Relationships Of Law Enforcement Agencies And School Districts In Selected Counties Of California

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content This dlMMUtlon has b**n microfilmed exactly u received 64— 13,508 FOX, Sterling Lee, 1926- SHUCK, L eslie E arl, 1932- RELATIONSHIPS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA. Both authors received degrees at University of Southern California, Ed.D„ 1964 Education, administration University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan RELATIONSHIPS OF LMV ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Leslie Earl Shuck and Sterling Lee Fox June 1964 This dissertation, w ritten under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Com m ittee and approved by all members of the Com m ittee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements fo r the degree of D octor o f Education. Date. ................ Guidance Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES..................................... viii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM................................. 1 Statement of the problem Purpose of the study Importance of the study Delimitations of the study Definitions of terms used Organization of the remainder of the dissertation II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..................10 Community definition Effectiveness of community planning for youth Community action with delinquency Fostering cooperative endeavor Role of the school Relationship of the school to juvenile delinquency Role of the police Relation of the police to juvenile delinquency Relationships of law enforcement agencies and school districts Chapter summary III. PROCEDURE AND RESEARCH METHOD ii Chapter Page Building background information Gaining official organizational support Research Methodology The critical incident technique Application of the critical incident method to this study Consultant Assistance Developing the Instrument Background information and related items General information The critical incident portion Refining the instrument Testing the instrument Selecting the sample Contacting organizations for cooperation purposes Preparation of Materials for Distribution and Return Major critical incident packet Individual critical incident packet Distribution and Collection of Materials Follow-Up Procedures Procedures used with law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles and Orange counties Procedures used with law enforcement agencies in Riverside County "Thank you" letters Procedure used with schools Data Analysis iii Chapter Page Classification system Validating the critical incident classification system Preparing material for data processing Statistical treatment Development and use of tables Chapter Summary IV. RESPONDENTS, THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, AND WORKING RELATIONSHIPS................... 83 Respondents Sex Years of service Counties represented Positions held Organizational Information Overlapping jurisdictions and attendance areas Separate schools served by individual law enforcement agencies Type of school organization Specific members designated to work with the opposite agency Working Relationships Programs to promote working relationships Over-all working relationships Chapter Summary V. CLASSIFICATION OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS. .... 99 The Critical Incident Classification System iv Chapter Page VI. Categories and subcategories of incidents Information Assistance Individual contact Interagency activities Data not Meeting Incident Classification Requirements Data Surrounding the Critical Incident Date of contact Initiator of contact Incidents involving students Agencies' knowledge of their own policies and procedures Agencies' knowledge of other agency's policies and procedures Chapter Summary STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............ Bases for Judging Working Relationships Incident classification system Frequency of incident occurrence reported in the working relationship bases Summary Favorable and Unfavorable Working Relationships Individual ratings of over-all working relationships Proportions of incidents describing good and poor working relationships Date of contact and the good and poor working relationship incidents Summary Conditions Surrounding Good and Poor Working Relationships 145 v Chapter VII. Analysis format Analysis of variables to positive and negative incidents Summary Questions Related to Working Relationships Designation of specific members to work with opposite agency Summary Participation in special programs to promote working relationships Summary Years of total service and working relationships Summary Patterns of overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas — . Summary Over-all working relationship ratings and the critical incidents Summary Development of Special Scale to Measure Quality of Working Relationships between the Two Agencies Development of the scale Chapter Summary SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................... Summary The problem The procedure Findings vi Page 275 I 1 Chapter Page Bases for judging working relationships Favorable and unfavorable working relationships Conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships Designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency Participation in special programs to promote working relationships Years of total service and working relationships Patterns of law enforcement jurisdic tions and school attendance areas Over-all working relationship ratings and the critical incidents Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................... 300 APPENDIXES 312 LIST of tables Table Page 1. Chi-Square Analysis of the Critical Incident Classification System.................... 78 2. Status of Respondents by Agency of Employ ment..................................... 85 3. Organizational Structure Related to Law Enforcement Agencies and Schools. ..... 90 4. Over-All Working Relationships, Programs, and Ratings............................. 95 5. Good and Poor Working Relationship Incidents by Initiating Agency.................. 137 6. Good and Poor Working Relationship Incidents Reported by Participants in Each Category and Subcategory in Classification System. . 147 7. Chi-Square Analysis of the Bases for Judging Working Relationships................ 150 8. Proportions of Law Enforcement and School Critical Incidents Classified into the Working Relationship Bases............ 154 9. Chi-Square Analysis of Favorable and Unfavor able Working Relationships............ 161 10. Over-All Working Relationship Ratings Given by Respondents....................... 163 viii J Table Page 11. Dates of Good and Poor Working Relationship Incidents Initiated by Law Enforcement Agency and School Respondents .............. 164 12. Good and Poor Working Relationship Incidents Reported by Law Agency and School Respondents through Selected Variables. . . . 172 13. Chi-Square Analysis of Good and Poor Working Relationship Incidents........................173 14. Designation and Nondesignation of Specific Members to Work with the Opposite Agency through Selected Variables....................204 15. Chi-Square Analysis of the Designated Specific Members to Work with the Opposite Agency....................................... 207 16. Participation and Nonparticipation in Special Programs to Promote Working Relationships Reported through Selected Variables ........ 216 17. Chi-Square Analysis of Participation in Special Programs to Promote Working Relationships............................... 219 18. Respondents' Total Years of Service Reported through Selected Variables....................228 19. Chi-Square Analysis of the Total Years Service of the Participants..................230 20. Patterns of Overlapping Law Enforcement Jurisdictions and School Attendance Areas Reported through Selected Variables ..... 238 21. Chi-Square Analysis of Patterns of Overlapping Law Enforcement Jurisdiction and School Attendance Areas..............................240 ix Table Page 22. Over-All Working Relationship Ratings Reported through Selected Variables on the Seven- Point Rating Scale........................... 245 23. Chi-Square Analysis of Over-All Working Relationships............................... 250 j i X CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the problem Since the beginning of time, man has sought ways to take care of his social needs. Today in a complex society, man is still trying to work out successful means of living with one another in the world, this nation, and his com munity. In many ways man's methods remain crude, because he must Btill contend with the age old problem of man him self and how he can best relate to his neighbors. Today, in a typical community of the United States, man relies upon a number of institutions to fulfill his social needs for safety, health, education, trade, and religion. Law enforcement agencies and school districts are two institutions developed by society to meet specific needs. Schools have been organized to induct the young into their culture and are considered to be primarily a youth- serving agency. Law enforcement agencies have been devised 1 for the basic purpose of keeping the peace. They are not primarily a youth-serving agency. Both agencies serve in accordance with legal statutes which are an expression of the people's wishes. Even though legislative enactment may clearly define the respective roles of these two agencies, there is little or no direction given as to how these two agencies should relate to one another when concerned with mutual problems. Schools and law enforcement agencies will inevitably meet most often when considering the needs of norm-violating youngsters. What occurs when these two agencies intersect is the subject of this study. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to examine and ascer tain the working relationships which exist between law enforcement and school agencies in selected counties of California. Specific attention was given to the identifi cation and analysis of areas in which law enforcement agencies and schools had contact which each defined and reported as good or poor working relationships. Further attention was given to the types of working relationships that emerged. The conditions which surrounded them, which may have had bearing upon the quality of these relation ships, were also reviewed. m The following hypotheses were formulateds 1. Law enforcement agencies and schools use the same bases for judging their working relation ships . 2. Working relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by law enforcement agencies and schools. 3. There are different conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships. Specific questions to be answered included the followings 1. What influence does an agency's designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency have on working relationships? 2. What influence does an agency's participation in special programs to promote working relation ships have on working relationships? 3. What influence does a participant's years of total service have on working relationships? 4. ffhat influence do the different overlapping patterns of law enforcement jurisdictional territories and school attendance areas have on working relationships? 5. ffhat influence do the ratings of over-all work ing relationships have on working relationships as described in the critical incidents? Importance of the study The average California community has shown its con cern for the welfare of children by providing special services to assist children in trouble. Communities should also be concerned with the effectiveness with which those services are coordinated to accongplish their purposes (94*17). Apparently there has been a minimal amount of systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the concerted efforts of youth-serving agencies. . . . Very little research effort has been directed toward an examination of the nature and quality of the relationships between agencies (or youth workers within a given organization) that deal with the norm-violating youngster or his family. Such re search is sorely needed, for, in spite of the often- stated principle of "coordination of community re sources involving all agencies and organizations," there is still far too much interagency strife and duplication of effort and far too many gaps in needed services. (69*287) In focusing on the relationship between law enforce ment agencies and schools, this study singled out the two agencies, according to Lohman, of crucial importance in the career of the defiant or disturbed child. "The school and the police are two agencies which, unlike all others have occasion to experience, and to visit their experience upon, every officially delinquent child." (82t214) Good rela tionships are requisite to effective action. Delimitations of the study The following delimitations were employed in order to clarify the standing and position of examination taken in the studys 1. The geographic area included in this study was Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. Los Angeles County represents a large populous and dense urbanization; Orange County repre sents an area characterized with dramatic growth and change in the past few years; and Riverside County serves yet another area which is just starting many of the changes character ized by growth and experiences of the other two counties included in this study. 2. The law enforcement agencies included in this study were delimited to personnel of county sheriff and local police departments. 3. The school personnel included in this study were delimited to school organizations includ ing youth in grades seven through twelve in unified school districts. 4. The study was delimited to the perceptions and descriptions of incidents portraying good and poor working relationships. No attempt was made to judge whether the person describing the incident was using good judgment in any action that was being attempted or whether the action being described was actually appropriate to the situation. Definitions of terms used Law enforcement agencies.— Law enforcement agencies are defined for the purpose of this study as sheriffs' offices and city police departments. Probation, youth authority, and correction agencies will not be referred to as law enforcement agencies in the data gathered for this study. High school.— High school organizations are defined as schools serving grades nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, typically in a nine-twelve or ten-twelve pattern. Intermediate or junior high school.— This organiza tional pattern is defined as a school that serves grades seven, eight, or nine, usually in a seven-nine or seven and eight pattern. Participant, respondent.— "Participant" and "respondent" are used to refer to law enforcement and school personnel who provided usable information. These terms are used interchangeably throughout the study. Critical incident.— A critical incident is a description of a good or poor working relationship as inter preted by the respondent after reading the instructions included in the survey instrument. The incident must be performed in a situation Where the purpose or intent of the act seems fairly clear to the observer participating in this study, and its consequence must be sufficiently definite so that there is little doubt concerning its effect. In this study the effect iB to be interpreted by the respondent as being descriptive of a good or poor work ing relationship between the law enforcement and school agencies. Good working relationship incidents will be re ferred to as positive in certain places in the study, while poor working relationship incidents will be referred to as negative under certain circumstances. Delinquent child or juvenile delinquent.— A legal definition for this term is used. It includes all young sters whose behavior or series of behaviors involve infrac tions of rules and laws in such a way as to bring them to the attention of legal authorities. Dependent child.— This term is used to designate juveniles who are the victims of an unfit home or of parental abuse or have no guardian. Organization of the remainder of the dissertation The remainder of the dissertation was organized into six chapters, a bibliography, and appendixes. Chapter II contains a review of related literature. Since law enforcement agencies and school districts are only two of society's agencies, their relationship will be examined in the literature portion in the context of the 9 total community structure. Chapter III describes the research procedure and method employed to conduct the study. The chosen research method and its application to this topic are described. The complete procedure is also discussed including building background information, consultant assistance, gaining official support of endorsing organizations, and securing the cooperation of individual law enforcement agencies and schools, as well as the general types of responses selected from the raw data. The data of the study are presented in Chapters IV, V, and VI. These chapters deal with the classification and analysis of the critical incidents and related data secured from law enforcement and school per sonnel. A statistical analysis of the study is included as a part of Chapter VI. The data are treated separately and comparatively on an interagency basis. The study is concluded with Chapter VII which con tains a summary, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature was examined in the areas of juve nile delinquency, law enforcement, administration of secondary schools, and general community life in order to discover the conditions surrounding law enforcement-school relationships. It is necessary first to view these two agencies in the context of the community. Definitions and responsibilities of communities will then be considered in order. The remainder of this chapter will be concerned with community planning for youth, community assigned roles for schools and law enforcement agencies, concerns of the school and the police with delinquent youth, and relation ships of law enforcement agencies and school districts. Community definition One writer suggests that the community is, above all, people {59*184). Smucker, in a distillation of the 10 11 literature on communities, lists the following characteris tics : 1. A population aggregate 2. A geographically defined area 3. A common mode of life 4. A group of needs-serving agencies 5. A sense of identity and involvement 6. A social heritage 7. A functional interdependence. (66:275) Another writer urges one to consider "the communi ties" within a given community in order to facilitate understanding in planning (74:18). Whatever definition one accepts, it is apparent that there can be no community without communication. For if there is no communication between those who live in a geographic space, individuals could not share in common concern and endeavor (77:229- 230). Historically, institutions have risen in response to the needs of society. These social institutions and organizations constitute the chief structure of the com munity. The major institutions may be classified as (1) domestic, (2) educational, (3) religious, (4) recreational, (5) economic-business and industrial, (6) governmental, (7) social welfare, and (8) health (15:155). 12 Effectiveness of community planning for youth The conviction that supports America's form of government is: People who live together can plan wisely together (83:1). An important aspect of such planning will be concerned with the needs of youth, for the youth of to day are most surely the citizens of tomorrow. Host community leaders mean it when they say they want to help the youth of their town become good American citizens. They are equally sincere when they say that their town should offer adequate services in the areas of health, education, recreap tion, and law enforcement. (56:25) The level of citizenship practiced by youth in a given community is a pretty fair indication of how well that community is meeting its obligations toward youth. To determine the level of citizenship practiced, one might well begin with a study of the bare minimum which society requires, namely, observing the law (78x76). ffhat are the statistics on delinquency and crime for the population group under eighteen years of age? The Children's Bureau of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has prepared a report which gives a picture of delinquency on the national level. Portions of this defini tive report are quoted belowx 13 (1) The total population of children in the age group 10 to 17 years, upon which juvenile delinquency statistics are based, has in creased almost fifty per cent in the past decade and is expected to increase addition ally by about fifty per cent by 1980. The national rate of reported juvenile court delinquency has doubled in the decade 1948 to 1958. Careful analysis of the available data suggests that the increases are not artifacts of better reporting or more effi cient law enforcement, but are real. Thus, In 1958/ between one and a half to two million youngsters under 18 were dealt with by the police for misbehavior. Over 600,000 differ ent children cause before the juvenile courts because of alleged delinquent behavior, in cluding traffic offenses. Even if the 1958 rate remains static, a total of between four and five million different children will be referred to the juvenile courts for delin quent acts within the next decade, of whom more than one-third will appear more than once. (2) There is some evidence that rates for juvenile delinquency also increased during the 1920's, when some features of our society resembled some of those of today, and declined during the depression years of 1930's. (3) in 1958, about twenty per cent of the arrests of juveniles were for some serious offenses {burglary and auto theft— sometimes only "borrowing"— eighteen per cent, plus one per cent each for robbery and aggravated assault and less than one per cent for criminal homi cide). These proportions have remained rela tively constant in recent years. (4) There are more males than females arrested as juvenile delinquents, the proportion being 14 about five to one. Most female offenders are arrested on charges of running away, ungovern able behavior, truancy, or sexual misconduct, while most males are arrested for various forms of theft or for acts of carelessness and mis chief— if one omits traffic violations. (5) Almost half of the delinquency cases referred to court are dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further hearing; in about a quarter of them the child is placed under the supervision of a probation officer; and in about one-tenth of the cases, the child is committed to an institution for delinquents. The average length of supervision on probation is about 10 months, and the average length of stay in a training school is a little more than 9 1/2 months. Children paroled from institutions are supervised for an additional average of about 16 months. (6) Urban areas seem to contribute more to juvenile delinquency rates than do rural areas. Rates of delinquency become progressively larger as the size of the population areas becomes larger, with cities of over 100,000 showing substan tially higher rates than small cities and rural areas• (7) Rates for juvenile delinquency may be related not only to the size of the locality itself, but also to its proximity to large cities. (8) In the last few years, the rate of increase in juvenile delinquency has been greater for predominantly rural areas and small towns than for larger areas. This finding, which is of considerable interest in its own right, may indicate that in this age of rapid transporta tion and mass communication, factors of physical space and population density may be less impor tant than the nature and tempo of social life. 15 (9) It is generally agreed that juvenile delin quency appears more often in the lower socio economic strata of, especially, urban society than in other social settings. Although the peak ages for arrests of youth are 16, 17, and 18, data from various sources suggest that recruitment from the younger age groups may have begun. Whether or not this general find ing can be substantiated, it is known that juvenile delinquency now begins at an earlier age in the lower social and economic levels. (113:3-4) It is apparent that delinquency is on the increase in California according to reports dealing with arrests of youths under eighteen years of age for the year 1962. During 1962, a total of 210,590 of these youths was arrested for delinquent or criminal activities. This was 21,166 more arrests than reported for 1961, showing a rate per 100,000 total population of 1,232.0 conjpared to the 1961 rate of 1,151.9 or a seven per cent increase in juvenile delinquency arrests. This rate increase is reflected in all levels from the most serious to the relatively minor offense group. (106:155) Appendix A shows the proportion of juvenile arrests to total arrests for six selected offenses in California for the year I960. At this point in the discussion, a more detailed definition of juvenile delinquency will be examined. Kvaraceus states that. Legally the term juvenile delinquency includes all youngsters between certain age limits (seven to eighteen in most states) whose behavior or series 16 of behaviors involve infractions of rules and norms in such a way as to bring them to the attention of authorities connected with official institutions. The official institution may be the over-all legal- societal authority or a subinstitution such as the school. (79*116-17) The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department defines a delin quent as "any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who has violated the law of this State or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this State defining crime." (100si) Juvenile arrests are normally divided into two categories— delinquent and dependent. A delinquency book ing usually is made when a juvenile has committed a crime. The dependency booking is generally used when a juvenile is the victim of an unfit home or parental abuse, or when there is no parent or guardian properly supervising the juvenile (2tl64). Law enforcement officers utilize sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code in making the arrests described above. (See Appendix B for code sections.) In addition, school officials are involved in the use of laws peculiar to truancy and insubordination. Sections of the California Education Code contain the aforementioned statutes. (See Appendix C for these code sections.) Exanyples of Los Angeles County ordinances affecting the 17 general life of juveniles are included in Appendix D. These are cited as one manifestation of the "community" in plan ning for its youth. Community action with delinquency Authorities are agreed that the causes of delin quency are multiple and complex. However, these causes are inherent in the behavior of the individual and are inseparable from the environment in which he lives. It follows then that the treatment of delinquent behavior is essentially a community problem and not one which can be totally solved by any one agency or institution either with in or without the community itself (24>65). Before adults can begin to seek intelligently ans wers to the problem of juvenile delinquency, they may need to gain insights into their own involvement in the communi ty's delinquency problem. One writer suggests that: Frequently they are themselves quite unaware of the nature of their own involvement, for norm violations by youngsters can fulfill a number of psychological functions for the law-abiding adult. The self- righteous clucking of many adults only half conceals a vicarious thrill in the escapades of youth. If delinquency is to be prevented and controlled, it will be necessary that adults not only understand the reality of the problem within their cosnunity but also that they understand their own emotional 18 needs, their own problems, and even the gratifications they might receive from the delinquency phenomenon. (80t21) In its Community Program for Controlling Delinquency the Children's Bureau states the goals for a complete pro gram of community action ass 1. strengthening of resources needed by all children, 2. protection of groups of children especially vulnerable to delinquency, 3. control of harmful influences in the community, 4. services for the delinquent child and the child with behavior problems. (70s396) Even though there may be agreement about objectives for preventing delinquency among those in the behavioral sciences and helping professions, it is no simple matter at the community policy-making level to envisage the division of tasks and the ends to be sought by the various agencies (44s416). The problem is not made easier by the fact that, "by definition, the agencies in a community with resources for the prevention of delinquency have other things to do besides preventing delinquency." (81x191) Kahn would urge a "community service" orientation in the first phase of planning rather than an "agency" orientation in order to avoid overlooking major gaps in services and noting the need for new patterns of organiza- 19 tion (44:421). A stating of community responsibility for the needs of youth could provide a beginning point for agencies to begin a discussion of services offered as opposed to services needed. Most of the agencies of the community should be involved in this discussion in order to assure community-wide support and understanding. Such agencies as the schools, police, social workers, recrea tional leaders, clergy, press, mental health clinics, pro bation, societies, civic and service clubs, fraternal organ izations, and business agencies would share in promoting the common good. "When all agencies accept each other as a necessary and helpful member of a combination interested in developing a better community, an important step has been achieved." (22:35) Apparently the need for interagency cooperation has been frequently stated in the past and quite often ignored. . • . The recommendation that there should be im proved coordination among the community agencies which serve young people has been made so often that it has become a verbal vacuum in spite of the urgency for such action. In too many instances only lip service has been given to such a recommen dation, resulting in somewhat aporadic efforts at improvement of the relationships between agencies. (104:34) According .to one authority, each agency should 20 evaluate its own efforts to help in terms of its original and unique functions. In an eagerness to be of assistance to troubled youth, some agencies may have been trying to be everything to everyone (46*398). On the other hand, another writer observes . . . that the home, schools and community organiza tions often take the position of "letting George do it" or assume that each should play a solo role in the work with adolescents. This at times appears to constitute a competitive and distrustful view of the other fellow's work. (33*495) Either extreme can only result in loss of adequate support to the youth of a community. Postering cooperative endeavor Common questions discussed in communities ares Why are some communities more successful in obtaining a coordination of effort in solving problems? What blocks communication once agencies meet to discuss problems? Many more questions in this vein come to those interested in gaining community-wide action on behalf of youth. In California, the coordinating council has proved to be an effective device for the community in attacking and solving problems (61*494). The coordinating council movement was started in Berkeley in 1919 and experienced a 21 phenomenal growth in Los Angeles County and elsewhere after 1930 (20s372). The success of the council has been attrib uted in part to the fact thats 1. It utilizes the participation and knowledge of those who live and work in the community; 2. it enables groups using different techniques to agree on mutual goals; 3. It assures a plan of action reached through group agreement; 4. It provides a means whereby a community can clearly define its needs and redefine its goalst 5. It provides the common ground on which citizen concern, professional skill, and administrative authority meet to achieve action. (61*494) A typical council will have various committees working in the areas of case conference, health and mental hygiene, education, welfare, safety, recreation, and family life. Prevention of juvenile delinquency has had a high priority on council agenda in southern California. The problem of delinquency is a special concern of the case conference committee. The following discussion of case conference committees will lead to better understanding of its definition and operation. Essentially, the Case Conference Committee is a communications process which provides a means for the early detection of children's problems which might predispose toward delinquent behavior. This process is* (1) case-centered in approach, (2) community oriented, and (3) community orienting. 22 The entire program rests upon the need of the case- centered discussion to be documented at the local committee level. This documentation is critical in that it is required in order that Case Conference Committees can recommend to both local and county- wide coordinating, research, and planning organiza tions the need fort 1. Validation of effectiveness of existing services 2. New kinds of services 3. Expansion of or addition to present services 4. Operational or action research programs which can demonstrate these needs. (96t2) An outline of case conference committee values is presented in Appendix E. In Los Angeles County during the year 1961-62, fifty-nine case conference committees, including 771 pro fessional staff persons in eighty-four communities, met monthly from September through June. These professionals, representing thirteen different types of service agencies, identified more than one hundred community situations which they believed contributed to existing delinquency. Many of these problems were referred to community groups which developed and supported projects to meet needs (96t4-5). With such a record it iB no wonder that August Vollmer, father of the coordinating council, has said, "... The most powerful deterrent to delinquency and crime is found in the coordinated efforts of all constructive forces in 23 the community, as exemplified in coordinating councils.” (15x310) Although acknowledging that the council plan has indeed played an increasingly important role in relation to delinquency, one writer advises that its advocates have done the council movement some disservice through their exaggerated hopes and claims (20x373). What are some specific guides for ensuring the kind of teamwork represented in successful coordinating councils? Bradley has identified several crucial factors. These include such basic considerations asx good leadership, adequate communication, and keeping team members informed about one another's functions. There is a need also for recognizing and appreciat ing the value of the contributions which each team member can make. (30x386) In addition, Fickles points out that cooperative effort is dependent, as in other partnerships where human welfare is the concern, upon the values and understandings of the partners (33x495). If values are not commonly held by participating partners it would seem that progress could be impeded but Cook states that "where persons got acquain ted, really acquainted, values came to be shared.” (25x 225) One is led to believe then that frequent personal contact between the same members of the various agencies, is 24 requisite to the building o£ mutual understanding. Understanding does not come from making a look-see trip, asking unintelligent questions, listening to a pat address, attending public ceremonials. The kind of understanding we have in mind starts from a theory of the agency's place in the total community picture, a conception of its role. Unless one has insight on this, few agency workers would take the time to teach him the ABC's of their business. (25t226) Several blocks to cooperative endeavor would include a committee's reluctance to get the facts and to face them honestly (79* 31) i absence of a representative from a key agency (96*9); and unwillingness on the part of one or more members to admit mistakes (96*9). Role of the school Education in the United States is legally a func tion of the individual states. The actual execution of the state's educational plan is through the local school board, a quasi-corporation created by the legislature to carry out its mandatory and permissive statutes concerning public education (13*109). Schools have been organized as a means of "induct ing" the young into the culture. "The basic task of the school may be defined as one of bridging on one side the [ transition from childhood to adulthood and on the other the 25 gap between the family and society-at-large." (64s 17) According to some educators, education is as broad as life and according to others as narrow as the three R*s, with segments of the general public agreeing with each profes sional group. The bulk of the profession, like the bulk of the general public, is spread between these two poles. As a consequence, it is difficult to gain general agreement upon what is the proper role of the school (12 s 194). In commenting upon the confusion of objectives set before our schools, one authority maintains that the com munity has attempted to pile burdens on the teacher that some other social institution is trying to avoid. These would include parental training? religious and moral incul cation? civic education? character building? and recrea tional leadership (20s500). "The school cannot become all things to all pupils. When it deflects from its original and unique function and/or when it lacks adequate financial support, it is apt to misfire on all fronts." (80s28) There is also a question being asked about the ; wisdom of pressuring schools to raise "standards" when such standards may not be good for many of the children or inapplicable to them. 26 If some of this movement prevails there can only result greater frustration, greater dissatisfaction with life, greater inadequacy on the part of indi- . viduals, and consequently more delinquency. America has need for a wide variety of capacity and ability. America has need for people who are trained in skills at many levels. (23i410) There can be no argument about the fact that the child brings his whole self, his background, and his com munity into the school. In the modern school, the needs of that totality become the concerns of the teachers (16t 30). Relationship of the school to juvenile delinquency The school would appear to be related to juvenile delinquency in at least three ways* It may produce delin quency; it may help to prevent delinquency; and it may deal with norm-violating behavior that is encountered within its walls (67*565)• Several authorities are agreed that the school frequently is responsible for the manifestation of deviant behavior in some children. They contend that this is brought about by the school1s failure to individualize instruction or to provide students with the rewards of success and recognition (72<367, 16>303). Another writer points out that the school's contribution to delinquency is not so much one of commission as one of omission. He states that if schools fail to take cognizance of children as total personalities, with feelings and interests and family situations out of which they come and to tdiich they must return, some children—-including perhaps many of the more spirited ones— will rebel against them and be labeled "truants." (10:232) It is generally recognized that the school occupies a key position among community agencies in the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency. This is to be expect ed because the school reaches practically all children at a relatively early period of their growth and generally is in close touch with them during the crucial period of ages ten to seventeen. If the school succeeds in helping to build wholesome and useful citizens, it will have fulfilled an important function in the prevention of delinquency (73*90). A program for delinquency prevention in the school would begin with the identification of those students who are delinquency prone. Sensitive, well-trained teachers can successfully identify students who need special atten tion. Experience would indicate that teachers' judgments Lneed to be augmented Jay- -the skills which, pupil personnel 28 workers possess, particularly as the intensity of the mal adjustment under study becomes increased. Rogers argues that the school can spot the obvious problems quite easily but that the majority of incipiently disturbed children tend to be revealed through irregular attendance at school (60x45). Truancy and vandalism are symptoms of apathy and revolt. The number of days of absence from school and the number of broken windows in a school build ing are clues to the rise and fall of adjustment to the civic aspects of school life. (78x76) Zn a two-year study on school vandalism, Goldman found several important differences between schools experi encing low-damage and those experiencing high-damage. Some of these findings are cited below: . . . Students in low-damage schools reported that they met regularly with the principal and helped plan school programs. High-damage is associated with the low socio economic status of the census tract in which the school is located, the advanced age of the build ings, and the low occupational status of fathers of students. Frequent staff turnover or changing a large seg ment of the staff at one time may disrupt the functioning of the school. (36x2-3) Finding the student who needs help will serve no purpose unless some kind of specific, individualized action 29 results. If reeducation is indicated, the classroom teacher will need the support of school specialists in planning ameliorative steps to be tried by the school. If clinical treatment is required, it is assumed that such treatment goes beyond the limits of the school role and so becomes the responsibility of some agency, by referral, outside of public education (104s7). In order to plan wisely for the truant and the delinquent, Plant would urge that schools listen to the norm-violating youngster. The delinquent is trying hard to tell us to give to all children a curriculum that is built for their needs. He is trying to tell us that vftiile we have made a good start on vocational courses, courses in sewing, horaemaking, carpentry, and special classes for the retarded, our culture still looks upon these as second-rate— something that the child is not to go into if he can make the grade in the more "properM course. He is trying hard to force us to give every child a sense of growth and a feeling of success in his school years. He is asking us to give expert help to the child who has one specific disability; e.g., in reading. He is trying to tell us to bhoose our teachers for their real understanding of children as well as for their academic ability, and not to let marriage end the careers of those who would have the most rich and facile communication with children. He is trying to tell us to acknowledge the ability of the unusual teacher in some other way than by pushing her away from the thing she does best into supervisory or administrative jobs. 30 If the reader will cease to inquire, "Who is the delinquent?" and ask rather, "What is he trying to tell us?" then perhaps we may build a better social structure for all of America's children. (81*28) Role of the police It is not difficult to identify the basic tasks that have been assigned to law enforcement agencies. One writer states it is their general responsibility ... to enforce the law; to protect the life, limb, and property of our citizens; to prevent crime; and to provide certain limited direction and control for behavior that is not criminal. (82 siv-8) Although crime prevention is usually included as a basic police function, it is necessary to define the term because of its ambiguity. Kahn maintains that . . . it confuses discussion to use the word "prevention" to describe what are quite differ ent activities of these representatives of the law. The police are not in a position to prevent the growth and development of criminals; if they "prevent crime" it is generally by determent and law enforcement. If they locate a minor offender and get him to an agency which helps, this is more accurately described as case location and referral. These more specific and delimited terms are preferable in a discussion of police functions. (451536) Pfiffner comments, "Crime prevention could be depicted as a spectrum or continuum with repression at one 31 pole and case work at the other." (91s10) It is in the area of crime prevention, where police work may well overlap with the work of other community agencies, that controversy enters in regard to proper defi nition of the police role. The major problem centers on how much social work should be involved in the police oper ation. Forty years ago August Vollmer told the chiefs of police in convention that police work was social work. Robert Guthrie's dissertation demonstrated beyond a doubt that police, both uniformed and juvenile, are actually carrying on many phases of case work, and that they often take satisfaction in it. (89s15) Winters points out that any official contact between a child and a police officer can be viewed, in one sense, as a phase of treatment (22s51). Another writer hastens to add that the American public has in no way indicated a desire for professionally trained police officers prepared for the complexities of social casework. He goes on to state, "It has been solely through the works of the police officers themselves that duties beyond the traditional ones have been adopted— despite the public." (82sii-10) While the official position of law enforcement agencies is that social or casework does not come within 32 the police purview, there are events taking place in our society tfiich may well result in widespread change. P£if£ner believes that "society needs to reexamine the function of the police in the light o£ such great problems of social pathology as unemployment, juvenile delinquency and the growing number of handicapped people unable to adjust to the demands of a cybernetic age." (89t23) In order to solve these pressing problems, society will demand a team approach in vriiich the police role will be but one phase of society's cooperative effort to deal with defec tive humanity (89:9). Relation of the police to juvenile delinquency Although police agencies are concerned with all of the youth in a community, the major part of police work with juveniles is devoted to work with delinquents and with delinquency prevention activities. It has been estimated that from 50 to 75 per cent of a police agency's work directly or indirectly affects youth (10s5). The police- 1 ;juvenile relationship is therefore a matter of concern that j should require careful consideration and planning. And jyet, in a recent Children's Bureau publication, one findst 33 Very few city charters and very few general statu tory provisions establishing the powers and duties of city government departments have any reference in them to the police handling of juveniles. In spite of the fact that noncriminal court procedures have been in existence for this age group for over 60 years in this country. (112s2) Lacking a specific code for the handling of juve niles, each police department has established its own practices by the evolution of custom. These practices may vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The policy on juvenile matters of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is given as one example. SECTION 1223— It shall be the Department policy in cases involving the delinquency of juvenile offend ers to view the matter with a preventive attitude. All feasible steps shall be taken with a view to properly adjusting or referring such cases to allied social agencies before resorting to court action. Juveniles alleged to be delinquent shall be referred to as subjects, or in dependency matters as victims. It is of the utmost importance that officer atti tude, demeanor and speech toward juveniles be civil and respectful, but at the same time firm. It is the responsibility of every member of the Department to properly report any matter coming to his attention in which a juvenile is delinquent or the victim of an offense or neglect. (100s3) In meeting the needs of youth, police departments across the nation have developed special juvenile units. California seems to be leading the nation with juvenile bureaus in approximately 70 per cent of the police and 34 sheriffs' departments, serving a population of 5,000 or more in 1959 (87s85). Recommended functions of a juvenile specialist unit ares 1. Assistance to the chief administrator in the formulation and implementation of overall depart mental policy for dealing with juveniles. This will require the devising of techniques to assure that adequate information is available for the presenta tion of an accurate picture of the current situation to the administrator, a knowledge of the most ad vanced thinking in the field of juvenile control so that this information can be interpreted with mean ing, and close cooperation with those responsible for training and supervision of personnel to assure that all members of the department have a good understanding of recommended procedures. 2. Investigation of some nonaction complaints and followup on action situations after the line officer has taken initial steps. Much of this work would take the line officer too far from his beat, would require the special aptitude, training, and experience of the juvenile officer, and may also require the use of plain clothes and unmarked cars. In a department in which all personnel are youth oriented, some of this w o rk can be done by other departmental specialists, particularly with a strong juvenile unit available for consultation. 3. Review of all reports dealing with police contacts with juveniles. This will assure that policy decisions are being implemented consistently and will keep administration informed of the chang ing nature of the problems being faced by the men in the field which might require new policy decisions. Where sheer numbers make it impossible to review all reports, random samples should be studied. 