Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
Support for community policing in India and the US: an exploratory study among college
students
Eric Lambert Yuning Wu Shanhe Jiang Karuppannan Jaishankar Sudershan Pasupuleti Jagadish
Bhimarasetty Brad Smith
Article information:
To cite this document:
Eric Lambert Yuning Wu Shanhe Jiang Karuppannan Jaishankar Sudershan Pasupuleti Jagadish
Bhimarasetty Brad Smith , (2014),"Support for community policing in India and the US: an exploratory study
among college students", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss
Downloaded by University of the West of Scotland At 16:05 03 May 2016 (PT)
1 pp. 3 - 29
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2011-0098
Downloaded on: 03 May 2016, At: 16:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 438 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Differing services, rising expectations, and greater demands: Patterns in variations of police-public
dynamics across areas with conventional and community policing in India", Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 170-189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
PIJPSM-08-2012-0080
(2014),"Community support for license plate recognition", Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 30-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2012-0064
(2014),"An integrated theory for the practical application of “governance-based policing”", Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 52-69 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2012-0050
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:606422 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm
Community
Support for community policing in policing in India
India and the US: an exploratory and the USA
study among college students
Eric Lambert and Yuning Wu 3
Department of Criminal Justice, Wayne State University,
Received 29 November 2011
Detroit, Michigan, USA Revised 6 June 2012
Shanhe Jiang 18 August 2012
29 August 2012
Department of Criminal Justice and Social Work, University of Toledo, Accepted 30 August 2012
Toledo, Ohio, USA

Karuppannan Jaishankar
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tamil Nadu, India
Sudershan Pasupuleti
Social Work Department, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
Jagadish Bhimarasetty
Department of Social Work,
Roda Mistry College of Social Work & Research Centre, Golkonda, India, and
Brad Smith
Department of Criminal Justice, Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – While there is a growing body of studies on the people’s views of community policing,
there have been a very few cross-national studies. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast
students’ views on community policing from India and the USA.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were from a survey from a total of 434 Indian and
484 US college students.
Findings – Punitive orientation had a significant effect on attitudes toward community policing, but
was related to an increase in the support in India and reduction of support in the USA. Among the
Indian respondents, concern for crime and support for aggressive policing had positive associations
with support for community policing, and police involvement in the community had a negative
association. Among the US respondents, age, educational level, and perceptions of police effectiveness
had positive associations with support for community policing, and holding a punitive orientation had
a negative association.
Originality/value – This study represents the attempt to examine Indian perceptions of community
policing empirically. Uncovering factors that affect public support for community policing can provide
useful references for police administrators to develop policies and practices that encourage more active
community involvement in crime control.
Keywords India, Community relations
Paper type Research paper
Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2014
The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper. The authors also thank pp. 3-29
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that improved the 1363-951X
paper. DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2011-0098
PIJPSM In most nations, the police reply on a partnership with the public to deal with crime
37,1 and social order issues. Understanding policing views is important, because positive
views can help foster a positive relationship between the police and the public, which
can enhance the effectiveness of the police; conversely, negative views of the police can
not only hamper the effectiveness of the police and the public’s trust in them, but also
lead to perceptions that the police are a tool of an oppressive government, unconcerned
4 with the wants and needs of its citizens (Brown and Benedict, 2002; Goldsmith, 2005;
Nalla and Madan, 2012). Community policing is an area where the public’s views
are especially important (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997). As pointed out by Wu et al.
(2011), “the community side of community policing is important because the extent to
which community members are willing to render support in solving problems, provide
input in policy making, and participate in various crime prevention programs can
significantly affect the establishment, sustenance, and effectiveness of community

policing programs” (p. 286). Research on the public’s views on community policing
and the variables associated with support for community policing is, therefore,
urgently needed.
While there is a growing body of studies on views of community policing and the
variables linked with increased support for this form of law enforcement, the vast
majority of the research has focussed on the views of individuals living in western
nations, particularly the USA (Brown et al., 2006; Cao and Dai, 2006; Wu et al., 2011).
There have been far fewer cross-national studies of views of the police in other nations,
and even fewer focussed on views of community policing. Focussing on the policing
views of a selected few western nations ignores the views of the majority of the world’s
population and limits the generalizability of research results (Cao and Burton, 2006;
Khan and Unnithan, 2009). Khan and Unnithan (2009) pointed out that focussing solely
on criminal justice topics in developed western nations leads to an insular, myopic
perspective. Cross-national study of policing views can not only lead to knowledge
about policing views in other nations but can also result in a better, clearer, more
critical understanding of views of the police in one’s own nation. Jowell (1998) noted
that “the importance and utility to social science of rigorous cross-national measures is
incontestable. They help to reveal not only intriguing differences between countries
and cultures, but also aspects of one’s own country and culture that would be difficult
or impossible to detect from domestic data alone” (p. 168). Cao and Cullen (2001)
contended that cross-national research can help narrow the gap between different
nations and create bridges where information flows more freely. Angel and Thoits
(1987) pointed out that views and attitudes of different groups are windows to the
salient values of the particular group. Cross-national research on views of people can
reveal cultural differences and similarities (Cao and Dai, 2006). Not only can the views
on community policing differ within a particular nation, these views can differ across
nations because transnational forces are often at play (Das and Palmiotto, 2005). For
theoretical and practical reasons, comparing and contrasting community policing
views across the globe is vital.
As there has only been modest cross-national research on policing views, and most
of this research has focussed on public confidence and trust, this exploratory study
was conducted to compare and contrast college students’ views on community policing
from the Republic of India (henceforth, India) and the USA and to explore the variables
that may be linked with support for community policing. With approximately
1.2 billion citizens, India is the world’s most populous democratic country and the
second most populated nation in the world (World Factbook, 2011). While its landmass
is one-third the size of the USA, India’s population is almost four times as large. India Community
has a vibrant and rapidly growing market-based economy, estimated to be the sixth policing in India
largest economy in the world (Unnithan, 2009). It is a major trading partner with
western nations, particularly the USA (United Nations, 2008). India’s gross national and the USA
product has grown dramatically over the past decade, and its economy is predicted
to be equal to or surpass the US economy by 2050 (Poddar and Yi, 2007). Even though
India is a highly populated nation with a growing and dynamic economy, little has 5
been published in western journals on the police-citizen relationship in India, including
Indian views on community policing.
A few contrasting features between India and the USA make the latter a good
reference to study the former. Both India and the USA are former British colonies, and
both have legal systems that evolved from English common law, and yet, compared to
the USA, India has been an independent nation for a far shorter time. Both are federal
republics with Supreme Courts, democratically elected executives, and bicameral
legislatures; yet India lags significantly behind the USA in its modernization process.
In addition, India is a developing country while the USA is a developed country.
Although the police can help ensure stability in a developing nation and assist in a
smooth transition of economic development, the police can also be more corrupt and
harsher than their counterparts in more developed countries (Salifu, 2008), and this is the
case for India. These and other differences, such as varied degrees of decentralization
of the police institution and dissimilar levels of police professionalism, responsiveness,
efficiency, and integrity (Raghavan, 1999) probably result in differential public views of
the police in the two nations.
Because this was an exploratory study with limited financial resources, a total of
434 Indian and 484 US college students were surveyed on their views on community
policing. In this study, support for community policing refers to the public’s views on
the general philosophy of community policing. The variable refers to more of a general
view about the way policing should be conducted, rather than an assessment of
existing practices. Building on the literature, this study examined the relationship of
support for community policing with four sets of variables, namely demographic
characteristics, perceptions of crime and punishment, attachment to conventional
society, and perceptions of other relevant areas of policing.
Literature review
Past research on cross-national views of the police
Research in the USA shows that the general public holds fairly positive attitudes
toward the police, including satisfaction with and trust in the police (Cao et al., 1996;
Frank et al., 1996; Wu et al., 2009; Zamble and Annesley, 1987); however, attitudes have
been found to differ by demographic attributes – race and age, in particular (Brown
and Benedict, 2002; Cao et al., 1996, 1998; Reisig and Parks, 2000). Far less research on
the views of the police in other nations has been conducted. Based on a survey of
60 Nigerian college students, Alemika (1988) reported that the police were viewed as
too quick to act, uncivil, abusive, and corrupt. Using data collected from 185 shoppers
in Guadalajara, Mexico, the level of confidence in the police was low (Olivero and
Murataya, 1998). Among 303 law school students, the majority felt that the Mexican
police did not treat all citizens fairly and were ineffective in dealing with crime (Brown
et al., 2006). Davis et al. (2003) reported that residents in New York City and
St Petersburg (Russia) differed in their views of the police, with the New York City
respondents perceiving the police to be more effective in combating crime and the
PIJPSM St Petersburg respondents more likely to indicate that the police stopped people
37,1 without a good cause. Using data collected from a random sample of approximately
1,200 residents across 30 neighborhoods in Guangzhou, China, Jiang et al. (2012) found
that the vast majority of residents in Guangzhou held positive attitudes toward the
police. In a comparative study of Chinese and US college students, US students
had a higher level of satisfaction with police and viewed the police as having more
6 integrity than did their Chinese counterparts, even after taking into account age,
gender, and academic level (Wu, 2010). US college students had higher levels of trust
and views of the police being civil as compared to students from Bangladesh, Canada,
and Nigeria (Lambert et al., 2010). Based on a survey of Indian residents in a New Delhi
neighborhood and on a train passengers, most believed that the police were corrupt,
that the police investigated crime differently based on the social status of the victim,
and that there was little cooperation between the police and the public to deal with
crime; nonetheless, there was a moderate level of satisfaction with police services as
well as a moderate level of perception that the police were concerned about citizens’
rights (Nalla and Madan, 2012).
A number of studies based on the World Values Survey have examined the
confidence in police in various nations. In the World Values Survey, a single item was
used to measure confidence in the police. Chinese respondents were generally lower in
their levels of confidence in the police than were the US respondents, even when
controlling for age, gender, and educational level (Cao and Hou, 2001). Respondents
from Germany were less confident in their police than US respondents, and age and
educational level had significant associations with confidence in the police, while
gender had a non-significant association (Cao, 2001). Additionally, US residents were
more confident in the police than respondents from the Latin American countries of
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay,
and Venezuela, and age and gender were not associated with confidence in the police
(Cao and Zhao, 2005). In two separate studies, US respondents generally had greater
confidence in the police than their Japanese counterparts, even when taking into
account the age, education level, and gender of the respondents (Cao and Stack, 2005;
Cao et al., 1998). Chinese respondents had greater confidence in the police than
Taiwanese respondents, and age, educational level, and gender were significant
predictors (Lai et al., 2010).
The findings of these past studies support the conclusion that policing views can
differ across nations. As most of the previous research has focussed on limited areas of
views of the police, such as confidence, trust, and civility, there remain gaps in the
cross-national literature of public perceptions of specific areas of policing, including
community policing. In fact, only one published study has examined the predictors of
support for community policing based on respondents from a non-western nation. In a
survey of Chinese college students, most supported community policing and felt that
the community should have input into police operations. Moreover, attachment to
significant others, concern about crime, confidence in the police, support for police
accountability, support for aggressive policing, and a perception that the police were
involved in the community activities were all positively linked with support for
community policing. Conversely, gender, age, and holding a punitive view on crime
were not significantly linked to support for community policing among the Chinese
students (Wu et al., 2011).
Finally, a review of the literature supports the contention that there has been very
limited research on the policing views of Indian residents published in English
language journals. In the single published study that could be located, Nalla and Community
Madan (2012) surveyed people in middle-class New Delhi neighborhoods and riders on policing in India
a long distance train to understand their confidence in Indian police and community
relationship. Among the personal characteristics, only having a friend or relative and the USA
employed as a police officer was positively associated with a view that the police
and public work together to deal with crime problems. Age, gender, educational level,
and income all had non-significant associations. Those who saw their neighbors 7
engaging in a neighborhood watch were more satisfied with police services. Those who
viewed the police as respectful of the rights of citizens reported more positive
perceptions of cooperation between the public and the police. Conversely, seeing the
policing as corrupt, feeling safe, and believing that the police treated people fairly were
not linked with perceptions that there was police-citizen cooperation. There is a need
for more research on the correlates of support for community policing among people in
non-western nations, particularly India.
Brief overview of the Indian police

