HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Results From the 2001 Traffic Enforcement Citizen SurveyRESULTS FROM THE 2001 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
CITIZEN SURVEY
A Report Submitted to
Chief Mark Alley
Lansing Police Department
Lansing, MI 48933
December 20, 2001
2
RESULTS FROM THE 2001 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
CITIZEN SURVEY
Table of Contents
List of Figures
3
List of Tables
4
Introduction
6
Section I. Citizen Expectations
8
Section Il. Police Service
14
Section Ill. Expectancy
20
Section IV. Police Behavior ...... . . ....
31
Section V. Encounter -Level . ..... .
37
Section V1. General Satisfaction with the LPD - --- - - --------- - - ------ . ........
43
Section V11. Additional Findings
49
Appendix A: Sample Protocol
57
Appendix B: Survey Instrument---
59
3
List of Figures
Figure 1. Citizen Expectations
Figure 2. Police Services
Figure 3. Expectancy Confirmation
Figure 4. Police Behavior
Figure 5. Encounter -Level Satisfaction
Figure 6. General Satisfaction with the LPD
10
16
22
33
39
45
Figure 7a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (1999 Survey, Full Sample)
51
Figure 7b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (1999 Survey, Full Sample)
51
Figure 8a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (2001 Survey, Full Sample)
52
Figure 8b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (2001 Survey, Full Sample) __
52
Figure 9a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (1999 Survey, African-Americans).53
Figure 9b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (1999 Survey, African -Americans)
53
Figure 10a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (2001 Survey, African -Americans) .._.__....._
54
Figure 10b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (2001 Survey, African -Americans)
54
Figure 11 a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (1999 Survey, Non -Black Minorities).. _....
55
Figure 11 b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (1999 Survey, Non -Black Minorities)
55
Figure 12a.
Prevent Traffic Accidents? (2001 Survey, Non -Black Minorities) .... ....... ..._..
56
Figure 12b.
Why Were You Stopped & Cited? (2001 Survey, Non -Black Minorities)
56
4 '
List of Tables
Table 1.
Citizen Expectations by Race/Ethnicity
11
Table 2.
Citizen Expectations by Age ...... . . . ...........
12
Table 3.
Citizen Expectations by Gender
13
Table 4.
Police Service by Race/Ethnicity----
17
Table 5.
Police Service by Age . ... . .. ....... . .............
18
Table 6.
Police Service by Gender
19
Table 7.
Expectancy Confirmation for Caucasians
23
Table 8.
Expectancy Confirmation for African -Americans
24
Table 9.
Expectancy Confirmation for Non -Black Minorities . ...... . ........ ......
25
Table 10.
Expectancy Confirmation for Citizens 16 to 29 Years of Age
26
Table 11.
Expectancy Confirmation for Citizens 30 to 49 Years of Age .... . . . . .............. . ... . ....
27
Table 12.
Expectancy Confirmation for Citizens 50+ Years of Age__...._-.._.........__.........-.
28
Table 13.
Expectancy Confirmation for Males
29
Table 14.
Expectancy Confirmation for Females ---..-. . ....... .... . . . . . ............. . . . ....
30
Table 15.
Police Behavior by Race / Ethnicity . . . . ........ .
34
Table 16.
Police Behavior by Age
35
Table 17. Police Behavior by Gender .... . . . ....... . ... . ........ ............................................. . . . ............ 36
Table 18. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Race 40
Table 19. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Age 41
5
List of Tables Continued
Table 20. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Gender 42
Table 21. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Race / Ethnicity.__....__.. .. 46
Table 22. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Age
Table 23. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Gender
47
48
M
RESULTS FROM THE 2001 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
CITIZEN SURVEY
Introduction
n 1999 the Lansing Police Department (LPD) announced efforts were
underway to improve police service during traffic encounters. Shortly
thereafter, LPD officials worked to identify service -related aspects of quality
traffic encounters, as well as proper officer demeanor. Prior to implementing new
policies and procedures related to this police function, the LPD conducted a mail survey
of citizens who received a traffic citation in March 1999 (hereafter "1999 Survey").
These data provided a first look at how well officers were doing, and more importantly,
provided a baseline from which future assessments could be compared.
Results from the 1999 Survey showed that LPD officers were doing fairly well at
conducting traffic encounters. For example, nearly 60% of citizens reported they were
either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the way the LPD handled their traffic stop.
However, room for improvement was also noted. Nearly all of the survey respondents
(96.3%) said that they expect LPD officers to answer their questions concerning the
stop. Results from the survey showed, however, that officers did so 75.2% of the time.
In other words, approximately 21 % of citizens did not have their service expectations
met in this regard. .
Upon taking office in June 2000, Chief Mark Alley made improving traffic patrol
services a high priority. Toward this end, Chief Alley and his staff contracted the
services of Dr. Carl Taylor to conduct training sessions with LPD officers. The program,
which focused on "youth culture," was designed to help raise awareness among the
officers on how to best interact with younger residents.
A second initiative undertaken by Chief Alley was to address perceptions of racial
profiling (i.e., the targeting of racial minorities for exploratory stops) in Lansing. Two
private consultants, Dr. David L. Carter and Dr. Andra J. Katz -Bannister, were hired. To
address the issue, Carter and Katz -Bannister developed a multi -stage protocol which
featured, among other things, focus groups with uniformed personnel, community
meetings, new data collection forms to monitor demographic trends in traffic stops, and
officer training on how to conduct a proper traffic stop.
The objective of the 2001 Traffic Encounter Survey (hereafter "2001 Survey")
was to determine whether the quality of traffic encounters improved since 1999. The
2001 Survey, which was conducted in September through November 2001, targeted
citizens who received a traffic citation in August 2001 (for details, see Appendix A).
Over 500 mail surveys were returned. To achieve the stated objective, information from
the 2001 Survey is compared with the 1999 Survey.
'rl
The Lansing Police Department's investment in these surveys represents a very
significant commitment to monitoring traffic encounters. To the best of my knowledge,
very few police departments have invested this heavily in systematic assessment
involving both pre- and post-tests of procedural changes in traffic enforcement.
This report summarizes information obtained from the surveys conducted with
citizen respondents who received a citation from the LPD. The report consists of seven
sections: Citizen Expectations, Police Service, Expectancy Confirmation, Police
Behavior, Encounter -Level Satisfaction, General Satisfaction with the LPD, and
Additional Findings. In each section, results from the full samples and from different
social groupings (i.e., race/ethnicity, age, and gender) are reported. Each section
begins with a brief overview of some of the more important findings.
