Youth Perceptions of the Police

Abstract

The relevance of examining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police has been firmly established in the literature. Employing group-based trajectory modeling, the present study builds upon this previous research by estimating police attitudinal trajectories among a general sample of youths. The models produced a 5-group solution for both males and females, with four of the trajectories remaining relatively stable over the time observed and one noticeably experiencing a downward trend. Furthermore, of the items making up the police attitudinal scale, for several of the groups, the item measuring prejudice most consistently oscillated away from the trajectory profile. Policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

youth juveniles attitudes police

Maintaining a favorable image has been a prominent goal of the American police institution since its public relations crisis of the 1960s and the subsequent emergence of the community policing movement, stressing positive collaborative relationships between the police and the citizenry to tackle fear, crime, and disorder (Community Policing Consortium, 1994; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988; Walker & Katz, 2011; Wycoff, 1988). It is theorized that a collaborative citizenry, one that is more likely to assist the police in carrying out its core functions and serve as coproducers of protective services, is also one that is more likely to hold favorable attitudes toward the police (Decker, 1981; Goldstein, 1987; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988; Wycoff, 1988). One group that increasingly consumes a substantial amount of police time and resources (see Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2011; Leiber, Nalla, & Farnworth, 1998; Snyder & Sickmund, 1996; Truman, 2011; Walker & Katz, 2011) and, thus, is an important target concerning the creation and maintenance of good public police relations is juveniles. Evidence even suggests that perceptions of legal actors, particularly police officers, can lead to either compliance or rejection of legal and social norms among children and adolescents (Fagan & Tyler, 2005). Being cognizant of juveniles’ perceptions of the police, then, has significant practical implications, and it is why researchers and administrators over the last few decades have shown considerable interest in the topic (see below).

The literature on juveniles’ perceptions of the police, though not as extensive as that of adults’ perceptions, reveals that a cornucopia of factors affect attitudes, such as race, gender, delinquency, and the nature of police contacts, just to name a few (Brick, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009; Geistman & Smith, 2007; Hinds, 2007; Hurst & Frank, 2000; Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000; Hurst, McDermott, & Thomas, 2005; Leiber et al., 1998; Sullivan, Dunham, & Alpert, 1987; Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, & Winfree, 2001). Very little, however, has been written on juveniles’ attitudes toward the police over time (Esbensen, Osgood, Taylor, Peterson, & Freng, 2001; Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Osgood, 2012; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005), and only one study exists that has identified and chronicled the changes in a longitudinal capacity across distinct attitudinal developmental groups (Piquero et al., 2005)—and even this work does not exclusively focus on attitudes toward the police.

Here, we build upon existing literature by estimating trajectories of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police using the longitudinal component of the National Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training program (G.R.E.A.T. I; Esbensen et al., 2001). The current research, after bifurcating subjects based on sex, attempts to identify and track the course of adolescents grouped along attitudinal levels toward the police. It further seeks to examine the mean rates of the attitudinal scale’s indicators about possible trajectory profiles. Its originality and value are rooted in this distinction since this approach has infrequently been applied to juvenile attitudes toward the police and, thus, the identification of such attitudinal developmental groups requires further exploration. By isolating the possible different attitudinal groups and following their course, while concurrently examining mean rates of specific indicators, we will not only be adding to the knowledge base, creating a more complete understanding of juveniles’ attitudes toward the police but also be providing a springboard for future research as well as for the creation of juvenile-focused police policies that can take into account the nuances of attitudinal development.

Attitudes and Group-Based Trajectory Modeling

Longitudinal studies in which attitudes toward the police are presented as the primary variable of interest have almost exclusively focused on adults; therefore, the empirical reality concerning juveniles’ attitudes toward the police over time is comparatively unknown. The adult-focused research, however, shows that attitudes toward the police are relatively stable with prior attitudes serving as the best predictors of subsequent attitudes (Brandl, Frank, Worden, & Bynum, 1994; Chermak, McGarrell, & Weiss, 2001; Gau, 2010; Rosenbaum, Schuck, Costella, Hawkins, & Ring, 2005). In the only longitudinal study examining juveniles’ perceptions that has employed a similar methodology as the one used here, it was also revealed that attitudes concerning legitimacy of law changed very little over time (Piquero et al., 2005). These findings correspond with the various conceptions of attitudes, which have referred to their enduring natures or settled dispositions as well as with the characterizations of attitudes as traits with fairly permanent qualities (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Attitudes are not entirely immutable, though. Among adult populations, while not as powerful as preexisting notions, evidence holds personal experiences play a role in attitudinal variability. For instance, research by Gau (2010) examining respondents’ perceptions of police officers’ ability to prevent crime revealed that, even when controlling for prior attitudes, perceptions of police contact quality and being subjected to an unjustified stop were significant predictors. Brandl et al. (1994), after taking into consideration prior global satisfaction, found that global attitudes of the police were influenced by assessments of police assistance and information contacts. Even in the aforementioned Piquero et al. (2005) research, a group of juveniles was identified whose legitimacy perceptions dramatically increased during the period under study. Furthermore, research holds that adults hold more favorable attitudes toward the police than juveniles (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Boggs & Galliher, 1975; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Smith & Hawkins, 1973), evidence that over time those attitudes are indeed changing, becoming increasingly positive. In sum, though the parameters of attitudinal ranges might be limited once formulated, evidence shows there is still room for change—even if it is merely a slight oscillation away from the mean.