4. Liaison with other agencies in the community dealing with the children who are contacted by the 35 police. This would include liaison with community welfare councils, with the juvenile court (with its probation and detention staffs), with public and voluntary social and welfare agencies, and with institutions for the care and treatment of children who cannot be left with families. This role would involve studying and improving procedures, identi fying and working out problems, and serving generally as a two-way communication channel for information moving from the police to these agencies and from the agencies to the police. (112s9-10) Authorities concur that although there is a need for a juvenile specialist, his work must remain an integral part of the police department. He will primarily coordi nate police activities in relation to children. Initial contacts with youths continue to be made by the field officer. Bach officer should be thoroughly familiar with the general philosophy and methods of juvenile work, in order to make a maximum contribution in the control of juvenile delinquency (2 s 157). All police officers are charged with the same basic responsibility toward the juvenile law-breaker as they are toward the adult law-breaker. When a crime is committed, we are expected to find the perpetrator, charge him with the offense, and present him to the court together with evidence to prove that a crime was in fact committed and spe cifically by the accused. (82siv-8) 36 Relationships of law enforcement agencies and school districts Schools and law enforcement agencies are apt to be involved with one another concerning such problems as habit ual truancy, runaway children, petty thievery, malicious vandalism, and traffic safety (22i52# 12*77), It is in seeking solutions to these problems that school and law enforcement personnel are cognizant that cooperative endeav or can accomplish more than the sum total of their individ ual efforts (62*69). In working with troubled youth, schools and police departments frequently find themselves concerned with the same youngster. It is important then that channels are established for the exchange of information. School offi cials can frequently furnish background information on children that will be of assistance to police officers, and the police in turn can often provide interesting and reveal ing facts about youngsters (9*49, 72*367). In order to foster communication between the two agencies it is suggest ed that luncheon conferences could be arranged in addition to the more informal "cup of coffee together" at the end of a routine contact (81*195, 9*49). Bristow warns that I communication is often lacking because the time for 37 communication is not available (23>411). In any case it would appear that school and law enforcement personnel should find little problem in working with one another on mutual problems. The literature offers several clues why this may be expected. Pfiffner suggests in the following paragraph that schools and police are "brothers in arms." There seems to exist no particular problenTof cooperation between the police and the schools, especially in those areas where the schools have Berious discipline problems. This is probably the explanation of the apparently friendly feel ing, because the schools and the police are in a sense brothers in arms. They have both been charged by society with the task of dealing with unruly children, a duty which they both feel that parents have abdicated and thrust upon the community. The police and the schools are the most obvious com munity agencies for dealing with juvenile discipli nary problems. (91s65) Another writer sees police and schools linked to gether as defenders of behavioral norms. He points out that, "after all, the traditionalistic teacher or policeman who serves as watchdog for the school and legal norms may :be performing a very important function in society." (79s23) Dienstein, in a study of attitudes relative to the causes of crime held by teachers, police, and probation officers, found an affinity of beliefs between the teachers 38 and the police, the direction being different from those held by probation. "The teacher recognizes management as one of her important functions, because one cannot teach in bedlam. . . . The juvenile officer sees management and control as his primary function." (28s293) It can be seen then that school and law enforcement personnel can be expected to find ways for cooperative endeavor since they apparently have a similar orientation toward the problems of young people. Kvaraceus has developed a number of action- principles for school and law enforcement personnel which may guide them in meeting the needs of troubled youth. In order to understand the nature and extent of the local delinquency problem, the school, court, and police collate and share their information. The school and/or court appoints or designates a court-school liaison person who works on a year- round basis. The school thoroughly investigates and uses the appropriate alternatives for action offered by compulsory education laws to aid the norm-violating youngster. The norm-violating student is suspended from school only after a careful study is made of the youngster and the home background. When he is separated from school, provisions are made for appropriate agency contact and plans are ; outlined for his ultimate return to school. 39 The school maintains a close contact with every youngster vtho is suspended from the school; when the youngster passes the age for compulsory school attendance, he is referred to the appropriate com munity agency that may best serve him. The norm-violating youngster is excluded from the school only When the violation or conduct is so extreme that expulsion is warranted for the good of the school and/or the student. The school recognizes that exclusion is not a solution to the student's problem and, therefore, in advance of exclusion, attempts to insure employment or supervision of this youngster by other agencies of the community. The school, court and police recognize truancy as a significant clue to potential delinquency, analyze local records, and develop a procedure for detection and follow-up as part of a long-range program for combatting delinquency. The school cooperates with other agencies, par ticularly police and court, in developing educa tional programs for the prevention and control of delinquency and for citizenship training. The school and the court work out programs and procedures for the norm-violating youngster awaiting trial, on probation, under detention, or released from probation or detention. (80s 246-47) The cooperative nature of the relationship outlined in this section involves a concept of partnership which ; Includes a mutual sharing of information and coordination of effort in preventive as well as remedial delinquency ; programs. In the last analysis, only delinquents can solve j their particular problems; but they will require the help, , 40 support, and coordinated efforts of good schools and good law enforcement agencies (19*146). Chapter summary The literature reviewed for this dissertation was of necessity selected from the writings on juvenile delinquen cy, community planning, police work and schools. No major writings were on the specific topic of law enforcement agencies as related to schools. Rather, findings on this point were from the related literature. In spite of community planning on behalf of youth, juvenile delinquency has continued to increase in Califor nia and throughout the nation. This increase has been attributed, in part, to increased urbanization and to the nature and tempo of the social life. The coordinating council has proved to be am effective means by which various agencies in a community may pool their resources in attempting to lessen juvenile delinquency. Society sees the school as an agency charged with inducting the young into its culture. In addition, the ;school is expected to control and rectify the deviant youth. Although .both tasks are interrelated, it appears j 41 evident that the school alone cannot solve the problem of the norm-violating youth. The primary responsibility of the local police is the keeping of the peace. As a secondary duty, the police sure active in crime prevention. In regard to this phase, the police estimate they serve society in delinquency pre vention. It is estimated that from 50 to 75 per cent of a police agency's work affects youth. Because of the similar orientation of school and law enforcement personnel toward deviant youth, it can be expected that the two agencies will cooperate. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND RESEARCH METHOD This study was cooperatively undertaken by two individuals and thus it was necessary to assign responsi bilities for various parts. In doing this, the following guidelines were used: joint responsibility and controlling responsibility. Joint responsibility was used in certain portions of the study that were of such a nature that both members needed to make major contributions and fully agree with all statements made. Controlling responsibility was the term coined to designate areas in which one investi gator assumed the primary or controlling responsibility for a specific portion. A partner charged with this func tion made all final decisions concerning that specific area. He was able to use any resource necessary to fulfill j ithis role. The responsibility assignments outlined above were . : completely satisfactory, and all phases of the study were I undertaken within this arrangement. ; i L _ ________________________ 42____ _ . . ' _________j 43 Building background information Since the topic for the study was interagency, it was desirable to build general background information, not only in the specific areas in which schools have contact with law enforcement agencies, but also from the law enforcement side viewing schools. The first step was to contact larger social agencies such as the Jewish Founda tion in Los Angeles and social welfare departments. People in these organizations are able to view both law enforce ment and school operations differently from individuals who are employed by either schools or law enforcement agencies. After examining viewpoints on all types of interagency relationships, the problem was delimited to law enforcement agencies and schools. This was further defined to police departments, sheriffs' offices, and schools in unified school districts having students in grades seven through twelve or any combination thereof. This defined the situa tion to specific areas that could be within the scope of thorough examination. At this point, the county office of schools in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties was contacted. The child welfare and attendance offices were the most useful since much of the police contact with 44 schools is through child concern. These people were con tacted and interviews arranged. From each contact other recommendations were made concerning people who had knowl edge of law enforcement-school working relationships. In most cases, a working copy of the study proposal was sent to them in advance. This allowed sufficient time for each to examine the over-all study and be prepared to advance questions or information concerning the value and structure of the research. More than forty-five contacts were made, including chiefs of police, other dignitaries in police and sheriff organizations, and professors in education, public administration, sociology, and police science. Los Angeles City Schools proved to be most cooperative by supplying information regarding both aspects of the study. At the end of these interviews, sufficient back ground information had been gained from which the intent and procedure of the study could be refined. Gaining official organizational { support It was believed that official organizational support from both law enforcement agencies and schools would insure| i general support of the study. The criteria used for 45 original selection of endorsing agencies was to select groups of similar stature in both law enforcement and educational professions. State-wide organizations of the California Peace Officers' Association and the California Association of School Administrators were considered. As material from the personal contacts was reviewed, it seemed very desirable to use organizations closer to the local levels and avoid state organizations. This was affirmed since only three counties would be used for the study. The county peace officers' association and the county office of schools in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties were contacted for endorsement purposes. This procedure would indicate to participants that an official organiza tion at the county level was interested in this study. It was realized that the relationship between the peace officers' association and its membership is different from the relationship of the school districts and the county offices; however, this was the nearest situation to having equal representation that could be arranged. Each one of the organizations selected for endorse ment was contacted. Slightly different procedures were i used in each case. i 46 Lob Angeles County Peace Officers1 Association.— The president of this organization was contacted for a per sonal interview. At that time, the nature of the study and the request for endorsement were outlined. A special com mittee consisting of appointed members of the executive board was asked to study the proposal and make a recommenda tion. Official action by the executive board denied endorsement of the study. This board stated that it should be the responsibility of each law enforcement agency to decide if it wished to cooperate with this study and that endorsement would not be in keeping with the general intent of the Los Angeles County Peace Officers' Association. Orange County Peace Officers' Association.— The president of this association was contacted by mail. The transmittal letter indicated the purpose of the study and the need for endorsement. A preliminary proposal of the study was included for examination. Subsequently, in order to answer questions and provide further information, one of the investigators appeared before a meeting of the execu tive board which after consideration voted to deny endorse-; i ment of the study. The board recommended that each of the ] local police departments be invited on an individual basis ; to participate in the study. Riverside County Peace Officers* Association. — The president of this association was contacted and materials were forwarded regarding the nature of the study and the need for endorsement. A telephone contact was then made with the president and he stated endorsement had been granted. An endorsement letter was prepared on official Riverside County Peace Officers' Association stationery for distribution with each individual critical incident packet. Los Angeles County Schools office.— The superin tendent of the Los Angeles County Schools was officially contacted in order to secure endorsement for the study. Unfortunately, the policy of this office made it impossible for it to endorse the study. However, informal permission was granted to use the name of Dr. C. C. Trillingham in a transmittal letter indicating his interest in the study. Dr. Charles C. Carpenter, assistant superintendent of this office, was of great value in the formation stage of the 1 study and continued to give personal support. The child welfare and attendance office was also instrumental in the I beginning stages and continued with informal support. Orange County Schools office.--The assistant super 48 intendent of educational services was recommended as the contact person. An appointment was made for a personal interview and both investigators appeared for the presenta tion. Background materials had been previously given to him. It was learned that this county office had a policy preventing the endorsement of research studies originating outside of that office. The final recommendation by the Orange County Schools office was that the investigators contact the school districts in order to secure their cooperation. Riverside County Schools office.— Preliminary infor roation and the letter outlining the request for endorsement of the study were sent to the superintendent's office. Subsequently, a personal interview was arranged with Or. Leonard Grindstaff. His office agreed to endorse the study and made provisions for introductory letters to superin tendents of unified school districts. Cover letters for : the individual critical incident packets were also author ized. Other organizations asked to give official recog nition in each county.— It was evident at this stage that it would be ingpossible to get equal law enforcement and 49 school organizational representation for the endorsement purposes in each county; therefore, an alternate procedure was established. Since the Orange County Peace Officers' Association recommended contacting the police chiefs' group in this same county, this action was initiated. Endorse ment was not authorized and it was stated that it should be the responsibility of each police chief to cooperate or not as conditions permit. A direct contact was recommended. The sheriffs' offices were contacted again in order to ascertain the possibility of using their names on a part of the printed survey. All three sheriffs' offices granted this request without hesitation. This provided each county with equal representation for law enforcement agencies. The school portion of the study presented a differ ent problem, since only one county office approved endorse ment. Los Angeles City Schools Research Committee gave both its approval and endorsement of the project. Thus 'Los Angeles County was represented by a respected school idistrict. Orange County was not represented by any agency j for endorsement purposes. No further contacts were made I for school representation in this county. There were four i :unified school districts in Orange County and it was 50 believed that personal contacts would help to insure coop eration. Research Methodology In attempting to ascertain the working relationships between two agencies, it was obvious that there would need to be direct communication from the people who made the con tact that formed the working relationships. Since examin ing working relationships can be difficult, it was apparent that any research technique would have to be carefully chosen in order to provide a complete and accurate descrip tion of the working relationships. The techniques usually considered for a task of this nature include an interview conducted on a personal and confidential basis, first-hand observation of the behavior, or an anonymous and confiden tially written questionnaire. The latter of these approach es was chosen for this study for these reasonsx (1) A care fully designed questionnaire can give valid and reliable i information; (2) A larger sample can be reached in the same |time period; (3) Anonymity can be guaranteed; and (4) i Written responses are more efficient than personal inter- j ;views or observations in considering the scope of this 51 study. The literature concerning the relationships of law enforcement agencies and school districts was not highly developed. This pointed to the need for an exploratory research method. The research tool ultimately selected was the critical incident technique. The critical incident technique The critical incident technique employs a respond ent's knowledge by asking him to react to statements and questions of a defined open-end nature. In this specific situation, participants were asked to describe a contact with the agency in question Which was characteristic of a good working relationship and a poor working relationship. This technique is not new, even though unusual in most formal research. John C. Flanagan has been given credit for developing it to the stage of valid research use. Flanagan summarizes the critical incident technique in this manner. Specifically, the critical incident technique out lines procedures for collecting observed incidents having special significance and meeting precisely defined criteria. An incident is an observable type of human activity which is sufficiently complete in itself to permit inferences and predictions to i be made about the person.performing this act. To_____ 52 be critical, an incident must be performed in a situation where the purpose or intent of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and its conse quences are sufficiently definite so that there is little doubt concerning its effect. (34s327) Most of the early employment of this method was during World War II years. This method excels vriienever it is possible to analyse a situation for appropriate or inappro priate action or behavior. Major studies involving this procedure are included in many disciplines. The New York City police employed John C. Flanagan and the American Institute for Research in order to develop a guide for the selection and training of police officers. The first step was to gather 8,000 incidents of effective and ineffective police officer behavior. These were then categorized and examined for the purposes of devising a screening instru ment and to form the basis for developing an evaluation form which could be used to judge the competency of police officers. Other inyportant research studies include the jesyployment of doctors, nurses, and interns within hospitals to elicit examples of effective and ineffective behavior on the parts of all personnel in the treatment of patients. i |The final result provided criteria for evaluation of per- i sonnel and the basis upon which to redesign a portion of 53 the written medical tests for medical schools. Another study using this technique examined effective and ineffec tive behavior of pilots flying in World War II. The examination of written responses in this particular study was useful in the training of pilots and the evaluation of their proficiency and led to the redesign of instruments and location of items in the cockpit of the aircraft. The results of the study were instrumental in reducing errors made under stress and thus resulted in safer flying condi tions . The Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corpora tion applied this technique as a part of the evaluation system used with their employees. It substituted general statements regarding behavior such as "sometimes careless" with accurate descriptions of behavior such as "misread dial which caused an error resulting in the malfunction of . . ." and so on. This resulted in making a statement directly concerning a quality of good or poor workmanship in place of generalized comments. Flanagan is not the only person who has found the critical incident technique useful in conducting selected i research. ! I j 54 Preston (84) used this method to study peace-time officer performance in the air force* Specifically, he was interested in examining the differences between the suc cessful and unsuccessful officers. This was done through the description of the critical requirement of the effec tive and ineffective performances evidenced by the success ful and unsuccessful officers. Mayhew shows one facet that had a bearing on the choosing of this technique for the study. Adequate collection of critical incidents places categories of human behavior on an empirical base, thus providing for greater validity for a subse quent measuring instrument. To accept this statement implies acceptance of an assumption fundamental to the entire technique, i.e., that observers can distinguish between effec tive and ineffective behavior. The growing body of evidence, however, tends to support such an assuqp- tion. Most teachers of communicative skills courses could prepare a logical scale of traits of communi cation. Yet this scale would be suspect merely because it was prepared in that way. A similar scale developed from critical incidents not only possesses greater validity itself but, if it proved comparable to scales logically derived, establish this validity as well. ... Zn other situations the empirically based categories may point out traits or aspects of behavior being overlooked by other methods of measurement. (50t594) The correct employment of the critical incident i i technique makes it a superior device for supplying raw data 55 in some situations. The information is often classified as rough data and care is necessary in order to keep the data from being interpreted beyond the depth supplied by the respondents. Application of the critical incident method to this study This technique was a natural one to apply to this study. Flanagan's air force research (75) employed crew members as the observers and recorders of critical incidents since it would be inypossible to have trained observers in all flights. It is this technique that has been adapted to educational research and this study. Data were elicited from personnel who have had direct contacts with members of the opposite agency. Specific reasons for the application of this re search method for this study werei (1) Very little inter agency study between law enforcement agencies and school districts has been conducted; (2) Open-end information of :this type would supply more accurate data and equal oppor tunities for both agencies to communicate their beliefs; (3) This technique would measure the extremes of the good and poor working relationships and thus produce better data. 56 for analysis purposes; and (4) The nature of this study was exploratory. Consultant Assistance John C. Flanagan is the founder and president of an organization entitled American Institute for Research. This corporation conducts professional research at all levels of government and private industry. A branch of this organization is located in the Los Angeles area. This group was contacted and agreed to discuss the topic and research methodology that were being considered. Dr. Alex Slivinske, Dr. Joan Guilford, and Miss Angelina Marchese, R.N., met with the investigators in order to review the proposed research study and to give advice upon the appli cation of the critical incident method. It was found that one of the research consultants had extensive experience with John C. Flanagan and this technique as it was used with jmany of his major research studies. Members of the group proved to be of valuable assistance as the study was con- ! ; ducted. They were very generous with their time, and a |deep appreciation is expressed for this assistance. 57 Developing the Instrument One of the critical phases of any study employing a written response technique is the preparation of the instrument. Even though the critical incident ^method was originally used in an interview or direct observation situation, many successful adaptations have been made employing a written response. Zt was recognized that in creased worth probably would be obtained if the interest of the respondent could be captured. Since personal contact could not be guaranteed anywhere within the communication structure, steps were taken to meet this situation. Study of the literature related to the use of the technique in various research fields and initial interviews, discussed earlier, provided necessary background information for developing an instrument for this technique. It was de cided that the instrument should reflect three basic areas* (1) background information and related items, (2) general information surrounding the respondent and his organiza- i jtion, and (3) sections designed to elicit the representa tion of good and poor working relationships. 58 Background information and related itenia The name of the study was placed at the top fol lowed by the names of the endorsing and large participating organizations. The text of this page was developed with side headings and appropriate explanatory comments as fol lows! purpose, method, scope, selecting participant, anonymity, instructions, and returning materials. Univer sity affiliations, consultants assisting, and the investi gators were also identified on this page. This furnished the respondent with rather complete background information. It was hoped that this would be instrumental in encouraging participation. (See Appendix F for an actual sample of the instrument.) General information The general information section was designed in order to ascertain information surrounding the respondent land his opinions regarding certain items. It included the designation of participants, sex, years of total service, j i county in which employed, position held, number of separate I j school districts in a specific law enforcement jurisdiction,; i [ number of schools or law enforcement agencies serving each 59 other. It further asked if their agency designates a mem ber to deal specifically with schools or law enforcement agencies; what type of participation in programs takes place in order to promote working relationships; and how they would judge the over-all working relationships. The critical incident portion The critical incident portion was the most diffi cult with which to work. It had to communicate clearly and accurately the same message to all respondents before reliability and validity could be earned. Many variations were considered before the final adoption. The final wording of the incident statement for law enforcement was as follows: “Briefly relate an incident which recently occurred between yourself and a representative of a school district vdiich describes an interaction showing a good working relationship.1 * This was followed by the statement, “It is understood that this incident does not represent the quality of over-all relationships either by type or fre- quency of occurrence, but rather represents a particular relationship in a specific situation.“ The school portion i of the study retained exact wording except for the replace- roent of the term “school district" with “law enforcement 60 agency." The follow-up information needed aa a part of the incident was a statement, "Describe the final outcome of this incident," and "Why do you think this incident represents a good working relationship?" Other surrounding information included: approximate date and initiation of the contact; age of the student and status of child's family if the incident involved such) type of school district; type of person with whom contact was made; determination of the policy status of agencies or school districts to the matter. The wording of the statement eliciting a poor work ing relationship critical incident was similar in every respect to the statement requesting a good working relation ship incident except for the substitution of the word "poor" for "good." Thus an incident describing an interaction showing a good and a poor working relationship was requested from each individual as well as background information. !Refining the instrument i At the completion of the first drafts of the in strument, the American Institute for Research was contacted [and an appointment made. The working draft of the instru- i t i jment was reviewed, and several suggestions were made which j 61 were considered in ensuing revisions. This process was repeated three times. After the final revision, arrange ments were made for testing the instrument. Testing the instrument The instrument was tested in several ways* (1) by reaction of qualified administrative personnel in schools, (2) by advice from many of the persons in law enforcement work who had consulted with the investigators during the formative part of the study, (3) with practicing law en forcement officers, and (4) with selected potential par ticipants of the school portion. The 37th Delinquency Control Class led by Dr. Samuel Jameson of the University of Southern California provided one of the major sources for experienced law enforcement people to be used as test ing participants. All participants in the pilot part of ithis study were asked to coiqplete the form with no informa tion other than that appearing on the working draft of the I ! instrument. This tested the clearness of directions with out benefit of verbal esqplanation. Members of the Delin quency Control Institute were also asked to comment on items that did not seem clear or concise and to make suggestions ! | for improvement. Their reactions to the content as they j 62 actually filled in the survey were also analyzed for the possibility of confusing directions or unclear intent of the wording. Based upon the final analysis of all data secured in this manner, final changes were made. Specific changes in format were not needed in the incident portion and follow-up questions; however, the section asking for further information surrounding the incident was revised extensively. The final typewritten draft was again sub mitted to personnel of the American Institute for Research and evaluated for the printing stage. Final revisions were made and the printer produced proofs of the instrument at two stages, at which time changes in typeface, spacing, and format were made for final printing. Selecting the sample The 100 per cent sample technique was used for the basis of this study since large numbers of incidents tend to increase validity. As indicated in Chapter Z, personnel I of schools containing children in grades seven through I twelve in unified school districts were contacted. The law enforcement agencies were delimited to local police i |departments and sheriffs' offices only. Critical incidents I were not requested of probation and other related law__ 63 enforcement personnel. Appendix 6 lists the type and num ber of participating agencies. Contacting organizations for cooperation purposes Each law enforcement agency's name, address, and chief of police were obtained from The Directory of Califor nia Juvenile Law Enforcement Officers. This list was cross checked with the peace officers' associations of the three counties and the Civil Defense Office. School names, addresses, and principals were obtained from the county schools offices. Procedures used for securing the cooperation of law enforcement agencies and schools are summarized in the following paragraphs. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office.— Inspector Harold Stallings of the Juvenile Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, was contacted earlier in this study as a person recommended as having extensive experience with !schools. During the interview he stated that the Los i j Angeles County Sheriff's Office would cooperate with the study and would have approximately one hundred qualified personnel to participate. As a result, no further proce- 64 dure was used to gain cooperation. Inspector Stallings remained interested and helpful throughout the various phases of the study. Other police departments in Los Angeles County.— The Los Angeles County Peace Officers' Association did not endorse the study; however, it recommended that each agency be contacted on a direct basis as the best method for securing cooperation. The number of agencies involved made it impossible to arrange for direct interviews. Instead,, noted and respected persons in the law enforcement field were asked to write introductory letters advising police chiefs of the nature of the study, the persons conducting it, the authorization, and finally, including a sample of the survey form which would be used in obtaining the raw data. The letters also stated what would be required of 1 the police chiefs and that the investigators would contact them soon in order to answer questions and gain their cooperation. Nr. Fred Ferguson, Chief of Police, Covina, !California, was one of these people. Be wrote letters to | : |seventeen police departments in communities near Covina ! (see Appendix B). Dr. John Kenney, Los Angeles City Police; j [ j Commissioner, Professor of Police Science at the UniversityI of Southern California, and who has served many years in the field of law enforcement, was the other person who con sented to complete the letters. The letters were written on their official stationery. Subsequently, the investi gators placed phone calls to these agencies and asked if there were any comments or questions regarding this study. They were also asked to designate the number of qualified participants they would have. Forty-seven police depart ments agreed to participate. Orange County Sheriff*s Office.— Undersheriff Robert Sharp was contacted early in the informational stage of this study for his points of view regarding the purpose and content of the study. At that time he also involved two other members of his department to act as a committee. Permission was given to use qualified personnel in their office as participants. Police departments in Orange County.— The procedure outlined in the paragraph on "Other police departments in Los Angeles County" was used in Orange County. Mr. Deraid Hunt, Police Science Coordinator at Orange Coaet State College and administrator in charge of the Police Academy | in Orange County, fulfilled the role of a liaison officer. ■ 66 He wrote personal letters to each police chief introducing the study and the investigators and urged their cooperation (see Appendix H). Each police department was subsequently contacted by telephone and asked to cooperate in this study. Nineteen of the twenty independent police depart ments agreed to participate. Riverside County Sheriff*s Office.--Hr. Bernard Clark, Sheriff of Riverside County, was contacted by mail. The correspondence included a letter from the investigators outlining the general nature of the study and expressing the hope to gain his cooperation by approving personnel to be participants in the study. A meeting was arranged and Sheriff Clark involved two of his staff members. At the close of this review, permission was granted to use desig- - nated personnel in the Riverside County Sheriff's Office as participants. Police departments in Riverside County.— The River side County Peace Officers' Association had previously I I endorsed this study. As a result, the individual critical | incident packets were combined into a major packet and i sent to each police chief. Each major packet contained an i I i j endorsement letter, a personal letter by the investigators 67 outlining what would be requested o£ each police department and appropriate instructions for communication purposes. This was the only county where personal contact was not used with each local police agency at the outset. Los Angeles City Schools.— A presentation was made to the Committee on Research Studies in the Los Angeles City Schools. Upon approval of this committee, under the direction of Dr. Herbert Popenoe, authorization was given to disperse materials through the school mail to local schools. Appropriate letters were drafted for transmittal (see Appendix I). Research data will not be recognized in this school system unless approved by the Committee on Research Studies. Other schools in Los Anoeles County. — The names of other schools within Los Angeles County were obtained from the county office of schools and materials were distributed directly to them. Their cooperation was elicited through a letter from the investigators included with the individ ual survey forms (see Appendix I). I Schools in Orange Countv.--All schools in Orange , County were contacted directly in the same manner as described in "Other schools in Los Angeles County." 68 Schools in Riverside County.— The Riverside County office of schools endorsed this study. Dr. Leonard Grindstafff County Superintendent of Schools, distributed letters to each superintendent of a unified school district. The letters introduced the investigators and the study. The schools we re subsequently contacted with a letter from the investigators outlining the endorsement by the county schools office and giving necessary instructions for selecting participants and distributing the individual critical incident packets (see Appendix I). Preparation of Materials for Distribution and Return The critical incident survey forms were combined with supporting materials and formed into two types of packets; one was named the "major critical incident packet," and the other, "individual critical incident packet." The major critical incident packet was designed for the person who would be responsible for choosing qualified participants. The individual critical incident packet was assembled with appropriate materials for the individual participant. 69 Major critical Incident packet The contents of this packet included a number of individual critical incident packets (an arbitrary six for the schools and the number agreed upon through personal contact with the law enforcement agencies), a cover letter from an endorsing or supporting organization (see Appendix J), and an instruction and information letter from the investigators. The major packet also contained an adminis trative response card. The person who distributed the individual critical incident packets was responsible to enter the names of the personnel Who were designated as participants and to return the card to the investigators. This provided the necessary information for follow-up pur poses. It also automatically provided the data needed to calculate the number of survey forms actually distributed. All of these materials were combined into one large envelope which was termed a “major critical incident packet.“ I Individual critical incident i padket The individual critical incident packet was com- i posed of (1) the survey form, (2) a postage paid envelope, 70 (3) a postage paid participant's response card (designed for a participant to enter his name, position, and agency) to be returned in a separate mailing to the investigators indicating he had completed and mailed the survey form without specifically identifying the form itself, and (4) an endorsement or encouragement letter whenever applicable. The only exception to the procedure outlined applied to the Los Angeles City Schools. In this situation, the return envelope was addressed to Dr. Herbert Popenoe's office in stead of to the investigators. All of these materials were placed in an envelope with the statement printed on the outside, "Individual critical incident packet for the survey of relationships of law enforcement agencies and school districts in selected counties of California." Distribution and Collection of Materials The major critical incident packets for Los Angeles City Schools and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office were personally delivered by the investigators for disperse- raent to designated personnel via each organization's own i system. All other major critical incident packets were distributed by mail to the chiefs of police and school principals of each organization chosen for this study. As soon as the person responsible for distribution received the materials and made a decision to cooperate with the study, the administrative response card was to be returned to the investigators. In some cases the card was completed by the investigators since participants' names had been given during the personal contact. From that point, the individual critical incident packets were distributed to the individuals selected for participation. As each par ticipant completed the critical incident form, it was re turned to the investigators by mail. The participant's response card was returned separately in the same manner. The card was checked against the names submitted from the organization as noted on the administrative response card. Thus control for follow-up purposes was maintained through out the study. Follow-Up Procedures Follow-up procedures were initiated approximately four weeks after the initial distribution. Slight varia- i tions were used with the law enforcement agencies and the i schools. 72 Procedures used with law enforce ment agencies in Los Angeles and Orange counties Since these agencies were originally contacted by introductory letter from a well-known person in law en forcement and by personal visit of the investigators, all follow-up was conducted through the mail. The name of each designated participant who had not responded was placed on the front of a second individual critical incident packet. A personal note was also written on the envelope addressed to this person. All individual packets were then combined with a cover letter to the person who had originally dis tributed the materials. Upon receipt of these materials, the contact person redistributed individual packets to the designated personnel. (See Appendix K for samples of letters.) Procedures used with law enforce ment agencies in Riverside County All communication with the law enforcement agencies in Riverside County had been initiated through cover letters from the Riverside County Peace Officers' Association and a personal letter from the investigators. All agencies who had not responded by December 12, 1963, through the return of the administrative response card were contacted by letter. This letter again asked for their cooperation. An addressed, postage paid card was enclosed Which could be used by the chief of police to request more information. All agencies who had not responded by January 4, 1964, were contacted by a long distance person-to-person telephone call. At that point, the investigators asked if there were any questions that could be answered or any further infor mation desired. Support of the agency was then requested. In cases where agencies had notified the investigators of their cooperation but had individual members who had not yet responded, the written follow-up technique as outlined in the above paragraph was used. The Riverside County Sheriff's Office qualified for the written follow-up tech nique (see Appendix K). "Thank you" letters Each agency who had 100 per cent response received a letter from the investigators thanking it for its cooper ation. Each agency was also advised that a summary of the study would be made available as an expression of apprecia tion for its cooperation (see Appendix K). 74 Procedure used with schools It was desirable to use a different follow-up procedure with the schools since the original contact was made through another method. All original contacts had been through the mail; thus, a personal follow-up contact through the use of the telephone was made with each school that had not returned the administrative response card. Each principal was asked if further information was desired or if more materials were needed before cooperation could be given. Subsequent letters were directed to the princi pal's office naming the individuals Who had not yet « responded when the administrative response card had been received from the school. The follow-up procedures pro duced another 30 per cent of the total returns. Data Analysis Several steps were employed in order to analyze properly all information gained from the respondents. A discussion of the steps involved is contained in this section. Classification system i | L Upon return of the survey instruments analysis was begun. Each incident was read in order to ascertain the critical behavior which served to be an exaiqple of either a "good" or "poor" working relationship. They were then examined for the purpose of grouping similar critical be haviors. This inductive approach produced four major cate gories with appropriate subcategories as necessary to give proper definition to all incidents. The major and subcate gories were held constant for both the law enforcement and school portions of the study. The major categories used for classification purposes were (1) information, (2) assistance, (3) individual contact, and (4) interagency activity. A fifth major classification was also formulated in order to classify no response or general statements. A complete description of the classification system is outlined in Chapter V. Samples of incidents are also included in order to clarify the definition. Validating the critical incident classification system After all incidents were analyzed and the classifi- i cation system developed to classify school and law enforce- j ment critical incidents, it was iiqportant to validate the i workability and consistency of the over-all classification ; | 76 process. Incidents representing good and poor working relationships were selected from each of the major cate gories in the law and school portions of the study and sent to Dr. Joan Guilford and Miss Angeline Marchese of the American Institute for Research. A copy of the classi fication system was also forwarded within this packet. These two individuals were asked to classify the incidents according to the written instructions. These data made it possible to ascertain the agreement within the classifica tions as originally devised and completed by the investi gators. After Dr. Guilford and Miss Marchese completed this process and returned the incidents, chi-square analy sis was employed, and it was determined that there were no significant differences between the classification of the incidents by the investigators and the independent raters (see Table 1). Information concerning the development and use of tables is discussed later in this chapter. This ; step further verified the reliability of the classifica- I [ j tion system and its practicality in terms of communication to other individuals. TABLE 1 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE CRITICAL INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Degrees Chi- Problem Problem Statement of Square I Number Freedom Value 1194 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and members A and B of the validation team. 1 1.110 1195 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and validation team member A. 1196 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and validation team member B. 2199 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and members A and B of the validation team. 2201 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and validation team member A. 2202 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and validation team member B. .753 .424 .943 1.131 .274 ' j TABU 1 — Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 3159 There is no difference between the way that the investi gators and combined validation team classify all incidents into subcategories of the working relationship bases. 1 1.019 3160 i There is no difference between the way the investigators and combined validation team classify all incidents into working relationship bases. 1 .001 Note: This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed by the ; problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) | or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems ! with chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and | are held tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation j purposes from a standard chi-square table. -j a o 79 Preparing material for data processing At the conclusion of the final classification of the critical incidents, items were coded and transferred to punch cards. All materials were programmed in order to make it possible to retrieve any information included in the original survey form. Some additional categories were formed by grouping and subgrouping data. Statistical treatment Compilation of frequencies and proportions for all data of the study were collated by sorting on each variable and then calculating the number, proportion, mean, sum of squares, and standard deviation with each of the other variables as presented in the original survey. As a re sult, it was possible to examine the relationship of any one variable to another. A computer program (B07TAB2) was used for this process. Data were inspected within each of the major parts of the study and then between each part. Chi-square analysis was achieved by computer programs B07CHIPH and B07LES (Appendix N) at the Computer Science Laboratory of the University of Southern California. Approximately five hundred chi-square analyses were com- 80 puted by this process in order to determine levels of significance within the many variables and dimensions. Development and use of tables Two distinct types of tables were developed for use in this study. The first type reports proportions and fre quencies in response to the variables and items under con sideration. Special care was taken to present law enforce ment and school data separately within the same table in order to show more clearly information for interagency comparison. Much of the data was compiled into frequencies and proportions surrounding good and poor working rela tionship critical incidents. The chi-square analysis technique was used in order to ascertain if significant differences existed be tween the variables under examination. Special care was taken in order to develop tables which could be consulted to examine the statement of the problem tested and neces- sary computational information. Chi-square problems are referred to in the text by the symbol *PB* followed by the problem number. This represents the problem and number by which it has been listed in the table. 81 Chapter Summary Interviews of various law enforcement members and school personnel were conducted in order to build adequate background for delimitation and refinement of the study. Upon cojqpleting the final structure, appropriate method ologies were reviewed. The critical incident technique was selected because of its adaptability for exploratory re search. As the research instrument was being developed, with the assistance of the American Institute for Research and the contacts formed during the background portion of this study, official organizations representing law en forcement agencies and schools were contacted for endorse ment purposes. Efforts were made to find organizations that would give equal status to both law enforcement agencies and schools in this study. This quest was not successful. The sheriffs' offices in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties, coupled with the Riverside County Peace Officers' Association were finally selected as agencies giving official recognition to the research. Schools were represented by the endorsement of Los Angeles City Schools and the county office of schools in Riverside'; 82 County. Selected agencies were then contacted and necessary materials given to them for distribution to qualified par ticipants. Appropriate follow-up procedures were applied and the raw data were readied for the assignment of the critical incidents to categories. All data were finally transferred to punch cards and statistical analysis was made. CHAPTER IV RESPONDENTS, THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, AND WORKING RELATIONSHIPS Respondents There were two distinct populations that served as participants in this study. One group was composed of law enforcement personnel, and the other group consisted of school personnel. One hundred nineteen separate schools and law agencies were involved within Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. Sixty-nine were local police departments and sheriffs' offices; fifty were uni fied school districts. There were 1,376 individual critical incidents packets distributed to school and law enforcement person nel. From these, 1,081 Burvey instruments were returned. Nine hundred sixty instruments were sufficiently complete to be included in the study. Two hundred eighty-nine responses came from law enforcement personnel and 671 from 83 84 school people. This amounted to an 84.5 per cent return from law agency respondents with 74.5 per cent usable. School participants returned 76.2 per cent with 67.9 per cent usable. Descriptive data of the two populations have been supplied in Tables 2, 3, and 4 for purposes of com parison. A narrative account is given for the purpose of providing the reader with a more extensive description of the hinds of people who served as participants in the study. Sex Both sexes were represented as respondents in the study. Schools furnished a slightly higher proportion of females, equal to 22.7 per cent, compared with 12.1 per cent for law enforcement agencies. Conqpleted survey forms from schools' males were equal to 77.3 per cent, and 87.9 per cent for law enforcement agencies. In the law enforce ment part of the study, approximately one participant out of ten was a woman; whereas, in the school portion approxi mately two out of ten were women. These data are presented in Table 2. 