Policing in India has a long and rich history dated back to the fourth century BC
(Singh, 2002). The first uniformed police force was created in 1792 during British rule,
and it was westernized and nationalized through the Police Act of 1861. The British
used the police to control and repress the native population during its colonial rule.
A year after its independence, in 1948, the Indian (Imperial) Police were renamed the
Indian Police Services (IPS). Although there are a number of law enforcement agencies
in India, such as the Border Security Force, Central Armed Police Services, Rail Road
Protection Service, and the National Security Guard, the primary police force is still
the IPS.
While the police are the most visible and most powerful part of the Indian criminal
justice system, the public image of the police is far from perfect (Unnithan, 2010; Verma,
1999). Perhaps the legacy of being used by the British as a form of control has led to
a perception that the Indian police regard protecting the interests of those in power as
more important than serving the public (Das and Verma, 1998; Nalla and Madan, 2012).
The Indian police have an image of sometimes being discourteous, abusive, brutal, and
corrupt (Nalla and Madan, 2012; Raghavan, 1999; Verma and Gavirneni, 2006). Dhillon
(2005) wrote that the “Indian police are probably the most reviled government agency
in India. Ordinary Indians consider brutality and corruption its most familiar features”
(p. 74). Verma (1999) contended that “corruption within the Indian police is well
recognized and pervasive. Corruption exists within every rank, from constable to the
chief of police” (p. 264). Raghavan (1999) wrote that “it is widely known in India that
many personnel at police stations demand money from crime victims, especially those
who have been the subjects of theft, robbery or burglary, for registering their complaints
and proceeding further with the investigation” (p. 260). Vincentnathan and
Vincentnathan (2009) concluded that police corruption and brutality have caused
citizens to have suspicion and fear of the police.
Part of the public’s views of the police can be linked with outdated policing efforts
by the Indian police (Dhillon, 2005; Nipsa, 2011). The British formed the Indian police
for urban areas. As an agency, it was not designed to have much input from the
community, and, for the most part, this style of policing has continued until recently
(Dhillon, 2005; Verma, 1999). Community policing is a relatively new concept in India
(Nipsa, 2011; Vincentnathan and Vincentnathan, 2009). Of the 28 Indian states, 12 have
instituted some form of community policing (Nalla and Madan, 2012). There has been a
PIJPSM move for the police to be more responsive to the community, including setting up
37,1 neighborhood watches and hosting community meetings (Nalla and Madan, 2012;
Raghavan, 1999; Sharma, 2006). Additionally, there have been community policing
initiatives, such as the special police officer program in New Delhi, the neighborhood
watch programs (Neighborhood Watch Scheme and Eyes and Ears Scheme) in New
Delhi, the Mohalla Committees of Maharashtra, the Tamil Nadu program, the Friends
8 of the Police program in Tamil Nadu, the Community Policing Initiative in Assam,
Sahayata program in Nadia District, West Bengal, City Vigilance Committees in
Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu, and community liaison groups by the Uttarakhand
police (Human Rights Initiative, 2011; Nipsa, 2011; Raghavan and Shiva Sankar, 2003).
Most of the efforts in community policing, however, have been limited to select areas or
have not included significant community input (Dhillon, 2005; Raghavan and Shiva
Sankar, 2003).
Research objectives
The main objective of this study was to explore the level of support for community
policing and the variables associated with support for community policing,
particularly in India. In this study, support for community policing referred to the
people’s views on the general philosophy of community policing (i.e. more of a general
view about the way policing should be conducted rather than an assessment of existing
policing practices). It is unclear what level of support exists among different segments
in Indian society for community policing. While college students are only a small
segment of the Indian population, they represent a segment with potentially more
influence in government affairs than other poorer and more disenfranchised segments
of Indian society. In addition, college students can provide a springboard for
exploratory research that will hopefully lead to further study of views of other
segments of the Indian population. Furthermore, in order for community policing to
gain a greater foothold in India, understanding the variables associated with support
for community policing is important. The public’s views on policing, in general, and
community policing, specifically, need to be considered, or community policing efforts
are likely to be unsuccessful (Nalla and Madan, 2012). In order for people to engage in
behaviors necessary for community policing, support for community policing
activities is crucial. This means identifying and understanding the variables linked
with support for community policing is essential. This information can be useful for
scholars and police administrators interested in increasing support for community
policing.
There is a rich tradition in criminal justice research studying public perceptions of
the police in the USA. Overall, previous research has indicated a widespread positive
and supportive attitude toward police (Huang and Vaughn, 1996). Findings suggest,
however, that the level of satisfaction can vary across a variety of individual
demographic, experiential, and attitudinal factors (for a summary, see Brown and
Benedict, 2002). As variables such as age, gender, and crime concern are among the
most frequently examined correlates of public perceptions of and support for the
police, they were also included in this investigation.
Surprisingly, empirical research on what changes or practices that the public wants
to see in police practices is rather limited. One particular study deserves attention.
Relying on data from a nationwide, representative sample of about 1,800 Americans
who reside in large metropolitan areas, Weitzer and Tuch (2004) found that a
substantial majority of the surveyed Americans favored two policies that fall under the
rubric of community policing: more meetings between the police and community Community
residents and more police programs in the schools. Minority respondents, both black policing in India
and Hispanic, were more likely than white respondents to support these policies.
Further, 69, 73, and 78 percent of white, Hispanic, and black respondents, respectively, and the USA
reported no community policing practices in their current neighborhoods and said that
they wished the police would practice community policing in their neighborhood.
To date, no empirical evidence is available on public perceptions of community 9
policing in India. It was expected that residents in India would have similarly high
or even higher levels of support for community policing than their US counterparts.
The literature suggests that Indian police are less accountable to the community and
suffer a poor image of being corrupt, unresponsive, and incompetent (Dhillon, 2005;
Nalla and Madan, 2012; Verma and Gavirneni, 2006); thus, the public may have
stronger urges for reform and change. In addition, given that community policing is
currently in a developing stage in India (Nipsa, 2011; Vincentnathan and
Vincentnathan, 2009), while in the US community policing is at its third-generation
phrase (Oliver, 2000), it is reasonable to speculate that Indian respondents will render
greater support for community policing than their US counterparts.
Based on the literature, a model to account for support for community policing was
developed. As previously indicated, four sets of variables (demographic
characteristics, perceptions of crime and punishment, attachment to conventional
society, and policing perceptions) were used in this model to predict support for
community policing among Indian students and US students. Demographic variables,
such as age, gender, and educational level have been found to be associated with
policing views (Lai and Zhao, 2010; Reisig and Giacomazzi, 1998; Reisig and Parks,
2000; Wu et al., 2009); therefore, these variables were included in this study. Previous
research has reported that women tend to be more supportive of the police (Lai and
Zhao, 2010; Reisig and Giacomazzi, 1998; Reisig and Parks, 2000). It is likely that
women are more supportive of community policing as well. Likewise, both age and
educational have been found to be positively associated with trust and confidence in
the police (Cao, 2001; Lai et al., 2010; Reisig and Parks, 2000; Wu et al., 2009). Age was
predicted to be related to increased support for community policing. As education has
been argued to have a liberalizing effect, academic level was predicted to be positively
associated with community policing support. There has been little research on support
for community policing in India; therefore, it is unclear how the demographic variables
would be related to support for community policing. As this is an exploratory study,
it will be interesting to determine if these demographic variables are significant for
both US and Indian residents.
The second set of variables in the model included measures dealing with
perceptions of crime and punishment. Wu et al. (2011) postulated that crime and
punishment views help shape the views of community policing. They contended that
those who felt crime was a serious problem were less likely to advocate for community
policing because they may see community policing as not effectively dealing with
crime. In this study, perceptions that crime was a pressing social issue were predicted
to be negatively related to support for community policing. Wu et al. (2011) further
postulated that individuals with a more punitive orientation would be less likely to
support community policing, because it may be seen as being soft on crime. In this
study, holding a punitive orientation toward the punishment of offenders was predicted
to be negatively associated with support for community policing. While it was
predicted that perceptions of crime and punishment would be negatively related to
PIJPSM support for community policing for both Indian and US citizens, this relationship could
37,1 be significantly influenced in India by the relatively common public perception that the
Indian police are incompetent in dealing with crime (Nalla and Madan, 2012). This
study also explored whether views of crime and punishment were predictors of
support for community policing, as reported by Wu et al. (2011).
The third set of variables used to explore support for community policing was
10 attachment to conventional society. A small number of studies have made a connection
between social bonds and public perceptions of the police, indicating that attachment
to parents, commitment to school, and prosocial values exert significant effects on
juvenile perceptions of the police and willingness to assist the police (Flexon et al.,
2009; Levy, 2001; Lurigio et al., 2009; Nihart et al., 2005). Attachment to significant
others may signify support for the police among the adult population as well. Such
bonds can insulate individuals from the influence of antisocial forces and behaviors,
keep them away from deviant values and subculture, and nurture positive sentiments
toward conventional institutions including the police. As an exploratory study,
attachment to significant others was predicted to be positively associated with college
students’ support for community policing, especially for Indian students, in light of the
fact that attachment to family is so important in Indian society.
The fourth and final set of variables in the model was perceptions of various aspects
of the police and policing. Perceptions of the police are complex and multidimensional
(Stoutland, 2001). One dimension of perceptions regarding community policing, for
example, can be intricately related to, yet distinguished from, other dimensions, such
as the public’s global confidence in the police, and perceptions of police civility,
effectiveness, involvement in the community, and support for aggressive policing.
Specifically, if people have confidence in the police, they are probably more likely to
support the idea of community policing; thus, confidence in police was predicted to be
positively associated with support for community policing. Perceptions that the police
are civil in their interactions with the public may increase public willingness for the
police to become more involved in the activities in the community. In fact, confidence in
the police, especially regarding police civility and fairness, captures the concept of
procedural justice (Tyler, 2001). How police officers interact with citizens, including
officers’ manner, attitudes, and behaviors, have important implications for citizen
compliance with the police. When citizens perceive that the police are fair, respectful,
and friendly, they are more likely to comply with the law and cooperate with the police
voluntarily (Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Thurman and Reisig, 1996).
Similarly, views that the police are effective in dealing with crime were postulated to
improve the image of the police in the eye of the public, and this positive image would,
in turn, increase the willingness of people to have a partnership with the police. The
limited literature on this area, however, makes it unclear whether perceptions of the
police being effective would lead to increased support for community policing. For
example, people who perceive the police as effective may see no need to partner with
the police (Wells et al., 2006). Conversely, Tankebe (2008) reported that perceptions of
police effectiveness had both a direct impact on perceived police trustworthiness and
legitimacy. According to Sunshine and Tyler (2003), perceptions that the police are
trustworthy and legitimate promote public support for policing and for cooperation
with the police. Moreover, the effect of perceived police effectiveness is even stronger if
the police are also perceived to be procedurally fair (Tankebe, 2008). As such, in this
exploratory study, both perceptions of police civility and police effectiveness were
predicted to be positively linked with support for community policing.
Visibility of the police in the community has been observed to be related to heightened Community
support for the police (Ivkovic, 2008). It appears that “police visibility increases police policing in India
popularity” (Wu et al., 2011, p. 292). Involvement in community through seeking input of
community members can lead to higher visibility of the police and support for the police and the USA
in general; thus, police involvement in the community was predicted to be associated
with greater support for community policing. Finally, support for aggressive policing
was hypothesized to be positively associated with support for community policing. Both 11
aggressive patrol and community policing are recent police reform initiatives that
attempt to increase police activity in the community and proactively address problems of
crime, social disorder, and fear of crime in the community. Thus attitudes toward
community policing may be positively related to attitudes toward aggressive policing. It
is unclear if these views of police variables vary in their relationship with support for
community policing between Indian and US residents. There has been very little, if any,
research on community policing views in India. As this was an exploratory study, how
these variables are related to support for community policing among Indian and US
students was examined.
Most of these predictor variables were expected to have similar effects on Indian and
American students’ attitudes toward community policing; as cross-national research on
support for community policing is limited, this is just speculation at this time – hence the
reason for this exploratory study. Some variables might have differential influences on
the two groups of people. For example, if crime and fear of crime are more severe social
problems in India than in the USA, then the influence of crime concern on citizen support
for community policing may be more evident in India. A second example could be
support for aggressive policing. The USA has generally placed greater value on the
protection of civil liberties and the regulation on government power than India has;
consequently, there may be a greater degree of consistency between public support for
aggressive policing and community policing among the Indian respondents. A third
example could be that attachment to significant others may predict support for
community policing in both countries, yet its effect may be stronger in India because of
India’s more collectivist society, where the emphasis is on interdependence between
individuals and encouraging a more social orientation (Triandis, 1989).
Methodology
Participants
A convenience sample of students at an Indian university and a US university were
surveyed in 2005. The Indian university was a large metropolitan public university in
southern India (i.e. the state of Andhra Pradesh), which offered undergraduate,
master’s, and terminal degrees. At the time of the survey, it had an enrollment of about
100,000 students. The US university was a public institution located in the Midwest,
which also offered undergraduate, master’s, and terminal degrees. At the time of the
survey, it had an enrollment of approximately 20,000. At both universities, the surveys
were administered in undergraduate classes that represented a wide array of majors
and included classes required by all majors. The survey was written in English.
Although English was not necessarily the native language of the Indian respondents, it
was the language spoken at the university. Students completed the survey during class
time. At both universities, the survey was explained to the students, and it was
emphasized both verbally and in writing that the survey was voluntary and the results
would be anonymous. In order to avoid duplication, students were asked not to
complete the survey if they had done so in another class. It was estimated over
PIJPSM 95 percent of the students in the selected classes completed the survey. Not all
37,1 questions, however, were answered, and listwise deletion was used for missing cases in
the analyses. The survey was pre-tested using both faculty and students.
A total of 434 surveys were returned from Indian students. The median age of the
respondents was 20, and age ranged from 18 to 47. The average age was 20.99, with a
standard deviation of 3.42. In terms of academic level, 43 percent were freshmen,
12 22 percent were sophomores, 26 percent were juniors, and 8 percent were seniors.
Approximately 57 percent of the respondents were men and 43 percent were women.
At the US university, a total of 484 surveys were completed. The median age of
the respondents was 21, and age ranged from 18 to 63. The average age was 21.96,
with a standard deviation of 5.38. In terms of academic level, 19 percent were freshmen,
20 percent were sophomores, 33 percent were juniors, and 28 percent were seniors.
Approximately 44 percent of the respondents were men and 56 percent were women.
Variables
Dependent variable. Support for community policing was the dependent variable. It was
measured using an additive index comprised of five items, presented in Table II, and
answered using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1) to
strongly agree (coded 5). The responses for each of the five items were summed together
to form an index for support for community policing. Higher scores on the index
indicated greater support for community policing. Factor analysis using principal axis
technique was conducted, and the five items loaded on one factor with factor loading
scores of 0.55 or higher using the responses from all the respondents (Gorsuch, 1983).
Factor analysis was also conducted for the responses from the Indian and US students
individually, and all the items loaded on a single factor for each group with a loading
score of 0.40 or higher (Gorsuch, 1983). The factor analysis results indicate that the index
was unidimensional. The Cronbach’s a for the index was 0.70 for the overall group, 0.69
for Indian students, and 0.72 for US students. This variable reflects the respondents’
support for the general principles and philosophy of community policing. It pertains to
the respondents’ opinion of what is important in policing or what good policing should
do, rather than evaluating a specific community policing program.
Independent variables. The demographic characteristics of age, educational level,
and gender were included. Age was measured in continuous years. Educational level
was coded as 1 ¼ freshman, 2 ¼ sophomore, 3 ¼ junior, and 4 ¼ senior. Gender was
coded as 0 ¼ women and 1 ¼ men. Two variables for views on crime and punishment
were included. A variable measuring concern about crime used a single item: “Crime is
one of the most serious social problems facing society today.” This variable was labeled
crime concern. Another variable which tapped into a punitive orientation to crime was
included and was measured by the item “Courts generally are not harsh enough with
criminals.” This variable was labeled punitive orientation. Attachment to conventional
society measured specifically respondents’ attachment to significant others. Students
were asked whether or not they agreed that their behavior was strongly influenced by
significant others such as their parents, family members, peers, and friends. Higher
scores on this index indicate a stronger attachment to significant others. This variable
was labeled attachment to significant others.
Four different areas of views of the police were measured. Confidence in the police
was measured using four items: first, “The police know what is best for my
community”; second, “I trust the police”; third, “Police know what is best for people”;
and fourth, “Police know how to best respond to crime.” This variable was labeled
confidence in the police. Perceptions of the police being civil to citizens were measured Community
using two items: first, “Police generally treat everyone the same in my community” and policing in India
second, “Police are generally friendly.” This variable was labeled police civility.
Perceptions of police effectiveness were measured using two items: first, “Police have and the USA
little impact on the amount of crime in my community” (reverse coded) and second,
“Criminals have little to fear of the police” (reverse coded). This variable was labeled
police effectiveness. Perceptions of involvement by the police in the community were 13
measured using two items: first, “In my community, the police frequently ask residents
to provide ideas on how to best respond to crime” and second, “The police generally
attend and participate in local community meetings.” Perceptions of police
involvement with the community were labeled police involvement. The final area
was support for aggressive actions by the police. Aggressive policing can include a
variety of policing tactics, such as traffic enforcement, frequent stops of citizens,