A portion of the attitudinal stability that is observed, however, is undoubtedly a product of the multitude of factors behind perceptions combined with limitations of the methodologies and statistical analyses employed when measuring the development of attitudes. Without providing an exhaustive discussion of construct validity and the difficulties related to measuring change, it should simply be noted that attitudes in general can be conceived as being the products of a complex set of factors such as beliefs, feelings, and past behaviors (see Maio, Esses, Arnold, & Olson, 2004; Zanna & Rempel, 1988), impacting individuals over a protracted period and most likely beyond the time frame of empirical observation. By employing group-based trajectory (GBT) modeling (aka finite mixture modeling) and utilizing a panel study design in which juveniles’ attitudes toward the police are examined over a 5-year period as we do here, we can more closely inspect the issue of attitudinal stability and increase the likelihood of capturing meaningful change as it occurs.

It is important to note that GBT modeling has become commonplace within the criminological literature surrounding life course transitions and behavioral development. Nagin and Land (1993) originally popularized the technique as a means of investigating processes evolving over time or age by isolating individuals into finite developmental groups or trajectories. While other popular schemes used to analyze longitudinal data, such as hierarchal linear modeling (i.e., growth curve models), assume a continuous, normal distribution of trajectories in the population, GBT modeling makes no such parametric assumptions; rather it stresses the possibility of a limited number of clusters—groups within the distribution that are distinguishable by similar developmental trajectories. Further, whereas standard growth curve models describe the average probability trajectory of some development process as well as the individual variability about the mean trajectory (with the ultimate goal entailing the identification of factors explaining such variability), GBT modeling focuses on assigning cases to latent classes to which they have the highest probability of belonging and subsequently identifying factors distinguishing group membership in addition to factors impacting the intercepts and slopes of development within each particular latent class (Nagin, 2005; Nagin & Piquero, 2010). This technique has been used to explain the development of criminality across varying stages of the life course (e.g., Bushway, Piquero, Broidy, Cauffman, & Mazzerolle, 2001; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Morris, Carriaga, Diamond, Piquero, & Piquero, 2012; Morris & Piquero, 2012; Sampson & Laub, 1993) but has rarely been used to explore attitudes toward the police (discussed further below).

The group-based approach to juvenile attitudes toward the police is appropriate since it is reasonable to assume that not all juvenile attitudes follow a common increasing or decreasing developmental pattern—counter to processes that lend themselves more to standard growth curve models (see Raudenbush, 2001; Warr, 2002). As mentioned previously, demographics and experiential factors account for much of the variance surrounding favorable or unfavorable evaluations of particular issues. It makes sense then to assume that some youths will always have highly positive views of the police, others will never hold the police in such regard, and some will develop an increasingly positive view toward police, and for others initially positive attitudes will deteriorate (i.e., become negative) over time. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the mean rates of certain items comprising the attitudinal scale, while consistent enough to belong to particular groups, will noticeably depart from the trajectory. The goal of this exploratory article is to identify those unique groupings and their developmental patterns.

Though Piquero et al. (2005) were the first and, to the current authors’ knowledge, only researchers to have taken a similar methodological/statistical approach when examining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police, the current research is different in a variety of ways. First, the attitudinal measures used here exclusively pertain to the police; that is, in Piquero et al., the legitimacy scale, which was one of their primary variables of interest, measured respondents in terms of their perceptions about judges and the courts as well the police. Second, we observe five points of data collected annually over a 5-year period, whereas Piquero et al. examined four repeated observations spanning only 18 months. Third, we examine a younger sample of youths, with all participants at the first wave of data collection being 12 years of age. The average baseline age in the work of Piquero et al. was 16.04 (range 14–18). And finally, although Piquero et al. examined a sample of serious adolescent offenders from two cities, here we study a more general sample of juveniles across six U.S. cities. Other differences exist as well, but the point being illustrated here is that the current research makes a unique and significant contribution to the literature by determining whether developmental patterns concerning attitudes toward the police exist among a general sample of juveniles. Moreover, if different patterns emerge, we seek to determine whether they remain stable or experience marked change over the time observed. Finally, contingent upon the presence of discrete patterns, the current research will analyze the variability of the items’ mean rates, making up the specific profiles.

Data and Method

Data

Data for the present study were culled from the longitudinal component of the G.R.E.A.T. program (see Esbensen et al., 2001). These data provide a multi-item police attitudes scale, which is consistent across five annual waves of data collection, making them ideal for assessing attitudinal development. The G.R.E.A.T. data were originally collected from students attending 22 middle schools from within six U.S. cities. The original sample consisted of over 3,500 students of which parental consent was obtained from 2,045 (57%). The original research team surveyed these students annually from 1995 (sixth and seventh grade) through 1999. We limited our analysis to youth who were 12 years old at Wave 1, who participated completely through the fifth wave, and who reported to at least 4 of the 7 items regarding attitudes toward police—discussed below (n = 927).