85 TABLE 2 STATUS OF RESPONDENTS BY AGENCY OF EMPLOYMENT Status of Respondents Law Agencies Num- Per ber cent Schools Num- Per ber cent Sex Male 254 87.9 519 77.3 Female 35 12.1 152 22.7 Years of service 1 to 3 years 21 7.3 18 2.7 4 to 6 years 26 9.0 46 6.9 7 to 10 years 75 26.0 106 15.8 11 to 15 years 88 30.4 229 34.2 16 or more years 78 27.0 270 40.3 Participant's county of residence Los Angeles County 194 67.1 604 90.1 Orange County 57 19.7 21 3.1 Riverside County 38 13.1 45 6.7 Position held by law agency participants Patrolman-Deputy 27 8.3 Sergeant 102 31.6 Lieutenant 40 12.4 Captain 13 4.0 Deputy or assistant chief of police 4 1.2 Chief of police 14 4.3 Detective 38 11.7 Policewoman 19 5.8 Investigator 32 9.9 Other 35 10.8 I TABLE 2— Continued 86 Law Agencies Schools Status of Respondents Hum- Per Nun- Per ber cent ber cent Position held by school partic ipants Principal 131 19.6 Vice principal 301 44.9 Welfare and attendance 102 15.2 Registrar 46 6.9 Counselor 54 8.1 Other 36 5.4 Notes An example of how this table may be read follows s Eighty-seven point nine per cent (254) of the law enforcement respondents were males. Seventy-seven point three per cent (519) of school respondents were males. Years of service All respondents were asked to indicate years of total service within categories that had been established on three-year increments. A difference in years of experi ence may be noted concerning the participants of the two agencies by examining Table 2. Over half of the law enforcement participants (56.4 per cent) listed experience i j in the seven to fifteen years categories. School people [reported more experience in their field with 75.4 per cent ; checking the eleven to sixteen or more years categories. Forty per cent of the 75.4 per cent actually reported experience as sixteen years or more. Counties represented Participants were selected from Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties of California. Los Angeles County had the largest representation in both the law enforcement and school portions of the study. Law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County supplied 67.1 per cent (194) of the total law enforcement respondents. Schools in Los Angeles County furnished 90.1 per cent (604) of the total school participants. All law enforcement people at the local police and sheriffs' offices were asked to participate; however, only high school and junior high school personnel in unified school districts were asked to represent the school side of the study. Since Los Angeles County has a larger population area served by unified school districts, it was to be expected that a higher proportion of total school respondents would be from that area. Orange County .contributed 19.7 per cent (57) of j the law enforcement participants and 3.1 per cent (21) of j i the school respondents. Riverside County supplied 13.1___1 88 per cent (38) of the law enforcement respondents and 6.7 per cent (45) of the school participants. Los Angeles County contributors on both sides of the study had the greatest Influence on the results ob tained. Positions held Each respondent was asked to indicate his current position. Titles were more diverse in the law enforcement section with a possibility of more than ten titles. Positions reported most often were theses sergeant, 31.6 per cent (102); lieutenant, 12.4 per cent (40); detective, 11.7 per cent (38); and investigator, 9.9 per cent (32). Thus, a total of 65.6 per cent of all law enforcement participants held positions represented by these few titles• Three school respondents' positions comprised 79.7 per cent (534) of the total school portion. The positions : weres principal, 19.6 per cent (131); vice principal, 44.9 ' per cent (301); and welfare and attendance, 15.2 per cent ( 102) . Thus, it was found that vice principals and ; sergeants made up the largest single proportion of respondents from the two respective sides of the study. See Table 2 for these data. Organizational Information School and law enforcement agencies all have basic similarities and differences. The following discussion draws attention to the coiqposition of these in this study. Data concerning each phase of the discussion are presented in Table 3. Overlapping jurisdictions and attendance areas Information was secured from each respondent per taining to the over-all structure of his own organization and of its relationship to the opposite agency in terms of numbers. It was found that law enforcement agencies worked with only one school district in slightly more than one- third of the cases (36.7 per cent, or 105 cases). In nearly two-thirds of the cases they dealt with two or more districts. Schools reported working with one law enforce ment agency (one police station) in approximately 25 per cent of the cases (171). The rest, about 75 per cent, worked with two or more agencies such as the local city 90 TABLE 3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE RELATED TO LAN ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOLS Law Agencies Schools Organizational Structure Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Separate agencies in each other's jurisdiction or attendance area One agency 105 36.7 171 25.5 Two agencies 48 16.8 265 39.6 Three agencies 37 12.9 153 22.8 Four or more agencies 58 20.2 60 9.0 School organization High school 262 39.0 Junior high school 316 47.1 Designation of specific member to work with the opposite agency Agency does designate member 164 57.4 510 76.3 Agency does not designate member 122 42.2 156 23.4 Separate schools in law enforce ment jurisdiction 1 to 5 schools 35 12.1 6 to 10 schools 41 14.2 11 to 15 schools 43 14.9 16 to 20 schools 23 8.0 21 to 30 schools 35 12.1 31 or more schools 107 37.0 Note i An example of how this table nay be read followss Thirty-six point seven per cent (105) of the law enforcement agencies are reported as serving only one school district. Twenty-five point five per cent (171) of, the schools are reported as being served by only one law enforcement agency. 91 police and the county sheriff's office. These situations exist because boundary lines of city, county, school dis trict, and law enforcement jurisdictional areas are not coterminous in most instances and, as a result, various agencies need to be considered. Separate schools served by individual law enforcement agencies Each law agency respondent was asked to indicate the number of schools within his agency's jurisdiction. Over 40 per cent (119) stated there were one to fifteen schools served by his agency. Twenty per cent (58) report ed sixteen to thirty schools served, and 37 per cent (107) reported thirty-one or more schools within one jurisdic tional area. Type of school organization Over 85 per cent (578) of school participants identified themselves with a junior high or high school organization. Of these 39 per cent (262) were high school respondents and 47.1 per cent (316) were junior high school personnel. The remainder of the respondents was associated with the seventh and eighth grades in a kinder- I 92 garten through grade eight structure, a six year junior- senior high, or a central office. Specific members designated to work with the opposite agency All participants were asked to relate if their respective agencies assigned specific personnel to deal with the opposite agency. School participants indicated that 76.3 per cent (510) of their organizations designated one or more persons to deal with law enforcement agencies. Only 57.4 per cent (164) of law enforcement personnel indicated that their agencies assigned one or more persons specifically to work with schools. Working Relationships Working relationships were the central issue in this study. They were examined directly and indirectly through information gained in the survey. Two aspects of working relationships are discussed in the following sec tions s Programs to promote working relationships One part of this study was designed to learn of 93 efforts by law enforcement agencies and schools to promote working relationships. Each respondent was asked to tell who initiated the program and give a brief description. Three-fourths of the law enforcement agencies (221) re ported that they were participating in programs to promote working relationships. Approximately two-thirds (449) of the school personnel stated that they were participating in programs. The difference in the proportion of partici pation may be attributed to differences in perception. Law enforcement people, in another part of the study, stated that programs prepared for student consumption, such as lectures, assemblies, and safety programs, com prised a major part of efforts made to promote working relationships. On the other hand, only a small portion of school personnel reported participating in these programs. It may be hypothesized that what one agency may use to promote working relationships can be viewed by the opposite agency as serving a different purpose. More than half of both the law enforcement and the school respondents reported that they participated in one type of program. Reports of participation in more than two types of programs, by either agency, were practically 94 nonexistent. Since each participant was asked to describe the program (a), it was necessary to analyze them in order to place them in categories. The categories developed werei (1) activities where law enforcement personnel pre sented safety programs in assemblies or made classroom talks on a variety of subjects; (2) regular meetings of school and law enforcement personnel to discuss problems or become better acquainted; (3) safety committees; (4) public relations programs; (5) coordinating councils and related activities; and (6) other types of programs unique to themselves. As noted before, law enforcement personnel named general and specific presentations to students as their largest endeavor in promoting working relationships. School personnel more frequently named the coordinating council as being instrumental in promoting working rela tionships. See Table 4 for these data. Over-all working relationships A part of this study was developed in order to assess the quality of over-all working relationships be tween schools and law enforcement agencies as viewed by the respondents of each agency. A scale was devised upon which each participant was asked to place amark which 95 TABLE 4 OVER-ALL WORKING RELATIONSHIPSt PROGRAMS, AND RATINGS Relationship Variables Law Agencies Num- Per ber cent Schools Num- Per ber cent Participation in special programs to promote working relationships Agency does participate 221 76.5 449 67.2 Agency does not participate 68 23.5 213 31.9 Number of special programs entered into to promote working relation ships 1 or 2 programs 171 77.7 324 77.5 3 or more programs 12 5.0 6 1.4 Over-all working relationship ratings from the 1-7 scale Rating 7 (generally excellent) 43 14.9 38 5.7 Rating 6 159 55.2 397 59.4 Rating 5 (generally satisfac tory) 69 24.0 163 24.3 Rating 4 8 2.8 29 4.3 Rating 3 (generally satisfac tory with noted exceptions) 5 1.7 27 4.0 Rating 2 4 1.4 12 1.8 Rating 1 (generally unsatis factory) 0 0 2 .3 Notes An example of how this table may be read follows* Seventy-six point five per cent (221) of law enforcement agencies are reported as participating in programs to promote working relationships. Sixty-seven point two per cent (449) of the schools are reported as participating in programs to promote working relationships.! 96 represented his belief as to the quality of over-all work ing relationships. The over-all picture should also be interpreted from all of the incidents given in the study; however, respondents in critical incident studies many times fear that the incident they give will measure the over-all relationship. Therefore, in this study a special note was included instructing each respondent that the incidents themselves represented a particular working relationship in a specific situation and were not indica tive of over-all working relationships. The scale men tioned above was placed prior to the incident part of the survey instrument to confirm further in the respondent's mind the fact that the incident given would not add or detract from the quality of over-all relationships as given to the investigators. The data from the rating scale were handled in two ways. A correlation of actual categories which had been designated by the respondents was made and a new scale on a percentile basis was formed. Thus one of seven designations was compiled as well as a percentile point on a one hundred point scale. There was close accord in the opinion of each respondent within each agency as to the quality of over-all working relationships as measured 97 by both scales. Seventy-two per cent of law enforcement personnel compared with 67 per cent of school personnel placed their ratings between the "generally satisfactory" and "generally excellent" points on the scale. Differences were found at the exact 100 per cent level with 14.7 per cent of law enforcement personnel indicating this rating and only 6.6 per cent of school personnel so indicating. The mean ratings on the scale were law agencies 79.15 per cent and school personnel 76.34 per cent. See Table 4 for these data. Chapter Summary Law enforcement personnel and unified school dis trict personnel at the junior and high school levels in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties were the par ticipants in this study. Persons with the titles of vice principal and sergeant made up the largest group of respondents from the two respective sides of the survey. Law enforcement respondents were, in general, less experi enced in their profession than were school personnel. In over three-fourths of the incidents, schools had someone designated to handle contacts with the other 98 agency. Law enforcement agencies reported that someone was assigned to work with the schools in over half of their cases. Both agencies reported participation in one or more programs designed to promote working relationships between schools and law enforcement agencies. The coordi nating council was the means by which schools promoted working relationships; whereas, law enforcement personnel considered special assemblies for students as their main contribution. Respondents on both sides of the study estimated that over-all working relationships fell between "generally satisfactory" and "generally excellent" ratings on a seven- point scale. CHAPTER V CLASSIFICATION OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS The critical incidents furnished by the respondents were the main substance of the study. From these incidents it was possible to examine good and poor working relation ships , to determine the major purposes for law and school agency contacts, and to ascertain components and character istics which are descriptive of good and poor working relationships. The Critical Incident Classification System After each critical incident had been read and examined for the critical behavior, it was found that there were four major areas in which the agencies had con tact. Working relationships centered around the major categories of information, assistance, individual contact, and interagency activities. In turn, three of the major categories had subcategories which more clearly defined 99 100 the critical behavior within the major framework. These categories and subcategories are presented in the following listing and numbered for easy reference throughout the re mainder of the chapter; each will be discussed, defined, and illustrated in the sections which follow the listing. Categories and subcateqories of incidents 1. Information 1.1 Volunteered information, on own volition, to opposite agency that might be usable (or "feed back" on prior contact). 1.2 Gave information needed or requested by opposite agency. 1.3 Obtained information for opposite agency. (Infor mation not currently known but needed was ob tained. ) 1.4 Discussed problems and made mutual plans (includ ing conference regarding a particular youngster, general problems, et cetera, and plans for possible solution). 1.5 Used information given or volunteered by opposite j agency. Assistance 2.1 Requested or gave assistance requested by opposite agency to investigate, help solve, or assist with potential problems. 2.2 Requested or gave assistance requested by opposite agency to investigate, help solve, or assist with actual problems. 2.3 Requested or gave assistance in cooperation with special programs or plans to promote safety or general welfare of pupils. 2.4 Requested or gave assistance for joint and/or mutual solving of problem Xnot a primary responsi bility of either agency). 2.5 Used assistance offered by opposite agency to solve a problem. 2.6 Gave unsolicited assistance or help. Individual contact 3.1 Hade proper arrangements for pupil or staff mem ber contact and/or conducted the interview in a proper manner. 3.2 Hade proper arrangements for detainment, arrest, or release of pupil or staff member. 102 4. Interagency activities 4.1 Participated in broad community planning involv ing three or more agencies on behalf of youth. In a few instances it will be noted that there were no incidents reported from law agencies or schools itfiich were classified in a specific good or poor subcate gory. Representatives of the American Institute for Research have stated that this is understandable since a particular critical behavior would not be reported by a participant unless observed by him. Therefore, the behav ior can exist but be unobserved. Information The central behavior in this major category focused upon the exchange of information. The primary desire of each agency was for information, possibly upon which to base decisions, take action, or for follow-up purposes. There were five subcategories with positive and negative aspects. (Table 6 may be examined for frequency and per centage data.) There were 366 incidents in this category. The total is equal to 29.3 per cent of all incidents, used in the study. The proportions for the two agencies varied. 103 Of the incidents supplied by law enforcement agencies, 39.6 per cent (149) were classified in this category. A smaller proportion of the schools' incidents, 25.6 per cent (217) was placed in this category. In place of attempting a complete description at this point, each subcategory will be individually defined and documented with incidents which portray that subcate gory. The symbols "LM and "SM are used to represent law agencies and schools respectively. Incidents illustrating good working relationships are considered positive and are preceded by a plus (+) sign. Incidents illustrating poor working relationships are considered negative and are pre ceded by a minum (-) sign. Bach number refers to the specific survey instrument from vftiich the critical incident was taken. All incidents were used directly as given ex cept for slight editorial changes in grammar and spelling. 1.1 Volunteered information, on own volition, to opposite agency that might be usable.— The key behavior in this subcategory was that one agency, on its own volition, contacted the opposite agency in order to give information which might be useful concerning strange or unusual condi tions or feedback on prior contact. Incidents classified 104 in this category, both positive and negative, are as follows r +L 297 The principal of an elementary school over heard two boys talking about some money which a third boy had stolen and then passed around to his friends. This matter was brought up with this officer who came to the school on a different matter. The boys were called to the principal's office and questioned concerning the incident. The subject was identified. Upon returning to the office a burglary report was found which contained no workable information with which to identify the suspect. School authority had little information on which to base any investigation of the crime but immediately passed on and took time to take part in the questioning of the informant and suspect. +L 319 Principal called reporting marks on first grader's body possibly maltreatment at home. Check made with neighbors, their children, then with parents. Child found to be accident prone. Report made back to school commending them for having called the police department. +S 665 A boy and girl broke into a house during school time. The school was under the impression that the parents were aware of the absences. Upon arriving home in the evening, the owners notified the police. It was obvious who had broken in and the detective dealt with the two children and the parents. Early the next morning the officers notified the school. The school was able to help. +S 657 Juvenile officers picked up several truants from "Drive-In." They were taken to station 105 Parents were notified to come and get them and return to school. School was notified and given particulars. This system has proved very satisfactory and there are few repeats. -L 009 tthile investigating a possible 600a and 600b WIC (three female children ages 15, 11 and 9 living alone due to mother having been confined for drug addiction) it was revealed that a Dean of Girls at school (H.S.) attended by 15 year old had prior knowledge of the three children residing at home without supervision and failed to bring this to the attention of juvenile officers. -L 017 A boy's guidance counselor accepted some hub caps from three of his charges and also accepted their false story of how they came by the hub caps. The teacher kept the hub caps until the end of the semester and then turned them in to the assistant principal with little or no explanation. It was confirmed by police that hub caps were stolen from a stolen car. The boys who had been apprehended for the theft of the car in the first place were ordered by court to make restitution to the owner, including the hub caps which were missing When the car was located. Actually, the three students whom the counselor was shielding stole the caps from the car after the car thief had abandoned it. The coun selor felt that information passed along to him was confidential and similar to the position of a priest at confession. -S 380 School within the district was vandalised. School authorities and police were both work ing on the investigation. Police appre hended vandals and did not notify school officials for three days that guilty parties 106 were in custody. School officials in the meantime were still questioning student suspects during these three days, incident proved very embarrassing to school officials. -S 865 A runaway girl was picked up in Tijuana, Mexico. She was gone for almost a month. The girl was picked up, returned to the city, and in a day or so was released to family. The girl returned to school with out the school's knowledge. After being in school for several hours she was seen among many girls telling of her experiences in Tijuana. We felt the law enforcement agen cies should have alerted the school guidance regarding this matter. 1.2 Save information needed or requested by opposite agency.— The critical behavior manifested in this subcategory is whether the agency contacted gave or did not give information that was needed or requested. The following incidents serve to identify typical examplesx +L 230 Photographs of male junior high school age students were needed for viewing by a victim. The principal of the school was contacted and the case was discussed with him. Full cooperation was received. The principal named possible suspects and furnished I.D. photographs that were made for school records. The principal also gave permission for the victim to attend a class tdiich the victim was in so that a positive identification could be made; however, this was not needed. -+L 325 This particular case involved several acts of malicious mischief occurring to the school property during a week end, 107 no possible suspects in mind, no effective witnesses. The school vice-principal was contacted who suggested that he be contacted in regard to a possible informant who had given him information on other occasions. The informant advised me of persons who were at the school the day the incidents occurred. These persons were contacted and advised me of the party responsible for the acts. +L 251 Recently we had eight residential burglaries in our area. These. burglaries were thought to be the work of three male juveniles attending one of our schools. A contact was made with the school and they furnished us with all the information pertaining to the juveniles; dates of absence and photos of the three juveniles. +S 633 Sex molesting case— when parent of victim called to ask if boy was in school and if police had contacted vice-principal yet— I had only to contact police to obtain run down of problem which parent of accused would not tell me. +S 631 An elementary school to which I am assigned wanted to know if a boy who has presented problems at the school had had any contacts with the police department, juvenile divi sion. The writer contacted a police officer at the station and was given complete infor mation about the two contacts his department had had with the boy. -L 377 The police department received a crime re port partially naming several juvenile suspects but were identified by complainant as attending the elementary school. Investi gating officers proceeded to the school and requested the conplete names and addresses of the suspects; however, the school refused to release the information. 108 -L 368 This officer was dispatched to a senior high school to pick up the two burglary suspects (name in a crime report), re ceived one student from the school, the other was working part time. The vice- principal stated he knew where the subject was working but we did not need to know. -S 649 Officer entered office to check a record of boy who was at this school several years ago. Stated he needed information to locate boy who was now wanted by police. Clerk asked him to wait until she could get per mission to show him records. Officer was discourteous to clerk about need for wait ing. Stated he needed information in a hurry. Counselor checked files, found three boys with same name. Officer unable to decide which one it was. Said he'd get birth date or former address and return. -S 939 Two women identifying themselves as rela tives of a child at school stating mother of boy, known in terminal illness, had given one of them custody. They presented a paper supposedly signed by mother. Child had been living with a neighbor, did not know women who were demanding custody. Situation explored with juvenile police whose attitude was negative; he stated school wanted to "shift responsibility to police." 1.3 Obtained information for opposite agency.— The critical behavior in this category is the willingness or lack of willingness of one agency to obtain information, not currently known, for the opposite agency. It means I i that the members must make extra effort to procure certain I information. Examples are as follows; 109 +L 114 First contacted attendance in high school regarding 16 year old boy making lewd phone calls. Suspect was identified but he stated he couldn't have done crime because he was in school all day. Attendance and vice principal checked in all his classes for us to see if he was in them and was not late, also time of all his breaks. Subsequently, with this information we were able to tie in every phone call made with time suspect was on break between classes. +L 309 School obtained for us hand written state ments for student victims of an assault. Statements will be used as evidence in court. +S 776 Sergeant from the City Police Department, Juvenile Section, called asking for a lead on the nickname of a suspect. By checking with the other pupils the full name of the suspect was determined and reported to the officer along with other important infor mation. +S 780 A matter of a stolen bike was reported to me by the juvenile department of our local police. It was reported that an elementary student had been pushed off his bike by an unknown junior high student, and said un known rode off with it. Mhat few clues we had to go on— "Nike" written on a math book, and his general size— made it a little difficult to ascertain whether he was one of our students. After narrowing the sus pects, the elementary boy was brought to school and made a positive identification. Because of several phone calls tdiich pro duced immediate results, the victim was able to retrieve his property and the "crim inal" was apprehended. 1.4 Discussed problems and made mutual Plans.— 110 The critical behavior is the willingness of both agencies to share and discuss information concerning a given prob lem. The conference may or may not result in plans for a possible solution. Incidents which illustrate this behav ior follows +L 146 As a new officer in a community (recent transfer), I met with the entire adminis trative staff of a local high school. I solicited and received information on prob lems of mutual concern such as police hazards and potentially dangerous situations. Together we established personal lines of communication and came to an understanding regarding our responsibilities and interests. +L 148 The writer of this information recently arrested three male subjects for attempted daylight burglary. At the time of arrest, all three were absent from school without authorization, the offense occurring about ten minutes prior to their arrest. All three admitted to the offense and were taken to the station for further questioning. It was felt by their attitude and appearance they were not the usual type of subjects with which law enforcement comes in contact. The determining factor in whether to take them to juvenile hall or release them was based on the conversation with their vice principal . He advised they were excellent students and were no problem to the school. This brought about the release of the sub jects to their respective parents. If the school authorization had not been coopera tive and trustworthy in the past, this call might have never been placed and three ordinarily good subjects taken to juvenile hall. Ill +S 743 One of our sophomore students recently proved to be a discipline problem both at school and at home. At about the same time he came to our attention, he came to the attention of the juvenile authorities for a shoplifting incident. After discussions with the boy's mother and a review of his past history, it was obvious that the boy was incorrigible in the home and that he needed professional counseling which could not be provided by the school. The boy had at one time been detained in juvenile, hall; however, it was felt that because of his emotional instability, this was not an ideal solution. Conferences were held with the representatives from the police depart ment, probation department, school officials, and the mother. +S 737 Four boys hazing a student on the way home from school. Incident was reported to me the following morning. This incident was also reported to the police department without my knowledge. I conferenced with the boys. After my conference, I received a call from the police department. A ser geant came over and we discussed the situa tion. Once again the students involved were counseled. -S 946 Law enforcement representative reported to school that a parent had told her that there was drinking on the school yard. Representative said she could not reveal the name of parent, or any pupils involved, or when or where this matter was happening. -S 925 School wished to drop boy on probation from school. Probation wished the boy to re main. Neither quite understands problems of other. 112 1,5 Uaed information given or volunteered by opposite agency.— The critical behavior in this subsection is the actual use or nonuse of information as volunteered or given by one agency. Sample incidents are as follows: +L 237 One school was having trouble with an ice cream truck stopping near a school to sell ice cream to the students. The students would leave school grounds to buy ice cream during recess and noon hour. A contact with district superintendent started the schools in district to stock and sell ice cream. No further difficulty with ice cream trucks. +L 240 A small "hamburger stand" within two blocks of the junior high school was frequented by many minors enroute to and from school. The juveniles who congregated here were smoking and matching pennies, lagging coins, etc. Attempts by officers to enforce gambling amounted to suppression, as juve niles soon either ceased or were less obvi ous about the activities and went elsewhere. The smciking continued even though proprie tor "posted signs." Irate parents were blaming the police department for allowing the children to smoke, etc., ignorant of the fact that the law prevents sale of cigarettes to minors, not smoking. Officers were placed in the awkward position of entering the premises to enforce a problem not legislated. Contact was made with the principal by the writer who pointed out to him that the State Education Code and Administrative Code very clearly provided for the school's authority to act in any situation detrimental to the prestige of, and operations of the school, and that police were placed in a "name taking" role that was 113 vary ineffective, and that would soon be recognized by the youngsters as such. The school principal and boys' vice-principal recognized their role and opportunity to effectively assault the problem. ■fS 827 A family consisting of mother and eight children— mother working long hours— children unsupervised, oldest 14. Children had excessive absences from school. Com plaints from various persons in neighbor hood on behavior of children and mother. Many attempts to see and work with mother without results. No cooperation. Law enforcement officer notified of conditions and investigated immediately. After in vestigation, children removed from home. Relatives assisted by taking several of the children. +S 705 An eighth grade boy on probation was severely beaten up by his father. The school had been unable to work with his family for some time. Upon receipt of this information, the probation officer contacted the home with family readjusting family relationships. The boy was even tually removed from the home. -S 393 Youngsters of family known to be neglected— not receiving food and proper clothing. No other agency known to family. Did not respond to contact from school. Juvenile police informed and did not go out on mat ter for three or four weeks. Did not do any follow-up. -S 574 Child was being used by mother as maid and babysitter and made responsible for general welfare of children. Investigation showed mother abridging compulsory school attend ance law and regulation governing conditions under which a minor child may be used in 114 work. Juvenile police sergeant on case when first brought to attention of police was transferred. New police officer would not accept findings of school caseworker or opinion of previous officer on case. Mother almost shipped daughter to Tijuana but child ran away and stayed with friends. CUM had requested that police approach pro bation on 600 filing but lack of communica tion or understanding delayed action on case and six month's efforts were deterred. Assistance The critical behavior as outlined in this major category was based upon the way in which one agency assisted the other in the attainment of a primary goal. In some ways the word "help" may be more appropriate than assist ance. There were six subcategories in this section. The 677 incidents in this category coiqprised 55.2 per cent of all incidents used in the study. Law enforcement agencies provided 37.2 per cent (137) of all its incidents in this category. Schools supplied the largest proportion of its total incidents, 63.7 per cent (540), in this classifica tion. See Table 6 for a complete tabulation. The incidents are enumerated and documented as followss 2.1 Requested or gave assistance requested by opposite agency to investigate, help solve, or assist with j ! potential problems. — The key behavior in this situation was 115 within the individual to ask for or give appropriate assist ance with something which could develop into a problem or an unusual situation which was not fully defined. Incidents to illustrate this are as follows: +L 357 An individual was indecently exposing him self to grammar school children over a period of time. Parents would not report same, believing children were making up stories. On a recent occasion the child told her teacher who took steps through the family to initiate a formal police report. Through investigation, suspect was observed by an officer in the act of exposing him self, and he was arrested. +L 302 Prior to Halloween the school district office contacted me and invited me to meet with school officials, PTA representatives, and the recreation department of the city to work out a program to control the Hallo ween activity of the community youth. This group met five different times and finally agreed to have the police department write a letter to all parents reminding them of their responsibility to the community and their liability for their children's acts. The recreation department made arrangements for entertainment and the school officials cooperated wholeheartedly in all the phases of the planning and programs. Halloween (1963) was the quietest evening this city has had in many, many years. +S 564 Sent a family to a police sergeant when I felt that the girl was on the borderline of incorrigibility. Police sergeant had a conference with parents and the girl* Police officer was very cooperative and provided insights to this family Which they needed. 116 +S 569 A group of boys planned a group fight for after school due to some disagreement. Fortunately, we learned about it during the day, contacted the juvenile police who arrived early and were standing by after school when the groups assembled. The officers stepped in and dispersed the groups before contacts were made. There was no recurrence of this at a later date so far as we were able to ascertain. -S 828 My Child Welfare and Attendance worker called police woman to report two girls were being threatened. One girl was willing to go to the station and report the threats of vio lence— such as "Your death warrant has been signed by MO." The girl doing the threaten ing has been involved in several serious fights, but the other parents have hesitated pressing the matter. The girl's parents can't control her. The response made to Child Welfare and Attendance worker who called from my office was— "Nothing can be done about threats." -S 764 In a family where the school nurse and doctor had previously involved the juvenile police, I was asked to make contact again on basis of further suspected physical abuse of children by one or both parents. Six or seven phone calls and a period of over two and one-half months elapsed before police actually made call to father who had wanted to see them. The police made little, if any, impression on family. 2.2 Requested or gave assistance requested by opposite agency to investigate, help solve, or assist with actual problems.— The critical behavior in this classifica tion involves the action where an actual problem existed 117 and there was a definite immediacy in needing to ask for or UB6 assistance. Incidents exemplifying this subcategory are as follows* +L 110 We were informed that a junior high school just outside our city limits was having trouble with walking children versus school bus traffic. Kids jumping in front of bus, etc. We immediately started extra patrol during the rush hours in the vicinity of the school, although the center of the trouble was taking place outside our city limits. Our presence in the near vicinity of the school helped control the actions of these children. +L 267 High school requested assistance.in resolving a problem of "intimidation and. strong arm robbery tactics." Numerous colored students were congesting areas in which other white students would have to pass. Colored juve niles would crowd the victim, take articles, such as pens, pencils, notebooks, and money. Juveniles would then offer the articles back to the victim for some small change, twenty- five to fifty cents. Other times they would turn victim's pockets wrong side out and pick up the change as it fell. Staff person nel were unaware of the situation until a couple of the students began to retaliate, which would have led to an all out racial problem. Undersigned assisted and was able to uncover the leaders and participants in this unlawful act. Backing the school and advising parents of the unlawful act, the more common participants and leaders were dealt with severely. Notes At the first week of this school year, undersigned had been invited to a school assembly to speak on this very same type of activity and simi lar behavior problems. 118 +S 456 Last spring a girl came to my office and announced that she was involved in incest. I listened to her story and at its conclu sion the girl asked for police protection. I called the sheriff's department, asked for a particular detective who frequently makes calls at our school. He was out of the office, hut due to radio contact, ar rived at our office a short time later with a woman detective. The case was handled quickly and well. +S 474 Theft of large amount of money occurred off of the caucus but involved the school in that the child brought the money onto the campus and involved other children as well. The local police sergeant in charge of juve nile conduct was called and appeared immed iately at the school to talk with the chil dren and follow up with investigation. It was discovered that the money was definitely stolen; however, the theft took place in the county and, therefore, was not in the local jurisdiction. The local police called the county sheriff's office and two men were dispatched immediately. Upon their arrival at the school, they questioned the children involved and removed the child from the school into police custody. +S 490 Three consecutive week ends our science de partment and radio laboratory had equipment and supplies missing. Fingerprints and a heel print were found. A boy reported to the nurse on the following Monday complaining of his chest hurting. I looked down and the heel of his shoe looked like the print by the science room. Called police department; they came right out. Talked with the boy. He admitted involvement. Police did not ask if I was sure or did they say they could not make it. They came right out. Mhich is typical of the relationship we have. If we need them, they answer at once. 119 L 0222 A principal of an elementary school decided that they would handle matters where a stranger exposed himself to children on the school ground without contacting police or advising parents to do this. There was even an attempt to cover the entire matter up under the belief that such was better for the child. This sort of attitude was nega tive in a sense and could have resulted in drastic punitive action against the principal. L 0224 A series of thefts of money from the purses of high school office personnel had gone un reported to the police department while a school representative attempted to conduct a private investigation and interrogation of all students having access to the area of the thefts. Finally, having failed to gain any information and having received several parent complaints regarding his method of interroga tion and searching of students and their per sonal property, the school representatives reported the thefts to the police department. S 527 Due to lack of the police department's ability to officially handle young boys who do not have permission to remain on high school campus during school hours, undesir able loiterers are often a real problem. Recently, the Dean received a call from a classroom teacher informing him that an un desirable boy, who was suspended from high school two years ago, was loitering on the caqpus. The boy has been involved in moral charges and other problems with the law. I immediately called the police to pick up this boy and take drastic action against him. The police were very slow in arriving here, there fore the boy had disappeared. They made no effort to contact him at home. S 562 After a sports night activity, a group of young adults was very disrespectful to one 120 of our teachers and attempted to "jump" him. In self-defense he roughed up one of the youths. The child had a long record with the police and is recognized as a real prob lem in the community. When the investigating officers responded, they were critical of the teacher for taking action in "roughing up" the youth— even though this was in self-defense on the part of the teacher. The implication was that they could do nothing unless the youth actually struck the teacher and the teacher could show no conspicuous bruise from the altercation. Then the teacher would be justified in defending himself. -S 397 A boy who had been suspended from school re turned without permission, entered a class room, and threatened a teacher with a knife. The boy was detained by school officials for 55 minutes waiting for the police to arrive. The school was less than 10 minutes from the police station. The boy was picked up by police, but released to parents before the afternoon ended. 2.3 Requested or gave assistance in cooperation with special programs or plans to promote safety or general welfare of pupils.— The central behavior in this subcate gory centers around the asking for or giving assistance in connection with some special program for the welfare of the students within the jurisdiction of the school. The nega tive incidents portray situations in which this cooperation and assistance did not exist between the two agencies. The following incidents serve to illustrate this subcategory of assistances 121 +L 148 Z was recently assigned, along with several officers, the task of giving bicycle safety talks to the elementary schools. At the schools I was assigned, the cooperation I received from the staff was excellent. They assisted me in every possible way that they could. +L 107 A request was initiated by parents for more crossing protection. The school could or would not initiate a program, so the department officer contacted the various school districts in the county, surveyed their programs, planned one that would fit our problems, and presented it to the city council. The school did not participate until it became necessary to recruit students for a school-boy patrol. Acceptance by the school was at first cool, until the entire program was laid before them. They accepted it and as it started shaping up, the interest increased until the wholehearted support was forthcoming. +s 624 A number of years ago we had an extremely acute traffic safety problem in that our school is located on both sides of a busy thoroughfare. The police department was not able to supply enough crossing guards to do a satisfactory job at the peak hours as several intersections were involved. After meeting with the police department, a program involving teacher supervision was worked out. +S 772 We have had a problem with student cycle and pedestrian hazards and traffic viola tions in the vicinity of schools. A com mittee consisting of city police officers (lieutenant, sergeant) school welfare and attendance people, and school principals met to discuss the problem and possible solutions. Joint action was worked out. 122 -L 208 A high school principal was contacted by police and safety council representatives asking that he allow his school to partici pate in a large community traffic safety program. The request was such that it would involve the greater part of the last hour of a school day for approximately 12 students. He showed no enthusiasm toward the program but agreed to school participation. Het however, failed to allow any of the student's school time for the program and caused delay and confusion accordingly. -L 143 Motivated by several incidents of child molest, the reporting person attempted to attack the problem by education through the local schools. The method to be used was a film depicting the "Dangerous Strang er." My first contact on the matter within the schools was with an elementary school principal who vetoed the plan. She stated she felt that such instruction should not be done in the school. In my opinion, the true reason for her reaction was mistrust of the police department's judgment in the selection of materials to be presented at the elementary level. Additionally, she felt that even though the presentation was the police department's, the school would bear the wrath of any parents who might disagree with the program. The program was dropped at the time. -S 756 A number of students were riding bicycles recklessly and playing tag on them on priv ate property on the way to school. The students were warned by the school and the local paper had am article regarding this problem. We contacted the police department twice regarding this matter. The police made one appearance on the second call, but to no avail. We finally sent letters to certain of the parents. This helped con siderably. ......... 123 2.4 Requested or gave assistance for joint and/or mutual solving of problem.— This subcategory revolves around the critical behavior of two agencies assisting each other in attempting to solve a mutual or joint problem. The initiator of the incident is important! the key being that this is a joint problem and not a primary responsibil ity to either one of the two agencies. On occasion these agencies deal with unassigned community problems and come together only because they have taken time and energy neces sary to afford relief. The following incidents will serve to clarify this pointi +L 313 Fourteen year old girl verging on incor rigibility. Placement considered^ Full force of school counseling was brought into play. Joint efforts brought basic problems to view. +L 281 There was a traffic problem at one of our high schools at the break of school. We met with the principal and through the schoolfletters were sent home to parents requesting that they make arrangements to pick up the children at points other than in front of the school. Good response from schools— fair from parents. +L 372 The suspects involved in a burglary and vandalism were apprehended by this depart ment. It was ascertained that the parents of the suspects were able to pay for the damages in a reasonable amount, if given enough time. The school authorities were 124 very reasonable and cooperative in their demands for restitution, as well as being grateful for the return of the stolen equip ment. +S 686 Contacted local authorities regarding new business being established locally. Teen agers seen frequently in establishment in numbers; questioning under direction of law enforcement officer exposed owner of new business selling beer to students. Fine cooperation. Establishment denied license to operate. +S 612 One of our students was in an auto accident in northern California in which her parents and other members of the family were killed and she was hospitalized for four or five months. The Highway Patrol became personally interested in this child and contacted the school and friends of the girl so she would get letters to cheer her up in her months of hospitalization. -L 005 This officer was called to the high school by the principal asking advice as to what to do regarding a subject hanging around the school who was not a student. This subject had been told to stay away several times. It was decided between the principal and this officer the next time this occurred the subject would be apprehended and a com plaint filed. Several days later, the principal called the department stating the subject was at school. The subject was picked up and taken to the station. The principal was contacted and, at that time, he stated he would not sign a complaint, just wanted the subject warned and turned loose. 2.5 Used assistance offered by opposite agency to solve a problem.