excessive use of force, and increased searches and seizures (Novak et al., 2003; Weiss
and Freels, 1996). In this study, our measure does not indicate support for any specific
aggressive policing tactic, rather, it captures the respondents’ support for the general
idea of giving the police more power to enforce the law and fight crime. Two items were
used to indicate such support: first, “Excessive police scrutiny is necessary to fight
crime” and second, “Frequent stops by the police in the community is necessary to
reduce crime.” This variable was labeled support for aggressive policing. The items for
each of the views of police indexes were entered into a factor analysis using the
principal axis technique for the entire group, for just Indian respondents, and just US
respondents. The items loaded on the predicted factor with factor loading scores of 0.40
or higher (Gorsuch, 1983). The Cronbach’s a value for confidence in the police was 0.76
(0.71 for Indian respondents and 0.86 for US respondents). The Cronbach’s a value for
support for aggressive policing was 0.73 (0.70 for Indian respondents and 0.75 for
US respondents). No Cronbach’s a was calculated for the single or two item indexes.
Except for the demographic characteristic variables, the independent variables were
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1)
to strongly agree (coded 5). The responses to the five areas of perceptions of the police
were summed together to form additive indexes for the respective policing areas.
Finally, in the Appendix, the mean and standard deviation are reported for all the items
used to measure support for community policing, perceptions of crime, punitive
orientation, attachment to significant others, confidence in the police, police civility,
police effectiveness, police involvement, and support for aggressive policing for the
entire group of respondents, respondents from India, and respondents from the USA.
Results
The univariate statistics for the variables are presented in Table I. There appeared to be
significant variation in both the dependent and independent variables (i.e. none were
constants). Based upon statistical tests (results not shown), there appeared to be no
problem with skewness or kurtosis, and the variables appeared to be normally distributed.
The percentage responses on the five community policing items for each nation are
presented in Table II. On four of the five items, there was a statistically significant
difference between the two groups of students. Indian respondents, on average, were
more supportive of the community policing items as compared to their US
counterparts. There was no significant difference in the view that the police working
with communities was an effective crime deterrent. There was a significant difference
on the community policing index, with Indian students being more supportive than
PIJPSM India USA
37,1 Variable Md Min Max Mn SD Md Min Max Mn SD
Independent variables
Demographic characteristics
Age 20 18 47 20.99 3.42 21 18 63 21.96 5.38
14 Educational level 2 1 4 1.99 1.01 3 1 4 2.69 1.08
Gender 1 1 1 0.57 .50 0 0 1 0.44 0.50
Perceptions of crime and punishment
Crime Concern 4 1 5 4.33 0.92 4 1 5 3.50 1.07
Punitive orientation 4 1 5 3.71 1.08 3 1 5 3.20 1.05
Attachment to conventional society
Attachment to significant others 4 15 5 3.78 1.13 4 1 5 3.98 1.02
Perceptions of the police