We further stratified the sample by gender in order to tease out such differences in attitudinal development. Although gender differences in relation to police attitudes have not been conclusively established in the literature, with one study reporting higher police perceptions among adolescent males than females (Hurst & Frank, 2000) and others finding gender to be a relative nonfactor (Brick et al., 2009; Chow, 2011; Griffiths & Winfree, 1982; Moretz, 1980; Winfree & Griffiths, 1977), several pieces of research have shown gender to be directly or indirectly related to attitudes toward the police, with adolescent females reporting more favorable perceptions of the police than males (Bouma, 1969; Brandt & Markus, 2000; Geistman & Smith, 2007; Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000; Portune, 1971; Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, & Winfree, 2001). And while it is largely maintained that cultural expectations and norms produce much of the general behavioral differences observed in males and females (Feingold, 1992; Grossman & Grossman, 1994), differentiation between the sexes is nonetheless extant and warrants examination in this context. Moreover, this distinction is not lost on the juvenile justice system, which in recent years has increasingly invested in gender-specific delinquency programs (see Foley, 2008). Our sample consisted of 421 (45%) males and 506 (55%) females.

Descriptive statistics for the youth represented in our analyses are presented in Table 1. After partitioning the sample based on sex, we opted to include descriptive statistics on variables the literature has found to be relevant to attitudes toward the police, such as race, perceptions of safety, victimization, delinquency, and arrests (Brick, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009; Brown & Coulter, 1983; Dean, 1980; Frank, Brandl, Cullen, & Stichman, 1996; Geistman & Smith, 2007; Homant, Kennedy, & Fleming, 1984; Hurst & Frank, 2000; Hurst et al., 2000, 2005; Koenig, 1980; Leiber et al., 1998; Sullivan et al., 1987; Taylor et al., 2001). As shown in Table 1, the majority of the sample for both sexes is White (60% of males and 55% of females). And while perceptions of school safety appear to be similar between the two groups, males report on average 3 times as many incidents of delinquency than females. Victimization, gang membership, and number of arrests appear to be more frequent among males than among females (see scale items).

Table 1.

Sample Demographics by Gender.

	Male		Female
	M	SD	M	SD
White	0.60	0.49	0.55	0.50
Black	0.12	0.33	0.14	0.35
Hispanic	0.20	0.40	0.19	0.39
Other	0.08	0.28	0.12	0.32
School environment	2.77	0.27	2.72	0.26
Delinquency	19.61	58.81	6.68	19.46
Victimization	5.46	22.92	3.11	15.72
Gang membership^a	0.05	0.21	0.03	0.16
Arrests^b	0.26	0.92	0.07	0.37
n	421		506

^a Variable indicating gang membership was missing some observations (n = 342 for males; n = 424 for females). ^b Number of arrests reported for 6 months prior to interview truncated to 10 arrests, which was generally at the 99th percentile. Number of arrests was not collected in Waves 1 and 2.

Measurement

The G.R.E.A.T. data are rich in measures and of focus here are a series of indicators measuring attitudes toward police. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, respondents were asked about their level of agreement, with higher scores indicating higher levels of agreement (i.e., more positive), to the following statements: “police officers are honest,” “most police officers are usually rude” (reverse coded), “police officers are hardworking,” “most police officers are usually friendly,” “police officers are usually courteous,” “police officers are respectful toward people like me,” and “police officers are prejudiced against minority persons” (reverse coded). Responses to these questions were then averaged to represent overall attitude toward police at each wave. Internal consistency for the attitude scale was strong at each wave (α coefficients were .84, .86, .88, .87, and .89 at Waves 1 through 5). For cases missing only one wave worth of data for a given scale item, data were imputed by taking the average response from the previous and next report when the datum was missing at Waves 2, 3, or 4, respectively. A missing datum on Wave 1 was imputed with the Wave 2 report to the same item, and a missing datum at Wave 5 was imputed with that which was reported at Wave 4.

Analytical Procedure

This study assessed the development of attitudes toward police among high-risk youth from age 12 to age 16, relying on GBT modeling (aka finite mixture modeling). Our GBT analysis was carried out in a series of steps that directly account for the nested nature of the data (i.e., repeated observations over time are nested within an individual). The first stage of the analysis involved approximating a longitudinal latent class analysis (LLCA), which is one form of GBT modeling (Nagin & Land, 1993). The mathematical underpinnings of this analytical technique are covered in more detail elsewhere (see Feldman, Masyn, & Conger, 2009). LLCA systematically classifies the observed attitude trajectories into one group among a user-specified number of group of trajectories. It is important to note that unlike other GBTs, LLCA assumes no functional form of the trajectory (e.g., linear, quadratic, etc.) but classifies individuals based on patterns of development. We relied on contemporary standards for determining the final number of groups to retain, which is the focus of the findings section presented below.

Results

Trajectory Analysis

In this study, trajectory analysis was used to model the development of attitudes toward police for a 5-year period among high-risk youth from ages 12 through 16. One of the benefits of LLCA approach is that it does not presume any specific time function or proportional odds. Therefore, complicated models of change can be evaluated without violating assumptions that some other techniques may impose (Feldman et al., 2009).