— There are occasions when good and poor 125 working relationships were described as incidents surround ing a situation where assistance offered by one of the agencies either was or was not used to solve the problem. The critical behavior surrounding this was the actual use of the assistance and not the offering of it. The following incident illustrates this points •L 226 Subject arrested for petty theft by police, showed signs of a disturbed personality, lying despite overwhelming evidence against him. School vice-principal contacted and he revealed subject was presently suspended from school and was a behavior problem. Vice principal further related that the school was not planning to bring this subject to the attention of the court, and had been handled by the school authorities only. Vice-principal also related that he was working with the mother in an effort to get the father in NXN state to take him into his home. Vice principal therefore requested that court pro ceedings not be instituted inasmuch as they would probably interfere with his plan. He was informed that his plan lacked enforce ability and if fulfilled would be unfair to the subject, in that it was doubtful he would receive proper handling. The vice-principal was informed a petition was to be requested in juvenile court and if the court authorities agreed to transfer the case to "X" state, the accepting state authorities would at least be aware of the subject and his problems. Vice-principal's plan did not materialize. Subject went to court, was made a ward, con tinued to be a problem, went back to court, and was finally committed to Youth Authority. 2.6 Gave unsolicited assistance or help.— A number 126 of respondents described incidents where unsolicited assist ance was offered by one of the agencies. This action in volves the members of one agency finding a situation that is within the jurisdiction and primary responsibility of the other agency and giving assistance, unsolicited, in order to help solve or control the situation. Examples are as follows s +L 170 A minor gang fight in which a student was cut was not reported to the police depart ment by the principal of the school, but was reported by the doctor attending the victim, in the course of the investigation, the trouble at the Bchool was settled by the juvenile officer who had much more in formation of the participants than the principal of the school. Principal (new to job) is now exceedingly cooperative in refering criminal investigations to police department. +S 529 Officer stopped a car for a traffic viola tion. Girl in car should have been in school. Officer brought girl back to school and into office. +S 518 Police officer on motorcycle brought in boy and girl who were necking in the neighbor hood— a few doors away from the school. Officer in presence of vice-principal individually "counseled" the student on behavior. Very effective. When parent questioned incident and thought her daughter had not been misbehaving— officer volunteered to go over to the home and speak with the mother. 127 -L 054 Several truant students were picked up by a patrol unit. The school was notified and asked to pick up students at the police station due to a shortage of our personnel. They put us off until the end of school day and then advised us to release them and send them the information. -S 897 It was determined through regular attendance channels that three male students were among those absent from the campus. A chance visit by a staff member to a sister school led to the knowledge that three boys had been appre hended by the police for loitering around the sister school campus when called by its offi cials. However, the police did not return the boys to this school, nor notify us of their whereabouts, although the pick-up was made before eleven o'clock. The boys were simply moved away from the school where they were loitering. The boys were not caught in their truancy until the next day when they reported to the attendance clerk. Individual contact The definition of this major category surrounds the critical behavior resulting when one agency, usually the law enforcement agency, wishes to make a personal con tact within the school with either a student or staff mem ber. In some instances, interviewing the person is all that is needed, and in others it may be necessary to remove the person from the premises and take him into custody. One hundred seventy incidents met the classification requirement for this category. This was equal to 13.9 per cent of all : 128 incidents used in the study. Law enforcement agencies supplied 22.5 per cent (85) of their incidents in this category. Schools suhmitted 10 per cent (85) of their total incidents in this category. There were two subcate gories within this portion. They will be described and verified by the following: 3-1 Hade proper arrangements for pupil or staff member contact and/or conducted the interview in a proper manner.— The central behavior in this subcategory involved the cooperation of the proper personnel to make appropriate arrangements for a contact or interview. Positive and negative exanples of this incident are as follows: +L 332 Recently an elementary school teacher (male) was arrested for 288APC. Both the superin tendent and principal of the school cooper ated completely in making children available for interviews as well as the teacher in volved. +L 330 Interrogation of subjects regarding a child molestation took place at local school. The principal was cooperative and aided in all parts of the investigation. +L 333 It was necessary recently to interview several students regarding an incident vftiich came to my attention via a police report. The school principal made a room available and called each pupil at my request. Cooperation was very good. 129 +S 878 Two girls, pupils of a junior high school, were with two high school age boys who later were seen stealing construction sup plies from a building site and were in possession of a bottle of liquor. A ser geant from the juvenile police wished to interview the girls during school time. The sergeant briefed the vice-principal on the information he already had received, he called and made an appointment, his tech niques of questioning were good. One of the girls was not very cooperative and seemed not to be telling the truth. The vice-principal and the sergeant knew each other well enough that the vice-principal was able to assist in the questioning and get the girl to tell the truth. Usually the administrator does not enter into the ques tioning at all unless requested to do so. +S 811 A girl who was truant from school was a victim of statutory rape. The boy was later arrested for armed robbery. The girl was interrogated in my presence by a male officer. A juvenile hearing was held and the girl placed on 6 months' probation. -L 337 A detective appeared at a school for the purpose of questioning a student during school hours regarding the identity of a serious offender. Permission was denied on the ground that the school had no author ity from the student's parents to remove him from class for that purpose. Identification of offender was delayed. The offender escaped. -L 010 A principal of one of our high schools ad vised that before any student was contacted, the parents would be notified and invited to sit in on the interview (by the detec tive). In his absence this rule was by passed by the vice-principal and office staff. 130 On several occasions (in his presence) this rule was complied with until an inci dent (burglary investigation) in which the parents were known to be antagonistic, discipline-hating people, themselves with police backgrounds. Unfortunately the. principal was in. A copy of the attorney general's opinion failed to change his stand and it was known to be a lost cause if the interview had to be made with the parents in attendance. -L 379 Investigation was being conducted regarding a sex case and witnesses of high school age were contacted at the school for question ing. The school vice-principal refused to allow the subjects to be questioned without a member of the school staff present. The subjects were reluctant to talk in the presence of the vice-principal; therefore, they had to be summoned to the station with their parents at a later date. -S 780 There was a hunting accident during a vaca tion period. A law enforcement officer stomped into the office shortly after and demanded to see a particular student without relating why, what, or who. It appeared he had had a previous poor experience in this area of school contact, although he had never been in our school before. When I told him it was customary to contact our central guidance office on this type of visit, he said, "Go ahead, it won't make any differ ence." This attitude prevailed throughout. -S 731 Although this incident occurred several years ago, it stood out in my mind as being very distasteful; actually, my contact with police in recent years has been good. Several years ago police officers came to the school and wanted to interrogate a junior high student whom they felt had been stealing bicycles. 131 I inquired why they did not interrogate the boy at his home and the reply was that the parents would not allow them. I refused the request feeling the police should have questioned the boy in his own home since the incident did not occur at school. 3.2 Hade proper arrangements for detainment. arrest, or release of pupil or staff member.— This subcate gory centers upon the behavior of an agency, usually the school, making the proper arrangements for the detainment of a student to be met by law enforcement officers or for releasing the student in case of arrest or child custody cases. The positive and negative incidents are as follows: +L 108 This department held a warrant for the arrest of a student in school and also a warrant for this student's mother. The wanted persons were slightly erratic in their behavior and it was felt difficulty would be experienced in the serving of the warrants. The vice-principal was contacted and advised of the situation and he had the student come to his office, and then noti fied us as to his whereabouts. At the same time, the principal contacted the mother and she came to the school, and the officers then proceeded to the school and arrested both subjects. +L 106 Serving a warrant in a child custody action. The principal of the school was notified of the pending action and he called the children into his office and held them there until the warrant was served. The parent was then notified of the action by the officers. 132 +S 802 Assault case— juvenile authorities inter viewed pupils at school. Officers notified parents and transported suspects to juvenile facilities. School provided photos for vic tim identification. Suspects eventually ad mitted assault. +S 855 A police officer came to school with a father to take the daughter, who was a run away from home, to the police station. The daughter was not in class, but the officer happened to encounter her in hall. He re ported this to the girl's vice-principal and was told to take the girl with him. -L 006 A high school principal refused to turn over a boy who had committed a felony (dynamiting holes in highway and burglary). -L 270 I was assigned to investigate the possible child beating of a nine year old girl, an elementary school student. Investigation revealed that the victim had numerous marks all over her body, and she further stated this was the usual manner in which her parent punished her. Although the officers wished to take the child for photographs while the marks were fresh and visible, the principal of the school (although stating he wished something done) flatly refused to release the child for this purpose. Later, after school hours, when the officers obtained the permission of the mother, the marks were so diminished that it was felt it would have been almost impossible to get a conviction. -S 874 Police arrived to arrest a ninth grade boy breaking illegal entry and taking female undergarments. School wanted to contact boy's parents before he was released to police. Police were rather indignant and quoted statute to the effect that school authority could be arrested for interferring 133 with police procedure. Police finally con sented to waiting few minutes while parents were contacted. S 386 Two boys were seen by juvenile patrol car fooling with parts of dashboard in car parked in our school parking lot. They were illegally out of class. They were brought in to the office and questioned. Unfor tunately, the owner of the car lied that he knew them. This happened late Friday after noon. An unsympathetic looking sergeant that was in a hurry to go off duty put them in custody (jail) all week end, and parents were not allowed to see them. Interagency activities The incidents classified for this category were defined as interaction involving more than the law enforce ment and school agency. Therefore, three or more agencies had to be involved before this was defined as an inter agency activity. There were very few incidents (13) which met this criterion and there were no subclassifications. This represented 1.6 per cent of all incidents used in the study. Of the incidents furnished by law enforcement per sonnel, 1.7 per cent (6) were placed in this category. Of the incidents supplied by school personnel, .08 per cent (7) were identified with this classification. 4.1 Participated in broad community planning in volving three or more agencies on behalf of youth.— 134 Incidents relating this activity are as follows: +L 133 A meeting was held to review the 1962 traffic inventory for the National Safety Council. Representatives of all the divi sions of city government were invited, including a representative of the school district. A great deal of good safety in formation was brought to the attention of those attending the meeting. +S 860 A problem case was presented fay the school to the Case Conference Committee of the Coordinating Council. This concerned a 13 year old boy who was the victim of extreme neglect and mental cruelty. Symptoms demonstrated at school included habitual tardiness to school of 10 minutes to 3 hours almost daily, cutting out of school, marked day dreaming in class, tardiness to class, involvement in petty theft, and what appeared to be a withdrawal from reality. As a re sult of the Case Conference, the Juvenile Police agreed to file a complaint on one of the items of petty theft, the Probation Office accepted the petition, and the case was brought to the attention of the JUvenile Court. Previously the family had dropped service of one agency and failed to keep appointments with a university medical cen ter. The boy was placed in the custody of his paternal grandmother in New York. Arrangements were made for psychiatric care. This arrangement is still continuing, six months later. School officials, juvenile police, and probation officials were able to cooperate on a program that was in the best interest of the boy. in each of the three, more than normal routine actions were involved. This kind of operation requires mutual professional confidence. 135 Data not Meeting Incident Classification Requirements In some instances information was given vriiich did not meet the criteria for incident classification. Instead of a specific incident, some respondents gave a general statement to illustrate a working relationship. In other cases respondents were unable to recall an action asked for in the incident section and wrote in "home" or gave a brief explanation. In such instances responses were classified as Ma general statement" or "no good or poor working rela tionships." When there was no evidence of the participant having reviewed the incident section, the space was classi fied as "no response." This system made it possible to identify respondents Who gave negative and positive inci dents and those who gave only a negative or a positive incident. Data Surrounding the Critical Incident With each incident reported, participants were requested to give additional data. Specific items to be considered were* approximate date of contact; initiator of contact; age of child; socio-economic status of child's 136 family; knowledge of own agency's policy or regulation on matter; and knowledge of other agency's policy or regula tion on matter. This information was important because it modifies the understanding of the incidents given. Table 5 presents frequencies and percentages for these variables. Date of contact According to Flanagan, it is most desirable to obtain incidents as near to the time they happened as possible. In the event, however, that old incidents are used, the validity would probably not be harmed since the underlying behavior is well remembered by the respondent even though some of the details surrounding the behavior may not be clearly remembered (34). Seventy and three- tenths per cent (191) of the positive incidents supplied by law enforcement personnel occurred six months prior to the distribution of the survey instruments. Fifty-nine and six- tenths per cent (162) of the law enforcement incidents actually took place within the last three months prior to distribution. Of the incidents reported by school personnel 73.7 per cent (470) occurred during the six-month period prior to the survey distribution. Sixty-nine and six-tenths per TABLE 5 GOOD AMD POOR WORKING RELATIONSHIP INCIDENTS BY INITIATING AGENCY Incidents Initiated by Respondents Incident Variables Good Poor Law School Law School Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent 162 59.6 444 69.6 36 34.3 100 47.4 29 10.7 26 4.1 14 19.3 16 7.6 25 9.2 63 10.7 15 14.3 28 13.3 18 6.6 25 3.9 8 7.6 13 6.2 29 10.7 61 9.6 27 25.7 48 22.7 105 38.6 432 67.8 28 26.7 138 65.7 140 51.5 148 23.2 66 62.9 52 24.8 217 79.8 568 84.0 90 85.7 188 89.1 54 19.9 65 10.2 14 13.3 19 9.0 Date of incident initiation Period 1 (October-December, 1963) Period 2 (July-September, 1963) Period 3 (April-June, 1963) Period 4 (January-March, 1963) Period 5 (Before 1963) Total incidents initiated by agencies according to respondents Schools Law agencies Incidents involving students Did involve student Did not involve student TABI£ 5— Continued Incidents Initiated by Respondents Good Poor Law School Law School Incident Variables Num- Per Hum- Per Num- Per Num- Per ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent Age of student Under 10 years 10 to 12 years old 13 to 15 years old 16 to 18 years old 19 years or older Socio-economic status of student's family Low income Middle income High income I 'Status of own agency's policies concerning i incidents ! Had a policy Did not have a policy Policy status unknown 16 7.3 17 3.0 12 13.0 8 4.2 21 9.5 22 3.9 15 16.3 10 5.3 54 24.5 223 39.2 23 25.0 82 43.4 96 43.6 224 39.4 25 27.2 66 34.9 8 3.6 46 8.1 5 5.4 11 5.8 65 19.7 242 43.2 21 22.8 82 43.9 117 54.4 226 40.4 53 57.6 64 34.2 14 10.4 21 3.7 6 6.5 3 1.6 135 49.8 345 54.5 51 53.1 102 48.6 112 41.3 204 32.2 37 38.5 72 34.3 17 6.3 80 12.6 3 3.1 32 15.2 138 TABLE 5— Continued Incidents Initiated by Respondents Good Poor Law School Law School Incident Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Status of opposite agency's policies concerning incidents Had a policy 69 25.5 272 43.3 22 23.2 71 34.0 Did not have a policy 67 24.7 69 11.0 17 17.9 22 10.5 Policy status unknown 128 47.2 284 45.1 52 54.7 113 54.1 Note: An example of how this table may be read follows: Fifty-nine point six per cent (162) of the good working relationship incidents reported by law enforcement respondents were dated between October and December of 1963. Sixty-nine point six per cent (444) of the good working relationship incidents reported by school respondents were dated between October and December of 1963. 140 cent (444) were reported as taking place in the three-month period just before distribution. Fifty-three and six-tenths per cent (50) of law enforcement respondents' negative critical incidents hap pened during the six-month period preceding distribution of the questionnaire. Of that proportion, 34.3 per cent (36) occurred in the last three months prior to distribution. The schools' incidents occurring during the six- month period preceding the survey represented 55 per cent (116) of the total negative responses. Of this percentage, 47.4 per cent (100) occurred during the three-month period immediately before the survey was conducted. Those incidents recorded as occurring more than a year previous to the study consisted of 10.7 per cent (29) positive and 25.7 per cent (27) negative on the law enforce ment side of the study. The schools recorded 9.6 per cent (61) positive responses and 22.7 per cent (48) negative incidents happen ing more than a year before the survey was distributed. It may be noted that in providing negative inci dents the participants tended to report older experiences, whereas in reporting positive incidents the participants gave newer experiences. 141 Initiator of contact Law enforcement agencies reported themselves as initiating the contact 51.5 per cent (140) of the time in the positive incidents and 62.9 per cent (56) in the nega tive incidents. Schools also claimed to be the initiator of the contact in 67.8 per cent (432) of the positive cases and 55.7 per cent (138) of the negative cases. Both agencies reported incidents initiated by themselves in over half of the cases. Incidents involving students In the contacts of law enforcement and school personnel most of the participants reported incidents in volving students. Seventy-nine and eight-tenths per cent (217) of law enforcement positive incidents involved stu dents. Eighty-five and seven-tenths per cent (90) of their negative contacts involved children. Schools reported 89 per cent (568) of their posi tive incidents as including children. Eighty-nine and one-tenth per cent (188) of the negative contacts dealt 142 with children. Law enforcement personnel apparently had more reason to contact schools concerning problems not specif ically involving students. Acte of child.— The approximate age of the student was noted in each critical incident that revolved around a student. Schools reported nearly 80 per cent of their contacts in the thirteen to eighteen year age bracket with law enforcement personnel reporting 65 per cent of their contacts within the same age group. Socio-economic status of child's family.— Each respondent was asked to estimate the pupil's socio-economic status. A designation of low, middle, or high income was chosen as the method to do this. Schools found a greater percentage of students in the low category, and law enforce ment agencies found a higher percentage of students in the middle category. In both agencies many respondents did not indicate the status of the family's income. Agencies1 knowledge of their own policies and procedures All respondents were asked to indicate their knowl edge of the status of policies which pertained to the 143 incidents reported. Both law enforcement and school person nel were well informed regarding the status of their own policies and regulations that were related to the incidents reported. Law enforcement personnel knew of the existence or nonexistence of their own policies connected with the positive incidents 91.1 per cent (247) of the time, and they were aware of the existence or nonexistence of policies or regulations 91.6 per cent (88) of the time tdien involved with the negative incidents. School personnel were less well informed. They knew of the existence or nonexistence of policies or regu lations 86.7 per cent (549) of the time dealing with posi tive incidents and 82.9 per cent (174) of the time when connected with negative incidents. Both schools and law enforcement agencies reported the existence of policies concerning their incidents in approximately half of the situations. Agencies* knowledge of other agency's policies and procedures Both agencies reported approximately 50 per cent of the time that they did not know if the other agency had a policy or regulation concerning the given incident. When I i I . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j 144 personnel of both agencies reported that there was a policy, they were less certain of its form. About 20 per cent of the time they did not know if it was written or unwritten. As stated previously, these data are presented in Table 5. Chapter Summary The critical incidents furnished by the participants were the main substance of the study. From these it was possible to examine certain aspects of good and poor working relationships centering around the bases of information, assistance, individual contact, and interagency activities. These four major categories had subcategories which helped to give a more precise definition to the critical behavior classified within each major category. Good and poor incidents, descriptive of each sub category within a major base, were provided to lend validity to the classification system. Additional data surrounding each critical incident 'were considered important as they modified the understand-' ing of the incidents given. CHAPTER VI STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Three hypotheses were devised to be tested by this study. Several specific questions were formulated in the hope that the research procedure would provide valid data for conclusions. This chapter is devoted to the presenta tion and analysis of the data which will either support or reject the hypotheses. It will also provide explanations and data concerning the specific questions. Bases for Judging Working Relationships The hypothesis used for this portion of the study was as follows: Law enforcement agencies and schools use the same bases for judging their working relationships. Certain types of working relationships exist be tween law enforcement agencies and schools before certain aspects of their responsibilities can be fulfilled. Find ing the conditions under which they exist and of what they are composed was one of the major purposes of this study. 145 The literature did not point specifically to any structure which could be used to define working relationships, much less good or poor working relationships. The literature did give general statements; e.g., good working relation ships are important, cooperation is necessary, each agency needs to understand each other, and so on. Therefore, no direction for obtaining data to accept or reject this hypothesis could be found from literature sources. Table 6 contains all frequencies and percentages surrounding the variables in this part of the study. It can be referred to in order to verify and examine the data discussed con cerning this hypothesis. Table 7 presents the chi-square problems and their values. Bach problem can be located through the use of a problem number (PB followed by number) as listed in the text. Incident classification system The classification system developed to categorize and catalog the critical incident statements has shown that school and law enforcement agencies use the same bases for judging their working relationships. This is supported by the fact that four major categories were established and that all critical incidents were classified TABLE 6 GOOD AND POOR WORKING REIATIONSHIP INCIDENTS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN EACH CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY IN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Law School Combined Law/School Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Worlcin9 Relationship Num- Per Num- Per Hum- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Bases ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent Information 1.1 Volunteered 126 84.5 23 15.5 150 69.1 67 30.9 276 75.5 90 24.5 information 35 23.4 12 8.1 55 25.8 30 13.8 90 24.5 42 11.4 1.2 Gave information 1.3 Obtained infor 50 33.5 11 7.4 11 5.0 13 5.9 61 16.6 23 6.2 mation 1.4 Discussed problems 25 16.8 0 0 6 2.7 0 0 31 8.4 0 0 and made plans 1.5 Used volunteered 11 7.4 0 0 48 22.1 8 3.6 59 16.0 8 2.9 information Total responses Number Per cent 5 3.3 0 149 39.6 0 30 13.8 16 217 25.6 7.3 35 9.5 16 366 29.3 4.3 Assistance 2.1 Assistance with 96 70.0 41 30.0 427 79.0 113 21.0 523 77.3 154 22.7 potential problem 11 8.0 0 0 56 10.3 7 1.2 67 9.9 7 1.0 147 TABLE 6— Continued Law School Combined Law/School Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Working Relationship Bases Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent 2.2 Assistance with actual problem 53 38.6 29 21.2 315 58.3 103 19.0 368 54.5 132 19.6 2.3 Assistance with special programs 25 18.2 5 3.6 16 2.9 1 .18 41 6.1 6 .88 2.4 Mutual assistance 5 3.6 1 .72 13 2.4 0 0 18 2.6 1 .14 2.5 Used assistance 0 0 5 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 .74 2.6 Unsolicited assistance 2 1.4 1 .72 27 5.0 2 .37 29 4.3 3 .44 Total responses Number 137 540 677 Per cent 37.2 63.7 55.2 Individual contact 44 51.8 41 48.2 52 61.2 33 38.8 96 56.5 74 43.5 1 3.1 Interview contact 37 43.5 39 45.8 46 54.1 15 17.9 83 49.0 54 31.9 ; 3.2 Custody contact 7 8.2 2 2.3 6 7.2 18 2.1 13 7.7 20 11.9 Total responses Number Per cent 85 22.5 85 10.0 170 13.9 I ' i TABLE 6— Continued Working Relationship Bases Law School Combined Law/School Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Num- Per ber cent Num- Per ber cent Num- Per Num- Per ber cent ber cent Num- Per Num- Per ber cent ber cent Interaaencv activities 4.1 Broad community planning 6 100 0 0 7 100 0 0 13 100 0 0 Total responses Number 6 7 13 Per cent 2.3 0.08 1.6 Notes An exaiqple of how this table may be read follows: Of all the incidents reported by law enforcement respondents in the working relationship base of informa- i tion, 84.5 per cent (126) were good working relationship incidents and 15.5 per cent : (23) were poor working relationship incidents. H to TABLE 7 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE BASES FOR JUDGING WORKING RELATIONSHIPS Problem Humber Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1194 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and members A and B of the validation team. 1195 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and validation team member A. 1196 There is no difference between the classification of law incidents by the investigators and validation team member B. 1201 There is no difference in the proportions of law poor working relationship incidents classified into the working relation ship bases. 1202 There is no difference in the proportions of law positive incidents classified into the working relationship bases. 2199 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and members A and B of the validation team. 1.110 .753 .424 3.3867 21.8561** •*43E ----o TABLE 7— Continued Problem Humber Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 2201 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and validation team member A. 1 1.131 2202 There is no difference between the classification of school incidents by the investigators and validation team member B. 1 .274 2205 There is no difference in the proportions of school good working relationship incidents classified into the different working relationship bases. 2 179.2048** 2209 There is no difference in the proportions of school poor working relationship incidents classified into the different working relationship bases. 2 23.7322** 3159 There is no difference between the way that the investigators and combined validation team classify all incidents into sub categories of the working relationship bases. 1 1.019 3160 There is no difference between the way the investigators and combined validation team classify all incidents into working relationship bases. 1 .001 Notes Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at h the.05 or.01 level of confidence respectively. h 152 within this system. These categories, or bases, that law enforcement agencies and schools use to judge their working relationships aret information, assistance, individual con tact, and interagency activities. They will be referred to hence as the "working relationship bases." Two members from the research staff of the American Institute for Research tested this system as outlined in a prior chapter. There were no significant differences be tween the original placement of incidents describing good and poor working relationships within the working relation ship bases and the way in which the validation team defined and placed the same incidents. Chi-square analysis waB used in order to ascertain the consistency of definitions and placement of incidents into the working relationship bases. No significant differences were found in this com parison. Analysis was made from law agencies and schools individually and from the combination of both. Seven chi- square operations showed this system to be valid (PB's 3160, 2201, 2199, 2202, 1194, 1195, 1196), as shown in Table 7. The more intricate working relationship bases as identified within each of the major working relationship bases were also tested with the validation group. Chi- 153 square analysis was employed which indicated that the finite working relationship base definitions are also reliable. This step consisted of compiling all incidents from both parts of the study in order to determine the degree of agreement between the investigators' placement and that of the validation committee. No significant differences were found (PB 3159, Table 7). Frequency of incident occurrence reported in the working relation ship bases It has been noted and shown that all incidents from both sides of the study could be placed into the working relationship bases defined in the categorization process (see Table 8). This attests to the theory that over-all relationships in both agencies come from the same bases. It is important to note the proportion of contacts within the working relationship bases differ between the two agen cies. This was analyzed from the good and poor working relationship points of view. The first analysis was made in order to find if the proportions of positive and nega tive incidents in the four working relationship bases were equal. The likelihood of school incidents being placed in i any one of the working relationship bases is not by chance^ I TABLE 8 PROPORTIONS OF LMf ENFORCEMENT AND SCHOOL CRITICAL INCIDENTS CLASSIFIED INTO THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BASES Working Relationship Bases Law School Good Poor Good Poor Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Information 126 43.6 23 22.6 150 22.3 67 31.5 Assistance 96 33.2 41 39.0 427 63.3 113 53.2 Individual contact 44 15.2 41 39.0 52 7.7 33 15.3 Interagency activities 6 2.1 0 0 7 1.0 0 0 Totals 272 75.0 105 25.0 636 74.2 213 25.8 Note: An exauqple of how this table may be read follows: Of all the incidents (reported by law enforcement and school respondents in the working relationship base of information, 43.6 per cent (126) were reported by law enforcement respondents as igood working relationship incidents and 22.6 per cent (23) were reported by law respondents as poor working relationship incidents. Ul as shown in Table 7 by PB's 2205 and 2209 (rejected beyond the .01 level of confidence). The highest proportion of good incidents surrounded the working relationship base of assistance and the highest proportion of poor incidents was in the working relationship base of information. The rank order of working relationship bases from the stand point of the most frequently mentioned was: assistance, information, and individual contact. Thus, schools judge their over-all working relationships in unequal proportions through the working relationship base of assistance since it was the base of most frequent use. Law enforcement respondents presented a slightly different point of view. The incidents descriptive of good working relationships within the three working relationship bases were not of equal proportions as shown by PB 1202 in Table 7 (rejected beyond the .01 level of confidence). The incidents descrip tive of poor working relationships were not of unequal pro portions within the working relationship bases (see PB 1201, Table 7). Law enforcement agencies reported their most frequent use of schools in positive incidents in the work ing relationship base of information with assistance and individual contact being second and third. The poor work 156 ing relationship base showed a different rank order* how ever, statistically the proportions were similar enough not to show proportional differences (PB 1201). The working relationship bases of assistance and individual contact showed higher frequencies of being reported than did the working relationship base of information. In comparing the proportions within the working relationship bases of good and poor working relationships, significant differences were noted within both law agencies and schools. It is iiqportant to remember that schools reported their most frequent contact with law enforcement agencies in the base of assistance and the highest proportion of good and poor working relationship incidents also fall into that category. The incidents furnished by law enforcement agencies were in the highest proportion within the good working relationship base of information and equal in the poor working relation ship bases. When the good and poor working relationships were compared, differences in proportions were shown to i exist. It is therefore evident that law enforcement agen cies found schools most valuable in the working relation- j ship base of information. Law enforcement agencies found j 157 their largest source of poor working relationships emanated from the working relationship bases of assistance and indi vidual contact. When combined law-school incidents were examined through the good and poor incident categories, ratios were found in the working relationship bases. The combined good and poor working relationship incidents were reported in an over-all ratio of seven good to three poor. The working relationship base of information had a ratio of eight posi tive incidents to two negative. This can be used to pre dict the occurrence of good and poor incidents since of every ten contacts in the working relationship base of in formation eight represented good working relationships while two represented poor working relationships. This same treatment was applied to the working relationship base of assistance, with a ratio of eight good incidents to two poor incidents, and to the working relationship base of individual contact, with a ratio of five good incidents to five poor. The working relationship bases were treated as a group in the same manner. It was found that of each ten incidents, six were represented in the base of assistance; three in the base of information; and one in the base of individual contact. In review, it is noted that interpretation of these data indicated that the bases for law enforcement agencies and schools in judging the over-all relationships are the same for each group. The proportion of incidents reported within the working relationship bases were equally distrib uted between the law and school agencies. Schools gave the most incidents describing good working relationships in the working relationship base of assistance; whereas, law enforcement agencies gave the most incidents describing good working relationships in the working relationship base of information. The bases for poor working relationships also differed between the two groups. Schools reported the largest source of poor working relationships in the working relationship base of assistance, and law enforcement agen cies reported the working relationship bases of assistance and individual contact as their largest sources for poor working relationships. Summary In conclusion, it was found that the hypothesis, "Law enforcement agencies and schools use the same bases [for judging working relationships," was tenable. The 159 incidents describing good and poor working relationships can be placed into the same working relationship bases. Since there was 100 per cent satisfactory placement of in cidents within the classification system for both groups, it is in order to state that schools and law enforcement agencies used the same bases for judging their working relationships. This was further supported by the reliabili ty of the working relationship bases as validated by person nel of the American Institute for Research. Total law-school respondents reported seven out of each ten incidents as reflecting good working relationships and three out of ten as reflecting poor working relation ships. The ratio of total incidents within the different working relationship bases was discussed. Out of each ten combined law-school incidents, six were in the working relationship base of assistance; three in the base of in formation; and one in the base of individual contaqjb. Law enforcement agencies and schools used each other's services in different proportions in the individual working rela tionship bases. 160 Favorable and Unfavorable Working . Relationships This hypothesis stated: Working relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by law enforce ment agencies and schools. Data were used from three variables in order to examine this hypothesis. They were the over-all relationship ratings as obtained from each respondent, the proportion of incidents from both sides of the study comparing incidents describing good and poor work ing relationships, and the analysis of the date of contact for the incidents describing good and poor working rela tionships. Tables 10 and 11 contain all frequency and per centage data used in this portion of the study. The reader should refer to these tables at this point. Chi-square problems and values are reported in Table 9. Individual ratings of over-all working relationships Each respondent was asked to use a seven-point scale in order to judge the quality of the over-all working relationships that existed with the other agency. Word definitions were given at four points on the scale. Any rating at point five or higher on the scale was a satis- TABLE 9 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1118 There is no difference between the over-all working relationship ratings of law enforcement agencies and a straight curve. 4 122.2995** 1119 There is no difference between the over-all working relationship ratings of law enforcement agencies and a standard curve. 4 289.6632** 1121 Law participants reported no differences in the proportions of good or poor incidents in the date of initiation cate gories . 4 23.3466** 1300 There is no difference between the proportions of good and poor working relationship incidents given by law agencies. 1 3.9067* 2126 There is no difference between the over-all working rela tionship ratings of schools and a standard curve. 4 82.7676** 2127 There is no difference between the over-all working rela tionship ratings of schools and a straight curve. 4 303.7334** at TABLE 9— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square • Value 2300 There is no difference between the proportion of positive and negative incidents given by school agencies. 1 4.1238* 3134 There is no difference between the over-all relationship ratings given by law and school participants as judged on a one to seven rating. 4 25.6834** 3135 There is no difference between the over-all working relationship ratings given by law and school participants as measured by decile ratings. 4 10.1867* 3300 There is no difference between the proportions of positive and negative incidents given by law enforcement participants compared to the proportions of incidents given by school personnel. 1 1.0299 3301 There is no difference between the over-all working relation ship ratings between school and law groups in the proportions of ratings given in points five through seven compared to points one through four on the rating scale. 1 .1021 Notes Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Remaining problems are held to be htenable as stated. 163 TABUS 10 OVER-ALL WORKING RELATIONSHIP RATINGS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS Law Agencies Schools Rating Scale Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Rating 7 (generally excellent) 43 14.9 38 5.7 Rating 6 159 55.2 397 59.4 Rating 5 (generally satisfactory) 69 24.0 163 24.3 Rating 4 8 2.8 29 4.3 Rating 3 5 1.7 27 4.0 Rating 2 4 1.4 12 1.8 Rating 1 (generally unsat is factory) 0 0 2 .3 Note: An example of how this table may be read follows: Fourteen point nine per cent (43) of the law enforcement respondents gave a rating of seven (generally excellent) on the seven-point rating scale to over-all working relationships with schools. Five point seven per cent (38) of the school respondents gave a rating of seven on the seven-point rating scale to over-all working rela tionships with law enforcement agencies. i - TABLE 11 OATES OF GOOD AND POOR WORKING RELATIONSHIP INCIDENTS INITIATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND SCHOOL RESPONDENTS Incidents Initiated by Respondents Good Poor Law School Law School Date of Incident Initiation Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Period 1 (October-December, 1963) 162 59.6 444 69.6 36 34.3 100 47.4 Period 2 (July-September, 1963) 29 10.7 26 4.1 14 19.3 16 7.6 Period 3 (April-June, 1963) 25 9.2 63 10.7 15 14.3 28 13.3 Period 4 (January-March, 1963) 18 6.6 25 3.9 8 7.6 13 6.2 Period 5 (Before 1963) 29 10.7 61 9.6 27 25.7 48 22.7 Notes An example of how this table may be read follows: Fifty-nine point six per cent (162) of the good working relationship incidents reported by law enforcement | respondents were dated between October and December of 1963. Sixty-nine point six Iper cent (444) of the good working relationship incidents reported by school respond- M ! ents were dated between October and December of 1963. 2 factory rating. Ninety-three per cent of the law enforce ment respondents and 81 per cent of the school respondents reported over-all working relationships with schools within points five through seven. Similar proportions of both groups indicated the over-all relationship in the same way. This supported the hypothesis that working relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by the two agencies (see PB 3301, Table 9). In further analysis it was shown that the distribution of ratings on the seven- point scale for both law enforcement and school groups fol lowed neither a standard nor a straight curve. Differences beyond the 1 per cent level were shown for PB's 2127, 2126, 1118, and 1119 in Table 9, This unique distribution indi cated that the judgment expressed by the respondents repre sented a definite attitude toward the quality of over-all working relationships between these agencies. This finding was further supported since both groups rated over-all relationships as more favorable than unfavorable. Hhile it is evident that both groups supported the hypothesis of there being more favorable than unfavorable working rela tionships, different proportions of responses from the two agencies were found when each point of the seven-point scale was examined. Law enforcement personnel rated over all relationships slightly higher than did school personnel. (PB 3134, Table 9, shows rejection at the .01 level of con fidence. ) This finding does not detract from the general agreement by both agencies in regard to the high quality of over-all relationships. This difference was examined further by converting the ratings on the seven-point scale to decile equivalents. Statistical values were again com puted. A difference remained; however, the level of sig nificance changed to beyond the .05 level of confidence (PB 3135). It can be concluded that over-all working rela tionships as viewed by both agencies are more favorable than unfavorable. It also can be stated that law enforce ment personnel judged their over-all working relationships with schools slightly higher than the school respondents judged their over-all working relationships with law en forcement agencies, according to the ratings given. Proportions of incidents describ ing good and poor working relationships All participants were directed to include an incident descriptive of good and poor working relationships! Approximately 95 per cent furnished an incident describing j good working relationshipsy however, a minority of approxi mately 34 per cent of the respondents furnished incidents describing poor working relationships. There is no differ ence between the proportion of law enforcement and school participants furnishing incidents describing good and poor working relationships (PB 3300). However, differences in proportions existed within each agency when the ratio of good and poor working relationships was analyzed. These differences existed beyond the .05 level of confidence (PB's 1300, 2300). Since both law enforcement agencies and schools gave similar proportions of incidents describing poor working relationships and similar proportions of inci dents describing good working relationships, it can be con cluded that these data support the hypothesis, "Working relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfav orable by the two agencies." Date of contact and the good and poor working relationship incidents Flanagan (34) indicated that the recency of an incident offered as description of a particular situation ihas a bearing upon the accuracy of many of the details. However, the major elements of over-all accuracy remained valid even though the observer needed to use an older inci dent to present a point of view. He also intimated that When a person had to go back further in time to revive or think of a descriptive situation, the likelihood of its being a common occurrence diminished. The date of the initiation of the incident was used in the good working relationship bases and compared with the poor working rela tionship bases (see Table 11). Significant differences were found in both the school and law enforcement groups. The incidents descriptive of good working relationships occurred more frequently in the most recent categories, as shown by PB 1121 in Table 9. This finding supports the hypothesis that over-all working relationships will be judged more favorable than unfavorable by the two agencies. This factor holds constant for both law enforcement agen cies and schools. Summary The hypothesis, "Working relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by law enforce ment agencies and schools,N was examined from three points of view. The over-all working relationships rating scale was used, and statistical analysis showed that both law 169 enforcement agencies and schools reported over-all working relationships more favorable than unfavorable. A statisti cal difference was noted between the over-all relationships as viewed on the scale by the two agencies. Law enforce ment participants viewed their over-all working relation ships with schools slightly higher than the participants from schools viewed their over-all working relationships with law enforcement agencies. The number of incidents furnished by the total law enforcement and school groups was distributed in favor of incidents describing good working relationships. Since both law enforcement agencies and schools gave these incidents in similar proportions to each other at significant levels, this factor also supports the hypothesis. A third factor was also considered. The recency of the incident was one criterion for judging pro portions of incidents describing good and poor working relationships. The good working relationship incidents occurred more recently to a significant level than did the poor working relationship incidents. Thus it can be assumed that there was a higher frequency of good working relationship incidents than of poor working relationship I incidents, and the hypothesis was again supported. 170 Conditions Surrounding Good and Poor Working Relationships The hypothesis used for this portion of the study was stated: There are different conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships. Analysis format In order to test this hypothesis, it was necessary to analyze the relationship of selected variables to posi tive and negative incidents. The order of analysis was as follows: years of service to positive and negative inci dents; designation of members to positive and negative incidents; participation in programs to positive and nega tive incidents; number of programs participated in to posi tive and negative incidents; school organization to posi tive and negative incidents; number of school districts served by one law enforcement agency to positive and nega tive incidents; number of law enforcement agencies serving one school to positive and negative incidents; number of separate schools served by one law enforcement agency to positive and negative incidents; over-all rating of law- I school working relationships to positive and negative inci- j ; ! dents; initiation of contact to positive and negative_____ 171 Incidents; existence of own policies as reported by law a9ency and school participants to positive and negative incidents; existence of opposite agency's policies as re ported by law agency and school participants to positive and negative incidents; knowledge of policy status of own agency as reported by law enforcement and school partici pants to positive and negative incidents; knowledge of policy status of opposite agency as reported by law enforce ment and school participants to positive and negative inci dents; proportions of incidents in three of the working relationship bases to positive and negative incidents; and date of contact to positive and negative incidents. Fre quencies, percentages, and chi-square values used to sub stantiate all comments are presented in Tables 12 and 13. Analysis of variables to posi tive and negative incidents Years of service.