he (the officer) would have been able to interview the subject and fully investigate the accident. Instead, the member believed the wrong person had been accused of the accident and did not have any recourse to dispute the ticket. Improving the Relationship When asked how the police-Latino relationship could be improved, focus group participants believed that the language barrier between the two groups was the most important issue to address. To mitigate the barrier, they first suggested that it would be helpful if their police departments employed bilingual officers. These officers could both assist other officers on traffic stops involving non-English speaking Latino drivers and could also work directly with the Latino community on any crime concerns or other related issues. Whereas some members mentioned that they had encountered bilingual police officers, airport security officers, etc. in larger cities, they recognized the limited resources of smaller communities. As one member in Sedalia stated, “Because Sedalia is a small town it would be very difficult for the police department to have a bilingual officer.” Members also believed that if the police departments employed bilingual dispatchers and/or staff, these individuals could assist non-English speaking callers when needed. Some respondents suggested that although employing bilingual officers and police department staff would help mitigate the language barrier in the short-term, they believed that long-term plans should include goals such as having their children continue to attend school and learn both English and Spanish. As one member explained, although the language barrier impeded verbal communication between the police and Latino community, it should not prevent both groups

158


from cooperating with one another. “We can work together. It is just a little wall that we need to get over.” Second, participants argued that non-English speaking Latino drivers needed to be better informed on what tickets they were issued and how to dispose of them (i.e., pay a fine, appear in court, etc.). Therefore, they suggested that tickets and any other information given to them that resulted from a traffic stop and/or arrest, be printed in both English and Spanish. Third, a few members recommended that police officers engage in more patrol and other visible activities (i.e., foot patrol) in their neighborhoods. Although members did not express any crime concerns, they believed the heightened presence of police would result in greater visibility among the Latino residents and would increase the likelihood of positive interactions between police and the Latino community. Finally, a community meeting where both the police and Latino community could meet together was another suggestion offered by members. All focus group members stated they would work with the police department to solve community problems if asked and would welcome it as an opportunity to learn more about law enforcement. They further suggested that at these meetings, the police could provide crime prevention information and material related to driving rules and regulations. Because many residents were already “intimidated” by the police uniform, respondents believed that not being able to communicate added to their apprehension of the police. Therefore, they suggested that interpreters be provided so that according to one member, “Hispanics would not be afraid to communicate with the police.” Some members believed that a community meeting would also provide an opportunity for residents to meet people from other Latin American countries such as Guatemala. As one Sedalia resident stated, “It is not only Americans that live here but people from different countries too.” Although not directly related to the police department’s responsibilities, clearly the greatest concern among the focus group participants was the ability to obtain all material related to driving (driver’s license manuals, local laws and ordinances, etc.) in Spanish. Some members stated that they were aware of driver’s license manuals that were written in Spanish, but that their local police departments did not carry them. In addition, they believed that if instructional driving classes were given in Spanish, much of the Latino community would


159

learn how to drive, be less likely to violate ordinances and therefore reduce the potential to interact with the police through traffic violations. As several members noted, much of the Latino community already drove without licenses or vehicle insurance: They don’t have any programs to help them with the driving test. When people are learning how to drive, they don’t have the rules and regulations in Spanish. Many people . . . they do not know how to drive or the rules and regulations, but they drive anyway out of necessity, because they have to go to work, grocery store . . . and if you can’t drive, you can’t go and get your insurance. Another member similarly stated that many Latino residents drove without licenses, because they did not know if they were required to be legal citizens or what types of documentation was needed to officially obtain a driver’s license (social security card, insurance, etc.). Summary Focus groups with white and Latino members revealed that neither group had a significant amount of citizen-initiated contact with the police/sheriffs’ departments in their communities. Only a small number of the white members had called the police for assistance or service, and even fewer Latino members had ever contacted the police. The few participants of both groups who had called the police reported that the nature of their contacts were for relatively minor problems, and believed they had received a satisfactory officer response. In terms of police-initiated contacts, several members in both groups stated that they had been contacted by the police primarily through stops for traffic violations. White focus group members commented that officers on the traffic stops were polite and respectful. Latino members reported, however, that the language barrier created some confusion and misunderstandings between the officers and drivers. White members suggested that challenges to establishing a cooperative relationship between the police and Latino community included the language barrier, immigration issues and trust. In addition, white members believed that in general, white residents in their communities harbored animosity towards the arrival of the Latino population. They attributed this community resentment to the lack of

160


integration between Latino and white residents and the perception by some white residents, that Latinos were taking jobs away from white citizens. Members suggested that hiring bilingual officers, enlisting the assistance of interpreters and police-sponsored meetings with the Latino community would help improve the relationship. Latino focus group participants also perceived the language barrier as a major impediment to police-Latino community relations. Because the majority of their contact with the police occurred through traffic stops, they were concerned that non-English speaking residents did not understand the reasons for the stops nor could they ask the officers questions during the stops. Further, some members believed that because Latino residents and officers could not communicate with one another, officers were unable to obtain all the information needed in criminal investigations. Clearly the most salient concern among Latino members was their inability to obtain information, training and bilingual instruction on driving rules and regulations, and obtaining licenses and insurance. Similar to white members, Latino respondents believed that hiring bilingual officers and setting up community meetings where both the police and Latino community could interact would be an important step to establishing a partnership. In addition, they suggested that having a greater police presence in Latino neighborhoods would increase the likelihood of positive interactions between the two groups. There did not appear to be much interaction between the white majority community residents and Latino residents in each of the communities. Although some white focus group participants stated that they knew of some Latino residents and perhaps worked with individuals of Latin American descent, they did not appear to base their perceptions on actual interactions with Latinos. In a similar vein, Latino residents did not appear to have much social contact with white residents in their communities. In short, interviews with both groups appeared to confirm the white members’ perception that there was a lack community cohesion or integration between white and Latino residents in these communities.

Conclusion Findings from patrol officer, community and government leader and focus group member interviews indicate that all groups believed that


161

the overall relationship between law enforcement and community residents was positive and supportive. Most participants believed that the majority of residents in their communities would feel comfortable contacting the police. Those who had contacted the police for service in the past were satisfied with the response and felt that law enforcement administrators and officers cared about their communities. Most participants also perceived that most residents would feel comfortable contacting the police with a complaint. Although few in number, participants who had filed complaints believed they were handled well and professionally. Patrol officers and community and government leaders suggested that any negative perceptions of the police stemmed from contacts with specific segments of the community such as those who had a high number of law enforcement-oriented contacts with the police (i.e., college students) and the African American population. Patrol officer, community and government leader and focus group member perceptions’ of the law enforcement relationship with the Latino community, on the other hand, was vastly different from that of the relationship between police and the white majority residents. Participants from each of the groups shared several common perceptions particularly challenges/barriers to creating a cooperative police-Latino relationship in their communities (see Table 4.10). First, and clearly the greatest challenge was the communication problem due to the language barrier. The language barrier not only affected officers’ ability to verbally communicate with non-English speaking Latinos through routine police contact, but had a significant impact on police performance in terms of time delays, a lack of Latinoinitiated calls to the police, informal police contact (i.e., community policing) in Latino neighborhoods and the ability to thoroughly conduct criminal investigations. Both officers and leaders also commented that because officers could not communicate with non-English speaking Latinos, these individuals might receive differential treatment in the form of leniency. For example, several officers stated they would not issue tickets or make arrests if they believed the Latino subject could not understand the purpose of the law enforcement action. As a result, Latinos may be free from punishment for law violations that would not be afforded to other English-speaking persons.

162


Table 4.10 Summary of Barriers Cited by Patrol Officers, Community and Government Leaders and Focus Group Members _________________________________________________________ Barriers Officers Leaders Members Language X X X Fear of the Police X X Immigration Issues X X X Nature of Contacts X X X Close-Knit Community X Lack of Community Representation X Latino Mobility X Community Resentment X _________________________________________________________ Discussions of the language barrier in interviews also uncovered several positions on the responsibility to mitigate the language barrier. Many participants felt that if people from other countries chose to live in the United States that they should learn to speak English. Whereas few officers expressed this belief, it was most prevalent among white focus group members. In their opinion, the Latino community, not law enforcement, should be accountable for overcoming the language barrier. Most officers and leaders, however, argued that either local law enforcement should take responsibility to mitigate the barrier through language training or employing bilingual officers, or that both the police and Latino community should work together on this issue. A second challenge shared by the majority of participants was their perception that because police in Mexico and Latin American countries were brutal and corrupt, Latinos were likely to have the same perceptions of distrust and fear toward American police. According to officers and leaders, this perception coupled with the language barrier, resulted in few Latino-initiated contacts with the police and a hesitancy to cooperate with the police in investigations. Third, participants in all groups believed that concerns about immigration and legalization issues impeded much of the Latino community from initiating contact with the police, filing complaints or would impede police efforts to provide outreach, or establish liaisons within Latino residential areas. Some participants believed that the fear


163

of deportation by the police was so great that even in the absence of a language barrier, the majority of the Latino population would be hesitant to work with the police. None of the groups had ever known the police to detain Latinos for the purpose of checking immigration status. They believed that more important, however, was the perception among Latino residents that the police had the authority to make arrests and deport those who did not have legal status in this country. It is important to note that none of the groups perceived any significant conflict between the police and the Latino community. Although a few Latino members reported some confusion and misunderstandings between non-English speaking Latino drivers and officers on traffic stops, these incidents did not result in major problems. They did observe, nonetheless, that the bulk of police contact with the Latino community occurred through driving offenses and other law violations such as domestic violence and the use of false identifications. Given the lack of contact with Latinos through other outlets (i.e., informal contacts) officers primarily appeared to shape their experiences and perceptions of the Latino community through these contacts. Leaders, in particular, suggested that these types of contacts not only had the potential for conflict, but left little room for police to engage in positive interactions with the Latino community. Patrol officers, community and government leaders and focus group members also suggested challenges individually that were not shared among all groups. For example, officers argued that the Latino community appeared insular and “close-knit” which impeded Latino contact with the police. In other words, the Latino community appeared to take care of its own problems, and was resistant to outside interference by the police or other governmental authority. Leaders believed that the lack of leader representation and the high mobility of the Latino population made them less likely to enter into a cooperative relationship with the police. Finally, white members perceived that resentment towards the Latino community prevented their integration into the community and might thwart efforts by the police departments to devote limited personnel and resources tailored to the Latino community. In conclusion, all groups offered several suggestions that could be implemented to improve the police-Latino community relationship. These included the increase in and the availability of more interpreters, the employment of bilingual officers who would serve as liaisons,

164


scheduling informal meetings for educational purposes and positive police-Latino interactions, and more informal police contacts within Latino neighborhoods. The majority of participants believed that most of the Latino community would work with the police to solve problems if asked, but that issues such as language, immigration issues and trust would first need to be addressed. Moreover, most participants asserted that initiating this type of relationship would not develop overnight; it would require the continuous effort and commitment from both the police and Latino community. Chapter Five presents the conclusions from the study and includes a discussion on the limitations of the study, to what extent police agencies in these rural communities have adapted to the influx of Latino population and suggestions for future research in the area of police-Latino community relations.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Latinos and the Police

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of new immigration patterns on police-community relations and the related impact on police organizational change in small Midwestern law enforcement agencies. Although some studies have focused on policeLatino community relations much of this research comes from large police departments in metropolitan areas. Little research has addressed the relationship between demographic change and police response in small communities, particularly, in the Midwestern region of this country. The theoretical basis for this study was an adaptation of the “muddling through” approach, an organizational perspective that suggests when faced with complex policy changes organizational administrators more likely to make small or incremental changes rather than sweeping reforms (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). The muddling through approach for this study provided a framework for examining the policy changes, if any, that rural police agencies have implemented to respond to their changing demographic environment. To investigate the police-Latino community relationship, I implemented a case study approach in which multiple sources of data were collected from three rural communities in Missouri: Sedalia, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Due to the construction and/or expansion of food processing plants within the last decade, each of these rural communities experienced a substantial increase in the Latino population. The five sources of data included: (1) law enforcement agency documents and records (n=5 police and sheriffs’ departments); (2) field observation of law enforcement patrol personnel (n=240 hours); (3) interviews with law enforcement patrol personnel 165

166


(n=48); (4) interviews with community and government leaders (n=29); and (5) focus groups with community organizations (n=11).