Section I: Citizen Expectations
n this section, citizen expectations of police service during traffic encounters
are presented. Each respondent from both the 1999 Survey and the 2001
Survey was asked whether or not they expected LPD officers to perform the
following tasks:
❖ Inform them as to why they were stopped
❖ Ask to see their registration, and -proof of insurance
❖ Provide them information as to how to take care of the traffic violation
❖ Complete the encounter in a reasonable amount of time
❖ Answer questions regarding the stop
This information served two purposes. First, these items provided some of the
information necessary to calculate expectancy confirmation scores, which are discussed
in Section III. Second, this information helped us determine whether citizen
expectations of police service have remained stable between the two time periods - -
1999 and 2001. Overall, the results indicate:
❖ An overwhelming majority of the citizens surveyed in 1999 and 2001 expected
LPD officers to inform them as to why they were stopped (96.9% & 96.7%), ask
to see their registration and proof of,insurance (98.0% & 98.6%), provide
information as to how to take care of the violation (88.8% & 87.2%), complete the
encounter in a reasonable amount of time (91.6% & 90.4%), and answer their
questions (96.2% & 95.5%)(see Figure 1).
❖ In the 2001 Survey, significantly fewer African -Americans (83.6%) expected LPD
officers to complete the encounter in a reasonable amount of time when
compared to Caucasians (92.8%)(see Table 1).
❖ When compared to younger citizens, motorists between the ages of 30 and 49
were significantly less likely to report that they expected LPD officers to inform
them as to how to handle the violation (94.0% versus 82.4%, respectively)(see
Table 2).
❖ Expectations of police service among male and female motorists remained fairly
uniform from one year to the next, and differences across genders were not
observed (see Table 3).
Overall, the results presented in Section I show that differences the 1999 and 2001
Surveys regarding expectations of police service were almost nonexistent. What is
more, expectations of police service appear to be fairly consistent across different social
groupings.
10 `
Figure 1. Citizen Expectations
100
90
26
80
70
®1999
■ 2001
60
H
11
Table 1. Citizen Expectations by Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-
Non -Black
American
Minority
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
96.0
96.8
97.6
98.6
100.0
94.5
Registration &
Insurance
98.8
98.9
96.4
95.9
96.4
100.0
How to Handle
Ticket
89.3
88.3
85.2
86.3
90.9
83.1
Reasonable
Time
93.3
92.8
89.0
83.6
89.1
86.1
Answer
Questions
97.6
96.0
92.6
97.2
94.4
91.5
Sample Size
254.
351
83
75
55
74
12 '
Table 2. Citizen Expectations by Age
16 to 29 years
30 to 49 years
50+ years of
of age
of age
age
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
97.4
97.3
97.1
96.3
94.8
96.7
Registration 8
'Insurance
97.5
98.9
98.3
98.2
98.4
98.9
How to Handle
Ticket
89.7
94.0
87.5
82.4
90.2
85.2
Reasonable
Time
88.5
89.5
92.1
88.7
98.3
96.6
Answer
Questions
94.8
95.6
97.2
95.5
96.6
95.4
Sample Size
157
185
177
223
62
92
13
Table 3. Citizen Expectations by Gender
Male
Female
1999
2001
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
95.7
96.8
98.7
96.7
Registration &
Insurance
97.8
98.0
98.2
99.2
How to Handle
Ticket
88.8
86.9
88.8
87.6
Reasonable
Time
89.6
90.0
94.4
90.8
Answer
Questions
95.2
95.2
97.5
95.8
Sample Size
232
253
164
247
14 "
Section II: Police Service
e now turn our attention to police services provided during traffic
encounters. The following results come from a section of the survey
asking respondents whether the officers "actually" provided any of the
five service -oriented elements listed in Section I. Among some of the more interesting
findings include:
❖ With but one exception (i.e., registration & insurance), the level of service
provided by LPD officers was significantly higher in the 2001 Survey (see Figure
2).
❖ For Caucasians, significant improvements in police service were reported nearly
across the board. The biggest improvement was officers answering questions
regarding the stop (from 77.4% to 87.3%)(see Table 4).
❖ Improvements in police service were also observed among African -American
motorists. For example, the percentage of African -Americans reporting that the
officer informed them as to why they were stopped increased (from 86.4% to
91.9%), and the percentage reporting that officers completed the stop in a
"reasonable amount of time" also improved (from 63.9% to 72.2%). The only
item that did not improve was whether the officer answered questions regarding
the stop (see Table 4).
❖ For Non -Black Minorities, all aspects of police service improved. For example,
the percentage of minority citizens who reported that officers completed the
encounter in a "reasonable amount of time" increased in 2001 (from 72.2% to
80.0%)(see Table 4).
❖ In relative terms, African -American citizens were much less likely to report that
officers took the time to answer their questions concerning the stop when
compared to Caucasians and Non -Black Minorities (see Table 4).
❖ For younger motorists (i.e., 16 to 29 years), improvements were reported in every
category. The biggest improvement concerned officers completing the encounter
in a "reasonable amount of time" (from 68.2% to 80.6%)(see Table 5).
15
❖ For citizens between the ages of 30 and 49, police service improved in nearly
every category. The most significant improvement was observed in the
"reasonable amount of time" category (from 81.1 % to 91.8%). However, marked
improvements were also recorded in the following categories: "informed why
stopped" (from 89.0% to 94.5%), "how to handle ticket" (from 75.3% to 84.8%),
and "answer questions" (from 76.6% to 86.2%)(see Table 5).
❖ Levels of service reported by citizens 50 years and older showed little
improvement. Differences between the 1999.Survey and the 2001 Survey were
not statistically significant. Therefore, we conclude that levels of service did not
change between the two time periods for older motorists. However, it is worth
noting that in relative terms, the level of service provided during traffic encounters
to older citizens did not differ much from the other age categories in 2001 (see
Table 5).
❖ Levels of service increased for male citizens between the 1999 Survey and the
2001 Survey. The biggest improvement was observed in the "reasonable
amount of time" category (from 74.5% to 85.3%)(see Table 6).
❖ Among females, improvements in police service were reported in almost every
category. The largest increase was reported in the "how to handle ticket"
category (from 72.5% to 83.8%)(see Table 6).
❖ In relative terms, the level of service provided to males and females is very
similar (i.e., no statistical differences observed).