The first stage of a trajectory analysis involves the decision about the appropriate number of classes to retain in a final solution. This is usually done by using unconditional trajectory models, which are models without covariates (see Nylund & Masyn, 2008). Model selection is typically based on the evaluation of comparative fit indices. The final solution was based on the evaluation of Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) statistics, posterior probabilities, class proportions, graphically visualized mean trajectories for each class, and parsimony. Tables 2 and 3 present the fit statistics of the 2-group, 3-group, 4-group, 5-group, and 6-group LLCA results for males and females, respectively.

Table 2.

Longitudinal Latent Class Analysis Results for Males.

	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6
BIC	4,730.581	4,538.843	4,468.967	4,439.928	4,420.043
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 2-group model
Prob.		%		#
Class 1	0.930		50.4		212
Class 2	0.949		49.6		209
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 3-group model
Class 1	0.935		11.9		50
Class 2	0.921		50.1		211
Class 3	0.921		38.0		160
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 4-group model
Class 1	0.889		38.9		164
Class 2	0.934		10.7		45
Class 3	0.890		39.7		167
Class 4	0.937		10.7		45
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 5-group model
Class 1	0.943		9.3		39
Class 2	0.823		15.2		64
Class 3	0.816		26.6		112
Class 4	0.938		10.4		44
Class 5	0.883		38.5		162
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 6-group model
Class 1	0.935		9.7		41
Class 2	0.865		33.7		142
Class 3	0.762		7.6		32
Class 4	0.833		13.1		55
Class 5	0.956		9.5		40
Class 6	0.847		26.4		111

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

Table 3.

Longitudinal Latent Class Analysis Results for Females.

	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6
BIC	4,964.064	4,720.257	4,645.168	4,609.971	4,581.032
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 2-group model
Prob.		%		#
Class 1	0.911		46.4		235
Class 2	0.939		53.6		271
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 3-group model
Class 1	0.931		16.2		82
Class 2	0.910		55.5		281
Class 3	0.875		28.3		143
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 4-group model
Class 1	0.895		9.9		50
Class 2	0.870		41.5		210
Class 3	0.892		38.7		196
Class 4	0.862		9.9		50
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 5-group model
Class 1	0.929		10.9		55
Class 2	0.863		5.5		28
Class 3	0.839		38.7		196
Class 4	0.887		8.5		43
Class 5	0.883		36.4		184
Posterior probabilities and class proportions for 6-group model
Class 1	0.899		1.2		6
Class 2	0.909		13.8		70
Class 3	0.858		36.8		186
Class 4	0.864		34.6		175
Class 5	0.839		6.1		31
Class 6	0.906		7.5		38

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the 5-group model was determined as the most appropriate in representing the development of attitudes toward police from age 12 to age 16 for both males and females, respectively. Although the 6-group solutions resulted in improved BIC, posterior probabilities were weakened as were proportions for males. Considering this along with model parsimony, we decided upon the 5-group solution. Based on this solution, these distinct attitudinal–developmental trajectory profiles were labeled as low-stable, midrange-stable, upper mid-stable, high-stable, and midrange declining. Figures 1 and 2 display the trajectory profiles for the five-class solutions retained, again for each gender.

Figure 1.

Trajectories of attitudes toward police: males and females.

Figure 2.

Group attitude trajectory by specific question: males.

Heterogeneity in Attitudes Toward the Police

The male and female trajectory profiles share several characteristics, with attitudes toward the police tending to be stable for most youth, although at varying degrees of positivity.

Each gender is predominantly represented by individuals who have midrange (26.6% for males; 38.7% for females) or upper midrange (38.5% for males; 36.4% for females) attitudes toward police, which tend to remain stable from 12 to 16 years of age. Both genders are also represented by a group of juveniles who report very high attitudes toward police (10.4% of males; 8.5% of females), also remaining stable. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are groups of juveniles who tend to report negative attitudes toward police (9.3% of males; 10.0% of females) across the full observation period, and these youths’ attitudes tend to be relatively stable. Perhaps more interesting is that one of the five groups, for both males and females, the midrange declining group (15.2% of males; 5.5% of females), reports mid to mid-upper level attitudes toward police; but at about age 13, their attitudes begin to deteriorate; and by age 16, these youth have the lowest attitudes toward police. Unlike their more stable counterparts, the midrange decliners are considerably different with regard to proportional representation between genders. Proportionally speaking, we found 2.76 times more males in this group than females.

In sum, nearly half of males (48.9%) and more than half of females (53.4%) tend to have rather positive outlooks toward the police, and these attitudes tend to remain stable from 12 to 16. A sizable proportion of both genders have midrange attitudes that remain stable and a smaller group has poor attitudes, both of which tend to remain across time. However, some youth tend to have positive attitudes until about age 13, but then their attitudes decline rapidly through age 16. In the end, these findings show that there is in fact considerable heterogeneity in the development of attitudes toward the police. Most youth’s attitudes are consistent during this time period (i.e., they remain high if they start high, low if they start low, etc.) though other youth tend to report degenerative attitudes about the police as time goes on.