Principal Findings This section highlights the major findings and conclusions from the study. Policy implications drawn from the research findings are included in this section. I. All groups perceived the relationship between the police and majority community as positive and supportive. Most of the participants interviewed for this study perceived that the majority of the residents in their communities had positive attitudes toward the police. Patrol officers and law enforcement administrators, in particular, cited evidence of residents’ support through feedback such as thank you cards, and letters and support letters in local newspapers. They additionally believed that the high proportion of calls for information and calls for relatively minor complaints (e.g., barking dogs, loud noise complaints) was indicative of residents feeling comfortable calling the police. Community leaders further suggested that the relatively small size of their communities-which afforded more informal interactions between officers and residents-the professionalism of their police/sheriffs’ agencies, and an “open door policy” to receive citizen complaints, played a large role in shaping these positive attitudes toward local law enforcement. Most focus group members similarly believed that the majority of residents in their communities felt comfortable contacting the police. Those who had previously contacted the police for assistance or service stated that they were satisfied with the response and felt that law enforcement administrators and officers cared about their communities. Many respondents also stated that when stopped by the police for various traffic violations they believed that the officers were polite and respectful. As a final indication of a positive police-community relationship, although few participants in this study had called to file a complaint with their departments, those who had believed their complaints were handled well and professionally. Officers and community leaders suggested that any negative perceptions of the police stemmed from contacts with specific segments of the community, such as those who had a high number of law enforcement-

Bridging the Gap

167

oriented contacts with the police (i.e., college students) and the African American population. II. Law enforcement agencies have made some efforts to adapt to the influx of Latino immigrants in their communities. None of the law enforcement agencies had any programs that had established a formal liaison with the immigrant communities. Further, none of the agencies had employed sworn or non-sworn personnel for the specific purpose of maintaining a liaison with new immigrant communities. Information from police/sheriffs’ department records and interviews with the law enforcement administrators demonstrate, however, that the agencies in this study have made some efforts to adapt to the needs of the growing Latino population in their communities. Despite the absence of formal programs or liaisons, each law enforcement agency had either some type of reference material translated in both Spanish and English or had access to bilingual material to assist in booking and processing procedures. Another means of adapting to the Latino community was evident in formal officer training. Several officers in the study indicated that they had either received cultural diversity training or Spanish language training from a basic police academy or other state-sponsored courses (i.e., Missouri P.O.S.T.). Several officers who attended courses such as “Survival Spanish” questioned the usefulness of this training, but those who had not received the training expressed an interest in attending a Spanish language class. Finally, all of the law enforcement agencies had access to interpretation assistance from residents in their communities. Three of the five agencies in this study paid interpreters for their assistance and each department maintained a list of interpreters that could be called upon department request. There was evidence in this study that law enforcement administrators had access to innovative ideas and participated in information sharing among police/sheriffs’ agencies. All administrators were members of various state/national level professional organizations such as the Missouri Chief’s of Police Association, International Chiefs of Police Association and the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association, and regularly attended training and conferences sponsored by these organizations. In addition to formal associations, administrators spoke of informal networks they had

168


developed with sheriffs and chiefs both within and outside their counties and states. They often communicated with other administrators and exchanged information on issues that affected their own agencies. For example, one sheriff frequently spoke with a newer sheriff from a neighboring county to discuss ideas on how to address budgeting problems with their county commissions. The Chief of Sedalia stated that he often spoke with the Chief of Warrensburg to “bounce ideas off each other” about various law enforcement issues. If they encountered problems and/or needed assistance, all administrators in this study stated that they would never hesitate to contact another administrator who might be experiencing or had experienced the same problem. Law enforcement administrators in this study did not appear to receive much assistance from their formal networks on how to address the new influx of Latino immigrants in their communities. Some administrators stated that they had received some limited training from INS on topics such as how to spot fake identifications, but that the training did not specifically help them or their departments in addressing language and other barriers with the Latino community. As one administrator commented, “These associations don’t really deal with Latino issues because they don’t deal with these problems . . . a lot of smaller towns don’t have these problems.” Another administrator stated that although potential problems brought on by the Latino newcomers have been discussed at some meetings sponsored by professional organizations, “they talk about problems but not a lot about solutions.” Informal networks with neighboring chiefs and sheriffs also did not appear to produce much assistance for administrators in this study. Though they had communicated with one another that efforts such as officer language training and hiring bilingual officers would greatly benefit their departments, each agency was constrained by limited resources and the lack of bilingual applicants for police officer positions. In sum, the organizational response among law enforcement agencies to the Latino immigration in this study appeared to represent the muddling through approach. Faced with a major policy-making decision, these administrators had implemented small incremental changes (i.e., bilingual forms, translation assistance, etc.) to address the needs of the Latino community. Despite their participation in formal and informal networks, however, none of the administrators appeared to benefit from a diffusion of innovative ideas. They were already well

Bridging the Gap

169

aware of what steps needed to be taken to adapt to the influx of Latinos in their community. Finding the resources to initiate those steps remained the greatest challenge. These agencies, therefore, could be characterized by what Lindblom (1979) termed as “still muddling, not yet through.” III. There was no apparent major conflict between the police or the majority community and the Latino community. Some research suggests that immigration brought on by the development and/or expansion of meatpacking factories in rural communities has resulted in significant increases in crime rates (Gouveia and Stull 1995; Grey 1995; U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). Other research has further found that when a small community’s population increases rapidly over a short period of time, residents may be distrustful and hostile toward newcomers into the community. Because the new residents will differ from established residents in terms of demographic characteristics, values, and norms, one consequence of this change may be an elevated and exaggerated fear of crime (Krannich, Berry, and Greider 1989; Krannich, Grieder, and Little 1985; Krannich and Greider 1990). In the present study, however, there did not appear to be any major conflict between the predominately white community residents and the Latino residents, and the white residents did not generally believe that their communities had experienced an increase in crime or other related activities (i.e., use of drugs, gang activity). Similarly, officers did not perceive that the new immigration had resulted in an increase in crime or conflicts between law enforcement and the Latino community. Although there was the potential for conflict stemming from language barrier situations and the nature of police contacts with the Latino community, incidents involving major conflict between officers and Latino residents were not observed in this study. IV. The language barrier was the greatest challenge affecting the development of a police-Latino community relationship. Respondents believed that communication problems due to the language barrier, (where the officer could not speak Spanish and the Latino individual(s) could not speak English), was the most significant challenge to developing a relationship between police and Latino residents. In their routine contacts with the Latino community, for

170


example, most (62.5 percent) of the patrol officers reported that they had experienced language barriers “often” or “most of the time.” The inability to communicate affected the time required for officers to complete a call, impeded Latino citizen-initiated contact with the police and hampered efforts at informal interaction (i.e., community policing) with the Latino community. One of the most interesting effects of the language barrier, according to the officers and community leaders for this study, was the perceived differential treatment of Latinos in the form of leniency. Some officers explained that in some situations, they or their coworkers would not stop an obviously visibly Latino driver who had committed a traffic violation for fear that they would not be able to communicate with him/her. Other officers stated that if they were unable to communicate with a non-English speaking driver at a traffic stop, and a translator was not available, the driver would be released without further investigation. Officers would also not issue a traffic ticket if they believed the Latino driver would not know how to dispose of it. Finally, some officers asserted that the language barrier would not preclude them from stopping or engaging in a brief conversation (to obtain a driver’s license, proof of insurance, etc.) with a non-English speaking Latino driver. These officers would not, however, attempt to have an in-depth conversation that might lead to probable cause to question further, search the vehicle, or perform any extra investigative functions. Community leaders similarly believed that officers were more likely to ignore minor violations of laws and ordinances if they could not communicate with the non-English speaking Latino who was the subject of the stop. They further suggested that because officers could not speak Spanish, they were less likely to go out into the Latino communities and make proactive contacts with residents. Finally, focus group members also perceived that the language barrier significantly affected the relationship between the police and the Latino community. Latino respondents, in particular, confirmed that few Latino residents initiated contact with the police for assistance or filed complaints against local departments out of fear that they would not be able to communicate. A few Latino respondents who had been stopped by the police for traffic violations added that the language barrier caused confusion and misunderstandings in terms of not being

Bridging the Gap

171

able to ask questions or understand officer requests (i.e., to produce proof of insurance). All of the law enforcement agencies had access to interpretation assistance from residents in the community. Each department had a list of interpreters who could be called if needed. Officers also spoke of others who might assist in interpretation such as spouses, school-aged children, persons at the scene or INS (by telephone). Most (70.8 percent) of the officers stated that they had experienced language barrier situations where an interpreter was unable to respond or assist. In the presence of a language barrier, particularly on a traffic stop, officers explained that they would attempt to “stumble through” or “muddle through” by using a combination of speaking slowly and hand signals. Other officers noted that they might find the phrase or question that they wanted to communicate to the driver in some type of translation device (i.e., “Speedy Spanish” book) and then point to it so the driver could read it. Similarly, if officers believed that they could at least communicate to the subject that they needed his/her name, date of birth, etc., they would have the individual write down the information. Finally, if the non-English speaking Latino was arrested and/or issued a summons that required a court appearance, some officers explained that they might tell the Latino to “take this to an interpreter,” point to the date on the summons and then point out the location of the courthouse in which the subject was to appear. V. Fear of the police, immigration issues and the nature of contacts between the police and Latino community had a significant impact on their relationship. In addition to the language barrier, interviews with officers, community leaders and focus group participants revealed that other challenges also impeded the development of a cooperative relationship between the police and Latino community. Fear of the Police Most of the officers and community leaders believed the fear and distrust of the police among the Latino community had a considerable impact on their relationship with law enforcement. They believed that the Latino population had experienced widespread police brutality and corruption in their native countries. Interpreters, in particular, characterized the police in Mexico as brutal and stated that some

172


members of the Latino community had recounted stories to them of being beaten by the police. They further explained that if citizens in Mexico called the police for assistance in emergency situations, it was not uncommon for police to respond slowly if at all. As a result, most participants believed that when Latinos came to the United States, they transmitted their suspicion and fear to police in this country. Some asserted that the fear of the police was so strong, that even absent the language barrier the Latino community was less likely to contact the police for assistance and would rarely ever file a complaint. Immigration The issue of immigration and legalization was a third challenge that impeded the development of a cooperative police-Latino community partnership. Most participants in the study perceived that a large proportion of the Latino population in their communities were not in the United States legally. Participants stated that because they feared being deported, Latino residents would not draw attention to themselves by initiating contact with their police/sheriff’s departments. None of the participants interviewed for this study had ever heard or known of any formal or informal policy that directed officers to conduct stops of pedestrians and vehicles for the purpose of checking immigration status. In addition, many officers explained that when they reported Latinos who did not have legal status, they received little, if any, response from INS. Participants suggested that the lack of immigration enforcement notwithstanding, the Latino community believed that the police had the authority to make arrests and deport those who did not have legal status in this country. Nature of Police Contacts Finally, most respondents in each group believed that the nature of police interactions with the Latino community affected police-Latino community relations. Unlike the white majority community, police officers engaged in few informal interactions with the Latino community. Rather, officers interacted regularly with Latinos in potentially negative encounters such as driving offenses/vehicle violations, domestic violence and the use of false identifications. As a result, officers and the Latino community tended to frame their experiences and views of one another through these types of contacts.