I
100
70
.c
50
Figure 2. Police Services
yo
4;6
a
oy
0
*pea
00
1>a
a
°ago
as 4,,
6V
co
-Ilse
w 1999
■ 2001
17
Table 4. Police Service by Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-
Non -Black
American
Minority
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
91.0
96.1
86.4
91.9
87.0
87.3
Registration &
Insurance
96.1
93.7
89.2
90.7
94.5
95.8
How to Handle
Ticket
75.8
85.3
70.4
71.2
70.9
72.2
Reasonable
Time
83.2
91.6
63.9
72.2
72.2
77.8
Answer
Questions
77.4
87.3
70.5
65.2
75.9
80.0
Sample Size
254
351
83
75
55
74
18 '
Table 5. Police Service by Age
16 to 29 years
30 to 49 years
50+ years of
of age
of age
1999
2001
1999
2001
-age
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
87.7
94.4
89.0
94.5
94.6
92.9
Registration &
Insurance
93.6
94.6
93.8
92.3
98.4
94.4
How to Handle
Ticket
67.9
77.2
75.3
84.8
82.3
80.9
Reasonable
Time
68.2
80.6
81.1
91.8
90.3
86.7
Answer
Questions
71.1
78.8
76.6
86.2
83.6
84.1
Sample Size
157
185
177
223
62
92
19
Table 6.
Police Service by Gender
Male
Female
1999
2001
1999
2001
Informed Why
Stopped
89.4
94.3
89.0
94.0
Registration &
Insurance
93.5
94.0
95.7
93.0
How to Handle
Ticket
74.1
78.9
72.5
83.8
Reasonable
Time
74.5
85.3
81.9
88.2
Answer
Questions
72.0
81.1
80.4
85.0
Sample Size
232
253
164
247
20
Section Ill. Expectancy Confirmation
n this section, we are interested in whether LPD officers exceeded, met, or fell
short of citizens' expectations of police service. To do so, the information from
Sections I and II are used to calculate "expectancy confirmation scores."
Simply put, these scores tell us how well police service measures up relative to citizens'
expectations. The formula used to -calculate expectancy confirmation scores is pretty
straightforward:
Citizen Expectations — Police Service = Expectancy Confirmation
For example, in the 1999 Survey 96.9% of citizens reported that they expected police
officers to inform them as to why they were stopped, and officers actually did so in
89.3% of encounters. The expectancy confirmation score would be -7.6%, respectively.
In 2001 the percentage of citizens expecting officers to tell them why they were stopped
was 96.7%, and the percentage of officers that actually did so was 94.2%. The
expectancy confirmation score for 2001 would be -2.5%.
We can use these two scores (i.e., -7.3% and -2.5%) to determine whether officers did a
better job at meeting citizens' expectations in 2001. Returning to our example, we see
that the expectancy confirmation score increased +4.8%. Although a modest gap still
exists between expectations and service (i.e.,-2.5%), we are able to conclude that
officers have addressed the disparity between the service expectations and the service
motorists actually received during traffic encounters, especially because the percentage
of citizens expecting such action remained almost constant.
❖ With but one exception (i.e., registration & insurance), LPD officers reduced the
level of disparity between citizens' expectations and actual police service. In
particular, LPD officers showed the most improvement in handling encounters in
a reasonable amount of time and informing citizens on how to handle the ticket
(see Figure 3).
❖ LPD officers were successful in reducing the gap between Caucasian citizens'
expectations and actual police service in four of five categories. The two biggest
improvements were observed in answering the motorists' questions and
providing information as to how to handle the violation (see Table 7).
21
❖ Improvements in expectancy confirmation among African -American citizens were
comparatively modest. Nevertheless, LPD officers did a better job at completing
encounters with African -American motorists in a reasonable amount of time in
2001 (see Table 8).
❖ A measurable gap remains with regard to officers answering questions that are
posed by African -American citizens during traffic encounters. Two factors must
be taken into account when considering this finding. First, the percentage of
African -Americans who reported that they expect LPD. officers to answer their
questions increased in 2001 (from 92.6% to 97.2%). Second, the percentage of
police officers that actually did so .dropped in 2001 (from 70.5% to 65.2%)(see
Table 8).
❖ For Non -Black Minority motorists, police service improved most in the areas of
completing the encounter in a timely manner and answering questions after
taking into account changes in expectation levels (see Table 9).
❖ Levels of police service improved in nearly every category during traffic
encounters with younger motorists (i.e., between the ages of 16 and 29),
especially with regard to completing the encounter in a reasonable amount of
time (see Table 10).
❖ In the 2001 Survey, officers actually exceeded service expectations in two areas
among motorists between the ages of 30 and 49: how handle ticket and
reasonable time (see Table 11).
❖ For citizens between the ages of 30 and 49, the most meaningful improvements
were in the areas of completing the encounter in a reasonable amount of time,
providing information as to how to take care of the ticket, and the officer
answering questions (see Table 11).
❖ Among motorists between 50 years of age and older, the gap between
expectations and actual police service remained modest and relatively
unchanged (see Table 12)..
❖ LPD officers significantly improved in meeting male motorists expectations for
completing the encounter in a timely fashion and answering questions (see Table
13).
❖ Improvements in meeting the service expectations of female motorists were
made almost across the board. The largest improvement was observed in
officers providing female citizens with information on how to take care of the
violation (see Table 14).
22
Figure 3. Expectancy Confirmation
O
'*�,
+fit•" r�i1sF' y �� � �F'3�• R54
•C � .�{ r.. � x. c Jrr
-4A� �� �+ri '.ems•} -'a ��" ?K. ;"r 1' {`t ' '��p��� i"�z�i
�^G"k °itfi� we`4l s-Akh�' � v •'��..'� ��� ��� +LET;`•'
r;
�� �.. S.i��-.r -f � �ucrfJ,r 1' _ nor ar' :��'4sS�'•; S�"fi`
a�`. P �' �i`� �t � r sr mP :'J as+a fh. 'r 7 � i�s � �..•Y'i✓rS'r d
-�• uzs7,�.� .� �-s�5 { Y��,'�r"� + f: .��- �,�rc,.,,y,� a�,,;� z�--.� }qp:
S"'� i7? .�;+,+r `i $� sr .i,c. e�tJa kst ,•��3�f• r i�r�vi` ;ri-�x �i`z.;
iT"�Air.k a4S9>i';w" S°.�:lr•+'�i " tf' a- f � f �� ,ys+ ": d ' t e- _ ,� :a s � a <.>; e.•a.
a' 'C kn s+r _yLe4ts er TN ti-"`r�•5*�. � w L, z^ d �'zv.rsy- ?�55y�
�.-�S%r"-r `��w� t - i rs� {c i�£y,�t`' !T '�` }tom .'� tip. qa •�s A[
-1 O
,G rL. T.G c.,ki ,i" w ,j][!��i. �a"4 a� �-! t L.i.�3.c�r¢.hyti,�� I �'krFYM.. 'ft+ t,,.•�r'';r• .',�'_C
_'f- Y s. z'3y,N C�� t .�•_ ly
n"-trti 3 i. i .:- r v 1�.: a ^�i`f as y' SF
{+w + rt+�➢ a r+n� s a 2 i q 2 w 3 fi�+a
sy rF aa, ii�t 4-4 'tills s-.tS fi�c� � ��°�aiy3, 5Y&4"�i�ia �a
!' •+ �,. +fiz>rl aK ,r < x z r r ay,
j�Tt7 aif'�� a7 �+ � �� k= r.{ �, :1tt llJu'a . "�" �•r �•4y' �i y 1E.fy � r� �T�f i�=. ■ 2001
.K f Ci+ �'+ 4 f r YS 4: r sy s wy'tanSrc3 ki ice.