— Law enforcement personnel with ten years or less of total service provided positive and negative incidents in similar proportions to those of law agency participants with eleven years or more total service. Approximately 40 per cent of law enforcement people report-; ing indicated total service of ten years or less (PB 1814). i i U 4 7 . 1 • 1 U.I 9 3 TI.I U M . t • 9 3 1 1 7 . * I t l t . l 3 0 M .t 4 >0 .4 10 73. 0 77 Tt.t 33 3 3 . 3 7 3 7 3 . 7 IS 3 S. 3 7 7 . 1 M 0 0 . 3 n ts.s 7 9 . 1 I) 0 . 1 U U . l •1 S3 .* n > 1 . 4 O S 0 4. 7 37 3 7 . 3 S O 3 3 . 3 73 4 0. 0 43 4 3 . 3 47 4 7 .S 9 4 4 4 . 4 3 1 3 1 . 9 0 4 4 . 4 II 9 3 . 9 1 1 0 .7 U U .l 2 3 3 4 . 3 3 9 3 9 . 4 39 2 9 . 0 1 9 1 9 . 4 41 4 0 . 4 30 9 1 . 0 U 4 7 . 0 1 3 S3 . 3 I t 7 0 . 3 3 3 1 . 7 1 3 7 0 . 3 3 3 1 . 7 3 1 3 . 0 U 4 7 . 0 t 3 0 . 1 0 0 t u.« 4 3 3 . 4 • 3 0 . 1 1 4 40 .0 S 4 0. 0 4 1 7 . 4 U S3 . 3 4 3 1 . 1 9 43 .0 0 40 .0 0 0 4 3 1 . 4 3 1 1 . 0 • 4 3 . 1 13 3 3 . 9 43 4 7 . 3 S I* 7 4 . 1 14 3 3 . 9 4 9 7 4 . 3 1 7 3 3 . 0 1 1 . 3 3 3 3 4 . 3 3 4 3 3 . 0 19 3 9 . 4 30 0 4 . 7 4 U .l 4 0 4 0 . 4 34 3 4 . 4 31 3 4 . 1 3 1 4 4 3 3 3 3 . 4 43 4 3 . 7 41 4 3 . 9 39 3 4 . 9 7 9 0 3 . 9 1 7 1 7 . 7 U U.S 4 0 4 3 . 3 39 3 4 . 0 4 4 . 3 90 4 3 . 3 U 1 4 . 4 8 4 3 . 0 9 4 . 3 90 4 1 . 1 30 3 9 . 4 IS 4 4 . 3 34 9 0 . 1 3 3 3 1 . 4 1 1 3 7 . 1 7 U .l 99 Wt. it Mh 9 O.lH 37 9 9 39 4 1 .l i 44 40 1 33 3 4 . 1 3 31 7 3 . 4 334 7 4 . 3 7 9 9 3 . 0 1 93 4 4 . 9 I d 3 4 . 1 31 7 . 1 304 4 9 . 3 99 3 0 . 4 U 9 . 0 1 0 3 4 0 . 7 33 U .l U 3 4 . 4 4 9 4 . 3 II 3 4 . 0 M 41 .1 3 3 . 1 31 3 3 . 1 37 9 0 . 4 1 93 44.9 97 3 3 . 0 1 71 4 0 . 1 3 43 47 .7 I ) U .l 3 3 0 0 0 . 7 1 4 3 9 4 . 7 00 M. 7 44 1 4 . 9 1 3 9 4 9 . 9 39 9 . 9 U0 4 3 * 9 19 4 4 . 4 1 1 9 3 . 7 39 4 1 . 0 1 4 3 9 . 0 U 0 0 , 3 0 1 9 . 3 4 9 .0 M 9 0 . 9 7 1 7 . 1 4 1 4 . 4 30 0 0 . 4 7 U .l 1 9 44 .4 3 3 4 3 . 7 30 7 0 . 0 10 3 9 . 0 9 1 3 1 * 9 1 4 3 9 . 0 3 0 3 0 . 0 0 3 7 9 . 3 03 73 .S 30 3 0 . 0 3 3 9 0 . 0 3 3 9 0 . 0 33 9 0 . 0 33 9 9 . 0 7 9 4 7 . i l 39 49 .9 3 . 1 3 4 33 . 7 4 . 3 44 4 1 , 4 3 4 3 3 . 4 3 3 U. 0 90 40 .9 0 1 1 . 0 73 4 4 . 4 3 7 3 3 . 7 4 9 9 9 . 0 S S 0 0 . 7 21 1 1 . 9 79 7 3 . 1 U 3 0 . 1 39 9 9 . 0 9 7 U. 0 19 M. 9 a u . 7 0 0 7 4 . 4 0 3 0 . 9 44 4 9 . 0 4 1 9 . 4 4 1 0 . 9 3 4 41 .3 47 4 0 . 0 4 U.S 19 4 1 . 3 19 4 3 . 3 1 3 . 9 U 4 3 . 1 9 1 1 . 9 U 4 9 . 4 04 9 4 . 9 U 4 7 . 7 1 4 U .l 30 4 9 . 4 0 U .l 1 9 3 9 . 0 M 7 9 . 0 39 7 0 . 1 7 3 1 . 9 1 7 9 4 . 0 1 4 4 9 . 1 0 0 3 4 7 9 . 0 4 U. 0 3 4 . 3 3 1 7 3 . 0 9 7 . 3 33 M .l 7 1 1 . 9 30 M. 9 37 3 1 . 9 U 4 9 . 4 7 9 1 * 9 U 9 0 . 0 3 9 7 0 . 1 19 3 4 . 1 4 U.S 4 9 . 1 > 9 . 4 1 4 9 1 . 0 17 U .l 1 0 3 2 . 7 1 9 . 1 1 7 9 0 . 4 1 4 4 1 . 0 1 4 9 4 . 3 3 7 4 9 . 9 3 4 M. 9 1 7 4 1 . 9 99 7 9 . 3 U 3 4 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 1 7 4 3 . 9 1 3 9 7 . 3 4 1 0 . 0 14 4 4 . 7 10 9 9 . 4 10 1 4 . 4 1 1 7 9 . 7 7 3 3 9 . 2 U 4 3 . 9 U 0 0 . 9 4 1 4 . 4 10 3 0 . 2 29 49 .7 23 7 0 . 1 7 2 1 . 9 22 4 4 . 7 1 1 2 9 . 3 1 3 . 0 20 4 0 . 4 9 2 7 . 9 3 9 . 1 1 7 0 9 . 0 3 10.0 3 1 4 2 . 4 10 9 0 . 9 9 2 7 . 3 IS 4 9 .S 1 3 2 9 . 4 1 9 9 7 . 4 19 3 1 . 4 1 7 U .l 1 4 9 7 . 0 1 3 4 0 . 4 2 0.1 3 4.3 0 2 1 . 4 1 4 4 2 . 4 0 2 1 . 4 3 9 . 1 20 9 4 . 1 1 4 4 0 .S •Moa to m o l l of km tklo lakU aor la m l ta llM i U «fe* —Slop rolotl— M lf O ta of 1 *C4 C O O U40 , 47 .9 U.S pm *mt (4 0 ) « » 41 * 0 0 Of low ' Of * 1 1 «3 m «** 4 rnmm n U U o O li loci (44 ) a n f&**» 1 mm oof mm yoora a t aan l aa. i p a m i Of low ooti vtUk too ywara *7 aarvlc* or In 172 TABLE 13 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF GOOD AND POOR WORKING RELATIONSHIP INCIDENTS Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value 1068 There is no difference in the proportions of positive incidents given in the three working relationship bases by law respondents in the low over-all working relation ship rating group (1-5 on the rating scale) compared to the law respondents in the high rating over-all working relationship group (6-7 on the rating scale). 2 74.5711** 1076 There is no difference in the proportions of negative incidents given in the three working relationship bases by law respondents in the low over-all working relation ship rating group (1-5 on the rating scale) compared to the law respondents in the high rating over-all working relationship group (6-7 on the rating scale). 2 2.1156 1802 There is no difference in the proportions of law respondents who know or do not know the status of the other agency's policies in the positive incidents when compared to the negative incidents. 1 3.552 1803 There is no difference in the proportions of law respondents who report the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies in the positive incidents compared to the law respondents reporting the negative incidents. 1 i - * .902 w TABLE 13— Continued Problem Humber Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value 1805 There is no difference in the proportions of law respondents who know or do not know the status of their own policies in the positive incidents when compared to the negative incidents. 1 1.184 1806 Law respondents will report the existence or nonexistece of their own policies in the same proportion in the positive and negative incidents. 1 .654 1807 There is no difference in the proportion of contacts initiated by law with school in the positive incidents com peared to the negative incidents. 1 4.634* 1809 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents given by law respondents who serve one or two school districts compared to law respondents who serve three or more school districts. 1 .186 1810 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents given by law respondents who serve from one to fifteen schools compared to law respondents who serve sixteen or more schools. 1 .460 M TABLE 13— Continued Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Humber Problem Statement Freedom Value 1811 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by law respondents who partici pate in one special program to promote working relationships with schools compared to law respondents who participate in two or more programs to promote working relationships. 1 .001 1812 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by law respondents who partici pate in special programs to promote working relationships with schools compared to law respondents who do not partici pate in special programs to promote working relationships. 1813 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents given by law enforcement agencies designating specific members to work with schools compared to law enforcement agencies not designating specific members to work with schools. .035 1.741 1814 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents given by law respondents with ten years or less of total service compared to law respondents with eleven years or more total service. ,000 -j Ui I TABLE 13— Continued Problem Humber Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value 1816 There la no difference in the over-all working relationship ratings given to schools by law respondents who gave posi tive incidents compared to law respondents who gave negative incidents. 5 14.8646* 2069 There is no difference in the proportion of positive inci dents given in the three working relationship bases by school respondents with ten years or less total service compared to school respondents with eleven years or more total service. 2 .1861 2070 There is no difference in the proportion of positive inci dents classified in the three working relationship bases by school respondents giving a low over-all working relation ship rating (1-5 on the rating scale) compared to the school respondents giving a high over-all working relationship rating (6-7 on the rating scale). 2 15.1823** 2071 There is no difference in the proportion of positive inci dents given in the three working relationship bases by school respondents participating in one special program to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies compared to school respondents participating in two or more special programs to promote working relationships. 2 .8896 5 .................-.......------------ - - - - - TABLE 13--Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value 2080 There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents given in the three working relationship bases by school respondents with ten years or less total service compared to school respondents with eleven years of more total service. 2 .7627 2081 There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents classified in the three working relationship bases by school respondents giving a low over-all working relation ship rating (1-5 on the rating scale) compared to the school respondents giving a high over-all working relationship rating (6-7 on the rating scale). 2 7.0378* 2082 There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents given in the three working relationship bases by school respondents participating in one special program to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies compared to school respondents participating in two or more special programs to promote working relationships. 2 .3989 2128 There is no difference in the proportion of positive inci dents in the five periods of date of contact by school respondents compared to the negative incidents in the five periods of date of contact. 4 M < sl 41.0759** TABLE 13— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square value 2701 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by school respondents with ten years or less total service compared to school respondents with eleven years or more total service. 1 1.140 2702 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by schools designating specific members to work with law enforcement agencies compared to schools not designating specific members to work with law enforcement agencies. 1 .031 2703 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by school respondents who par ticipate in special programs to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies compared to school respondents who report not participating in special programs to promote working relationships. 1 .375 2704 There is no difference in the over-all working relationship ratings submitted by school respondents giving positive incidents coiqpared to school respondents giving negative incidents. 5 63.2775** TABLE 13— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 2705 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by school respondents partici pating in one special program to promote working relation ships with law enforcement agencies compared to school respondents participating in two or more programs to pro mote working relationships. 1 .041 2706 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by school respondents working in junior high schools compared to school respondents working in high schools. 1 .031 2707 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents reported by respondents of schools served by one or two law enforcement agencies compared to respond ents of schools served by three or more law enforcement agencies. 1 .430 2708 There is no difference in the proportion of contacts initiated by schools with law enforcement agencies in the positive incidents compared to the contacts initiated by schools with law enforcement agencies in the negative inci dents. 1 .327 £ vo TABLE 13--Continued Problem Humber Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 2709 There is no difference in the proportion of the existence or nonexistence of the school policies reported by school respondents in the positive incidents compared to the existence or nonexistence of school policies reported by school'respondents in the negative incidents. 1 2.868 2710 There is no difference in the proportion of school respond ents knowing or not knowing the status of their own policies in the positive incidents compared to school respondents knowing or not knowing the status of their own policies in the negative incidents. 1 5.043 2711 There is no difference in the proportion of school respond ents reporting the existence or nonexistence of the other agency'8 policies in the negative incidents. 1 .471 2712 There is no difference in the proportion of school respond ents who know or do not know the status of the other agency1 policies in the positive incidents compared to the school respondents who know or do not know the status of the other agency's policies in the negative incidents. s 1 .000 3029 There is no difference in the proportion of the existence or nonexistence of policies of their own agency reported by H* 09 O TABLE 13— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square value law respondents in the negative incidents compared to the existence or nonexistence of policies of their own agency reported by school respondents in the negative incidents. 2 2.9658 3126 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents who know or do not know the status of the other agency's policies in positive incidents compared to school respond ents who know or do not know the status of the other agency's policies in positive incidents. 2 119.4853** 3027 There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents reported by law respondents classified in the three working relationship bases compared to the negative inci dents classified by school respondents in the three working relationship bases. 2 21.8831** 3028 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents Who know or do not know the status of their own policies in the positive incidents compared to school respondents Who know or do not know the status of their own policies in the positive incidents. 3127 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents compared to school respondents who know or do not know the 12.4730** M CD TABLE 13— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value statue of the opposite agency's policies in the negative incidents. 2 5.2715 3129 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents compared to school respondents Who know or do not know the status of their own policies in the negative incidents. 2 9.1033* 3156 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents compared to school respondents who report the existence or nonexistence of the opposite agency's policies in the working relationship bases of the positive incidents. 2 44.9584** 3158 There is no difference in the proportion of law respondents compared to school respondents who report the existence or nonexistence of the opposite agency's policies in the working relationship bases of the negative incidents. 2 5.1314 3164 There is no difference in the proportion of positive incidents given in the three working relationship bases reported by law respondents compared to those reported by school respondents. 2 77.8114** H 09 ts> TABLE 13— Continued Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Number Problem Statement Freedom Value 3166 There is no difference in the proportion of positive and negative incidents given in the three working relationship bases reported by law respondents compared to those reported by school respondents. 2 82.0071** Notes This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed by the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems with chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and are held 'tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation purposes from a standard chi-square table. 184 School personnel with ten years or less of total service supplied good and poor incidents in similar propor tions to those of school respondents with eleven years or more total service (PB 2701). School personnel with ten years or less of total service reported good incidents in the three working rela tionship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact in similar proportions to those of school partici pants with eleven years or more of total service (PB 2069)• School respondents with ten years or less of total service reported poor incidents in these same three working relationship bases in similar proportions to those of school participants with eleven years or more of total service (PB 2080). It can be noted that in regard to law enforcement and school agencies, the years of total service had no significant influence on the proportion of positive and negative incidents given. Designation of specific members.— Law enforcement agencies that designated specific members to deal with schools reported positive and negative incidents in similar proportions to those of law enforcement agencies that did 185 not designate specific members to work with schools. Approximately 60 per cent of the law enforcement agencies reported designating members to work with schools (PB 1813). Schools that designated specific members to work with law enforcement agencies reported positive and nega tive incidents in similar proportions to those of schools that did not designate specific members to deal with law enforcement agencies. Approximately 76 per cent of the schools reported designating specific members to work with law enforcement agencies (PB 2702). Therefore, it can be assumed that designation of members had no significant bearing on the proportion of positive or negative incidents given by law agency and school personnel. Participation in special programs.— Law enforcement agencies that participated in special programs to promote working relationships with schools gave positive and nega tive incidents in similar proportions to those given by law enforcement agencies that did not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. Approximately 80 per cent of the law enforcement agencies reported I participation in one or more programs (PB 1812). 186 Schools that participated In special programs to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies supplied good and poor incidents in similar proportions to those of schools that did not participate in special pro* grains to promote working relationships. Approximately 70 per cent of the schools reported participation in one or more programs (PB 2703). Participation in special programs to promote work ing relationships by law agency and school respondents had no significant influence on the proportion of positive and negative incidents given. Humber of special programs.— Law enforcement agen cies that participated in one special program to promote working relationships with schools reported positive and negative incidents in similar proportions to those of law enforcement agencies that participated in two or more such programs. Approximately 32 per cent of the law enforcement agencies reported participation in two or more programs (PB 1811). Schools that participated in one special program to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies provided positive and negative incidents in similar proportions to those of schools that participated in two or more such programs. Approximately 85 per cent of the schools who reported participation reported being in one such program (PB 2705). Schools that reported participation in one program to promote working relationships with law enforcement agen cies gave a similar proportion of good incidents in the working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact to those reported by schools partici pating in two or more programs to promote working rela tionships (PB 2071) Schools that reported participation in one program to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies provided a similar proportion of negative inci dents in these same three working relationship bases to those reported by schools participating in two or more programs to promote working relationships (PB 2082). Thus, it can be stated that participation in a number of programs by law agencies and schools had no significant influence on the number of positive and nega tive incidents given in the three working relationship bases. 188 School organization.— High school and junior high school personnel reported good and poor incidents in the same proportions (PB 2706). The type of school organiza tion had no significant influence on the proportion of good and poor incidents reported by school personnel. Number of school districts served by one law en forcement agency.— Law enforcement agencies who served one or two school districts and those who served three or more school districts gave similar proportions of positive and negative incidents. Approximately 60 per cent of the law enforcement agencies served one or two school districts (PB 1809). The number of school districts served by one law enforcement agency had no significant bearing on the pro portion of good and poor incidents given by law enforcement personnel. Number of separate schools served by one law en forcement agency.— It is often assumed that the more schools served by one law enforcement agency, the more opportunity there is for mishandling of the situation. This, however, did not prove to be the case. Law enforcement agencies who served one to fifteen 189 schools reported a similar proportion of good and poor incidents as those agencies Who served sixteen or more schools. Approximately 60 per cent of the law enforcement agencies served sixteen or more schools (PB 1810)• Hnmher of law enforcement agencies serving one school.— It would appear that the number of law enforcement agencies serving a school had no relationship to the good or poor incidents. Apparently, what one law agency can perform, three can perform just as well. Schools served by three or more law enforcement agencies when compared with schools served by two or less law enforcement agencies were found to report good and poor incidents in the same proportions (PB 2707). Over-all working relationship ratings of law-achool working relationships. — Law enforcement respondents who reported positive incidents gave a lower rating, on a seven-point scale, to over-all working relationships with schools than did law enforcement participants who provided negative incidents. This finding was significant beyond the .05 level of confidence (PB 1816). Law agency respondents who gave a scale rating of six to seven (a high rating) to over-all working relation 190 ships with schools reported good incidents in different proportions within the three working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact from those reported by law respondents who gave a lower rating (one to five on the scale) to over-all working relationships with schools. The high rating group gave a higher proportion of incidents in the working relationship base of assist ance, The lower rating group gave more incidents in the working relationship base of information. This finding was significant beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 1068). Law agency participants who gave a scale rating of six to seven to over-all working relationships with schools reported poor incidents in similar proportions within the three working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact to those incidents reported by law agency respondents who gave a lower scale rating (one to five) to over-all working relationships with schools (PB 1076). The most significant fact learned by examination of the data concerning law agencies and over-all rating of working relationships was that in positive incidents the lower rating group gave more incidents, in proportion, in 191 the category of information. School respondents Who provided positive incidents gave a higher rating to over-all working relationships with law enforcement agencies than did school people who gave negative incidents. This finding was significant well beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 2704). School respondents Who gave a high rating (six to seven) to over-all working relationships with law enforce ment agencies reported good incidents in different propor tions in the three working relationship bases of informa tion, assistance, and individual contact from those re ported by school respondents who gave a lower scale rating (one to five) to over-all working relationships with law enforcement agencies. The high rating group gave a higher proportion of incidents in the working relationship base of assistance. The lower rating group gave a higher pro portion of incidents in the working relationship bases of information and individual contact. This finding was significant at the .01 level of confidence (PB 2070). School personnel who gave a scale rating of six to seven to over-all working relationships with law enforce ment agencies reported poor incidents in different propor- 192 tiona in the three working relationship bases o£ informa tion, assistance, and individual contact than did school participants who gave a lower scale rating to over-all working relationships with law enforcement agencies. The high rating group gave a higher proportion of incidents in the working relationship base of individual contact; the lower rating group provided more incidents in the working relationship base of information. This finding was sig nificant at the .05 level of confidence (PB 2081). The significant finding on the school side of the over-all rating of working relationships was that in both positive and negative incidents the low rating group indi cated the information base was the primary problem from the frequency of use standpoint. Initiation of contact.— Law enforcement agencies initiating contact with schools reported a dissimilar pro portion of these contacts in the negative incidents. Approximately 70 per cent of the negative incidents were initiated by law agency people; whereas, approximately 60 per cent of the positive incidents were initiated by law : agency people. This finding was significant at the .05 level of confidence (PB 1807). 193 When schools initiated contacts with law enforce ment agencies, they reported a similar proportion of these contacts in the positive and negative incidents. Schools reported initiating the contact with law enforcement agencies in approximately 75 per cent of the cases (PB 2708). An interesting finding was that both agencies indicated they usually initiated the contact. More sig nificant, however, was the high percentage of negative incidents attributed to the law enforcement agencies in their contacts. Existence of own policies.— The existence of law enforcement policies was reported by law agency respond ents in similar proportions in the good and poor incidents. Policies were in existence in approximately 55 per cent of the situations (PB 1806). The existence of school policies was reported by school personnel in similar proportions in the good and poor incidents (PB 2709). Law agency and school personnel reported the existence of their own agen cy's policies, in negative incidents, in similar propor tions. Both agencies reported having policies in approxi mately 50 per cent of the cases (PB 3029). v» 194 Existence of other agency's policies.— Law agency personnel reported the existence of school policies in the good and poor incidents in similar proportions. Policies were reported in existence in approximately 55 per cent of the situations (PB 1803).' School personnel reported the existence of law enforcement policies in similar proportions in the good and poor incidents. Policies were reported in existence in 80 per cent of the cases (PB 2711). In positive incidents, law agency and school per sonnel reported the existence of the opposite agency's policies in different proportions in the three working relationship bases of information, assistance, and indi vidual contact. Law agencies were reported to have more policies than schools in the working relationship bases of information and individual contact. Schools were reported to have more policies than law agencies in the working relationship base of assistance. This finding was signifi cant beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 3156). In the negative incidents, law agency and school personnel reported the existence of the opposite agency's policies in similar proportions in the three working relationship bases of information, assistance, and indi vidual contact (PB 3158). With regard to the positive incidents, school personnel viewed law agencies as having more policies to handle information and individual contact. On the other hand, law enforcement respondents believed schools to have more policies guiding them in assistance. Knowledge of own policies.— Knowledge of status of law enforcement policies, as reported by law participants, was found to be of similar proportions in the positive and negative incidents. Status of policy was known in approx imately 95 per cent of the cases (PB 1805). Knowledge of status of school policies, as given by school respondents, was found to be of similar propor tions in the positive and negative incidents. School people knew the status of school policies more often in the negative incidents. Knowledge of policy status was reported in 92 per cent of the negative situations; whereas, knowledge of policy status was reported in 85 per cent of the positive cases. This finding was significant well beyond the .05 level of confidence (PB 2710). In positive incidents, law enforcement personnel 196 were better informed than school people regarding the status of their own policies. From this finding it may be said that law respondents were more apt than school re spondents to know vdiether or not their own agency had a policy. This finding was significant well beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 3028). Law agency and school respondents reported the status of their own agency's policies in the negative incidents in dissimilar proportions. Law personnel were better informed on their own policies as they did not know status of policy in approximately 3 per cent of the cases; whereas, school people did not know policy status in approximately 15 per cent of the situations. This finding was significant at the .05 level of confidence (PB 3129). Knowledge of opposite agency's policies.— Law per sonnel were just as likely to know the status of school policies in the positive incidents as they were in the negative incidents.(PB 1802). School respondents were just | as likely to know the status of law enforcement policies in the positive incidents as they were in the negative incidents (PB 2712). In positive incidents, school people were better 197 informed than law agency respondents regarding the status of the opposite agency's policies. According to this find ing, school people were more apt to know than law agency people whether or not the opposite agency had a policy. This finding was significant well beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 3126). In negative incidents, law agency and school per sonnel were equally well informed regarding the status of the opposite agency's policies. Both agencies, in approxi mately 55 per cent of the cases did not know the status of the other agency's policies in negative incidents (PB 3127). Proportions of incidents in their working relation ship bases.— Law enforcement personnel gave more positive incidents in the working relationship bases of information, and individual contact than did school personnel. School personnel gave more than law agency personnel in the work ing relationship base of assistance. This finding was significant at the .01 level of confidence. Therefore, law agencies made the greatest use of information from schools irtiile schools made the greatest use of assistance from law enforcement agencies in the positive incidents (PB 3164). Law enforcement personnel gave a larger proportion of negative incidents in the working relationship base of individual contact than did school participants. Schools gave larger proportions of negative incidents in the work ing relationship bases of information and assistance than did law agency reports. This finding was significant at the .01 level of confidence (PB 3027). Law agency respondents reported more positive and negative incidents in the working relationship bases of information and individual contact than did school partic ipants. Schools reported more positive and negative inci dents in the working relationship base of assistance than did law enforcement agencies. This finding was significant at the .01 level of confidence (PB 3166). Actually, law agencies made the greatest use of information and indi vidual contact, while schools requested assistance in most of the instances. Date of contact.--Good incidents provided by school personnel had occurred more recently than poor incidents reported. This finding was significant beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 2128). 199 Summary It was found that there were only a few differences in the conditions surrounding the good and poor working relationship incidents furnished by law enforcement and school participants. Chi-square analysis was employed in order to note which, if any, of the surrounding conditions differed within the bases. Years of service of the participants made no dif ference in the incidents. Whether an agency designated a specific member to make the contact with the opposite agency was of no significance. Whether the agencies par ticipated in one or more programs, or whether they partici pated at all, had no effect on the working relationships. The structure of the school organization such as junior high and senior high made no difference in the good and poor incident conditions. In many cases, law enforcement agencies served several school districts and many schools within a dis- 'trict. Yet, this had no effect on the over-all working I relationships that differed from those of law agencies serving one district and only one or two schools. The j | existence of policies as reported by the two agencies made I 200 no difference in the proportions of good and poor incidents. In the over-all rating of law-school working rela tionships, the following significant differences were founds (1) Law enforcement respondents of positive inci dents gave a lower over-all rating than did respondents of the negative incidents. . (2) The law respondents of the positive high rating group gave a higher proportion of incidents in the working relationship base of assistance; the lower group gave a higher proportion in information. (3) School respondents of positive incidents gave a higher over-all working relationship rating than did the respond ents of negative incidents. (4) In the schools' positive incidents, the high rating group gave more incidents in the base of assistance, whereas the lower group gave more inci dents in information and individual contact. (5) In the schools' negative incidents, the low group gave more inci dents in the base of information, whereas the high rating group gave more incidents in individual contact. Both agencies claimed to be the initiator in the majority of contacts. This no doubt reflected the fact that each participant reported a personal incident. Law enforcement participants reported the highest percentage 201 of initiated contacts in the negative incidents. Law agency respondents believed that schools had more policies in the base of assistance. On the other hand, schools believed that law agencies had more policies in the base of individual contact. Zn actuality the oppo site was found to be true. Law agencies were found to be better informed as to the status of their own policies in all cases; however, schools were better informed than law enforcement agencies as to the status of the other agency's policies. It was determined that law agencies used schools most often in the bases of information and individual con tact. Schools used law agencies most often in the base of assistance. Finally, school respondents recalled the nega tive incidents over a longer period of time. Based upon the data analysis completed for this section, the hypothesis, "There are different conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships," was not supported. Questions Related to Working Relationships | In Chapter I of this study five basic questions 202 were asked. They were: (1) What influence does an agency's designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency have on working relationships? (2) What influence does an agency's participation in special pro grams to promote working relationships have on working relationships? (3) What influence does a participant's years of total service have on working relationships? (4) What influence do the different overlapping patterns of law enforcement jurisdictional territories and school attendance areas have on working relationships? (5) What influence do the ratings of over-all working relationships have on working relationships as described in the critical incidents? This portion of the study is devoted to the discus sion and examination of these questions. Designation of specific members to work with opposite agency In the presentation of data it was observed that a higher percentage of schools designated specific members to work with the opposite agency than of law enforcement agen cies. Law enforcement agencies followed this practice 57.4 per cent of the time with schools using this system 203 76.3 per cent of the time. An analysis was made of selected factors in relation to law enforcement agencies and schools which did and did not designate specific mem bers. This was done in order to answer the question, "What influence does an agency's designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency have on working relationships?" Table 14 contains all frequencies and percentages referred to in this section. Table 15 lists all chi-square verifications referred to by problem number in the text. The analysis here was concerned with the comparison of occurrence of the following variables to the designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency: par ticipation in special programs, number of special programs, number of school districts served, over-all working rela tionships, proportions of contacts in the three working relationship bases, initiation of contact, expected fre quency of designation of specific member, law agency and school comparison. These variables are discussed individ ually as follows. Participation in special programs.— Law enforcement agencies and schools that designated specific members to TABLE 14 DESIGNATION AND NONDESIGNATION OF SPECIFIC MEMBERS TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITE AGENCY THROUGH SELECTED VARIABLES Designation of Nondesignation of Specific Member Specific Member Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Participates in special programs to promote working relationships Agency does participate 146 88.0 365 71.6 74 60.7 81 52.6 Agency does not participate 20 12.0 140 27.5 48 39.3 72 46.8 Over-all working relationship ratings from the seven-point scale Rating 7 27 16.3 25 4.9 16 13.2 12 7.7 Rating 6 90 54.2 307 60.4 68 56.2 90 58.1 Rating 5 40 24.1 122 24.0 29 24.0 37 23.9 Rating 4-1 5 5.4 54 10.6 8 6.6 16 10.3 Number of special programs agencies entered into to promote over-all working relationships 1 or 2 programs 109 75.1 268 76.8 62 83.8 65 K) O 82.3 TABU 14— Continued Designation of Specific Member Nondesignation of Specific Member Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Hum ber Per cent 3 or more programs 8 5.5 6 1.7 8 5.4 Separate schools in law enforcement agency's jurisdiction 1 to15 schools 73 44.1 91 54.7 16 or more schools 46 37.8 74 60.6 'Separate agencies in each other's jurisdiction or attendance area 1 or 2 96 58.5 338 66.3 52 47.1 94 60.3 3 or more 43 32.3 156 30.6 41 33.9 57 36.6 ! Working relationship bases Informations Good incidents 65 39.2 114 22.3 61 50.0 34 21.8 Poor incidents 18 10.8 51 10.0 5 4.1 16 10.3 Assistances Good incidents 61 36.7 319 62.4 35 28.7 105 67.3 Poor incidents 25 15.1 83 16.3 16 13.1 28 17.9 Individual contacts Good incidents 22 13.3 44 8.6 22 18.0 8 5.1 i Poor incidents 24 14.5 25 4.9 17 13.9 7 4.5 TABU 14— Continued Designation of Nondesignation of Specific Member Specific Member Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Working relationship incidents initiated by the school Good 63 41.4 322 66.8 42 35.0 106 70.7 Poor 24 35.8 101 64.7 4 10.5 36 70.6 Working relationship incidents initiated by law enforcement agencies Good 73 48.0 118 24.5 67 55.8 29 19.3 Poor 37 55.2 42 26.9 29 76.3 9 17.6 Notes An example of how this table may be read follows: Of all the law enforce- ment agencies that designate specific members to work with the opposite agency, 88 per cent (146) of the agencies participate in special programs to promote working relation ships and 12 per cent (20) do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. TABLE 15 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGNATED SPECIFIC MEMBERS TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITE AGENCY Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees Chi- of Square Freedom Value 1001 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement agencies who designate specific members to work with schools and their participation in special programs to promote work ing relationships compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions who do not designate specific members to work with schools. 29.049** 1006 There is no difference in the proportion of contacts initiated by law enforcement agencies designating specific members to deal with schools in the positive incidents conpared to the contacts initiated by law enforcement agencies designating specific members to work with schools in the negative incidents. 1 1007 There is no difference in the proportion of contacts initiated by law enforcement agencies not designating specific members to work with schools in the positive incidents compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions giving negative incidents. 1 1062 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working ________relationship ratings reported by law enforcement agencies who .832 6.907** IS) O TABLE 15— Continued Problem Humber Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value designate specific members to work with schools compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions who do not designate specific members to work with schools. 3 2.4343 1064 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement agencies designating specific members to work when they serve three or more school districts compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions serving two or less school districts. 3 2.7248 1065 There is no difference in the proportion of positive incidents reported in the three working relationship bases by law en forcement agencies that designate specific members to work with schools compared to law enforcement agencies under simi lar conditions that do not designate specific members to work with schools. 2 3.8340 1066 i i i i There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents reported in the three working relationship bases by law enforcement agencies that designate specific members to work with schools compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions that do not designate specific members to work with schools. 2 2.7162 m o 00 TABLE 15— Continued Problem Humber Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1901 1 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement agencies observed designating or not designating specific members to work with schools compared to the expected pro portion of law enforcement agencies to designate or not designate specific members to work with schools. 1 2.812 2001 There is no difference in the proportion of schools that designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies and their participation in special programs to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies compared to schools under similar conditions that do not designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies. 1 20.104** 2004 There is no difference in the observed and expected pro portion of contacts initiated by schools that designate specific members to work with the opposite agency in the positive incidents compared to similar conditions in the negative incidents. 1 .353 2005 There is no difference in the observed and expected pro portion of contacts initiated by schools in the positive and negative incidents when schools do not designate specific members to work with the other agency. 1 to o .044 ® TABLE 15— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square value 2027 There is no difference in the observed and expected pro portion of schools that designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies compared to schools that do not designate specific members to work with law enforce ment agencies. 1 101.231** 2064 There is no difference in the proportion of the over-all working relationship ratings given by schools that designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies com pared to schools under similar conditions that do not designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies. 3 1.8161 2903 There is no difference in the proportion of schools that designate the specific members to work with law enforcement agencies and their participation in special programs to promote working relationships with law enforcement agencies compared to schools under similar conditions that do not designate specific members to work with law enforcement agencies. 1 12.114** r TABLE 15— Continued Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Number Problem Statement Freedom Value 3002 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement and school agencies who do designate specific members to work with the opposite agency compared to law enforcement and school agencies under similar conditions who do not designate specific members to work with the opposite agency. 1 35.802** Notes This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed b y the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or i (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems with | chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and are held I tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation purposes j from a standard chi-square table. ro M H* 212 work with the opposite agency participated more often in programs to promote working relationships than did law enforcement agencies and schools that did not designate specific members. This finding was significant well beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB's 1001, 2001). Number of special programs.— Schools that desig nated specific members to work with law enforcement agen cies reported participation in two or more programs to promote working relationships more often than did schools that did not designate specific members. This finding was significant beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 2903). Number of school districts served.— Law enforcement agencies that designated specific members to work with schools reported serving a similar number of separate school districts to that reported by law enforcement agen cies that did not designate specific members (PB 1064). Over-all working relationships.— Law enforcement agencies and schools that designated specific members to work with the opposite agency judged over-all working relationships with the opposite agency in similar propor tions as did law enforcement agencies and schools that did I i ! not designate specific members (PB's 1062, 2064). 213 Proportion of contactB in the three working rela tionship bases.— When there were contacts with schools, as reported toy law enforcement agencies, they were in similar proportions in good and poor incidents whether or not there was a specifically designated member to work with the oppo site agency (PB's 1065, 1066). Initiation of contact.— Law enforcement agencies that designated specific members reported initiation of contact with schools in similar proportions in the positive and negative incidents; however, when there was no desig nation of specific members, law agencies were more apt to initiate negative incidents. This finding was significant at the .01 level of confidence (PB's 1006, 1007). Schools that designated specific members to work with the opposite agency initiated the contact, according to their reports, with law enforcement agencies in similar i proportions in the positive and negative incidents to those! reported toy schools that did not designate specific mem bers (PB's 2004, 2005). Expected frequency of designation of specific j , members. — Law enforcement agencies designated specific i ; j j j members to work with schools in similar proportions when j 214 coiqpared to expected frequency. Schools, however, desig nated more specific members them the expected frequency. This finding was significant beyond the .01 level of confi dence (PB's 1901, 2027). Law agency and school comparison.— Schools desig nated specific members to work with law enforcement agen cies more often than law agencies designated specific mem bers to work with schools. This finding was significant, beyond the .01 level of confidence (PB 3002). Summary Schools were more likely to designate specific members to work with the opposite agency than were law enforcement agencies. Both law agencies and schools par ticipated in more programs to promote working relation ships when there were specifically designated members. Law agencies were more apt to initiate negative incidents when there was no specifically designated member. Finally, it can be said that over-all working relationships were ; judged the same by law agencies and schools with or without i specifically designated members. I i t 215 Participation in special programs to promote working relationships Both schools and law enforcement agencies reported that they participated in special programs to promote over all working relationships. This portion of the study was devoted to the question, "What influence does an agency's participation in special programs to promote working rela tionships have on working relationships?" Frequencies and percentages mentioned in this sec tion are shown in Table 16, and chi-square data related to this question can be found in Table 17. There was a significant difference between the actual involvement of both agencies within these programs (PB 3003). Law enforcement agencies participated more often in special programs than did schools. The total figure was approximately 76 per cent for law enforcement agencies and 67 per cent for schools. All variables were analyzed on the basis of those participating in special programs forming one group and those not participating in special programs forming the second group. The variables used in this analysis were as follow t over-all working relationships, patterns of overlapping law enforcement i jurisdictions and school attendance areas, school organize- TABLE 16 PARTICIPATION AND NONPARTICIPATION IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS REPORTED THROUGH SELECTED VARIABLES Participation Nonparticipation Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Agency designates specific member to work with the opposite agency 146 66.1 365 81.5 20 29.4 140 66.0 Agency does not designate specific member to work with the opposite agency 74 33.5 81 18.1 48 70.6 72 34.0 Over-all working relationship ratings from seven-point scale Rating 7 (generally excellent) Rating 6 Rating 5 (generally satisfactory) 34 120 54 15.4 54.3 24.4 26 272 105 5.8 61.0 23.5 9 39 15 13.4 58.2 22.4 12 119 26 5.6 55.9 26.3 Special programs entered into to promote working relationships 1 or 2 programs 3 or more programs 171 12 77.7 5.5 332 6 77.6 1.4 to M C* TABLE 16— Continued Selected Variables Participation Law School Hum- Per Num- Per ber cent ber cent Nonparticipation Law School Hum- Per Num- Per ber cent ber cent Separate schools in law enforcement agency's jurisdiction 1 to 15 schools 16 or more schools Separate agencies in each other's jurisdiction or attendance area 86 130 38.9 48.5 1 or 2 122 55.9 299 66.6 31 32.6 129 60.6 3 or more 31 45.6 136 30.3 24 35.3 77 36.1 Working relationship bases Information: Good incidents 93 42.1 109 24.2 33 48.5 39 18.3 Poor incidents 18 8.1 49 10.9 5 7.4 17 8.0 Assistance: Good incidents 79 35.7 283 62.9 17 25.0 138 64.8 Poor incidents 33 14.9 75 16.7 8 11.8 36 17.0 Individual contact: Good incidents 29 13.1 28 6.2 15 22.1 23 10.8 Poor incidents i Status of own agency's policies for ! incidents reported by each agency 30 13.6 22 4.9 11 16.2 11 " 217 m TABLE 16 — Continued Participation Nonparticipation Law School Law School Selected variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Had a policy: Good incidents 111 53.9 247 58.1 24 36.9 94 47.0 Poor incidents 43 58.1 74 51.0 8 36.4 27 43.5 Did not have a policy: Good incidents 77 37.4 125 29.4 35 53.8 76 38.0 Poor incidents 24 32.4 46 31.7 13 59.1 25 46.3 Policy status unknown: Good incidents 14 6.8 50 11.8 3 4.6 29 14.5 Poor incidents 3 4.1 23 15.9 0 0 8 12.9 Status of opposite agency's policies for incidents reported by each agency Had a policy: Good incidents 58 28.3 187 44.0 11 16.7 80 40.6 Poor incidents 18 24.7 53 36.6 4 18.2 16 26.2 Did not have a policy: Good incidents 44 21.5 48 11.3 23 34.8 21 10.7 Poor incidents 10 13.7 13 9.0 7 31.8 9 14.8 Policy status unknown: Good incidents 99 48.3 187 44.0 29 43.9 95 48.2 Poor incidents 42 57.5 73 53.8 10 45.5 34 55.7 Notes An example of how this table may be read follows: Of all the law enforce- iment agencies that participate in special programs to promote working relationships, 66.1 per cent (146) of the agencies designate specific members to work with the h opposite agency and 33.5 per cent (74) do not designate specific members to work h with the opposite agency. TABLE 17 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Number Problem Statement Freedom Value 1039 There is no difference in the proportion of positive inci dents initiated by law enforcement participants vihose agencies do participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to law enforcement partici pants under similar conditions whose agencies do not participate in special programs to promote working rela tionships. 