Bridging the Gap

173

Almost half (48 percent) of the community leaders believed that most of the police contacts with the Latino community stemmed from driving/vehicle offenses and false identification charges. They asserted that because the primary contact between the police and the Latino community revolved around these types of law-enforcement related actions, the opportunity to engage in positive police-Latino community interactions was substantially reduced. Community leaders suggested that a direct result of these interactions was that officers were more likely to view their relationship with Latinos as negative. Despite the high number of interactions with these types of offenses, there did not appear to be any indications of conflict between the police and Latino community. As noted previously, some Latino focus group members reported some confusion stemming from the language barrier, between non-English speaking Latino drivers and non-Spanish speaking officers, on traffic stops. These incidents, however, did not result in major problems. In addition, there was no evidence of a history of conflict between law enforcement and the Latino population in these communities. VI. All groups suggested ways to improve the police-Latino relationship. In light of the barriers and challenges, officers, community leaders, and focus group members offered suggestions to improve the police-Latino community relationship. More than half (56.2 percent) of the officers, for example, believed that their departments could help them improve interactions with the Latino community by providing them Spanish language and cultural diversity training. Due to concerns about departmental resources for extra training, some officers suggested language and cultural diversity classes should be required in the basic police academy. Therefore, all officers would receive the training and concerns about funding and personnel levels (to allow officers to attend training) would be minimized. Ten (20.8 percent) officers in the study believed that increasing the number and availability of interpreters to assist with interpretation would also help improve the relationship. Making an effort to hire bilingual officers to interpret and serve as liaisons to the Latino community was a suggestion made by all groups. Nine (18.7 percent) officers and approximately half (51.7 percent) of the community leaders suggested departments hire and assign a bilingual officer to serve as a liaison to the Latino community. Given

174


the lack of trust towards law enforcement, they believed that if the Latino community could communicate freely with at least one officer in each department, a better rapport between the police/sheriffs’ agencies and Latino residents could be established. Focus group participants added that bilingual officers could both assist other officers on traffic stops involving non-English speaking Latino drivers and could work with the Latino community on any crime concerns and other related law enforcement issues. Setting up informal meetings between the police and the Latino community was another common suggestion. For officers, in particular, these meetings would provide an important opportunity to learn about Latino residents’ expectations for law enforcement and their perceptions about problems in the community. Other objectives for these meetings, according to community leaders, could include language training, information on culture and customs, and education for Latino residents about local laws and ordinances and what to expect when stopped by the police. Finally, focus group members believed that an “open house” sponsored by the police and the Latino community would create an opportunity to discuss issues and socialize with one another in an informal environment. Although most participants in the study believed that their local police/sheriff’s departments should make efforts to accommodate the Latino community (e.g., through training, hiring bilingual officers), many argued that the responsibility to overcome any barriers did not rest solely with law enforcement. More than half (55.1 percent) of the community leaders, believed that both law enforcement and the Latino community should “meet in the middle” to solve any problems stemming from language or other barriers. Six (12.5 percent) officers similarly argued that improving interactions between the police and the Latino community should be a dual responsibility. In discussions on language barrier issues with white focus group members, however, most did not believe their local police/sheriff’s agencies had any responsibility to learn Spanish. They believed that regardless of the country of origin, people who came to the United States to live should speak or learn to speak English. In other words, they argued that the police should not have to add to their law enforcement responsibilities by taking Spanish language training. Most of the participants in this study believed that if asked, the majority of the Latino community would work with law enforcement to

Bridging the Gap

175

solve community problems. Identifying and discussing community problems, many believed, could occur in informal meetings between the police and Latino residents. Many participants suggested, however, that specific concerns among the Latino community would have to be addressed before expecting their assistance and cooperation. The police would first have to convince Latino residents that immigration status was not a concern and would not be used as a pretext to determine who was not a legal citizen. In addition, trust towards the police would take time and consistent law enforcement effort rather than an occasional contact with the Latino community. Policy Implications As noted repeatedly throughout this study, the language barrier had the most significant impact on police-Latino community relations. Although there was a debate among participants surrounding the responsibility to mitigate the language barrier, some officers expressed an interest in receiving Spanish language training. Further, as suggested by many officers, an eight-to 16-hour language training class provided in a basic police academy and/or enlisting the support of volunteers to teach Spanish to officers would diminish the need to tap into limited departmental resources. Conducting an “open house” or meeting where both officers and Latino residents could discuss law enforcement issues, crime concerns and other issues is another implication that can be drawn from this study. Most officers, community leaders and Latino focus group members were interested in participating in this type of meeting and perceived it as an important step in establishing an open dialogue between the police and Latino community. In light of the support for this initiative, scheduling a meeting between the two groups should be considered. Hiring bilingual officers to help interpret and serve as liaisons between law enforcement and the Latino community was a suggestion offered by all groups in the study. Law enforcement administrators emphasized their desire to hire bilingual officers but were limited by the inability to attract applicants who could work at other departments and receive pay incentives for their language skill. Further, officers and white focus group respondents, in particular, observed that their police/sheriff’s departments were struggling to maintain current personnel levels. They believed that it was difficult enough to prevent

176


any officer from leaving their communities for higher pay, let alone try and attract officers who were bilingual. In short, at this time, maintaining current personnel levels and addressing officer salaries appeared to be a higher priority for the agencies in this study. Although not directly related to the police/sheriffs’ departments’ responsibilities, clearly the greatest concern among Latino members in this study was the ability to obtain material such as driver’s license manuals written in Spanish. Making these manuals accessible might not only reduce the high number of police contacts with the Latino community involving traffic violations but might decrease the number of offenses that involve driving without a license as well.

Methodological Concerns and Limitations This research was designed to investigate the nature of police-Latino community relations in rural communities in the Midwest. Given the exploratory nature of this study, some potential methodological concerns and limitations should be addressed. First, the findings of this study are limited to three rural communities in central Missouri and may not be generalizable to other areas that have experienced a significant increase in the Latino population. Many small communities across the country, however, have been affected by the combined impact of changing economic opportunities and the new immigration. Although there may be different industries and different immigrant groups in other parts of the country, the findings related to the law enforcement response to community change here, have general applicability. Second, although patrol officers were observed for 240 hours, only four calls resulted in language barrier contacts. None of the calls involved a major delay because of the language barrier. Three of calls involved a minor delay, yet the delay was only a couple of minutes and did not significantly affect the outcome of the calls. Had calls involving major delays been observed conclusions, on what effect, if any, the language barrier has on police-Latino interactions could be drawn. In a similar vein, none of language barrier calls involved serious violent or non-violent crimes. The presence of language barriers in these types of contacts might affect the outcome of the calls and/or create a potential conflict between the officer and non-English speaking Latino individual. In sum, given the small number of

Bridging the Gap

177

language barrier calls and the nature of these calls, it is difficult to draw major conclusions in this study about on-the-street interactions between the police and the Latino community. A final limitation to the study concerns focus groups with Latino residents. First, because the focus group interviews were conducted at established churches in Knob Noster and Sedalia, there is a concern over selection bias to the extent that it tends to exclude persons who are socially isolated. In other words, the participants in these groups were probably more integrated into their communities and more likely to participate in community activities and organizations than those who did not participate. Focus groups with newly arrived Latinos who have not integrated into their communities could potentially produce different results. Second, only three focus groups with Latino residents were conducted. It is unknown whether a larger number of focus groups would yield different or similar findings.

Bridging the Gap The findings of this research point towards the need for police agencies in rural communities to engage in outreach efforts to the Latino community. Likewise, Latino participation and input on how law enforcement can serve their community is equally essential. Suggestions for creating a cooperative relationship include positive police visibility in the Latino community such as attending cultural events (Gailliard 2003), traveling through neighborhoods and speaking with residents (Arcury and Elmore 2001). This presence would provide officers the opportunity to assure Latinos that they are there to help and to encourage them to seek assistance when necessary, from the police: Officers should find ways to remind Latinos that they should not fear the police. Officers need to tell Latinos that they do not work for the INS, that officers in this country are paid and do not need to be bribed, that officers will help whether or not a person has documents, and that Latinos should report all crimes to the police or call 911 (Arcury and Elmore 2001, 6). Distributing bilingual crime prevention information through brochures, public service announcements and other media, and videos is also recommended to help Latinos learn how to protect themselves (Arcury and Elmore 2001). The findings of this study reveal that rural law

178


enforcement agencies face major challenges in hiring bilingual and bicultural officers. As mentioned above, officers could learn a few Spanish phrases through language training in the academy and beyond. In the absence of bilingual officers, however, perhaps departments could identify a few select officers who are interested in intensive language training (i.e., university level courses) and would serve the department with interpreting skills. Other efforts for enhancing police-Latino community relations could include a comprehensive needs assessment of Latino residents. In addition to outreach efforts described above, the formation of community relations committees or advisory groups with representatives from all segments of the population should be considered. These forums give residents a “voice” to share their experiences and unique needs to local law enforcement, which will “prompt police agencies to be more open and responsive to the community” (Bennett 1995, 2) With the assistance of Latino leaders and interpreters, soliciting input from various neighborhood groups and through citizen surveys (McCartney 2001) are additional ways to learn the needs of Latino community members. Finally, “best practices” among rural communities and law enforcement agencies that have found innovative ways to successfully adapt to burgeoning Latino populations should be identified (Dalla and Baugher 2001). Lessons learned from these communities can help guide others to respond to future demographic changes as well (Dalla and Baugher 2001). Bridging the gap between law enforcement and Latino communities particularly in rural areas will not be an easy task. The language barrier, fear of the police and immigration issues compounded by limited police resources significantly hinders progress toward establishing strong police-Latino relations. An additional challenge not addressed in this research, but of important concern are post 9/11 issues which have refueled the debate on immigration. This undoubtedly places an additional strain on police-Latino relations. Federal immigration enforcement on the local level has been widely contested by police and sheriffs’ agencies across the country, and by all accounts could undermine communication efforts and developing relationships with immigrant communities (Vargas 2002). As more Latino newcomers come and make their homes in rural communities across the Midwest, it will become increasingly important to equip law enforcement with the skills and tools needed to focus on the problem

Bridging the Gap

179

areas addressed here. It will require a commitment not only from law enforcement but from Latino residents and other community stakeholders as well. Further, as community and government leaders in the Mid-Missouri study cautioned, unlike other racial and ethnic groups, it might take time for the Latino community to respond to police outreach efforts. To repeat an earlier observation from one Latina leader about Latino perceptions of law enforcement, “Old mind sets die hard. They’ve got it in their heads that ‘police are not good people.’”

Recommendations for Future Research As the Latino population continues to increase, specifically in the Midwestern region of this country, the impact of this growth on policecommunity relations in small rural communities will become an even more salient issue. Several recommendations for future research in this area should be considered. First, much of the research on police-community relations in the United States has focused on large police agencies located in metropolitan areas. Although some research has investigated policing in rural communities (Brock et al. 2001; Christensen and Crank 2001; Frank and Liederbach 2003; O’Shea 1999; Sims 1988; Weisheit and Donnermeyer 2000; Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone 1994; 1995) relatively little is known about how the context of police-community relations varies between large city police and their rural counterparts. Second, the nature of police-Latino relations in other rural communities that have recently experienced an influx of Latino newcomers should be investigated. This research could help confirm the findings in this study or reveal other issues or problems that need to be addressed. For example, how have other rural police/sheriff’s agencies adapted to the influx of newly arrived Latino immigrants? How do they perceive their relationship with the Latino community? Has the influx altered their production of police services to the public? How do both majority and Latino residents perceive the relationship between the police and Latino community? Similarly, research should investigate differences among various groups and cultures within the Latino community (Hennessy 2000; Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001). It is reasonable to assume that immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Guatemala have different experiences from their native

180


lands that shape their perceptions of police in this country (Menjívar and Bejarano 2004). Examining the impact of other non-English speaking immigrant groups, (i.e., Asian, Eastern European) on rural communities and their law enforcement agencies would also provide valuable insight on police and immigrant community relations. Several Sedalia and Pettis County officers mentioned in this study, for example, that the northern part of Pettis County was experiencing an increase in Latvian immigrants. Even though they did not have much contact with residents from this ethnic group at the time of this study, they believed that the growth of this predominately non-English speaking population could present future language barrier issues. Finally, this study has potential application for other parts of the criminal justice system as well. Courts and correctional agencies across the country also face the challenge of responding to client populations-suspected offenders, victims, witnesses-drawn from new immigrant communities. Research is needed to examine how these agencies have adapted to non-English speaking populations and to what extent language and other barriers have affected their provision of services.