,. ;�#.R}+......�'kLFW .^ t{Y 1 �• ail u 6� ,7 Y J tPr �{,. atr •iY„t1 ! 1 Y -1 5
• sa' �r,P Lr- 1 5.,�+' F �, "+ � rk a- f vy �" k f UN"`�,` 17Fs
'}' JY' a''r,; T�L�t
'.'20,
I-
'+�rS
r,..,krq'r;+rsKM'3RMArg�`a+ ` b,'atr,6'"xewy
ati S sad ich�c4 5y ty[ X ^fix a t3Ti taro l n'd Fc a s�7 ♦ .
f ��.a t�")'.t�'• '`�.r �`'+rf,�rk�� v�-��x���t.'`i.*�,y�.� Y ���� i ) 1 i•{�+',}. L x F' z2 m�4 3' k aY.,; //� i<io
*c:: r
5i�+i2 sYXTy�r'•�",t n Z� Y"� sc yi:J i., Ti iE-i arr�rri..1 a y� �k� ".yt� rr �:
..sr°4��4.�.9 RY "r. ��`"� 7..< x' f 4St'�Laswir-i -e+.- ; w � �c.�s. x.�-� di�i. r• rs� �M„�
I
Y a tacit'a
i�
'coo, �°'a foy °Od6 hto�►
�3y °�I*
°
23
Table 7. Expectancy Confirmation for Caucasians
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
96.0
96.8
91.0
96.1
-5.0
-0.7
+4.3
stopped
Ask to see your
registration & proof
98.8
98.9
96.1
93.7
-2.7
-5.2
-2.5
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
89.3
88.3
75.8
85.3
-13.5
-3.0
+10.5
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
93.3
92.8
83.2
91.6
-10.1
-1.2
+8.9
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
97.6
96.0
77.4
87.3
.-20.2
-8.7
+11.5
24 '
Table 8. Expectancy Confirmation for African Americans
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
97.6
98.6
86.4
91.9 *
-11.2
-6.7
+4.5
stopped
Ask to see your
registration & proof
96.4
95.9
89.2
90.7
-7.2
-5.2
+2.0
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
85.2
86.3
70.4
71.2
-14.8
-15.1
-0.3
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
89.0
83.6
63.9
72.2
-25.1
-11.4
+13.7
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
92.6 97.2
70.5
65.2
-22.1
-32.0
-9.9
25
Table 9.
Expectancy Confirmation for
Non -Black Minorities
Survey Items
%Expected
%Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -
Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
100.0
94.5
87.0
87.3
-13.0
-7.2
+5.8
stopped
Ask to see your
registration 8 proof
96.4
100.0
94.5
95.8
-1.9
-4.2
-2.3
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
90.9
83.1
70.9
72.2
-20.0
-10.9
+9.1
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
89.1
86.1
72.2
77.8
-16.9
-8.3
+8.6
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
94.4
91.5
75.9
80.0
-18.5
-11.5
+7.0
26 '
Table 10. Expectancy Confirmation for 16 to 29 Years of Age
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
1 2001
Inform you as to
why you were
97.4
97.3
87.7
94.4
-9.7
-2.9
+6.8
stopped
Ask to see your
registration $ proof
-97.5
98.9
93.6
94.6
-3.9
-4.3
-0.4
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
89.7
94.0 .
67.9
77.2
-21.8
-16.8
+5.0
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
88.5
89.5
68.2
80.6
-20.3
-8.9
+11.4
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
94.8
95.6
71.1
78.8
-23.7
-16.8
+6.9
PAVA
Table I I. Expectancy Confirmation for 30 to 49 Years of Age
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
97.1
96.3
89.0
94.5
-8.1
-1.8
+6.3
stopped
Ask to see your
registration & proof
98.3
98.2
93.8
92.3
-4.5
-5.9
-1.4
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
87.5
82.4
75.3
84.8
-12.2
+2.4
+14.6
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
92.1
88.7
81.1
91.8
-11.0
+3.1
+14.1
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
97.2
95.5
76.6
86.2
-20.6
-9.3
+11.3
Table 12. Expectancy Confirmation 50+ Years of Age
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
94.8
96.7
94.6
92.9
-0.2
-3.8
-2.6
stopped
Ask to see your
registration & proof
98.4
98.9
98.4
94.4
0.0
-4.5
-4.5
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
90.2
85.2
82.3
80.9
-7.9
-4.3
+3.6
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
98.3
96.6
90.3
86.7
-8.0
-9.9
-1.1
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
96.6
95.4
83.6
84.1
-13.0
-11.3
+1.7
29
Table 13.
Expectancy Confirmation for Males
Survey Items
%Expected
%Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -
Year
Comparison.
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
95.7
96.8
89.4
94.3
-6.3
-2.5
+3.8
stopped
Ask to see your
registration &proof
97.8
98.0
93.5
' 94.0
-4.3
-4.0
+0.3
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
88.8
86.9
74.1
78.9
-14.7
-8.0
+6.7
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
89.6
90.0
74.5
85.3
-15.1
-4.7
+10.4
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
95.2
95.2
72.0
81.1
-23.2
-14.1
+9.1
30
Table 14. Expectancy Confirmation for Females
Survey Items
% Expected
% Actual
Difference (+/-)
Year -to -Year
Comparison
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Inform you as to
why you were
98.7
96.7
89.0
94.0
-9.7
-2.7
+7.0
stopped
Ask to see your
registration & proof
98.2
99.2
95.7
93.0
-2.5
-6.2
-3.7
of insurance
Provide info as to
how to take care of
88.8
87.6
72.5
83.8
-16.3
-3.8
+12.5
the violation
Complete the
encounter in a
94.4
90.8
81.9
88.2
-12.5
-2.6
+9.9
reasonable
amount of time
Answer questions
97.5
95.8
80.4
85.0
-17.1
-10.8
+6.3
31
Section IV. Police Behavior
We now turn our attention to the results conceming police behavior. Here,
we are interested in the officer's demeanor during the encounter. Was
the officer courteous? Was the officer sarcastic? Did the officer take
the time to listen to the motorist? Once again, information from the 1999 Survey and
the 2001 Survey will be presented for the full samples. Results by different social
groupings (e.g., race / ethnicity) will also be presented.