1 .268 1040 There is no difference in the proportion of negative inci dents initiated by law enforcement participants Whose agencies do participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to law enforcement partici pants under similar conditions whose agencies do not participate in special programs to promote working rela tionships. 1 .645 1057 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all work ing relationship ratings reported by law enforcement partici pants whose agencies do participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to over-all working relationship ratings reported by law enforcement participants to under similar conditions whose agencies do not participate u> in special procrr*™** to promote working relationships.__________3______ .3641 TABLE 17— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1058 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforce ment agencies serving one to fifteen schools or sixteen or more schools that participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to law enforcement agencies under similar conditions that do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 2 .3271 1059 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement agencies serving one or two school districts or three or more school districts that participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to law enforce ment agencies under similar conditions that do not partici pate in special programs to promote working relationships. 2 2.3284 2041 There is no difference in the proportion of positive incidents initiated by school participants whose agencies do participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to school participants under similar conditions whose agencies do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 1 .097 2042 There is no difference in the proportion of negative incidents initiated by school participants whose agencies - to to o TABI£ 17— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value do participate in special programs to promote working rela tionships compared to school participants under similar conditions whose agencies do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 1 .042 2059 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all work ing relationship ratings reported by school participants Whose agencies do participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to over-all working relation ship ratings reported by school participants under similar conditions Whose agencies do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 3 4.7021 2060 There is no difference in the proportion of the various types of school organizations participating in special pro grams to promote working relationships compared to the same types of school organization that do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 3 11.1647* 2061 There is no difference in the proportion of schools being served by one or two or three or more law enforcement agencies that participate in special programs to promote working rela tionships compared to schools under similar conditions that ro N H TABU 17— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. 3 3.1895 3003 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement agencies that do or do not participate with special programs to promote working relationships compared to schools that do or do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships . 1 7.224** Notes This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed by the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or I (*«) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems with chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and are held I tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation purposes from a standard chi-square table. to to to tion, agency initiating contacts, years of service. These variables are discussed individually as related to the participation of agencies in special programs. Over-all working relationships.— Responses of both school and law enforcement agency participants were exam ined in order to ascertain if their participation in special programs had an effect on the over-all working relationship ratings. In both cases, it was found that there were no differences between the over-all working relationship ratings and the variable of an agency's par ticipation or nonparticipation in special programs (PB’s 2059, 1057). This finding indicated that the participation in special programs did not have an effect upon the quality of over-all working relationships reported by the respond ents of the two agencies. Separate schools served.--This variable could be analyzed only from the law enforcement agency point of view. The number of schools served was divided into three groups. They were composed of one to ten schools, eleven to twenty schools, and twenty or more schools. Statistical analysis of this variable found no significant differences between the number of separate schools served and the par- 224 ticipation or nonparticipation in special programs (PB 1058). Patterns of overlapping law enforcement jurisdic tion and school attendance areas.— Both schools and law enforcement agencies commonly worked with more than one of the opposite agency. Since this multiplicity of contacts can create special conditions of its own, the entire area was analyzed. It was discovered that in both cases the number of separate agencies with which a law enforcement agency or school worked indicated a statistical difference between the number of separate agencies worked with and the likelihood of a specific agency's participating in special programs (PB's 2061, 1059). School organization.--This question was considered from only the schools' point of view. The organizational structures classified as high school, junior high school, grades seven and eight, and other were included as groups : in both the agencies udiich did and did not participate in special programs. A significant difference indicating unequal participation in two organizational structures was noted, at the .05 level of confidence (PB 2060). The i | junior high school was more likely to participate in | special programs than the high school and grades seven- eight structures. The high school had the highest rate of nonparticipation in special programs. Agency initiating contacts.— A part of this ques tion was concerned with the likenesses or differences in agencies initiating contacts when they did and did not participate in special programs. School respondents re ported in both positive and negative incidents that the same proportion of initiating contacts was maintained under the condition of participation or nonparticipation in special programs (PB's 2042 , 2041). Zn each case, schools reported that they initiated contacts approximately 63 per cent of the time whether positive or negative incidents and whether they did or did not participate in special programs to promote working relationships. Law enforcement participants reported similar in formation. No differences were found in the good or poor working relationship incidents when agencies did or did not participate in special programs (PB's 1040, 1039). Slight differences were noted between the positive and negative contacts; law enforcement agencies reported schools initiated a higher proportion of positive contacts than 226 negative contacts. However, this did not influence the fact of a law enforcement agency's participation or non participation in special programs. Years of service.— The variables of "years of serv ice" and "designating specific members" have been discussed in other questions and may be referred to there for review. Summary Agencies that did or did not participate in special programs to promote working relationships showed differ ences in working relationships within some variables. Law enforcement and school groups- that did and did not partici pate in special programs reported no differences in the over-all working relationship ratings. Law enforcement agencies serving smaller numbers of schools and agencies serving larger numbers of schools participated in special programs in the same proportion. Law enforcement agencies and schools were more likely to participate in special programs to promote work ing relationships when they dealt with more than two of the opposite agencies (police departments and school districts). School organizations had an influence on the pro portions of schools participating in special programs. 227 Junior high schools were more likely to enter into programs than were high schools. The proportion of incidents initi ated by each agency remained unchanged triiether it did or did not participate in special programs to promote working relationships• The data analyzed in this question indicated that participation and nonparticipation in special programs had very little effect upon the variables included within this portion of the study. Years of total service and working relationships Zn Chapter XV it was noted that school respondents, in general, were more experienced in the education profes sion than were law enforcement participants in their pro fession. In answering the question, "What influence does a participant's years of total service have on working relationships?" it was necessary to analyze the combined law agency and school total years of service in relation to selected variables. Two groups were formed, one to ten years and eleven or more years of experience. All frequen cies and percentages mentioned in this section can be referred to in Table 18. Chi-square values related to this TABLE 18 RESPONDENTS' TOTAL YEARS OF SERVICE REPORTED THROUGH SELECTED VARIABLES 1 to 10 Years 11 Years or More Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Status of own agency's policies Had a policy: Good incidents 55 63.1 77 48.0 80 51.6 266 57.1 Poor incidents 15 39.5 29 47.0 25 54.5 72 48.9 Did not have a policy: Good incidents 21 24.1 55 34.0 62 40.4 148 31.7 Poor incidents 20 52.9 21 34.0 17 37.0 50 34.5 Policy status unknown: Good incidents 9 10.3 26 16.2 8 5.2 54 11.5 Poor incidents 2 5.3 11 17.8 1 2.2 22 15.1 Status of opposite agency's policies Had a policy: Good incidents 27 23.5 62 39.2 42 27.1 204 43.5 Poor incidents 9 23.0 24 40.7 13 23.2 45 30.5 Did not have a policy: Good incidents 27 23.5 21 13.2 39 25.1 48 10.2 Poor incidents 7 18.1 4 6.8 10 17.8 18 12.2 Policy status unknown: Good incidents 59 51.1 73 46.1 69 44.5 210 45.0 Poor incidents 22 56.4 31 52.7 30 53.7 82 56.4 I Note: Table is read as follows: Sixty-three point one per cent (55) of the law M agency respondents with ten years or less service reported their agencies as having policies in the good working relationship incidents, etc. 229 question are shown in Table 19 according to the problem numbers used in the text. Analysis of variables to years of service dealt with the policies of the reporting agency and the opposite agency. Agency's own policies.— Law agency and school re spondents in the less experience and more experience groups when compared to respondents of the opposite agency in the same groups reported the existence of their own agency's policies in similar proportions in the positive and nega tive incidents (PB's 1124, 1125, 2133, 2134). Law agency and school respondents in these group ings were equally informed of the existence of their own policies in the positive incidents of the working relation ship bases of information, assistance, and individual con tact (PB 3148). Law agency personnel in the more experienced group compared to school personnel in this same group reported the existence of their own agency's policies in different proportions in positive incidents of the working relation ship bases of assistance and individual contact. Law agency participants reported policies more often in TABLE 19 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL YEARS SERVICE OF THE PARTICIPANTS Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1124 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in positive incidents who had ten years or less total service compared to law enforcement respondents under similar conditions who had eleven years or more total service. 1.0260 1125 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in negative incidents who had ten years or less total service compared to law enforcement respondents under similar conditions vfoo had eleven years or more total service. 5.7793 1130 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies in positive incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to law enforcement respondents under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 1.0392 (O cj o TABUS 19— Continued Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Number Problem Statement Freedom Value 1131 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies in negative incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to law enforcement respondents under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 2 1.7177 1133 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing the status of the opposite agency's policies in the positive incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to law enforcement agencies under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 1 .996 1135 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents knowing the status of the opposite agency's policies in the negative incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to law enforcement agencies under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 1 .015 to 2133 There is no difference in the proportion of school respond- m ents knowing the existence or nonexistence of their own______________________ TABLE 19— Continued Problem Humber Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square value agency*8 policies in positive incidents who had ten years less total service compared to school respondents under similar conditions who had eleven years or more total service. or 2 4 . 0 2 0 3 2 1 3 4 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in negative incidents who had ten years or less total service compared to school respondents under similar conditions who had eleven years or more total service. 2 . 0 7 6 8 2 1 3 9 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of the other agency* s policies in negative incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to school respondents under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 2 2 . 5 0 9 1 2 1 4 0 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents knowing of the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies in positive incidents who had to bJ to TABLE 19— Continued Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square value ten years or less total service, compared to school respondents under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 2 1.8305 2142 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents knowing the status of the opposite agency's policies in the positive incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to school agencies under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 1 .157 2144 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents knowing the status of the opposite agency's policies in the negative incidents who had ten years or less total service, compared to school agencies under similar circumstances who had eleven years or more total service. 1 .273 3144 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents with eleven years or more total service knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in the negative incidents compared to school respondents under similar conditions. 2 ro 1.6550 £ TABLE 19— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value 3146 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents with ten years or less total service knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in the negative incidents compared to school respondents under similar conditions. 2 5.1534 3148 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents with ten years or less total service knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in the positive incidents compared to school respondents under similar conditions. 2 4.9337 3150 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents with eleven years or more total service knowing of the existence or nonexistence of their own agency's policies in the positive incidents compeared to school respondents under similar conditions. 2 7.7601* i Notes This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed by the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems to with chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and £ jare held tenable as stated. i 235 assistance and less often in individual contact. Schools reported policies more often in individual contact and less often in assistance. Both agencies reported policies in similar proportions in the working relationship base of information. This finding was significant beyond the .05 level (PB 3150). Law agency and school respondents in both experi ence groups reported the existence of their own policies in similar proportions in negative incidents in the three working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact (PB's 3144, 3146). Other agency's policies. — Law agency and school participants in both experience groups reported the exist ence of the other agency's policies in similar proportions in the positive and negative incidents (PB's 1130, 1131, 2139, 2140). Law enforcement and school respondents in both experience groups reported knowledge of status of the other agency's policies in similar proportions in positive and negative incidents (PB's 1133, 1135, 2142, 2144). Summary Years of experience had little to do with the 236 working relationship between law enforcement agencies and schools. The only significant finding indicated that the more experienced law and school groups reported their own agency's policies more often in positive incidents of the working relationship bases of assistance and individual contact. Law agency respondents reported policies more often in assistance, while schools reported policies more often in individual contact. This finding was of interest since it showed that each agency had more policies controlling the working relationship base most frequently used by the opposite agency. Patterns of overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas Upon considering the different variables that could have an effect on the over-all working relationships of schools and law enforcement agencies, it seemed logical that conditions might differ when patterns of overlapping jurisdictional and attendance areas were considered. The specific question was: What influence do the different overlapping patterns of law enforcement jurisdictional territories and school attendance areas have on working relationships? In. each case, the dimensions for this_____j 237 problem were defined as two or less agencies compared to three or more. Fifty-three and five-tenths per cent of law enforcement agencies worked with one or two school dis tricts, and 65.1 per cent of schools worked with one or two law enforcement agencies. Data supporting frequencies and percentages within this question are presented in Table 20. Chi-square problems and interpretations are listed by problem number in Table 21. The variables related to jurisdictional and attend ance area patterns analyzed in this section ares over-all working relationships, designation of specific members, and participation in special programs. Over-all working relationships.— The over-all work ing relationships measured on the scale reading five, six, and seven were used in this analysis. Schools reported no differences in their over-all relationships whether they were working with two or less law enforcement agencies or with three or more (PB 2716). According to this finding, the number of separate law enforcement agencies with which schools dealt did not influence the ratings within the over-all working relationships. Law enforcement agencies reported differences within the over-all relationship TABLE 20 PATTERNS OF OVERLAPPING LAN ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS REPORTED THROUGH SELECTED VARIABLES Work with One or Work with Three or Two Agencies More Agencies Law School Law School Selected Variables Num- Per Num Per Num- Per Num Per ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent Agency designates specific member to work with opposite agency 96 58.5 338 66.3 43 32.3 156 30.6 iAgency does not designate specific member jto work with opposite agency 57 47.1 94 60.3 41 33.9 57 36.6 Working relationship bases Informations Good incidents 65 52.4 66 66.7 39 31.4 27 27.3 Poor incidents 5 60.9 40 60.6 4 17.4 24 36.4 Assistances Good incidents 58 61.1 192 64.9 28 29.4 97 32.8 Poor incidents 28 70.0 73 64.6 10 25.0 37 32.7 Individual contacts Good incidents 21 47.7 25 88.1 14 18.1 7 21.9 Poor incidents 12 29.2 21 63.6 18 42.9 10 30.3 M W 00 TABLE 20— Continued Work with One or Two Agencies Work with Three or More Agencies Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Participates in special programs to promote working relationships Agency does participate 122 55.9 299 66.6 71 32.9 136 30.3 Agency does not participate 31 45.6 129 60.6 24 35.3 77 36.1 Over-all working relationship ratings from the seven-point scale Rating 7 (generally excellent) 29 67.4 26 68.4 9 20.9 10 26.3 Rating 6 82 52.5 265 66.9 52 33.5 122 30.8 Rating 5 (generally satisfactory) 33 47.8 97 59.5 25 33.1 57 35.0 Notes An example of how this table may be read followss Of all the law enforce- jment agencies that work with one or two school districts, 58.5 per cent (96) designate ! specific members to work with the opposite agency and 47.1 per cent (57) do not | designate specific members to work with the opposite agency. TABLE 21 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS OF OVERLAPPING LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION AND SCBOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square value 1815 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement participants whose agencies do or do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to the number of separate school districts served. 1 .584 1818 There is no difference in the proportion of law enforcement respondents' over-all working relationship ratings when they serve one or two school districts compared to their over-all working relationship ratings when they serve three or more school districts. 2 7.8639* 2715 There is no difference in the proportion of school partici pants whose agencies do or do not participate in special programs to promote working relationships compared to the number of separate law enforcement agencies serving them. 1 2.088 to * o TABLE 21— Continued Problem Number * Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 2716 There is no difference in the proportion of school respondents' over-all working relationship ratings when they are served by one or two law enforcement agencies compared to their over-all working relationship ratings when they are served by three or more law enforcement agencies. 2 1.9385 Note: This table contains a description of chi-square problems listed by the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems i with chi-square values without aun (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and j are held tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation purposes from a standard chi-square table. M f 242 bases at the .05 level of confidence (PB 1818). When law enforcement agencies served three or more school districts, ratings of over-all relationships were lower than the rat ings when law enforcement agencies served one or two school districts. Multiple agencies and jurisdictional situa tions apparently caused more problems for law enforcement agencies than for schools. Designation of specific members.— As agencies be came complex and overlapping within jurisdictional areas, the designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency had some relationship to the number of separate agencies with which one worked. It was found that within both schools and law enforcement agencies, proportions of designating or not designating a specific member remained consistent with the original proportions from both agencies. The variable of "more" or MlessM separate agencies with which one agency worked had no re lationship to the fact that an agency chose to designate or not to designate a specific member. Therefore, it can be concluded that the problem of dealing with multiple agencies did not have more than a chance relationship to the designation of a specific member to work with the other agency. Participation in special programs to promote work ing relationships.--This part was analyzed from the stand point of the relationship existing between the agencies participating in special programs and the number of agen cies with which one dealt. It was found that both law enforcement and school agencies participated in special programs in similar proportions whether they worked with two or less individual agencies or with three or more (PB's 1815, 2715). These findings indicated there was no direct connection between the number of agencies with which one dealt and the likelihood of participation in special pro grams to promote working relationships. Summary Variables connected with patterns of overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas did not show large differences in the existence of specif ically designated members and participation in special programs. Schools reported over-all working relationships remaining in similar proportions to jurisdictional and attendance area patterns; law enforcement participants re- : ported a difference in the over-all working relationships 244 since lower ratings were given when more than two separate school districts were included within their jurisdiction. Over-all working relationship ratings and the critical incidents The specific question under consideration for this part of the study was: What influence do the ratings of over-all working relationships have on working relation ships as described in the critical incidents? For the purpose of analysis of the over-all working relationships, the ratings of five, six, and seven from the original scale were used. The frequency of occurrence below the rating of five was low enough to warrant eliminating it from the analysis. This provided three groups of over-all relation ship ratings representing approximately 90 per cent of all school and law enforcement participants. Table 22 should be consulted for all frequencies and percentages used in this section of the study. Table 23 contains all chi- square problems listed by problem number for this portion of the text. The variables involved in this analysis ares years of service, designation of specific members, participation ■ in special programs, separate schools served, school j TABLE 22 OVER-ALL WORKING RELATIONSHIP RATINGS REPORTED THROUGH SELECTED VARIABLES ON THE SEVEN-POINT RATING SCALE _______________I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rating 5 Rating 7 (Generally (Generally Excellent) Rating 6 Satisfactory) Law School Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Years of service of participants 1 to 10 years 18 41.9 9 23.6 59 37.0 87 32.0 36 46.1 54 33.1 11 or more years . 24 55.8 29 76.3 100 62.9 308 77.8 33 47.8 109 66.9 1 Agency designates spe cific member to work I with opposite agency 27 62.8 25 67.6 90 56.6 307 77.3 40 58.0 122 75.8 1 |Agency does not desig- jnate specific member 16 37.2 12 32.4 68 42.8 90 22.7 29 42.0 37 23.0 |Participation in i special programs Agency does participate 34 i 79.1 26 68.4 120 75.5 272 68.7 54 78.3 105 fO * U1 64.8 TABLE 22— Continued Rating 5 Rating 7 (Generally (Generally Excellent) Rating 6 Satisfactory) Law School Law School Law School Selected Num- Per Num- Per Hum- Per Hum- Per Num- Per Num- Per Variables her cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent Agency does not participate 9 1 or 2 programs 17 3 or more programs 4 Separate schools in law enforcement agency's Jurisdiction 1 to 15 schools 22 16 or more schools 21 | Separate agencies in each |other's jurisdiction or : attendance area 1 or 2 29 3 or more 9 20.9 12 31.6 39 24.5 119 49.0 17 64.3 101 84.2 103 11.8 0 0 5 4.1 6 51.2 56 35.3 49.8 99 64.7 67.4 26 68.4 82 52.5 265 20.9 10 26.3 52 28.5 122 30.1 15 21.7 56 34.6 78.0 45 84.9 74 73.3 2.3 1 1.9 0 0 33 57.8 36 42.2 66.9 33 57.8 97 59.5 30.8 25 36.1 57 35.0 to * TABLE 2 2 — Continued Rating 7 (Generally Excellent) Rating 6 Rating 5 ^(Generally Satisfactory) Law School Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num- Per ber cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Working relationship bases Information Good incidents 22 51.2 8 21.1 67 42.1 77 19.4 11 6.9 23 5.8 Poor incidents 3 7.0 1 2.6 11 6.9 23 5.8 25 36.2 45 27.6 Assistance Good incidents 12 27.9 29 76.3 7 37.7 268 67.5 20 29.0 96 58.9 Poor incidents 4 9.3 7 18.4 24 15.1 46 11.6 7 10.1 36 22.1 Individual contact Good incidents 5 11.6 0 0 19 11.9 34 8.6 19 27.5 12 7.4 Poor incidents 4 9.3 1 2.6 17 10.7 20 5.1 15 21.7 9 5.5 Incidents initiated by the school Good incidents 17 43.6 29 78.4 61 46.9 269 69.7 20 29.9 77 62.2 Poor incidents 2 18.2 9 100.0 14 26.9 55 63.2 10 32.3 45 65.2 I S J * TABLE 22— Continued Rating 5 Rating 7 (Generally (Generally Excellent) Rating 6 Satisfactory) Law School Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Incidents initiated by law enforcement agency Good incidents 17 43.6 4 10.8 74 49.7 84 22.1 40 59.7 44 28.2 Poor incidents 6 54.5 0 0 32 61.5 26 29.9 19 61.3 16 23.2 Status of own agency's policies Had a policy Good incidents 21 53.8 188 48.6 75 50.7 226 59.9 30 44.8 77 49.7 Poor incidents 7 70.0 5 55.6 29 59.2 45 51.7 12 44.4 35 50.7 Did not have a policy Good incidents 16 41.0 15 40.5 59 39.9 109 28.9 31 46.3 49 31.6 Poor incidents 2 20.0 3 33.3 17 34.7 28 32.2 12 44.4 22 31.9 Policy status unknown Good incidents 1 2.1 4 18.8 9 6.1 41 10.9 5 7.5 28 18.1 Poor incidents 1 10.1 1 11.1 0 0 12 13.8 2 7.4 11 15.9 M * 09 TABLE 22— Continued Rating 5 Rating 7 (Generally (Generally Excellent) Rating 6 Satisfactory) Law School Law School Law School Selected Variables Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Status of opposite agency's policies Had a policy Good incidents 15 39.5 16 43.2 40 26.8 187 49.7 12 17.9 62 34.0 Poor incidents 5 50.0 3 33.3 11 22.9 3 34.9 5 18.5 26 37.7 Did not have a policy Good incidents 10 26.3 5 13.5 38 25.5 34 9.0 17 25.4 19 12.4 Poor incidents 3 42.9 1 11.1 8 16.7 9 10.5 7 25.9 7 10.1 Policy status unknown Good incidents 12 31.6 16 43.2 66 44.3 155 41.1 37 55.2 81 52.9 Poor incidents 0 0 5 55.6 27 56.3 46 53.5 14 51.9 35 50.7 Notes An exang>le of how this table may be read follows: Of all the law enforce ment respondents who gave a rating of seven (generally excellent) to over-all working relationships with schools, 41.9 per cent (18) reported ten years or less of total service and 55.8 per cent (24) reported eleven years or more of total service. » TABLE 23 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF OVER-ALL WORKING RELATIONSHIPS Problem Number Problem Statement Degrees of Freedom Chi- Square Value 1105 There is no difference in the proportion of the over-all working relationship ratings given by the more experienced law participants (eleven or more years) compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by the less experienced law participants. 2 4.4939 1106 There is no difference in the proportion of the over-all working relationship ratings reported by law respondents serving one to fifteen schools compared to the over-all working relationship ratings of law respondents serving sixteen or more schools. 2 4.6300 1110 There is no difference in the proportions of the over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants in the positive incidents when their agencies did have policies concerning the incidents compared to the over-all working relationship ratings of law enforcement participants under similar conditions•whose agencies did not have policies concerning the incidents. 2 .8850 1111 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants to Ul o TABLE 23— Continued Degrees Chi- Problem of Square Number Problem Statement Freedom Value who gave positive incidents and whose own agency had policies concerning the incident compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants under similar conditions whose own agency did not have poli cies concerning the incident. 2 2.3592 1112 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants who gave positive incidents and whose own agency had policies concerning the incident in written form compared to the over all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants under similar conditions whose own agency had policies concerning the incident in unwritten form. 1.6750 1113 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants who gave negative incidents and whose own agency had policies concerning the incident in written form compared to the over all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants under similar conditions whose own agency had policies concerning the incident in unwritten form. 2 .3547 M 1114 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working h ________relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants___________________ TABLE 23— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value giving positive incidents who reported that the other agency did have a policy concerning the incident compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforce ment participants under similar conditions who reported that the other agency did not have a policy concerning the incident. 2 1.8835 1115 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants giving negative incidents who reported that the other agency did have a policy concerning the incident compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforce ment participants under similar conditions who reported that schools did not have a policy concerning the incident. 2 1.0827 1116 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants giving negative incidents who did know if the other agency had a policy concerning the incident compared to the over all working relationship ratings given by law enforcement participants under similar conditions who reported not know ing if the other agency had a policy concerning the incident. 2 5.3928 U1 ------- IO TABLE 23— Continued Problem Number Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi Square Value 2113 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by the more experienced school participants (eleven or more years experience) compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by the less experienced school participants. 2 7.6008 2114 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants of high schools compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants of junior high schools. 2 1.3326 2117 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants who gave positive incidents and whose own agency had policies concern ing the incident compared to the over-all working relation ship ratings given by school participants under similar conditions whose own agency did not have policies concerning the incident. 2 3.3151 2118 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants who gave negative incidents and whose own agency had policies concern ing the incident compared to the over-all working relationship I S ) U1 u TABLE 23— Continued Problem Humber Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value ratings given by school participants under similar condi tions whose own agency did not have policies concerning the incident. 2 .0037 2119 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants who gave positive incidents and whose own agency had policies concern ing the incident in written form compared to the over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants under similar conditions vftiose own agency had policies concerning the incident in unwritten form. 2 14.5851** 2120 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants giving negative incidents who reported that the other agency did have a policy concerning the incident compared to the over all working relationship ratings given by school participants under similar conditions who reported that law enforcement agency did not have a policy concerning the incident. 2 3.3401 2121 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants giving positive incidents who reported that the other agency did 254 TABLE 23— Continued Problem Humber Degrees of Problem Statement Freedom Chi- Square Value have a policy concerning the incident compared to the over all working relationship ratings given by school partici pants under similar conditions who reported that the other agency did not have a policy concerning the incident. 2 5.0220 2124 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings given by school participants giving negative incidents who did know if the other agency had a policy concerning the incident compared to the over-all work ing relationship ratings given by school participants under similar conditions who reported not knowing if the other agency had a policy concerning the incident. 2 .1296 2127 There is no difference in the proportion of over-all working relationship ratings reported by school participants and the proportion predicted on a straight curve. 4 303.7334** Note: This table contains a description o£ chi-square problems listed by the problem number used in the text. Problems with chi-square values noted with an (*) or (**) are rejected at the .05 or .01 level of confidence respectively. Problems with chi-square values without an (*) or (**) are not rejected at these levels and are held tenable as stated. The degrees of freedom may be used for interpretation purposes from a standard chi-square table. 256 organization, working relationship bases, knowledge and existence of agency's own policies and policy status, knowledge of other agency's policies and policy status. Years of service.— Years of service were divided into two groups: one to ten years and eleven or more years. Differences in proportions, at the .05 level, existed within the two school groups when considered on the basis of this variable. The less experienced group rated over all working relationships lower than did the more experi enced group (PB 2113). An analysis of the law enforcement groups did not disclose this same finding (PB 1105). The less experienced and more experienced groups indicated that over-all relationships were the same, meaning that within law enforcement agencies experience as defined in this analysis did not have an influence on the quality of over-all working relationships. However, school members with ten years of experience or less were likely to rate over-all relationships lower them were members with eleven years or more experience. Designation of specific members.— This variable was analyzed completely in the question, "What influence does an agency's designation of specific members have on 257 working relationships?" It can be referred to if reexami nation is desired. Participation in special programs.— This variable was thoroughly examined in the question, "What influence does an agency's participation in special programs have on working relationships?" Separate schools served.— This variable could be examined only from the law enforcement point of view. Most law enforcement agencies served more than one school. The analysis of this section divided law enforcement partici pants into two groups based on the number of schools within their jurisdiction. The composition of the groups was one to fifteen schools and sixteen or more schools. When these were compared with the over-all working relationship ratings, no differences were found through chi-square analysis (PB 1106). This finding was contrary to the general opinions expressed by various individuals through out the setting of the background information of this study. Most individuals expressed the belief that as the number of separate agencies increased, the over-all working relationships would necessarily differ. They reasoned that the same type of individual contact that could be offered 258 in smaller situations could no longer be maintained in multiple contacts, and thus over-all working relationships would suffer. This belief was not supported. Over-all working relationships reported by law enforcement agencies remained in similar proportions in both variables of more than fifteen or less than sixteen schools served. School organization.— This variable could be exam ined only from' the school portion of the study. Host school respondents reported their school organizations to be high school and junior high school. Since these types of organization are much different in the educational point of view and the general age of the student body, it was interesting to find if any differences existed in the over-all working relationships. No differences were found between the working relationships reported by participants within high school and junior high school organizations (PB 2114). This finding can be restated to indicate that the working relationships of high school and junior high school organizations with law enforcement agencies were of the same quality. Patterns of overlapping law enforcement jurisdic tion and school attendance areas.--Most of the school dis tricts in the counties selected for this study were not coterminous with city boundaries. However, many of the law enforcement agencies' jurisdictions were coterminous with city boundaries. This fact illustrated the probabil ity of law enforcement agencies and schools working with more than a single school district or police department during the course of their daily routine. For the purpose of this question, a separate school district and a separ ate law enforcement agency were each counted as one unit of organization. Thus, two groups were formed. The first group consisted of one or two units and the other group three or more units. It was found that law enforcement and school agencies which worked with two or less opposite agencies, as conipared to groups working with three or more, reported no differences between the ratings given in the over-all working relationships. This indicated that the number of separate agencies with which each dealt did not have a significant effect on the quality of the over-all working relationships as judged by individual respondents. This finding was surprising, since general comments and theories would tend to support the opposite. Usually, when multiplicity of agency contacts and overlapping 260 patterns are present, more problems are believed to exist. This general theory was not proved when law enforcement agencies and schools were involved. Working relationship bases.— In the early part of the incident data analysis it was shown that definite working relationship bases existed and were applicable to both law enforcement agencies and schools. This particular aspect has been thoroughly examined in the hypothesis, "There are different conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships•" The reader may refer to that sec tion for review. Knowledge and existence of agency's own policies and policy status.— Schools and law enforcement agencies used policies and regulations for direction and support for some of their activities. Both law enforcement agencies and schools were analyzed from the three ratings on the working relationship scale compared to descriptions of good and poor working relationships. No differences in proportions were found from either the school or law point of view (PB's 1110, 1111, 2117, 2118). The fact of each agency having or not having its own policy did not reflect ; in the quality of over-all working relationships in the j 1 | 261 good and poor incidents. An examination was made from each agency's view point using written or unwritten policies as one variable and over-all working relationships as the other. One dif ference was found within the school side of the study. Over-all working relationships were higher, beyond the .01 level, with the existence of unwritten policies (PB 2119). When poor working relationship incidents were examined, this factor no longer held true; there were no significant differences (PB 2120). In examining the written and un written policies for law enforcement agencies, no differ ences were found for either good or poor working relation ship incidents (PB*s 1112, 1113). These findings indicated, except in one situation, that the existence of policies in written or unwritten form had no effect upon the working relationships as reported by law and school respondents. In the positive incidents, the schools reported the exception as a higher | rate of unwritten policies existing within their organiza tions in the higher over-all working relationship ratings. Based on these data, policy existence (had or did I not have one) and policy type (written or unwritten) did 262 not have a close relationship with the over-all working relationship ratings given by the respondents. The only exception was with positive incidents when schools reported they had more unwritten policies in the higher over-all relationship ratings. Knowledge of other agency's policies and policy status.— A question was raised concerning the effect of knowing that the other agency had or did not have a policy, or knowing of the existence of the specific policy type (written or unwritten) as it was related to over-all work ing relationships. No differences were found from either side of the study in over-all relationship ratings and the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies. This finding extended into the good and poor working relationship areas (PB's 1114, 1115, 2121, 2172). Since the actual existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies in the good and poor working relationship areas remained in similar proportions in the over-all working relationship ratings, it was surmised that whether an agency had a policy or not was not a strong determining factor in the quality of over-all working relationships. The actual existence or nonexistence of another 263 agency's policies ("Yes, there is; Mo, there is not") was one reference framework, and yet the knowledge of one agency regarding the actual existence or nonexistence of a policy was possibly more important (knowing status of policy versus not knowing if a policy existed). Whether an agency had or did not have a policy may not have been as important as the agency's general knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of a policy. Certain policy categories were collapsed and the variables, "knowing" and "not knowing" of the other agency's policy status, were created. (It is inyportant to remember that in all cases both agencies were knowledgeable regarding the status of the other agency's policies approximately SO per cent of the time.) Good and poor working relationship incidents were examined. One difference was found within the school group. In considering good working relationship incidents, the over-all working relationship ratings were lower when school personnel did not know of the existence or non existence of the other agency's policies (PB 2124). When the poor working relationship incidents were examined, this difference did not exist (PB 2124). Law enforcement agencies were likewise analysed. Ho differences were foundi j 264 whether the incidents were representative of good or poor working relationships (PB 1116). These findings indicated that the actual knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's policies for school respondents had some connection with the lower over-all relationship ratings in the good work ing relationship incidents. When schools were examined with regard to poor working relationships, knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of the other agency's poli cies did not vary within the ratings. Law enforcement personnel reported no differences with this knowledge and the over-all relationship ratings given. Apparently, knowledge of the other agency's policy existence and type was not a strong influencing factor in the over-all working relationships as designated by the participants. Summary Law enforcement and school participants differed in respect to their experience compared to over-all working relationships. School participants with ten years or less experience rated over-all working relationships lower than did the more experienced group. Law enforcement partici pants gave similar ratings in both the more experienced 265 and less experienced categories. The number of separate schools served by law enforcement agencies did not reflect any differences in the over-all working relationship ratings. School and law enforcement agencies reported no differences in the over all working relationships when they had less than three and three or more overlapping boundary and attendance area factors. Policy existence and knowledge within each agency and on an interagency basis were examined. It was found that the actual existence or nonexistence of policies within each organization had no correlation to the over all working relationship ratings given by the participants. When each agency had a policy, law respondents reported that their proportions of written and unwritten policies remained the same whether the incident was good or poor and no differences were noted in the over-all working relationship ratings. Schools reported higher ratings in over-all working relationships when their policy was of the unwritten type. Thus, policy existence and type, written or unwritten, did not have an effect on the over all working relationship ratings given by respondents. 266 Both' agencies were analyzed in regard to how well they knew the other agency's policy type and status. It was found that both agencies knew of the other agency's policy type and status approximately 50 per cent of the time, and no differences in working relationships were noted when the other agency did or did not have policies. Both law agency and school respondents reported similar over-all working relationships whether they knew or did not know of the other agency's policies in the nega tive incidents. In considering positive incidents, law enforcement agencies' over-all working relationships re mained similar; however, schools indicated a difference. School personnel rated over-all working relationships lower when they did not know of the other agency's policies in the positive incidents. Knowledge of the other agency's policies had some effect on over-all relationship ratings from the schools' point of view, but relatively little effect from the law enforcement agencies' point of view. Development of Special Scale to Measure Quality of Working Relationships between the Two Agencies At several points in the study it was noted that different proportions of incidents were classified into three working relationship bases. It was also noted that incidents descriptive of working relationships given by schools and law enforcement agencies varied within the working relationship bases. As a result of this finding it was possible to construct a scale which schools and law enforcement agencies could use (1) to predict the likeli hood of good and poor incidents and (2) to measure the quality of the over-all working relationships between the two agencies. All data would be in comparison to similar agencies in the three counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside. Development of the scale Differing numbers of critical incidents were placed into the working relationship bases. Based upon the proportions, it is possible to predict the likelihood of good and poor incidents. The Shuck Incident Ratio and Fox Incident Ratio scales (hereafter known as SIR-FIR scales) for measuring the quality of working relationships are as follows< Directions for use.