NOTES

CHAPTER 1 1 Immigrants are defined as “all persons not born in the United States, one of its outlying territories, or of U.S. parents living abroad...” (Camarota 2001). 2 In the 1990 census, respondents could choose from five racial/ethnic categories. People in the 2000 census could identify themselves as members of any sixty-three categories. Therefore, it is impossible to make direct comparisons between the two censuses. CHAPTER 2 In March 2003, the INS disbanded; immigration enforcement is now spread across 3 separate agencies which are under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. Because this research was conducted in 2001, “INS” will be used to preserve the research context. 2 Under the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, an interpreter must be appointed in the federal courts when “a party or witness speaks only or primarily in a language other than English or suffers from a hearing impairment, so as to inhibit the person’s comprehension of the proceedings” (Piatt 1990, 3-4). 3 Although the Kerner Commission has become one of the most cited historical accounts of conflict between the police and minority communities, the Commission focused specifically on the treatment of African Americans by the police. Conflict between the police and ethnic communities such as Latinos receive no attention in the report. 4 The authors point out however, that 21 percent of survey respondents reside in Texas. Latinos in this Texas are generally more conservative than Latinos in other states and more likely to support law enforcement (see de la Garza and DeSipio 1998). 5 As Shusta and his colleagues point out (2002), more than 100,000 Mexican people already resided in the region at the signing of the Treaty. Therefore, many Latinos in the United States can trace their heritage back to these traditionally owned Mexican lands. 1

181

182

Notes

6

Rochín and Aponte (1996) report that from 1980 to 1990, more than 800,000 Latino immigrants arrived in the Chicago area; an increase of 56 percent in the Midwest’s population. 7 According to the Bureau of the Census, both North Carolina and South Carolina saw the largest growth of Latinos in the United States; a 393 percent increase (U.S. Bureau of the Census, cited from Alden 2001). 8 It is important to note that immigration is not the sole source of growth of Latinos in the Midwest. Natural increase and the migration from other areas have the United States have contributed to the increase in this population as well (see Aponte and Siles 1997). 9 In one Iowa case study, however, Grey (1999) found Latinos did not plan to settle in the local community. Instead, they had developed strategies to earn money, while at the same time not become permanent members of the local working class and bolster their economic position in their native countries. CHAPTER 4 Unless otherwise noted, the term “officer” will be used to refer to all law enforcement patrol personnel, which includes municipal police officers and sheriffs’ deputies. 2 I did not make any requests to observe particular officers; I was assigned to officers based on each department’s scheduling needs and convenience. 3 Missouri’s P.O.S.T. requires that all certified peace officers in the state earn 48 hours of continuing education requirements within a 3 year period. Cultural diversity, a 4-hour class, is one of several training curricula in the Interpersonal Perspectives Module. Officers may also choose from other topics in this module, including ethics, conflict management, victim sensitivity and stress management (Missouri Department of Public Safety). 4 According to the officers in the study, the Spanish language class is offered at several law enforcement training sites in Missouri. 5 It is important to note that officers record the drivers’ race/ethnicity based on visual appearance of the driver, which may or may not reflect the drivers’ true racial or ethnic identity. 6 The results of the survey indicated that the two most important concerns among citizens in this community were parking complaints and animal control. 7 In the Sedalia municipal court, if they were aware of upcoming cases where Latinos would need interpreters, they would arrange for these cases to appear on specific court dates of the month. 8 All of the interpreters interviewed for this study were of Latin descent. 1

Notes 9

183

Focus groups with Latino residents in Knob Noster and Sedalia were conducted at local churches. No Latino organizations or churches existed in Warrensburg. 10 Discourse on community integration should include the African American population as well. Because the majority of focus group members were white and a distinction was not drawn between white and African American resident perceptions, however, this discussion is limited to non-Latino whites and Latino residents. 11 Members who had called the police department stated they had never spoken to anyone who was bilingual.


REFERENCES

Aizenman, Nurith C. 2001. Seer’s tales of hexes strip poor of savings; Immigrants trusted woman with $40,000. The Washington Post, 21 October. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1997. Sentencing under federal guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review 31:789822. Alden, Doug. 2001. Nebraska sees largest Hispanic growth. Associated Press, 1 April. Alpert, Geoffrey P. and Roger G. Dunham. 1988. Policing multi-ethnic neighborhoods: The Miami study and findings for law enforcement in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Aponte, Robert and Marcelo Siles. 1994. Latinos in the heartland: The browning of the Midwest. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. ______. 1997. Winds of change: Latinos in the Heartland and the nation. Statistical Brief 5, East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Arcury, Thomas A., and Rebecca Elmore. 2001. Perceptions of crimes affecting North Carolina’s Latino residents: Results from a qualitative crime prevention needs assessment. System Stats: North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center.

185

186

References

Armas, Genaro C. 2001. Many Hispanics entering small towns. Associated Press, April 2, 2001. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/ DailyNews/census010312.html (accessed April 2, 2001). Arreola, Daniel. 2000. Mexican Americans. In Ethnicity in contemporary America: A geographical appraisal, edited by Jesse O. McKee. 2d ed. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Axtman, Kris. 2002. Melting-pot cities try new police tactics: Houston cops defy convention to solve crime in growing immigrant communities. The Christian Science Monitor, 28 August. Bankston, William B., Quentin A. L. Jenkins, Cheryl L. Thayer-Doyle, and Carol Y. Thompson. 1987. Fear of criminal victimization and residential location: The influence of perceived risk. Rural Sociology 52:98-107. Bass, Sandra. 2001. Policing space, policing race: Social control imperatives and police discretionary decisions. Social Justice 28:156-176. Batton, Candice, and Colleen Kadleck. 2004. Theoretical and methodological issues in racial profiling research. Police Quarterly 7:30-64. Bayley, David H., and Harold Mendolsohn. 1968. Minorities and the police: Confrontation in America. New York: Free Press. Bealer, Robert C., Fern K. Willits, and William P. Kuvlesky. 1965. The meaning of “rurality” in American society: Some implications of alternative definitions. Rural Sociology 30:255-266. Bean, Frank, and Maria Tienda. 1987. Hispanics in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bean, Frank D., W. Parker Frisbie, B. Lindsay Lowell, and Edward E. Telles. 1989. The Spanish-origin population in the American southwest. In Mexican and Central American Population and U.S. Immigration Policy, edited by Frank D. Bean, Jurgen Schmandt and Sidney Weintraub. The University of Texas at Austin: The Center for Mexican American Studies.

References

187

Belyea, Michael J., and Matthew T. Zingraff. 1987. Fear of crime and residential location. Rural Sociology 53:473-486. Bennett, Brad R. 1995. Incorporating diversity: Police response to multicultural changes in their communities. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 64:1-6. Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon. Bjerklie, Steve. 1995. On the horns of a dilemma: The U.S. meat and poultry industry. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Bondavilli, Bonnie J., and Bruno Bondavilli. 1995. Spanish-speaking people and the North American criminal justice system. In Criminal Justice and Latino Communities, edited by Antoinette Sedillo Lopez. New York: Garland Publishing. Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. 1963. A strategy of decision: Policy evaluation as a social process. New York: Free Press. Brett, Jennifer. 2004. Gwinnett crime preys on Hispanics. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, 10 January. Brock, Deon, Mike Copeland, Robert F. Scott Jr., and Phillip Ethridge. 2001. Rural policing in the Midwest. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 17:49-59. Broadway, Michael J. 1995. From city to countryside: Recent changes in the structure and location of the meat-and fish-processing industries. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Camarillo, Albert M., and Frank Bonilla. 2001. Hispanics in a multicultural society: A new American dilemma? In America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences, edited by Neil J. Smelser, William Julius Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

188

References

Camarota, Steven A. 2001. Immigrants in the United States-2000: A snapshot of America’s foreign-born population. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Carter, David L. 1983. Hispanic interaction with the criminal justice system in Texas: Experiences, attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice 11:213-227. ______. 1986. Hispanic police officers’ perception of discrimination. Police Studies 9:204-210. Cheurprakobkit, Sutham. 2000. Police-citizen contact and police performance: Attitudinal differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice 28:325-336. Cheurprakobkit, Sutham and Robert A. Bartsch. 1999. Police work and the police profession: Assessing attitudes of city officials, Spanish-speaking Hispanics, and their English-speaking counterparts. Journal of Criminal Justice 27:87-100. Christensen, Wendy, and John P. Crank. 2001. Police work and culture in a nonurban setting: An ethnographic analysis. Police Quarterly 4:69-98. Coleman, Toni. 2003. Minnesota: Measure targets immigrants’ fears. Pioneer Press, 27 December. Cooper, Marc. 1997. The heartland’s raw deal: How meatpacking is creating a new immigrant underclass. The Nation 264:11-17. Creswell, John W. 1994. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications. ______. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications. Dalla, Rochelle L., and Shirley L. Baugher. 2001. Immigration and the rural Midwest. In The hidden America: Social problems in rural America for the twenty-first century, edited by Robert M. Moore, III. Associated University Presses.

References

189

Dalla, Rochelle L., Sheran Cramer, and Kaye Stanek. 2002. Economic strain and community concerns in three meatpacking communities. Rural America 17:20-25. Davis, Robert C., and Edna Erez. 1998. Immigrant populations as victims: Toward a multicultural criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Davis, Robert C., Edna Erez, and Nancy Avitabile. 2001. Access to justice for immigrants who are victimized: The perspectives of police and prosecutors. Criminal Justice Policy Review 12:183-196 Deavers, Ken. 1992. What is rural? Policy Studies Journal 20:184-189. Decker, Scott. 1979. The rural county sheriff: An issue in social control. Criminal Justice Review 4:97-111. DeGeneste Henry I. and John P. Sullivan. 1997. Policing a multicultural community. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum. de la Garza, Rodolfo O., and Louis DeSipio. 1998. Interests not passions: Mexican American attitudes toward Mexico, immigration from Mexico, and issues shaping U.S.-Mexico relations. International Migration Review 32:401-422. ______ 2001. A satisfied clientele seeking more diverse services: Latinos and the courts. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19:237-248. Demuth, Stephen. 2003. Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, black, and white felony arrestees. Criminology 41: 873-907. Diaz-Cotto, Juanita. 2000. The criminal justice system and its impact on Latinas(os) in the United States. The Justice Professional 13:49-67. Donnermeyer, Joseph F. 1995. Crime and violence in rural communities. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel .org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/v1donner.htm.

190

References

Drabenstott, Mark, Mark Henry, and Kristin Mitchell. 1999. Where have all the packing plants gone? The new meat geography in rural America. Economic Review QIII:65-82. http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/ er99q3.htm#drabenstott (accessed March 1, 2004). Duhart, Detis T. 2000. Urban, suburban and rural victimization, 1993-98. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Duignan, Peter J. and L. H. Gann. 1998. The Spanish speakers in the United States: A history. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Dunham, Roger G., and Geoffrey P. Alpert. 1988. Neighborhood differences in attitudes toward policing: Evidence for a mixed-strategy model of policing in a multi-ethnic setting. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:504-523. Durand, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey, and Fernando Charvet. 2000. The changing geography of Mexican immigration to the United States: 1910-1996. Social Science Quarterly 81:1-15. Edwards, Mary Mogan. 2000. Culture shock: Community responds slowly to needs of Latino newcomers. The Columbus Dispatch, 20 March. Ekstrand, Laurie E. 2000. Limited data available on traffic stops. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Engel, Robin Shepard, and Jennifer M. Calnon. 2004. Comparing benchmark methodologies for police-citizen contacts: Traffic stop data collection for the Pennsylvania State Police. Police Quarterly 7:97-125. Engel, Robin Shepard, Jennifer M. Calnon, and Thomas J. Bernard. 2002. Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice Quarterly 19:250-273. El Nasser, Haya. 2001. Immigration helped restore cities. USA Today, 18 March.