In an effort to extend the exploration further, we also plotted the mean levels for each specific item underlying the attitude scale at each wave along with the estimated trajectory profile (see Figure 2). This was done for both males and females separately. These findings suggest that for most trajectory groups, the mean rates of specific attitude indicators fall consistently within the trajectory profile; however, in some cases, 1 or more items tend to fall outside of the overall pattern. For example, in the low-stable male group (notated as Group 1 in Figure 2), which is the group whose members hold the least favorable attitudes toward the police, members tend to maintain comparatively better attitudes about the police regarding the idea that the police are prejudiced toward minorities. Males in the high-stable group (those with the most positive attitudes toward police) are fairly consistent across items; however, it is interesting that the prejudice item is clearly the lowest ranking item. In other words, these youth have positive attitudes toward the police, but the aspect about the police that generates the most negativity has to do with prejudice.

For females in the low-stable group, respondents had comparatively more agreement with the statement about police being hardworking. And somewhat similar to that of males, as the same group members got older, their perceptions of police prejudice improved as well; that is, they increasingly viewed the police as less prejudiced. Also like their male counterparts, the two female groups with the most positive attitudes toward the police consistently ranked the police prejudice item lower than other attitudinal items (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3.

Group attitude trajectory by specific question: females.

Discussion and Conclusion

The emphasis on gauging public perceptions of the police sprouted from movements aimed at improving relationships between the police and the community. Juveniles have long been a segment of the community that experiences frequent encounters with the police—and because of the discretionary nature of policing, in many cases police officers are the only agents of the criminal justice system with whom juveniles come into contact (Caldwell & Black, 1971; Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). Consequently, these contacts can be extremely valuable in forming the basis for future police–community relations (Winfree & Griffiths, 1977). The importance of maintaining a positive police image in the eyes of juveniles as well as studying juveniles’ attitudes toward the police then cannot be overstated.

While previous research has mostly examined juveniles’ perceptions of law enforcement in cross-sectional capacities, this study adds to the scant literature devoted to examining juveniles’ attitudes of the police over time. Using the LLCA approach to GBT modeling, a 5-group model was retained from data produced by the national evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. for both males and females. The results revealed that most respondents held relatively favorable attitudes toward the police, with four of the groups from each gender remaining relatively stable over the time observed. That is, those juveniles that started off with high baseline attitudes also ended the period of observation with high attitudes. The findings of relative stability correspond to those in the police attitudinal literature concerning adults, with most longitudinal designs focusing on adults’ attitudes toward the police demonstrating a comparative degree of constancy over time (Brandl et al., 1994; Chermak et al., 2001; Gau, 2010; Rosenbaum et al., 2005). The degree of stability and number of groups retained was also similar to the findings of Piquero et al. (2005) wherein they retained five groups when examining individuals’ perceptions of legitimacy of law. But unlike these studies, we employed GBT modeling and identified unique attitudinal groupings among a general sample of juveniles, allowing us for the first time to conclude based on empirical evidence that not all juvenile attitudes exclusively pertaining to the police follow a common increasing or decreasing trajectory.

Although extending well beyond the scope of the G.R.E.A.T. I data, future projects could entail panel studies wherein participants are followed into adulthood. Such an approach would provide a more holistic picture of attitudinal development and one wherein specific shifts in trajectories could be identified that possibly comport with significant life events. For instance, the extant literature demonstrates that juveniles hold the police in lower regard than adults (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Boggs & Galliher, 1975; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Smith & Hawkins, 1973) and that even younger adults have less favorable attitudes about the police than older adults (Murphy & Worrall, 1999; Nofziger & Williams, 2005; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2003; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002). By extending the time period under study, researchers might be able to identify when and how the trajectories begin their lasting upward trends. Perhaps groups differ in response to graduating college, obtaining career employment, getting married, or having children. The period of observation in the current study only surveys juveniles from the ages 12 to 16.

Our finding that males held the police in lower regard than females do, albeit slightly, comports with the bulk of the literature showing more positive attitudes toward the police among females than males (Bouma, 1969; Brandt & Markus, 2000; Geistman & Smith, 2007; Hurst et al., 2000; Portune, 1971; Taylor et al., 2001). Further, the mid-declining group (Group 2), the group from each sex that started at a moderate level but dropped precipitously at around age 13, contained a greater percentage of males (15.2%) than females (5.5%). Such disparities in attitudes between the sexes are often explained by the nature of police contacts, with positive contacts (i.e., assistance, providing information, etc.) producing positive perceptions of the police and negative contacts (i.e., invocation of social control) detrimentally impacting attitudes toward the police (Brown & Benedict, 2002; Smith, Graham, & Adams, 1991; Worrall, 1999). A specific type of contact that produces negative sentiments, among juveniles as well as adults, is arrest (Brick et al., 2009; Smith & Hawkins, 1973); and since males make up over two thirds of juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011; Snyder, 2008), the differential in male and female attitudes found here is not too surprising. In fact, male respondents in the current sample reported more arrests on average than females. Further, it could be that the members of the low-stable and mid-declining group for both sexes experienced a greater incidence and/or frequency of arrests than members of other groups.