Confidence in the police (4 items) 12 4 20 12.03 3.29 12 4 20 11.62 3.49
Police civility (2 items) 5 2 10 4.94 1.93 6 2 10 5.63 2.88
Police effectiveness (2 items) 5 2 10 5.29 1.61 6 2 10 6.30 1.70
Police involvement (2 items) 6 2 10 5.68 1.18 5 2 9 5.31 1.50
Support aggressive policing
(2 items) 8 2 10 7.44 1.56 6 2 10 5.79 1.62
Dependent variable
Support for community policing
(5 items) 20 9 25 19.80 2.84 19 11 25 18.90 2.33
Notes: Md, median; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum value; Mn, mean; SD, standard deviation.
Age was measured in continuous years. Educational level was coded as 1 ¼ freshman, 2 ¼ sophomore,
3 ¼ junior, and 4 ¼ senior. Gender was coded as 0 ¼ women and 1 ¼ men. Crime concern, punitive
orientation, and attachment to significant others were measured by single items answered using a five-
Table I. point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The perceptions of the
Univariate statistics police variables and the dependent variables were additive indexes, and the items were answered
of study variables using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)
their US counterparts (Indian mean ¼ 19.80, SD ¼ 2.84; USA mean ¼ 18.90, SD ¼ 2.33;
t ¼ 5.14, pp0.01). It is important to note that, overall, both Indian and US students
reported support for community policing, even though there was higher support
among the Indian respondents.
Correlations were estimated for both groups of respondents. The correlations for the
Indian students are reported in Table III. Age, educational level, gender, punitive
orientation, police confidence, police should be civil, and police effectiveness all had
non-significant correlations with support for community policing among the Indian
respondents. Crime concern, attachment to significant others, and support for
aggressive policing each had a positive significant correlation with community
policing support. The variable for police involvement had a significant negative
correlation with the dependent variable.
The correlations for the US students are reported in Table IV. Gender, crime concern,
police involvement, and support for aggressive policing all had non-significant
correlations with the dependent variable. Age, educational level, attachment to
significant others, police confidence, police should be civil, and police effectiveness
all had a significant positive correlation with support for community policing.
Finally, punitive orientation had a significant negative correlation with the community
policing index.
India USA
Survey item SD D U A SA n SD D U A SA n t-test
Cooperation between the police and the community is important to

prevent crime 1 5 2 36 56 432 1 4 7 56 33 483 4.56**
In order to prevent crime, there must be a partnership between the
community and the police 3 6 8 48 35 430 1 8 12 66 14 483 3.85**
Police working with neighborhoods or communities is an effective
deterrent to crime 2 13 18 46 21 426 1 7 27 59 6 481 1.50
The flow of information from citizens to the police about crime and
criminals increases police effectiveness at crime prevention 2 8 16 56 19 420 2 4 25 59 10 480 2.41*
The flow of information about crime back to citizens improves the
ability of citizens to protect themselves 2 6 19 53 20 424 1 6 28 62 3 479 4.22**
Notes: SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; U, uncertain; A, agree; SA, strongly agree. n represent the number of cases for the particular item. Percentages may
not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. For the Independent t-test, a negative t-value indicates that the Indian respondents were in higher agreement for the
item as compared to the US respondents. *pp0.05; **pp0.01
Community
support for community