References

191

Erez, Edna. 2000. Immigration, culture conflict and domestic violence/woman battering. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 2:27-36. Estrada, Heron Marquez. 2003. At Cinco de Mayo, 14 St. Paul police try new vocabulary. Star Tribune, 2 May. Farnworth, Margaret, Raymond H. C. Teske, Jr., and Gina Thurman. 1991. Ethnic, racial, and minority disparity in felony court processing. In Race and criminal justice, edited by Michael J. Lynch and E. Britt Patterson. New York: Harrow and Heston. Fink, Deborah. 1998. Cutting into the meatpacking line: Workers and change in the rural Midwest. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Flanagan, Timothy J. 1985. Consumer perspectives on police operational strategy. Journal of Police Science and Administration 13:10-21. Frank, James, and John Liederbach. 2003. The work routines and citizen interactions of small-town and rural police officers. In Community policing in a rural setting, edited by Quint C. Thurman, and Edmund F. McGarrell. 2d ed. Anderson Publishing. Freudenburg, William R. 1986. The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable in community research? American Journal of Sociology 92:27-63. Freudenburg, William R., and Robert Emmett Jones. 1991. Criminal behavior and rapid community growth: Examining the evidence. Rural Sociology 56:619-645. Friedman, Warren, and Marsha Hott. 1995. Young people and the police: Respect, fear and the future of community policing in Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety. Gailliard, Kenneth A. 2003. Police tap into Hispanics’ needs. The Sun News, 22 September.

192

References

Geller, William A., and Kevin J. Karales. 1981. Split-second decisions: Shootings of and by Chicago Police. Chicago: Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group. Geller, William A., and Michael S. Scott. 1992. Deadly force: What we knowa practitioner’s desk reference to police-involved shootings. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Gold, Raymond. 1958. Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces 36:217-223. Gouveia, Lourdes. 2002. From the beet fields to the kill floors: Latinos/as in Nebraska’s meatpacking communities. In Rural Latinos: Cross-regional perspectives, edited by Victor Garcia, Lourdes Gouveia, Jose Rivera and Refugio Rochín. (forthcoming). East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Gouveia, Lourdes, and Donald D. Stull. 1995. Dances with cows: Beefpacking’s impact on Garden City, Kansas, and Lexington, Nebraska. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas. ______. 1997. Latino immigrants, meatpacking, and rural communities: A case study of Lexington, Nebraska. Research Report No. 26. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Gouveia, Lourdes and Rogelio Saenz. 1999. Latino/a immigrants and new social formations in the Great Plains: An assessment of population growth and multiple impacts. Paper presented at the 1999 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago. ______. 2000. Global forces and Latino population growth in the Midwest: A regional and subregional analysis. Great Plains Research 10:355-378. Greene, Jack. 1989. Police and community relations: Where have we been and where are we going? In Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings, edited by Roger Dunham and Geoffrey R. Alpert. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc.

References

193

Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, Steven K. Smith, and Robert J. Kaminski. 1997. Police-public contact survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Grey, Mark A. 1995. Pork, poultry, and newcomers in Storm Lake, Iowa. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ______. 1997. Secondary labor in the meatpacking industry: Demographic change and student mobility in rural Iowa schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education 13:153-164. ______. 1999. Immigrants, migration, and worker turnover at the Hog Pride pork packing plant. Human Organization 58:16-27. ______. 2002. Welcoming new Iowans: A guide for citizens and communitiesbuilding respect and tolerance for immigrant and refugee newcomers. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa. Grey, Mark A., and Anne C. Woodrick. 2002. Unofficial sister cities: Meatpacking labor migration between Villachuato, Mexico, and Marshalltown, Iowa. Human Organization 61:364-377. Griffith, David, Michael J. Broadway, and Donald D. Stull. 1995. Introduction: Making meat. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Hagan, John and Alberto Palloni. 1998. Immigration and crime in the United States. In The immigration debate, edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ______. 1999. Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems 46:617-632. Halladay, Jessie. 2001. Ozarks boom, St. Louis sees exodus. USA Today, 16 March.

194

References

______. 2004. Police reach out to Latinos: Class helps groups overcome cultural barriers. The Courier-Journal, 30 January. Hammer, Mitchell R., and Randall Gage Rogan. 2002. Latino and Indochinese interpretive frames in negotiating conflict with law enforcement: A focus group analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26:551575. Harris, David A. 1997. “Driving while black” and all other traffic offenses: The Supreme Court and pretextual traffic stops. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87:544-582. ______. 1999. Driving while black: Racial profiling on our nation’s highways. American Civil Liberties Special Report. http://www.aclu.org/profiling/ report/index.html. ______. 2002. Profiles in injustice: Why racial profiling cannot work. New York: The New Press. Hawkins, Carl W., and Ralph A. Weisheit. 2003. The state of community policing in rural towns and rural areas. In Community policing in a rural setting, edited by Quint C. Thurman, and Edmund F. McGarrell. 2d ed. Anderson Publishing. Hebert, Christopher G. 1997. Sentencing outcomes of black, Hispanic, and white males convicted under federal sentencing guidelines. Criminal Justice Review 22:133-156. Hennessy, Stephen M. 2000. Cultural sensitivity training. In multicultural perspectives in criminal justice and criminology, edited by James E. Hendricks and Bryan Byers. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Herbst, Leigh, and Samuel Walker. 2001. Language barriers in the delivery of police services: A study of police and Hispanic interactions in a Midwestern city. Journal of Criminal Justice 29:1-12.

References

195

Hendricks, Cindy, and Angela M. Nickoli. 2000. Multicultural issues and perspectives. In multicultural perspectives in criminal justice and criminology, edited by James E. Hendricks and Bryan Byers. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Hickman, Matthew J., and Brian A. Reeves. 2003. Sheriffs’ offices 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Hinkle, Douglas P. 1991. The police and the Hispanic community: Creating mutual understanding. Law Enforcement Technology 18:52-55. Hispanic Federation. 2001. Hispanic New Yorkers on Nueva York, ninth annual survey: Police and quality of life. New York: Hispanic Federation. Holmes, Malcolm D. 1998. Perceptions of abusive police practices in a U.S.Mexico border community. The Social Science Journal 35:107-118. Holmes, Malcolm D., and Howard C. Daudistel. 1984. Ethnicity and justice in the Southwest: The sentencing of Anglo, Black and Mexican origin defendants. Social Science Quarterly 65:265-277. Holmes, Malcolm D., Harmon M. Hosch, Howard C. Daudistel, Dolores A. Perez, and Joseph B. Graves. 1993. Judges’ ethnicity and minority sentencing: Evidence concerning Hispanics. Social Science Quarterly 74: 496-506. ______. 1996. Ethnicity, legal resources, and felony dispositions in two Southwestern jurisdictions. Justice Quarterly 13:11-30. Hood, Roger. 1992. Race and sentencing. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Huang, W.S. Wilson, and Michael S. Vaughn. 1996. Support and confidence: Public attitudes toward the police. In Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey, edited by Timothy J. Flanagan and Dennis R. Longmire. Sage Publications. Human Rights Watch. 2003. Human rights watch world report 2003. http:// www.hrw.org (accessed March 20, 2004).

196

References

Hupp, Staci. 2002. Language gap threatens dead baby investigation. Des Moines Register, 10 June. Irlbeck, Dawn M. 2000. Latino police officers: Negotiating the police role. Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Jenkins, Betty and Adrienne Faison. 1974. An analysis of 248 persons killed by New York City policemen. New York: New York Metropolitan Applied Research Center, Incorporated. Jesilow, Paul, J’ona Meyer and Nazi Namazzi. 1995. Public attitudes toward the police. American Journal of Police 14:67-88. Jiao, Allan Y. 2001. Degrees of urbanism and police orientations: Testing preferences for different policing approaches across urban, suburban, and rural areas. Police Quarterly 4:361-387. Johnson, Brian D. 2003. Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology 41:449-488. Johnson, James H. Jr., Karen D. Johnson-Webb, and Walter C. Farrell Jr. 1999. Newly emerging Hispanic communities in the United States: A spatial analysis of settlement patterns, in-migration fields and social receptivity. In Immigration and opportunity: Race, ethnicity, and employment in the United States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Jordan, Rob. 2004. ‘No speak no English.’ The Anniston Star, 18 January. Junker, Buford H. 1958. Field work: An introduction to the social sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kelling, George L., Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman, and Charles E. Brown. 1974. The Kansas City preventative patrol experiment. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Kennedy, Randall. 1997. Race, crime, and the law. New York: Vintage Books.

References

197

Kennedy, Tom. 2002. Fear factor still greatest hurdle in Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime fight. Houston Police Officers’ Union. http:// www.hpou.org/ badgeandgun/news_bg.cfm?NewsID=60 (accessed February 5, 2004). Klyman, Fred I. and Joanna Kruckenberg. 1979. A national survey of policecommunity relations units. Journal of Police Science and Administration 7:70-80. Ko, Michael. 2002. Advocate accused of bilking immigrant. The Seattle Times, 30 April. Kowalewski, David, William Hall, John Dolan, and James Anderson. 1984. Police environments and operational codes: A case study of rural setting. Journal of Police Science and Administration 12:363-372. Krannich, Richard S., E. Helen Berry, and Thomas Greider. 1989. Fear of crime in rapidly changing rural communities: A longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology 54:195-212. Krannich, Richard S., and Thomas R. Greider. 1990. Rapid growth effects on rural community relations. In American rural communities, edited by Albert E. Luloff and Louis E. Swanson. Westview Press. Krannich, Richard S., Thomas Greider, and Ronald L. Little. 1985. Rapid growth and fear of crime: A four-community comparison. Rural Sociology 50:193-209. Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Sage Publications. LaFree, Gary D. 1985. Official reactions to Hispanic defendants in the southwest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22:213-237. Langan, Patrick A., Lawrence Greenfeld, Steven K. Smith, Matthew R. Durose, and David J. Levin. 2001. Contacts between police and the public: Findings from the 1999 national survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

198

References

Lasley, James R. 1994. The impact of the Rodney King incident on citizen attitudes toward the police. Policing and Society 3:245-255. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund. 2000. Justice on trial: Chapter 1: Race and the police. http://www .civilrights.org/publications/cj/race.html. LeCompte, Margaret D., and Jean J. Schensul. 1999. Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Altamira Press. LeCompte, Margaret D., and Judith Preissle. 1993. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. 2d ed. Chicago: Academic Press. Lee, Gary. 1982. Residential location and fear of crime among the elderly. Rural Sociology 47:655-69. Lee, Matthew T., Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Richard Rosenfeld. 2001. Does immigration increase homicide rates?: Negative evidence from three border cities. The Sociological Quarterly 42:559-580. Lewis, Jane, and Jane Ritchie. 2003. Generalising from qualitative research. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, edited by Jane Ritchie, and Jane Lewis. Sage Publications. Ley, Shawn. 2003. Florence police hold Latino Citizen’s police academy. WPCO/WPCO.com, April 23, 2003. http://www.wcpo.com/news/ 2003/local/04/21/latinos.html (accessed February 24, 2003). Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review 19:79-88. ______. 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review 39:517-526. Lorenzo-Hernandez, Jose. 1998. How social categorization may inform the study of Hispanic immigration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 20:39-59.