Delinquency is another factor that could be producing the modest variance in attitudes toward police between the sexes. Males consistently report more delinquent acts than females (Canter, 1982; Sampson, 1985; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; White & LaGrange, 1987), as they did here in the current sample—a possible indicator, along with arrests, of adhering to subcultures with distinguishable values that stress hostility toward authority figures (see Anderson, 1999; Cohen, 1955; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Miller, 1958). Brick et al. (2009) found that, after controlling for serious delinquency, initial differences between the sexes concerning attitudes toward the police disappeared. Although the current study exclusively focuses on identifying trajectories and describing them in terms of the sole demographic of sex, our future research aims at identifying other factors that distinguish group membership, giving particular attention to arrests, delinquency, victimization, and race. All of which, in cross-sectional studies, have been shown to affect juveniles’ attitudes toward the police (Brick et al., 2009; Geistman & Smith, 2007; Hurst & Frank, 2000; Hurst et al., 2000, 2005; Leiber et al., 1998; Sullivan et al., 1987; Taylor et al., 2001).

The discovery of the mid-declining group is noteworthy because its trajectory illustrates a particular point in time wherein attitudes significantly shift downward—between the ages of 12 and 13. In fact, among females, members of this group held the lowest perceptions of the police—eventually dipping below the low- and middle-stable groups. Regardless of the particular factors behind this descending trend, an important implication of this finding is the necessity for early intervention. And since the literature demonstrates a relationship between delinquency and attitudes toward the police (Brick et al., 2009; Cox & Falkenberg, 1987; Leiber et al., 1998), predelinquent intervention programs already in place could be utilized to shore up attitudes toward the police with the value addition of producing a more collaborative citizen in adulthood. Practitioners looking for solutions to poor police–juvenile relations, then, would do well to research to the numerous promising intervention programs identified by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention currently carried out in schools and communities (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003). These programs, which entail a variety of curricula such as classroom and behavior management, conflict resolution and violence prevention, anti-bullying directives, mentoring, and afterschool recreation, can be adapted to include instruction conducive to prosocial attitudes toward the police. Police Athletic Leagues, which have chapters all across the country, already incorporate such practices in their programming, with one of their goals being developing strong positive attitudes toward the police (National Association of Police Athletic/Activities Leagues, Inc., 2013). The G.R.E.A.T. program, whose evaluation provided the data used here, is another such program that focuses on prevention. Its antigang and delinquency message is delivered in schools directly by school resource officers and police officers, with the aim of developing positive relations with law enforcement. Cross-sectional as well as longitudinal evaluations of the program have suggested that many participants end up having more positive attitudes toward the police than nonparticipants (Esbensen & Osgood, 1999; Esbensen et al., 2001; Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Osgood, 2012). Finally, an evaluation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, from which G.R.E.A.T. was loosely modeled, revealed that police officers who provided the instruction received better evaluations than nonpolice officer instructors (Hammond et al., 2008).

The discovery of visible differentials between individual items making up the attitudinal scale is important, as well—particularly the finding concerning the prejudice item. Recall that, although the members making up the groups with the most positive attitudes toward the police (Groups 4 and 5) consistently rated the police on all attitudinal items higher than members of the groups with the worst attitudes of the police, in relation to the mean scores on other items within the group, the item measuring prejudice among Groups 4 and 5 was consistently the lowest, for both sexes (with lower scores indicating higher perceptions of police prejudice). The opposite was true for the groups with the least favorable attitudes toward the police, however (i.e., those group members consistently rated the police less prejudiced in relation to other items—Groups 1 and 2 for males). This seemingly perplexing finding could be due to police contact, with members of higher attitudinal groups possibly having little contact with the police and basing their perceptions on external sources as to how the police typically interact with monitories. The groups with lower attitudes, though, possibly because their members have experienced a greater degree of police contact and thus are more directly knowledgeable of the reality of police officer behavior, might be contending that, even though they are comparatively dissatisfied with the police, the police are not racially biased in the commission of their duties—particularly in relation to other officer behaviors. Research does show that aspects of citizen demeanor are better indicators of police behavior toward citizens than race and class (Black, 1971; Mastrofski, Reisig, & McCluskey, 2002; Piliavin & Briar, 1964). Regardless of the reason, these particular findings have implications for the field of procedural justice. The theory of procedural justice maintains that public perceptions of fairness of the criminal justice system and respect for the law are inextricably intertwined with perceived legitimacy and, ultimately, willingness to comply with the law (Tyler, 1990, 2007; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Believing that the police are prejudiced, then, more than likely, compromises conceptions of fairness and respect, increasing the chances of delinquency. When attempting to build police–youth relationships, police officials should pay particular attention to youth’s notions of racial discrimination.

As with any social scientific endeavor, replication is necessary to ensure a more complete understanding of the phenomena under study as well as prior to committing to any consequential public policy. For example, it is important to discover whether these trajectories would emerge using other populations. Nonetheless, administrators should look to the aforementioned intervention programs as viable options for developing cordial relationships between the police and juveniles that can continue into adulthood. With the identification of different developmental trajectories, however, it is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach might be ineffective. In future research, it is our intention to identify factors determining group membership as well as factors associated with developmental patterns themselves. The current study, then, can be viewed as a first step in understanding how juveniles’ attitudes toward the police develop as they age.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

References

Anderson

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Apple

O’Brien

(1983). Neighborhood racial composition and residents’ evaluation of police performance. American Sociological Review, 11, 76–84.