❖ More motorists judged LPD officers to be courteous, business -like, friendly, and
took the time to listen to them in the 2001 Survey. What is more, significantly
fewer citizens reported that officers were sarcastic compared to reports from the
1999 Survey (see Figure 4).
❖ Caucasian motorists rated all categories of police behavior in more positive terms
in the 2001 Survey (see Table 15).
❖ Some fluctuations (both positive and negative) were observed in African -
American evaluations of police behavior. For example, in 2001 fewer African -
American motorists reported that the officer was sarcastic (from 40.2% to 36.6%)
and that the officer was friendly (from 62.5% to 55.6%), these differences were
not statistically significant. In sum, evaluations of police behavior among African -
Americans remained fairly consistent over the two time periods'(see Table 15).
❖ Evaluations of police behavior improved among Non -Black Minorities. For
example, fewer minority citizens reported that officers were sarcastic (from
24.5% to 14.5%), and more minority motorists reported that officers were friendly
(from 61.1 % to 70.6%) and took the time to listen to them (from 58.2% to
73.5%)(see Table 15).
❖ In general terms, Caucasians evaluated police behavior in more positive terms
than did African -American motorists, and Non -Black Minority citizens fell
somewhere in between these two groups (see Table 15).
❖ Evaluations of police behavior among motorists between the ages of 16 and 29
were more positive in the 2001 Survey. For example, the percentage of citizens
reporting that the officer took the time to listen to them increased from 57.3% to
67.0% (see Table 16).
32
❖ Motorists between the ages of 30 and 49 rated police behavior during traffic
stops in more positive terms in 2001. For example, the percentage of citizens
reporting that the officer was sarcastic declined (from 20.6% to 8.7%), and the
percentage of citizens reporting that officers took the time to listen increased
(from 69.0% to 82.1 %)(see Table 16).
❖ Evaluations of police behavior among citizens 50 years of age and older, in
statistical terms, remained constant (see Table 16).
❖ Although evaluations of police behavior provided by younger motorists (i.e.,
between the ages of 16 and.29) improved, significant differences between age
groups remain. In other words, younger citizens rate police behavior less
favorably compared to older motorists (see Table 16).
❖ In the 2001 Survey, male motorists rated all aspects of police behavior in more
favorable terms. For example, the percentage of males who reported that the
officer was courteous increased from 73.3% to 85.3% (see Table 17).
❖ Higher ratings of police behavior were also reported among female motorists.
For example, fewer female citizens said that the officer was sarcastic (from
18.8% to 14.4%). More female motorists said that the officer was business -like
(from 84.2% to 90.3%), and that the officer took the time to listen to their
concerns (from 70.3% to 78.6%) in 2001 (see Table 17).
❖ Evaluations of police behavior between men and women were fairly similar.
However, significantly more men reported that the officer was friendly, and more
women said that the officer was business -like (see Table 17).
33
Figure 4. Police Behavior
90
80
.sue
60 tL' �
r?iir`�}xi r.Y fps, .+rr,,h cur
50 F kti o f s=4 iF Y 2 E AC: i
40 I F
®1999
20-4
10
o �+'O��• �� ��y .��
��� I%
got
asp
�o�
34
Table 15. Police Behavior by Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-
American
Non -Black
Minority
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Courteous
78.9
88.8
72.8
72.2
81.1
75.7
Sarcastic
16.5
9.9
40.2
36.6
24.5
14.5
Business -Like
87.1
92.2
69.5
72.2
74.1
73.2
Friendly
67.2
75.1
62.5
55.6
61.1
70.6
Took Time to
Listen
68.9
79.4
61.3
58.0
58.2
73.5
Sample Size
254
351
83
75
55
74
35
Table 16. Police Behavior by Age
16 to 29 years
of age
30 to 49 years
of age.
50+ years of
age
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Courteous
68.2
75.0
82.5
91.9
87.1
85.2
Sarcastic
28.7
21.8
20.6
8.7
16.4
13.8
Business -Like
75.8
82.7
83.8
89.6
88.5
86.4
Friendly
58.8
63.5
66.3
75.5
76.7
78.2
Took Time to
Listen
57.3
67.0
69.0
82.1
74.1
76.2
Sample Size
157
185
177
223
62
92
36
Table 17. Police Behavior by Gender
Male
Female
1999
2001
1999
2001
Courteous
73.3
85.3
83.6
83.6
Sarcastic
26.1
14.5
18.8
14.4
Business -Like
79.5
82.9
84.2
90.3
Friendly
64.0
75.5
66.3
67.2
Took Time to
Listen
61.6
72.6
70.3
78.6
Sample Size
232
253
164
247
37 '
Section V. Encounter -Level Satisfaction
n this section, motorists' levels of satisfaction with the way the LPD handled
their traffic stop is the focus. The term "encounter -level satisfaction" will be
used to refer to this specific type of satisfaction. Each motorist was asked the
following question:
"How satisfied are you with the way the Lansing Police
Department handled your most recent traffic stop?"
Originally, this survey item featured a 4-point response, which ranged from "very
dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" (see Section Four in Appendix B). In the results that
follow, citizens' responses were collapsed into two categories: "very satisfied &
satisfied" & "dissatisfied & very dissatisfied."
❖ Overall, the percentage of motorists reporting that they were "very satisfied" or
"satisfied" with the way the LPD handled their traffic stop was significantly higher
in 2001 (from 60.5% to 72.6%)(see Figure 5).
❖ Among Caucasian motorists, encounter -level satisfaction was significantly higher
in 2001 (from 65.5% to 77.2%)(see Table 18).
❖ The percentage of African -American motorists reporting to be "very satisfied" or
"satisfied" with the way the LPD handled their traffic stop did not change (see
Table 18). However, when these results are examined using the original 4-point
scale, some change in the positive direction was observed. More specifically, the
percentage of African -Americans reporting to be "very dissatisfied" declined from
35.4% to 28.4%.
❖ For Non -Black. Minority citizens, encounter -level satisfaction was significantly
higher in 2001 (from 50.0% to 69.4%)(see Table 18).