References

199

Maguire, Brendan, William Faulkner, Richard Mathers, Carol Rowland, and John F. Wozniak. 1991. Rural police job functions. Police Studies 14:180187. Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L. Pastore (Eds.) (2002). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook (accessed February 15, 2004). Maldonado, David Jr. 2002. The changing religious practice of Hispanics. In Hispanics in the United States: An agenda for the twenty-first century, edited by Pastora San Juan Cafferty, and David W. Engstrom. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Maldonado, Lionel A. 1985. Altered states: Chicanos in the labor force. In Ethnicity and the Work Force, Volume IV, edited by Winston A. Van Horne, and Thomas V. Tonnesen. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin System American Ethnic Studies Coordinating Committee/Urban Corridor Consortium. Mann, Coramae Richey. 1993. Unequal justice: A question of color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Mann, Coramae Richey, and Marjorie Zatz, (Eds.) 2002. Images of color, images of crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Marin, Gerardo, and Barbara VonOss Marin. 1991. Research with Hispanic populations. Sage Publications. Marotta, Sylvia A., and Jorge G. Garcia. Latinos in the United States in 2000. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 25:13-34. Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. Sage Publications. Martin, Phillip, J. Edward Taylor, and Michael Fix. 1996. Immigration and the changing face of rural America: Focus on the Midwestern states. JSRI Occasional Paper #21. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute.

200

References

Martinez, Ramiro, Jr., 2003. Moving beyond black and white violence: African American, Haitian, and Latino homicides in Miami. In Violent Crime: Assessing race and ethnic differences, edited by Darnell F. Hawkins. Cambridge University Press. Martinez, Ramiro, Jr., and Matthew T. Lee. 2000. On immigration and crime. In Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal Volume 1, edited by Gary LaFree. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Mastrofski, Stephen D., and Roger B. Parks. 1990. Improving observational studies of the police. Criminology 28:475-496. Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks, Albert J. Reiss Jr., Robert E. Worden, Christina Dejong, Jeffrey B. Snipes, and William Terrill. 1998. Systematic observation of public police: Applying field research methods to policy issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 41. Sage Publications. Maykut, Pamela, and Richard Morehouse. 1994. Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. The Falmer Press. McCartney, J. 2001. Law enforcement officials seek ways of reaching out to Latino community. Salisbury Post, 1 July. ______. 2003. Many barriers in legal system: Latino community finds that more than language is difficult. Salisbury Post, 3 July. McLaughlin, Eliott C. 2003. Most common problem for Latinos is crime. Athens Banner-Herald, 7 July. Meadows, Lynn M., and Janice M. Morse. 2001. Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In The nature of qualitative evidence, edited by Janice M. Morse, Janice M. Swanson, and Anton J. Kuzel. Sage Publications. Meagher, M. Steven. 1985. Police patrol styles: How pervasive is community variation? Journal of Police Science and Administration 13:36-45.

References

201

Meehan, Albert J., and Michael C. Ponder. 2002. Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists. Justice Quarterly 19:399430. Menjívar, Cecilia, and Cynthia L. Bejarano. 2004. Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:120-148. Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miller, Michael K., and A. E. Luloff. 1981. Who is rural? A typological approach to the examination of rurality. Rural Sociology 46:608-625. Minnesota Office of Justice Programs. 2003. Minneapolis police department builds bridges to Latino communities through el projecto seguro-the safe project. http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/promising_practices/ProjectoSeguro/ /ProjectoSeguro.htm (accessed October 28, 2003). Mirande, Alfredo. 1981. The Chicano and the law: An analysis of communitypolice conflict in an urban barrio. Pacific Sociological Review 24:65-86. ______. 1987. Gringo justice. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Missouri Attorney General’s Office. 2002. Annual report on 2002 Missouri traffic stops. http://ago.missouri.gov/racialprofiling/racialprofiling.htm (accessed April 7, 2004). Missouri Department of Public Safety. 2002 Missouri peace officer standards and training program. http://www.dps.state.mo.us/dps/dps2002/POST/ ContEdRequirements.htm. Missouri Revised Statutes, section 577. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes /c577.htm Moore, Joan, and Harry Pachon. 1985. Hispanics in the United States. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

202

References

Morales, Armando. 1972. Ando sangrando (I am bleeding): A study of Mexican American-police conflict. La Puente, CA: Perspectiva. Morgan, David L. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative research methods series 16. 2d ed. Sage Publications. Morse, Janice M., and Lyn Richards. 2002. Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Sage Publications. Muñoz, Ed A., David A. Lopez, and Eric Stewart. 1998. Misdemeanor sentencing decisions: The cumulative disadvantage effect of “gringo justice”. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 20:298-319. Muñoz, Ed A. 2000. Latino sentencing dispositions, 1987-1991: An empirical assessment of “gringo justice”. The Justice Professional 13:19-48. Murdock, Steve H., and Larry Leistritz. 1979. Energy development in the western United States: Impact on rural areas. New York: Praeger. Myers, Laura B., Myrna Cintron, and Kathryn E. Scarborough. 2000. Latinos: The conceptualization of race. In multicultural perspectives in criminal justice and criminology, edited by James E. Hendricks and Bryan Byers. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. 1968. Report of the national advisory commission on civil disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Center for State Courts. 2003. Court interpretation: Foreign and sign languages overview. http://www.ncsconline.org/WCDS/Topics/ topic1.asp?search_value=Court%20Interpretation (accessed February 7, 2003). National Council de La Raza. 1999. The mainstreaming of hate: A report on Latinos and harassment, hate violence, and law enforcement abuse in the ‘90s. Washington, DC: National Council de La Raza.

References

203

National Hispanic Conference on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. 1980. A report from the National Hispanic conference on law enforcement and criminal justice. July 28-30. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 2002. Illicit Drug Use. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nobling, Tracy, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam Delone. 1998. A tale of two counties: Unemployment and severity sentence. Justice Quarterly 15:460485. Ogawa, Brian K. 1999. Color of justice: Culturally sensitive treatment of minority crime victims. Allyn and Bacon. O’Shea, Timothy C. 1999. Community policing in small town rural America: A comparison of police officer attitudes in Chicago and Baldwin County, Alabama. Policing and Society 9:59-76. Parks, Roger B., Stephen D. Mastrofski, Christina Dejong, and M. Kevin Gray. 1999. How officers spend their time with the community. Justice Quarterly 16:483-518. Pasko, Lisa. 2002. Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review 13:307 328. Pierre, Robert E. 2003. In Neb., “Spanish spoken here”; West Point, other Midwestern communities ramp up services to meet immigrants’needs. The Washington Post, 2 September. Paschenko, Chris. 2003. Files show Hispanics robbed more than others. The Decatur Daily News, 16 September. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 3rd ed. Sage Publications. Petersilia, Joan. 1983. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

204

References

Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner. 1986. Prison versus probation in California. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Pew Hispanic Center. 2002. U.S.-born Hispanics increasingly drive population developments. http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/demography_ pdf_version.pdf (accessed February 6, 2004). Piatt, Bill. 1990. Attorney as interpreter: A return to babble. New Mexico Law Review 20:1-16. Police Executive Research Forum. 1990. Organizational evaluation of the Omaha police division. Washington, D.C. PolicyLink. 2001. Community-centered policing: A force for change. Summary Report. Oakland CA: Roxbury. PolicyLink and the Advancement Project. Pratt, Timothy. 2002. Federal grant to aid metro’s HART program for Hispanics. Las Vegas Sun, 13 August. 2002. Quintanilla, Guadalupe. 1983. Cross-cultural communication: An ongoing challenge. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 52:1-8. Ragan, Tom. 2003. Police want to hear from Hispanics. Colorado Springs Gazette, 19 June. Ramirez, Deborah, Jack McDevitt, and Amy Farrell. 2000. A resource guide on racial profiling data collection systems: Promising practices and lessons learned. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice. Ramirez, Roberto R., and G. Patricia de la Cruz. 2002. The Hispanic Population in the United States: March, 2002. Current Population Reports, P20-545. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Reiss, Albert, and David Bordua. 1967. Environment and organization: A perspective on the police. In The police: Six sociological essays, edited by David Bordua. New York: Wiley.

References

205

Rennison, Callie Marie and Michael R. Rand. 2003. Criminal Victimization, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice. Reynoso, Cruz. 2002. Hispanics and the criminal justice system. In Hispanics in the United States: An agenda for the twenty-first century, edited by Pastora San Juan Cafferty, and David W. Engstrom. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Rochín, Refugio I. 2000. Latinos on the Great Plains: An overview. Great Plains Research 10:243-252. Rochín, Refugio I., Marcelo E. Siles and Jose Gomez. 1996. Latinos in Nebraska: A socio-historical profile. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Rochín, Refugio I., and Rosemary Aponte. 1996. Preface: Latinos in the Midwest. In Immigration and ethnic communities: A focus on Latinos, edited by Refugio I. Rochín. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Rodriguez, Erik, and Andy Alford. 2004. Blacks bear the brunt when police use force. Austin American-Statesman, 25 January. Rogers, Everett. 1983. Diffusion of innovation. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. Rojek, Jeff, Richard Rosenfeld, and Scott Decker. 2004. The influence of driver’s race on traffic stops in Missouri. Police Quarterly 7:126-147. Rosenbaum, Rene P. 1997. Migration and integration of Latinos into rural Midwestern communities: The case of “Mexicans” in Adrian, Michigan. JSRI Research Report #19. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Ross, Ruth, John R. Snortum, and John C. Beyers. 1982. Public priorities and police policy in a bicultural community. Police Studies 5:18-30.

206

References

Rural Migration News. 1998. Midwest: Meat/poultry processing. http:// migration.ucdavis.edu/RMN-Archive/jan_1998-02.html (accessed January 9, 2000). Sack, Kevin. 2001. Police learning Spanish as Latino population grows. New York Times, 4 March. Saitz, Greg, and Margaret McHugh. 2001. Diversity handing police challenges. The Star Ledger. 4 June. Saiz, Martin, Ellis Godard, and Kimberly Saunders. 2003. Public Safety. California State University, Northridge: Center for Southern California Studies. Salamon, Sonya. 1995. The rural people in the Midwest. In The changing American countryside: Rural people and places, edited by Emery N. Castle. Lawrence, K.S.: University of Press of Kansas. Sampson, Robert J., and Janet L. Lauritsen. 1997. Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. In Ethnicity, crime, and immigration: Comparative and cross-national perspectives, edited by Michael Tonry. Vol. 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sanchez, Mary. 2001. Hispanic population increasing rapidly, census figures show. Kansas City Star. 7 March. Santiago, Anne. 1990. Life in the industrial heartland: A profile of Latinos in the Midwest. Research Report #2. East Lansing, M.I.: Julian Samora Research Institute. Santos, Richard. 1989. Hispanic workers in the Midwest: A decade of economic contrast 1970-1980. Working Paper #2. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute. Schensul, Jean J., Margaret D. LeCompte, Bonnie K. Nastasi, and Stephen P. Borgatti. 1999. Enhanced ethnographic methods: Audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques. Altamira Press.

References

207

Schensul, Stephen L, Jean J. Schensul, and Margaret D. LeCompte. 1999. Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Altamira Press. Schluter, Gerald, and Chinkook Lee. 2002. Can rural employment benefit from changing labor skills in U.S. processed food trade? Rural America 17:3843. Schmid, Randolph E. 2001. America’s changing: Census sees older, more diverse U.S. ahead. Associated Press, 13 January. Schutt, Russell K. 1999. Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. Pine Forge Press. Sherman, Christopher. 2003. Police agencies struggle with Hispanic outreach. The Orlando Sentinel. 4 November. Shetty, Sudha, and Janice Kaguyutan. 2002. Immigrant victims of domestic violence: Cultural challenges and available legal protections. http://www .vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/arimmigrant/arimmigrant.html (accessed March 29, 2004). Shusta, Robert M., Deena R. Levine, Phillip R. Harris, and Herbert Z. Wong. 2002. Multicultural law enforcement: Strategies for peacekeeping in a diverse society. 2d ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Sims, Victor H. 1988. Small town and rural police. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Skogan, Wesley G., and Michael G. Maxfield. 1981. Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions. Sage Publications. Skogan, Wesley G., Lynn Steiner, Jill Dubois, J. Erik Gudell, and Aimee Fagan. (2002). Community policing and ‘the new immigrants’: Latinos in Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Skogan Wesley G., and Mary Ann Wycoff. 1987. Some unexpected effects of a police service for victims. Crime and Delinquency 33:490-501.

208

References

Skolnick, Jerome H. 1975. Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society. 2d ed. New York: Wiley. Skolnick, Jerome H., and David H. Bayley. 1986. The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities. New York: Free Press. Skolnick, Jerome H., and James J. Fyfe. 1993. Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: Free Press. Slack, Tim, and Leif Jensen. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and underemployment in nonmetropolitan America: A 30-year profile. Rural Sociology 67:208-233. Small, Mark. 2000. Rural life today: defining “rural.” Clemson University: Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life. Smith, Georgia, and Steven P. Lab. 1991. Urban and rural attitudes toward participating in an auxiliary policing crime prevention program. Criminal Justice and Behavior 18:202-216. Smith, Michael D., Richard S. Krannich, and Lori M. Hunter. Growth, decline, stability, and disruption: A longitudinal analysis of social well-being in four western rural communities. Rural Sociology 66:425-450. Smith, Michael R., and Geoffrey P. Alpert. 2002. Searching for direction: Courts, social science, and the adjudication of racial profiling claims. Justice Quarterly 19:673-703. Smith, Michael R., and Matthew Petrocelli. 2001. Racial profiling? A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Quarterly 4:4-27. Snape, Dawn, and Liz Spencer. 2003. The foundations of qualitative research. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, edited by Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis. Sage Publications. Spohn, Cassia C. 2000. Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In Criminal justice: The national institute of justice journal volume 3, edited by Julie Horney. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

References

209

Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran. 2000. The imprisonment penalty paid by young unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology 38:281-306. Spohn, Cassia, and Miriam Delone. 2000. When does race matter?: An analysis of the conditions under which race affects sentence severity. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance 2:3-37. Stake, Robert E. 1998. Case studies. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Sage Publications. State v. Dean, 543 P.2d 425 (Arizona Supreme Court 1975). Steffensmeier, Darrell, and Stephen Demuth. 2000. Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review 65:705-729. ______. 2001. Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: Hispanic-BlackWhite comparisons. Criminology 39:145-178. St. John, Kelly. 2003. More charges in immigrant case; D.A. calls illegal aliens perfect victims. San Francisco Chronicle, 12 September. Stocking, Ben, and Edwin Garcia. 1998. Middle America grapples with an influx of Latinos. San Jose Mercury News, August 17, 1998. http:// www.nabe.org/press/reprints/980817d.htm (accessed March 1, 2001). Stull, Donald D., Michael J. Broadway, and Ken C. Erickson. 1992. The price of a good steak: Beef packing and its consequences for Garden City, Kansas. In Structuring diversity: Ethnographic perspectives on the new immigration, edited by Louise Lamphere. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Stull, Donald D., and Michael J. Broadway. 1995. Killing them softly: Work in meatpacking plants and what it does to workers. In Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America, edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

210

References

Thomas-Breitfeld, Sean. 2003. The Latino workforce. National Council of La Raza, Statistical Brief No. 3. http://www.nclr.org/ (accessed February 14, 2004). Thompson, Anthony C. 1999. Stopping the usual suspects: Race and the Fourth Amendment. New York University Law Review 74:956-1013. Torres, Sam and Ronald E. Vogel. 2001. Pre and post-test differences between Vietnamese and Latino residents involved in a community policing experiment: Reducing fear of crime and improving attitudes toward the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 24:40-55. Ulmer, Jeffrey T., and Brian Johnson. 2004. Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology 42:137-177. United Neighborhood Organization. 2002. Minority assumptions, Hispanic realities: Voices of optimism, Hispanic attitudes in Chicagoland. Chicago, IL: United Neighborhood Organization. United States Bureau of the Census. 2000. States ranked by Hispanic population, July 1, 1999. Population Estimates Program, Population Division. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office ______. 2000a. Profile of general demographic characteristics for Missouri: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ______. 2003. Poverty in the United States: 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2003. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/ Illegals.htm (accessed February 3, 2004). United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1970. Mexican-Americans and the administration of justice in the southwest. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

References

211

______. 2000. Revisiting who is guarding the guardians. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. United States Department of Justice. 1973. Improving police/community relations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. United States Department of Labor. 2002. Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States General Accounting Office. 1998. Changes in Nebraska’s and Iowa’s counties with large meatpacking plant workforces. Washington, DC: Report to Congressional Requesters. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Urban Institute. 2004. Crossing Borders: The Impact of Immigration. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900680 (accessed February 10, 2004). Valdés, Dionicio Nodín. 2000. Barrios Nortenos: St. Paul and Midwestern Mexican communities in the twentieth century. Austin: University of Texas Press. Van Maanen, John. 1978. The asshole. In Policing: A view of the street, edited by Peter Manning and John Van Maanen. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Vargas, Sylvia R. Lazos. 2002. Missouri, the “war on terrorism” and immigrants: Legal challenges post 9/11. Missouri Law Review 67:775830. Wahl, Ana-Maria, Steven E. Gunkel, and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2000. Death and disability in the heartland: Corporate (mis)conduct, regulatory responses, and the plight of Latino workers in the meatpacking industry. Great Plains Research 10:329-357. Walker, David Lon. Personal Communication. March 15, 2003. Walker, Samuel, Leigh Herbst, and Dawn Irlbeck. 2002. Police outreach to the Hispanic/Latino community: A survey of programs and activities. Omaha, NE: Police Professionalism Initiative and the National Latino Peace Officers Association.

212

References

Walker, Samuel. 1997. Complaints against the police: A focus group study of citizen perceptions, goals, and expectations. Criminal Justice Review 22:207-225. ______. 1999. The police in America: An introduction. 3rd Ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College. ______. 2001. Searching for the denominator: Problems with police traffic stop data and an early warning system solution. Justice Research and Policy 3:63-95. Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam Delone. eds. 2004. The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Weisheit, Ralph A., and Joseph F. Donnermeyer. 2000. Change and Continuity in Crime in Rural America. In Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal Volume 1, edited by Gary LaFree. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weisheit, Ralph A., and L. Edward Wells. 1996. Rural crime and justice: Implication for theory and research. Crime and Delinquency 42:379-397. Weisheit, Ralph A., L. Edward Wells, and David Falcone. 1994. Community policing in small town and rural America. Crime and Delinquency 40:549567. ______. 1995 Crime and policing in rural and small-town America: An overview of the issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weisheit, Ralph A., and Steven T. Kernes. 2003. Future challenges: The urbanization of rural America. In Community policing in a rural setting, edited by Quint C. Thurman, and Edmund F. McGarrell. 2d ed. Anderson Publishing. Weiss, Alexander. 1998. Enhancing the dissemination of innovation in community policing: The role of information sharing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

References

213

Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. The Free Press. Wirth, Jim. 2002. The story of the Hispanic/Latino experience in southwest Missouri: Surveys of Latino adults, Latino youth, and non-Hispanic service providers/community residents. Springfield, MO: University of Missouri Outreach and Extension. Wirth, Louis. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44:3-24. Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5. Sage Publications. Zatz, Marjorie S. 1984. Race, ethnicity and determinate sentencing: A new dimension to an old controversy. Criminology 24:69-92. ______. 1987. The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 24:69-92. ______. 2000. The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decisionmaking: Looking toward the 21st century. In Criminal justice: The national institute of justice journal volume 3, edited by Julie Horney. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.


Appendix A

Patrol Officer Interview Form

Section I-Demographics Please circle the answer that best describes you 1) Sex a. Male b. Female

2) Race/Ethnicity a. White b. African American c. Latino d. Asian e. Native American f. Other (please explain)____________

3) Age a. 21-30 b. 31-40 c. 41-50 d. 51-60 e. Over 60 4) Position/rank at police department a. Police Officer b. Sergeant c. Lieutenant d. Captain e. Other (please explain)_______________________

5) How long have you been employed in your current position at the police department? _________________________________________________________

215

216

Appendix A

Section II-Police-Latino Interactions The following section pertains to your interactions with Latino citizens. 1) During your patrol duties, how often do you have contact with Latino citizens? a. b. c. d.

Rarely Once a week More than once a week Daily

2) When you have contacted Latino citizens, how often has the communication due to the language barrier, been a problem? a. b. c. d.

Never (If Never, go to question #6) Sometimes Often Most of the time

3) If there is a language barrier, are interpreters available to assist with translation? a. b.

Yes No

4) Have you encountered a situation where you requested an interpreter and one was not available? a. b.

Yes (If yes, go to question #5) No (If no, go to question #6)

Appendix A

217

5) Please briefly describe a situation in which an interpreter was not available, and the action you took to remedy the situation

6) To your knowledge, are there any programs, training, etc. (e.g., language and cultural training) in your department that prepares you for interactions with Latinos? a. b.

Yes (If yes, please specify)_________________________ No

7) What do you think your police department could do to help improve your interactions with Latinos? a. b. c. d.

Provide language training (i.e., “Survival Spanish”) Provide cultural diversity training Plan community programs to work with Latinos Plan meetings with the Latino community to improve relations. e. Other changes (i.e., hiring Latino officers, etc.)

Section III-Police and Latino Community Relations The following information pertains to your perception of the police and Latino community relationship. 1) How would you characterize the overall relationship between the police and the community? (please provide an example)

2) Since the large influx of Latino immigrants into this community, have you noticed any change in police-community relations? a.

If positive or negative change, please provide an example

218

Appendix A

3) Has your department made any effort to hire officers that can speak both English and Spanish?

4) Does the police department have any officers that can speak both English and Spanish?

5) Do you believe that the Spanish language barrier impedes police contact with the Latino community?

6) What is the greatest challenge/barrier to creating a cooperative relationship between the police department and the Latino community?

7) How can relations between the Latino community and the police department be improved?

8) Do you think the Latino community would work with the police department to solve community problems if asked?

Thank you for your time. Please feel free to add any additional comments

Appendix B

Community/Government Leader Interview Form

1) How would you characterize the overall relationship between the police and the community? a. Do you believe citizens feel comfortable in contacting the police about any problems? (please provide an example)

b. Do you believe citizens feel comfortable in filing a complaint with the police department? (please provide an example)

c. Do you believe citizens feel the police department cares about its citizens? (please provide an example)

d. Do you believe citizens feel the police department overall is doing a good job? (please provide an example)

e. Do you believe citizens feel that the police work well with the community? (please provide an example)

2) Since the large influx of Latino immigrants into this community, have you noticed any change in police-community relations? 219

220

Appendix B a. If a positive or negative change, please provide an example

3) Does the police department have any programs designed to improve relations with the Latino community? (please provide an example)

a. Does the police department have any officers that can speak both English and Spanish? b. Does the police department have translators to interpret for Spanish-speaking citizens if needed?


5) What is the greatest challenge/barrier to creating a cooperative relationship between the police department and the Latino community?



Thank you for your valuable time and input

Appendix C

Community Focus Group Interview Form

1) How would you characterize the overall relationship between the police and the community? a. Do you feel comfortable in contacting the police about any problems? (please provide an example)

b. Do you feel comfortable in filing a complaint with the police department? (please provide an example)

c. Do you feel the police department cares about its citizens? (please provide an example)

d. Do you feel the police department overall is doing a good job? (please provide an example)

e. Do you feel that the police work well with the community? (please provide an example)

2) Since the large influx of Latino immigrants into this community, have you noticed any change in police-community relations?

221

222

Appendix C

a. If a positive or negative change, please provide an example 3) Does the police department have any programs designed to improve relations with the Latino community? (please provide an example) a. Does the police department have any officers that can speak both English and Spanish?

b. Does the police department have translators to interpret for Spanish-speaking citizens if needed?


5) What is the greatest challenge/barrier to creating a cooperative relationship between the police department and the Latino citizens?



Thank you for your valuable time and input

INDEX

Alpert, Geoffrey P., 17, 19, 22, 29, 30 Arcury, Thomas A., 13, 17, 28, 177 Avitabile, Nancy, 14 Bankston, William B., 45, 46 Bartsch, Robert A., 25 Baugher, Shirley L., 35, 37, 38, 178 Bejarano, Cynthia L., 26, 180 Berg, Bruce L., 52, 53, 56, 59, 64 Bondavilli, Bonnie J., 3, 11, 29 Bondavilli, Bruno, 3, 11, 29 Braybrooke, David, 5, 68-69, 165 Broadway, Michael J., 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Brock, Deon, 42, 44, 179 Carter, David L., 3, 16-17, 26, 27 Case study, 53, 62, 63, 64 Cheurprakobkit, Sutham, 2526 Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), 29 Christensen, Wendy, 42, 43, 45, 179

Community policing, 15, 28, 29, 30, 44, 45, 56, 76, 92, 102, 127 Contacts Between the Police and the Public, 18, 21-22, 23 Cooper, Marc, 34, 36, 37, 38 Cramer, Sheran, 34, 35-36, 37 Crank, John P., 42, 43, 45, 179 Creswell, John W., 53, 62, 63, 65 Cultural awareness/diversity training, 30, 56, 57, 74, 86, 87, 88, 90, 114, 167 Cultural barriers, 3-4, 26, 29, 39, 111 Dalla, Rochelle L., 34, 35-36, 37, 38, 39, 178 Davis, Robert C., 13, 14 Deavers, Ken, 41-42 Decker, Scott, 21, 22, 43 DeGeneste, Henry I., 29, 30 Demuth, Stephen, 7, 8, 9, 10, 179 Diaz-Cotto, Juanita, 9, 12, 28 Diffusion of innovation, 69

223

224

Index

Domestic violence, 13-14, 70, 97-98, 107, 110, 113, 140, 172

Donnermeyer, Joseph F., 4, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 179 Dunham, Roger G., 17, 29, 30 Elmore, Rebecca, 13, 17, 28, 177 Erez, Edna, 13, 14 Falcone, David, 4, 41, 42, 4344, 45, 48, 179 Freudenburg, William R., 42, 45-46 Gouveia, Lourdes, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 48, 16 Greider, Thomas R., 42, 46, 47-48, 169 Grey, Mark A., 3, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 169 Hagan, John, 8, 9-10, 11 Harris, David A., 19, 20, 21, 23 Herbst, Leigh, 28, 31, 47, 4849, 77 Hinkle, Douglas P., 26, 27-28 Hispanic (see Latino) Hispanic Federation, 17, 25 Holmes, Malcolm D., 24 Immigration and crime, 9-11 as barrier to police relations, 14, 17, 24, 30-31, 47, 96-97, 112, 113, 126, 138, 150, 153, 159, 162-163, 172, 175 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 9, 14, 17, 67, 74,

84, 96, 97, 113, 138, 168, 171, 172, 177 Incrementalism, (see also Muddling through) 67, 69 Interpreters, 12, 75, 81, 83, 84, 85, 90, 111, 124, 129-130, 137, 139, 140, 142, 156, 156, 158, 160, 164, 171, 173, 178 Iowa, 4, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48 Irlbeck, Dawn M., 18, 49 Jiao, Allan Y., 43, 44-45 Jones, Robert Emmett, 46 Kennedy, Randall, 19, 20, 22, 23 Kerner Commission, 14, 15, 181 Krannich, Richard S., 42, 45, 46, 47-48, 169 Lab, Steven P., 45 Langan, Patrick A., 18, 21-22, 23-24 Language barriers, 11-12, 14, 29, 47, 48, 49, 81-82, 83, 135, 149, 170, 176 impact on police work, 97-104 Latino driving offenses, 97, 98, 102, 105, 106, 108, 112, 163, 172 fear of crime, 17, 28-29 perceptions of police, 1618, 25-26, 113, 130, 131, 133, 172, 173

225 perceptions to improve relations with, 88, 90, 91, 103, 109, 110, 135-136, 157-158, 160, 173-174 pretrial release, 9 sentencing, 8-10 sterotypes, 8, 10, 19, 24 use of false identifications, 106-107, 112, 130, 131-132, 168, 172173 victims, 12-14, 108, 140, 156 Lee, Matthew T., 11 Lindblom, Charles E., 5, 6769, 165, 169 Lorenzo-Hernandez, Jose, 3, 26-27 Marin, Barbara VonOss, 67 Marin, Gerardo, 67 Martinez, Ramiro Jr., 11 Mastrofski, Stephen D., 57-58, 66, 75, 76 Maxwell, Joseph A., 56, 57, 62, 64, 65, 66 Maykut, Pamela, 53, 56, 60, 61-62, 66 Meagher, Steven M., 45 Meatpacking, 32, 33-40 wages, 34, 35, 36-37, 109 injuries, 38 employee turnover, 37-38, 39 Menjívar, Cecilia, 26, 180 Merriam, Sharan B., 63, 64, 65 Minnesota Office of Justice Programs, 49

Index Mirande, Alfredo, 16, 24-25 Missouri Knob Noster, 54-55 Sedalia, 54 Warrensburg, 55 Morales, Armando, 10, 16, 25 Morehouse, Richard, 53, 56, 60, 61-62, 66 Morgan, David L., 60-61 Muddling through, 5, 67-69, 71, 77, 165, 168 National Center for State Courts, 12, 25 National Crime Victimization Survey, 12 National Hispanic Conference on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 16 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 20 Nebraska, 2, 4, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 46, 48 O’Shea, Timothy C., 42, 43-44 Palloni, Alberto, 8, 9-10, 11 Parks, Roger B., 57, 66, 75, 76 Pasko, Lisa, 8, 10, 11 Petersilia, Joan, 9, 18 Petrocelli, Matthew, 21 Pettis County Community Partnership (PCCP), 54, 125, 139 Police minority relations, 14-15 outreach to Latinos, 49, 102, 103, 152-153, 177-179 use of force, 23-25, 77 PolicyLink, 50

226 Poultry processing (see also meatpacking), 33-34, 36, 38, 39, 54, 108 Qualitative research, 49, 53, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 field observations, 57-58, 66 focus groups, 60-61, 67, 141, 142, 154, 159, 177 interviews, 59-60, 67 Racial profiling, 19-23, 105106 Rogers, Everett, 70 Rojek, Jeff, 21, 22 Rosenfeld, Richard, 21, 22 Rural communities characteristics of, 40-42 fear of crime, 45, 46, 4748, 169 Rural policing, 42-46, 116 Saenz, Rogelio, 32, 36 Sims, Victor H. 43, 44, 179 Skogan, Wesley G., 16, 28, 29 Skolnick, Jerome H., 19-20 Smith. Georgia, 45 Smith, Michael R., 21, 22 Stake, Robert E., 64 Stanek, Kaye, 34, 35-36, 37 State v. Dean, 22-23 Steffensmeier, Darrell, 7, 8, 10, 179 Stull, Donald D., 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 48, 169 Sullivan, John P., 29, 30 “Survival Spanish”, 4, 47, 71, 77, 87, 88, 167

Index Systematic social observation (SSO), 57 Thompson, Anthony C., 19 Torres, Sam, 29, 30-31 United States Commission on Civil Rights, 15, 16 United States Department of Labor, 38 United States General Accounting Office (GAO), 4, 34-35, 36, 37, 46-47, 169 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (see Immigration and Naturalization Service) United States v. MartinezFuerte, 23 Vogel, Ronald E., 29, 30-31 Walker, Samuel, 20, 21, 24, 28, 31, 47, 48-49, 77 Weisheit, Ralph A., 4, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 179 Weiss, Alexander, 69-70 Wells, L. Edward, 4, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48 Wirth, Jim, 47 Wycoff, Mary Ann, 28, 29 Yin, Robert K., 53, 56, 59, 63, 64 Zatz, Marjorie S., 8, 9, 10, 12

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct (Criminal Justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Murder of Police Officers (Criminal Justice) (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc)

American Militias: State-Level Variations in Militia Activities (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Russian Immigrants in the United States: Adapting to American Culture (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives: Black in Blue Revisited (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Being Real: The Student-Teacher Relationship and African-American Male Delinquency (Criminal Justice) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Persistent Offender Law: Racial Disparity, Patterned Offenses, and Unintended Effects (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Youth Violence, Resilience, and Rehabilitation (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Ends Meet: Income-Generating Strategies Among Mexican Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Latino Families Broken by Immigration: The Adolescent's Perceptions (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S. (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.)) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Beyond the Immigrant Enclave: Network Change and Assimilation (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Connections: A Study of Networking Among Immigrant Professionals (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Culture, Class, and Work Among Arab-American Women (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Recruiting Hispanic Labor: Immigrants in Non-Traditional Areas (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Crime in the City: A Political and Economic Analysis of Urban Crime (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Civil Gang Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of Policing by Injunction (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Remittance Behavior of Immigrant Households: Micronesians in Hawaii and Guam (The New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Occupational Attainment of Caribbean Immigrants in the United States, Canada, and England (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Gender Roles at Home and Abroad: The Adaptation of Bangladeshi Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Mexican Immigrants in the Labor Market: The Strength of Strong Ties (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Introduction to Criminal Justice

Immigrant Children and the Politics of English-Only: Views from the Classroom (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Identity Formation of Vietnamese Immigrant Youth in an American High School (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Psycho-Social Adaptation and the Meaning of Achievement for Chinese Immigrants (Series: New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Criminal Justice

Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship) (Criminal Justice Series: Recent Scholarhsip)

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct (Criminal Justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Murder of Police Officers (Criminal Justice) (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc)

American Militias: State-Level Variations in Militia Activities (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Russian Immigrants in the United States: Adapting to American Culture (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives: Black in Blue Revisited (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Being Real: The Student-Teacher Relationship and African-American Male Delinquency (Criminal Justice) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Persistent Offender Law: Racial Disparity, Patterned Offenses, and Unintended Effects (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Youth Violence, Resilience, and Rehabilitation (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Ends Meet: Income-Generating Strategies Among Mexican Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Latino Families Broken by Immigration: The Adolescent's Perceptions (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S. (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.)) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Beyond the Immigrant Enclave: Network Change and Assimilation (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Connections: A Study of Networking Among Immigrant Professionals (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Culture, Class, and Work Among Arab-American Women (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Recruiting Hispanic Labor: Immigrants in Non-Traditional Areas (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Crime in the City: A Political and Economic Analysis of Urban Crime (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Civil Gang Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of Policing by Injunction (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Remittance Behavior of Immigrant Households: Micronesians in Hawaii and Guam (The New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Occupational Attainment of Caribbean Immigrants in the United States, Canada, and England (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Gender Roles at Home and Abroad: The Adaptation of Bangladeshi Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Mexican Immigrants in the Labor Market: The Strength of Strong Ties (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Introduction to Criminal Justice

Immigrant Children and the Politics of English-Only: Views from the Classroom (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Identity Formation of Vietnamese Immigrant Youth in an American High School (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Psycho-Social Adaptation and the Meaning of Achievement for Chinese Immigrants (Series: New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Criminal Justice

Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship) (Criminal Justice Series: Recent Scholarhsip)

Recommend Documents