Black

(1971). The social organization of arrest. Stanford Law Review, 23, 1087–1111.

Boggs

S. L.

Galliher

S. F.

(1975). Evaluating the police: A comparison of black street and household respondents. Social Problems, 13, 393–406.

Bouma

D. H.

(1969). Kids and cops. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Brandl

S. G.

Frank

Worden

R. E.

Bynum

T. S.

(1994). Global and specific attitudes toward the police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119–134.

Brandt

D. E.

Markus

K. A.

(2000). Adolescent attitudes towards the police: A new generation. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 15, 10–16.

Brick

B. T.

Taylor

T. J.

Esbensen

F.-A.

(2009). Juvenile attitudes towards the police: The importance of subcultural involvement and community ties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 488–495.

Brown

Benedict

W. R.

(2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing, 25, 543–580.

10.

Brown

Coulter

(1983). Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review, 43, 50–58.

11.

Bushway

S. D.

Piquero

A. R.

Broidy

L. M.

Cauffman

Mazerolle

(2001). An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology, 39, 491–515.

12.

Caldwell

R. G.

Black

J. A.

(1971). Juvenile delinquency. New York, NY: Ronald Press.

13.

Canter

R. J.

(1982). Sex differences in self-report delinquency. Criminology, 20, 373–394.

14.

Cavan

R. C.

Ferdinand

T. N.

(1975). Juvenile delinquency. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.

15.

Chermak

McGarrell

E. F.

Weiss

(2001). Citizens’ perceptions of aggressive traffic enforcement strategies. Justice Quarterly, 18, 365–391.

16.

Chow

H. P. H.

(2011). Adolescent attitudes toward the police in a western Canadian city. Policing, 34, 638–653.

17.

Cloward

R. A.

Ohlin

L. E.

(1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York, NY: Free Press.

18.

Cohen

A. K.

(1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press.

19.

Community Policing Consortium. (1994). Understanding community policing: A framework for action. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

20.

Cox

T. C.

Falkenberg

S. D.

(1987). Adolescents’ attitudes toward the police: An emphasis on interactions between the delinquency measures of alcohol and marijuana, police contacts and attitudes. American Journal of Police, 6, 45–62.

21.

Dean

(1980). Citizen ratings of the police: The difference police contact makes. Law and Policy Quarterly, 2, 445–471.

22.

Decker

(1981) Citizen attitudes toward the police. A review of past findings and suggestions for future police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 80–87.

23.

Eagly

A. H.

Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

24.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Osgood

D. W.

(1999). Gang resistance education and training (GREAT): Results from the national evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 194–225.

25.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Osgood

D. W.

Taylor

T. J.

Peterson

Freng

(2001). How great is G.R.E.A.T? Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 87–118.

26.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Peterson

Taylor

T. J.

Osgood

D. W.

(2012). Results from a multi-site evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. program. Justice Quarterly, 29, 125–151.

27.

Fagan

Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217–242.

28.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Ten-year arrest trends. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl32.xls

29.

Feingold

(1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62, 61–84.

30.

Feldman

B. J.

Masyn

K. E.

Conger

R. D.

(2009). New approaches to studying problem behaviors: A comparison of methods for modeling longitudinal, categorical adolescent drinking data. Developmental Psychology, 43, 652–676.

31.

Foley

(2008). The current state of gender-specific delinquency programming. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 262–269.

32.

Frank

Brandl

Cullen

F. T.

Stichman

(1996). Reassessing the impact of race on citizens’ attitudes toward the police: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 13, 321–334.

33.

Gau

J. M.

(2010). A longitudinal analysis of citizens’ attitudes about police. Policing, 33, 236–252.

34.

Geistman

Smith

B. W.

(2007). Juvenile attitudes toward police: A national study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 30, 27–51.

35.

Goldstein

(1987). Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 6–10.

36.

Griffiths

C. T.

Winfree

L. T.

(1982). Attitudes toward the police: A comparison of Canadian and American adolescents. Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 6, 128–141.

37.

Grossman

S. H.

(1994). Gender issues in education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

38.

Hammond

Sloboda

Tonkin

Stephens

Teasdale

Grey

S. F.

Williams

(2008). Do adolescents perceive police officers as credible instructors of substance abuse prevention programs? Health Education Research, 23, 682–696.

39.

Hay

Forrest

(2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739–774.

40.

Hinds

(2007). Building police-youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7, 195–209.

41.

Homant

Kennedy

Flemming

(1984). The effect of victimization and the police response on citizens’ attitudes toward police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 323–332.

42.

Hurst

Y. G.

Frank

(2000). How kids view cops: The nature of juvenile attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 189–202.

43.

Hurst

Y. G.

Frank

Browning

S. L.

(2000). The attitudes of juveniles toward the police. Policing, 23, 37–53.

44.

Hurst

Y. G.

McDermott

M. J.

Thomas

D. L.

(2005). The attitudes of girls toward the police: Differences by race. Policing, 28, 578–593.

45.