Percentage distribution
policing items
policing in India
15
and the USA
of responses for
Table II.
PIJPSM Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
37,1
1. Age 1.00
2. Educ Level 0.34** 1.00
3. Gender 0.16** 0.17** 1.00
4. Crime Concern 0.01 0.18** 0.02 1.00
16 5. Punitive 0.02 0.02 0.20** 0.22** 1.00
6. Attachment 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.14** 0.22** 1.00
7. Conf Police 0.06 0.05 0.12* 0.07 0.02 0.04 1.00
8. Police Civil 0.00 0.01 0.12* 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.50** 1.00
9. Police Eff 0.01 0.07 0.15** 0.08 0.20** 0.08 0.12* 0.09 1.00
10. Police Invol 0.01 0.10 0.17** 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.40** 0.24** 0.04 1.00
11. Sup Aggr Pol 0.08 0.12* 0.02 0.15** 0.14** 0.10* 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.10* 1.00
12. Sup Comm Pol 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.29** 0.01 0.21** 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.10* 0.27**
Table III. Notes: Educ Level, educational level; Punitive, punitive orientation; Attachment, attachment to significant others;
Correlation Conf Police, confidence in the police; Police Civil, police civility; Police eff, police effectiveness; Police Invol, police
matrix for Indian involvement; Supp Aggr Pol, support aggressive policing; Sup Comm Pol, support for community policing.
respondents *pp0.05; **pp0.01
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 1.00
2. Educ Level 0.30** 1.00
3. Gender 0.16** 0.02 1.00
4. Crime Concern 0.01 0.06 0.06 1.00
5. Punitive 0.06 0.05 0.20** 0.38** 1.00
6. Attachment 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.01 1.00
7. Conf Police 0.11* 0.10* 0.27** 0.17** 0.34** 0.05 1.00
8. Police Civil 0.04 0.08 0.17** 0.09* 0.26** 0.01 0.69** 1.00
9. Police Eff 0.08 0.05 0.12** 0.01 0.06 0.10* 0.35** 0.28** 1.00
10. Police Invol 0.04 0.01 0.19** 0.14** 0.18** 0.04 0.52** 0.45** 0.21** 1.00
11. Supp Aggr Pol 0.04 0.04 0.14** 0.34** 0.48** 0.05 0.59** 0.45** 0.20** 0.36** 1.00
12. Sup Comm Pol 0.20** 0.16** 0.06 0.01 0.10* 0.11* 0.12** 0.10* 0.21** 0.09 0.08
Notes: Educ Level, educational level; Punitive, punitive orientation; Attachment, attachment to significant others;
Table IV. Conf Police, confidence in the police; Police Civil, police civility; Police Eff, police effectiveness; Police Invol, police
Correlation matrix involvement; Supp Aggr Pol, support aggressive policing; Sup Comm Pol, support for community policing.
for US respondents *pp0.05; **pp0.01
To determine the correlates of public support for community policing, ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression was utilized with the index measuring support for
community policing as the dependent variable and the demographic variables,
perceptions of crime and punishment, attachment to conventional society, and
perceptions of the police as the independent variables. Three separate OLS regression
equations were estimated, one for the entire (combined) group, one for Indian
respondents, and another for US students. The results for the three OLS regression
equations are reported in Table V. For equation for the entire group, age, educational
level, attachment to conventional society, police effectiveness, and support
for aggressive policing all had statistically significant associations with support for
community policing. The nationality of the respondent variable had a significant
Entire group India USA Coefficient difference
Community
Variables B b B b B b z test score policing in India
and the USA
Constant 13.02 9.93 13.25
Demographic characteristics
Age 0.07 0.13** 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.19** 1.14
Educational Level 0.18 0.08* 0.24 0.08 0.22 0.10* 0.08 17
Gender 0.27 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.08 1.08
Perceptions of crime and punishment
Crime Concern 0.17 0.07 0.70 0.23** 0.01 0.01 3.70**
Punitive Orientation 0.16 0.07 0.27 0.10* 0.35 0.16** 1.66
Attachment to significant others 0.30 0.12** 0.30 0.12* 0.27 0.12** 0.18
Perceptions of the police

Confidence in the police 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.09
Police civility 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.01 1.39
Police effectiveness 0.23 0.14** 0.09 0.05 0.34 0.20** 2.06*
Police involvement 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.12* 0.07 0.04 2.14*
Support for aggressive policing 0.32 0.22** 0.61 0.35** 0.10 0.07 4.16**
Nationality of respondent 0.87 0.17**
R2 0.20** 0.26** 0.17**
Notes: B, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient. Ordinary least squares
regression was computed. Nationality of respondent represents if the person is from India (coded 1) or the USA Table V.
(coded 0). While the total number of returned surveys for the entire group was 918, with listwise deletion the number OLS regression
of cases in the regression model for the entire group was 804. While the number of Indian respondents was 434, with results for each nation
listwise deletion the number of cases in the regression model for the Indian group was 367. While the number of US with support for
respondents was 484, with listwise deletion the number of cases in the regression model for the US group was 453. community policing as
*pp0.05; **pp0.01 the dependent variable
positive relationship, which means that Indian students, in general, had higher levels of
support for community policing compared to their US counterparts.
Based on the R2 values for the Indian and US regression models, the independent
variables explained similar amounts of variance of the dependent variable for the
Indian and US students. Specifically, 26 percent of the variance of the dependent variable
was accounted for by the independent variables among the Indian respondents and
17 percent among the US respondents. None of the demographic characteristics were
significant predictors of support for community policing in the OLS regression equation
for Indian students. For the US students, age and educational level both had a positive
association, which means that increases in either were associated with increases
in support for community policing. Gender had a non-significant relationship. A view
that there was a crime problem was positively linked with community policing support
among Indian students but not US students. While punitive orientation was significant
in both regression equations, it had a positive relationship among Indian respondents
and a negative relationship among the US students. For both groups, attachment to
significant others was positively linked to higher levels of support for community
policing. For both groups of respondents, confidence in the police and perceived police
civility had non-significant associations with support for community policing. The
perception of the police being effective in dealing with crime was positively associated
with increased support for community policing among US students but not for Indian
students. Interestingly, among Indian students, perceptions of police involvement in the
community were negatively associated with community policing support, while for
PIJPSM the US students the relationship was non-significant. Finally, in the equation for Indian
37,1 respondents, support for aggressive policing was linked with higher levels of support for
community policing but had a non-significant effect in the equation for US respondents.
The results from regression equations suggest that there may be differences in the
relationships of some of the independent variables with support for community
policing between Indian and US students. To examine this issue more closely, an
18 equality of regression coefficients test was conducted and the results are reported in the
last column in Table V (z-score test). This analysis allowed for the test of the null
hypothesis that the difference between the coefficients is zero and any differences
observed were due to random chance (Clogg et al., 1995; Paternoster et al., 1998). Based
on the equality test, the differences in the coefficients for age and educational level
between the Indian and US equations were not statistically significant. On the other
hand, there were significant differences in the coefficients between the two nations for
crime concern, police effectiveness, police involvement, and support of aggressive
policing.
Discussion and conclusion

This exploratory study represents one of the few empirical studies on support for
community policing (a worldwide growth industry), even though community policing
has gained recent popularity in India (Bayley, 1994; Nalla and Madan, 2012). Four main
results emerged. First, the majority of respondents in both India and the USA supported
the philosophy of community policing, with the Indian students rendering slightly
higher levels of support than their US counterparts. This support for the ideologies of
community policing can lay a foundation for the implementation of specific community
policing programs and initiatives. The one item that received relatively lower levels of
agreement from both the Indian and the US respondents regards the deterrent effects
of community policing on crime. It appears that while college students think community
policing is instrumental in crime prevention, they do not necessarily think such
preventive effects take place by deterring potential criminals. This understanding of
community policing fits the original ideologies of community policing; that is,
community policing does not work the same way as traditional policing strategies, such
as crackdown on crime, that aim to deter criminals, but operates with a broader agenda
of empowering the communities, solving lingering neighborhood problems, and making
citizens the co-producers of law and order (Wong, 2001).
Second, attachment to conventional society had significant effects on Indian
and American college students’ support for community policing. These results echo
Wu et al.’s (2011) findings on Chinese college students, which found that those who
held stronger attachment to conventional society were also more favorable toward
community policing. Surprisingly, attachment to conventional society had no
significant correlation with confidence in the police for either Indian or US students
and was only weakly correlated with support for aggressive policing (r ¼ 0.10, pp0.05)
among the Indian respondents. Moreover, attachment to conventional society was only
weakly correlated to concern about crime (r ¼ 0.14, pp0.01) and punitive orientation
(r ¼ 0.22, pp0.001) among the Indian students but was not significantly correlated for
the US respondents. It appears, at least for this study, that attachment is a significant
predictor for other reasons. Most societies rely on both informal and formal social
control methods to control crime and maintain order (Jiang et al., 2007). Public attitudes
toward informal and formal social control may be correlated to a certain degree. That
is, persons who are more accepting of informal social control mechanisms, such as
those more attached to their significant others, may well be more supportive Community
of formal social control mechanisms, such as policing strategies including community policing in India
policing. As this was a single exploratory study, more research is needed to
determine whether attachment to conventional society is a significant predictor and the USA
of community policing support.
Third, punitive orientation has a sharply contrasting effect on attitudes toward
community policing in the two cultures. Punitive orientation promotes support 19
for community policing in India, yet reduces such support in the USA. What further
complicates the matter is that previous research conducted on a sample of Chinese
college students indicates no significant effects of punitive orientation on support for
community policing (Wu et al., 2011). These mixed results seem to suggest that the
impact of punitive orientation on attitudes toward community policing may be
contextual and conditioned on other factors. One such factor may be people’s
understanding of community policing. For example, if people view community policing
as an effective strategy to mobilize resources beyond the criminal justice system to help
apprehend criminals and bring down crime rates, the more they think that the criminal
justice system is not harsh enough with criminals, the more likely they support
community policing which can go beyond the formal system to solve crime problem. In
contrast, if people see community policing as weakening the ability of the police to
fight crime or simply transferring the responsibility of law enforcement from the police
to the community so that the police can escape the blame for the worsening crime
problems, then a belief that offenders are not punished harshly enough may lead to
lower levels of support for community policing. In other words, if people view
community policing as adding one more weapon to the arsenal of the police, it might
explain the positive relationship, but if people view community policing as preventing
crime, it would explain why less punitive people favor it because there’s no reason to
punish someone if the crime was never committed.
Fourth, a few variables have significant effects on public attitudes toward
community policing in one country but not the other, further supporting the contention
that there are international differences in attitudes toward policing. Crime concerns
had significant support-promoting effects on the Indian respondents, but not on the
American respondents in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses. Indian students
who thought crime was a serious problem were more likely to agree that it is important
for the police to work with the communities in crime control; however, for the
American respondents, greater crime concern did not contribute to stronger support
for community policing. This may reflect the traditional policing view in the USA that
the police are the professionals who shoulder crime control responsibilities, and
citizens should defer to the police about crime problems (Kelling and Moore, 1988).
Interestingly, police effectiveness was a significant predictor in the US equation but
not the Indian equation. It could be that perceptions of police effectiveness allowed US
students to see the police in a more favorable light and a legitimate form of government
formal control that allowed them to have greater trust in community policing (Sunshine
and Tyler, 2003). It is unclear of why similar effects were not observed among the Indian
students in either the bivariate or multivariate analyses. It could be that their support for
community policing is not a desire for greater police effectiveness but rather a desire for
greater police accountability and control. As previously indicated, the police in India are
often viewed as corrupt and abusive. This may also account for the finding that police
involvement had a negative relationship with community policing support among the
Indian respondents and an insignificant association among the US students. The items
PIJPSM used asked nothing about whether the involvement was positive or negative. It could be
37,1 that involvement by corrupt and abusive police leads to a decreased view of community
policing. On the other hand, it may be that involvement by the police leads to a decreased
desire for community policing because there is already police-community engagement.
Finally, it should be noted that in the bivariate analysis police effectiveness
was positively correlated with confidence in the police for both groups of students
20 (see Tables III and IV). This suggests that while not linked with community policing
support, police effectiveness may be important in shaping confidence in the police. The
finding of no significant relationship between police effectiveness and support for
community policing requires additional research.
Finally, support for aggressive policing was linked with support for community
policing for only Indian students. It could be that both support for aggressive policing
and support for community policing result from a concern about crime. Concern for
crime not only had a significant association with community policing support in the
Indian equation (see Table V), but it was also positively correlated with support for
aggressive policing among Indian students (see Table III). If this is the case, it suggests
that there is a desire for the community to have a say in how and where aggressive
policing should be utilized in dealing with crime. It is also possible that the differences
observed are due to how support for community policing was measured. This study
used a measure of the general philosophy of community policing rather than what is
actually occurring. It must be noted that community policing is much more common
and advanced in the USA than in India, and this may explain some of the differences
observed. Additionally, it could be the result of social forces in each nation, such as
nature and purpose of the police as they are viewed by citizens in each nation. There
needs to be far more research in order to explain the findings. Future research should
explore these possible explanations and why there were differences in the predictors
between Indian and US students’ community policing support.
Predictors for community policing were postulated to be similar for both groups of
students. Overall, this prediction was not supported by the results. The only significant
predictor in the same direction for both groups was attachment to conventional society.
While punitive orientation was a significant predictor, it was in opposite directions for
the two groups. None of the other significant predictors were the same in terms of
significance or in the same direction in the Indian and US regression equations. This
indicates that the results are contextual and vary between the two societies. Efforts to
increase support for community policing will require understanding the particular
factors in each nation necessary for increased support for the ideals of community
policing. As such, there needs to be far more research in other nations than just the
USA. Without this research, there will not be sufficient knowledge to make
recommendations in other nations, particularly non-western nations. This, of course, is
based on the assumption that community policing is a desirable outcome. The
effectiveness of community policing and whether or not it should be instituted in a
particular society is beyond the scope of this study. What is clear is that community
policing is a popular concept across the world and is growing in use in India (Bayley,
1994; Nalla and Madan, 2012). There is no empirical research yet on the influence of
public support or a lack thereof on the success of a specific community policing
program in India; however, in the US literature, evidence shows the importance of
gaining public support for community policing programs. For example, in the
evaluation of Chicago’s community policing program (Chicago Alternative Policing
Strategy), Skogan and Hartnett (1997) noted that successful implementation of
community policing has involved not only efforts from politicians and police officers, Community
but also support and collaboration from the public. policing in India
This study has shortcomings. It was a single exploratory study using a convenience
sample of college students from one university in each of the countries. As such, the and the USA
results need to be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire
population or even to other universities. This concern is heightened when surveying
Indian college students who represent the more affluent in Indian society more so than 21
in the USA, and as such, probably live in communities where the police actions are
more controlled and professional and there are more police reform initiatives than
areas with less political power. In addition, it is unknown whether the Indian and US
college students interpreted the policing items in similar ways. There is, therefore, an
issue of measurement equivalence, which is often a problem when conducting cross-
national research. It is possible that each group of students viewed the concepts being
measured in different manners. Future research should test the equivalency of the same
measures in the two cultures, and, equally importantly, to explore more culture-specific
measures of the Indian population and to further theoretical development of the topic.
Until this is done, it is unclear to what extent the issue of measure equivalency played
in this study.
Using student populations limits the variation in age, educational level, and prior
experiences with the criminal justice agencies, including the police. All of these factors
may influence the perceptions of the police and level of support for community policing.
Using a student sample is also limited in that some important predictors in explaining
perceptions of community policing, such as neighborhood conditions, cannot be tested.
The US literature suggests that oftentimes the very neighborhoods that the police most
need support and collaboration from are also those most difficult for the police to connect
and access. Residents in poor, minority-concentrated, and high-crime neighborhoods
tend to be skeptical rather than supportive of the police. In these neighborhoods, police
are more likely to be perceived as the enemy rather than as partners. Residents fear that
more intensive policing could generate new problems of police harassment and
penetration into citizens’ civil lives (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997). It would be interesting
for future research to test whether or not similar patterns exist in the Indian society. This
is why future research should survey community members, rather than college students,
and, if at all possible, use random sampling procedures.
There are other theoretically relevant predictor variables that future research
should test when studying public perceptions of the police in India. For example, past
research in western nations has reported that experience with the police may be an
important predictor, with prior positive police contact contributing to more favorable
views of the police and prior negative police contact relating to decreased positive
views of the police (Brown and Benedict, 2002; Griffiths and Winfree, 1982; Reisig and
Parks, 2000). For another example, race/ethnicity of the respondent has been one of the
most consistently found significant correlates of public attitudes toward the police in
the western literature, with racial/ethnic minorities showing lower levels of confidence
in and support for the police (Brown and Benedict, 2002). Future research in India
should thus also take people’s class and caste status into consideration, further
examining the intra-country variation in attitudes toward the police.
Finally, this study measured support for community policing in a limited way with
the use of a few general items mainly indicating public perceptions of the general
philosophy of community policing. Future research should examine public views on
different, more specific elements and practices of community policing. Studies should
PIJPSM also investigate both the perceptual and behavioral dimensions of support for
37,1 community policing. It is important to determine whether strong support for the
philosophy of community policing leads to real support for and active participation in
community policing programs and activities. Furthermore, more research is needed to
determine how different perceptions of policing may be linked with support for
community policing. For example, how are perceptions of police effectiveness
22 associated with views on community policing across different countries. In addition,
research is needed to determine whether perceptions of procedural justice, fairness,
and legitimacy increase support for community policing not only in the USA but in
other nations (Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2001). Moreover, the measures used in
this study were limited and need to be further developed. More detailed and expanded
measures of policing views for civility, effectiveness, involvement, and aggressive
policing, as well as attachment to conventional society, crime concern, and punitive

orientation, need to created. Furthermore, more research is needed to verify whether
the measures of perceptions of policing areas are valid across different cultures. While
this study was piloted tested using Indian and US students and the factor analysis
results indicated the items loaded on the same factors the group as a whole and for
both subgroups, only further research can determine whether the perceptional
measure of policing areas have equivalency across nations.
Although only an explorative study of a limited scope, this study highlights the
importance of studying public perceptions of community policing during a period of
time when countries across the globe, including India, have started to introduce some
forms of community policing. Whether or not community policing will become a
successful reform movement that changes the way contemporary police operate and
function, to a large extent, depends on whether it can win the hearts and minds of not
only politicians, policy makers, and police practitioners, but also the general public.
Results of this study show that there are both intra- and inter-national variations in
citizens’ support for community policing. The fact that the Indian students held more
positive views than the American respondents may reflect some broader cultural,
social and institutional differences in the two nations that this study cannot really test.
Nonetheless, this study generates preliminary evidence on the effects of a few key
attitudinal factors, such as individuals’ punitive orientation, attachment to
conventional society, and perceptions of police effectiveness, on public support for
community policing. At the very least, it is hoped that this study will spark other
cross-national studies on policing views, including support for community policing.
References
Alemika, E. (1988), “Policing and perceptions of police in Nigeria”, Police Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 161-176.
Angel, R.J. and Thoits, P. (1987), “The impact of culture on the cognitive structure of illness”,
Culture, Medicine, & Psychiatry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 465-494.
Bayley, D. (1994), Police for the Future, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Brown, B. and Benedict, W. (2002), “Perceptions of the police: past findings, methodological
issues, conceptual issues, and policy implications”, Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 543-580.
Brown, B., Benedict, W. and Wilkinson, W. (2006), “Public perceptions of the police in Mexico: a
case study”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 158-175.
Cao, L. (2001), “A problem in no-problem-policing in Germany: confidence in the police Germany Community
and USA”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 167-179. policing in India
Cao, L. and Burton, V. (2006), “Spanning the continents: assessing the Turkish public confidence and the USA
in the police”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 451-463.
Cao, L. and Cullen, F. (2001), “Thinking about crime and control: a comparative study 23
of Chinese and American ideology”, International Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 58-81.
Cao, L. and Dai, M. (2006), “Confidence in the police: where does Taiwan rank in the world?”,
Asian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Cao, L. and Hou, C. (2001), “A comparison of confidence in the police in China and the United
States”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 87-99.

Cao, L. and Stack, S. (2005), “Confidence in the police between America and Japan: results from
two waves of surveys”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 139-151.
Cao, L. and Zhao, J. (2005), “Confidence in the police in Latin America”, Journal of Criminal
Justice, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 403-412.
Cao, L., Frank, J. and Cullen, F. (1996), “Race, community context, and confidence in the police”,
American Journal of Policing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Cao, L., Stack, S. and Sun, Y. (1998), “Public attitudes toward the police: a comparative
study between Japan and America”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 279-289.
Clogg, C., Petkova, E. and Haritou, A. (1995), “Statistical methods for comparing
regression coefficients between models”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 100 No. 5,
pp. 1261-1293.
Das, D. and Palmiotto, M. (2005), Policing in Canada, India, Germany, Australia, Finland,
and New Zealand: A Comparative Research Study, The Edwin Mellen Press,
Lewiston, NY.
Das, D. and Verma, A. (1998), “The armed police in the British colonial tradition: the Indian
perspective”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 354-367.
Davis, R., Ortiz, C., Gilinskiy, Y., Ylesseva, I. and Briller, V. (2003), “A cross-national comparison
of citizen perceptions of the police in New York City and St. Petersburg, Russia”, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 22-36.
Dhillon, K. (2005), Police and Politics in India – Colonial Concepts, Democratic Compulsions: India
Police 1947-2002, Manohar Publishers, New Delhi.
Flexon, J., Lurigio, A. and Greenleaf, R. (2009), “Exploring the dimension of trust in the police
among Chicago juveniles”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 180-189.
Frank, J., Brandl, S., Cullen, F. and Stichman, A. (1996), “Reassessing the impact of race
on citizens’ attitudes toward the police: a research note”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 321-334.
Goldsmith, A. (2005), “Police reform and the problem of trust”, Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 443-470.
Gorsuch, R. (1983), Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Griffiths, C. and Winfree, L. (1982), “Attitudes toward the police: a comparison of Canadian and
American adolescents”, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminology,
Vol. 6 Nos 1-2, pp. 127-141.
PIJPSM Huang, W. and Vaughn, M. (1996), “Support and confidence: public attitudes toward the police”,
in Flanagan, T. and Longmire, D. (Eds), Americans View Crime and Justice: A National
37,1 Public Opinion Survey, Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 31-45.
Human Rights Initiative (2011), “Community policing experiments in India”, available at:
www.humanrightsinitiative.org/new/community_policing_experiments_in_india_1.pdf
(accessed October 11, 2011).
24 Ivkovic, S. (2008), “A comparative study of public support for the police”, International Criminal
Justice Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 406-434.
Jiang, S., Lambert, E. and Wang, J. (2007), “Correlates of formal and informal social/crime
control in China: an exploratory study”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 261-271.
Jiang, S., Sun, I. and Wang, J. (2012), “Citizens’ satisfaction with police in Guangzhou, China”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,

pp. 801-821.
Jowell, R. (1998), “How comparative is comparative research?”, American Behavioral Scientist,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 168-177.
Kelling, G. and Moore, M. (1988), The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives on Policing,
No. 4, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
Khan, M. and Unnithan, N. (2009), “Criminological and criminal justice education in India:
a comparative note”, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-109.
Lai, Y. and Zhao, J. (2010), “The impact of race/ethnicity, neighborhood context, and police/citizen
interaction on residents’ attitudes toward the police”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 685-692.
Lai, Y., Cao, L. and Zhao, J. (2010), “The impact of political regime on confidence in legal
authorities: a comparison between China and Taiwan”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 934-941.
Lambert, E., Jiang, S., Khondaker, M., Elechi, E., Baker, D. and Tucker, K. (2010), “Policing views
from around the globe: an exploratory study of the views of college students from
Bangladesh, Canada, Nigeria and the United States”, International Criminal Justice Review,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 229-247.
Levy, K. (2001), “The relationship between adolescent attitudes toward authority, self concept,
and delinquency”, Adolescence, Vol. 36 No. 142, pp. 333-346.
Lurigio, A., Greenleaf, R. and Flexon, J. (2009), “The effects of race on relationships with the
police: a survey of African American and Latino youths in Chicago”, Western Criminology
Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Nalla, M. and Madan, M. (2012), “Determinants of citizens’ perceptions of police-community
cooperation in India: implications for community policing”, Asian Journal of Criminology,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 277-294.
Nihart, T., Lersch, K., Sellers, C. and Mieczkowski, T. (2005), “Kids, cops, parents and teachers:
exploring juvenile attitudes toward authority figures”, Western Criminology Review, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Nipsa (2011), “Community policing in India: a long road ahead”, available at: www.nipsa.in/
community-policing-in-india-a-long-road-ahead (accessed October 10, 2011).
Novak, K., Smith, B. and Frank, J. (2003), “Strange bedfellows: civil liability and aggressive
policing”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 352-368.
Oliver, W. (2000), “The third generation of community-policing: moving through innovation,
diffusion, and institutionalization”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 367-388.
Olivero, J. and Murataya, R. (1998), “Citizen satisfaction with police services in Guadalajara, Community
Mexico”, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 305-310. policing in India
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. and Piquero, A. (1998), “Using the correct and the USA
statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients”, Criminology, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 859-866.
Poddar, T. and Yi, E. (2007), Global Economics Paper Number 152: India’s Rising Growth 25
Potential, Goldman Sachs, New York, NY.
Raghavan, R. (1999), Policing a Democracy: A Comparative Study of India and the US, Manohar
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
Raghavan, R. and Shiva Sankar, A. (2003), “A community policing approach to crime prevention:
the case of India”, in Lab, S. and Das, D. (Eds), International Perspectives on Community
Policing and Crime Prevention, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 113-126.
Reisig, M. and Giacomazzi, A. (1998), “Citizen perceptions of community policing: Are attitudes
toward police important?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Reisig, M. and Parks, R. (2000), “Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: a
hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 607-630.
Salifu, A. (2008), “Can corruption and economic crime be controlled in developing countries –
and if so, is the cost worth it?”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 273-283.
Sharma, R. (2006), “Prevention of crime and community policing in India: an empirical evaluation
of the strategies and practices of the Delhi police”, The Police Journal, Vol. 79 No. 1,
pp. 43-75.
Singh, J. (2002), Inside Indian Police, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi.
Skogan, W. and Hartnett, S. (1997), Community Policing: Chicago Style, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Stoutland, S. (2001), “The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in Boston”,
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 226-256.
Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. (2003), “The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public
support for policing”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 513-548.
Tankebe, J. (2008), “Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: an empirical
appraisal”, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Thurman, Q. and Reisig, M. (1996), “Community-oriented research in an era of community
policing”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 570-586.
Triandis, H. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-520.
Tyler, T. (2001), “Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority
group members want from the law and legal authorities?”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 215-235.
United Nations (2008), World Population Prospects, the 2008 Revision, United Nations,
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, NY.
Unnithan, N. (2009), “Crime and justice in India: Editorial comment”, Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 128-130.
Unnithan, N. (2010), “Review of the book Understanding the Police in India”, International
Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 438-439.
PIJPSM Verma, A. (1999), “Cultural roots of police corruption in India”, Policing: An International Journal
of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 264-279.
37,1
Verma, A. and Gavirneni, S. (2006), “Measuring police efficiency in India: an application of data
envelopment analysis”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Vincentnathan, S. and Vincentnathan, L. (2009), “The police, community, and community
26 justice institutions in India”, in Wisler, D. and Onwudiwe, I. (Eds), Community
Policing: International and Comparative Perspectives, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 257-287.
Weiss, A. and Freels, S. (1996), “The effect of aggressive policing: the Dayton traffic enforcement
experiment”, American Journal of Police, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 45-64.
Weitzer, R. and Tuch, S. (2004), “Reforming the police: racial differences in public support for
change”, Criminology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 391-416.

Wells, W., Schafer, J., Varano, S. and Bynum, T. (2006), “Neighborhood residents’ production
of order: the effects of collective efficiency on responses to neighborhood problems”, Crime
and Delinquency, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 523-550.
Wong, K. (2001), “The philosophy of community policing in China”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 186-214.
World Factbook (2011), “India”, available at: www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/in.html (accessed August 27, 2011).
Wu, Y. (2010), “College students’ evaluation of police performance: a comparison of Chinese and
Americans”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 773-780.
Wu, Y., Jiang, S. and Lambert, E. (2011), “Citizen support for community policing in China”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 285-303.
Wu, Y., Sun, I. and Triplett, R. (2009), “Race, class or neighborhood context: which
matters more in measuring satisfaction with police?”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 125-156.
Zamble, E. and Annesley, P. (1987), “Some determinants of public attitudes toward the police”,
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 285-290.
Entire group (n ¼ 918) Indian students (n ¼ 434) US students (n ¼ 484)

Appendix
Index item Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n
Support for community policing

Cooperation between the police and the community is important to
prevent crime 4.28 0.82 915 4.41 0.85 432 4.16 0.77 483
In order to prevent crime, there must be a partnership between the community
and the police 3.94 0.88 913 4.06 0.96 430 3.84 0.79 483
Police working with neighborhoods or communities is an effective deterrent
to crime 3.65 0.88 907 3.70 1.00 426 3.61 0.75 481
The flow of information from citizens to the police about crime and criminals
increases police effectiveness at crime prevention 3.76 0.83 900 3.83 0.88 420 3.70 0.78 480
The flow of information about crime back to citizens improves the ability of
citizens to protect themselves 3.70 0.81 903 3.82 0.90 424 3.50 0.70 479
Perceptions of crime
Crime is one of the most serious social problems facing society today 3.89 1.08 912 4.33 0.92 428 3.50 1.07 484
Punitive orientation
Courts generally are not harsh enough with criminals 3.44 1.09 914 3.71 1.08 431 3.20 1.05 483
My behavior is strongly influenced by significant others such as my parents,
family members, peer, and friends 3.88 1.08 915 3.78 1.13 431 3.98 1.02 484
Confidence in the police
The police know what is best for my community 2.75 1.14 911 2.93 1.20 429 2.59 1.07 482
I trust the police 3.20 1.21 910 3.01 1.29 427 3.37 1.12 483
Police know what is best for people 2.77 1.07 911 2.79 1.17 427 2.57 0.96 484
Police know how to best respond to crime 3.18 1.04 908 3.78 1.09 429 3.10 0.99 479
Police civility
Police generally treat everyone the same in my community 2.36 1.22 916 2.41 1.33 432 2.30 1.12 484
Police are generally friendly 2.95 1.13 910 2.53 1.15 431 3.32 0.98 479
(continued)
for the individual

Community
Descriptive statistics
index items
policing in India
Table AI.
27
and the USA
28
37,1
Table AI.
PIJPSM
Entire group (n ¼ 918) Indian students (n ¼ 434) US students (n ¼ 484)

Index item Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n
Police effectiveness
Police have little impact on the amount of crime in my community (reverse
coded for index) 2.95 1.02 905 3.39 1.13 424 2.63 0.89 481
Criminals have little to fear of the police (reverse coded for index) 3.21 1.05 904 3.32 1.04 425 3.06 0.96 478
Police involvement
In my community, the police frequently ask residents to provide ideas on how to
best respond to crime 2.41 1.05 910 2.51 1.14 429 2.32 0.95 481
The police generally attend and participate in local community meetings 3.07 1.01 909 3.16 1.19 430 2.99 0.82 479
Support for aggressive policing
Excessive police scrutiny is necessary to fight crime 3.34 1.61 913 4.07 3.56 431 2.69 0.87 482
Frequent stops by the police in the community is necessary to reduce crime 3.30 1.10 908 3.59 1.01 428 3.10 1.12 480
Notes: n columns represent the number of respondents who answered the item. All the items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree
About the authors Community
Dr Eric Lambert is a Faculty Member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the Wayne State
University. He received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of
policing in India
New York at Albany. His research interests include criminal justice organizational issues, the and the USA
evaluation of correctional interventions, death penalty attitudes, attitudes and views of criminal
justice employees, and the ethical behavior of criminal justice students and employees. Dr Eric
Lambert is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] 29
Dr Yunning Wu is a Faculty Member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the Wayne
State University. She earned her PhD in Criminology from the University of Delaware.
Her research interests revolve around citizen evaluation and views of criminal justice agencies
and issues, police and policing issues, and comparative/international criminal justice and
criminology issues.
Dr Shanhe Jiang is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. He received his
PhD in sociology from the State University of New York at Albany. He has recently published
China-related papers in the death penalty, formal and informal crime control, and the issues in
cross-cultural survey research. He is writing a book and book chapters about criminological
theories in China. He continues to work on comparative views of criminal justice between various
nations. He is interested in social support and suicide.
Professor Karuppannan Jaishankar is a Faculty Member in the Department of Criminology
and Criminal Justice at the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in India. His research interests
include cyber crime, stalking, and international criminal justice issues. He is currently the editor
of International Criminal Justice Sciences.
Professor Sudershan Pasupuleti is a Faculty Member in the Department of Social Work at the
University of Toledo. He earned a PhD from the Osmania University, India. His research interests
include the treatment of minorities by the criminal justice system, social justice issues, and the
effectiveness of social interventions.
Professor Jagadish Bhimarasetty is a Faculty Member in the R. A. M. College of Social Work
in India. His research revolves around social issues and social justice.
Dr Brad Smith is a Faculty Member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the Wayne State
University. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati. His research
interests include policing and society, police brutality, public’s view of police and police issues,
and community policing.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Toledo, Ohio, USA

significantly affect the establishment, sustenance, and effectiveness of community

Brief overview of the Indian police

variety of policing tactics, such as traffic enforcement, frequent stops of citizens,

Perceptions of the police

Cooperation between the police and the community is important to

support for community

Perceptions of the police

Discussion and conclusion

policing, as well as attachment to conventional society, crime concern, and punitive

States”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 87-99.

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,

change”, Criminology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 391-416.

Entire group (n ¼ 918) Indian students (n ¼ 434) US students (n ¼ 484)

Support for community policing

for the individual

Entire group (n ¼ 918) Indian students (n ¼ 434) US students (n ¼ 484)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

You might also like