— To find the quality of over all working relationships by the SIR-FIR scales, the user Have each member of the organization submit one, three, five, or seven incidents describ ing good or poor working relationships. (It is important that the number be odd and not even.) Seventy to one hundred incidents are needed. (Each person must have enough contact with the other agency to respond with actual description of situations concerning good and poor working relationships.) Examine all incidents and classify in the working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact according to criteria presented in Chapter V of this study. Calculate percentages of the good and poor incidents in each working relationship base and divide each per cent by ten. Add the sums of the positive incidents and refer to SIR-FIR value scale for interpreta tion. Coqpare data within each working relationship 269 base on the individual SIR-FIR value aB inter preted in the SIR-FIR ratio table. Example.— One hundred incidents are collected and divided into proper classifications. The example on the following page shows seventy good working relationship incidents and thirty poor working relationship incidents. The SIR-FIR value of 21.6 is interpreted in the SIR-FIR Working Relationship Scale as follows: SIR-FIR WORKING RELATIONSHIP SCALE Value Rating 24-30 Excellent working relationships 18-23 Very good working relationships 14-17 Satisfactory working relationships 0-13 Unsatisfactory working relationships Thus it is seen that the value 21.6 fits into the scale in the "very good working relationships" range. Each working relationship base can also be examined in order to ascertain how it compares within the over-all structure. Examples Working relationship base assistance used in the previous example has SIR-FIR value of 8.6. In consulting the SIR-FIR ratio scale, it is seen that this value (8.6) is higher than the one given (8) and thus EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING THE USB OF THE SIR-FIR VALUE SCALES Working Relationship Bases Good Working Relationship Incidents Poor Working Relationship Incidents Hum ber Per cent SIR- FIR Factor Value Num ber Per cent Factor SIR- FIR Value Information 20 80 -4- 10 = 8.0 5 20 — 10 • ■ 2.0 Assistance 30 86 -i. 10 = 8.6 e 5 10 — 10 • = 1.4 Individual contact 20 50 — 10 = 5.0 e 20 50 -1- 10 • * 5.0 Total SIR-FIR scale value.................. 21.6 7.4* (Used for interpretation) *This value not needed for direct interpretation. M o 271 indicates that this agency has a better working relation ship in the working relationship base of assistance than would be expected. SIR-FIR RATIO SCALE SIR-FIR SIR-FIR Value Ratio Over-all working relationships (all working relationship bases combined) Working relationship base of information Working relationship base of assistance Working relationship base of individual contact 8 8 7*10 of having each contact represent a good work ing relationship 8:10 of having each contact represent a good work ing relationship 8:10 of having each contact represent a good work ing relationship 5:10 of having each contact represent a good work ing relationship Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to present data analysis which would support or reject the three hypotheses of the study. Five specific questions were asked with the intent of finding the influence of certain variables on 272 working relationships. The first hypothesis tested vast Law enforcement agencies and schools use the same bases for judging their working relationships. Bases were found and nameds working relationship base of (1) information, (2) assistance, (3) individual contact, and (4) interagency activities. The small frequencies of incidents classified into the working relationship base of interagency activities did not make it feasible to use this base for statistical treatment throughout the study. This hypothesis was supported. Data in this section were also analyzed and were found to show that total law-school respondents reported seven of each ten incidents reflected good working relationships while three out of ten reflected poor working relationships. Out of each ten law-school incidents six were in the work ing relationship base of assistance; three in the base of information; and one in the base of individual contact. The second hypothesis tested was; Working rela tionships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by law enforcement agencies and schools. Based on the rating scale, overwhelming proportions of good incidents, and the recency of occurrence of the positive incidents. this hypothesis was held tenable. The third hypothesis tested wass There are differ ent conditions surrounding good and poor working relation ships. Sixteen separate variables were tested against the good and poor incidents to prove or disprove this hypothe sis. The total findings obtained did not support this thesis. Of the findings nine variables did not support the hypothesis. The seven remaining variables gave such elusive results that the findings were not conclusive. Following are the findings obtained by analysis of the five questions posed in the study: An agency's desig nation of specific members to work with the opposite agency had no influence on working relationships for schools; how ever, there was an influence on the part of law enforcement agencies. An agency's participation in special programs to promote working relationships had no influence on working relationships. The law participants' years of total serv ice had no influence on working relationships, even though school participants with ten years or less experience rated over-all working relationships lower than did the more experienced group. The patterns of overlapping law en forcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas had 274 negative influence on working relationships, when law agencies served more than two schoolsj there was no appar ent influence with schools. The ratings of over-all work ing relationships had an influence on the working relation ships as described in the critical incidents. Higher working relationship ratings were found when positive incidents were compared to negative incidents. A series of scales was developed known as the "SIR- FIR Working Relationship Scales." These can be used by either agency to measure the quality of existing working relationships and for predicting the frequency of occur rence of either good or poor working relationship inci dents . CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The problem Man has sought many ways to take care of his social needs. School and law enforcement agencies are two products of this search. These agencies have different purposes for their existence. Schools are primarily charged with the responsibility of educating and inducting the young into their culture, whereas law enforcement agen cies have been devised for the basic purpose of keeping the peace. There are many occasions when these two agen cies meet as they serve the needs of norm-violating youngsters. What occurs when these two agencies intersect was the subject of this study. The purpose of this study was to examine and ascertain the working relationships vftiich exist between 276 law enforcement agencies and schools in selected counties of California. The following hypotheses were examinedt (1) Law enforcement agencies and schools use the same bases for judging their working relationships. (2) Work ing relationships will be judged as more favorable than unfavorable by the two agencies. (3) There are different conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships. Specific questions were also to be answeredt (1) What influence does an agency's designation of specific members have on working relationships? (2) What influence does an agency's participation in special pro grams to promote working relationships have on working relationships? (3) What influence does a participant's years of total service have on working relationships? (4) What influence do the different overlapping patterns of law enforcement jurisdictional territories and school attendance areas have on working relationships? (5) What influence do the ratings of over-all working relationships have on working relationships as described in the critical incidents? Law enforcement agencies and schools are both an established part of the American culture. Their need and 277 importance has increased as the nation has grown. There has been a minimal amount of systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the concerted efforts by these two agen cies. Since there are many occasions when responsibilities overlap, there are also working relationships vftiich main tain the effectiveness of each agency. Additional effort is needed in order to define the conditions of working relationships. Several delimitations to the study were employed. The geographic area was delimited to Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties. Participants were limited to mem bers of local police departments and county sheriffs for the law enforcement section and to personnel of unified school districts serving youth in grades seven through twelve. The study was also delimited to the perceptions and descriptions of incidents portraying good and poor working relationships. No attempt was made to judge whether the person giving information describing a good or poor working relationship was using good judgment or whether his perception was accurate. The procedure Since the purpose of this study was to ascertain 278 working relationships and to attempt to find and describe the conditions surrounding good and poor working relation ships, a suitable system for gathering data was necessary. The critical incident technique as described by Flanagan and others was adapted. The survey instrument was developed with the assistance of the American Institute for Research and validated through various personnel of the law and school organizations. The final survey instrument was distributed to 388 participants in local police departments and sheriffs' organizations of Los Angeles, Orange, and River side counties. There were 988 survey instruments distrib uted to personnel at the junior high and high school levels in unified school districts of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. From this number, 76.2 per cent (671) were returned from school participants, and 84.5 per cent (328) were returned from law enforcement participants. All responses were reviewed. A classification system was devised and all usable incidents were placed into the system. All data were transferred to punch cards for data j processing purposes. Three statistical programs were ; I i employed in order to complete data processing. One program 279 was used for item analysis of selected variables. Two chi-square statistical programs were used in order to determine the proportion of similarities and dissimilari ties in the good and poor working relationships within the various agencies. Analysis was also made in order to determine the likenesses and differences within selected variables of the two agencies— law enforcement and schools. Findings The findings based upon the data are presented in this section. Bases for judging working relationships Findings specifically related to the bases for judging working relationships were as follows: 1. Schools and law enforcement agencies use four bases to make judgments concerning good and poor working relationships. They have been termed "working relationship bases" and en titled: information, assistance, individual contact, and interagency activities. These are compared as follows: i Information: The working relationship base of information is composed of inter actions concerning the volunteering or non volunteering of information; giving or not giving information requested; obtaining or not obtaining information requested; dis cussing and making mutual plans or not discussing and not making mutual plans; and using or not using volunteered informa tion. Assistance: The working relationship base of assistance is composed of interactions consisting of giving and using or not giv ing and not using assistance with actual or potential problems; giving or not giv ing assistance in cooperation with special programs or plans to promote the safety or general welfare of students; and giving or not giving assistance for joint and/or mutual solving of problems tdiich are not the primary responsibility of law or school] agencies. 281 c. Individual contacts The working relation ship base of individual contact is composed of interactions concerning the making or not making of proper arrangements for pupil or staff interviews proper or improper con ducting of a pupil or staff interview; making or not making proper arrangements for the arrest of pupil or staff member; and the proper or improper arresting of student or staff member. d. Interagency activities; The working rela tionship base of interagency activities is composed of interactions concerning the participation or nonparticipation in broad community planning involving three or more agencies on behalf of youth. 2. The working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact account for virtually all of the law enforcement-school interaction. 3. It was possible to use the working relationship i i base classification system to classify all law I 282 enforcement and school relationship incidents. 4. The total number of good and poor working relationship incidents reported within each working relationship base occurred in different proportions within the law enforcement and school agencies as follows: a. Schools reported the use of law enforcement services most often in the working rela tionship base of assistance. b. Law enforcement agencies reported the use of schools most often in the working rela tionship base of information. 5. Law enforcement agencies and schools reported their largest proportions of good and poor working relationship incidents in different working relationship bases as follows: a. Schools reported the largest occurrence of good and poor working relationships in the working relationship base of assist ance. b. Law enforcement agencies reported the largest occurrence of good working rela 283 tionships in the working relationship base of information and the highest frequency of poor working relationships in the work ing relationship base of individual con tact . 6. Total law-school respondents did not report good and poor working relationship incidents in similar proportions within each working relationship base. The proportions were as follows $ a. Zn the working relationship base of infor mation eight out of ten incidents were good; two out of ten incidents were poor. b. In the working relationship base of assistance eight out of ten incidents were good; two out of ten incidents were poor. c. In the working relationship base of individual contact five out of ten inci dents were good; five out of ten incidents were poor. d. In the combined law-school working rela- i tionship bases seven out of ten incidents j | 284 were good; three out of ten were poor; six out of ten were in the working relationship base of assistance; three out of ten were in the working relationship base of infor mation; and one out of ten was in the work ing relationship base of individual con tact. Favorable and unfavorable working relationships Findings related to favorable and unfavorable work ing relationships were as follows x 1. Participants from law enforcement agencies and schools rated over-all working relationships with the other agency in the satisfactory and above range to a significant level. This was measured on a scale from one to seven. One to five was defined as less than satisfactory with six to seven defined as satisfactory or better. 2. Law enforcement agencies rated over-all working! I i relationships slightly higher than did schools.j 3. Law enforcement agencies and schools did not ! 285 report incidents in the working relationship bases in similar proportions. Law enforcement agencies reported the frequency of incidents classified into the working relationship bases in the following rank orders information, assistance, individual contact. For schools the order was: assistance, information, individual contact. 4. Law enforcement agencies and schools gave incidents in different proportions in favor of good working relationships. Nearly all par ticipants gave good working relationship inci dents! however, only one-third gave poor work ing relationship incidents. 5. Good working relationship incidents had occurred more recently than had the poor work ing relationship incidents reported by law enforcement and school respondents. : Conditions surrounding good and poor working relationships Findings related to the conditions surrounding : good and poor working relationships were as follows s 286 1. Law enforcement and school agencies reported the existence of policies in the same propor tions for the good and poor working relation ship incidents. 2. Law and school respondents reported incidents initiated by themselves more often than those initiated by the opposite agency. 3. Law enforcement agencies were reported by both agencies as initiating more poor working rela tionship incidents than schools. 4. Law enforcement respondents providing good working relationship incidents gave lower over-all working relationship ratings compared to respondents who gave poor working relation ship incidents. The opposite was found to be true for schools. 5. Both law and school personnel in the low over all working relationship rating group (one to five on the seven-point scale) gave a larger proportion of good working relationship inci dents in the working relationship base of j information coiqpared to the high rating groups j 287 (six to seven on the seven-point rating scale). 6. Both law and school participants in the high over-all working relationship rating group gave a larger proportion of good working relationship incidents in the working relation ship base of assistance compared to the low rating groups. 7. School participants in the low over-all working relationship rating group gave a larger pro portion of incidents in the working relation ship base of information; whereas the high over-all working relationship rating group gave a larger proportion of incidents in the working relationship base of individual con tact. 8. Law participants of the high and low over-all working relationship rating groups reported working relationship incidents in the same proportions for information, assistance, and j individual contact. i I 1 288 Designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency Findings related to the designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency and working rela tionships were as follows* 1. Schools designated specific members to work with the opposite agency more often than did law enforcement agencies. 2. Both law enforcement agencies and schools par ticipated in more programs to promote working relationships when they had specific members designated to work with the opposite agency. 3. Law enforcement agencies initiated a higher proportion of poor working relationship inci dents when they did not have a specific member designated to work with schools. 4. Law enforcement and school agencies that designated specific members to work with the opposite agency rated over-all working rela tionships similarly to law enforcement and j school agencies that did not designate specific members to work with the opposite agency. 289 Participation in special programs to promote working relationships Findings related to an agency's participation in special programs and working relationships were as follows: 1. Law enforcement agencies participated more often than schools in special programs to pro mote working relationships. 2. Law enforcement and school respondents whose agencies participated in special programs to promote working relationships rated over-all working relationships in the same proportions as participants whose agencies did not partic ipate in special programs to promote working relationships. 3. Law enforcement agencies serving one to fifteen schools participated in special programs to promote working relationships in the same pro portion as did law enforcement agencies serv ing sixteen or more schools. 4. Law enforcement agencies and schools serving or being served by two or less of the opposite ' i agencies reported participating in special programs to promote working relationships in _j 290 the same proportion as those agencies serving or being served by three or more of the oppo site agencies. 5. A larger proportion of junior high schools participated in special programs to promote working relationships than did high schools or other school organizational patterns. 6. Law enforcement and school agencies partici pating in special programs to promote working relationships initiated contacts with each other in similar proportions as did agencies not participating in special programs. Years of total service and working relationships Findings related to total years of service and working relationships were as followss 1. Law and school respondents in the less experi enced (one to ten years of service) and more experienced (eleven or more years of service) groups reported similar proportions of their | existing policies in the good and poor working relationship incidents. i 291 2. In the more experienced groups law agency participants reported the largest proportion of existing policies in the working relationship base of assistance; schools reported the larg est proportion of existing policies in the working relationship base of individual con tact. 3. Law and school respondents in both experience groups reported the existence of the other agency's policies in similar proportions in the good and poor working relationship incidents. Patterns of law enforcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas Findings related to patterns of law enforcement jurisdictions and school attendance areas were as follows: 1. Law enforcement respondents trtiose agencies serve two or less, compared to three or more, school districts reported designation and non designation of specific members to work with schools in similar proportions. I 2. Respondents of schools served by two or less, j coopered to three or more, law enforcement j 292 agencies reported designation and nondesigna tion of specific members to work with law enforcement agencies in similar proportions, 3. Law enforcement respondents rated over-all working relationships lower when dealing with three or more school districts than when deal ing with two or less school districts. 4. School participants rated over-all working relationships in similar proportions when served by three or more compared to two or less law enforcement agencies. 5. Respondents of law enforcement agencies serving two or less or three or more school districts reported similar proportions of participation and nonparticipation in special programs to promote working relationships. 6. Schools served by two or less or three or more law enforcement agencies reported similar pro portions of participation and nonparticipation in special programs to promote working rela tionships. Over-all working relationship ratings and the critical incidents Findings related to over-all working relationship ratings and the critical incidents were as followss 1. The less experienced (ten years or less) law agency personnel gave ratings of the over-all working relationships in similar proportions on the seven-point rating scale to those rat ings of the more experienced (eleven years or more) law agency personnel on the same scale. 2. The less experienced school respondents gave a lower over-all working relationship rating than did the more experienced school respond ents on the seven-point rating scale. 3. Members of law enforcement agencies serving one to fifteen schools rated over-all working relationships in similar proportions on a seven-point scale to those of the group serv ing sixteen schools or more. I I 4. Personnel of high school and junior high school] i organizational structures reported similar over-all working relationship ratings on the 294 seven-point scale. 5. School and law enforcement respondents whose agencies were involved with differing patterns of law agency jurisdictions and school attend ance areas (two or less agencies compared to three or more agencies) reported over-all work ing relationships in similar proportions on the seven-point rating scale. 6. School participants reporting positive inci dents with the knowledge of the other agency's policy status rated over-all working relation ships higher than did those without such knowl edge. Law agency participants reported no differences in the over-all working relation ships whether they did or did not know of the other agency's policy status. Conclusions The conclusions drawn from the data presented in this study are as follows s 1. Good over-all working relationships exist be- j i tween law enforcement agencies and school 295 districts. 2. No serious problems exist between law enforce ment and school agencies. 3. There are identifiable bases upon which working relationships between law enforcement agencies and schools are formed. They aret information, assistance, individual contact, and inter agency activities. 4. The findings gave only limited support to the identification of conditions which could be used by law enforcement agencies and schools to formulate and implement plans to improve working relationships. 5. Both law and school agencies are relatively uninformed regarding the policy status which guides the operation and function of the opposite agency. 6. The designation of specific members to work with the opposite agency by law and school agencies has minimal effect on working rela tionships as measured in the study. However, | i this practice has more value to law enforcement! 296 agencies than to schools. 7. Law enforcement and school agencies'partici pation in special programs to promote working relationships between the two agencies did not have a profound effect on the working relation ships as measured in this study. 8. Existence of policy in written or unwritten form or total nonexistence of policy had little effect upon law enforcement and school working relationships. 9. The three major working relationship bases are not used in similar proportions by law enforcement agencies and schools. Law agencies used the working relationship base of informa tion most frequently, while schools used the base of assistance most often. 10. Patterns of overlapping law enforcement juris dictions and school attendance areas had some negative effect on the working relationships as viewed by law enforcement agencies; how ever, these conditions had no effect on the I working relationships reported by schools. 297 11. The working relationship base of individual contact has the highest proportion of poor working relationship incidents. Both agencies reported poor incidents five out of ten times in this base. Recommendations During the course of the study a detailed analysis of responses was made. Based upon the findings and con clusions developed within the study the investigators make the following recommendations: 1. Meetings should be planned between law enforce ment and school agencies in order to discuss the working relationship bases of information, assistance, and individual contact concerning the implication for each agency's function. 2. Policies containing the working relationship bases should be developed jointly by law enforcement and school agencies, put in written form, and reviewed periodically for purposes of evaluation. (Even though it was found that | i policies apparently did not have an influence j 298 on the general over-all working relationships, there were enough uninformed individuals to cause the investigators to suspect that the problem may be more in the communication of the existence than in their existence.) 3. Experimentation should take place in order to test the feasibility of adopting identical policies in the working relationship bases by law enforcement and school agencies. 4. The participation in special programs to pro mote working relationships by law enforcement and school agencies (with each other) should be carefully examined in order to identify clearly goals and methods of procedure to in sure maximum effectiveness for efforts ex pended. 5. Law enforcement agencies should increase the practice of designation of specific members to work with schools. 6. Recommendations for further study are made as follows t a. Further study should be made to determine the conditions that affect good and poor working relationships between law enforce ment and school agencies. This recommenda tion is made since the variables considered in this study did not provide definitive data applicable to an understanding of differences in conditions surrounding law- school good and poor working relationships. Study should be made of working relation ships of law enforcement, school, and pro bation agencies. The need for this three- way study is supported by law-school comments showing confusion concerning respective roles of the three agencies' work in the behalf of youth. BIBLIOGRAPHY L_ BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Corbally, John E., and Others. Educational Adminis trations The Secondary School. Boston* Allyn and Bacon, 1961. Daily Training Bulletin: Los Angeles Police Depart ment. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1958. Douglass, Harl R. Modern Administration of Secondary Schools. New York: Ginn and Company, 1963. Faunce, Ronald C. Secondary School Administration. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Glueck, Sheldon, and Glueck, Eleanor. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1950. Gourley, G. Douglas. Public Relations and the Police. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1953. Gruhn, William T., and Douglass, Harl R. The Modern Junior High School. New York: Ronald Press, 1956 Hagman, Harlan L. The Administration of American Public Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1951. Holman, Mary. The Police Officer and the Child. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1962. 302 10. Kenny, John P., and Pursuit, Dan 6. Police Work with Juveniles. Springfield, Illinois* Charles C. Thomas, 1959. 11. Melby, Ernest 0. Administering Community Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseyi Prentice-Hall, 1955. 12. Hiller, Van, and Spalding, Willard B. The Public Administration of American Schools. New Yorks The World Book Coqpany, 1958. 13. Moehlman, Arthur B. School Administration. Bostons Houghton Mifflin, 1951. 14. Mort, Paul R. Principles of School Administration. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1946. 15. Neumeyer, Martin H. Juvenile Delinquency in Modern Society. New Yorks D. Van Nostrand Company, 1949. 16. Noar, Gertrude. The Junior High School-Todav and Tomorrow. Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys Prentice- Hall, 1961. 17. Pittenger, Benjamin Floyd. Local Public School Administration. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1951. 18. Shane, Harold G., and Yauch, Wilbur A. Creative School Administration. New Yorks Henry Holt and Coiqpany, 1954. 19. Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Juvenile Delinquency. Springfield, Illinoiss Charles C. Thomas, 1962. I ! : 20. Tappan, Paul W. Juvenile Delinquency. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1949. i : I : 21. Wahlquist, John T., and Others. The Administration of Public Education. New Yorks Ronald Press, 1952. i i_ 303 22. Winters, John E. Crime and Kids. Springfield, Illinoiss Charles C. Thomas, 1959. Articles from Periodicals 23. Bristow, William H. "Action Through the Schools," Education. LXXXX (March, 1961), 410-42. 24. Cain, Leo. "Delinquency and the School," School Life. XXXV (February, 1953), 65-66, 75. 25. Cook, L. A. "The School's Role in Relation to Area Youth Agencies," Educational Leadership. IX (January, 1952), 225-29. 26. Cox, Katherine C. "A Community with a Conscience," Educational Digest. XVII (April, 1952), 24-26. 27. Deschin, C. S. "Teenagers and Venereal Diseases," Children. IX (July, 1962), 144-48. 28. Dienstein, William. "Conflict of Beliefs about Causes of Delinquency," Crime and Delinquency. VI (July, 1960), 287-93. 29. Dodson, Dan, and Widertis, Florence. "Schools and Other Community Agencies," School Executive. LXXIII (December, 1953), 19-21. 30. Eichorn, John R. "Research and Delinquency! Some Reflections," Exceptional Children. XXIX (April, 1963), 385-90. 31. English, R. "Providing for Junior High School Students with Problems," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXXII (October, 1957), 362-65. j 32. Fenderson, Bill. "What's Behind the Problem of Local j Juvenile Delinquency?" The Police Chief. XXV j (June, 1958), 7-11. 304 33. Fickles, J. A. "School, Home, Community Are not Institutions Apart," Educational Leadership. XIV (Hay, 1957), 495-98. 34. Flanagan, John C. "The Critical Incident Technique," Psychological Bulletin. LI (July, 1954), 323-58. 35. Glasser, Melvin A. "Groups Working Together— A Rich Resource," Childhood Education. XXVIII (March, 1952), 293-96. 36. Goldman, N. "School Vandalism," Educational Digest. XXVI (December, 1960), 1-4. 37. Grant, Bruce. "Surveys of Studies on Problems of Adolescents," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXVIII (May, 1953), 293-97. 38. Grant, Marguerite Q., and Warren, Martin. "Alter nates to Institutionalization," Children. X (July, 1963), 147-52. 39. Havighurst, Robert J. "Dealing with Problem Youth," Nation's Schools. LXI (May, 1958), 43-45. 40. Hill, Arthur S., and Others. "Schools Face the Delinquency Problem," National Association of Secondary School Principals. XXXVII, 181-221. 41. Hoover, J. E. "Law Enforcement Views Education for Leisure," Education. LXXI (October, 1950), 92-98. 42. Houwer, Don, and Mulock, Q. R. "Children— A Universal Concern," Children. IX (May, 1962), 91-97. | 43. Ivey, John E., Jr. "The School's Relationship With Other Community Agencies," School Executive. LXX (May, 1951), 19-22. 44. Kahn, Alfred J. "First Principles in Planning Com munity Services to Deal with Children in Trouble," | Social Service Review. XXX (December, 1956), 415-27. 305 45. . "Functions of Youth Police in an integrated Community Plan for Helping Children in Trouble," Journal of Educational Sociology. XXIV (May, 1951), 534-43. 46. Kvaraceus, William C. "Juvenile Delinquency! Sin, Sickness, Sport, or What?" Education. LXXXI (March, 1961), 387-400. 47. . "Schools and Delinquency," California Youth Authority Quarterly. XII, Wo. 3 (Fall, 1959), 37-39. 48. Lohman, Joseph D. "A Sociologist-Sheriff Speaks Out about juvenile Delinquency," Phi Delta Kappan. XXXIX (February, 1958), 206-14. 49. Mayer, Jane. "A Community Cares for Its Own," Childhood Education. XXI (September, 1944), 23-25. 50. Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Critical Incident Techniques in Education Evaluation," Journal of Educational Research. XLIX (April, 1956), 591-98. 51. McKesson, W. B. "The School's Relationship to Juve nile Delinquency from a Judge's Viewpoint," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXX (December, 1955), 483-86. 52. Michelson, Bettie E. "Vandalism in Our Schools," Educational Digest. XXII (September, 1956), 13-15. 53. "Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth- Selected Recommendations," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXVI (January, 1951), 58-59. 54. Miller, R. D., and Flanagan, J. C. "The Performance Recordi An Objective Merit-Rating Procedure for Industry," American Psychologist. V (1950), 331-32. 55. Moch, P. R. "Administrative Concern with the Com munity, " School Executive. LXXI (February, 1952), 41-43. i 306 56. Nevraumont, Norman. "The Community That Cares," California Youth Authority Quarterly. IX, No. 3 (Fall, 1956), 25-26. 57. Parks, E. C. "The Case for Counseling," School and Community. XLIX (Nay, 1963), 18-19. 58. Peeler, Annie Laurie. "Different Agencies Work on Delinquency," Childhood Education. XXXII (April, 1956), 361-64. 59. Perils, Leo. "A Community Is People," Journal of Educational Sociology. XXVII (December, 1953), 182-86. 60. Rogers, Amy F. "Pupil Attendance and the Casework Process," High Points. XL (April, 1958), 45-50. 61. Sanders, Nort. "Community Approach to Delinquency Prevention," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXX (December, 1955), 494-97# 62. Seeber, Clifford. "Working With Community Agencies," School Executive. LXXI (September, 1951), 68-69. 63. Siegler, J. "Legal Controls of Delinquency," Education, LXXVE (November, 1955), 193-95. 64. Simon, Walter B. "Youth and Authority," Education Digest. XXIX (September, 1963), 16-18. 65. Slawson, J. "Coordinating Community Forces for Action," Education Digest. XXIII (November, 1957), 22-25. 66. Smucker, 0. C. "What Is a Community?" Educational Leadership. XVII (February, 1960), 274-78. 67. Stullken, Edward H. "Schools and the Delinquency Problem," Journal of Criminal Law. Criminology and Police Science7 XLIII (1953), 563-77. : 68. Swanson, Lynn D. "Police and Children," The Police I _ Chief. XXV (June, 1958), 18-26.__________________ 307 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. Thomas, F. If. "Our Community Partnership." Califor nia Journal of Secondary Education, XXIV (November, 1949), 391-93. Thrasher, Frederic M. "Some Principles Underlying Community Coordination," Journal of Educational Sociology. XVIII (March, 1945), 387-400. Turner, Rex H. "Cooperation Cures Oakland Truancy Problem," American School Board Journal. CXV (December, 1947), 24-25. Wattenberg, William W. "Police-Teacher Amity," Childhood Education. XXXII (April, 1952), 365-67. Wolfe, D. P. "The School's Role in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency," Journal of Educational Sociology. XXXVI (October, 1962), 89-92. Publications of Professional Organizations Beers, Howard W. "American Communities," in the Fifty-Second Yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education, The Community School. Part II. Chicago, Illinoist University of Chicago Press, 1953. Flanagan, John C. (ed.). The Aviation Psychology Program in the Army Air Forces. Report No. 1. Army Air Forces Aviation Psychological Program Research Reports. Washington, D. C.s Government Printing Office, 1948. Gorham, W. A., and Marchese, A. "Staff Nursing Be haviors Contributing to Patient Care and Improve ment." Pittsburgh, Pennsylvanias American Institute for Research, 1958. Hanna, Paul R. "The Community School and Larger Geo- j graphic Areas,” in the Fifty-Second Yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education, The 308 Community School, Part IX. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1953. 78. Hull, J. Dan, and Cummings, Howard. "Discovering the Extent to Which Youth Needs Are Being Met," in the Fifty-Second Yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education, Adapting the Secondary School Program to the Needs of Youth. Part I. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1953. 79. Kvaraceus, William C., and Others. Delinguent Behavior: Culture and the Individual. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959. 80. . Delinguent Behavior: Principles and Prac tices . Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959. 81. McCluskey, Howard Y. "How Community Agencies May Help with Problems of Delinquency," in the Forty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Juvenile Delinquency and the Schools. Part I. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1948. 82. O'Connor, George W., and Watson, Nelson A. Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Washington, D. C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1964. 83. Ovsiew, Leon. Bmayginq Practices in School Adminis tration. New York: Published by the Metropolitan School Study Council and Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, 1953. I 84. Preston, Hardy 0. The Development of a Procedure for j Evaluating Officers in the United States Air Force. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: American Institute for Research, 1948. : i ; i t j i I i | i i 309 Unpublished Materials 85. Eilbert, Leo R., McNamara, John H., and Hanson, Vernon L. "Research on Selection and Training for Police Recruits," First Annual Report of the American Institute for Research, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1961. 86. Eriksen, Walter Barth. "A Critical Evaluation of the Superintendent-Principal Administrative Relation ship in the Elementary Schools of Southern Cali fornia," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1960. 87. Guthrie, Robert C. "Law Enforcement and the Juvenile: A Study of Police Interaction with Delinquents." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1963. 88. Nelson, Elmer K., Jr. "A Study of the Role and Function of the Prison Officer." Unpublished Doctor'8 dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1959. 89. Pfiffner, John M. "The Function of the Police in a Democratic Society." University of Southern California Youth Studies Center, Los Angeles, 1963. 90. . "Needed: A Geopolitical Approach to Law Observance." University of Southern California Youth Studies Center, Los Angeles, 1964. i 91. . "Parameters of the Role of the Police in Dealing with juveniles." University of Southern j California Youth Studies Center, Los Angeles, 1963. (Cited with special permission by the author.) | j * ! | 92. Thompson, Wayne E. "Law Enforcement in the Central j City Everybody's Responsibility." Paper read before the Seventh Annual Institute on Police and i i 310 Community Relations, University of Southern Cali fornia, Los Angeles, February 6, 1964. 93. Wolfe, John C. "A Critical Evaluation of the Business Administrator-Superintendent Relationship in the Public Schools of California.*1 Unpublished Doc tor 's dissertation. University of Southern Cali fornia, Los Angeles, 1962. 94. Zeyen, Louis G. "Relationships of Planning Commis sions and School Districts.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958. Public Documents 95. City of Los Angeles. Department of Schools. Guide to Schools and Offices. 1963. 96. County of Lob Angeles. Department of Community Services. Case Conference Committees in Action. 1962. 97. . Department of Schools. Child Welfare and Attendance in the Public Schools of Los Angeles County. 1962. 98. . Department of Schools. Directory of Los Angeles Countv Schools. 1963. 99. . Department of the Sheriff. Juvenile Laws and Procedures of the Los Angeles Countv Sheriff's Department. Juvenile Bureau. 1963. I 100. . Department of the Sheriff. Manual of Juvenile Procedures. 1962. j 101. County of Orange. Department of Schools. Directory of Orange County Schools. 1963. 311 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. County of Riverside. Department of Schools. Directory of Riverside County Schools. 1963. State of California. Department of Education. Attendance Accounting in California Public Schools Vol. XXXII, November, 1963. . Department of Education. The Role of the School in the Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency. 1960. . Department of Justice. Crime in Califor nia. I960. . Department of justice. Crime in Califor nia. 1962. . Department of Justice. Delinquency and Probation in California. 1960. ■ Department of the Youth Authority. California Laws Relating to Youthful Offenders. 1961. . Department of the Youth Authority. Directory of California Juvenile Law Enforcement Officers. 1963. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A Loolc at Juvenile Delinquency. 1960. . How Effective Are Services for the Treat ment of Delinquents? 1960. . Police Work with Children, 1962. . Report to the Congress on Juvenile Delinquency. 1960. A P P E N D IX E S APPENDIX A JUVENILE ARRESTS JUVENILE ARRESTS AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL ARRESTS DURING I960 (107) Selected Offenses P e r C e n t HOMICIDE ROBBERY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT BURGLARY AUTO THEFT NARCOTICS 20 40 80 100 KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (CXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 80 100 40 20 APPENDIX B EXTRACTS FROM WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE APPLICABLE TO THE STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA EXTRACTS FROM WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE (99) Jurisdiction 600. Any person under the age of 21 years who com es within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge such person to be a dependent child of the court: (a) Who is in need of proper and effective parental care or control and has no parent or guardian* or has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care or control* or has no parent or guardian actually exercising such care or control. (b) Who is destitute* or who is not provided with the n ecessities of life or who is not provided with a home or suitable place of abode* or whose home is an untit place for him by reason of neglect* cruelty, or depravity of either of his parents* or of his guardian or other person in whose custody or care he is . 601. Any person under the age of 21 years who persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or direc tions of his parents* guardian, custodian or school authorities, or who is beyond the control of such person* or any person who is a habitual truant from school within the meaning of any law of this State* or who from any cause is in danger of leading an idle, d isso lute, lewd* or im m oral life, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court. 602. Any person under the age of 21 years who violates any law of this State or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this State defining crim e or who* after having been found by the juvenile court to be a parson described by Section 601* fails to obey any lawful order of the juvenile court, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court. 317 603. No court shall have jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary examination or to try the case of any person upon an accusatory pleading charging such person with the com m ission of a public offense or crim e when such person was under the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged com m ission thereof unless the matter has first been submitted to the juvenile court by petition as provided in A rticle 7 (commencing with Section 650), and said juvenile court has made an order directing that such person be prosecuted under the general law. Temporary Custody and Detention 625. A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reason able cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Sections 600, 601, or 602, or (b) Who is a ward or dependent child of the juvenile court or con cerning whom an order has been made under Section 636 or 702, when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that person has violated an order of the juvenile court or has escaped from any com mitment ordered by the juvenile court, or (c) Who is under the age of 21 years and who is found in any street or public place suffering from any sickness or injury which requires care, medical treatment, hospitalization, or other remedial case. APPENDIX C EXTRACTS OF STATE LAWS RELATED TO JUVENILES 319 EXCERPTS FROM CHILD WELFARE AND ATTENDANCE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (97) Compulsory L a w —Attendance 12101. Each parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of any child between the age* of eight and sixteen years, not exempted under the provisions of this chapter, shall send the child to the public full-tim e day school for the full time for which the public schools of the city, city and county, or school district in which the child lives are in session . 12102. Any parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of any minor between the ages of eight and sixteen who r e m oves the minor from any city, city and county, or school district before the completion of the current school term, shall enroll the minor in a public full-tim e school of the city, city and county, or school district to which the minor is removed* Legal Provisions on Truancy 12401. Any child may be reported as a truant, in the meaning of this article who has been absent from school without valid excuse more than three days, or tardy on more than three days. Any absence for a part of a day is a tardiness. 12402. Any child who has once been reported as a truant and who is again absent from school without valid excuse one or more days, or tardy one or m ore days, may again be reported as a truant. 12403. Any child is deem ed an habitual truant who has been r e ported as a truant three or more times* \ 12404. Any child who has once been declared an habitual truant and who, in a succeeding year is reported as a truant from school one or more days, or tardy on one or m ore days without valid excuse, may again be declared an habitual truant. 320 12405. The attendance supervisor, any peace officer, or any school officer; shall arrest, during school hours, without warrant, any child between eight and sixteen years of age, found away from his home and who has been reported to him by the teacher, the superin* tendent of schools, or other person connected with the school depart ment or schools as a truant from instruction upon which he is lawfully required to attend, within the county, city, or city and county, or school district. 12406. The arresting officer shall forthwith deliver the child arrested either to the parent, guardian, or other person having con trol, or charge of the child, or to the teacher from whom the child is a truant, or, if the child has been declared an habitual truant, he shall bring the child before a magistrate for commitment by him to a parental school. 12407. The attendance supervisor or other arresting officer shall promptly report the arrest, and the disposition made by him of the child to the school authorities of the city, or city and county, or school district. 12408. If any child in any district of a county is an habitual truant or is irregular in attendance at school, as defined in this article, commencing at Section 12401, or is habitually insubordinate or d is orderly during attendance at school, the county superintendent of schools shall request a petition on his behalf in his behalf in the juvenile court of the county. Lega^Provisimis^in^usgension and Expulsion 10601. Teachers may suspend, for good cause, any pupil from the school, and shall report the suspension to the governing board of the school district for review. If the action is not sustained by them, the teacher may appeal to the county superintendent, whose decision shall be final. I 10602. Continued willful disobedience, open and persistent defiance | of the authority of the teacher, habitual profanity or vulgarity, upon school prem ises, constitute good cause for suppension or expulsion from school. Smoking or having tobacco on school prem ises j 321 constitutes good cause for the suspension or expulsion of a pupil except when permitted as provided in this section* The governing board of any school district maintaining a junior college may adopt rules and regulations permitting the smoking and possession of tobacco on the campus of a junior college by pupils of the junior college eighteen years of age and over and enrolled in grades above twelfth* if the campus is not shared with a high school. 10603. The governing board of any school district may suspend or expel a pupil whenever it is established to the satisfaction of the board that the pupil has on or near the school premises* used, sold* or been in possession of narcotics. 10604. It is unlawful for any pupil* enrolled in any elementary or secondary school of this State* to join or become a member of any secret fraternity* sorority, or club* wholly or partly formed from the membership of pupils attending the public schools or to take part in the organization or formation of any fraternity, sorority* or secret club. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any pupil from joining the order of the Native Sons of the Golden West* Native Daughters of the Golden West* F oresters of America* or any other kindred organizations not directly associated with the public schools of the State. The governing board of any school district may make and enforce all rules and regulations needful for the government and discipline of the schools under its charge. Any governing board shall enforce the provisions of this section by suspending* or, if necessary* expelling a pupil in any elementary or secondary school who refuses or neglects to obey any such rules or regulations. 