Koenig

D. J.

(1980). The effect of crime victimization and judicial or police contacts on public attitudes toward the local police. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 8, 243–249.

46.

Laub

J. H.

Nagin

D. S.

Sampson

R. J.

(1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238.

47.

Leiber

M. J.

Nalla

M. K.

Farnworth

(1998). Explaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15, 151–174.

48.

Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

Petechuk

(2003). Child delinquency: Early intervention and prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

49.

Maio

G. R.

Esses

V. M.

Arnold

K. H.

Olson

J. M.

(2004). The function-structure model of attitudes: Incorporating the need for affect. In Haddock

Maio

G. R.

(Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 9–33). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

50.

Mastrofski

Reisig

McCluskey

(2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519–551.

51.

Miller

(1958). Lower-class culture as generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19.

52.

Moretz

(1980). Kids to cops: We think you’re important, but we’re not sure we understand you. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 220–224.

53.

Morris

R. G.

Carriaga

M. L.

Diamond

Leeper-Piquero

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Does prison strain lead to prison misconduct? An application of general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 194–201.

54.

Morris

R. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). For whom do sanctions deter and label? Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.633543

55.

Murphy

D. W.

Worrall

J. L.

(1999). Residency requirements and public perceptions of the police in large municipalities. Policing, 22, 327–342.

56.

Nagin

D. S.

(2005). Group-based modeling and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

Nagin

D. S.

Land

K. C.

(1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: Specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology, 31, 327–362.

58.

Nagin

D. S.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). Using the group-based trajectory model to study crime over the life course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 105–116.

59.

National Association of Police Athletic/Activities Leagues, Inc. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nationalpal.org

60.

Nofziger

Williams

L. S.

(2005). Perceptions of police and safety in a small town. Police Quarterly, 8, 248–270.

61.

Nylund

K. L.

Masyn

K. E.

(2008). Covariates and latent class analysis: Results of a simulation study . Paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

62.

Piliavin

Briar

(1964). Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 206–214.

63.

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Odgers

(2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 267–298.

64.

Portune

(1971). Changing adolescent attitudes toward the police: A practical sourcebook for schools and police departments. Cincinnati, OH: W.H. Anderson and Company.

65.

Puzzanchera

Adams

(2011). Juvenile arrests 2009. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

66.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2001). Comparing personal trajectories and drawing causal inferences from longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 501–525.

67.

Rosenbaum

D. P.

Schuck

A. M.

Costello

S. K.

Hawkins

D. F.

Ring

M. K.

(2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experiences. Police Quarterly, 8, 343–365.

68.

Sampson

R. J.

(1985). Sex differences in self-reported delinquency and official records: A multiple-group structural modeling approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1, 345–367.

69.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 42, 555–592.

70.

Scaglion

Condon

(1980). Determinants of attitudes toward city police. Criminology, 17, 485–494.

71.

Schafer

J. A.

Huebner

B. M.

Bynum

T. S.

(2003). Citizen perceptions of police services: Race, neighbourhood context, and community policing. Police Quarterly, 6, 440–468.

72.

Skolnick

J. H.

Bayley

D. H.

(1988). Theme and variation in community policing. In Tonry

Morris

(Eds.), Crime and Justice (Vol. 10, pp. 1–27). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

73.

Smith

D. A.

Graham

Adams

(1991). Minorities and the police: Attitudinal and behavior questions. In Lynch

M. J.

Patterson

E. B.

(Eds.), Race and criminal justice (pp. 22–25). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston Publishers.

74.

Smith

P. E.

Hawkins

R. O.

(1973). Victimization, types of police-citizen contacts, and attitudes toward the police. Law & Society Review, 8, 135–152.

75.

Snyder

H. N.

(2008). Juvenile arrests 2006. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

76.

Snyder

Sickmund

(1996). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

77.

Snyder

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

78.

Sullivan

P. R.

Dunham

Alpert

(1987). Age structure of different ethnic groups concerning police. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 177–196.

79.

Taylor

T. J.

Turner

K. B.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Winfree

L. T.

Jr (2001). Coppin’ an attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 295–305.

80.

Truman

J. L.

(2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

81.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

82.

Tyler

T. R.

(Ed.). (2007). Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspectives. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

83.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

84.

Walker

Katz

(2011). The police in America: An introduction (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

85.

Warr

(2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

86.

Weitzer

Tuch

S. A.

(2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class, and personal experience. Criminology, 40, 435–457.

87.

White

H. R.

LaGrange

R. L.

(1987). An assessment of gender effects in self report delinquency. Sociological Focus, 20, 195–213.

88.

Winfree

L. T.

Jr Griffiths

C. T.

(1977). Adolescent attitudes toward the police: A survey of high school students. In Ferdinand

(Ed.), Juvenile delinquency: Little brother grows up (pp. 79–99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

89.

Worrall

J. L.

(1999). Public perceptions of police efficacy and image: The “fuzziness” of support of support for the police. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 47–66.

90.

Wycoff

M. A.

(1988). The benefits of community policing: Evidence and conjecture. In Greene

J. R.

Mastrofski

(Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 103–120). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

91.

Zanna

M. P.

Rempel

J. K.

(1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In Bar-Tal

Kruglanski

A. W.

(Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.