❖ The largest increase in encounter -level satisfaction was found among Non -Black
Minority motorists (see Table 18).
❖ Although a majority of citizens from each racial / ethnic category said that they
were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the way the LPD handled their traffic
encounter, a significant gap (approximately 23%) was observed between
Caucasians and African -Americans in 2001 (see Table 18).
❖ Levels of encounter -level satisfaction significantly improved among younger
motorists (from 56.8% to 63.2%)(see Table 19).
38
❖ Among citizens between the ages of 30 and 49, levels of encounter -level
satisfaction were significantly higher in 2001 (from 63.4% to 78.1 %)(see Table
19).
❖ For motorists 50 years of age and older, levels of encounter -level satisfaction
were significantly higher in 2001 (from 60.6% to 78.4%)(see Table 19).
❖ Although levels of encounter -level satisfaction improved across all three age
groups, younger motorists still report the lowest level of encounter -level
satisfaction (63.2%) when compared to the other two age groups (78.1 % &
78.4%, respectively)(see Table 19).
❖ For male motorists, encounter -level satisfaction was significantly higher in 2001
(from 56.3% to 69.6%)(see Table 20).
❖ Levels of encounter -level satisfaction significantly improved among female
motorists (from 66.3% to 75.7%)(see Table 19).
❖ Female motorists (75.7%) report higher levels of encounter -level satisfaction than
did males (69.6%) in 2001. However, levels for both groups were higher in 2001
when compared to levels observed in 1999 (see Table 19).
39
Figure 5. Encounter -Level Satisfaction
N caper,-,r r jry s Y� �3. , i' { +jai lL.kfx '8"� a r`ir�
#a ry- v L` 1 Y'Tq 4Y
75 i 3 R 4r5 > a Y3RFSzi7 4 }F3�?s7 s �%ui�jaru phi,
r;Y.-h
icy Yr 3 X'Y a.1 + s uFYi x£ s�id3 F sx*v ki�� at' f� s;}
4 � e,
�s., i. {w{;it� �a..rT= tP-tt. i r.i� �,!_x+4_'+.tC•k���� ie!�S'�r i�wi [cam YiF-F ��S.
'f.�a'�iY � m c-ti'���'�.? i��^ti f$r�i' ':ii� �rr'i•%>�t"Y'fy{�9
sir
x xy
> �•T{j 3 iY„Y �4 .z`� `X'r'� 7r�+-}>n haer���.YYf• • �P' N'i �,i'+.�� r
v� •' !: `�..1 i^c� ��i y. r•Lf`sur+*r--t:*�y,...K :'" �.r.ai s
�i�;i.
�t eev' i:,t 4r•it &" g
d
{ S tIM
x
.Y'l�eFrYs S,� 'arihGrr' iW,xu.�Kwjx �1 jz•.'Si2"
4iE`fr•"g ���i°1�Y�'.s�� �+�;aq'�YY''•t �� �i p1��`x''.
S��b � � x a��`�' 6�} �'���i�.'s'ijrr.,�§4� "t�' e�•.)sh.3i� � i{ �' v.
,y,�#�y4y� �� r?k �Ln-.i^}�� iAxM' idle• r,�A}'1, �e S-:� ,r �Xl
1r'tr�,�(
r SY � S1J
65-4
ME
Ali xm'
Im
mwm
''^A.-
�'�I...ON 1999
■ 2001
Mu
T G{a
'*
55 < r4 �,
t
4�p i
50. _
% Very Satisfied / Satisfied
40
Table 18. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian
African -American
Non -Black Minority
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
65.5
77.2
53.7
54.0
50.0
69.4
Dissatisfied / Very
Dissatisfied
34.5
22.8
46.3
46.0
50.0
30.6
Sample Size
252
343
82
74
54
72
41
Table 19. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Age
16 to 29 years of
age
30 to 49 years of
age
50+ years of age
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
56.8
63.2
63.4
78.1
60.6
78.4
Dissatisfied / Very
Dissatisfied
43.2
36.8
36.6
21.9
39.4
21.6
Sample Size
155
182
175
219
61
88
42
Table 20. Encounter -Level Satisfaction by Gender
Male
Female
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
56.3
69.6
66.3
75.7
Dissatisfied / Very
Dissatisfied
43.7
30.4
33.7
24.3
Sample Size
231 250
160
239
43
Section V1. General Satisfaction with the LPD
n this section, we turn our attention to satisfaction with the LPD in general
among motorists who were cited for a traffic violation (termed "general
satisfaction"). Once again, results from the 1999 Survey and the 2001 Survey
are compared. Motorists were asked the following question:
"How satisfied are you in general with the Lansing Police Department?"
The general satisfaction survey item originally featured a 4-point response (range =
"very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied"). In the results that follow, the four categories were
collapsed into "very satisfied & satisfied" and "very dissatisfied & dissatisfied."
It is important to note that these findings should not be generalized to the larger
community. In other words, the following results only represent a specific population - -
motorists cited by the LPD for a traffic violation. To understand how satisfied the larger
community is with the LPD, a community -wide survey would have to be administered.
❖ The percentage of motorists reporting that they were "very satisfied" or "satisfied"
in general with the LPD significantly increased in 2001 (from 61.1 % to 76.8%)
(see Figure 6).
❖ For Caucasian motorists, general satisfaction was significantly higher in 2001
(from 67.8% to 81.1 %)(see Table 21).
❖ Among Non -Black Minority motorists, general satisfaction with the LPD was
significantly higher in 2001 (from 64.8% to 73.6%)(see Table 21).
❖ The largest increase in general satisfaction was observed among African -
American motorists (from 39.5% to 60.3%). Despite the sharp increase, African -
American motorists still report the lowest levels of general satisfaction with the
LPD. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a majority of motorists from all
racial / ethnic categories said that they were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" in
general with the LPD (see Table 21).
❖ Levels of general satisfaction significantly improved among younger motorists
between the ages of 16 and 29 (from 54.2% to 67.7%)(see Table 22).
❖ For citizens between the ages of 30 and 49, levels of general satisfaction were
significantly higher in 2001 (from 65.9% to 82.6%o)(see Table 22).
❖ Levels of general satisfaction increased among motorists 50 years of age and
older in 2001 (from 64.4% to 81.9%)(see Table 22).
44
❖ Although levels of general satisfaction improved significantly across all three age
groups, younger motorists reported the lowest levels of general satisfaction
(67.7%) when compared to the other two age groups (82.6% & 81.9%,
respectively) in 2001.
❖ Levels of general satisfaction significantly improved among male motorists (from
61.6% to 75.0%) in 2001 (see Table 23).
❖ For female motorists, levels of general. satisfaction -were significantly higher in
2001 (from 60.1 % to 78.7%)(see Table 23).
45
Figure 6. General Satisfaction with the LPD
80
A t ;Y' �'�� �' "x �Jr. '`�f y >• ��. �+`3is. r7.� 7wn R r �St v' i : rr i rM - ar ''.
yv � � �rftlj f � /` f.�k a�.+.v Y ■...Y��/ S/r � mod. yT
F yl Mfv.LsGwF, r��fF1%z^.� r iih��a�a3r'.rS.`j'y°�,Et.''e•'rS'?'�,ytrr'.t� $��s�aFc'Ye'(-r
3 '3.
,;rsCf
r{ic�
t� }:
'YR '4
s' tF }:
75 xK 1ir� R r br�2 em yii 1 _
*y�m•��V'
"3.{':,—zri
O
.'J <., ♦ 'Y ; �a,.r.+. �.�r �>`,;,.�,g.�6;y'�'' � R r-�Z yr�--e= .
�o"eS;
70 :f:
4
Yj�Iit"�J't"�s'T^!y� � �
RM
�1'{�� y{�a":
�
..�.SA •S� Pt�R' " iP '.' 'l�ik 1t9�:..0:44 NOR
O fP b +,
k ✓
AMn
go 199
01
mom
Sr LL
•.��,�
L
Y* 55
50 _
% Very Satisfied / Satisfied
46
Table 21. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian -
African -American
Non -Black Minority
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
67.8
81.1
39.5
60.3
64.8
73.6
Dissatisfied / Very
Dissatisfied
32.2
18.9
60.5
39.7
35.2
26.4
Sample Size
249
338
81
73
54
72
47
Table 22. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Age
16 to 29 years of
age
30 to 49 years of
age
50+ years of age
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
54.2
67.7
65.9
82.6
64.4
81.9
Dissatisfied /. Very
Dissatisfied
45.8
32.2
34.1
17.4
35.6
18.1
Sample Size
155
183
173
212
59
88
48
Table 23. General Satisfaction with the LPD by Gender
Male
Female
1999
2001
1999
2001
Very Satisfied /
Satisfied
61.6
75.0
60.1
78.7
Dissatisfied / Very
Dissatisfied
38.4
25.0
39.9
21.3
Sample Size
229
248
158
235
49
Section VII: Additional Findings
Wenow'urn our attention to the reasons given by motorists for why they
were pulled over. But first, a few technical details concerning how the
survey items were presented are in order. Motorists included in both
the 1999 and 2001 samples were asked whether the believed they were stopped and
citied because the "LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents" (see Section
Four in Appendix B). If a respondent answered "yes," then she or he was instructed to
proceed to other, non -related items. If a motorist answered "no," then we asked why he
or she believed the officer stopped and cited them. Seven different reasons, such as "to
meet a quota" or "the neighborhood you were traveling though," were presented to
motorists. In addition, an open-ended response (i.e., "other") was provided just in case
the reason they believed they were pulled over was not provided. The pie charts
presented in Section VII include all survey respondents meeting the specified attributes,
such as African Americans in the 1999 Survey. The bar graphs, on the other hand,
consist of only those respondents from each group that said they did not believe they
were stopped and cited because the LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents.
Only non -accident traffic encounters were included in the results that follow.
❖ About"the same percentage of survey respondents in 1999 and 2001 said that
they believed they were stopped and cited because the LPD is concerned with
preventing traffic accidents (45.7% & 52.6%, respectively)(see Figures 7a & 8a).
❖ Results from the 1999 Survey and the 2001 Survey show that the most common
reason given by motorists who believed they were stopped and cited for a reason
other than concern with traffic accidents was "to meet a quota" (43.8% & 47.5%,
respectively)(see Figures 7b & 8b).
❖ About the same percentage of African -American motorists in 1999 and 2001 said
that they believed they were stopped and cited because the LPD is concerned
with preventing traffic accidents (33.3% & 36.9%, respectively)(see Figures 9a &
10a).
❖ In 1999, the most common reason given by African -American motorists who
believed they were stopped and cited for a reason other than concern with traffic
accidents was their "race" (56.5%)(see Figure 9b). In 2001, the most common
reason given was "to meet a quota" (67.5%), and the percentage of African -
American believing their race was a factor decreased by 11.5% (see Figure 10b).
❖ The percentage of Non -Black Minority motorists who said they believed they
were stopped and cited because the LPD is concerned with preventing traffic
accidents jumped by nearly 14% in 2001 (see Figures 11 a & 12a).
50
❖ In 1999, the most common reason given by Non -Black Minority motorists who
believed they were stopped and cited not because of concern with traffic
accidents was their "race" (54.2%). In 2001, however, the percentage of those
believing their race was a factor was significantly lower (25.9%)(see Figures 11 b
& 12b).
51
Figure 7a. Prevent Traffic Accidents?
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the LPD
Is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(1999 Survey, Full Sample)
64.3 45.7
Figure 7b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited by
the officer?
50.
NAg
Rt"IN'.
40
®To Generate Money
30.
111 Your Age
D Your Sex
13 Neighborhood
20
11.4
N Quota
-
M Your Race
E Your Car
10
5
0 Other
0
1999 Survey, Full Sample
i
52
Figure 8a. Prevent Traffic Accidents?
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the
LPD Is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(2001 Survey, Full Sample)
47.4
52.6
AT
Figure 8b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited by
the officer?
50.
it
2' V
IS To Generate Money
30. RXN Your Age
0 .Vk
0 Your Sex
'2
ONeighborhood
2011* Al O-RE E Quota
Y *
E Your Race
N Your Car
000l.77 M
10.Yf 0 Other
0
2001 Survey, Full Sample
53
Figure 9a. Prevent Traffic Accidents?
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the
LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(1999 Survey, African -Americans)
3.3
66.
Figure 9b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited by
the officer?
60.
W
50
. . . . . . . . . .
IS To Generate Money
40. tt
IIIIYour Age
30st0 Your Sex
. 01
N
0 Neighborhood
0 Quota
20007
. -
E Your Race
E Your Car
10. 00 0 Other
01,
1999 Survey, African -Americans
54
Figure 10a. Prevent Traffic Accidents?
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the
LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(2001 Survey, African -Americans)
36.9 ®Yes
63.1 ■ No
Figure 10b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited
by the officer?
5
70 fk l93�4{5 Fji£'?IIY ?yFe
+. ,v-'y },. AT, . Ip
L i� �.:�T�.,' ti V r4xYy w` �f�
60 Hc7 �g 55ky*w€�rF�f`
F � f�` ✓•y�I ^3u+" '4 ��kt�i �u�'.�'�.��. l'4%��hk��l1R,
IN,�d.�� t
Am ®To Generate Money
,a.�kw�z}� IN Your Age
40 0Your Sex
a
wt a fi1a^h�Y ,.l7.�CB)sd x
30 �*� =s� -s O Neighborhood
1 ;j M 7 iiif 3 v t� IN Quota
IN Your Race
207&� ■Your Car
DOther
10.1
. S' + 3
r
0
2001 Survey, African -Americans
55
Figure I Ia. Prevent Traffic Accidents?
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the
LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(1999 Survey, Non -Black Minorities)
54.5 45.5
Figure 11 b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited
by the officer?
60..
'i-z 7W, V;,T,
so. Nil, Aj -4
#
i pem,
40. 000 8 To Generate Money
N Your Age
300 Your Sex
.
" 0 Neighborhood
0;
0 Quota
20. 000 E Your Race
PV7
N Your Car
Other
El
10 �o
Z.
0
1999 Survey, Non -Black Minorities
9
Figure 12a. Prevent Traffic Accidents
"Do you believe that the officer stopped you because the
LPD is concerned with preventing traffic accidents?"
(2001 Survey, Non -Black Minorities)
40.6,
®Yes
■ No
59.4
Figure 12b. Why do you believe you were stopped and cited
by the officer?
40
30
'twaC X O To Generate Money
0 .
■ Your A
ge
O Your Sex
20 O Neighborhood
3 }
t 3 'riP' eha+t�k''L; • Quota
T ■Your Race
r
10 elz ` ■Your Car
x� ��
O Other
t
0 C Sh
2001 Survey, Non -Black Minorities
w
56
57
Appendix A
Sample Protocol
The 1999 and 2001 samples were selected from police records. The universe
from which the samples were drawn included citizens who received a traffic citation in
March 1999 (N = 2,360) and August 2001 (N = 2,739). To ensure that citizens from all
walks of life were represented, 1,500 citizens were randomly selected from each time
period.
All those selected to participate were mailed pre -survey postcards describing the
project and requesting cooperation. The postcards also helped to identify bad
addresses. Overall, 262 bad addresses were found in the 1999 sample, and 147 bad
addresses in the 2001 sample. Shortly thereafter, the questionnaire was mailed to each
selected participant along with a postage prepaid return envelope. Two additional
waves of surveys were distributed to nonrespondents in the 2001 survey project. Three
additional sweeps were administered to nonrespondents in 1999. The overall response
rate for the samples was approximately 32% in 1999 (397/1238), and 37% (500/1349)
in 2001. Table A-1 provides the characteristics for the 1999 and 2001 samples.
The margin of error for sample -wide results is approximately ±3 percent, about
±5 percent for the results for different racial /ethnic groups, approximately ±3 for results
by gender, and ±4 about for results by age.
e •
-
58
Table A-1.
Sample Characteristics, 1999 & 2001
1999 Sample
2001 Sample
Race / Ethnicity
Caucasian
254 64.8
351
70.2
African -American
83 21.2
75
15.0
Non -Black Minority
55 14.0
74
14.8
Gender
Male
232 58.6
253
50.6
Female
164 41.4
247
49.4
Age
Under 30 years old
157 39.6
185
37.0
30 to 49 years old
177 44.7
223
44.6
Over 49 years old
62 15.7
92
18.4
59
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SURVEY
OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
2001
Chief Mark Alley is interested in your perceptions concerning your most recent traffic stop. In particular, Chief
Alley would like to know about your expectations concerning the officer=s behavior and the treatment you actually
received. You are among a small number of people who are being asked to provide their perceptions regarding their
experience.
The results of this study will be used by the Lansing Police Department to identify ways of improving traffic
enforcement practices. We are asking for about 10 minutes of your time to complete the survey.
Your participation is voluntary and your answers are strictly confidential. Only a private research consultant will
have access to your answers. Chief Alley and other LPD officials will receive a report of the survey findings in
group format.
Thank you for your assistance in this effort to determine how informed citizens feel about the traffic enforcement
procedures employed by the Lansing Police Department.
Respectfully,
Michael D. Reisig, Ph.D.
I.D. M NOTE: The ID number is used only to coordinate mailings. When you return
your survey, your number is checked off our mailing list.
SECTION ONE: In this section, we would like to ask you some questions about how you
EXPECTED the officer to handle the traffic enforcement encounter. Please
check one response for each of the following items.
1. Did you expect the officer to inform you as to why you were stopped?
Yes No
2. Did you expect the officer to ask to see your registration and proof of insurance?
Yes No
3. Did you expect the officer to provide you information as to how to take care of the traffic
violation?
Yes No
4. Did you expect the officer to complete the encounter in a reasonable amount of time?
Yes No
5. Did you expect the officer to answer your questions concerning the stop?
Yes No
6. Did you expect the officer to assist you in merging back into traffic?
Yes
No
SECTION TWO: We would like to ask you some questions about how the officer behaved
during the traffic stop. Please check one response for each of the following
items.
7. Was the officer courteous? .............................. Yes
8. Was the officer sarcastic? ............................... Yes
9. Was the officer business -like? ........................... Yes
10. Was the officer friendly? ............................... Yes
11. Did the officer take the time to listen to you? ................ Yes
No
No
No
No
No
62
20. How did you (or plan to) handle your,most recent traffic citation? (Please check one response)
Pay the fine without formally contesting it.
Take the ticket to court.
Other: (specify)
21. How satisfied are you with the way the Lansing Police Department handled your most recent
traffic stop? (Please circle one number) '
Very Dissatisfied I . 2 3 4 Very Satisfied
22. How satisfied are you in general with the Lansing Police Department? (Please circle one number)
Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 Very Satisfied
23. How many traffic citations have you been issued by the Lansing Police Department in the past
two years? (Please write in answer in the space provided below.)
traffic tickets in the past two years
24. At what point did the officer inform you as to why you were stopped? (Please check one)
When the officer first approached you. When you asked.
After issuing you a citation. The officer never informed you.
25. To ensure that people from all racial/ethnic backgrounds are represented in the study, please indicate
your racial/edmic background.
Caucasian/White Black/African American Asian American
Native American Hispanic/Latino Other:
If you would like to provide additional comments, please. visit LPD=s website
(lansingpolice.com) or call 517-483-4804. Thank you for your .
cooperation in this important undertaking.