10605. The governing board of any school district shall suspend or expel pupils for misconduct when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. 10606. Any pupil who willfully cuts, defaces* or otherwise injures in any way any property* real or personal, belonging to a school district is liable to suspension or expulsion* and the parent or guard-| ian shall be liable for all damages so caused by the pupil. The parent or guardian of a pupil shall be liable for all damages so caused by the pupil. The parent or guardian of a pupil shall be liable to a school district for all property belonging to the school district 322 loaned to the pupil and not returned upon demand of an employee of the district authorized to make the demand. 10607. No pupil shall be suspended from an elementary school for more than two consecutive weeks. No pupil shall be suspended from a secondary school for more than the duration of the current sem ester. For secondary schools not operated on the basis of a school term regularly divided into sem esters, the governing board shall select a date approximating the midpoint of the term for purposes of the preceding sentence. All summer school sessions maintained at a secondary school shall, for purposes of this paragraph, be deemed to constitute a single sem ester. 10608. If a pupil is expelled from school, the parent or guardian of the pupil may appear to the county board of education which shall hold a hearing thereon and render its decision. The decision of the county board of education shall be final and binding upon the parent or guardian and the governing board expelling the pupil. 10609. All pupils shall comply with the regulations, pursue the required course of study, and submit to the authority of the teachers of the schools. APPENDIX D LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCES AFFECTING JUVENILES (97) Alcohol and Liquor Consume, se ll, give, or deliver liquor to any person in or on any public schoolhouse or grounds. (B .P . C. 25608 and C.O. 5912) Consume liquor on a public highway, whether in a vehicle or not, or to enter or to remain in a vehicle on a public highway while any occupant is consuming liquor. (C. O. 4027) Becom e intoxicated and wilfully appear, remain or be in or on, any public highway, street, alleyway, park, playground or public place, or to remain, or be in or on, any place open to public view, or in any store, railway depot, stadium or other place to which the public is invited; or in or on any private prem ises to the annoyance of any other person, (C.O . 1735 and 1735-1/2) Vehicles (Bicycle) Operate a bicycle or motor vehicle on a sidewalk or parkway, or to park a motor vehicle between the curb and adjacent sidewalk. (C.O . 6544 - Sec. 1401) Ride on or carry a person on the handle bars of a bicycle or m otorcycle. (C.O . 6544 - Sec. 1402) Cling to or attach to any moving vehicle or street car while riding on a bicycle, m otorcycle, toy vehicle or any other moving device. (C.O . 6544 - Sec. 1404) Leave the keys in the ignition or the ignition unlocked of any ; unattended motor vehicle upon any highway. (C .O . 6544 - Sec. 3110) | 325 Crime Comica Sell* circulate, exhibit, give away, e tc ., any crime "comic" book to any child under eighteen. (C.O . 6633) Curfew No person under eighteen may, or be allowed or permitted to loiter about the public streets, highways or public places after 10:00 P.M . and before sunrise, unless accompained by parent, guardian or spouse over twenty-one years. (C.O. 3611 as amended by 4793) Entertainment Places Under eighteen to enter or remain in or be permitted to enter or remain in any public billiard room unless accompained by one parent or a legal guardian. (C.O. 5860 - Secs. 453 and 454) Under twenty-one to enter or to remain in or be permitted to enter or remain in any public billiard room if alcoholic beverages are sold, dispensed or offered for sale. (C.O. 5860 - Secs. 455 and 456) Under twenty-one to enter or remain on or be permitted to enter or remain on the prem ises of any card club. (C.O. 5860 - Sec. 885) Under eighteen to enter, be or dance in or be permitted to enter, be or dance in any public dance or club dance unless a c compained by a parent or legal guardian. Unless in a bona fide hotel, cafe or other place where m eals are regularly served and minor does not dance. Or unless at place where classic dancing is principal subject taught. Or unless at a properly licensed and conducted "teen-age" dance. (C .O . 5860 - Secs. 2093 and 2094) 326 Weapons Sell, give, loan or furnish, or permit to be sold, etc*, to any person under eighteen any gun, revolver, pistol, firearm , spring gun, air-gun, sling-shot, e t c ., or ammunition for sam e. (C.O. 1567) F ire, discharge, shoot, or operate, or a ssist in doing same, or have in one's possession, care, custody, or control any item in the above section, if person is under eighteen unless with perm ission of parent or guardian, and under direct supervision and control of some adult person twenty-one years or over. (C.O. 1567) Shoot, fire, or discharge or to cause or permit same to be done, and firearm s within all but a very few specifically designated areas of the County, unless it is a peace officer acting in official capacity or other person, when necessary to protect life or property, or to destroy or kill any predatory or dangerous animal. (C.O. 1769) Manufacture, import, se ll, give, lend or p ossess dangerous or deadly weapons, such as black-jacks, sling-shots, b illies, sand- clubs, sandbags or metal knuckles, or to carry concealed upon the person explosive substances, dirks or daggers; or concealed upon the person or within any vehicle any pistol, revolver or firearm capable of being concealed thereupon or therein without a proper license. (C.O . 421) Have any firearm in a public park in Los Angeles County. (C.O. 774) Sell a dirk or dagger or any knife with a blade three or more inches in length, or snap blade or spring knife of any length to any minor except under definite restrictions. (C.O. 6635) Identification Cards Make an identification card for any person except under rigid provisions; use an identification card incorrectly identifying to bearer; to permit another person to make unlawful use of his or her identification card. (C. O. 5860 amended by C. O. 6586) 327 Loitering Obstruct or in any way hinder, free passage by loitering, standing or sitting or by leaving or permitting merchandise, baggage or personal property to remain in, on, or at: any public highway, alley, sidewalk, or crosswalk (newspaper racks excepted under certain conditions), the entrance of any church, hall, theater, or place of public assem blage, (C.O. 625) loiter about any school or public place at or near which school children attend (except as prohibited by P .C . 647 a(2) or other State statutes). (C.O . 625) Teen-Age Dances Minors over thirteen may attend without parent, guardian or spouse if dance is properly licensed and conducted. Minor under thirteen shall not attend. (C.O. 5860 - S ecs. 2152 and 2153) Person over twenty-one shall not attend as a participant. Chaperones or sponsors who do not participate may attend. (C.O. 5860 - Sec. 2154) Not more than twenty per cent of persons admitted as parti cipants m aybe over nineteen. (C.O. 5860 - Sec. 2154) Dance not to be conducted in or on any prem ises where alcoholic beverages are sold unless facilities for such sale are securely locked during dance and no alcoholic beverage whatsoever w ill be sold or served during dance. (C.O. 5860 - Sec. 2160) No readm ission permitted unless additional charge is made which equals original admission gharge. (C.O. 5860 - Secs. 2161 and 2162) If parking lot is available, it must be adequately lighted. (C.O. 5860 - Sec. 2163) 328 Tobacco Smoke on buses* street cars* etc. * except in smoking com partment* if provided. (C.O. 5063) APPENDIX E CASE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE VALUE SYSTEM 330 CASE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE VALUE SYSTEM (96) Objective I. Communications (A) Inter-agency Administrative Supervisory Functional (B) Intra-agency Administrative Supervisory Functional (C) To Local Coordinating Councils (D) To Area Councils - ■ (E) To Federation Case Conference Research and Advisory Committee (F) To Federation Cabinet (G) From Federation Cabinet 331 Content 1. Case Discussion (A) Case Analysis (B) Case Diagnosis and Prognosis (C) Developing Case Planning (D) Case Identification (E) Case Referral (F) Case Accountability (G) Case Follow-up (H) Recommendations (I) Determining Progress or Movement <J) Policies Regarding Eligibility and Case Management (K) Case Recording II. Identification of Community Situations Predisposing to Delinquent Behavior III. Recommendations to Local Councils for Action IV. Recommendations to Federation Case Confer ence Research and Advisory Committee for Action 332 I. II. in. IV. v. VI. vn. VIII. Value P ossibilities Motivate Uniform Interpretation of Existing P olicies Between Agency Area Offices Improved Casework (Planning* Identifi cation, Referral, Accountability, Follow-up, and Recording) Improved Case Management Improved Coordination of Agency Services to Specific Cases Improved Inter-personal Relations Improved Inter-agency Relations Improved P ossibilities for Testing and Validating Existing Services and Related P olicies Improved B asis for Identifying Gaps in Services, Need for Expansion of Existing Services, and Development and Creation of Different Kinds of Services APPENDIX F SURVEY INSTRUMENTS RELATIONSHIPS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA M M M B B Y TNRH AMMCMI Lot AnpaiM Q ty Sdiaoli— C o n k tM H m r i i CeMly O ffto d Schools im v n io v r m w r m r a M n o M io n PURPOSE METHOD SCOPE SBECTING PARTICIPANTS ANONYMITY INSTRUCTIONS RETURNING MATBUALS L A B O R rA ttlC#A TM S M B IC B i OMMtch Shidbi lo t A ngabi County S M fT i O ffks Oranga County S w fff’i Offica Rivartida County Shariff’ * Off lea The purpose of this study is to determine the kinds of working relationships that exist between law enforcement agencies and schools. Good working relationships are necessary in order for school districts and law enforcement agencies to suc cessfully fulfil! their purposes when dealing with mutual problems. Samples of actual incidents which have occurred between members of school dis tricts and lavt enforcement agencies are being collected directly from school and law enforcement representatives. The data will then be combined for analysis. This survey is being sent to personnel of: Unified School Districts at the Junior High and High School Levels in L o s Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. L ocal Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices of L o s Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. You have been selected because a responsible official in your organization rec ommended you as a person who has had enough contact with law enforcement agencies to respond with a valid statement. The survey data will be processed in such a manner as to protect the integrity and anonymity of the individual. tadMdaal raspawdanls and organizations cannot be Please complete all H em s of this survey instrument. /M u ch of the requested infor mation can be simply supplied with a check (/). The H em s dealing with incidenls .will require written statements. An incident represents an actual experience in which you were directly involved that exemplifies a good or poor working rela tionship. When responding with a written statement of an actual incident, be as accurate as possible; however, you do not have to go back to your records for specific details. 1. Please return the completed survey instrument within one week. Use the post age paid envelope provided in the packet. 2. M all the participant's response card separately. It will indicate that you have completed and mailed the survey instrument to the Investigators. It does not identify your response— it is for follow-up purposes only. A M E R IC A N IN S T IT U T E Sterling Fox, Administrative Assistant F O R R E S E A R C H Glendora Unified School District Dr. Alec Slivinske M _ _ , _ ... . L es Shuck, Principal Dr. Joan Guilford Covina-Valley Unified M iss Angelina Marchese R.N. School District GENBtAL INFORMATION Sox Of Total Service 4 -6 7-10 11-15 16 or n Covnty In WMdi Yee W arfc L os Angeles .—__ Orange Riverside School Organization _ High School _ Junior High or Intermediate _ Grades 7-8 In a K-8 school _ Other (please specify) g r a ta 7 and I In i K-l achooL you may not hawa had w ffidant M V D raR M RQMIQM T O IMpOM* IT TM m m * (M ir pO W i v»M * r a m h r t f c t a t a ragonra Card and QuaaHeraiaira a t ih k MmaJ Principal Vice or Assistant Principal Welfare and Attendance Other (please specify) If this is an estimate, check wr of separate law before completing. 4 or Q9M W W W RRM9HIS llfMT* No Yes (if yes, respond to 1 and 2) 1. Title of Parson-------- 2. Do _ forcament agencies? than those listed above work with law en- No Yes (if yes, place an X on the scale below indicating frequency of occurrence) No Yes (if yes, initiated by whom?) School or school district Law E nforcement Agency Other (please specify) in any type of Describe briefly. (H w n X on S u r a i l htlwr which Incidents which effect the working releHemhipe o f School! w ith lew enforcem ent egend ee. A. Briefly relate an incident which recently occurred between yourself and a representative of a law enforcement agency which describes an interaction snowing a good working relationship. (It It MidinlMrf A ll A ll M d o n t 4 m not fopvwoot A t ^woHfy of i m i H foloHoogMpo iHfMf by typo or frip iin c t of o co u n o n r but fiA ot ropfooonfo o y o n c M r m n iM M p m i MocrTsc ermonon.j M K H M m b TlflM OUVOOfM 0 1 fVfiS tnClCMnT* Why do you think this Incident represents e feed working teleNeMMjpf Q gN P U i INPOBMATION Sax 1 -3 4 -6 7-10 11-15 16or n Covnty In Which Yov Work L os Angeles Orange Riverside SchMl Orftnhirtnn U llJ k tU yw d e e t0 M v C H O O l Junior High or Intermediate * Grades 7-8 in a K -8 school Other (pleese spedfy) *fW Mh gradM 7 and • in a K-S achoot, you may not hava had wfRdant contact wHh M V fmOfCPRini IQM KNI ID iHpOM* l« InG H ms C B B S r p R S S P S SSw ISte - ■ mm m n i nm qpm n mponw wsra n h M usvnomiM rs it irw rans.j I I ^ I J rmnpn npn Principal Vice or Assistant Principal Welfare and Attendance Other (please specify) Give number of separata law enforcement agendas sewing your attendance area. If this is an estimate, check here before completing. 2 3 4 or more Pees yeoradbajdjdeaignale a specific member or members within year organfcaH aa to deal with incidents favehr- No Yes (if yes, respond to 1 and 2) 1. Title of Parson-------------------------- ------ --------------------------- 2. Do members other than those listed above work with law en forcement agendas? No Yes (if yes, place an X on the scale below indicating frequency of occurrence) 1 2 3 4 s a I l l l I l _________ Oftm ^R ^^Ry ^R f^^RMn BR yVR^RRBR eRB^lURP^P pBPBBaRRflBRpR No Describe briefly. Yes (if yes, initiated by whom?) School or school district law E nforcement Agency Other (please specify) an X on A* acab M e * wMdi raftac* year spM on) M U IIO N SH M O f lAW N O ftC M N T AOENOH AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SUCVB> COUNTIES OS CALMRMA Lss od iN m c h tta n tf * Gowir OfHe* «f Sdboob V w ild i N m Offlovi toodH ton PURPOSE MEIHOD SCOPE s u c v m o PARnCIPANTS ANONYMITY in str u c tio n s RETURNING MATBUAIS -- M IM M IR U N IV E R S IT Y OF S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA C O M M ITTK ON S T U D IE S Dr. Lloyd Nelson Dr. Edward LaFranchi u r . RByinonci i m m h u r m i m *— i c i Lo* Awgihi OoMHy StaHffi Office Orane* Comfy SharifT* Office StvenM* County Sheriff* Office The purpose ol this study is to determine the kinds of working relationships that exist between are necessary in order for school districts and lew enforcement agencies to sue* cessfully fulfill their purposes when dealing with mutual problems. . Samples of actual incidents which have occurred between members of law enforce* ment agencies and schools are being collected directly from school and law an* forcement representatives. The data will then be combined for analysis. This survey is being sent to personnel oh Local Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices of L os Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. Unified School Districts at the Junior High and High School Levels in L o s Anoalei. OranoH md RivBrtblft * e n e e w ^ y v r v ^ n n ^ o o r m v u r ^ a ^ e ^ u v n p W iM ^ e e r You have been selected because a responsible official in your organization rec ommended you as a person who has had enough contact with school districts to respond with a valid statement. The survey data will be processed in such a manner as to protect the integrity and anonvmHv of the individual. IndMdeal ro a n a a ria o lB and amaalsaliaas caenat he I Please complete all Hams of this survey Instrument. Much of the requested infor mation can be simply supplied with a check W). The H em s dealing with incidents will require written statements. An I ncident represents an actual experience in which you ware directly involved that exemplifies a good or poor working rela tionship. Whan responding with a written statement of an actual incident, be as accurate as possible; however, you do not have to go beck to your records for specific details. 1. Please return the completed survey instrument within one week. Use the post- age paid envelope provided In the packet. 2. Mail the participant's response card separately. It will indicate that you have completed and mailed the survey Instrument to the investigators. It does not identifyyour response— it is for follow*up purposes only. Las Shuck, Principal Covina*Valley Unified ^ rfin n l f\U to l« * d cn o o i u m n c r Sterling Fox, Administrative Assistant r 11 — rtr S f j , , , | \j if n o Q f i uniTiBO o c n o o i u m n c r A M E R IC A N IN S T IT U T E F O R R E S E A R C H Dr. Alec StMrake Dr. Joan Guilford Miss Angelina Marchese R .N . GENBtAL INFORMATION C aw lrhW U diY w V Los Angeles Of Tetai Service 4 -6 7 -1 0 11-15 16 or n F^r M gb HiM ____ Patrolman or Deputy ____ Deputy or Assistant ____ DetecHve ____ Sergeant Chief of Police ____ Policewoman ____ lieutenant Chief of Police Investigator ____ Captain * * - - ■ - - ■ ---♦ > * Other (please specify) 2 4 More (pleas* specify) (If this is an estimate, check hare _ D viO fv conipiviiny«j ____ 1 -5 ____ 11-15 21-30 A. in ____ 16-20 ____ 31 or more to 1 end 2) 1. TMe of Parson____ 2. Do member* other No Ye* (If ye*, pi frequency of than Does yeer b v oafsrsemant agency particfpele b My typr of pN^M* lo w h r to ptM Nb tviikbp relaflsniMIpe wfthesbeeb? No Dmcriba briefly. Ye* Of yat, initialed by whom?) School or school district Mw ORPfoFnNIR A^pnCjf Other (pleeae spedfy)______________________________________________________________ w g vMi^ ralaHMNUpiwfeli SdwobY A. Briefly relate an incident which recently occurred between yourself and a representative of a school district which describes an interaction showing a good wetfcieg relationship. Or j» M j s r e i ; f S i «* x W m M p i hr lyp* or fngux cy of m a n b«* n * ar npm»r*« • - - e ^ ^ ^ aL u * a J _ IM R nD V W VHH Q UwBniv Of U n i N IC IQ U fiT e U iL u . u . . sL t^la a wffff QO y o u iim m . m u n c M S n i r a p v iv n is v y m v u m | n m p n f r Ml yaw Inr mU s m m I ae*ecf tew a paliy e n g M n n h tf t* AbaMt J W h m N .Y a s Ofya^ehatkMI) Describe the final outcome of this incident. Why do you think this incident represents a peer working relafionsMpT h p w J w a e i i i t i w W i — — --------------- B li y—t Iwr w h w — i w u y h— i pdhy Month Y mt M i MMtrf .Y m flfy.w holM ndt) Othar(plMMOMdfy) I T J w n fc yo> foryom —Irtw ci. f c — id * o f w w r iii» J y wfll b> latd t w h h li b ite A ll, APPENDIX G LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS 336 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PARTICIPATING Lob Angeles County Alhambra Lynwood Arcadia Manhattan Beach Azusa Montebello Baldwin Park Monterey Park B ell Palos Verdes Estates Burbank Pasadena Claremont Pomona Compton Redondo Beach Covina San Fernando Culver City San Gabriel Downey San Marino El Segundo Santa Monica Gardena Signal Hill Glendale South Gate Hawthorne South Pasadena Hermosa Torrance Huntington Park West Covina Inglewood Whittier La Verne Los Angeles S h eriffs Offices Long Beach 337 Orange County Anaheim Brea Costa Mesa Cypress Fullerton Huntington Beach Laguna Beach . - La Habra Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia San Clemente Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin W estminster Orange County Sheriff's Offices R iverside County Banning Coachella Corona Elsinore Hemet Indio Palm Springs P erris Riverside San Jacinto Riverside Sheriff's Offices 338 SCHOOL DISTRICTS PARTICIPATING IN SURVEY Los Angeles County Orange County 1. Arcadia Unified 1. Laguna Beach Unified 2. Azusa Unified 2. Orange Unified 3. Baldwin Park Unified 3. Placentia Unified 4. B assett Unified 4. Santa Ana Unified 5. Bellflower Unified 6. Beverly Hills Unified 7. Bonita Unified Riverside County 8. Burbank Unified 9. Charter Oak Unified 1. Alvord Unified 10. Claremont Unified 2. Banning Unified 11. Covina-Valley Unified 3. Beaumont Unified 12. Culver City Unified 4. Corona Unified 13. Downey Unified 5. Junupa Unified 14. Duarte Unified 6. Morena Valley Unified 15. E l Rancho Unified 7. Palm Springs Unified 16. El Segundo Unified 8. Palo Verde Unified 17. Glendale Unified 9. Riverside Unified 18. Glendora Unified 10. San Jacinto Unified 19. Inglewood Unified 20. La Canada Unified 21. Las Virgenes Unified 22. Long Beach Unified 23. Los Angeles Unified 24. Lynwood Unified 25. Monrovia Unified 26. Montebello Unified 27. Palos Verdes Unified 28. Paramount Unified 29. Pasadena Unified 30. Pomona Unified 31. San Marino Unified 32. Santa Monica Unified 33. South Pasadena Unified 34. Temple City Unified 35. Torrance Unified 36. West Covina Unified APPENDIX H LETTERS INTRODUCING INVESTIGATORS AND STUDY TO INDIVIDUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 340 COPY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Public Administration University Park Los Angeles, California 90007 Office of the Dean November 18, 1963 Mr. William H. Parker, Chief Los Angeles Police Department 150 North Los Angeles Street Lob Angeles, California Dear Chief Parker: During the past several months, 1 have been working with Mr. Les Shuck on a study entitled "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. " Mr. Shuck is a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California as well as a school principal in Covina. Mr. Shuck is using the critical incident approach to his research which involves completion of general questions by personnel of several agencies in Southern California. The major purpose of the questions w ill be to find the type of working relationships that exist between law enforcement agencies and schools with the objective of ultimately helping school personnel better understand the police. A sample of the survey is enclosed. It is planned that these will be distributed to members of your department whom you designate. These people w ill have to have had enough experience with schools to respond. You will note that all individuals return their survey in strument separately from the response card. This protects all individuals and organizations from specific identification. 341 Mr. William H. Parker, Chief Los Angeles Police Department Page 2 November 18, 1963 Mr. Shuck will be contacting your office in the near future in order to seek your cooperation. Since the study can be very valuable to both law enforcement agencies and schools, participation of your depart ment will be appreciated. You will be asked to designate several members of your department to participate in the study. Sincerely, /s/John P. Kenney John P. Kenney Professor JPK:eb COPY 342 COPY ORANGE COAST COLLEGE 2701 Fairview Road Costa Mesa, California Anaheim, California Dear Captain Winchell: 1 am writing to acquaint you with Mr. Les Shuck, a doctoral student at the University of Southern California and principal in the Covina- Valley Unified School D istrict. He is conducting a research study entitled "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of C alifornia." Mr. Shuck is very interested in having law enforcement people look at schools in order to survey existing working relationships and to help schools understand how their actions affect the operation of law enforcement agencies. Local police department and sheriff personnel in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties will be cooperating. The sheriff's offices in all three counties have already authorised suitable person nel to participate in the study. A few minutes is required but it will not interfere with your department's operation in any way. 1 have worked with Mr. Shuck in order to help him perfect the critical incident instrument that will be used to gather the data. You will note that all results are anonymous and therefore all individuals and organizations will be properly protected. 343 Captain Winchell Page 2 Anaheim, California Enclosed is a copy of the instrument for your examination. Mr. Shuck will be contacting your office in the near future in order to answer any questions you may have and to gain your cooperation. Since research of this type will be valuable to both law enforcement agencies and schools, 1 hope that you will be kind enough to cooperate in this study. Thank you. Yours very truly, Deraid D. Hunt Police Science Coordinator Orange Coast College DDH:eb COPY 344 COPY CITY OF COVINA 125 East College Street Covina, California November 21, 1963 Mr. Thomas C. Letcher, Chief of Police City of Irwindale 16034 Calle Del Norte Irwindale, California Dear Tom, During the past several months, I have been working with Mr. Les Shuck on a study entitled "The Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California." Mr. Shuck is a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California as well as a school principal in Covina. This research is being conducted under the direction of the University of Southern California. Mr. Shuck is using an interesting approach to this study called the "critical incident technique." He hopes to have law enforcement people provide information that can be used to find the types of work ing relationships and, most important, provide data which w ill help schools understand how these relationships have a direct bearing upon our police work. A sample of the instrument is enclosed. It is planned that these will be distributed to members of a department who have had enough experience with schools to respond properly. Since the survey is 345 Mr. Thomas C. Letcher Chief of Police, City of Irwindale Page 2 November 21, 1963 returned separately from the response card, the responding individual will not be identified with a specific organisation. Mr. Shuck will be contacting your office in the near future in order to ask for your help. Since this study can be valuable to both law enforcement and schools, I hope that you w ill be able to a ssist him. Sincerely / s / FF Fred Ferguson Police Chief FF:ls Enclosure COPY 346 COPY COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (P. O. Box 269) 19009 E. Badillo Street Covina, California .* November 8, 1963 Mr. Paul L. M iller, Chief Beaumont P olice Department 500 Grace Street Beaumont, California Dear Chief Miller: The Riverside County Peace O fficers1 Association has endorsed the research study entitled "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California." A letter has been enclosed encouraging your support. The research tool chosen for this study is the "critical incident technique." With this technique actual situations are recorded in which working relationships are shown. The final analysis of this portion of the study will give important information related to relationships described. This w ill serve as a guide to schools to help them see the effect of good working relationships. Similarly, the data surrounding the poor working relationships can be analysed in order to show school personnel what they may be doing to impede law enforcement work. It is understood that the incidents do not represent the quality of overall relationships either by type or fre quency of occurrence, but rather represents a particular relation ship in a specific situation. 347 Mr, Paul Li. M iller, Chief Beaumont Police Department Page 2 November 8, 1963 This study has tremendous potential to help school people understand law enforcement operations and problems as a direct result of infor mation contributed by law enforcement representatives. The cooperation of law enforcement people is needed before there can be full value to the study. The Riverside County Sheriff's Office has authorized personnel to participate in this study. Your assistance is requested as a cooperative effort to bring forth needed information. P lease refer to the special direction card for guide lines regarding the distribution of the individual critical incident packets. If you are in need of more information, please do not hesitate to call. I will be happy to answer your questions on the telephone or make an appointment to discuss the study in your office. A summary of the findings will be sent to you at the conclusion of the study. Sincerely, Li. E. Shuck Principal Valencia School LES:eb COPY 348 COPY COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (P .O . Box 269) 19009 E. Badillo Street Covina, California December 3, 1963 Chief Ebert McKinney Whittier Police Department 315 South Painter Street Whittier, California Dear Chief McKinney: Thank you for cooperating with the study "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts of Selected Counties of C alifornia." Two Individual Critical Incident Packets are enclosed as per the arrangements discussed with you on December 3. Each Individual Critical Incident Packet contains (1) a Survey form, (2) a return envelope, and (3) a Participant Response Card (the participant m ails this card separately from the critical incident form. This signifies that the critical incident form has been completed and mailed. This procedure protects the identity of the participant and his department.) An Instruction Card is also enclosed for your convenience. Upon the completion of the study (June), a summary w ill be sent to you as a partial thank you for your cooperation. P lease feel free to contact me in the event that further information is desired. Sincerely, L. E. Shuck Principal Valencia School LES:ls E nclosures COPY APPENDIX I TRANSMITTAL. LETTERS FOR ALL SCHOOLS IN LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES 350 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L. Fox Administrative Assistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Because Dr. Popenoe's Committee on Research Studies, Los Angeles City School D istricts, has approved the study Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California, 1 have been given the privilege of contacting Junior High and Senior High School principals for the purpose of helping to distribute the survey instrument to qualified respondents. Specific instructions are printed on the card below. [See following page. ] In selecting qualified personnel on your staff to respond, child welfare and attendance personnel would be eligible to respond because of your organizational structure in Los Angeles City. Thank you for your interest and m ost valuable help. Sincerely yours. Sterling L. Fox COPY \ 351 COPY INSTRUCTION CARD 1 • Determine how many people on your sta££ have had enough ex perience with law enforcement agencies to respond with valid information. Qualified respondents might include the principal, vice-principals, welfare and attendance personnel, the registrar, and teachers, 2. Put the names on the white "Administrative Response Card" and send it to Dr. Popenoe's Office through the school m ail. The only purpose of this card is as an administrative tool for follow- up purposes. It w ill be used to contact participants who do not respond in a reasonable length of tim e. It cannot be used to identify individual responses. 3. Distribute the "Critical Incident Packets" to the individuals listed on the "Administrative Response Card. " You may wish to place the participant's name on the line of the individual C ritical Incident Packet. P lease stress the importance of the participation of all persons selected. If you need m ore Critical Incident Packets than the number enclosed, please indicate this at the bottom of the "Administrative Response C ard." COPY 352 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of 440 West Foothill Boulevard Sterling L. Fox Glendora, California Administrative Assistant 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Participant: The Committee on Research Studies, Los Angeles City School D istricts, has approved Mr. Fox's and Mr. Shuck's study entitled Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. Please note the special instructions below for Los Angeles City participants when returning m aterials. Sincerely yours, /s / Herbert Popenoe Herbert Popenoe, Chairman Committee on Research Studies SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS for RETURNING MATERIALS 1. Please return the completed instrument in the pre- addressed envelope, through the school m ail, to Dr. Popenoe's office. 2. Send the participant's response card separately, through the school m ail, to Dr. Popenoe's office to indicate that you have completed and sent in the survey instrument. It does not identify your response . . . it is for follow-up purposes only. COPY 353 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Olfice of Sterling L. Fox Administrative Assistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora* California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Because the Office of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools has endorsed the study Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California, I am taking the liberty of contacting Junior High and Senior High School principals for the purpose of helping to distribute the survey instrument to qualified respondents* Specific instructions are printed on the card below. [ Same as previously shown. ] Thank you for your interest and most valuable help. Sincerely yours, Sterling L. Fox COPY COPY 354 GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L . Fox Administrative A ssistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Participant: You are being asked to supply data for an important research study entitled Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. The study has received endorsements by the Committee on Research Studies, Los Angeles City Schools, and the Riverside County Office of Schools. Although the Office of the Orange County Superintendent of Schools because of policy restrictions cannot endorse, Mr. Ernest R. Norton in a letter to those making the study indicated personal interest and support. It is the sincere b elief of those making the study that the results obtained w ill be of value to school and law enforcement personnel throughout Orange County. Thank you for your m ost valued assistance. Sincerely, k i Sterling L . Fox Sterling L. Fox COPY 355 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L . Fox Administrative A ssistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear In order to obtain data for an important research study entitled Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California, it is necessary to reach qualified respondents at the Junior and Senior High School levels* You are being asked to help by distributing the survey instrument to qualified respondents. Specific instructions are printed on the card below* [Same as previously shown. ] Thank you for your interest and m ost valuable help. Sincerely yours, Sterling L. Fox COPY 356 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L. Fox Administrative Assistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Participant: You are being asked to supply data for an important research study entitled Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. The study has received endorsements by the Committee on Research Studies, Los Angeles City Schools, and the Riverside County Office of Schools. Although the Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools because of policy restrictions cannot endorse, Dr. C. C. Trillingham in a letter to those making the study indicated his personal interest and support. It is the sincere belief of those making the study that the results obtained w ill be of value to school and law enforcement personnel throughout Los Angeles County. Thank you for your most valued assistance. Sincerely, /s/S terlin g L. Fox Sterling L. Fox COPY APPENDIX J LETTERS OF ENDORSEMENT COPY 358 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Riverside, California November 8, 1963 Dear Members of the Riverside County Peace Officers' Association: The Executive Board met recently and discussed the endorsement of a study entitled "The Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California*" As the title indicates, this research deals with working relationships between law enforcement agencies and school districts. The law enforcement portion of this study w ill deal with actual incidents in which peace officers have had experiences that show working relationships. The incidents w ill be used to help schools understand what they are doing which hinders law enforcement work and to help them understand law enforcement problems. The Executive Board felt that this study had a good deal of m erit, and, even though the relationships in this county between law en forcement agencies and schools have been excellent, we believe that our participation in this study would make the entire research more valuable to all schools and law enforcement agencies in California. We urge that you give careful consideration to the m aterials con tained in this packet. Sincerely, / s / J. S. Bird James S. Bird, Jr., President Riverside County Peace O fficers' Association JSB:emb COPY COPY 359 GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L. Fox Administrative A ssistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Participant: The Office of the R iverside County Superintendent of Schools is pleased to endorse the study Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. The results of this study can be of real help to school personnel throughout the county. Sincerely yours, / s / Leonard Grindstaff Leonard Grindstaff Superintendent of Schools COPY 360 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L. Fox Administrative Assistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora* California 963-1611 November - 1963 Dear Participant: The Committee on Research Studies* Los Angeles City School Districts* has approved Mr, Fox's and Mr. Shuck's study entitled Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Comities of California. Please note the special instructions below for Los Angeles City participants when returning m aterials. Sincerely yours* / s / Herbert Popenoe Herbert Popenoe* Chairman Committee on Research Studies SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS for RETURNING MATERIALS 1. P lease return the completed instrument in the pre addressed envelope* through the school mail* to Dr. Popenoe's office. 2. Send the participant's response card separately* through the school mail* to Dr. Popenoe's office to indicate that you have completed and sent in the survey instrument. It does not identify your response . . . it is for follow-up purposes only. COPY APPENDIX K FOLLOW-UP MATERIALS USED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES COPY 362 Dear Mr. Shuck: I would like you to do the following: Call my office in order to give further information. ^ Write a letter concerning the following: Other Signature Organization COPY 363 COPY COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (P . O. Box 269) 19009 E. Badillo Street Covina, California December 10, 1963 Mr. C ecil W. Walsh, Chief Hemet Police Department 210 North Juanita Street Hemet, California Dear Chief Walsh: Approximately two weeks ago you received a packet of m aterials for a study "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of C alifornia." This project was en dorsed by the Riverside County Peace O fficers' Association. Replies are now being received from police departments in Riverside County. I know that police departments are very busy and their time is lim ited. However, your cooperation by designating members in your department to complete the survey will help to represent all of Riverside County. An "Administrative Response Card" is enclosed in the event the original card was misplaced or for some reason not included. The names on this card w ill be used for follow-up purposes only. A separate card is enclosed for your use in case further information is desired. The card is preaddressed and postage paid for your con venience. If I can be of assistance in any way, please let me know. Sincerely, L. E. Shuck, Principal Valencia School LES:eb Enclosures (2) COPY 364 COPY COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (P. O. Box 269) 19009 E. Badillo Street Covina* California January 7, 1964 Chief Mark A. Stephenson Anaheim Police Department 220 W. Woodward Avenue Anaheim* California Dear Chief Stephenson: Last November I contacted your office in order to seek your approval for* and designation of qualified participants for the study "Relation ships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School Districts in Selected Counties of California." You selected six people as participants. As of this date* four have returned the Participants Response Card indicating that they had completed and mailed the Critical Incident Survey Form . Over fifty per cent of the participants have returned their survey. Since it is important for each participant designated to respond in order to increase the validity* 1 am enclosing a second Individual Critical Incident Packet for the participants who have not yet re sponded. Their name has been entered on each packet in order to facilitate distribution. I hope that it will be possible to distribute them and encourage com pletion* as any returns to be used will need to be received by February 1. 365 C hief Mark A. Stephenson Page 2 Anaheim P olice Department January 7, 1964 If there is any way that 1 can be of assistance* please do not hesitate to contact m e. As stated before, the summary of the findings will be sent to you upon the completion of the study (June). Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, L. E. Shuck Principal Valencia School LiES:ls Enclosures COPY 366 COPY COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (P. O. Box 269) 19009 E. Badillo Street Covina, California January 31, 1964 Chief Edward L. Allen Stanton Police Department 7800 Katella Avenue Stanton, California Dear Chief Allen: You recently approved the designation of members of your depart ment to participate in the study "Relationships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of C alifornia." I am glad to inform you that all participants have now returned the Participants Response Cards which indicate the completion of the survey. Thank you for your excellent cooperation. A summary will be d is tributed sometime around June. Sincerely, L. E. Shuck Principal Valencia School LES:ls COPY APPENDIX L FOLLOW-UP MATERIALS USED WITH SCHOOLS 368 COPY GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of 440 West Foothill Boulevard Sterling L. Fox Glendora, California Administrative A ssistant 963-1611 January - 1964 Dear Would you please remind the persons listed below to return their completed questionnaires concerning Relationships of Law Enforce ment Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. Also please remind them to send in the participant's response card in a separate mailing. You w ill be interested in learning that to date returns are running w ell ahead of the 50 per cent mark. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Sterling L . Fox COPY COPY 369 GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT From the Office of Sterling L. Fox Administrative Assistant 440 West Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 963-1611 January - 1964 Dear I am writing you to request that you forward to me the "white administrative response card" concerned with the study on Relation ships of Law Enforcement Agencies and School D istricts in Selected Counties of California. This card is important to me as it is necessary to know the number of questionnaires distributed to qualified respondents in your building. In case the card has been misplaced, I am taking the liberty of enclosing a duplicate for your convenience. Thank you for your interest and support. Sincerely, Sterling L. Fox COPY APPENDIX M COMPUTER PROGRAMS 371 TAB 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM Programmed by Fred I, White Write-up by W. R. Larson This program is intended for the researcher in the social sciences who has questionnaire data on which relatively simple cal culations need be performed--namely, in studies involving question naires for which item response distributions are needed, either in frequencies or proportions, together with mean ratings and standard deviations of ratings for each item. Sums of squares for each item are also provided by this program. The program is set up in such a way that analyses may be made for complete groups or sub-groups, in term s of some sorting category. For example, if 300 questionnaires are to be analyzed they may be placed in the computer as one group, and the output will show item responses based on an N of 300. On the other hand, if more elaborate analyses are desired, in which the differential effects of some variable are to be held constant, the input deck may be sorted into sub-groups prior to submission to the computer. As an example, the deck may be sorted into two sex categories, or age categories, or any other means of classification. The sub-decks must be separated by control cards, which are described below, in order that the output be labeled properly by sub-group. This feature of the program allows great flexibility, and makes possible analyses in which several variables are held constant at the same time, providing the N is sufficiently large. Preparation of Input Cards The data cards for this program must consist of single column integers, and may be punched anywhere on the card. Split fields are not allowed, and if present on the card must be ignored. All data columns, in other words, must be arranged in continuous series, such as 1-20, 11-79, etc. The maximum number of columns t 372 which may be analyzed on a card is 79* Column 80 m ust not contain a 9 punch on any data card, and should not be used as a data column but rather som e control or identifying information. When preparing data cards, a 0 punch should be used to indicate No Responses. No overpunches are allowed. Preparation of Control Cards In addition to the DATA card required by USC Computer Center, two control cards are required at the head of the data deck, or each sub-deck in order to provide the necessary parameters for program operation. The first card consists of any alphanumeric information, punched in column 1-40. All other columns on this card are ignored. This card may be used to label the output if a single group of data cards is used, or w ill allow different labels for each sub-deck. The second card contains information as to the range of columns to be analyzed on each card. The first column to be analyzed should be punched in column 1 -2, and the la st to be analyzed punched in column 6-7. No other columns should be punched on this card. For example, if analysis is to begin in column 20 and end in column 65, those two values w ill be punched on the second control card in column 1-2 and 6-7, respectively. An END DATA CARD should be the la st card of the deck. Capacity of the Program For most purposes the number of cards in the analysis need be of no concern, since the lim it of the program is an N of one m illion. This lim it applies to each sub-group, rather than the total of all sub-groups. The exact number of cards need not be known in advance, since the program counts the cards as it processes them. Output of the Program The output of this program is fully labeled as to column from which data has been read, the punch categories, sum of punches^ 373 number of zero responses, means, sums of squares and sigm as. Each section of output for sub-groups will be labeled with the ap propriate name supplied by the first control card, as described above. The calculations for the standard deviation performed by this program use N in the denominator, so if standard errors are to be hand calculated, N -l should be used. 374 B07 CHIPH This program* prepared at the Youth Studies Center* USC* iB intended to provide Chi-square analyses for four-cell tables of frequency data. It does not combine the original data to form the tables, however. This may be done by program B07 Tab 2. In addition to the Chi-square value, this program will also compute the Phi coefficient if requested by an optional punch on the data card. A second option is Yate*s Correction for Continuity* which should be used if the dichotomized data originally were con tinuous. The Yate*s correction is put into the calculations of Chi- square by an option punch. The card format for this program is as shown below: INPUT: Column Cells 1 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 1 2 13 - 16 Cell A frequency Cell B frequency Cell C frequency Cell D frequency A B C D 17 - 18 Blank 19 - 22 Identification or problem number 23 - 24 Blank 25 Option punch for Chi- square or Phi 26 - 27 Blank 28 Option punch for Yate*s Correction 1 if Chi-square is desired 2 if Phi is desired 3 if both Chi-square and Phi is desired 0 if Yate(s is desired 1 if Yate*s is not desired 29 - 80 Not read by program There is no practical limit to the number of cards which may be submitted. Each card represents one separate problem. All values on the data card must be punched right justified. OUTPUT: The output of this program consists of four-cell tables, with row and column sums and grand sum, together with the value of Chi-square and Phi. The problem identification punched on the input w ill appear to the left of the table so that output elements w ill not be confused. L evels of P are not provided, but these may be found in any standard statistics text. 376 B07 LES This program will compute Chi-square for 2 x J tables, where J ranges from 2 to 9* It is designed to be used with output from B07 Tab 2, or other sim ilar routines. It is also useful when doing median tests. INPUT FORMAT: The input is designed so that all information for a given table is on one card. In addition to the cell frequencies, a punch showing the number of columns in the table is required, as well as a problem number for identification of output. The input cards should be set up as follows, conforming to the illustration table below: A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6 A 7 A 8 A 9 B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 B 5 B 6 B 7 B 8 B 9 C olumn: 1 Size of table, in colum ns--i. e . , .3 if 3 columns, 4 if 4 columns, e tc ., 9 columns maximum. Enter frequency of 9 cell in the following columns continuous: 2 - 5 ID number 30 - 32 6 - 8 33 - 35 9-11 3 6 - 3 8 12 - 14 39 - 41 15 - 17 42 - 44 18 - 20 45 - 47 21 - 23 48 - 50 24 - 26 51 - 53 27 - 29 54 - 56 57 Not read by program 377 When cell frequencies are being punched, they must be punched "right justified, " that is , assuming the decimal point to be at the right of the right-m ost column in the 3 column field. Leading zeros need not be punched. Unused columns should be left blank. OUTPUT FORMAT: The output from this program consists of printed tables, showing all cell frequencies, row and column totals, and the grand sum, together with the value of Chi-square and the number of degrees of freedom. All output is appropriately labeled, with prob lem number, etc, SYSTEM CARDS: System cards are required, following USC Computer Science Laboratory practice. See CSL guide for this information.

Asset Metadata

Creator Fox, Sterling Lee (author), Shuck, Leslie Earl (author)

Core Title Relationships Of Law Enforcement Agencies And School Districts In Selected Counties Of California

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Nelson, D. Lloyd (committee chair), LaFranchi, Edward H. (committee member), Perry, Raymond C. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-356680

Unique identifier UC11359189

Identifier 6413508.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-356680 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6413508.pdf

Dmrecord 356680

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fox, Sterling Lee|Shuck, Leslie Earl

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA