<%BANNER%>

Learning in Action: Training the Community Policing Officer


PAGE 1

LEARNING IN ACTION: TRAINING TH E COMMUNITY POLICING OFFICER By ALLISON TAYLOR CHAPPELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Allison T. Chappell

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS From the beginning, the first memorable class I took at East Carolina University (ECU) was Social Problems (taught by Linda Mooney). Lindas stories and perspective on the world introduced me to a new way of viewing society that would change me forever, personally and professionally. After that, Bob Edwards (also at ECU) mentored me as a senior undergraduate student, spending hours explaining the ins and outs of grad school and what a career in academia would entail. He taught me how to make a vitae, offered me an opportunity to do research, and continued to help and support me until this day. He deserves a huge thank you. Barbara Zsembik taught my first methods class in graduate school and served on my supervisory committee. Though we did not speak as often in my later years of graduate school, I always knew Barb was there with grounded advice for any problem, be it personal or professional. She, Mike Radelet, and Marian Borg, taught me much about writing. The entire Criminology faculty was always full of useful information about teaching, publishing, and job searching (including the office staff, notably Dianne and Hazel in Criminology, and Sheran and Kanitra in Sociology). They are a great group of people. Karen Parker was the first professor I assisted in the classroom. From her, I learned the skills and importance of effective lecturing and how to manage teaching efficiently. She and Aaron also became good friends of ours. Eve Brank became a good friend and someone that I look up to personally and professionally. I also thank Jodi Lane iii

PAGE 4

for advice on jobs and the dissertation. Joe Spillane gave great advice on life and teaching and he always offered much-needed humor. I thank Ron Akers for his theoretical insights about the police. Many graduate school friends also helped me along the way (Brad Tripp, Melanie Wakeman, Jennifer Matheny, and John Reitzel, to name a few). I thank those at the Police Academy who trusted me with all of their data, answered my questions, and let me observe the academy classes. Without these data, this dissertation would not exist. The people at the academy (notably Daryl Johnston, Tom Terry, and Jim Murphey) taught me much about the police, police training, and the inner-workings of the academy. I am very appreciative. The academy recruits who are the data were interesting and fun to get to know. The staff and recruits made this experience enjoyable and interesting. I would also like to thank those at the The Police Agency, especially Lieutenant Allan Willis and Lieutenant Scott Meffen. This dissertation is much more interesting because of the follow-up data they provided. They invited me to meetings, introduced me to people, and answered my many questions. They are a fun group of people. I really appreciate the help and friendship of those at The PD. I met Marian Borg (my supervisory committee chair) during my second semester of graduate school, in a seminar on social control. She has been a mentor and a friend. Emotionally, intellectually, and educationally, Marian has been a constant source of support. Especially at the beginning, she essentially held my hand while I learned how to write and how to apply theoretically concepts to the real world, and believed in me when I did not believe in myself. She saw me at my worst and still seemed to like me! I am grateful. iv

PAGE 5

Lonn Lanza-Kaduce deserves much of the credit for this dissertation. It absolutely would not have been possible without Lonn. Lonn forced me to think and work harder than I had before. He pushed me and I am thankful for it. I thank Lonn for putting up with me when I needed to complain, and when I was completely stressed out and probably mean to him! Lonn received the brunt of my stress and emotional breakdowns during the writing of this dissertation and still managed to be nice to me. I will cherish the memories of our meetings at Starbucks, Northwest Grille, and other various eating and drinking establishments in Gainesville, where we talked through the issues of my research and he forced me to think about issues theoretically (much to my dismay). I will not forget the commitment and dedication he showed to me during the final months of the writing of this dissertation. I really owe this to him. I thank my mother, who has been dealing with her own adversity during this time, but has managed to continue to put my priorities first and make sure that I reach my goals. She always stressed the importance of education as I was growing up, probably not anticipating that I would take it so literally! I very much appreciate the support throughout the years, emotionally, financially, and otherwise. I thank my father, who showed overwhelming pride in my accomplishments. Whatever I did, I knew that my father would be proud. My friends (especially Heather) were always there to listen to me cry and complain and worry and freak out when it seemed the world was ending for one reason or another. I am sure I was difficult to deal with at times! I thank them for their support. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my fianc, Scott Maggard, who has had to put up with more insanity from me than anyone else has over the past 6 years! It has been a v

PAGE 6

wonderful experience to share graduate school with him, and I thank him for his everlasting support. I was never alone in writing this dissertation; I always had Scott by my side. For that, I am forever grateful. vi

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Community Policing (COPS).......................................................................................2 Police Training..............................................................................................................5 Specific Aims/Statement of Research..........................................................................6 Significance..................................................................................................................8 Policy.....................................................................................................................8 Theory....................................................................................................................9 Limitations and Parameters of the Study....................................................................11 2 COMMUNITY POLICING........................................................................................13 Introduction.................................................................................................................13 History........................................................................................................................14 The Community Era...................................................................................................16 Community Policing...................................................................................................19 Challenges...........................................................................................................22 Success of Community Policing..........................................................................23 3 FORMAL POLICE TRAINING................................................................................25 Traditional Training....................................................................................................25 The Transition to (COPS) Training............................................................................27 Recruit Training for COPS.........................................................................................28 Delivery...............................................................................................................30 Challenges to COPS Training.............................................................................31 Community Policing and Police Training: The LAPD...............................................32 Contextualize the Learning..................................................................................33 Integrate Key Topics Throughout the Curriculum..............................................33 vii

PAGE 8

Build the Scenario...............................................................................................34 Conduct a Thorough Debriefing (After the Scenario).........................................34 Community Policing in Florida..................................................................................35 Field Training.............................................................................................................36 4 LEARNING POLICE BEHAVIOR AND NORMS: FORMAL AND INFORMAL CHANGES............................................................................................41 Introduction.................................................................................................................41 Social Learning Theory..............................................................................................43 Differential Association.......................................................................................45 Definitions...........................................................................................................46 Differential Reinforcement..................................................................................47 Imitation..............................................................................................................48 Traditional Police Subculture.....................................................................................49 Academy Training and Learning COPS.....................................................................53 Social Learning Model of Police Socialization for COPS..........................................55 5 DATA.........................................................................................................................57 Introduction.................................................................................................................57 Background of the CMS Curriculum..........................................................................57 Research at the Police Academy.................................................................................59 Setting..................................................................................................................59 Data......................................................................................................................59 The Official Data.................................................................................................60 Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing............................................60 Research Questions.............................................................................................62 Research at the Police Agency...................................................................................62 Setting..................................................................................................................62 Data......................................................................................................................63 Field Training Officer (FTO) Files......................................................................63 Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing............................................64 Research Questions.............................................................................................65 Summary.....................................................................................................................66 6 METHODS.................................................................................................................67 Introduction.................................................................................................................67 Quantitative Analysis..................................................................................................67 Dependent Variables: Academy Performance.....................................................68 Independent Variables.........................................................................................69 A Note on Interactions.........................................................................................72 Qualitative Data..........................................................................................................72 Police Academy...................................................................................................72 Police Agency......................................................................................................73 viii

PAGE 9

7 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS....................................................................................75 Introduction.................................................................................................................75 Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................75 Full Sample..........................................................................................................75 Split Samples.......................................................................................................76 Multivariate Models....................................................................................................77 Does CMS Training Make a Difference?............................................................77 Analyzing Performance among CMS Versus Traditional Recruits....................78 Summary and Conclusion...........................................................................................80 8 INFORMAL LEARNING..........................................................................................86 Introduction.................................................................................................................86 Paramilitary Environment...........................................................................................91 Learning Academy Rules: The Chain of Command, Deference, and Discipline.........................................................................................................92 Accepting Criticism.............................................................................................99 Pressure to Perform under Stress.......................................................................102 Loyalty, Solidarity and Reliance on Fellow Officers........................................105 Officer Safety............................................................................................................108 Bad Guy and Us Versus Them.................................................................................113 Police Presence and Assertiveness...........................................................................117 Traditional Police Work and Experiential Knowledge.............................................122 Law on the Books Versus Law in Action.................................................................126 Diversity...................................................................................................................131 Conclusion................................................................................................................137 9 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION......................................................................141 Introduction...............................................................................................................141 Ways to Improve.......................................................................................................143 Instructors..........................................................................................................143 College-Educated Recruits................................................................................144 Updated Field Training......................................................................................145 Horizontal Communication...............................................................................146 Adult Learning...................................................................................................146 A Final Thought: Training Versus Education..........................................................146 Theoretical Lessons..................................................................................................147 Limitations and Future Research..............................................................................148 APPENDIX: CURRICULA CONTENTS.......................................................................151 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................152 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................163 ix

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES Table page 7-1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables...................................................................83 7-2. Regression models predicting academy performance of academy recruits................84 7-3. Regression models predicting academy performance of CMS recruits.....................85 7-4. Regression models predicting academy performance of traditional recruits.............85 x

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEARNING IN ACTION: TRAINING THE COMMUNITY POLICING OFFICER By Allison T. Chappell August 2005 Chair: Marian Borg Cochair: Lonn Lanza-Kaduce Major Department: Sociology Community-oriented policing (COPS) is a new philosophy and practice of policing that focuses on problem solving, community involvement, and crime prevention. Academics, politicians, and practitioners alike have lauded COPS for its potential to enhance public safety and improve police-community relations. Though 70% of police departments claim to be practicing COPS, the way in which community-oriented policing translates into practice remains somewhat unclear. While a growing number of studies are examining various aspects of this policing philosophy, little scholarly attention has been devoted to the training of COPS officers. This study evaluated how COPS training is being conducted and whether recruits are learning different lessons as COPS has been incorporated into training. Specifically, it analyzed participant observation data from a police academy as well as official records of academy recruits who have gone through both traditional and COPS curricula. It also used field training narratives and forms to see xi

PAGE 12

how academy training carries over in practice on the streets. The study adopted a social learning perspective to account for whether curriculum changes translated into differential learning. Police recruits who went through the COPS curriculum differed little in terms of academy performance compared to recruits who went through the former traditional curriculum. No particular type of recruit was more or less likely to fail, gain employment, or achieve higher academy scores. Although there is much that is different in the CMS curriculum, the lessons that are learned may not be that different. This is because the normative climate of the police training and socialization experience has changed little since the reformation in curricula. The normative climate includes formal and informal lessons about the paramilitary environment, officer safety, the bad guy and us versus them mentality, police presence and assertiveness, experiential knowledge and traditional police work, law on the books versus law in action, and diversity. These lessons have implications for the way that officers interact with their department and the citizenry, as well as implications for COPS. Results of this study will be a resource to police training centers attempting to build their own innovative COPS curricula. In the future, this study could be improved using larger samples from additional training environments to assess COPS training and its impact on policing practices. xii

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Shooting. Defensive tactics. Mechanics of arrest. This is what comes to mind when most of us hear the term police training. And that is only for the past 50 years, because before that, most police officers did not receive any formal training at all (Walker 1999). The political era, which spanned from the 1840s through the early 1900s, was characterized by watchman style policing, and saw officers recruited informally and learning the ropes of policing on the job (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Kelling and Moore 1988a). Recruits were not formally screened and any training they received was left to seasoned police officers in the field. Corruption in that time period led to reform beginning in the early 1900s. Reform, or legalistic, policing introduced basic training of police officers (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Kelling and Moore 1988a). However, training varied widely by state, agency, and budget, and most recruits were still insufficiently prepared for police work (Alpert and Dunham 1997). We have come a long way since then, and we are now well into the community policing era (Kelling and Moore 1988a). The new era highlights the importance of cultural diversity, communications, and problem-solving. Indeed, training is one of the key elements necessary for community policing to reach its full potential (King and Lab 2000; Senna and Siegel 2002; Zhao and Thurman 1995). Police recruits learn complex lessons in the quest to become police officers. They likely begin thinking about the police role long before they apply for the job. Once they 1

PAGE 14

2 apply, they must go through screening and background checks before being admitted to the academy. The academy presents many formal and informal lessons and definitions; some reinforced more than others by their superiors. Recruits spend considerable time in the classroom learning subjects such as diversity and community relations, and time learning physical skills, such as driving and shooting a firearm. Once they graduate from the academy, many of them go to a police department where they will complete 12 weeks of field training. During this time, they are exposed to several police mentors who help them transfer their academy knowledge to the street. Valuable lessons are learned during field training and the effect of field training officers is extremely salient. Throughout this lengthy process in the police culture, recruits are exposed to trainers, peers, and other officersand their ideas about policing and life. Social learning theory helps us understand which definitions and lessons are likely to become most salient in the police training experience. Community Policing (COPS) Community-oriented policing (or COPS) is currently touted by academicians and practitioners as the answer to crime and disorder problems and police-community conflict (Rosenbaum and Lurigio 1994). The federal government has also been supportive, providing financial incentives to agencies who agree to participate in community policing activities. For example, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, a branch of the Department of Justice, provided money for over 100,000 new officers for COPS in the 1990s (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). To date, COPS has been a well-funded government program (Lab 2004). The definition of COPS has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Agencies, practitioners, and researchers tend to define it differently; though most advanced

PAGE 15

3 definitions contain similar principles, including problem solving, community involvement, and organizational decentralization (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Quality of life and crime prevention are also emphasized (Community Policing Consortium 1999). Whereas traditional policing was reactive and incident-based, COPS is proactive and seeks to solve problems that generate repeat calls for service. Generally, the COPS philosophy posits that officers work with neighborhood residents to define problems from the bottom up and then work together to solve those problems; rather than respond to calls for service as separate incidents. In the new paradigm, officers are to work with the good guys, not just against the bad guys. Notably, the good guys may not be what officers have traditionally considered as such, but it is their primary responsibility to work within the networks of the respective communities to find solutions to community-defined problems (Goldstein 1979). Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990) offer the following definition of community policing: Community policing is a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can help solve contemporary community problems related to crime, social and physical disorder, and neighborhood decay. The philosophy is predicated on the belief that achieving these goals requires that police departments develop new relationships with law-abiding people in the community, allowing them a greater voice in setting local police priorities and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work from handling random calls to solving community problems. (p. 5) Community policing requires the active participation of everyone involved, such as local government, public and private agencies, community residents, and schools. Anyone who has a concern for the welfare of a neighborhood must be involved in safeguarding that welfare (Community Policing Consortium 1999). Research shows that incivilities, such as vagrancy and graffiti, are the primary causes of fear (Community Policing Consortium 1999; Spelman 1993). Further, if people do not trust the police, that

PAGE 16

4 will exacerbate their fear. People who feel afraid will retreat into their homes and fail to participate in the care and maintenance of their neighborhood. Empty, untended streets send the message to potential criminals that crime is welcome there (Community Policing Consortium 1999). Moreover, disorder and urban decay invite more serious criminal activity (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Therefore, under COPS, the police are to work with residents to restore order so that residents can feel proud and safe and develop their own informal social control in their neighborhoods. Police do not have the resources to care for each and every community by themselves; COPS requires partnerships. This is done in various ways. Some examples include 1) putting police on permanent beats so that they get to know residents, 2) setting up mini-stations in neighborhoods, 3) instituting foot and bike patrols, 4) enlisting community organizations to clean up dilapidated buildings, pick up trash, and fix broken windows, and 5) making the area uninviting to criminals (Community Policing Consortium 1999; Wilson and Kelling 1982). COPS officers must learn to be advocates on behalf of the neighborhood for which they are responsible. They also learn to analyze crime statistics (or at least interpret and apply the findings) so to solve unique neighborhood problems in innovative ways. If officers show they are willing to help, community members will be more likely to help officers prevent and solve crimes (by providing them with information about potential crime and criminals). Eventually, trust develops between citizens and the police and they can work together to prevent crime before it happens. Neighborhood residents will be more likely to be visible and tend to their neighborhood when they feel safe and secure. Ultimately, residents must get out of their homes and show potential criminals

PAGE 17

5 that their behavior will be noticed and that it is unacceptable. Informal social control will naturally develop. COPS requires a sophisticated officer, but officers are unlikely to have the ability and knowledge to do COPS without appropriate training. Police Training Though community-oriented policing (COPS) has sparked research and debate, training of police officers within such a framework has yet to receive much attention (or resources). Police training reflecting a community-oriented approach is a relatively new phenomenon, although COPS itself has existed in theory and practice since the 1980s (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). Historically, training of police officers has often been slow to keep up with policing practice (see Frost and Seng 1984). The roles and responsibilities of police officers differ under COPS, and existing training programs insufficiently address the underlying causes of crime and disorder, coalition-building, and crime prevention (King and Lab 2000). Traditional training prepared officers for a narrow focus on law-enforcement duties, rather than the more generalist approach that community policing entails. Traditional training focused on physical activities, such as firearms training, physical training, defensive tactics, and driving. Traditional training also included some knowledge areas such as law, arrest procedures, traffic enforcement, and officer safety. Neglected were areas such as communications, diversity, problem solving, and police-community relations. Finally, some states such as Florida, Illinois and Michigan, have begun to address the importance of training in COPS in an effort to making COPS a success (Dantzker et al. 1995; Trojanowicz and Belknap 1986). Further, they have begun to implement basic recruit training programs reflecting a COPS and/or problem solving orientation. Still, the few COPS training programs that do exist tend to be in the early stages and may be

PAGE 18

6 struggling with implementation. Their impact has yet to be evaluated (Chappell, Lanza-Kaduce, and Johnston 2004; Dantzker et al. 1995; Trojanowicz and Belknap 1986). Specific Aims/Statement of Research My research seeks to address the gap in the literature by analyzing police recruit training under a COPS philosophy by comparing it to the former traditional training curriculum used in Florida. It evaluates how COPS training is being integrated into basic recruit training and into the initial field work and the extent to which it is producing differences in police officers in one police training center. The research incorporates a social learning perspective to account for whether curriculum changes will translate into a marked change in recruit academy performance as well as on-the-job policing performance. Specifically, the study will address the following questions in depth: How are police officers trained in COPS different from those trained under the traditional curriculum? In what ways are lessons learned in the COPS curriculum different from those under the traditional curriculum? To what extent is COPS supported in the informal culture in the academy and departmental environment? What makes this study unique is the timing: As I began my research at a police academy, the traditional curriculum was undergoing a complete restructuring to reflect an innovative scenario-based, problem solving, community-oriented focus in what became known as the Curriculum Maintenance System (CMS) curriculum. My observations spanned both curricula and thus allow comparison of the two training approaches. One aspect of training is the formal content of the curriculum, such as classroom training, skills training, and field training (Lundman 1980). The assumption is that changing these aspects will produce a different type of officer (hopefully a better, more

PAGE 19

7 effective officer). Examining this assumption is the first goal of this study. By evaluating quantitative data measuring various aspects of recruit academy performance under the CMS and the traditional police training curriculum, my study will assess the extent to which changes in curricula have produced differences in police trainees and rookie officers. I will examine background and demographics, academy performance, including average examination scores, failure experiences, and job placement for police recruits who entered the basic recruit academy between 1998 and 2003. Sociological theory suggests that although formal training is important to behavioral outcomes, the informal content of the academy experience is equally significant (Lundman 1980). Indeed, social learning theory suggests that behavioral outcomes are significantly influenced by attitudes/definitions, reinforcements/punishments, and role modeling that are typically exchanged during interaction with peers and superiorsboth formally and informally (Akers 2000; Chappell and Piquero 2004). Such arguments indicate that even with significant changes in the formal curriculum, the transformation towards a COPS philosophy may not occur if the informal culture among officers remains static. The second goal of this study is to describe how the formal training and informal culture among recruits and officers are changing and how these changesor lack thereofaffect the implementation and nature of community-oriented policing in both recruit training and policing practices. I will do this with qualitative data that describe the informal culture and lessons, as well as the environment at the police academy through participant observation. I will examine the extent to which COPS lessons are reinforced informally in the academy and after recruits graduate from the academy and enter their

PAGE 20

8 rookie career by examining the field training records maintained in one police agency who hires from the academy observed. In addition to the comparative data, the research also includes post-graduation observational data on a subsample of CMS recruits. I follow a sub-sample of the graduates from the CMS curriculum into their field training officer (FTO) program at one local police agency which hires many of its officers from this academy. The purpose of field training is for the rookie officer to learn departmental policies, procedures, local laws, and to get real life experience after graduating from the academy. It is where the rookie has the opportunity to apply academy lessons to the field (Alpert and Dunham 1997). The qualitative analysis of field training files allows me to analyze the extent to which COPS lessons are reinforced in departmental training. Finally, other qualitative data, including informal interviews and participant observation at the local police agency, supplement the primary sources of qualitative data and assist in understanding the police culture. Through the variety of data on both the traditional and the CMS curricula, I will analyze the similarities, differences, and relative impact of the new CMS curriculum used in one particular training academy that threads the COPS philosophy through their basic recruit curriculum in the State of Florida. I aim to assess whether police recruits learn community policing from the CMS curriculum in ways that are likely to carry over into the field. Significance Policy Training of police officers is an adult socialization experience in a quasi-military environment. How they are trained, the impact of their training, and how they perform is

PAGE 21

9 important to all of us. Officers will be unlikely to have the sophistication to do COPS well if they are not properly trained. The success of the new paradigm rests in part on training (King and Lab 2000). This study is also a lesson in organizational change. The decision to institute CMS training was made at the state level. Organizations, particularly hierarchical centralized bureaucracies, are often resistant to change (Gaines et al. 2003; Hannan and Freeman 1984). There may be a degree of discrepancy between the implementation of the organizational philosophy of CMS and how that philosophy translates into practice. Implementation problems, organizational cultural barriers, and various forms of inflexibility can interfere with attempts to transform organizations (Gaines et al. 2003). We do not know the extent to which this organizational change will translate into practice at the academy level. The formal effects may be swamped by informal practices and culture. Theory Tenets of COPS are particularly interesting to the sociological researcher. The concept of community and informal social control are deeply rooted in sociological tradition and theory (Sampson and Groves 1989; Shaw and McKay 1969). Shaw and McKay (1969) argued that ecological and structural conditions of communities shape crime rates. Additionally, sociological research and theory have long recognized that informal social control is often more effective in controlling crime and delinquency than formal social control (e.g. the police) (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Neighborhoods that are decaying and in transition invite opportunities for criminal activity (Wilson and Kelling 1982). For example, dilapidated buildings offer a place for delinquents to commiserate and engage in criminal activity. In organized communities, this behavior is informally

PAGE 22

10 controlled because neighborhood residents have social ties and collective efficacy (Sampson 1997). There is informal surveillance of neighborhood activities, direct intervention in suspicious behavior by neighbors, and social networking among residents. Contrarily, neighborhoods with weaker social ties and networks have less informal surveillance because their residents are more transient and less likely to know each other, so strangers to the neighborhood are less likely to be noticed. There is more relational distance and less informal social control. Thus, residents do not identify with their neighborhood or neighbors as much, nor do they care about its reputation and appearance. Because sociological theory teaches us the importance of informal social control, we should expect that police officers will be more successful to the extent that they can work within the informal social control networks of their respective neighborhoods. Police recruits who have sophisticated training in COPS will need to appreciate neighborhood dynamics and community sociology in order to do their jobs well. The recent shift in policing toward a community focus (discussed in chapter 2) highlights the importance of working within the networks of neighborhoods in order to reduce crime and disorder. The new CMS curriculum explicitly incorporates units related to working with communities. Much of the analysis will be guided by social learning theory. Akers (1998) posits that four variables function to instigate and strengthen attitudes toward social behavior: differential association, definitions, reinforcement and modeling. The balance of these influences determines whether one will be prone to engage in certain behaviors. The central variable in social learning theory is differential association. We learn based on our

PAGE 23

11 exposure to others. The norms of the groups within which we operate, the models we observe, and reinforcements or punishments that we receive from others shape our attitudes and behaviors. These groups with which we identify the most and in which we operate most often have the largest impact on what we learn. Those to whom we feel closest (as opposed to those who are more distant) are most influential. Akers argues that individuals develop definitions either favorable or unfavorable to behavior in interaction with their primary and secondary groups, such as family, peers, and occupational groups. These definitions are then reinforced or punished, positively or negatively, by rewards or punishments (either real or perceived). Chapter 4 discusses this theory and its application to police socialization and training in detail. This study applies Akers social learning theory to a new context. Limitations and Parameters of the Study This study has several limitations. First, the new CMS curriculum was in pilot form for most of the time that I was conducting my study. The training is constantly evolving and may have changed since my data were collected. My follow-up data are based on a limited sub-sample from only one agency and my follow up is relatively short term (e.g., only through the field training phase of employment). The study focuses on one site and therefore, the results must be interpreted with cautionthey may not generalize to other recruits, to other training classes, or to other sites. In addition, as with many innovations, COPS may need time to settle in. In other words, new programs may become more effective over time because their implementers work through barriers and problems to make them work better. Finally, this study is not evaluation research per se, rather the access to data before and after the implementation of CMS makes it a comparative analysis.

PAGE 24

12 This study proceeds by outlining the literature on community-oriented policing in part one of the literature review (chapter 2). The next chapter reviews the literature on police training, which is more limited. Chapter 4 extends social learning theory to provide a framework for understanding how police recruits learn to become police officers. Supporting literature is included in that chapter as well. Data and methodology are covered in chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 7 shows the results of the quantitative analysis. Chapter 8 deals with the qualitative data pertaining to participant observation. Chapter 9 presents a discussion and conclusions.

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNITY POLICING Introduction Policing is said to have evolved through three recognizable eras: the political era, the reform era, and the community era (Kelling and Moore 1988b). As it has progressed, each era has been said to exhibit dominant styles. Hence, the political era was characterized by watchman style policing, while the reform era was defined by its legalistic style, and the community era is defined by a service style. Watchman style police were primarily concerned with order maintenance, peace keeping, and catering to those in political positions. In this era, officers often walked or biked small geographic areas and became well-acquainted with local residents and their problems. The political relationships, the lack of supervision, and the absence of policy and procedure led to widespread allegations of corruption, which prompted a series of reforms. Police agencies were bureaucratized to increase supervision of line personnel. The result was the reform era. Legalistic police were aggressive law enforcers who, in the interest of equality, often neglected cultivating relationships with community residents. They focused on rapid response to calls for service, rather than solving problems. Eventually, perceptions of increasing crime rates, civil unrest, and police-community conflict led to the beginning of the current community era. The community era, known by its service style of policing, focuses on problem solving and community partnerships (Kelling and Moore 1988a; Wilson 1968). The most popular form of service style policing is known as Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) 13

PAGE 26

14 which builds on elements of problem-oriented policing, team policing, and community relations. The philosophy and practice of COPS is discussed next. History A detailed history of modern policing is beyond the scope of this study. As a general history, American policing grew from the British modern police force in the 1800s. By the 1880s, all major U.S. cities had municipal police organizations with full time employees (Lundman 1980). The first American police were concerned primarily with order maintenance, rather than crime control (Wilson 1968). They spent their time controlling the dangerous classes, and monitoring drunks and vagrants (Lundman 1980). Because of limited technology, officers generally worked autonomously, patrolling neighborhoods on foot without much supervision from headquarters. Police officers walked or biked local beats, often in the areas where they lived. They became well-acquainted with residents in their respective patrol areas (Kelling and Moore 1988b). Citizens knew their local police officer and relied on him for many things, including, but not limited to, crime control. The police of this time period were notoriously corrupt and brutal (Walker 1999). They routinely took payoffs to allow illegal gambling, prostitution, and drinking. Promotions were paid for, not earned (Walker 1977; 1999). The reform era became dominant in the 20 th century when society reacted strongly against the corruption by instituting a strict hierarchical bureaucratic style of policing (Kelling and Moore 1988a; Wilson 1968). By the 1950s, police professionalism was being sold as the way to remedy the corruption problems. O.W. Wilson argued that greater centralization of the police function with an emphasis on military discipline and obedience would increase efficiency. He argued for closer supervision of line personnel,

PAGE 27

15 motorized patrol, and centralized headquarters (Uchida 1993). Allegations of mistreatment of specific groups, and special treatment of those in power led to unequal protection of citizens and reform was in order (Kelling and Moore 1988a). The reform era exhibited a legalistic style of policing and is responsible for what is generally now known as traditional policing. Though some scholars and practitioners contend that we have moved beyond this era, it is likely that many departments still operate within traditional legalistic norms. The reforms resulted in police agencies that were hierarchical, bureaucratic structures with strict policies and procedures to limit officer discretion and enhance supervision. Technological advances placed officers in patrol cars with radio dispatch so that they could respond to calls for service quickly and efficiently. Officers beats were rotated to prevent them from developing relationships (and thus corruption) with individuals or businesses on their beat. Increased emphasis was placed on the scientific aspect of policing, such as forensics, as a response to technological advances such as computers. The main focus of the professional police agency was rapid response to calls for service in order to achieve the utmost efficiency and professionalism (Kelling and Moore 1988a). One of the primary goals of the reform era was to limit discretion and autonomy of patrol officers so that officers did not become agents of politics. They were instructed to treat everyone equally and impersonally, and endless measures were taken to make sure that officers did not develop relationships with residents because this had been shown to lead to corruption in the past. Many say that the advent of the patrol car had negative consequences for policing as well. It was not only a physical barrier, but a psychological barrier between citizens and police officers. It prevented officers from building the type

PAGE 28

16 of relationships that they had in the past (i.e., watchman era). For example, residents may not feel as comfortable speaking to an officer about their problems through the police car window as they would if the officer was on foot (Kelling and Moore 1988b). Now that police were being routinely rotated through zones, residents were less likely to develop relationships with any particular police officer. The relationship of the police to communities suffered as officers were removed from foot patrols, and officers policed from a distance. Moreover, many residents, especially minorities, felt afraid of the police because they felt targeted by their strict enforcement. The lack of communication that had developed in the reform era arguably led to higher levels of perceived crime, increased fear of crime, and distrust of the police (Uchida 1993). Crime rates, or at least the perception of crime, had increased, and research was showing that the professional model, with its emphasis on efficiency and rapid response to calls for service, appeared to be failing. Perhaps officers needed to work with residents to prevent problems before they occurred and help residents to feel safer in their neighborhoods. Research was showing that fear of crime and neighborhood incivilities were the primary causes of neighborhood residents dissatisfaction. A new paradigm would emerge. The Community Era In the late 1960s and early 1970s, general civil unrest, including the civil rights movement, as well as high-profile allegations of officers using excessive force and racial discrimination, led police agencies across the nation to begin a series of campaigns to improve police-community relationships (Hunter et al. 2000; Kelling and Moore 1988b). The public was beginning to question police behavior, and minorities were alleging that they were not receiving fair treatment by the police. Some of the early reforms were

PAGE 29

17 simply known as police-community relations, while others, such as team policing in the early 1970s were more organized efforts to restructure police agencies. In team policing, officers were divided into small teams and assigned to permanent geographical areas (Swanson et al. 1998). Many of these early attempts were unsuccessful, but they laid the groundwork for subsequent efforts to reform the police. In addition, many research studies were questioning the effectiveness of rapid response to calls for service, one of the main elements of legalistic policing. In fact, studies were showing that rapid response and preventative patrol did not seem to affect clearance rates or citizens perception of the police (Spelman and Brown 1981). Many calls for service did not need a rapid response, but instead could be dealt with by a civilian, a scheduled meeting, or a phone call (McEwen 1984). Other studies showed that resources were being wasted on detectives who were only marginally successful in solving crimes (Greenwood et al. 1977). One of the first key studies questioning rapid response occurred in Kansas City in 1974. The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al. 1974) divided Kansas City districts into three areas. One area was patrolled reactively, one area had increased proactive patrol, and the third area was the control group. Interestingly, there was no change in citizen satisfaction with police response across the three study sites. The study seriously questioned the necessity of random patrol (Kansas City Police Department 1980). In 1981, the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment conducted by the Police Foundation put officers on foot in neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey. It seemed that the officers presence and knowledge of residents and outsiders helped to create a sense of order and

PAGE 30

18 informal social control. The foot officers became acquainted with the neighborhood drunks and other vagrants and also recognized people who did not belong and those who may be a threat. The program did not significantly decrease crime, but it enhanced feelings of safety on behalf of residents (Pate et al. 1986). Similar conclusions regarding foot patrol were found in Flint, Michigan (Trojanowicz 1982). In 1982, Wilson and Kelling published their groundbreaking article in Atlantic Monthly entitled Broken Windows. The article argued that a neighborhood with a broken window that is not repaired will eventually have all of its windows broken. In other words, urban decay promotes crime, and signs of disorder make a neighborhood vulnerable. Therefore, the first step in reducing crime is to remedy the disorder, reduce signs of incivility, and strengthen neighborhoods. Disorder makes residents fearful and they will become hostages in their own homes. There must be a partnership between the police and the community to restore order and pride to make sure that the neighborhood does not project signs of incivility so that informal social control can be established. Problem-oriented policing (POP) was a movement from reactive, incident-driven policing to a more proactive approach (Goldstein 1979). The first POP implementation and evaluation was conducted in Newport News, Virginia and was funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1987 (Eck and Spelman 1987). Under POP, officers should target specific hot spots of repeat criminal activity (Sherman et al. 1989) and solve the underlying problems that generate serial calls for service and waste police resources. (Eck and Spelman 1987; Goldstein 1987). POP uses problem solving models like SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment). The Newport News study

PAGE 31

19 found that problem-solving reduced the crime rate (specifically robberies, burglaries and thefts) substantially (Eck and Spelman 1987). The above movements, studies and evaluations set the stage for community policing, which incorporates elements of team policing, problem solving, and watchman-style policing. It also incorporates advanced crime analysis and increased accountability to the community. Community policing is operationalized differently across the nation. Indeed, lack of standardization is one of the major limitations to evaluating its success. Community Policing 1 By 1997, a majority of both police departments serving 100,000 or more people and sheriffs offices serving 250,000 or more residents had personnel assigned to COPS (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Law enforcement agencies had, if nothing else, adopted the terminology of COPS. Initial evidence indicated that officers support COPS (Winfree, Barku, and Seibel 1996). Respected commentators argue that COPS is built on a new philosophy of policing (see Cordner 2001; Greene and Mastrofski 1988; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990; Walker 1999) that holds promise for improving law enforcement. Oliver (1998: 51) defines community policing as: A systematic approach to policing with the paradigm of instilling and fostering a sense of community, within a geographical neighborhood, to improve the quality of life. It achieves this through the decentralization of the police and the implementation of a synthesis of three key components: 1 This is an elaboration of an overview provided in Chappell, Allison and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. (2004). Integrating Sociology with Community-Oriented Policing: Bridging the Gap Between Academics and Practice. Journal of Applied Sociology/Sociological Practice 21/6: 80-98.

PAGE 32

20 Redistribution of traditional police resources Interaction of police and all community members to reduce crime and the fear of crime through indigenous proactive programs Concerted effort to tackle the causes of crime problems rather than to put band-aids on the symptoms. Although little consensus exists on the actual definition of community-oriented policing, several themes emerge that most definitions share: community involvement, problem-solving, and organizational decentralization (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004; Oliver 1998: 32-43). Langworthy and Travis (2003: 393) argue that COPS has important strategic and programmatic dimensions in addition to the philosophical reorientation. The strategic focuses on geography (defining areas and assigning officers to those areas), prevention (solving the problems that routinely lead to calls for service), and substance (reducing crime and fear of crime). The programmatic focuses on reorienting practices to solve problems (rather than respond to individual incidents) and includes such activities as foot patrols, neighborhood watches, neighborhood cleanups, involvement with youth in athletic leagues and after-school programs, target hardening and environmental design improvements, codes enforcement and nuisance abatement. Cordner (2001) also emphasizes the strategic and programmatic but adds an organizational dimension. He insists that COPS involves different structures (decentralization, flattening of the layers of hierarchy, less specialization, teamwork, and hiring civilian employees), changes in management (including coaching, mentoring, empowerment of line officers, and selective discipline), and the collection and utilization of more information (including the use of performance appraisals, program evaluations, information systems, crime analysis, and geographic information systems).

PAGE 33

21 On the other hand, Lab (2000) argues that COPS cannot be translated into practice and implemented well. Kennedy and Moore (2001) warn that evaluations of COPS must assess program and organizational success. Senna and Siegel (2002: 192-194) succinctly summarize and review challenges to the successful implementation of COPS: (1) defining community, (2) establishing the role of COPS officers, (3) changing the command structure of policing organizations and decentralizing decision-making, (4) reorienting police values toward the public service orientation required for community involvement, (5) revising training, and (6) reorienting recruitment. COPS calls for aggressive decentralization, deformalization and civilianization (Maguire 1997) of police operations. This is accomplished in part through the establishment of substations, neighborhood stations and satellite offices. The idea is for the police to move from people-processing units to people-changing units (Mastrofski and Ritti 1995) in order to serve the community and find creative solutions to social problems with minimal interference from headquarters. Officers need to have the ability to search for solutions to problems and not merely respond to incidents according to narrowly written procedures. Their goals include enhancing quality of life for the residents of their beat and educating citizens on how they can avoid becoming victims of crime. The emphasis of COPS is on long-term problem solving, rather than short-term solutions (e.g., incident based policing). There should be less emphasis on form, and more emphasis on results (Goldstein 1987). This involves asking for and accepting input and suggestions from the line personnel who work in the neighborhoods. In order for this to occur, there must be less rotation of officers between communities so that officers can

PAGE 34

22 become integrated into specific neighborhoods or areas (Alpert and Dunham 1997). Finally, officers are encouraged to employ alternatives, such as mediation, to the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests) to deal with problems in the communities that they serve (Goldstein 1987; 1990). Challenges In order for community-oriented policing to be successful, administration and management must be on board--from recruitment, selection and training--to the expectations made of supervisors and the measures of officer productivity (Goldstein 1987). For example, if officers are still rewarded for making numerous arrests and heroic activity, this communicates to them that the departmental focus remains unchanged (see Alpert et al. 2001). Thus, there must be a complete reorientation of middle management (Goldstein 1987, Maguire 1997). Some researchers have recognized that COPS is unlikely to work in areas that lack a sense of community (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). In other words, officers cannot be expected to build community cohesion where none exists (e.g. transition zones) (Shaw and McKay 1969). In neighborhoods suffering from the worst incivility, the highest levels of transience, and where residents have a complete lack of cohesion, it may be impossible to establish agreed upon objectives with which to improve the quality of life (see Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Goldstein (1987) notes that departments need to arrange for line personnel to have more influence in the development of COPS in their departments. This may help them to appreciate the increased independence and ability to make a marked difference in their communities. For example, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) (Greene 1997) dramatically changed internally before implementing the COPS philosophy externally in

PAGE 35

23 communities. Administrators and management showed line personnel how COPS works by incorporating departmental input into a complete internal organizational change (decentralization, more decision-making power to line personnel) before embarking on launching COPS in the community. LAPD recognized that the department itself had a long way to go internally before they could handle such an extreme external change. For example, administrators and senior personnel surveyed line personnel on their needs, opinions, and feelings about the departmental culture. They also held focus groups and incorporated the findings into their organizational change. Basically, they learned through internal organizational change and training consistent with COPS: they learned by doing (see Greene 1997). Success of Community Policing The success of COPS has also been debated. Because definitions and implementation vary greatly, it is impossible to provide a clear answer. Evaluations over the years have found that elements of COPS, such as foot patrol, mini-stations, and problem solving, have been successful in reducing fear, bettering relationships between the police and the public, and even reducing crime. At the same time, other studies have failed to uncover such positive results. For example, MacDonalds (2002) recent evaluation of COPS focuses on limited outcomes. He reports that COPS is failing to create a significant reduction in crime rates and fear of crime. However, he only analyzed city-level variables, rather than neighborhood or community-level indicators. His quantitative analysis lacked the ability to understand qualitative differences in policing styles of traditional versus COPS officers. He also failed to take into account training, differing philosophies of COPS, and varying implementation strategies.

PAGE 36

24 Because community policing is an abstract concept and its implementation varies substantially by location, it is difficult to measure differences between traditional officers and COPS officers. Some departments adopt the philosophy department-wide, but the extent to which it is a part of everyday operations is still questionable. Other departments report that they do community policing, but only assign a few specialized personnel to that particular role, while others split their force evenly between rapid response teams and problem solving officers (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). No matter what strategy is implemented, police departments still must deal with traditional crime problems, respond to calls, and make arrests, while deciding how to implement community policing and measure officers performance. While several studies have found increased job satisfaction among officers practicing community policing (Kelling and Moore 1988b; Greene 1989; Yates and Pillai 1996), other studies have found conflict in departments implementing COPS strategies (Lurigio and Rosenbaum 1994), particularly when COPS is not adopted department-wide. Other outcomes have included more positive views of the community and local businesses, and more positive views of police on behalf of citizens (Trojanowicz and Banas 1995; Wycoff and Skogan 1994). The COPS philosophy has existed for some 25 years and has generated debate among politicians, academics and practitioners. Unfortunately, it has taken agencies a long time to take the practice of COPS seriously enough to institute training programs that integrate COPS and problem solving into their curricula. The next chapter covers the history of police training and introduces some of the research and literature on new training approaches that integrate a community based approach.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 3 FORMAL POLICE TRAINING Traditional Training Recall that there have been three eras of policing: the political era, the reform era, and the community era (Kelling and Moore 1988a). Police in the political era were non-professional by current standards. Little or no training was required or provided to rookie officers. In most cases, rookies were given a badge, a baton, and a manual and told to learn the ropes from senior officers. Periodically, a department may have provided minimal training, but no requirements or standard training existed. Many cities did not offer any meaningful police training until the 1950s (Walker 1999). In the reform era, departments aimed to become professional, and this brought the introduction of formalized police training. August Vollmer, a pioneering police leader and scholar, is credited with introducing education to policing (Alpert and Dunham 1997). In Berkeley, California, he recruited college graduates to law enforcement and publicized the importance of doing so. This led to increased emphases on systematic recruit training and education nationwide. The trend was slow to catch on, however. As recently as 1965, only approximately 15% of police departments provided or required training (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Kuykendall and Usinger 1975). In 1967, The Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published its Task Force Report on the Police, which called for states to establish minimum selection, training, and education 25

PAGE 38

26 standards for all law enforcement personnel. States now certify law enforcement officers who pass standardized examinations (Chappell et al. 2005). Despite the obvious connection between police training and policing itself, changes to training practices have historically lagged behind changes in actual policing philosophies and practices (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Even after certification became a requirement in 1967, training guidelines were vague at best, leaving individual agencies responsible for setting requirements and/or providing training. Smaller departments with tighter budgets were less likely to provide or require standard training, while some larger, urban departments, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, were under more public pressure to formally prepare their officers (Greenberg 1998). Due to concerns about safety, traditional training focused primarily on the technical and mechanical aspects of acquiring skills, such as honing physical skills, marksmanship, driving skills, and defensive tactics (Alpert and Dunham 1997), while neglecting softer subjects like communication and problem solving (Birzer 1999). Many academies, or police training centers, continue to train this way today. Recruits spend 90% of their training time on firearms, driving, first aid, self-defense and other use-of-force tactics even though only 10% of their job duties will put them in positions where they need to use these skills (Germann 1969; Mayhall et al. 1995). Some jurisdictions base their basic recruit training on a Job Task Analysis (JTA). The reason for this is to ensure that training reflects the demands of the job. However, JTA reflects what has traditionally been done on the job and not necessarily what needs to be learned to do the job better or to prepare new officers for COPS (see Lord 1998; Sloan et al. 1992; Trojanowicz and Belknap 1986).

PAGE 39

27 Recruit training is generally performed in designated facilities that are referred to in different ways (e.g., training academies, institutes of public safety, criminal justice training centers). Some large law enforcement agencies operate their own academies and pay for the training of their recruits (e.g., Los Angeles Police Department, New York Police Department). More often training centers are linked with institutions of higher education, especially those geared toward vocational training like community colleges. Law enforcement agencies will sometimes sponsor their recruits as they go through training at the local community college training center. Other prospective officers pay for their own training in hopes of being recruited after they complete training and become certified. Training data from the 430 largest U.S. municipal police departments in 1993 showed that wide variation in practice remainedsome departments required no hours of training while others required over 2500 hours (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Department of Justice 1993). The Transition to (COPS) Training We are still in the transition from the reform era to the community era. Training, in particular, has been slow to adapt to community policing (or COPS). The transition is especially difficult given the conflicting values and practices between traditional (or reform) policing and current policing. For example, while traditional policing emphasizes strict enforcement of the law, COPS emphasizes building relationships between police and community/neighborhood residents in order to work together to prevent crime and solve problems (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). The emphasis is on resolving recurring problems rather than intervening in single incidents. Other attempts to improve or reform the police have often relied upon new or improved training (Buerger 1998;

PAGE 40

28 Fogelson 1977). Obviously, if community-oriented policing is to be successful, training is an essential component (King and Lab 2000). The purpose of community policing training is to provide officers with a level of understanding that will allow them to effectively employ problem solving and community engagement techniques in their daily work (Peak and Glensor 1999). Without proper training, officers will be less likely to understand the philosophy of COPS and/or how to translate the philosophy into effective practice (King and Lab 2000). Kelling suggests that if service activities dominate police work, then training should focus more on conflict management, social relations and improving police-community relations (Kelling 1978). Dunham and Alpert (1989) argue that police training needs to be less like introductory classes in anatomy for medical students and more like internships. One concern is that recruits and officers will not accept COPS because it is not real police work. Savannah has addressed this issue in an interesting way by adding more powerful firearms, more driving courses, and a solid focus on officer safety to combat that fear (McLaughlin and Donahue 1995). Recruit Training for COPS Because the recruit academy is such an important part of occupational socialization for police officers, it is necessary that training centers teach the philosophy of COPS during recruit training (Peak 1993). New officers should learn work skills as the basis for effective implementation of community policing. Few researchers have studied academy training and specifically looked at its coverage of problem solving and community policing, but the ones that have invariably reported a lack of sufficient coverage (Bradford and Pynes 1999; Marion 1998). Bradford and Pynes (1999) examined syllabi

PAGE 41

29 and curricula from 22 police academies and concluded that less than 3% of basic training academy time is spent on cognitive and decision-making areas, such as scenarios, communications, reasoning and application. They found that more than 90% of the academy time was spent on task-oriented training associated with the reactive nature of traditional policing (e.g., defensive tactics, driving, mechanics of arrest). Recent developments in policing call for more training and education in a wider range of knowledge. Those knowledge bases require more reliance on expertise that lies outside of law enforcement. Given the limited time for training, skills areas and knowledge bases compete for priority. Changes in policing either lead to shifts in training priorities or increases in training hours. For example, some curricula, in the aftermath of September 11, now incorporate lessons on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. The shift in policing toward community relations, problem solving, and COPS heightens the need for improved knowledge bases and additional skills but does not diminish the need for traditional skills (Bradford and Pynes 1999; Buerger et al. 1999). For example, recruits would be ill-served if training in officer safety were short changed. COPS training augments the curriculum by including topics on human diversity, special populations (such as the elderly, mentally ill), assessing situations, public speaking, ethics and integrity, proactive or coactive problem solving, crime prevention, stress management, domestic violence, and community building (see Palmiotto et al. 2000). The skills necessary for COPS will not become second-nature if comprehensive training in the theories and methods of community-oriented policing are not provided. This means that recruits must understand the meanings and values associated with community

PAGE 42

30 oriented policing (e.g., building trust within the neighborhood) as well as the skills needed to conduct community-oriented policing (e.g., SARA type problem-solving). Delivery Traditional training in subject areas like law and communications builds on the pedagogical approach used when teaching children. The pedagogy is teacher-centered and structured, and it relies heavily on a lecture format (often referred to by trainees as talking heads). This style emphasizes mastery, obedience and discipline, and supports the narrow focus on law enforcement that characterizes traditional policing. Police training that uses pedagogical approaches fosters an environment in which the focus becomes the chain of command, discipline, rules and procedures (Birzer and Tannehill 2001). One challenge facing training is to incorporate alternative learning models more suited for adults (Birzer 2003, Glenn et al. 2003). Training connotes a teacher-centered pedagogical approach, but recruits who are learning to become police officers are adults and are likely to benefit from adult learning techniques. For example, andragogy is the process of teaching adults rather than children, and it is self-directed learning and promotes the teacher as the catalyst of education. It is the idea of interactive learning and focuses on the learner-centered approach (Knowles 1990). Dantzker et al. (1995) argue, If the intent of community policing training is to produce fundamental changes in policing, then training materials and approaches must explicitly reflect and support those changes. Learning to think critically, to solve problems, or to share responsibility with citizens is not fostered by authoritarian and noninteractive training techniques. (p. 50) Training for COPS can be more effective if it uses andragogy which integrates life experiences into training (Birzer 2003; Knowles 1980). The instructor takes on the role of facilitator and helps to develop critical thinking, judgment and creativity in the learner

PAGE 43

31 (Birzer and Tannehill 2001). Andragogy is based on empowerment and teaches recruits to work through problems to solve them. This approach runs counter to the quasi-military top-down style that predominates in traditional policing. Further, COPS and POP need self-starters and this method of learning fosters that philosophy. There is a stark difference between simply sitting through a lecture and actively participating in training (Birzer and Tannehill 2001). Challenges to COPS Training Training for COPS faces a myriad of challenges (McLaughlin and Donahue 1995), but training has been shown to be necessary in the implementation of the COPS philosophy (Cheurprakobkit 2002; Zhao and Thurman 1995). Traditional training is rigid and strictly conforms to policies and procedures. Part of the reason for this is for standardization purposes. Police training centers are preparing recruits for state certification. COPS, with its emphasis on problem-solving, is less amenable to standardization, and therefore calls for a less rigid approach. Problem solving is, by nature, unstandardized, but trainers may be uncomfortable with a less rigid approach. Training changes must filter from the top down and this means that all administrators, including politicians and city officials, must be informed and trained in the philosophy and tenets of COPS. COPS takes into account specifics of a community and therefore, curricula must teach the importance of identifying common community values and resources as well as recognizing different needs. Academy instructors are often veteran officerspolice insiderswho may have strong internalized definitions about traditional policing, and therefore may struggle to accept the ideals of COPS (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Research has shown that the effectiveness of COPS training is largely dependent on the instructor; specifically his

PAGE 44

32 or her endorsement of the COPS philosophy. In other words, it is important that instructors are on board with COPS themselves in order to be successful COPS trainers (Dantzker et al. 1995). Many trainers are often senior officers who have spent the majority of their policing years practicing traditional policing and may be more comfortable teaching what they know. If instructors do not buy into the COPS philosophy, recruits are unlikely to. Veteran officers are frequently the instructors for skills training, but may also be drafted to cover academic subjects like diversity and communications, areas that may stretch their expertise (Scott 2000). Subject matter experts from law enforcement ranks are also frequently used for in-service training. Some training segments should be instructed by non-police personnel, such as attorneys, probation officers, and psychologists (Trautman 1986). Community Policing and Police Training: The LAPD The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has moved toward new academy training, which was the focus of a recent RAND Corporation analysis (Glenn et al. 2003). I use that analysis to illustrate the wave of the future as training incorporates COPS into its courses and delivery. LAPDs new policing philosophy recognizes that training must reflect as closely as possible the actual working conditions for which recruits are being prepared (Fyfe 1996). Learning content is not enough; trainees must also be able to digest and interpret material and synthesize it with practical skills. Only this more sophisticated training will enable officers to adapt to the ever-changing demands of their jobs and to improvise in unpredictable situations in the field. Glenn et al. (2003) present four elements fundamental to successful training and consider how each is incorporated into the training

PAGE 45

33 experience at LAPD: contextualized learning, integration of topics throughout curriculum, scenario building, and debriefing. Contextualize the Learning Contextualized learning is an adult learning principle that seeks to tie new information to existing knowledge bases and real life situations. Similar to andragogy, it integrates new information with existing knowledge. Based on the assumption that training should mimic reality, it better prepares recruits for the real life situations they will eventually encounter. Simulated real life incidents (scenarios) are useful because they may require the recruit to integrate many knowledge bases with an emergency tactical situation. In real life situations, police officers are often confronted with a multitude of issues in a single citizen contact. It is unlikely that officers will be able to perform a traffic stop, for example, without also having to use communication, law, and officer safety lessons. The approach frames new information in the context of what is already known. It recognizes that recruits need to be trained the same way that they will eventually do their jobs, and that a relationship exists between skills and knowledge. That relationship calls for a critical problem solving synthesis that changes from context to context and, therefore, runs counter to the standardization preferred in traditional training. Integrate Key Topics Throughout the Curriculum Integration of key topics, also known as threading, means that selected important themes will be discussed in relation to each substantive topic or module (i.e., woven throughout the curriculum). For example, communications lessons (or diversity training or officer safety) can be reinforced in arrest scenarios, in crowd control exercises, and in community relations material. Skills and knowledge must be integrated in the field, so training should not cover subject areas only in distinct, separate units. Integration helps

PAGE 46

34 recruits learn to draw connections among multiple subject areas, which facilitates mastery over the curriculum and prepares recruits for problem solving challenges when they enter the field. Recruits will be in a better position to deal with unique contexts and help develop appropriate responses to a neighborhoods problems. Build the Scenario Scenarios allow the recruit to apply contextualized learning and topic integration by grounding instruction in the known while introducing the new. Scenarios help align a curriculum with the main tenets of adult learning: learning by doing, reflecting real life, and making the learning interactive and self-directed (Glenn et al. 2003). Scenarios inherently require the integration of topics. They transform abstract knowledge into understandable, practical and applicable skills. Scenarios give recruits the opportunity to practice applying what they have learned. Instructors and other police officers put together unique and surprising scenarios that encourage the recruits to think on their feet in unexpected situations to find workable, and perhaps even creative, solutions. Again, this may cause a problem for the standardization preferred in traditional training for certification purposes. However, problems are by nature unique, and will force the officer to come up with creative solutions. This is good for COPS but a challenge for police training centers who wish to have a high certification rate for their recruits. Conduct a Thorough Debriefing (After the Scenario) Consistent and structured debriefings are important to solidify learning. Because scenarios are unstandardized and involve open-ended interactions, instructors need to tie everything together in the end and review lessons. The debriefing also informs recruits about how they have performed and how they can improve. Recruits have an opportunity to discuss and reconsider their performance, and use their experience as a springboard for

PAGE 47

35 further learning. This reflection is important for adult learning. It prepares recruits for the feedback loop that is an inherent part of problem solving models like SARA. SARA is an acronym which stands for s canning for problems, a nalyzing the factors that contribute to problems, r esponding in ways that can alleviate problems, and a ssessing the results (Eck and Spelman 1987). 2 Community Policing in Florida Dr. Cecil Greek (and his colleagues) of the Florida State University (FSU) School of Criminology in Tallahassee, Florida conducted an in depth study of community policing practices in Florida entitled, The Future of Community Policing in Florida: Final Report. This report was prepared in December 2000 for the Regional Community Policing Institute (RCPI) at St. Petersburg Junior College in St. Petersburg, Florida. The following section describes the state of community policing in Florida found by this report. The purpose of the report was to find out the state of community policing in Florida and plans to permanently institute community policing in the future. In order to do this, all Florida police and Sheriffs agencies were sent letters asking them to fill out a web survey. Questions were asked regarding training, partnerships with various agencies, budgets, use of information technology, and organizational changes. Of approximately 400 agencies asked to participate, only 73 responded, a 19% response rate. However, most of the large agencies completed the survey. In general, larger agencies were found to have made the greatest changes regarding community policing (Greek 2000). 2 Other problem solving models also have a feedback loop. For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) use the CAPRA model and Florida Department of Law Enforcements new CMS curriculum uses SECURE (which stands for Safety, Ethics, Community, Understanding, Response, and Evaluation) to blend crisis management, routine investigation, and long-term problem solving.

PAGE 48

36 The most relevant finding was that 67% of the agencies responded that their primary recruit academy incorporated community policing into their curriculum, but most of them only spend 1 to 10 hours on it. Field Training Most police officers are required to do field training for approximately six months to one year after graduating from the academy (Alpert and Dunham 1997). This portion of training takes place with the agency in which the officer is hired. The purpose of field training is for the rookie officer to learn departmental policies and procedures and local laws and get real life experience before patrolling by him or herself. It is reminiscent of the concept of an apprenticeship (Haberfield 2002). Field training is usually done with a field training officer (FTO) who is a senior officer responsible for teaching the rookie the necessary rules of the job. One of the long standing concerns is that the FTO will tell the rookie to forget what s/he learned in the academy because it was irrelevant (Alpert and Dunham 1997). The formal goal of FTO is to apply what is learned in the academy (Haberfield 2002). FTO's should extend the academy experience, reinforcing the ideals that the rookie has learned in his/her police training, rather than negating it (Alpert and Dunham 1997). The San Jose Field Training Officer (FTO) program is the most widely recognized program of its kind. It began in 1972 in response to an incident in San Jose, California in which a rookie officer was badly injured and a citizen was killed due to a lack of training on behalf of the rookie. The San Jose police department decided that rookies needed to have an information bridge mentoring stage to transfer their knowledge from academy to the field.

PAGE 49

37 Additionally, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommended that a minimum of four months of coached field training be included as a regular part of the recruit training process in 1973. They also recommended that FTOs receive 40 hours of specialized training in the training and evaluation of police recruits. FTO programs are supported by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. Therefore, if an agency wants to be accredited, they must conduct formal field training for recruits (McCampbell 1986) After graduating from the academy, recruits are assigned to the FTO program. The San Jose FTO program lasts 14 weeks and occurs in three-four week periods of training followed by a two week evaluation period. In the evaluation period, the FTO may dress in plain clothes and act solely as an observer (McCampbell 1986). Training occurs on each of the three workday shifts (day, evening, night) and is concentrated in two districts. Recruits are assigned to different FTOs for each period in order to be exposed to different policing styles and to be sure that ones evaluations are not affected by personality conflicts (Cox 1996). Each FTO provides training consistent with a specific curriculum developed for the program and evaluates the respective trainees abilities, skills, and knowledge. The San Jose model may be modified for use in particular agencies (Haberfield 2002). Research about field training officer (FTO) programs in community policing is rather scarce. Most of what exists focuses on what we should be doing rather than what we are doing. What is concerning is that though academy training is making such major changes in Florida, FTO training is not keeping up. Most FTO programs are based on the San Jose model, which is now 30 years old (Scott 2000). McEwen (1997) found that

PAGE 50

38 among 532 law enforcement agencies that use FTOs, only 23% require FTOs to have some knowledge of COPS and only 25% of them provide FTOs with specialized COPS training designed to help them train recruits in COPS and problem solving. Therefore, most academy graduates are going into FTO programs where COPS is not reinforced. Mastrofski and Ritti (1995) warn that the effects of high quality training can dissipate once officers are exposed to the powerful effects of everyday work, the organization, and the occupational culture of more experienced and veteran officers. Therefore, recruits exposed to community policing and problem solving activities in the academy may find little value in those experiences if field training and their department afford them few opportunities to apply those skills, if it is not encouraged by supervisors, and it is irrelevant for advancement and promotion (Mastrofski and Ritti 1995). Van Maanen (1973) states, Clearly, it is during the FTO phase of the recruits career that he is most susceptible to attitude change. Haarrs (2001) research highlights the importance of reinforcing of these concepts. She followed recruits through the Phoenix Regional Police Training Academy basic training program and then to their respective agencies where they proceeded through field training and a one-year probationary period. She followed 14 successive classes between December 1995 and October 1996 and surveyed their attitudes at four different time periods. At the first day of the academy, she pre-tested them to gather baseline attitudes toward traditional policing and COPS, problem solving, and public relations. They were tested again (Time 2) during the last three days of the academy, and again (Time 3) near the end of field training, and finally (Time 4) after one year of employment. Haarr drew several conclusions. First, she found that academy class emerged as a significant

PAGE 51

39 predictor variable. This suggests that recruits who train together possibly develop a unique class culture that influences recruits attitudes. Class culture could be shaped by a class officer, student composition, or some other factors. Attitudes were impacted by the COPS academy training, but during field training, organizational environmental factors became more important in shaping attitudes. For example, officers who worked for agencies that required officers to engage in COPS were more likely to endorse it. Overall, pre-academy (baseline) attitudes were the strongest predictor of attitudes at time four. Ultimately, even though attitudes became more favorable towards COPS, problem solving and public relations immediately after the academy, those attitudes dissipated after exposure to field training and the departmental culture (Haarr 2001). Obviously, field trainers and departmental culture must catch up and support the COPS philosophy if training in COPS is going to have a lasting impact. Because field training occurs immediately after the academy, it is the best place to expose the recruit to COPS and problem solving in practice, thus linking training with practice (Haarr 2001). Fortunately, some police agencies do have trainees engage in some problem-solving activities as part of their field training experience. One of the more exciting developments in police training is a project to develop new field training guidelines and a model FTO program. Funded by the COPS office, The Reno (NV) Police Department and Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) are planning to update the San Jose field training model to better reflect problem solving and community policing (see Scott 2000). The new training program is called the Police Training Officer (PTO) program and incorporates methods of adult education and Problem-Based Learning (PBL). It is the

PAGE 52

40 first attempt to update field training in 30 years and serves to further institutionalize problem solving and community oriented policing (COPS website). Obviously, FTOs must be trained in COPS, and COPS needs to be a formalized part of the field training experience (Haarr 2001).

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 4 LEARNING POLICE BEHAVIOR AND NORMS: FORMAL AND INFORMAL CHANGES Introduction Van Maanen (1973) identified four stages in the process of socialization of police officers. The first one, choice, refers to the decisions of both the recruit and the agency which result in a potential officers recruitment to a career in policing. The second stage, introduction, refers to academy training. During the introduction stage of police socialization, recruits are exposed to a mix of formal and informal instruction. Recruits receive instruction on formal content (including apt illustrations from the field); they are taught about departmental rules and regulations and other fundamentals (e.g., criminal and traffic codes, report-writing, weapons, first aid) (Lundman 1980). They also receive training in the roles, attitudes and beliefs about the occupation through war stories and experiences in the quasi-military environment that go beyond the formal class lessons and are often related outside of class or during time-out from formal instruction (Langworthy and Travis 2003; Van Maanen 1973). In other words, they learn informal content (Lundman 1980). The third stage, encounter, refers to the period when the rookie police officer is initially assigned to working the street. This usually occurs in a field training program whereby rookies are paired with experienced police officers who reinforce and/or redefine what is considered to be appropriate behavior in the police agency (Langworthy and Travis 2003). Metamorphosis is the final stage in police socialization. This occurs 41

PAGE 54

42 when officers adapt to the reality of policing and begin to view policing as a job (Van Maanen 1973). Richard Bennett (1984) attended academy training in the early 1970s and identified three stages of socialization that occur before and during the academy that are similar to Van Maanens. The first one, anticipatory, refers to the stage when applicants for an occupational role begin to anticipate the demands and expectations associated with their future role and begin to view themselves as role incumbents (Bennett 1984; Merton and Rossi 1968). Recruits obtain the information about the occupational role from reference groups, such as the media, or friends and relatives who are already police officers. The second stage is formal socialization and this constitutes academy training where the recruit learns the roles, attitudes, and values through the reference group of experienced officers and trainers at the academy. This reference group serves four functions. Recruits learn: 1) a set of appropriate normative ways of behaving; including attitudes, values and behaviors needed to fit into the organization, 2) exposure to cognitive comparisons to evaluate their personal values, behaviors, and performance, 3) the groups capacity to support them in terms of feelings of belonging, acceptance and reward, and 4) the reference groups ability to withhold acceptance from its members as a control mechanism (also see Conser 1980). According to Bennett, the third stage a recruit goes through is informal socialization. This involves learning appropriate cognitions for successful functioning in daily police work, such as social isolation and perception of citizen hostility (Bennett 1984; Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1966). The reference group also plays a major role in informal socialization.

PAGE 55

43 While the previous chapter focused primarily on the formal content of police training, this chapter will focus on the informal content (Lundman 1980) of the introduction and encounter stages of police socialization (Van Maanen 1973). Because the formal and informal lessons occur simultaneously, recognize that the separation is made only for research purposes. First, I will provide an overview of social learning theory to provide a framework for understanding police training and socialization in community policing, and the behavior of police trainees. Next, I will discuss the salience of the police subculture. Finally, I will discuss the literature relating to the socialization specific to police training and my study in particular. Social learning theory can provide an overarching framework to integrate the diverse features and components of informal training that much of the extant research lacks. Social Learning Theory Akers (1985; 2000) developed social learning theory as an extension of Sutherlands (1947) differential association theory to explain acts that violate social norms (Akers 1998). The basic assumption behind social learning theory is that all behavior is learned and the same learning process produces all behavior. Social learning theory is strongly influenced by symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes the exchange of meanings and symbols in social interaction (Akers 2000). It grows out of Sutherlands differential association theory which posits that conforming and deviant behavior are learned in interaction with others who expose us to conforming and nonconforming definitions. Akers elucidates the importance of differential association by introducing learning mechanisms (operant conditioning and imitation) into the mix. Akers posits that four components function to instigate and strengthen social behavior: differential

PAGE 56

44 association, definitions, reinforcement and modeling. The balance of these influences determines how one will behave in various contexts. Reflecting its roots in Sutherland, the overarching construct in social learning theory is differential association. Those with whom one differentially associates will influence ones behavior and attitudes. The sources of interaction include family members, friends and peers, and work or classmates. Those with whom one is more intimate are more influential than those with whom one is distant. Akers argues that individuals develop definitions either favorable or unfavorable to behavior in interaction with others. Definitions are then reinforced or punished by the consequences that follow their behavior. Importantly, others provide models of behavior to follow and are the sources of reinforcement and punishment. Social learning theory has received considerable scholarly attention and empirical support (Akers 1985; Akers et al. 1979; Akers and LaGreca 1991; Akers and Lee 1996; Krohn et al. 1985; Warr and Stafford 1991). Its focus has tended to be on explaining crime and delinquency. However, because it endorses Sutherlands statement that all behavior is learned in the same way, the learning process can be used to understand conforming as well as non-conforming behavior. For example, it has been used to explain organizational behavior in Employee Assistance Programs (Capece and Akers 1995). Here, social learning theory will provide a framework for understanding what police learn in training. In this study, social learning theory will be used to understand the acquisition and transformation of behavior and norms. Formal socialization is consciously trying to change attitudes, skills, and beliefs to reflect the new occupational standards consistent

PAGE 57

45 with an organizational shift in philosophy. An organizational change has taken place (CMS curriculum and COPS), but whether the attitudes and behaviors associated with such a change have transformed is an open question. Social learning theory provides a framework for understanding what has (or has not) been learned in the academy under the new CMS curriculum. Differential Association Social learning theory proposes a process of interrelationships among the four constructs. Differential association is the overarching construct and provides the framework within which definitions are acquired and the learning mechanisms operate. It occurs first (Akers et al. 1979). Social groups with which one associates provide the environment where exposure to definitions, models to imitate, and reinforcement/punishment of behaviors occur. Differential association refers to the influences of those with whom one associates. Direct association or interaction with others who engage in certain types of behavior or hold attitudes will present either positive or negative definitions toward a specific behavior (as well as definitions of these groups) (Akers 2000). Primary groups, such as family and peers, are said to have the most influence, but secondary groups, such as occupational groups, are influential as well. How much one will be influenced by another persons models of behavior and attitudes depends on the priority, frequency, duration, and intensity of the association (Akers 2000). For example, the more time that is spent with friends, the more influence they will have on a persons behavior. An intense socialization experience, such as the police academy, may make the occupational group take on the significance of a primary group.

PAGE 58

46 Akers et al (1979) 3 defines a norm climate (or norm quality) as the approving and/or disapproving attitudes toward behaviors held by others with whom one differentially associates or holds in high regard. Essentially, it is the recruits perception of the general belief system of peers, superiors, and incumbents in the policing environment. Herbert (1998) discusses a normative order, which he defines as a set of generalized rules and common practices oriented around a common value. He takes this from Parsons (1951) to capture the importance of internalized values for structuring individual behavior. The normative order is analogous to a normative climate. Other researchers have also found evidence of a normative order existing in policing. The day the new recruit walks through the doors of the police academy he leaves society behind to enter a profession that does more than give him a job, it defines who he is. For all the years he remains, closed into the sphere of its ritualshe will be a cop (Ahern 1972: 3). Definitions Definitions are either vocal or sub-vocal behavior learned by modeling and operant conditioning. They play a special role in social learning because they serve as important cue or discriminative stimuli for reinforcing or punishing behavior. Acting as internal discriminative stimuli, definitions are cues and symbols about what is right, wrong, good or bad (Akers 2000). According to Akers et al. (1979), evaluative definitions are developed through interaction with others and modeling their behavior. The more a behavior is defined as good or justified, the more likely one is to engage in it. Definitions can be general or specific. General definitions refer to broad ideas like general principles reflected in religion, while specific definitions refer to attitudes toward 3 Lanza-Kaduce and Capece (2003) argue that the norm climate resides at the structural level.

PAGE 59

47 particular acts, such as problem solving. Neutralizing definitions refer to justifications, rationalizations, or excuses for specific behavior. An example of a neutralizing definition is thinking that killing is wrong, except in self-defense. The neutralizing definition serves to make an exception or an excuse for the behavior under a particular condition (Akers 2000). Differential Reinforcement Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of anticipated or actual reinforcements versus punishments that are a consequence of behavior. Therefore, current behavior depends on the past, present and anticipated future consequences (Akers 2000). Akers et al. (1979) argues that behavior is shaped by the consequences of such behavior in a process of operant conditioning. Operant conditioning pairs behaviors with cue or discriminative stimuli (including definitions); the pairing depends on the consequences that occur. Behavior is more likely to occur again in the presence of cues when it is followed by a reward or pleasant consequences, or positive reinforcement, or when something unpleasant (e.g., a headache) goes away after engaging in a behavior in the presence of cues, negative reinforcement. Behavior is weakened (i.e., less likely to occur again in the presence of cues) by unfavorable consequences, or positive punishment, and the removal of pleasant consequences, or negative punishment. The probability that a certain behavior will continue depends on past and present real or anticipated reinforcements and punishments associated with the behavior. Although reinforcement can be physical, the theory posits that the principal behavioral effects are social, especially those come from interaction with others who are close to the behaving person. Specifically, behavioral effects are most likely to be influenced by those

PAGE 60

48 with whom one is the most intimate (Akers 2000). Behavior results when reinforcement for one behavior outweighs reinforcement for alternative behavior. Thus, if community policing is learned in the academy and reinforced in field training, it is more likely to be continued. If an officer spends her time organizing a neighborhood clean-up and she is later rewarded for such behavior, that officer is likely to continue to help clean-up neighborhoods. On the other hand, if the officer observes other officers reaping awards for making high profile arrests while her community clean-ups go unnoticed, the officer is likely to stop cleaning up neighborhoods and make more arrests. Social reinforcement and punishment is the key. If organizing trash pick-ups in neighborhoods are considered to be jokes among peers and are not valued in the peer culture, that behavior is being punished and is likely to cease. Akers says that the selection and continuation of associations are functions of differential reinforcement. In other words, those who disagree with the norm climate would choose a new peer group under normal circumstances. However, in the special circumstance of the police, it would be more difficult to separate from peers, unless an officer left policing as a career altogether. Indeed, those who fail to accept and internalize the normative climate in policing are not likely to receive reinforcement from within the police ranks. Imitation Imitation refers to modeling behavior of others. It is most important when one initially encounters the social group. Definitions are learned, in part, through imitation. A newcomer to a social group learns accepted behaviors by watching and imitating superiors and others who are part of the group. Therefore, recruits learn definitions by modeling instructors at the academy. They learn attitudes and values about policing

PAGE 61

49 through war stories and informal conversation. The same process occurs in field training. If officers are solving problems and involving the community in their projects, then new officers are likely to follow their lead and do the same. On the other hand, if officers only see reactive policing during their field training experience, they are less likely to see proactivity or COPS as an important part of their career as police officers. Police training and socialization involves learning definitions about policing through differential association with peers and superiors. These definitions are modeled, reinforced and punished in the police subculture. Next, I will discuss the literature on the salient police subculture and how it fits with social learning theory. Traditional Police Subculture Newcomers to all organizations will identify with the work group to some degree. However, researchers argue that few organizations instill the same degree of occupational identification as do the police (Britz 1997; Van Maanen 1978). Skolnick (1966) reports that the strength of the organizational culture in a police department is so salient that regardless of personal differences, individuals adopt the beliefs and definitions of the department. Bordua and Reiss (1966) describe the police organizational culture as a holy order with an intense focus on chain of command, subordination and accountability combined with a limited opportunity for communication across the ranks. The police are often described as a social group, differentiated from the general public, whose behavior is structured more so by informal norms than by formal rules (Herbert 1998). The police subculture transmits attitudes, values and beliefs from one generation to another in a learning process (Kappeler et al. 1998). The police develop cognitive lenses through which to view the world (Skolnick 1994). Van Maanen (1974) found that the ideology of the police subculture serves to support and maintain codes,

PAGE 62

50 agreements and habits existing in the work place The profound influence of the police subculture is recognized as having a substantial effect on officers ideologies, values, attitudes and behaviors (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Conser 1980; Crank 1998; Skolnick 1994). According to Herbert (1998), officers engage in certain behaviors to maintain good standing in a desirable occupational environment. It is suggested that officers learn behavior through the reinforcements obtained from the subcultural group (Aultman 1976). Entering the traditional police subculture, or crossing the thin blue line, has numerous characteristics. Scholars contend that the screening, selection and training process produces a homogenous group of officers that share a working personality and extraordinary group solidarity (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Lundman 1980; Skolnick 1966/1994). Militaristic rules and discipline strengthen the cohesion and instill the belief that officers are isolated from the general public and only have other officers as friends (Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1966). Due to the isolation that police officers often feel, officers tend to spend more time with each other, especially for social purposes (Harris 1973). Therefore, it becomes more important for officers to feel accepted by this peer group for the development of a satisfactory self-concept (Conser 1980; Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1966). Other characteristics of the police subculture include peer loyalty, secrecy, and shared cynicism toward the public. This is also known as the us versus them ideology (Kappeler et al. 1994; Sparrow et al. 1990; Westley 1970). Similarly, there is a shared perception of the dangerousness of police work and the related focus on officer safety that only can be understood by other police officers (Paoline et al. 2000; Van Maanen

PAGE 63

51 1974). Police tend to be suspicious and authoritarian. They are also said to be conservative in ideology (see Lipset 1969; Lundman 1980; Skolnick 1966) Many police scholars have touched on the importance and development of definitions and attitudes in the police context, including various types of norm departures, like deviant activity. For example, Sherman (1978) sees police corruption as the result of a continuous definitional process involving various stages. He contends that police corruption may be explained as the transmission of cultural values via the influence of reference groups. Conser (1980) suggests that corruption arises through a process of interaction during which the individual officer learns such behavior in accordance with the responses of reference groups. Kappeler et al. (1998) argue that the subculture may facilitate deviant or questionable behavior by transmitting the beliefs, values, definitions and manners of expression to depart from acceptable behavior. The shared value system allows officers the opportunity to rationalize, excuse and justify their behavior. Alpert and Dunham (1997) suggest that because social isolation is a feature of the police subculture, officers are likely to withdraw into the subculture for support and approval. The result is that the police officer is subjected to intense peer influence and control, and this is likely to include less than ideal behavior. In other words, officers as a group redefine lessons and modify their behavior in ways that, though not necessarily deviant, are not up to good standards. Working under little supervision makes these departures from good practice possible. One study found that receiving free meals, services or discounts was viewed by many police officers as a fringe benefit of the job and anticipated little risk of punishment

PAGE 64

52 for these behaviors (Chappell and Piquero 2004). It is clear that the police subculture has the capacity to reinforce types of police behavior that may fall short of academy or departmental standards and good practices. This is important because an academy and agency attempting to formally institute COPS is facing a significant barrier if the police subculture is not supportive. The research suggests that the culture is at least as salientmaybe more salientthan the formal rules put forth by the organization. Observers of community policing regularly recognize the police subculture as the single biggest impediment to the successful implementation of policing reforms (Greene et al. 1994; Herbert 1998; Sadd and Grinc 1994; Sparrow et al. 1990). Some researchers (Paoline et al., 2000) have begun to question the applicability and salience of the police subculture in todays society. The reason for this is that much of the literature on the police subculture is dated and based on a time when police departments were made up of predominately white males and came from blue collar backgrounds with little college education (Britz 1997; Walker and Katz 2005). With pressure to hire more women and racial minorities in an effort to reflect the demographic make up of the communities they serve, some researchers are questioning whether the police subculture is still as strong as it once was. Robin Haarr (1997) argues, the initial concept of a single, unified occupational culture is now being replaced by an alternative conceptualization of diversity, variation, and contrast within the police organization and occupation. Nevertheless, in her contemporary study of the police subculture, Britz (1997) found that the police subculture is still so salient that it overwhelms individual differences.

PAGE 65

53 Academy Training and Learning COPS The police academy is structured in a way so that recruits learn to trust only each other. They are confronted with constant criticism of their inadequacy and status as a recruit (not-yet sworn officer) but teased by the goal of becoming one of them by the instructors and other incumbents (Conti unpublished manuscript entitled, Lower Than Whale Shit). Group punishments and rewards ensure that the recruit cohort evolve into a highly cohesive group (Lundman 1980; Van Maanen 1975). For example, the enforcement of academy rules about attendance and appearance force recruits to learn to rely on each other and see their instructors as bosses and punishers rather than teachers and friends (Langworthy and Travis 2003). Similarly, loyalty, perceived dangerousness of the job and suspicion, cynicism, isolation, and a we-them orientation start to develop here (Lundman 1980; Skolnick 1994; Westley 1970). Militaristic environments in general promote strong bonds between members by cutting them off from society (Encandela 1991). The academy in particular is intended to isolate recruits from their outside responsibilities (Conti unpublished manuscript entitled, Lower Than Whale Shit). This intensifies the differential association process and makes the occupational group more like a primary group. Further, the militaristic academy structure is rigid and not conducive to learning COPS. The traditional quasi military environment sends the message to recruits that policing is only about fighting crime and making arrests. Police training, the creation of specialized divisions in police agencies, a focus on crime statistics, and traditional promotion criteria reinforce the strict law-enforcement orientation (Bittner 1975; Paoline et al. 2000). Thus, the police culture emphasizes law enforcement over a service orientation and the aggressive street cop is the cultural ideal (Paoline et al. 2000).

PAGE 66

54 One of the most important elements to making the new philosophy work is convincing rank and file officers that COPS is the right thing for them. Holdaway (1984) conducted a study in Britain that showed the extent to which innovative efforts can be sabotaged if rank and file officers are not on board with the new philosophy. Rank and file officers have a tremendous capacity to squelch efforts to innovate if their traditional values of policing remain dominant (Goldstein 1987, Paoline et al 2000). In the academy, the recruits learn that their peer group will support them and that they should support their fellow officers (Van Maanen 1973). Police scholars have often written about the importance of peer acceptance and approval regarding their own behavior and beliefs. Therefore, the general level of acceptance/approval toward COPS in a police department is a determinant of whether the philosophy will be put into practice. For example, a rookie police officer who recently graduated from a COPS police academy may be ready to work with the community and problem solve, but if s/he discusses those intentions with other officers and they express discontent for COPS, the rookie is less likely to incorporate COPS into his or her own policing practice. Therefore, if COPS is not the operating philosophy of the department, the COPS training is not likely to have a lasting effect. Savitz (1971) looked at police recruits attitudes toward formal conduct standards at three different time periods. He found that as recruits advanced from the police academy to working on the streets, the exposure to the police subculture increased, and their attitudes became more permissive regarding rules and standards. The officers began to favor less severe punishments for various forms of misconduct, such as accepting bribes and theft (Savitz 1971).

PAGE 67

55 Later, Haarr looked at recruits attitudes toward community policing at four time periods and found that pre-academy attitudes were the best predictor of attitudes at time four, even though attitudes changed immediately after the academy. Her explanation is that even though attitudes were influenced (favorably toward COPS) by academy culture and instructors, once rookies entered their respective agencies, their attitudes reverted back to the way they were before they entered the academy (Haarr 2001). This study suggests the importance of early on-the-job socialization experiences, including field training (see also Lundman 1980). Social Learning Model of Police Socialization for COPS Police recruits enter the training experience with preconceived notions about the policing role. They meet like-minded recruits with similar backgrounds and the same goals. In the academy, they are forced to spend all of their time together and work through their problems together in a highly stressful environment. Differential association occurs, and they make friends and this new cohort of police recruits becomes an important peer group. External stressors continue to push them closer as they go through coursework, physical training, and discipline and obedience. They are learning about a myriad of subjectsfrom legal issues to community policing to firearms trainingin an intense formal environment. They are learning definitions about how to be a good police officer formallyin classand informally through the police culture. Informally, they are learning how to balance the intense stress of surviving the academy and interpret the lessons they are learning. Trainers are their reference group: leaders and models to imitate, admire and look up to. They are learning about problem solving, community policing and diversity through scenarios. But what is learned informally may not correspond with the formal

PAGE 68

56 training instruction in COPS. We should expect a gap between formal and informal lessons (just like we can expect a gap between the law on the books that recruits learn and the law as it is practiced on the streets). Indeed, some lessons may be contradictory. For example, despite formal instruction in diversity, informal lessons may be sexist or racist (Marion 1998). While such contradictory informal messages are detrimental to traditional policing, they are devastating to COPS. Social learning theory prompts us to look at the balance to discern which lessons become salient. Researchers have noted the importance of an entire police department endorsing COPS, as well as the importance of winning the hearts and minds of police officers in order to fully implement COPS (Lurigio and Skogan 1994). Essentially, it is the informal police culture that transmits the true overarching beliefs toward community policing and problem solving (Herbert 1998). Thus, behavior is determined by the normative climate of a social group (Herbert 1998). It is an open question the extent to which formal police training in COPS can influence individual officers perceptions and attitudes toward COPS. Given the strength of the police culture, it has the capacity for squelching the effort to making COPS a success.

PAGE 69

CHAPTER 5 DATA Introduction This study is comprised of a set of interrelated data collection efforts designed to address several research purposes: 1) how are police recruits trained in CMS/COPS different from those trained under the traditional curriculum, 2) does a different type of recruit excel in CMS compared to the traditional curriculum, and 3) what lessons are learned at the police academy and how do they carry over to placement in a law enforcement agency? The research was performed at two sites: a police training academy and one of the law enforcement agencies that hires many of its rookie officers from this academy. In this chapter, I will discuss the research settings, samples, and types of data used to address each question. Background of the CMS Curriculum In 2002, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Standards and Training Commission completely redesigned its basic recruit curriculum and created a new training program reflecting a community-oriented, problem solving approach called the Curriculum Maintenance System (CMS). The CMS curriculum went into pilot form in May 2002 and final form on July 1, 2004. As of July 1, 2004, it became mandated by the state of Florida as the required training curriculum for all police recruits, but for the classes that I followed, it was closely monitored and constantly updated by Florida Department of Law Enforcement (via close circuit television and on-site evaluators). 57

PAGE 70

58 Other feedback mechanisms were utilized as well, such as instructor and participant (recruit) surveys (see McLaughlin and Donahue 1995). Changes to the curriculum include: (1) redesign of the basic recruit curriculum based upon problem solving models (such as SARA or Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment model), (2) incorporation of scenarios as the basis for all training, (3) Interactive CD-ROMs featuring a number of the problem solving scenarios, and (4) complete design, on paper, of a virtual community (Spanish Moss, FL) and surrounding environment (Dogwood County) for use within the scenario-based training. According to FDLE, the new curriculum is different from the traditional curriculum in the following ways: New instruction focuses on application of learning rather than memorization A problem solving model to be used throughout the academy Instruction is initiated through scenarios that are set in Spanish Moss, FL New curriculum includes lesson plans, support materials, and student workbook A new certification exam includes both application and knowledge questions The new curriculum uses the SECURE model, which is similar to SARA, but adds and changes several elements. SECURE represents Safety, Ethics, Community, Understanding, Response, and Evaluation. SECURE combines a first response model to resolve short-term incidents and a long term model to solve long term recurring problems. CMS threads themes throughout the curriculum. In other words, instead of covering a single topic and completing it, it revisits certain important themes in each module. Examples of such themes are problem solving, community policing, and officer safety. The CMS curriculum is considered a living, breathing document, so instructors are constantly submitting their feedback to FDLE in order to update and improve the

PAGE 71

59 curriculum. The police academy I studied was one of the first regional training facilities to adopt the CMS curriculum. Research at the Police Academy Setting The police academy is a training center that provides recruit and in-service training for police officers, corrections personnel and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). It includes a firing range, an agility course, physical training areas, a vehicle driving range, and several permanent buildings and temporary classrooms. I began collecting data at the academy as a research assistant on a project that my advisor hoped would be funded. His working relationship with senior personnel at the academy enabled me to attend and observe training classes, and when I expressed interest in continuing the research, approval was easily granted. During my initial observations, the CMS curriculum was still being developed, hence the first classes studied were being trained under the traditional curriculum. My subsequent observations were of three classes using the CMS curriculum. Eventually, my participation at the police academy led to entre into the second setting for data collection, the law enforcement agency. Data At the police academy, I conducted two types of investigations. First, I examined official data regarding academy admissions and screening, as well as performance measures, such as examination scores and employment. Second, I conducted participant observation of academy instruction during recruit training. The academy data were collected under two curricula: a traditional curriculum and the updated CMS curriculum which threaded COPS, problem solving and scenarios throughout all training units.

PAGE 72

60 The Official Data I obtained access to official data on a sample of 300 academy recruits, 155 of whom went through the traditional curriculum and 145 of whom went through the CMS curriculum. The sample includes all persons who were cleared to enter the Basic Recruit Curriculum (BRC) from 1998 through 2004. It includes classes 68, 69, 71-75 from the traditional curriculum and 76-79, 81-83 from the CMS curriculum. The data include demographics (such as race, age, gender, marital status, education, and military experience), screening scores (such as writing, cognitive, and physical agility), background characteristics (including whether recruits had a criminal, traffic or drug record), and residency and work experience. The data also include academy performance (test scores, class rank, overall academy score, whether they failed or graduated the academy, disciplinary record, commendations and awards), and post-graduation employment status. Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing In addition to the quantitative data on each recruit, I also conducted participant observation of two of the traditional classes and three CMS classes at the police academy. I spent 100 hours observing courses on human diversity, interpersonal skills and communications, defensive tactics, investigations, traffic skills, high stress driving, high risk traffic stops, patrol activities, community policing, scenarios, report writing, death investigations, and law. Most of my early observational research consisted of unstructured participant observation and informal discussions with police recruits and academy personnel. Talking with recruits and instructors during breaks occupied a large part of my time and contributed significantly to my understanding of the academy and its people. I chose

PAGE 73

61 classes based on my interest and generally over-sampled classes related to interpersonal communications and diversity as they are key issues in COPS. I also spent considerable time observing driving and defensive tactics, but found that those courses contributed less to my understanding of how recruits/officers interact with the community because they are taught solely as skill-building exercises. In addition, observing the learning process was more difficult due to the nature of the activities. For example, in driving courses, only 1 or 2 recruits would drive at one time, and they were in cars on the range while the rest of us sat and watched. Direct observation was therefore impossible. Much of the defensive tactics training involved learning how to conduct take-downs and the mechanics of arrests, such as putting on hand-cuffs. Much of it was technical, rather than communicative and I found it to be less than helpful to my sociological understanding of police training. Other courses on skills training took recruits into different rooms, again making it impossible for me to actually see what was occurring. In those situations, other recruits and myself would simply relax and talk while training was occurring in another area (such as on the driving range). In contrast, during classroom instruction, I was one of many others in the room listening to the instructor and taking notes. During my observations, my role was usually more of an observer, but occasionally I became involved as a participant. I was often invited to participate as a recruit, especially in physical-type exercises, such as physical training and defensive tactics, but usually my dress prevented that type of activity. Other times I was asked by the instructors to help in scenarios and I often participated in this capacity. I held an unusual status at the academy; I was neither an instructor nor recruit, but both recruits and instructors felt comfortable with me. They appreciated my participation in the scenarios

PAGE 74

62 and that participation allowed me to fit in so my presence was normal. However, my participation did not occur after the change to the CMS curriculum as things became much more by the book and formal. Also, only a few instructors during the CMS pilot were certified to teach CMS and these were not the instructors who had previously invited me to be involved. I interacted with many of the recruits during my observations who are also in my official data sample. Research Questions These quantitative and qualitative data on academy recruits help to address the following general research questions: 1) To what extent are quantifiable differences in academy recruit performance predicted by the CMS curriculum? 2) Does a different type of recruit achieve higher scores in the CMS academy compared to the traditional? 3) Does the culture at the police academy support the COPS orientation? Essentially, one goal is to identify how differences in the two curricula materialize in terms of recruit performance and academy success (whether a recruit graduates, fails, finds employment, etc.). A second goal is to analyze the extent to which the culture and environment at the academy are supporting the COPS orientation. Research at the Police Agency Setting The Agency is a medium sized municipal police department serving a city of approximately 100,000 people that is home to a major university. The Agency is made up of approximately 275 sworn officers and 90 non-sworn personnel. The Agency has an aviation unit, a K-9 unit, a forensics unit, a SWAT (special weapons and tactics)Team, a mounted patrol, and a motorcycle unit. The Agency practices District Policing, which is a form of Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) which places officers in permanent

PAGE 75

63 geographical patrol areas for a year or longer so that they are able to build relationships with community residents. The Agency has been practicing some form of COPS since 1985. Data At the agency, I performed two types of data collection. First, I analyzed field training officer (FTO) files for a sub-sample of the CMS graduates (from the recruits in my official database) who became employed by this agency. Second, I informally interviewed police personnel and attended various activities (such as DataStat meetings-to be discussed later) at the agency to get an idea of the inner-workings of the agency and its endorsement of COPS. Field Training Officer (FTO) Files At the time of my research, the director of the police academy maintained considerable contacts with the Agency. It was initially his idea for me to obtain field training officer (FTO) files for the academy graduates in order to examine their performance as rookie police officers. He agreed to call the police agency and ask for their cooperation with my research. It happened that I already knew some of the ranking officers from organizing ride-alongs for my community policing course. I was eventually given access to the complete FTO files of all 40 of the CMS recruits from my original sample who gained employment by this particular agency upon graduation (of 145 CMS recruits). The Agency follows a variation of the San Jose model (see chapter 3). Field training usually lasts 12 weeks unless the recruit is referred to remedial training, which could be up to three weeks (per remedial session). Trainees are evaluated by their FTO each day during their field training (in narrative format) on a form called a Daily

PAGE 76

64 Evaluation Form (DEF). At the end of each stage of training, the FTO evaluates the overall progress of the trainee and recommends whether he or she should progress to the next FTO stage (Stage Evaluation). The evaluation consists of a series of scales and an area for narrative comments. The FTO files also contain all correspondence about the trainees progress throughout the FTO program, including emails between the FTOs and supervisors. Each file is hundreds of pages long and contains substantial detail about the trainees behavior and progress. I focused on the narratives (qualitative data only) for this study. Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing I spent approximately 25 hours at the police agency speaking with and meeting with ranking police officers to find out about community policing, training for community policing, departmental procedures, and collecting FTO files. In these conversations, I learned about the informal culture as well as the process of recruiting potential officers to the agency. I learned specifics about the recruits in my database, including insights into why some of them did not make it through field training, why they were fired or asked to resign, as well as information about who has remained with the agency and excelled. I have also learned about some of the challenges in the agency, such as the high turnover rate. I attended approximately 12 DataStat meetings. DataStat resembles Compstat 4 in that the department meets monthly to discuss notable activities in each of the three city districts, as well as community service activities, traffic division issues, and Personnel 4 Compstat originated in New York Transit Authority and delegates authority and accountability to command staff for geographical areas. Generally, command staff meet regularly to discuss crime and disorder problems as well as potential solutions.

PAGE 77

65 vacancies and hires. The chief of the department, captains, most ranking officers and command staff, some patrol officers, and people from the community (such as me) attend. It is basically an overview and follow-up of criminal and community activities in the city. Uniform Crime Reports are also covered. If crime has increased in a particular area, or there has been a crime spree, potential solutions are discussed and a follow-up is planned. DataStat meetings are very formal; all guests are invited and formally introduced, there are no food or drinks allowed, no cell phones or beepers, etc. Presentations are very professional. Research Questions The purpose of the field training data is to examine the extent to which CMS, with its emphasis on community policing, is reflected in rookie training at one agency which endorses the COPS philosophy. Field training is the initial job assignment in which the COPS ideals can be reinforced as it presents the first opportunity to link COPS training with actual practice (Haarr 2001). I analyze whether the FTO program integrates COPS and problem solving activities into field training, whether these activities are part of field training evaluation, and whether they are used in advancing to the next stage and ultimately to solo status. The idea is that recruits are being trained in COPS at the academy, but I aim to see if these lessons are being reinforced in the department. The purpose of the informal interviewing and the DataStat meeting attendance is to assess the normative climate toward COPS and informal values in one of the police agencies that hires a large number of graduates from the police academy. This police department explicitly endorses COPS, but these data give insight into the extent to which it is internally supported by the department. These observations and interviews offer

PAGE 78

66 another glimpse into the departmental environment and the extent to which COPS is endorsed at the brass level in the department. The informal interview data and DataStat meetings allow me to understand how the chief, captains, and ranking officers at the top of the hierarchy feel about COPS and training. The purpose of this is to determine how much of an impact the CMS curriculum will have on officers as they embark on their career as police officers in an agency that explicitly endorses COPS. Is the normative climate at the department supportive of COPS? Summary This study is based on a set of interrelated data collection efforts designed to analyze the impact of the CMS curriculum on police recruits and their early career performance once they gain employment in one agency that endorses COPS. With several types of data, I will gain insight into the extent to which CMS has an effect on recruit academy performance, field training performance and their policing careers.

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 6 METHODS Introduction This chapter outlines the strategies for analyzing the sources of data in the study. The first part of the chapter will address the methodology used in the quantitative analysis and the second part of the chapter will address the methodology used in the qualitative analysis. Quantitative Analysis The quantitative data on 300 academy police recruits address two interrelated research goals. The first goal is to examine the impact of various background and demographic characteristics, including CMS training, on successful recruit performance. This part of the analysis develops models that incorporate variables identified in previous literature to significantly influence policing performance. The models also include a variable that distinguishes between recruits taught under the CMS curriculum and the traditional curriculum. The main hypothesis to be evaluated is whether CMS recruits perform better (as operationalized here) at the training academy compared to those trained under the traditional curriculum, holding constant other background variables. The second goal addressed by the quantitative data is to assess whether specific background characteristics better predict academy performance among CMS recruits compared to traditional recruits. In other words, I aim to analyze whether a different type of recruit performs better in the CMS curriculum compared to the traditional curriculum. 67

PAGE 80

68 Dependent Variables: Academy Performance In this study, I use the term academy performance to refer to recruits success in the academy in terms of average academy scores (average score across all examinations), failure experiences, and whether recruits gained employment upon graduation. Three variables are used to measure recruits academy performance: average academy examination score, failure experience, and post-academy employment. Average academy score for each recruit is measured with an ordinal variable thus OLS will be used 5 The scale is as follows: 1 refers to an average score of 80% or less, 2 refers to a score of 80.01% to 84.9%, 3 to a score of 85% to 89.9%, 4 to a score of 90% to 94.9%, and 5 to a score of 95% through 100%. Twenty three recruits were missing on this variable and mean substitution was used 6 Failure experience is operationalized as a recruit who failed one module or unit, or a recruit who failed out of the academy. The original variable distinguished between those who failed any individual module during training and those who were dismissed from the academy, but due to the limited number of failures, I recoded it into a dichotomous variable. It is coded (0 no, 1 yes) and represents recruits who showed significant problems completing their academy class. Logistic regression is used for this model (McClendon 2002). Recruits employment status is based on the current information available in the academys database when I collected the data (July 2004). It is possible (and probable) that graduates of the academy who were not employed immediately upon graduation 5 The score was computed into an ordinal variable due to several outliers. The technique, OLS, is robust (Akers et al. 1979). 6 The analysis was also run without those with missing values and the results were similar.

PAGE 81

69 found employment later on and that is not accurately reflected in these data. Employment is a dichotomous variable coded for unemployed and for employed. Logistic regression is used to evaluate differences in employment likelihood between graduates of the CMS curriculum and the traditional curriculum. Independent Variables Previous literature suggests a number of personal characteristics that may affect policing performance. Though most of the studies do not specify academy or training performance specifically, some of them may be relevant to being a successful COPS officer. There is no research on the relationship between age and police training. However, some police departments are raising their age requirements based on the intuitive notion that older applicants will be more mature, have more life experience and therefore make better officers (also see Lanza-Kaduce and Greenleaf 2000). Another reason for hiring older officers is that it gives the agency a longer work history to evaluate (Decker and Huckabee 2002). As recruits get older, they become more responsible and possibly better police officers. Skogan and Hartnett found that older officers are more supportive of community policing (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). Age is a continuous variable. By 1997, racial and ethnic minorities made up about 22 percent of full-time sworn officers in local police departments (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Some large cities now have police forces that represent the racial composition of their population. However, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is no credible evidence that officers of different racial or ethnic backgrounds perform differently during interactions with citizens simply because of race or ethnicity (Skogan and Frydl 2004). African American officers are more likely to support innovation and change, such as

PAGE 82

70 community policing (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). More ethnic diversity is needed to represent the community (King and Lab 2000). Part of community policing is having a police force that represents the community, thus racial minorities may be more likely to thrive in the COPS environment. Race is coded as if nonwhite (black, Hispanic, Asian, or other) and if white. Neiderhoffer (1967) recognized that chauvinism was a major characteristic of the police culture in the 1960s. Women have historically been thought more suited for staying home with the children than for a dangerous job like policing. However, women may be more suitable for the tasks required of community police officers because they are more empathetic. COPS calls for the use of de-escalation techniques, communication skills and problem solving, which may be skills that women are better at than men. Women now make up approximately six percent of all sworn police officers. Gender is coded as if male, and if female. There is little literature on the importance of marital status to policing. However, research on delinquency suggests that those who are married are less likely to be delinquent and more likely to be serious and focused (see Warr 1998). Thus, they may perform better in the academy and be better at COPS. Recruits are coded if married or engaged to be married, and if single, divorced, widowed or otherwise. Military experience has been one of the favored characteristics for police recruits since Sir Robert Peeles police force (Alpert and Dunham 1997). It is thought that because policing is a paramilitary occupation, those who have military experience are better prepared to deal with the environment. However, given the goals and nature of community policing, the impact of military experience on police performance seems less

PAGE 83

71 clear-cut. In fact, such experience may actually impede the development of the types of policing strategies that are at the heart of the community policing philosophy. Recruits are coded if they are listed as active duty or reserves in the military, and otherwise. An increasing number of police officers have at least some college education (Senna and Seigel 2002), which is not surprising considering that higher education for police officers has been recommended by national commissions since 1931 (Hoover 1975). Sixteen percent of state police agencies require a twoyear college degree and four percent require a four year degree. Nine percent of large municipal agencies have a degree requirement (Reaves and Goldberg 1999). Police recruits with a college degree are said to be better at verbal and written communication, make better discretionary decisions, and have greater empathy and tolerance (Carter and Sapp 1992). They are also said to exercise better judgment and be better problem solvers compared to those without college degrees (Worden 1990). These are skills important to community policing. Education is coded if the recruit has an Associate's degree or more education, and otherwise. Special position refers to recruits who either held a ranking status within their recruit class (such as class lieutenant, etc.) or achieved an award for excellence or most improved (e.g., high academic award or most improved fitness). There is no literature pertaining to the link between achieving a rank in the academy class and policing performance. However, logically those who excel in their academy class (and lead the class) should perform better compared to those who do not hold these positions.

PAGE 84

72 This variable is coded if the recruit held a ranking status and/or won an award and otherwise. One goal of this study is to analyze whether a different type of recruit excels in the CMS curriculum compared to the traditional curriculum. CMS is based on problem solving, scenarios and community policing. Officers who graduated from the CMS curriculum are likely to benefit in their policing careers because the CMS curriculum reflects current policing practices and up to date material. See chapter two for a detailed review of community policing and its importance to policing in general. CMS is coded if the recruit attended the CMS curriculum and otherwise. A Note on Interactions There are theoretical reasons to explore why background characteristics may enhance or detract from success in the new CMS curriculum. Because some variables may operate differently under the two curricula, I conduct separate analyses for recruits in the traditional academy and recruits in the CMS academy in order to show whether background characteristics are significantly and/or differently related to performance in one group rather than the other 7 Qualitative Data Police Academy I spent approximately 100 hours at the police academy observing recruit classes, taking notes, and talking to recruits and instructors. I also met with academy officials on numerous occasionssometimes at the academy in a formal meeting and other times for 7 An alternative method to performing interactions is to compute interaction terms. In the research process, I computed several interaction terms as well (e.g., CMS X education and CMS X race) and they were not significant in the model.

PAGE 85

73 lunch in informal meetings with my advisor. I took notes on these experiences as well. I also spent time at the academy while I was inputting my quantitative data and going through the personal files of recruits. I spent numerous hours hearing stories about notable recruits (some of whom were in my sample) and interacting with people who worked in various capacities at the academy. I typed my notes at home on my computer several times per week. Periodically, I would read through my notes and generate some thoughts about patterns that I was seeing. However, I did not focus on theorizing and developing specific themes until I had been working in the police culture in various capacities for several years and began to write my dissertation. I read through my field notes from the academy and generated many different emergent ideas. I grouped the ideas into themes and put them into a chart (with themes generated from other data sources). I continued to read and re-read my field notes until I developed sufficiently concise and abstract themes that encompassed my observations. Police Agency I read each of the field training officer (FTO) files in detail. I read some of them several times, as some files are more complex, lengthy and detailed than others. I took notes on them and typed the notes. I also made a chart of dominant themes that I then checked off as I read each file (see generally Bernard 1994). I spent considerable time at the police department, talking to personnel and attending meetings (personal and DataStat). I always took notes immediately after the meetings that I attended. After I generated all of my themes from my data sources, I made another chart listing all of the themes and filled in boxes indicating whether the theme was present in

PAGE 86

74 each (or all) of the data sources. This helped me to realize whether themes were present across all data sources or only one, for example. Reading policing literature, having conversations with my committee members and re-reading my raw data helped me to combine themes to develop a typification of the normative climate of police training and socialization. I use the qualitative data to describe what is differentially learned in police training. I set out to analyze the extent to which COPS was integrated into police training and socialization and whether the normative climate was supportive of COPS. The themes that I developed characterize what is learned in police training and socialization according to my observations.

PAGE 87

CHAPTER 7 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents the results of the quantitative analysis that analyzes predictors of recruit academy performance. First, I analyze how recruit characteristics affect academy performance among all recruits. Second, I look at predictors of academy performance among CMS and traditional recruits separately. In other words, I aim to determine whether a different type of recruit performs better in the CMS curriculum compared to the traditional curriculum. Results will provide insight as to whether different types of recruits perform differently under the two different curricula and how the CMS curriculum impacts the relationships between recruit characteristics and academy performance. Descriptive Statistics Full Sample The full sample contains 300 recruits from both CMS and traditional curricula. The sample is comprised of 155 recruits from the traditional curriculum and 145 recruits from the CMS curriculum. Approximately 24% of the full sample is nonwhite. Twenty percent of the recruits are married or engaged. Seventy-nine percent are male, while only 8% have military experience. Twenty-eight percent have an Associates or higher degree. Recruits were an average of 26 years old in the academy (median 25, mode 24). Forty-eight percent of them attended the academy based on CMS (see Table 7-1 for Descriptive Statistics). 75

PAGE 88

76 About 48% of academy recruits found employment upon graduation. About 18% of those who entered the academy failed to complete all of their classes without at least one failure (and/or they failed out completely; this includes those who failed one or more units or modules and came back in later classes to complete them). Twenty-nine percent of academy recruits in the sample either held a ranking position in their recruit class and/or received an achievement award for fitness, firearms, or academics (special position). Split Samples The full sample was split based on training mode (CMS versus traditional) in order to assess whether background characteristics predict academy performance under one curriculum better than the other. The background characteristics and demographics vary slightly in the two samples. A higher percentage of CMS recruits found employment upon graduation compared to traditional recruits (51% versus 46% respectively). CMS graduates were slightly more likely to be married than traditional recruits (21% versus 18% respectively). Traditional recruits were more likely to have military experience compared to CMS recruits (10% versus 7% respectively), and interestingly, traditional recruits were much more likely to have an Associates degree compared to CMS recruits (32% versus 23% respectively). Though there is pressure to increase educational requirements for police officers, there is a cop crunch, (Fridell et al. 2002) meaning that many departments are struggling to find qualified police applicants and therefore have had to lower their selection criteria. Finally, CMS recruits were more likely to hold a special position in their recruit class compared to traditional recruits (34% versus 25% respectively).

PAGE 89

77 Multivariate Models Does CMS Training Make a Difference? The first goal of the analysis is to identify the impact of various demographic/background characteristics on measures of recruit performance. In particular, the analysis seeks to evaluate whether CMS recruits perform better at the academy compared to traditional recruits. Table 7-2 shows results for the full sample of recruits. Looking first at predictors of average academy score, results indicate that nonwhite, more educated recruits, and those who hold a special position in their class all obtained higher academy performance scores compared to their counterparts. The strongest predictor among these is special position status. Significant predictors of failure experience include race and special position. Nonwhites are more likely to experience failure and those with a special position status are significantly less likely. Finally, race, age, military experience, special position, and academy score all significantly influence the last measure of performance: post graduation employment status. Nonwhite, older recruits without military experience and those with special position status are all more likely to become employed at graduation compared to younger, white recruits with military experience who did not hold a special position in their class. In general, race was significant in all three models: nonwhites had lower academy scores, were more likely to fail, and more likely to gain employment upon graduation. In light of community policing, police agencies are being pressured to hire officers who reflect the racial makeup of the communities they serve, and this often means hiring more non-white officers. Therefore, it makes sense that although nonwhite recruits may not

PAGE 90

78 perform as well (in this sample), they were more likely to find employment upon graduation from the academy. Recruits who held a special position in their academy class fared better in terms of academy score, failure experiences, and post graduation employment. This makes intuitive sense, as recruits who held a special position showed initiative, lead the class, or showed a significant improvement, either academically or physically, during their academy experience. Analyzing Performance among CMS Versus Traditional Recruits The second goal of the analysis is to identify whether a different type of recruit performs better under the two different curricula. In particular, the analysis seeks to evaluate how the CMS curriculum impacts the relationships between recruit characteristics and academy performance. Table 7-3 shows results for the CMS recruits. Table 7-4 shows results for the traditional recruits. They can be compared to see which variables predict success similarly for both types of curricula and which predict success in only one of them. Looking first at Table 7-3 and predictors of average academy score, whites, recruits with an Associates degree, and recruits who held a special position in their class all obtained higher academy performance scores compared to their counterparts. Significant predictors of failure experience include age and special position. Older recruits and recruits who held a special position were less likely to experience failure. Finally, gender, age, military experience, and academy score all influenced the likelihood of post-graduation employment at a police agency. In particular, older female recruits without military experience, who had higher academy scores, were more likely to find employment upon graduation.

PAGE 91

79 Overall, older recruits fared better in terms of academy performance. They were less likely to experience failure and more likely to find employment upon graduation. Recruits who held a special position had higher average academy scores and were less likely to fail. Higher academy scores were associated with a higher likelihood of finding employment for CMS recruits. I now turn to the analysis for the traditional recruits. Table 7-4 shows the results of the regression analysis for the traditional recruits. In terms of academy score, recruits who held a special position and those without military experience achieved higher scores. Recruits who were older and married and those who held a special position were less likely to experience failure compared to their younger, non-married counterparts who did not hold a special position in their academy class. In terms of employment, race, age, military experience, special position and academy score were significant. In particular, older, nonwhite recruits without military experience who held a special position and achieved higher academy scores had a higher likelihood of finding employment upon graduation compared to their counterparts. Again, older recruits fared better in terms of academy performance. They were less likely to experience failure and more likely to find employment. Interestingly, recruits with military experience had lower average academy scores and were less likely to find employment in the sample of traditional recruits. Again, those who held a special position achieved higher academy scores, were less likely to experience failure, and were more likely to find employment upon graduation. Higher academy scores were associated with a higher likelihood of finding employment. Age, military experience, and academy score had similar affects on academy performance across both curricula. Thus, no interactions were present. On the other hand,

PAGE 92

80 there were a few inconsistencies across models. Racial minorities received lower average academy scores than whites, while higher educated recruits earned higher academy scores compared to those with less education. This could indicate that CMS is a more academic environment than the traditional curriculum. Could it be that well-educated racial minorities are earning opportunities in higher education and self-selecting out of policing? Females are more likely to become employed after graduation from the CMS curriculum compared to males. This could indicate that CMS is rewarding skills consistent with COPS. In the traditional curriculum, racial minorities did not perform as well, but they were more likely to gain employment. Again, this could be due to pressure on police agencies to increase minority representation. Traditional married recruits were found to be less likely to fail compared to their single counterparts. This is consistent with the literature on delinquency that says that marriage is a social bond (see Hirschi 1969). Finally, special position was positively associated with finding employment in the traditional curriculum, but not in the CMS curriculum. Summary and Conclusion According to these analyses, CMS does not significantly and consistently predict academy performance. In other words, recruits going through the CMS curriculum did not perform significantly better compared to those in the traditional curriculum, holding other variables constant. As with prior research, I found no consistent, clear cut patterns regarding predictors of performance in the full sample. Some background variables seem to matter for some measures of performances, while other measures impact other measures of performance. Special position emerged as a significant predictor among most of the models, which

PAGE 93

81 makes intuitive sense, because recruits who hold a special position by definition must be motivated (recruits must apply to be chosen for a special position). Race emerged in some of the models as a significant predictor of performance. In general, nonwhites did not perform as well, but they had a higher likelihood of finding employment compared to whites. Age was associated with more successful academy performance and a higher likelihood of finding employment. Surprisingly, military experience was not consistently significant, and when it did emerge as a significant predictor, it was associated with a lower likelihood of gaining employment. A possible explanation for this is that I only looked at law enforcement employment, and ex-military personnel have a high employment rate in the area of corrections. Correctional officers also go through basic recruit training. Education was associated with a higher average academy score in the full sample and the CMS sample, but not in the traditional curriculum. This could indicate that the CMS curriculum rewards more educated recruits compared to the traditional curriculum, which is in line with the COPS philosophy. A higher academy score was associated with finding employment upon graduation for both CMS and traditional recruits. In the CMS curriculum, females were significantly more likely to find employment compared to males. This is an interesting finding in terms of COPS, as females may be more suited for the skills of a COPS officer than the duties of the traditional crime-fighting officer. In both traditional and CMS analyses, older recruits were less likely to fail and more likely to find employment. Based on this analysis, CMS recruits are not more successful in the academy compared to traditional recruits. Perhaps some different qualities are emerging as

PAGE 94

82 significant in policing, such as education and gender. Now I will turn to the qualitative analysis to describe the normative climate of police training and socialization.

PAGE 95

83 Table 7-1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Full sample CMS recruits Trad recruits Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Dep. variables N=300 N=145 N=155 Academy score (ordinal) 3.3 .90 1-5 3.3 .78 1-5 3.3 1.0 1-5 Failure (1=yes) .18 .38 0-1 .19 .40 0-1 .17 .37 0-1 Employment (1=yes) .48 .50 0-1 .51 .50 0-1 .46 .50 0-1 Indep. variables CMS (1=yes) .48 .50 0-1 ------Race (1=nonwhite) .24 .43 0-1 .23 .43 0-1 .25 .44 0-1 Marital status (1=married) .20 .40 0-1 .21 .41 0-1 .18 .39 0-1 Gender (1=male) .79 .40 0-1 .79 .41 0-1 .80 .40 0-1 Age (continuous) 26.4 5.28 19-46 26.3 5.1 19-45 26.5 5.4 19-46 Education (1=Assoc. degree) .28 .45 0-1 .23 .42 0-1 .32 .47 0-1 Military (1=yes) .08 .28 0-1 .07 .25 0-1 .10 .29 0-1 Special position (1=yes) .29 .46 0-1 .34 .48 0-1 .25 .43 0-1

PAGE 96

84 Table 7-2. Regression models predicting academy performance of academy recruits N=300 Recruits Academy score Failure Employment B (SE) Beta B (SE) Exp(B) B (SE) Exp (B) Race (1=nonwhite) -.213 (.12) -.101** .615 (.34) 1.84** .410 (.29) 1.51* Marital status (1=married) .211 (.14 ) .093* -.436 (.47) .647 -.407 (.34) .666 Gender (1=male) .126 (.13) .056 -.143 (.38) .866 -.147 (.31) .863 Age (continuous) -.008 (.01) -.046 .005 (.03) 1.005 .081 (.03) 1.085** Education (1=Assoc. degree) .263 (.11) .131** .250 (.35) 1.28 .158 (.28) 1.17 Military (1=yes) .02 (.19) .005 -.843 (.78) .43 -1.16 (.50) .313** Special position (1=yes) .521 (.11) .262** -.1.38 (.47) .251** .414 (.28) 1.51* CMS (1=yes) .035 (.10) -.019 .318 (.32) 1.35 .207 (.25) 1.23 Academy score (ordinal) .47 (.15) 1.6** Intercept 3.2 (.30)** -1.53 (.99) .218 -3.84 (.96 .022** R-Square .118 .105 .143 **p<. 05; *p<.10; p values computed for one-tailed significance tests.

PAGE 97

85 Table 7-3. Regression models predicting academy performance of CMS recruits N=145 Academy score Failure Employment B (SE) Beta B (SE) Exp (B) B (SE) Exp (B) Race (1=nonwhite) -.325 (.14) -.176** .630 (.50) 1.88 -.189 (.44) .828 Marital status (1=married) .08 (.16) .041 .435 (.62) 1.55 -.403 (.48) .688 Gender (1=male) .172 (.15) .091 -.12 (.54) .887 -.617 (.46) .540* Age (continuous) -.004 (.01) -.024 -.077 (.06) .925* .087 (.04) 1.09** Education (1=Assoc. degree) .464 (.14) .249** .413 (.50) 1.51 .348 (.44) 1.42 Military (1=yes) .11 (.24) .036 -.585 (1.1) .557 -1.11 (.77) .330* Special position (1=yes) .511 (.13) .311** -.1.35 (.60) .258** .411 (.41) 1.51 Academy score (ordinal) ----.535 (.26) 1.71** Intercept 3.03 .369** .660 (1.6) 1.94 -3.52 (1.4) .029** R-Square .221 -.127 -.162 -Table 7-4. Regression models predicting academy performance of traditional recruits N=155 Academy score Failure Employment B (SE) Beta B (SE) Exp (B) B (SE) Exp (B) Race (1=nonwhite) -.102 (.19) -.044 .636 (.50) 1.89 .869 (.41) 2.38** Marital status (1=married) .344 (.23) .134 -1.54 (.85) .215** -.477 (.51) .621 Gender (1=male) .001 (.21) .001 -.24 (.57) .787 .129 (.46) 1.14 Age (continuous) -.001 (.02) -.052 -.075 (.05) 1.08* .071 (.04) 1.07** Education (1=Assoc. degree) .106 (.18) .050 -.023 (.51) .977 .067 (.38) 1.07 Military (1=yes) -.031 (.28) -.009* -1.17 (1.2) .310 -1.20 (.68) .302* Special position (1=yes) .586 (.19) .249** -.1.52 (.79) .219** .583 (.42) 1.79* Academy score (ordinal) ----.417 (.19) 1.52** Intercept 3.34 .465** -3.06 (1.3) .047** -3.73 (1.3) .024** R-Square .083 -.148 -.162 -**p<. 05; *p<.10; p values computed for one-tailed significance tests.

PAGE 98

CHAPTER 8 INFORMAL LEARNING Introduction Adult socialization is unusually prominent in law enforcement. Training of new members requires socialization into the internal structure of policing as well as the cultural orientations of the occupation and the Agency. It introduces the police recruit to a set of rules and practices that define the meaning of police work. Socialization begins in the academy, is central to field training and the rookie year, and exists throughout ones career as a law enforcement officer. Most discussions of police socialization and the introduction to the police culture make distinctions between formal and informal components (Bennett 1984; Lundman 1980; Van Maanen 1973; but see Herbert 1998). The first goal of this chapter is to advance a framework for understanding both formal and informal components of socialization. Formal and informal aspects of socialization exist (and sometimes differ), but they function together to establish an environment in which a set of behaviors and beliefs is differentially learned. Sometimes the formal and informal are directly consistent, but more often the informal reformulates or reinterprets formal rules to fit with conceptions of what it takes to do the job on the streets. Other times, the formal and informal lessons are completely inconsistent. Akers (2000) social learning theory anticipates this complexity. It is rooted in Sutherlands symbolic interactionist notion of differential exposure to definitions of the situation. The theory explicitly adopts two key learning mechanisms that anticipate 86

PAGE 99

87 complexity. It recognizes that we are exposed to different models, and its primary learning construct is differential reinforcement/punishment, which stresses that learning is the result of the balance of reinforcement/punishment for one behavior over alternative behavior. Akers most recent effort (Akers 1998) integrates the social learning process with social structural features. Of particular relevance are his arguments that the locations that learners hold within social groups affect the definitions and models to which people are exposed and the reinforcement and punishment that they receive. One goal of this chapter is to evaluate the balance of definitions to which police recruits are exposed in order to understand the normative climate that characterizes the police training experience. Social groups have cultural norms, learning environments and socialization which can affect ones exposure to learning (Akers and Sellers 2004). The various contexts promote or discourage learning. The normative climate resides at the structural cultural level (Lanza-Kaduce and Capece 2003) and is internalized by incumbents on a social psychological level (i.e., through learning). Norm climates cut across levels in that they can reflect small group structures (e.g., a class), mid-sized groups (e.g., an academy) or large groups (e.g., a profession). Indeed, Parsons (1951) discussed the importance of internalized values for structuring individual behavior. He said that social cohesion results when values are shared across a population. I will treat the normative climate as sets of rules and practices that define and guide the police training and socialization experience. The normative climate provides officers with ways of understanding, interpreting and justifying situations.

PAGE 100

88 I use my own observations of police academy training and my review of field training files to discuss the normative climate of police training and socialization in the academy and field training. Several themes stand out. Some themes overlap and interrelate in theory and in practice, as this is how they emerged in my observations. At times, my observations fit with prior literature; therefore, I tie that in when relevant. The normative climate in the police training that I studied is characterized by seven themes: 1) paramilitary environment, 2) officer safety, 3) the bad guy and the us versus them mentality, 4) police presence and assertiveness, 5) experiential knowledge and traditional police work, 6) law on the books versus law in action, and 7) diversity. These themes have implications for the way that police officers interact with their department, the way they deal with citizens, and implications for COPS. For example, the paramilitary environment is structured so that officers practice top-down communication within the department. It also drives officers to expect deference from citizens. Further, COPS is said to be hampered by the limited formal autonomy of patrol officers that is characteristic of a paramilitary environment. The overarching goal of this chapter is to analyze what is differentially learned in the police training process. Given the complex messages recruits are exposed to both formally and informally, I examine what is having the most substantial impact on police recruits learning and whether and how that relates to the learning of COPS. Recall that traditional policing emphasizes a paramilitary structure, incident-driven policing, top-down communication and arrests, while COPS emphasizes community involvement, decentralized command structure, and problem solving (Oliver 1998). In order to examine what is differentially learned in police training, I will treat the formal and

PAGE 101

89 informal as sets of rules and practices that provide meaning to police work. Generally, academy recruits and field trainees must accept and internalize the seven themes of the normative climate in order to be accepted into police culture. Failure to accept and internalize the themes may be fatal to ones career. One non-finding is important to report at the outset. Community policing did not emerge as a salient theme throughout the training experience, despite its formal threading into the CMS recruit curriculum. However, other themes in the normative climate do have implications for COPS and these implications will be discussed throughout the chapter. Before proceeding with the rest of the chapter, I will address the importance of war stories in the police training experience, especially at the academy. Other scholars (see Alpert and Dunham 1997; Van Maanen 1973) have discussed the salience of war stories as well; however, I want to make a distinction between instructional stories and war stories that are told during breaks or time out, in a relaxed manner. Relating experience during instruction can be used to illustrate a lesson in policing and is part of the formal teaching curriculum. In this chapter, I will refer to them as instructional illustrations. I will differentiate them from informal war stories. War stories are a significant part of the academy and capture the recruit audience better than the lecture material and formal illustrations. Instructors often drift into stories about time on the street (either last night or ten years ago) that exemplify the traditional crime fighting cop. War stories invariably involve foot chases, car chases or drug busts rather than connecting with the community. Because they are not apt illustrations of particular lessons, the context of war stories shiftsit becomes informal and relaxed

PAGE 102

90 both for the story teller and the listeners. When it is war story time, the recruits are allowed to laugh and enjoy themselves. Recruits model their behavior after their superiors who are telling the stories of traditional police work, and they see this as what they should be emulating. Marion (1998) found that the sworn officers in the class that she observed had a captive audience when they shared stories with those who had not yet been hired. Van Maanen (1973) comments: Critically, when war stories are presented, discipline within the recruit class is relaxed. The rookies are allowed to share laughter and tension-relieving quips with the veteran officers. A general atmosphere of camaraderie is maintained. The near lascivious enjoyment accompanying these informal respites from academy routine serve to establish congeniality and solidarity with the experienced officers in what is normally a rather harsh and uncomfortable environment. Clearly, this is the material of which memories are made. (p. 298) This type of activity (relaxed story telling) shows the recruit what is truly valued in police work and in the police culture. This would be the perfect opportunity to reinforce COPS lessons, but instead, this is when traditional lessons about crime fighting are reinforced. Sharing stories is one of the ways in which these attitudes are transmitted. Through stories and casual discussions, recruits begin to understand the nature of policing and how they are supposed to act (Peak 1993). From a social learning perspective, war stories are easily learned. Compared with the formal lessons, war story lessons involve relaxation, laughing, drama, and more convivial interactionsall of which are reinforcing the story lessons. If war story lessons are different from those in the formal presentation, the war stories will be differentially reinforced because of the concomitant pleasant circumstances 8 War stories are 8 Punishment is more often used formally than is reinforcement. The formal lessons are not associated with pleasant consequences. This is in contrast with the enjoyment associated with informal war stories. Therefore, social learning theory would say that the lessons from the war stories are the lessons being differentially learned by the recruits.

PAGE 103

91 sprinkled throughout the chapter and show how certain lessons are reinforced by instructors and incumbents. Paramilitary Environment The police academy and field training environments are defined by a paramilitary orientation. There are several elements of this paramilitary environment, including the structure of the academy and its rules, the strict adherence to the chain of command and deference, a focus on morality and discipline, and the unquestioned acceptance of criticism from superiors. Other elements include a strong sense of loyalty and solidarity among the police recruits at the academy, intense pressure to perform under stressful conditions, and the reliance on fellow police officers for support, both personally and professionally. These messages have implications for the way that recruits and officers deal with the internal aspects of the policing environment (e.g., their department, personnel, etc.) as well as the way they deal with citizens and suspects (e.g., the expectation of deference). These lessons are defined and modeled formally by the academy instructors and FTOs (field training officers) and reinforced informally through war stories, social approval and disproval, and informal conversation. Generally, recruits who accept and internalize the paramilitary orientation are formally rewarded by having success in the academy, finding employment, and having the opportunity to excel as a police officer. They are socially rewarded by others in the police culture (e.g., they will be accepted in the police subculture). They will fit in. Those who do not accept and internalize the paramilitary orientation will have a difficult time finding success in policing in general, as it is a crucial component of the policing environment (Britz 1997; Conser 1980).

PAGE 104

92 Learning Academy Rules: The Chain of Command, Deference, and Discipline In the academy that I observed, recruits are trained to march in military form. The first thing they do each morning is march across campus before their first class begins. Recruits also adhere to dress codes. They wear a khaki uniform to academic classes and a uniform consisting of a gray shirt and black pants for physical-type training (defensive tactics, firearms, etc.). They must wear a hat when they are outside of a building and remove it while inside. They park their personal vehicles in designated parking spaces for recruits, and they can only go in designated areas of the academy building. They are not permitted to use elevators (they must use stairs), and they can only use restrooms designated for recruits. They must stand at attention when a civilian or ranking officer passes by, rise when an officer enters the classroom, and generally defer to their superiors. These rules define and reinforce the recruits status as the lowest on the chain of command. Recruits must practice moral behavior. A term also used in screening applicants for the police academy, moral behavior is loosely defined as holding ones self to a higher standard than required by law. It means that one must not only abide by the law, but have a higher personal standard of behavior. Two of the ways it is operationalized in the academy is that recruits are not allowed to curse or smoke cigarettes. Morality separates the good guys from the bad guys and provides a basis for the police occupation. It also justifies police actions. The meaning of morality and good moral behavior is informally defined through war stories and modeled by superiors and incumbents at the police academy and in field training. Police officials admit that the term is problematic to define.

PAGE 105

93 At the academy I observed, recruit classes are organized by a class coordinator. This person is usually a full-time employee of the academy (a ranking law enforcement officer), who is responsible for organizing the class, including setting the schedule and instructors, dealing with discipline problems, and making decisions regarding recruit requests. Occasionally, the class coordinator will teach a class if the scheduled instructor is absent. Often, the class coordinator will come in and act tough to the recruits. He or she is a disciplinarianboth in name and in practice. This usually involves teasing, insults and threats, but can involve physical exercise, extra assignments, and dismissal. The class coordinator essentially keeps the recruits in line for the rest of the instructors. The class coordinator chooses several class officers to help lead and organize the class and deal with other issues, such as discipline. Though each class varies by size and other factors, there is often a class lieutenant and several sergeants. In order to be designated a class officer, the recruits must submit a written proposal to the class coordinator between orientation and the beginning of the academy. Conti (unpublished manuscript entitled Lower Than Whaleshit) found that class officers are often chosen based on military experience because they are familiar with obedience, discipline, and marching so they can model that for the rest of the class. Class officers are also chosen at this academy based on military experience and familiarity with chain of command and discipline. Having a class ranking system helps the recruits learn to use the chain of command to address problems as a class before involving a superior. If a recruit breaks the chain of command by going to a superior without utilizing each appropriate channel (going to the immediate supervisor first, including the class commanding officer), the recruit is

PAGE 106

94 disciplined (e.g., write a paper on the importance of the chain of command). The importance of adhering to the chain of command is modeled by the instructors and reinforced as recruits practice using the chain of command in their own class. When recruits enter the academy, discipline is exerted from the top-down. In other words, if a recruit breaks the rules, he or she will be disciplined by the class coordinator. As the class matures and learns the ropes, the recruits take over responsibility for their own discipline. Later on, if a recruit breaks a rule (e.g., is tardy), he or she is disciplined by the ranking recruit (e.g., class lieutenant). Of course, if the allegation is serious (e.g., sexual harassment), it is moved through the chain of command to the academy command staff. As the class advances through the academy, recruits begin to take responsibility for each others actions. For example, the whole class will be punished when one or two recruits are tardy. This type of group punishment builds and reinforces group solidarity and loyalty. Recruits learn that if they make a mistake, the whole group may have to suffer the consequence. The group normative climate assumes additional salience because of this. Much of the discipline in the academy is suffered due to recruits talking or sleeping in class. This type of rule violation is often dealt with by looks of social disapproval and threats of punishment. In such cases, either instructors or class command staff demand the punishment (whoever catches the violator). Other types of punishment include physical exercises such as running or doing pushups, or writing a short paper explaining the wrongdoing. Tardiness is treated more harshly than acting immature, talking, or sleeping in class. In one case that I observed, a class commander was demoted from his position because he was tardy.

PAGE 107

95 Various forms of punishment are also used to teach in field training. If trainees make certain mistakes in field training, such as driving mistakes, the FTO will take over driving for the rest of the shift (or a few hours). This is noted formally in DEFs 9 but also sends an informal message to the trainee that driving correctly is expected and mistakes will not be tolerated. Only on one occasion did an FTO note that a trainee explicitly failed to follow his or her rules. Formally noting the driving mistake is an example of positive punishment, while taking away the privilege of driving is an example of negative punishment. There are usually one or two recruits who fail to fit in and who are constantly the butt of the class coordinators barbed jokes and sarcasm. They are used as examples of what not to do. It seems that once a recruit has earned a negative reputation, it is difficult to change that reputation. For example, there was a recruit named Tom. Tom did not excel in any areas of the academy, but he performed fairly well in academic areas. He was not particularly athletic, nor did he perform well with a firearm or in defensive tactics. More importantly, he was not well-liked. The recruits and officers made fun of him. If he was not paying attention during class, the instructor would always call on him, drawing others attention to his lack of attention. If he asked a question in class, they would make him feel like it was a bad or dumb question. Other recruits followed suit and soon Tom had the reputation as the screw up. He simply could not do anything right. Tom had a short stint with a local law enforcement agency, but was eventually terminated. 9 DEF stands for Daily Evaluation Form that is filled out by the FTO after each days training. DEFs are in narrative form and describe the activities and training that occurred during that days training. They make up a large portion of the FTO file on each trainee. Trainees read and sign DEFs before they are submitted to the command staff for review.

PAGE 108

96 On the other hand, recruits who thrive in the militaristic environment will enjoy social approval by the instructors (and other incumbents) at the academy, which will lead to positive feelings and tangible success on behalf of the recruits. For example, there was a recruit named Brad (he was in the same class with Tom). Brad worked prior to and during the academy as a Field Technician (non-sworn position) for a law enforcement agency. He had more familiarity with the occupation than did most of the other recruits. He was friends with many law enforcement officers. He was already one of them. In fact, he knew some of the instructors at the academy from his department. Brad was athletic, already knew how to shoot and clean a firearm, was a class officer, and a good driver. He was promised a job at one of the local law enforcement agencies prior to enrolling in the academy. He often told stories about recent crimes that occurred because he sometimes had the opportunity to be on the scene due to his job. He was well-liked and the other recruits looked up to him. The instructors did not tease him; they used him for examples and practice scenarios because he had experience. Brad is still a law enforcement officer with the agency where he worked as a Field Technician. Part of the paramilitary environment involves showing deference to ones superiors. In the academy, recruits are expected to stand at attention when the class coordinator or another officer enters the room. Only if the instructor is a law enforcement officer do recruits rise when s/he enters. Indeed, it has been observed on many occasions that the recruits will rise immediately when they hear the door to their classroom open, as they are afraid that they will be punished if they fail to stand at attention. This is a behavioral response based on an anticipated fear of punishment. After recruits become more seasoned, they learn that some instructors are less concerned about that particular

PAGE 109

97 rule, but they still must rise until they know the identity of the person who entered the room (the door is impossible to see from the main sitting area in the classroom). They are anticipating the possibility of punishment if they are caught not showing deference to a superior. If caught by the class coordinator, formal punishment is not likely to ensue, but threats and looks of social disapproval send a strong message that the behavior must be modified in the future. Additionally, recruits must stand at attention, or post (see Conti 2001) whenever an officer or civilian walks by them in common areas at the academy. They will stand against the wall until the person passes or until they are told that it is okay for them to relax. As a civilian, recruits perform this routine for me. I always tell them dont worry about it, but they usually just comment that they have to do it. Not surprisingly, recruits must refer to instructors and other superiors by their rank rather than their name. First names are rarely used at the academy, except between officers/instructors of the same rank. Deference is modeled by the instructors, as they show deference to their own superiors and they expect it from the recruits. Recruits and trainees are punished if they fail to show deference to their superiors. Trainees 10 must show deference to their FTO in field training, too. In particular, it is unacceptable for trainees to argue with or question their FTO. Generally, if a trainee ever questions the FTO, it is noted formally in the DEF, which is a form of formal punishment. For example, while an FTO was explaining to his trainee the details about what went wrong on a previous call, the trainee interrupted to ask if they were still meeting another officer for dinner. The FTO wrote, I told him to drive back to the 10 When academy recruits graduate and enter an FTO program with a law enforcement agency, they become known as trainees.

PAGE 110

98 station. This is an example of negative punishment (taking away the dinner) and positive punishment (shaming and noting it in the DEF). Deference to the chain of command is also reinforced informally. On one occasion, the class coordinator told a joke and there was an obvious dirty insinuation that all of the recruits caught. The recruits laughed. The class coordinator gave them the look and told them it was inappropriate to laugh. It is clear that there are times when laughter with the ranking officers is appropriate (e.g., war stories) and other times when it is not, and it is the senior officer (not the recruits) who defines when it is appropriate. The look sends a clear message to the recruits that the casual behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Most recruits will learn from this and adapt their future behavior accordingly so as not to suffer the look of social disapproval again. The fear is that they could be singled out and teased in front of the class. Social punishment is an important means of exerting control in the academy. Trainees in field training are commended for showing deference. The DEFs specifically make note of deference. Praise by someone in a position of authority (FTO) is important in the reinforcement of behavior because is causes feelings of accomplishment, not to mention, it indicates tangible success in the program. Social learning theory says that behavior that is reinforced is likely to be repeated. When police recruits enter the academy, they are introduced to a paramilitary structure. It is defined for them by their superiors, who are the instructors that teach them how they will behave, how their time will be organized, and how they will dress and present themselves. It is also explained to them that they will be rewarded for conforming to the paramilitary norms (e.g., one of the necessary ingredients to passing the academy),

PAGE 111

99 and that they will suffer consequences if they do not. Discipline can come in the form of exercise, extra assignments, social disapproval and/or shaming. Recruits who practice chain of command and deference expect the citizenry to take to this orientation, too. For example, they expect citizens to respect their position of authority, rather than challenge it, and there should be consequences for those citizens who challenge police authority (just as there are consequences to recruits and officers who challenge superiors' authority). This will be joined again later when the theme of presence and assertiveness is discussed. Respecting authority and practicing deference and vertical communication is part of the normative climate in the police training and socialization that I observed, and this has implications for COPS. COPS emphasizes working with the community, practicing horizontal communication, and building partnerships. However, the training focus is solely on vertical, top-down communication, so how can we expect these officers to have learned the communication skills necessary for COPS? Accepting Criticism Criticism is handled differently in the academy from field training. When recruits fail to do well in an academy exercise, they often do not react well. Some recruits will blame themselves and become angry and walk away, while others will try to explain away what happened, such as, well, what I was trying to do was. I have also seen recruits blame each other when they are partnered with another recruit on a scenario or exercise. Finally, they will resort to blaming the instructor for tricking them. This is an excuse or neutralizing definition provided to explain why their performance was less than satisfactory. Academy recruits are allowed to vent. There is no punishment or negative

PAGE 112

100 reinforcement from the staff for such behavior. Perhaps learning from mistakes is part of the learning process in the training academy where mistakes are not costly. In field training, trainees are still learning, but they are practicing with real people in real situations, so the costs of mistakes are also real. Thus, accepting responsibility for ones mistakes takes on a new meaning. The ability of a trainee to accept criticism is discussed in every FTO file. A read of the FTO files indicates that this is one of the most important qualities of the police trainee. In all but two (of 35) cases, the trainees welcomed criticism. In one of the two cases, the FTO wrote a letter to the FTO Lieutenant detailing the trainees inability to accept criticism and threatened to charge him with insubordination (formal punishment). The trainee eventually went solo 11 and is still with The Agency to my knowledge. In the other one of these two cases, the trainee went solo with The Agency and he was eventually asked to resign due to questionable psychologicals. There is formal punishment for failing to accept criticism well. Field training is structured so that trainees answer real calls to service in the presence of a seasoned officer. After each call is completed, the FTO will debrief 12 the trainee about what he or she did well, what he or she did poorly, and what needs improvement. The nature of such conversations (and related narratives) varies greatly depending on the FTO. Some FTOs tend to focus on the positives, while others focus on the negatives. How trainees respond to the feedback process may be more important than 11 Going solo means the trainee graduated from the FTO program and became an officer with the department. 12 Debriefing refers to the instructor taking the recruit aside after the event and telling him or her exactly what he or she did well and what needs improvement.

PAGE 113

101 what they learn from the specific information. Trainees are expected to be amenable to criticism and use it constructively. When they do not, it is a major point of contention in their progress and noted in their DEF. Though failure to readily accept criticism is not taken seriously at the academy, it becomes an important issue in field training. If a trainee argues with his or her FTO about a critique in field training, he or she is told that it is inappropriate. If the trainee continues to do it, the problem is reflected in the field training files and often discussed with a supervisor. Thus, the chain of command is reinforced. This is a form of punishment, as the FTO files are read by the FTO Lieutenant and are instrumental in determining whether the trainee graduates from the program. Being unwilling to accept criticism is defined as wrong and modeled as such by the FTO. It is positively reinforced if the recruit is amenable to criticism and punished if the recruit is argumentative because it is regularly noted in the DEFs. Trainees are commended in their DEFs for not complaining. On busy shifts, some trainees were unable to find time for a meal and their FTOs commented on their trainees lack of complaints. On one occasion, a trainee helped to search for a suspect in the woods and got bitten by insects all over his body, including his face, and the FTO was impressed that he did not complain at all. The positive reinforcement this trainee received was reflected formally (in the DEF) and informally from the other officers who were impressed that he worked so hard to help them find the suspect, despite getting bitten by insects. An officer who learns norms of deference (e.g., accepting criticism from those in power and silently tolerates unpleasant situations) may react negatively to a citizen who

PAGE 114

102 chooses to voice complaints to the officer. COPS posits that officers respond to problems defined by residents, but the officer must understand that some residents may not do this in a deferent or diplomatic manner. Law enforcement training lessons may not prepare officers for dealing with citizens in something other than an authority relationship. Pressure to Perform under Stress The academy is stressful because it forces recruits to be present and alert for long hours, five days a week, for almost six months, and under constant scrutiny. The physical training can be especially stressful for some recruits as well. Recruits must perform in other classes even if the physical training and long hours wear them down. Although this academy is not as strict as the military, instructors do tease and criticize the recruits. Instructors are generally skeptical of recruits and use downward communication with the recruits. Family issues, transportation issues, and financial strains also put extra stress on some recruits. Many times the recruits have families that they must support and being in the academy means that they are without an income for six months. For some recruits, it may mean they have to share a vehicle with their spouse. Recruits must deal with the stress of regular examinations, homework, and other school-like stressors, in addition to more adult stressors, like the financial strains. Though many recruits have help from their parents or financial support (e.g., loans) while attending the academy, several recruits I spoke to were forced to balance a multitude of stressors. For example, one recruit who had a wife and child was suffering financially because he had no income. They lived in a small town about an hour away from the academy. Every morning, he had to take his child to school, take his wife to work and be sure to arrive at the academy in time for marching. He was tardy a few times

PAGE 115

103 and was disciplined. There are no excuses for violating the rules. After the academy, he had to pick his wife and child up from work and school, and find time to do homework and study for exams. The academy instructors show little sympathy to those experiencing stress. Indeed, part of the stress seems intentional to teach recruits. The belief is that policing is a high stress occupation and recruits need to learn how to deal with it. Field training varies in its level of stress depending on the field training officer. This is the time when the FTO expects the trainee to apply the lessons learned in the academy and the recruits begin realizing the gap between memorizing material (e.g., academy) and applying it in the field. Synthesizing and applying procedures, while effectively communicating on the radio and finding locations in the city quickly puts a lot of stress on the trainees, especially in situations that may be emergencies. As trainees advance through field training, they are to rely on other officers for help (pretend that the FTO is not there) rather than depend on the FTO to answer his or her questions. Many times, a stressed out trainee will resort to asking his or her FTO questions, such as how to find a specific location, and the FTO will tell the trainee to ask a supervisor or fellow officer on the radio. The FTO is there to evaluate the trainees progress, not to assist the trainee. Further, when the trainee goes solo, he or she will have to know how to rely on other officers (and his or her supervisor) for assistance. The trainee will need to know how to be assertive, resourceful and confident. In one case, a trainee was running code (lights and sirens) to a scene and she did not know which statute she would have to apply upon arrival, so she asked her FTO. Her FTO told her to refer to her manual or ask a supervisor, just as she would if she were a

PAGE 116

104 solo officer. Situations such as these cause much stress for some trainees because the FTO knows the answer but refuses to help. In fact, some FTOs noted in DEFs that trainees complained that their performance suffered due to the stress that their FTO put on them (by refusing to help). The FTOs perspective is that police work will eventually put the trainees in life or death situations, so they must learn to function effectively under stress. Though police work is said to be 10 percent crime fighting and 90 percent report writing and order maintenance (Mayhall et al. 1995), much of the training, especially field training, focuses on the 10 percent. That is because emergency situations can involve life and death circumstances and require the officer to function extremely effectively under stress. Even with an emphasis on COPS, the training that I observed still focuses on the ten percent and the importance of responding to emergency situations. The occupation is defined and modeled by instructors, FTOs and other incumbents, as a high risk job. The peer culture puts a lot of formal and informal emphasis on the ability to react effectively in stressful circumstances. Therefore, a large part of both academy and field training is dedicated to learning how to manage radio communications and geography (e.g., find the location) while being dispatched to a call. The following excerpt from an FTO file is an example of a trainee who handled some of these tasks well: Officer X was dispatched to this location and found it with no problems. Officer X did a good job in his tactical parking by stopping our police car about 1-1/2 blocks south of the location since he was not familiar with this location. Officer X was then able to approach the residence more stealthily on foot. If trainees cannot perform these essential police tasks, they are not able to move forward in the FTO program. Conversely, if they can react to a call, manage the radio,

PAGE 117

105 find the location, arrive safely and park tactically, they are ahead of the game and will be positively reinforced by their FTO (it will be noted in their filesee above). FTO evaluations consistently commend recruits who can master these tasks. Furthermore, other officers in the department will hear about their progress and offer them informal positive reinforcement. It is often noted in the DEFs that other officers were impressed with a trainees performance. Conversely, when trainees cannot handle the stress of these situations, it is formally noted and steps must be taken to address it. The main step that is taken in such circumstances is putting the trainee in remedial training. 13 It is a sign of not making progress in the FTO program. It is also a punishing social consequence from the FTO. If the trainee corrects the deficiencies in remedial training, he or she is able to go forward in the field training program. The following is an excerpt from an FTO file of a trainee who was struggling and ended up in remedial training. PT [police trainee] conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle for running a stop sign. PT called in the wrong location for the stop. PT did not correct her location, even after I asked her if she knew where she was. PT is having difficulty listening to her radio; dispatch will have to call her several times before she answers. PT is also having difficulty understanding the information provided by dispatch and teletype (dispatch advised the PT that the tag on the vehicle was expired, she acknowledged; but when asked what dispatch said, she said she didnt understand what was said). PT is slow to take control and appears to be unsure of herself. Loyalty, Solidarity and Reliance on Fellow Officers Paramilitary environments promote solidarity among their members (Encandela 1991). The structure of the academy forces the recruits to rely on each other and trust each other. It forces them to be loyal via the evolving disciplinary system. Recruits are 13 The FTO program based on the San Jose model is structured so that recruits focus on specific tasks and skills during certain weeks. Only after recruits have mastered those skills can they move forward. A recruit has to do remedial training if he or she fails to become proficient in a certain skill and must continue to review those skills until he or she has achieved proficiency.

PAGE 118

106 told in the academy that their peers will stand behind them even if they make mistakes. This is important because it teaches recruits that loyalty to the profession and peers is most important and that they can (and are expected to) put their lives on the line for each other. As classes advance through the academy, recruits quickly develop strong bonds with each other. The differential association process is nearly textbook. They spend an extraordinary amount of time together, not only during academy hours, but they spend time together outside of the academy as well. Studying together for exams is encouraged. Many of them will become roommates or carpool to the academy together. They are told by instructors only to discuss their problems as a group because if they talk about it with outsiders, they will be viewed unfavorably. Recruits are told that it is likely that their pre-police work friends will no longer like them after they become officers. This is encouraged, reinforced and taught as fact. Instructors rationalize this for the recruits by explaining that they will feel uncomfortable around their former friends because their friends may break the law and they (as officers) will be put in difficult situations. Or conversely, friends may feel uncomfortable around them as police officers. An instructor remarked, when you become an officer, you become a minority of sortsyou become blueand it is your fellow officers that are your friends, confidantes and supporters (also see Conti unpublished manuscript entitled Lower Than Whaleshit). One instructor summed it up, In a few years, all your friends will be cops. A class culture (Haarr 2001) develops and recruits sometimes refer to themselves as family. The specifics of the class culture can vary somewhat from class to class, but an overarching norm climate develops. Although some classes are more serious and more

PAGE 119

107 organized than are others, they are all socialized in the same process and have similar experiences. Indeed, they are more similar than they are different. They begin to keep things that occur in the police academy from their families and former friends. A recruit quotes a common saying, what happens in the academy stays in the academy. The solidarity and friendship networks that developed in the police academy show how recruits differentially associate with each other. Akers (2000) says that relationships that occur with the highest priority, intensity, frequency, and duration have the most influence on behavior and attitudes. Clearly, recruits develop associational patterns in the academy in which other recruits become more like family than an occupational group or other so-called secondary group. Recruits spend entire days together at the academy and choose to spend time together on the weekends studying and doing other leisure activities (e.g., playing pool, bowling, going to bars). Recruits relationships with each other become especially intense, frequent and important. Indeed, as an observer, I have never seen people in a work environment develop such strong ties. Police recruits become each others main sources of association, definitions, and reinforcement. The norms of loyalty, solidarity and reliance are well documented in the policing literature (Conser 1980; Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1994). It is not only taught formally in the academy curriculum, but it is discussed informally and modeled through war stories as well. It is defined in the academy as the right thing to do and it is modeled and reinforced as the recruits enter the department and see officers spending time with each other as friends. The camaraderie among officers is obvious and it provides a model for the recruits to follow. For example, many officers hunt, fish, and exercise together.

PAGE 120

108 Further, group marching, posting, uniform dressing, and group punishments reinforce group solidarity and cohesion. These rituals ensure that recruits identify with each other. The paramilitary structure has implications for COPS. The paramilitary structure teaches recruits that they must function within the chain of command and hierarchy, while COPS emphasizes innovative problem solving. The two are at odds with one another. The paramilitary structure hampers the individual officers ability to generate unique solutions to community problems because officers do not have the formal authority to exercise discretion on such a scale. The focus on shared liability and taking responsibility for other officers puts the pressure on the recruit/officer to practice what is safe (and therefore avoid mistakes) rather than to be innovative and try something new. Police officers are positively recognized in their profession for their hard work (e.g., arrests), loyalty, and safety. Practice in vertical communication rather than horizontal communication teaches officers to apply authority relations to community residents too. Officer Safety Officer safety is a salient theme throughout all data sources. No matter what an officer does in his or her job, the goal is to go home at night, according to one academy instructor. Most of the formal training that officers receive in some way touches on officer safety, and it is a consideration in any interaction or call. In fact, it is the first consideration in the SECURE model of problem solving (safety), which is threaded 14 throughout the entire CMS curriculum. In addition, there is a lot of emphasis on preserving officers lives (Herbert 1998). One example is crossfire. Officers have to 14 Threading means that the concept is integrated into every module in the academy. Officer safety, community policing, and problem solving are examples of concepts that are threaded in the CMS curriculum.

PAGE 121

109 practice scenarios where multiple officers may be firing at the same time (so that they do not shoot each other or a bystander). Another example is that police officers are taught to think about officer safety when they approach a domestic violence situation, in part because the couple could have reconciled and decided they are united against the officer (e.g., the officer is now their enemy because the officer may want to arrest one of them). Officers always must be careful when approaching a residence because they cannot see inside; therefore, there are specific guidelines for the safest place to stand before entering a residence. The same is true about approaching an automobile. Searching buildings is a major officer safety risk. Officers are never supposed to search buildings alone unless someone is dying inside because there are too many hiding places for bad guys (an issue to be discussed below). Personal contact is an officer safety risk because of concerns with disease (e.g., AIDS, Hepatitis). These are only some of the examples of the applications of officer safety in police work that are threaded through the CMS recruit curriculum. In the academy, high liability 15 areas (e.g., driving, firearms, defensive tactics, and first responder) focus on officer safety and the safety of citizens. For example, driving code (with lights and sirens, often at high rates of speed) has the potential to put the officer(s) and others at risk, thus it must be practiced in the academy and in the field. A vehicle crash on the way to answer a call endangers the officer and citizens, and puts the department at risk. Similarly, defensive tactics training is based on legal standardsthere are clear guidelines that outline what techniques and weapons officers 15 High liability areas are subjects that involve legal liability on behalf of the officer and department. They include driving, firearms, defensive tactics, and first responder. First responder refers to medical training (or first aid) for police officers.

PAGE 122

110 are (and are not) legally allowed to use. Many of the defensive tactics skills that recruits learn formally focus on using the minimal amount of force necessary to subdue the suspect quickly so that the suspect does not harm the officer or another citizen. For example, the use of force matrix is a standard which allows police officers to use one level of force above that which is being used against the officer (field notes). The officer responds to the level of force that the bad guy is using. In the words of one instructor, the bad guy sets the tone, and the officer responds to it. Similarly, in the training that I observed, when officers use deadly force, they are only allowed to shoot to kill. In other words, officers are not allowed to shoot a suspect in a limb in order to incapacitate the suspect. In field training, trainees are routinely corrected for breaching officer safety rules. They often look down when writing tickets (neglecting to watch their suspect), turn their strong side toward the suspect (gun side), fail to park tactically when approaching a scene (e.g., out of view of the location they are responding to), and fail to keep suspects under enough control (e.g., suspects must keep hands out of pockets, stand still, etc.). Additionally, they must constantly update the dispatcher of their location. In the event that there is a problem or officer safety threat, the dispatcher must be able to send other officers to the correct location to help. Many FTOs note these kinds of lapses by trainees in their files. For example, the following trainee made an officer safety mistake: A negative during this encounter was PT [Police Trainee] allowed the suspect to stand on her gun-side while issuing the NTA [Notice to Appear]. I explained to the PT to NEVER do that again. PT understands. [emphasis theirs] Officer safety is heavily reinforced in field training because this is one of the areas where trainees tend to make mistakes. It is modeled by instructors at the academy who speak about it incessantly, as well as FTOs who show the trainees how they expect

PAGE 123

111 officers to act in specific situations. Trainees are positively reinforced when they practice good officer safety. It is not unusual for an FTO to remark each day that the trainee performed well in the area of officer safety (or needs improvement, etc.) Formal stage evaluations also contain a section on officer safety. Officer safety is clearly defined as the most important consideration in law enforcement. It is the first thing that an officer is supposed to consider when arriving on a scene. When recruits make officer safety mistakes in academy training, the disappointment (and sometimes anger) on behalf of the instructors is striking. The disappointment and anger was obvious during my observations during the academy training and came through in the DEFs and other written correspondence (e.g., emails) in field training. Recruits learn the importance of breaching officer safety through this behavioral response on behalf of the instructors. In real life, mistakes can be fatal; not only for the officer, but for other officers. Officer safety mistakes can be a liability for the department as well. The formal cost of breaching officer safety is either a note in the DEF, a stint in remedial training, or a letter or email to the FTO supervisor. Trainees are punished when they breach officer safety norms, formally and informally, depending on the extent of the violation. If an officer makes an officer safety mistake that puts another officer in danger, it is a major breach of the informal code. This relates to group solidarity and loyalty. Officers have an obligation, above all else, to protect each other. Therefore, if an officer fails to uphold this obligation, it is met with social disapproval from the peer culture.

PAGE 124

112 On the other hand, an FTO commended his trainee in the following scenario. The trainee and FTO were looking for a suspect in a neighborhood. The trainee was driving, so the FTO got out on foot to search for the suspect while the trainee stayed in the car. After the FTO had been gone for a while, the trainee got out to look for the FTO. The FTO found the trainee climbing over a fence, actively searching for the FTO and/or suspect. The FTO commented that he was very impressed with the trainees concern and proactive search for him. Officer safety relates to other salient lessons for being a police officer. For example, officer safety relates to the paramilitary environment. The organization has a vested interest in officer safety; if officer safety rules are violated, the organization may suffer. There are organizational costs, such as the costs of recruitment and replacement of personnel if officers are hurt and miss work, or are lost (either fired or killed) due to a breach of officer safety, not to mention the extreme public relations costs. Officer safety also has implications for the slippage between law on the books and law in action (a theme that is discussed more fully below). Officer safety is code and provides an excuse to invade civil liberties like pat down searches for weapons. Officer safety can be used to cover questionable use of force. Using an assertive tone is a tactic used to get suspects to comply. The assertiveness (discussed in detail below) sends the message to the citizen that the police are within the law to request the search, which comes off more as a demand than a request, given their positional authority as a police officer who carries a gun. Officer safety also has implications for COPS. The two emphases create tension. COPS is based on building trust while safety is based on suspicion. Officer safety is a

PAGE 125

113 necessity in police workpolice officers deal with criminals and people who want to hurt them, but the COPS officer is also supposed to work with law-abiding citizens to problem solve. The constant focus on officer safety sends the message to the citizen that the officer is not trusting (and therefore maybe not sincere or trustworthy). It does not make the citizen feel comfortable and trusting of the officers intentions. The COPS officer has to strike a balance between being safe and building trust with citizens so that he or she can generate solutions to problems defined by citizens in communities. Bad Guy and Us Versus Them The concept of the bad guy is used throughout the training experience, especially in defensive tactics training and other skills training at the academy. It seems to be used to get recruits excited and put things into perspective about where their focus should be. It builds on the concept of officer safetyofficers must keep themselves safe from the bad guys. The basic idea is that the bad guy will be trying to get you, so when you are dealing with him, you must keep your focus on him the entire time. Recruits are told that even when someone is shot, they should handcuff them because they could be playing possum. Instructors caution that most dangerous people are not predictable. Officers should always assume that there are more bad guys in the area. They should vary their patrol patterns so that bad guys dont anticipate their routine and wait for them; they should fear ambush. A story was told by an instructor to the academy class about a suspect on PCP who broke out of handcuffs and beat down two officers. One of the officers shot him with a shotgun in the heart. The suspect then took the gun from the officer, left, and got in a cab and eventually died. Some of this seems somewhat unrealistic, but it helps to create a picture of a less than human bad guy who should be feared.

PAGE 126

114 The picture of bad guy that is drawn goes beyond dangerous. Instructors at the academy are constantly giving examples as part of formal training of innocent looking old ladies or other unsuspecting females who initially appeared to be harmless but who later turned out to be dangerous. For example, one instructor told the class a story about an elderly lady driving a Cadillac who was stopped and found to be carrying numerous kilos of cocaine. The message is that nobody can be trusted. Further, recruits are told that bad guys will often get good lawyers to help get them out of trouble and that they will show up to court in a 3 piece suit and you wont recognize him. The notion of the bad guy becomes even clearer in the field training experience. In the academy, recruits are being told stories about the bad guy, but in field training, they are both learning from their FTO and learning from experience (they are coming into contact with real bad guys). In addition to the suspect being dangerous, he or she (but usually he) is also presented as lying and attempting to flee. Each FTO critiques the trainees ability to assess the suspects likelihood of fleeing. Academy instructors define bad guys for the recruits and model their definitions through informal war stories and formal examples. FTOs offer positive reinforcement when trainees accurately manage to keep a suspect under control. They are supposed to make sure suspects stand still, keep their hands out of their pockets, and stay a specific distance from the officer. FTOs counsel trainees if they neglect to watch the suspect carefully enough because the suspect could have been a flight risk or a danger to the officer. FTO files indicate that bad guys do occasionally run from the officers, so this fear is not unfounded.

PAGE 127

115 Underlying the bad guy definition is the us versus them mentality. Police not only feel that they are up against the bad guy, but they also must protect themselves from police critics. The general attitude is that anyone who criticizes the police is ignorant. This includes lawyers, liberals, and the media. Indeed, the secrecy of the police culture is functional and insulates them so that they can say that those who criticize police actions do not know the facts, so they could not possibly understand an officers actions. The norm climate, or shared attitudinal framework, is that the police officers are separate and different from the rest of the civilian population. Therefore, their friendship networks change and their new friends will all be police officers, as that is with whom they differentially associate. Police officers are comrades; out to protect law-abiding citizens and survive the bad guys who are trying to hurt them, flee from them and lie to them. According to Marion (1998), Whether intentional or not, the instructors at University Academy teach recruits an us versus them mentality. Many of the instructors (who are officers) relay the idea that if a person is not an officer, they simply cannot be trusted. They told many stories of people one might not expect to cause trouble but who did, such as a young female, who had a gun hidden in her bra and swore at the officer as she tried to get away. Or an elderly man who yelled at an officer as he attempted to wrestle him to the ground. The main point was that, for ones own safety, an officer must always assume that any person with whom they are dealing is a potential danger. Suspicion is major element of many of the classes-to never go to any situation without preparing for potential danger and to be wary of everyone, including men, women, children, young, or old (p. 13) The local attorneys and the read of their feelings toward the police are sometimes discussed in the academy. Attorneys who have been critical of police decisions in the past are demonized. Names are used. Recruits are told to be careful if/when they come up against one of these attorneys in court. They are told that certain attorneys can turn things around and make the officer seem at fault. Langworthy and Travis also observe that

PAGE 128

116 decisions by courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys are criticized by police. This enhances group solidarity and alienation as well as cynicism toward the public (Langworthy and Travis 2003). Importantly, I saw evidence of this pattern of criticism and closing ranks emerge already in the academy. Liberals are also critics. The term is never defined, but if one did not know what a liberal was, one would certainly believe from what is stated in the academy that a liberal was some sort of foreign animal. Many times it seems to be used as a type of disclaimer before they say something that is not politically correct. Because of my affiliation with the University, I often felt that the liberal comments were directed toward me. The liberals dont like it when we is a common statement. Liberals wont accept that the worst of the worst are in jailthey want to believe that people are just off on the wrong track, according to an instructor. When I introduced myself to one of the instructors at the academy, I told him that I was a sociologist (I later learned that criminal justice graduate student elicited a more favorable response). His first reaction to my sociological background was that it was healthy for the police to have critics. Indeed, sociologists are thought to be liberal, and therefore, I was an immediate critic. Instructors also discuss the media, especially in relation to their response when an officer uses force or allegedly makes a mistake. Recruits are told that force is a professional option and that, if it must be used, the medias reaction should not be considered. Officers should not be risking their lives for a bad guy because the media may be critical. The media (and anyone else who is critical) does not understand. The bad guy and the us versus them orientation is defined and modeled by the instructors, FTOs and other incumbents. It is reinforced through war stories about

PAGE 129

117 famous bad guys, even some who outsmarted the police (and thus the police have learnedand the recruits must learnfrom those experiences). These messages come through both formally and informally. The constant suspicion that ANY person that is pulled over for a mere traffic infraction may be about to flee runs counter to the development of trust between officer and citizen. How and with whom are the officers supposed to develop trust if they are constantly attempting to assess each and every persons likelihood of escape? Certainly, every person stopped for a traffic violation should not be defined as a bad guy. The field encounters of a COPS officer getting to know his or her beat cannot be premised on suspicion if community relations are to be built. I observed little formal training on field exchanges designed to address COPS and virtually no informal lessons in this regard. The bad guy concept and us versus them orientation have implications for COPS. Community policing emphasizes building trust between the officer and the citizen. The police are so focused on the bad guy and officer safety that it hampers their ability to connect with law abiding citizens. I propose that the concepts (officer safety and the bad guy) are at odds with building community trust. COPS focuses on the importance of relying on stakeholders to define their own problems in communities. The 'us versus them' orientation marks some citizens as more or less important than others. For example, what makes liberals (and their problems) less important than anyone elses? Police Presence and Assertiveness In the academy, many recruits are assertive and sure of themselves. They often make outlandish comments about breaking down doors (without a search warrant) and

PAGE 130

118 wanting to make many arrests 16 An example of such comments is, cant you just hit them anyway? Cant you just kick the door in? They exhibit extraordinary toughness, making comments such as, Our weapon and our backup [other officers] are the same thing. Notably, their motivation is not toward problem solving or working with the community. Recruits are formally taught how to give verbal commands. To the civilian, the verbal commands are aggressively assertive. Recruits are to yell at suspects extremely loudly, GET ON THE GROUND! SHOW ME YOUR HANDS! It takes a while for most of the recruits to become comfortable with their voice at this level. On the other hand, some recruits show an alarming adrenaline rush when performing some of the physical activities such as handcuffing and other defensive tactics (e.g., pretending they are handcuffing a real bad guy). Though it is possible that instructors notice this questionable behavior, there is no obvious consequence for it at the academy. CMS is a scenario-based curriculum. This means that recruits regularly work through problems as a class or in groups. However, toward the end of the academy, recruits are given the opportunity to engage in some real-life scenarios. These scenarios force the recruits to pull their training together and practice it as if they were on the street. Usually, the instructors play suspects or citizens who the recruits, or officers, must make contact with. These scenarios invariably evolve into physical struggles. This tests the recruits verbal skills, decision-making abilities, knowledge of statutes, and their defensive tactics skills. It seems that instructors intentionally escalate these encounters to reinforce the importance of safety, defensive tactics, and split-second decision-making. 16 There is an overwhelming motivation to arrest people, rather than help them. This could suggest selfselection in policing and may interfere with COPS.

PAGE 131

119 However, if recruits were better trained in verbal de-escalation, perhaps the encounters would not invariably evolve into physical struggles. As an observer, it appears that one point of these scenarios is to humble the recruits (and remind them of their place at the bottom of the chain of command). By the end of the academy, the recruits feel that they are proficient in most areas of law enforcement and they are ready to begin their career. However, very few recruits perform well in the end-of-academy scenarios. All of a sudden, they seem bewildered as they approach the (scenario) scene. They are unsure of the appropriate statute or law that is being violated. They are unsure how to handle the situation. The most shocking error (to me and to them) is the way they handle themselves physically. As the suspects begin to put up a physical struggle, most recruits seem to forget everything they have been trained. They fail to utilize the appropriate defensive tactics and therefore, revert to streetor bar-fighting techniques. This may include beating the suspect with their baton, hitting them in the head, jumping on their head, or punching them. Most recruits know that they have made mistakes after the scenario. They are immediately debriefed by the staff. Interestingly, recruits are quick to offer explanations for their behavior. Many of them fail to understand that their behavior would be considered illegal if it occurred on the street. Certainly, some recruits cry, curse, or yell at the instructors. For example, one recruit who made a mistake in a scenario in which his partner was shot and killed was so disappointed that he screamed the F word loudly and left the room abruptly. This was an off-campus scenario that involved the help of extra law enforcement officers. The instructors/law enforcement officers were noticeably surprised by his reaction and seemed to think it was ridiculous because everyone makes

PAGE 132

120 mistakes. But to my knowledge, the recruit received no formal punishment (of course, the debriefing occurred in private). The bravado of academy evaporates on the street. In the FTO program, most of the trainees in my sample showed hesitance when getting out of the car, even at traffic stops. It is typical for the FTO to write, PT [Police Trainee] needs to be more aggressive and forceful. They need to have good officer presence and cannot become intimated. Field training officers often note that trainees need to step it up and take control of a scene. It is very important for trainees to be assertive and have a police presence and not show cowardice. Police trainees need to be reminded that we are the police, and therefore have authority to take control of situations. They are told by their FTOs that they need to be ready and get out quickly to take control, so that the suspect does not flee. They need to have an assertive stance and give strong verbal commands. If they fail to, it is noted in the DEF: PT is slow to engage with people who may cause a threat or be confrontational. PT does not take charge of the situations and use his authority to control some of his contacts. I dont know if this is a stalling tactic because PT is afraid or uncomfortable with the new situation and isnt sure how to address it. One trainee had the following experience. The trainee failed to enter a residence for the second time, so the FTO was forced to take the lead. The FTO wrote, This is the second time PT was reluctant to enter this residence. I asked PT why he failed to enter and he replied, I guess Im just a little leery! I inquired as to whether these were acts of cowardice. He assured me that he wasnt afraid. Obviously, cowardice is not tolerated and officers are expected to be assertive. This is not to say that they should not be polite to citizens, but assertiveness (or lack thereof) is regularly noted in DEFs. Even giving the impression of being shy is considered bad:

PAGE 133

121 PT and I are going to be working the downtown bar areas this Friday and Saturday to expose PT to as much in your face contact as possible. PTs weakest area remains the timid perception. PT appears to be willing and ready to engage, but gives off the impression she is shy or timid. The interesting twist to this is the recruits overwhelming assertiveness and assumption about their perceived role while they are in the academy, followed by a complete turnaround when they are on the street for the first time. In the academy recruits tended to want to stretch their authority (e.g., cant we just kick the door in?) and instructors had to outline the limits of police authority. On the other hand, trainees in field training seemed apprehensive when they got on the street. Suddenly, they were not so sure of themselves and FTOs constantly had to tell almost every trainee be more assertive and to step it up. A common occurrence in local policing is to pull over vehicles and bicycles for broken taillights. The main purpose of these stops is to ask the suspect for a consent search. The suspect has the right to say no, but this is not made clear. It is accepted and reinforced in training to use an assertive tone when asking a citizen for a search. Though it is only a request, it may send the message to the suspect that the search is not voluntary. It also sends the message that if the suspect complies, he or she may be less likely to get in trouble. Thus, assertiveness is instrumental in the sense that it may lead to an arrest and is therefore rewarded as good police work. Police presence and assertiveness fits with the paramilitary environment. Militaristic environments produce people who are authoritative, assertive, and impersonal. They give and take orders in a hierarchical environment. Police presence and assertiveness also fits with officer safety and the emphasis on commanding situations in order to ensure safety from the bad guy.

PAGE 134

122 The emphasis on assertiveness and the police presence may not translate into problem solving, community trust, and COPS. Citizens often look to the police in a time of need, so police officers need to be confident and knowledgeable. But, if communities are to take active roles in problem solving and informal social control, COPS officers need to be able to take a leadership role without overstepping their authority. The emphasis in training on dealing with escalation and split-second decision-making far outweighs the training emphasis on working with the community and problem solving. COPS officers will need to rely on interpersonal techniques, such as verbal judo, to resolve situations if possible. The strong air of assertiveness that is emphasized in training may make a citizen fearful and defensive. Traditional Police Work and Experiential Knowledge The new academy curriculum makes a good effort to emphasize the importance of building community ties and trust, but the instructors (who are officers) became police officers for the same reasons that the recruits are becoming police officers: to catch bad guys. It is often said by instructors at the academy that police work is 10% fun and 90% boredom. This gives the impression to the recruits that community relations and performing service related activities falls under the boredom category. I commented to one recruit in defensive tactics training, You look like youre having fun, while he was practicing take downs with a partner. He responded, This is what its all about. Obviously, even though recruits are spending many hours in the classroom learning about problem solving, defensive tactics is what excites them about police work. Instructors tell recruits that policing is ten minutes of fun and 4 hours of writing reports. You can only assume that the ten minutes of fun refers to something other than problem solving.

PAGE 135

123 I volunteered as a victim during first responder when all except two recruits failed to show proficiency in the exercise. The two who were proficient had military experience where they had already learned the techniques. I overheard one recruit say, Im not gonna be a cop to deal with that stuff. Others agreed. This example shows a recruit who provided a neutralizing definition for the reason why he failed to show proficiency in the exercise, but more importantly, it reveals the recruits shared definition of police work. I went to lunch with several recruits and asked them why they wanted to become police officers. One of them said that he wanted to become a cop because he wanted to help people, while another one said, Im not going to lie; I want to be a cop so I can chase people! Several other recruits at the table laughed and agreed. Indeed, the belief held by most of the recruits at the table was that police work was attractive to them due to the traditional attributes of the occupation. One afternoon, a female recruit told a story about how she was sitting at a stoplight during her lunch break (from the academy) and she witnessed an interesting situation involving criminal activity. Specifically, two people were crossing the street and arguing because one stole the others weed. The recruit was surprised that the people continued to argue in her presence because she was clearly sitting in her car with her recruit uniform on (which resembles an official police uniform). The instructor encouraged her and told her that in only a few months, she would be able to make a good arrest in such a situation. In some of the recruit classes, there are recruits known as cross-overs. These are recruits who only take particular classes (approximately 25% of the curriculum) because they have prior law enforcement or corrections experience. The perspectives of these

PAGE 136

124 recruits often differ greatly from that of the nave recruits because they have already been exposed to the types of people that will be encountered on the job and in the occupational subculture. These recruits hold an interesting position within the recruit academythey are peers, and therefore differentially associate with the other recruits on an intimate levelbut they also serve as models with inside information about the law enforcement occupation. They associate with the other recruits frequently and intimately, and because they are at the same rank as all recruits, they share the camaraderie with the other recruits, and their stories have more relevance than instructors stories. When the cross-overs speak about their experiences, their stories command attention from the other recruits who have no experience. They offer insight into how the bad guys really act when in custody and how they have to be handled. In other words, they tell their own war stories that provide definitions and reinforcement about the realities of working in law enforcement. Indeed, Conti (unpublished manuscript entitled Lower Than Whaleshit) found that recruits with military or prior law enforcement experience serve as behavioral templates for the rest of the class. This promotes an increasingly intense level of conformity within the group. Field training at the agency studied is based on traditional police tactics as incorporated into the San Jose model (see Chapter 3). It teaches the police trainee to arrest, detain suspects, and become proficient with the commonly used policies and procedures used at The Agency. Specifically, the following issues were most often discussed in the FTO files: Radio and dispatch, accepting criticism, report writing, attitude, driving, geography and parking, officer safety, policies and procedure, assertiveness and investigation skills. Gaining experience performing traditional police

PAGE 137

125 functions under the supervision of someone who has experience is the main goal of field training. Many issues covered in FTO (e.g., radio, geography and policies) all become easier with experience dealing with more calls. Aggressive proactivity is an emphasis that emerges in field training data. It entails the officer proactively stopping citizens for minor traffic infractions and asking them for permission to be searched. In phase one of field training, FTOs will often model this behavior for their trainees. They will pull over bicyclists and vehicles to show the trainee what a good stop should look like. Trainees are encouraged to do this, and if they do not do this, it is noted on their DEFs. If a trainee stops a bicyclist for no tail light and fails to ask for a search, the FTO will tell the trainee that s/he should have requested the search and should do it next time. If the trainee properly requests the search, the behavior is positively reinforced by the FTO and noted in the DEF. One FTO comments, You have to stop bicyclists in order to make those good busts. Another FTO commends his trainees behavior with this comment: PT was proactive and wrote a parking ticket and a traffic citation. PT handled 100% of call. Aggressive proactivity seems to be The Agencys translation of COPS and problem solving. The officers seem to have redefined problem solving into a simplistic proactivity which includes little more than stopping bicyclists and other vehicles. Obviously, this type of proactive behavior is a long way from COPS or problem solving. Indeed, as discussed in chapter two, the abstractness of the COPS philosophy allows for wide variation in its implementation. A key informant at the agency shows that experiential knowledge is important with the top cops as well. The informant pointed out that several of the captains in the

PAGE 138

126 department had very few years on the street before they moved into administrative positions, and therefore, they dont know what its like out there. Being privy to what its really like out there is a deeply embedded belief held in the police subculture and modeled by incumbents. Trainees are taught to gather information from suspects and convince suspects that they will not be arrested. Citizens are given the impression that if they consent to a search, they will be rewarded for compliance. However, the truth is that the suspect has no obligation to consent to a search, and if the search uncovers contraband, the suspect is almost always taken to jail, or at least cited. What does this do for building community relations? The suspect will most likely be back out on the street and tell his/her friends and acquaintances about experiences with the police. The end result may be that police will not be trusted. The salient police subculture trumps the curriculum on COPS. The informal emphasis on crime fighting is overwhelming to the emphasis on community building and problem solving taught haphazardly in the classroom. Even though officers have begun to learn the importance of building coalitions with community members, the ultimate goal of these relationships is to gain information about potential criminals and crimes to make even bigger busts. They see building trust as another way to gain information to make more arrests, rather than an end in itself, or to increase the quality of life of citizens. Law on the Books Versus Law in Action In my observations, recruits received considerable training in legal standards and ethics. In fact, the problem solving model advanced at the academy, SECURE, incorporates ethics as one of its key components. Officers must be sure to apply the correct statute to criminal and civil matters and have the ability to discern the ambiguity

PAGE 139

127 that characterizes the law. Recruits also receive training in how to act in court, especially the importance of telling the truth on the stand. Additionally, high liability areas, such as firearms and driving, require recruits to qualify before certification. In other words, there are distinct procedural legal standards that recruits must satisfy before they are considered proficient in these areas. One instructor, a self-proclaimed straight and narrow cop, says that police officers learn from who teaches them. He learned from another scrupulous officer who had a lasting impression on him. He tells the recruits that they should tell the truth even if they make a mistake because losing one case is a small sacrifice compared to losing your integrity. He proceeded to tell a story about something that happened when he was a rookie officer. He and another officer responded to a burglary at a convenience store. The other officer stole some candy from the store (stealing after a burglary is convenient because you can blame the loss on the criminals). He saw the officer steal the candy and turned him in to the supervisor. This act sent a message to his department that he was an honest officer. Clearly, this instructor models and reinforces, through his war stories, ethical and honest behavior for the recruits. Though there is considerable emphasis in the academy on law and ethical standards, there is an underlying and contradictory theme that emerged in my observations. The informal code sends the message that the law is a force to be reckoned with that can get in the way. Deceit is a tactic learned in the training experience. This is not to say that officers are dishonest per se, but that it is an accepted practice to bend the truth in circumstances when the motive is to obtain information to make an arrest. In

PAGE 140

128 some cases, officers feel they have a moral duty to bend the law if it means catching a bad guy (Herbert 1998). I will offer several examples from the academy. Prostitution is a problem that is discussed in the media, in the department, and in the academy. On one occasion in the academy, an officer showed a video of a recent prostitution sting in which he (the officer) was posing as a john and picking up prostitutes. After the prostitute would agree to perform a service, the officer would signal to his fellow officers to pull them over and bust the prostitute. In the process of the bust, the officer was drinking a beer and always offered the respective prostitute a beer as well. The officer commented that he would often go through a six pack during a prostitution sting. The academy recruits were surprised, asking questions such as, isnt that drinking and driving? Isnt that illegal? Not only was the officer deceiving the prostitute (and modeling this as normative for the recruits) in order to get an arrest, but he was also breaking the law himself by drinking while driving. He said drinking was part of the way he deceived the prostitutes into believing that he was NOT a police officer. Another interesting twist to this story is how shocked the recruits were that their superior broke the law. I think this was a key moment in their understanding of the reality of police work and the police role. Getting bad guys off the street provides a justification for violating the law. Neutralizing definitions were part of the formal instruction. It is illegal, and therefore formally unacceptable to use race in decision making, whether it is stopping someone for a traffic violation or arresting someone. However, the informal message regarding searches and seizures allows officers to use race as a pretense. It is an accepted practice to stop someone because they look like they have

PAGE 141

129 drugs as long as they are breaking the law (e.g., broken taillight). It is also accepted to stop someone if they do not look like they belong in a certain neighborhood due to their race. Again, the moral obligation to take the bad guy off the street overrides the obligation to follow the letter of the law exactly. The formal emphasis on diversity (a theme that is discussed below) makes it clear that one is never to verbalize that race was a factor, however. An instructor told the recruits during class, Your motivation doesnt matter, as long as theyre breaking the law! Though this statement is legal, the underlying message is that your motivation can be based on an illegal pretense (e.g., race). Another example involves the use of force. One day in defensive tactics training, the recruits were in groups of two practicing handcuffing techniques. The instructor yelled, Make em squeal! Make em say ow! Instructors are candid about the fact that officers will make mistakes when dealing with forceful suspects and occasionally hurt people. The lesson to be learned is that the officer must not admit a mistake and not admit to using street fighting tactics. An instructor claims, You might break arms but as long as you do it correctly, or somewhat correctly, its okay. Later, he says, Youre gonna body slam somebody and his head will hit the groundIf you screw up, remember to call it a modified [takedown] and say it was legal. This is a clear example of a superior defining and modeling the way to deal with the law to the recruits. Officers and recruits are to have a strong confidence and presence so to provoke no uncertainty about their decisions. Given the curriculum teachings on the ethical responsibility to be honest, the question social learning theory would pose is: what

PAGE 142

130 is the balance of definitions toward the way the law is handled? The curriculum teaches honesty but the informal lesson is that, in practice, the law can be interpreted. Officer safety gives officers a justification for violating rights. For example, officers regularly do pat-down searches of citizens that they stop and talk to. They use this type of search under the guise of officer safety (to search for guns and knives, etc.), but if they find drugs, it usually leads to an arrest, according to FTO files. Similarly, on traffic stops, trainees are encouraged to help suspects find their license and registration by shining the flashlight over their shoulder (to look in their glove compartment) when possible. This is another excuse to look for drugs under the guise of officer safety. If the search turns up contraband, the suspect is almost always cited or taken to jail. The use of presence and assertiveness to engage in consent searches was discussed previously. An instructor (not a law enforcement officer) told the recruits, cops become good at manipulating people to believe they wont get in trouble if they consent to the search. Law on the books versus law in action has obvious implications for COPS. Citizens need to trust COPS officers. What happens if they learn that an officer bends the law in order to make an arrest? Will citizens be willing to partner? Will they expect COPS officers to help the citizens take short cuts too? Ironically, COPS officers may have to be lax in some areas in order to concentrate on community defined patterns to build neighborhood residents trust. Pushing the envelope and searching neighborhood residents, even if legal, may not be the way to gain access to information needed to solve the problems in a community.

PAGE 143

131 Diversity There is a large block of the academy devoted to diversity training. Diversity training in the CMS curriculum was thorough and academic. The new curriculum showed a marked improvement over the traditional curriculum, especially in light of expanding the racial and ethnic groups that were discussed. For example, in the traditional curriculum, coverage mainly pertained to blacks and whites, whereas CMS included many types of cultural minorities (and the notion that wherever works one is going to have different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups). The information is high quality and is threaded throughout other modules via SECURE. Indeed, scenarios forced recruits to face issues of diversity while handling traditional police work (e.g., traffic stops). The instructors openly discuss the challenges that women and minorities are likely to face in the police organization. For example, women are likely to be labeled as bitches, sluts, or lesbians. Racial minorities will be called racial slurs to their faces by citizens. Instructors encourage recruits to air their feelings about different racial and ethnic groups. For example, the class discussed their feelings about specific groups, such as Canadians, and the general consensus was that they thought Canadians were rude. The instructor tells them that it is fine for them to think that, but they cannot let their beliefs interfere with their actions. The instructor was explaining to the class that different cultures perceive gestures differently. For example, other cultures perceive a weak or limp handshake as deferent, while Americans perceive it as insulting. A recruit yells out, He might be a little fruity! This behavior causes laughter (positive social reinforcement) and goes uncorrected. The lack of punishment sends the message to the recruits that these jokes are normative.

PAGE 144

132 The diversity module was directly related to COPS. Its effectiveness is a direct function of the instructor and his/her ability to engage the recruits. For example, one instructor who is essentially in charge of the training program and highly committed to the CMS curriculum does an outstanding job with all of the material. Other instructors seem to get bored with topics such as communications or diversity and revert to war stories about traditional police work. During a class on diversity, recruits asked one of the instructors to tell a story about his best car chase. In the middle of his story, the class coordinator walked in, and the instructor quickly changed the tune of his story and concluded it with, the best car chases are the ones when nobody gets hurt. While the CMS curriculum does an outstanding job of addressing diversity and gender issues from an academic standpoint, the informal messages are not consistent. For example, several minutes after teaching a thorough section on cultural effectiveness, an instructor at the academy discusses how he will be mad if his wife does not have dinner on the table when he gets home. The same instructor talks about how you should find a woman you hate and buy her a house and a car every few years (saying thats essentially what marriage is anyway). Another instructor, who is highly committed to the success of this curriculum, also regularly talks about how he is careful not to make his wife angry because he may have to cook his own dinner in the evening. Informally, different messages are being received from the formal ones about diversity. For example, one recruit told me that police officers in power know that racism is going on, but they accept it or look the other way. He said, there seems to be this underlying theme that racism is okay if you can cover your ass legally This was only one recruits opinion, however. Many of these messages reinforce traditional

PAGE 145

133 policing. For example, one instructor stated, the fun part of our job is catching criminals, but we also have to do things like help women change flat tires. This is not only a definition but it is being modeled by ranking officers. Policing has long been a profession of white males. Though times are changing, many ranking officers are still white males (Britz 1997). It is also a chivalrous organization, which was clear to me the day I began my research. Being an academic, the climate is quite different from what I am accustomed to (they open doors for me, walk me to the car with an umbrella when it is raining, etc.). My role as a woman at the academy made my experience much different from what it would have been for a man. For example, during breaks, male recruits would immediately talk to me and seemed to flirt with me. They were curious about my life and, specifically, my boyfriend. They often referred to me as their little sister. Given the family metaphor for being part of the group that recruits used, my acceptance as a little sister made my presence less reactive. In the traditional curriculum, there was a female civilian who taught some of the legal units. She was pregnant for part of the time she was teaching, and she had a very feminine demeanor. She was strongly disliked by the recruits. They had no respect for her; they argued with her and thought she knew nothing about police work. The recruits made her teaching experience at the academy unbearable. Oftentimes, the recruits had to be punished for their behavior during her class. Recruits would often talk, snicker and generally be disrespectful during her lectures. Therefore, the class lieutenant would discipline the class (e.g., make them go for a run).

PAGE 146

134 Several female instructors who were respected by the recruits were less feminine and tougher in demeanor. They had a strong presence and were very assertive. They had a traditional masculinist orientation and a take-charge attitude. One of these female instructors became pregnant during her tenure as an instructor at the academy as well. Recruits had the utmost respect for these female instructors. One class chose one of these female instructors as their graduation speaker (recruits are able to choose an instructor to speak at their academy graduation). Thus, recruits did not chastise all female instructors, but the female civilian became a target for the recruits. It is difficult to discern the reason for the extreme dislike of the female civilian instructor. Because recruits felt comfortable with and respected other female instructors, it was not simply a gender issue. The recruits seemed to perceive her as having a lack of authority on police work. Her lack of police presence may have conveyed a weakness to the recruits. A perceived lack of knowledge combined with a perceived weakness (or lack of assertiveness) and femininity seemed to have caused the recruits to see her as a target and chastise her constantly. In Chicago, Dantzker et al. (1995) found that recruits and officers had a strong dislike for civilian trainers. My experience is that this issue is multiplied when the civilian trainer is a female. The formal curriculum teachings on race and gender are often not taken seriously enough by the recruits or instructors. For example, during a break from a module on communications, several recruits and the instructor were discussing the previous (completed) module on diversity. A recruit commented, we are now diversified! The instructor empathized, commenting, I know, we have to go through it during in-service training too. The modeling and informal messages undercut the acceptance of diversity

PAGE 147

135 that was the point of the formal training. Therefore, definitions toward appropriate race and gender roles are not likely to be differentially learned in this environment. Instead, they are overwhelmed by informal messages that say that diversity training is a necessary component of academy training. Marion (1998) said that one of the major drawbacks to the recruit training she observed was the sexism and racism. This included boasts about sexual encounters, jokes about female recruits inability to subdue suspects, and comments and gestures that went unnoticed or ignored by instructors. She also observed comments by instructors about nagging wives and girlfriends. Female recruits were not offended by these comments, and in fact, seemed more offended by the researchers concern over this aspect of the training. It was just part of the job, according to the recruits, and it should be expected and ignored. Further, she notes that recruits treated the courses on human diversity with relative unimportance and triviality. Though the new curriculum has made great strides in its teachings in diversity, the informal messages have not kept pace. When instructors are teaching diversity one minute and telling jokes about belittling their wives during the next break, there is a major disconnect between the messages that are being sent to the recruits. This undercuts the COPS philosophy and its normative orientation. Until the informal messages are consistent with the curriculum teachings, the diversity lessons are unlikely to have a positive lasting effect. In field training, it was often noted when trainees were good at communicating with people of various backgrounds. However, diversity did not emerge as an explicit theme in the field training files, and in some ways, it was used to look for bad guys.

PAGE 148

136 During field training, FTOs want trainees to stay busy, therefore, they direct their patrol to areas where there is criminal activity. This invariably sends them to a section of town with a diverse population. Though dealing with diversity issues was not explicitly discussed in the files, the types of crimes that trainees were handling exposed the fact that they were on one side of town rather than another. It is reasonable to assume some definitions linked to diversity were being modeled and reinforced through this fact aloneeven though they were not formally written in the DEFs. In other words, if you want to make busts, go to the east side of town and stop diverse people. Diversity classes at the academy also deal with the mentally ill (somewhat). It is disturbing how ignorant/uninformed the recruits are about the mentally ill. Unfortunately CMS does little to improve recruits understanding of this issue in our society. Instead, the curriculum focuses on how to deal with them rather than understanding mental illness as a societal problem, which would provide a good background before they learn practical subjects, such as Baker Acts 17 One day in diversity training, recruits asked the instructor, What is the PC way to refer to the mentally retarded? Another recruit provided an answer, call em a squirrel! Everyone laughed, including the instructor, which sends the message that this is normative and tolerated. As the discussion continued, a recruit commented, you can just say he threatened youno one will believe him! The recruit had learned how instrumental deceit can be. Unfortunately, this has major implications for policing, as police officers spend a substantial amount of time dealing with the mentally ill. Field training files indicate that 17 Baker Act is the involuntary civil commitment process in Florida.

PAGE 149

137 officers constantly respond to signal 20s, the code for mentally ill persons. Our criminal justice system is overwhelmed with people who have mental disorders. As soon as the recruits become trainees in field training, they deal with Baker Acts on a regular basis, but they do so with little understanding of the dynamics of the various illnesses. Diversity is a major component of COPS, and therefore may be seen as code for some COPS principles. For example, respecting diversity allows everyone in the community a voice. It is also code for whether someone is seen as a good guy or a bad guy and whether a person is dangerous. Historically, racial minorities have been the objects of police deviance. Therefore, diversity is a key issue in training and policing today. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to advance a framework for understanding both formal and informal aspects of police socialization. In my observations of police training, I learned that the formal and informal cannot be separated. Instead, they work together to form a normative climate that characterizes police training and socialization. The normative climate is made up of seven themes that are defined, modeled and reinforced/punished through differential association with peers and superiors in the police training environment. The second purpose was to describe the seven themes of police training and socialization that make up the normative climate: 1) paramilitary environment, 2) officer safety, 3) the bad guy and the us versus them mentality, 4) police presence and assertiveness, 5) experiential knowledge and traditional police work, 6) law on the books versus law in action, and 7) diversity. I have discussed the implications that these themes

PAGE 150

138 have for the way that police officers interact with their department, the way they deal with citizens, and implications for COPS. The paramilitary structure is the most salient component of the normative climate. The implications for COPS cannot be overstated. Community policing posits that the paramilitary hierarchical structure must be flattened in order to grant line personnel more autonomy to make decisions. Roberg (1994) argues that the military environment and bureaucratic structure of police agencies is a key internal obstacle to implementing COPS. It not only has implications for the organization and hampers the individual officers abilities to make decisions, it affects the type of person who is attracted to policing as a career. A person so willing to accept criticism, follow chain of command, and show deference may not be the best person for the job of a COPS officer. A COPS officer should be self-governing, outgoing and motivated; training is not likely to be effective if self-selection is hampering the pool of applicants. Officer safety is another salient lesson in academy and field training. I recognize the importance of safety in policing, as policing is a dangerous occupation. However, the constant suspicion that goes along with officer safety hampers building partnerships and trust with citizens in community policing. Thus, the COPS officer is faced with a challenge when reconciling these two foci. Similarly, vigilance for the bad guy and the us versus them orientation are inconsistent with the values and philosophy of COPS. COPS officers must learn to focus on solving long-term community-defined problems, rather than making serial arrests of bad guys. The COPS officer must learn how to manage traditional assertiveness and police presence in situations when he or she is trying to partner with law-abiding citizens to

PAGE 151

139 solve problems and relate with the community. A heavy-handed approach will intimidate some citizens and make others angry. The idea of COPS is to make residents feel comfortable and trusting of their community police officers, rather than fearful and overly deferential. The community needs to be the source of problem-solvingits members need to be able to assert themselves while officers become facilitators. Traditional police work is still an emphasis in police training and socialization. Police officers will continue to have to handle emergency situations and make arrests, but the majority of their time is spent maintaining order and solving problems. The culture needs to reflect the reality of police work rather than the myth that officers are arresting bad guys all of the time. We can expect slippage between law on the books and that in action. The nature of that slippage is important, however. I saw some evidence that recruits are learning neutralizations for bending the law to obtain searches and cover up force. Some of these definitions and learned behavior will not be conducive to COPS. Community residents who find out about unscrupulous practices will be untrusting of police officers and unwilling to share information about their problems. They may even expect officers to bend the law in other circumstances to help them. It is a slippery slope, and one of the fears of having officers work so closely with community residents. Because of past corruption that occurred during the watchman era, there is reluctance to extend too much autonomy to COPS officers and there is a challenge for agencies regarding how to exert supervision. Though major steps have been taken to improve the units on diversity in the CMS curriculum, the informal messages are likely what is being learned by the recruits. Until

PAGE 152

140 the cultural messages about diversity are consistent with curriculum teachings, the messages will not be internalized and learned by police recruits. First, they need to be internalized by the police trainers themselves. Off the cuff comments and jokes about nagging wives and girlfriends may seem trivial but they undercut the goals of the CMS curriculum and send the message that there is a disjuncture between formal rules and what is informally allowed in policing. In order for COPS to work, diversity has to be understood and respected. Learning to become a police officer does not seem to be affected by the CMS curriculum. This is because the normative aspect of policing is consistent with the traditional ideals of policing. Traditional policing, officer safety, police presence, and paramilitary structure are defined, modeled and reinforced as the most important aspects of police work, despite some formal instruction in community policing and diversity. There is little reinforcement or modeling of attitudes and behavior consistent with COPS. Until the normative climate changes and becomes consistent with the philosophy and values of COPS, the rift between police and communities will continue. The CMS curriculum makes a good effort to prepare officers for COPS, but unfortunately, there are still many obstacles to overcome. This study offers some insight into what those obstacles are and some suggestions as to how to resolve them in the future.

PAGE 153

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION Introduction The goal of this study was to analyze the extent to which learning is affected by a new police training curriculum instituted in one police training center. The new curriculum, CMS, sought to integrate problem-solving and community policing principles throughout all training modules. I relied on participant observation data from the academy classes themselves, official data measuring recruits academy performance and relative success, as well as field training performance records in one police agency that hired many officers from the police academy. Supplemental data included informal interviews and attendance at meetings at the police agency in order to get an idea of the normative climate toward community policing in the agency. Police recruits who went through the CMS curriculum differed little in terms of academy performance compared to recruits who went through the former traditional curriculum. No particular type of recruit was more or less likely to fail, gain employment, or achieve higher academy scores. Perhaps, this can be explained by the normative climate of the police training and socialization experience; a climate that has changed little since the reformation in curricula. I developed a characterization of what is differentially learned in the police training and socialization experience. I describe seven themes that characterize the learning that occurs throughout the academy and field training experience that supersedes other learning that occurs in police training. Notably, community policing and problem solving 141

PAGE 154

142 did not emerge as explicit themes in my observational research. However, the seven themes do have implications for community policing, as well as how officers are likely to deal with citizens in field contacts. The bottom line is that community policing and problem solving are overwhelmed by the paramilitary environment and the emphasis on traditional police work and officer safety. The new curriculum makes a good effort to highlight the importance of diversity and problem solving, but it is trumped by instructors and other incumbents who were trained in and believe in the traditional ideals of police work. The curriculum teaches lessons on working with the community and applying the SECURE model of problem solving, but arrests are still valued more than problem solving in the occupational culture. These attitudes are learned by the recruits. Additionally, police recruits are still screened for traditional police work, rather than community policing. For example, military experience is still considered a valued attribute when applying to a police agency and in leadership positions during academy training. Military experience is not one of the skills needed to be a COPS officer. In fact, it may be inconsistent with the COPS philosophy. It is a challenge to the new training curriculum when recruitment and selection are not consistent with COPS. The entire philosophy must be changed in order for COPS to work. Even if recruits graduate from the police academy having learned the philosophy and skills relevant to community policing and problem solving, their learning continues in a field training program. Field training is the time when police trainees are learning to apply academy lessons to the street, and therefore, it is the ideal time to reinforce the COPS lessons learned in the academy. I analyzed field training at an agency that hires

PAGE 155

143 many of the officers from the academy that I studied. The agency also explicitly endorses COPS. However, I found that field training focused almost exclusively on traditional police work, arrests, and officer safety and failed to incorporate the COPS philosophy. My research revealed virtually no reinforcement of COPS or problem solving, thus any learning consistent with COPS in the academy was likely overwhelmed by the emphasis on traditional police work highlighted in field training. I argue that field training is the opportunity to teach COPS, and it is the missing link in the learning process. This is likely a common dilemma due to the fact that the San Jose model is still the standard FTO program used by most police agencies. As mentioned earlier, the San Jose model is thirty years old and does not incorporate COPS or problem solving. Researchers are working on a new field training program that integrates COPS and problem solving into its training program so this may be a key turning point for agencies that truly want to adopt COPS. The well-documented peer culture is a significant obstacle to the institutionalization of COPS. It is communicated to the recruits through war stories and informal conversations. Because of the environment in which these informal lessons are communicated, the lessons associated with them may be more salient than the lessons learned from the basic lecture material. Therefore, changing the culture will be difficult, but some of the suggestions below may offer some possibilities for change. Ways to Improve Instructors The majority of the instructors at the academy were veteran police officers, and all of the instructional personnel in field training are, by definition, police officers (FTOs). They do not have any formal training in teaching methods, and this is

PAGE 156

144 sometimes obvious. There are two problems with this. The first problem is that many of the current instructors are not always effective in communicating the material to the recruits. Instructors who are trained in teaching methods will be more effective at relaying the relevant information to the recruits. The second problem is that the instructors are very similar. Police recruits need to be exposed to instructors with varied backgrounds. Certainly, the curricula include topics that beg for the knowledge of professionals in their field (e.g., psychologists and/or social workers for units on special populations such as the mentally ill and elderly, English/writing teachers for report-writing). The result of having police officers without special educational skills teaching nearly all of the classes is that the classes are often boring, unorganized, and lack variation (e.g., group work, projects, etc.). Instructional methods would help to mix it up and keep recruits interested in their own learning. Indeed, one of the goals of CMS is to incorporate andragogy, or adult learning into the training. Additionally, instructors who come from varied backgrounds would accentuate the community aspect of the curriculum, reinforce diversity, and help break through the dominant traditional police culture. College-Educated Recruits Although class composition at the academy varies many of the recruits are very rigid and closed-minded. They have difficulty understanding abstractions and complexities, like constitutional law. Many recruits do not understand the right to free speech, for example, and they think that certain rights should be taken away by the police if someone breaks the law. A college curriculum is likely to address the history and

PAGE 157

145 importance of these issues so that recruits are less rigid. The communities in which they operate are likely to have divergent views about such matters. College would also expose recruits to a diverse population. Many of them have never had the opportunity to interact with people from different backgrounds and are very closed-minded about people from different cultures. Common college practices, such as group work, problem solving, and dealing with diverse people would give recruits experience and practice working with a variety of people and using skills they will need for their job as a police officer. As mentioned previously, many recruits lack understanding about mental illness. Because police officers have to deal with the mentally ill on a daily basis, I believe this is a critical shortcoming. Many of them have limited views of the mentally ill, and a college education may help them address this as well. For example, four-year degree programs offer courses in general psychology. Updated Field Training Regardless of the academy training in COPS, field training is doing little to reinforce COPS. The academy invests a considerable amount of time teaching problem solving (SECURE), which is never mentioned at the field training stage. The agency is a self-proclaimed COPS department, but provides no training in COPS. FTOs may or may not have had training in COPS (training was provided at a series of workshops several years ago), but there is no training in COPS for current officers. Thus, the field training program must be updated to reflect a COPS approach so that all officers receive sufficient COPS training and retraining. Officers are required to a do a specific amount of in-service training per year in skills areas (e.g., they must become re-certified in defensive

PAGE 158

146 tactics and with their weapon). They should do this for community relations and problem solving as well. Horizontal Communication The emphasis is on vertical communication at the academy, in field training and at the department, so there is no practice for communicating with the community. If COPS requires officers to partner with the community and help residents solve community-defined problems, recruits/officers need training and practice in horizontal communication skills. One of the main tenets of COPS is decentralization (Maguire 1997), but it is one of the last (and arguably most challenging) components that agencies adopt. The paramilitary structure is still very pronounced at the academy and department and this works against the institutionalization of COPS. Adult Learning The adult learning model that is supposed to be practiced at the academy reverts back to lecture, especially during topics that are not adopted as the belief system of the instructor. Many times the instructors will become animated and discussion-oriented in skills training and traditional topics, but when the topics are COPS and diversity, they often revert to lecture and become very boring. This is a form of punishment. The lessons learned through war stories about traditional crime-fighting are more salient because the environment is relaxed and informal. Again, instructors who are trained in instructional methods will likely be more comfortable incorporating adult-learning techniques in the classroom. A Final Thought: Training Versus Education Training and education are both important in the preparation of police officers. Although research is somewhat unclear on the direct effects of education on police

PAGE 159

147 performance, I argue that it is a necessary component in the preparation of police officers. The two are complementary and prepare the recruit in different ways. Education is general and aids the recruits cognitive and analytic development. Education is broad in scope and increases ones critical analysis, problem-solving, and community relations skills (Haberfield 2002). It also exposes one to diverse populations. Generally, it prepares the recruit for training. Training, on the other hand, refers to instruction for a specific task. Also necessary for police recruits, it refers to skill and knowledge areas, such as firearms training, defensive tactics, equipment operation, and emergency tactics (see Haberfield 2002). Some scholars call for an innovative approach that combines education and training, such as that which is done in Sweden (see Lord 1998). For example, Greenberg (1998) discusses a Model Precinct program that would combine intensive fieldwork experience, a college degree program and basic police school requirements into one program. Recruits would essentially work as interns for local agencies throughout college. Agencies would benefit by getting to know the recruits as interns, and interns could learn about the agencies and essentially perform service work while in training. Their course work would be shared between college professors and police trainers. When they graduate with their college degree, they would also be qualified to work in law enforcement. Theoretical Lessons There are several important theoretical lessons to be learned from this study. First, there was an overwhelming amount of punishment used by instructors and FTOs in the police training and socialization experience (also see Van Maanen 1973). There was little formal positive reinforcement. The positive reinforcement was largely informal. Perhaps

PAGE 160

148 the skills and attitudes valued in COPS should be formally reinforced in order to help the COPS philosophy materialize. On the other hand, I was able to illustrate the police training and socialization process with my participant observation data using social learning theory. I showed how definitions of policing were developed through modeling and reinforcement/punishment in association with superiors and peers at the academy and in field training. I highlighted the importance of informal lessons in the learning of behavior. I was able to study the entire social learning process and show how lessons are differentially learned in police training and socialization. Hopefully that will make this study useful, not only to those who study the police, but to others who aim to study occupational socialization in general. Limitations and Future Research In the quantitative analysis, I measured police recruit performance by analyzing average academy score, failure experiences, and employment upon graduation. Looking at academy scores does not indicate whether the CMS curriculum affects the way police officers do their jobs. The curriculum may not affect a recruits performance in the academy or his or her likelihood of finding employment, but the more substantive question is whether it impacts the qualitative nature of his or her policing style. Thus, in future research, it would be ideal to compare recruits from two curricula in terms of their ability to communicate with residents and problem solve. One way to do this is through ride alongs with officers. Some findings were surprising to me. One of them is that police actually learn neutralizing definitions and deceit as a tactic, and this learning begins in the academy. Recruits learn how to provide excuses for their behavior if they make a mistake, they

PAGE 161

149 learn how to use the law in their favor in order to make an arrest, and they learn how to justify their behavior when it is for a moral cause (e.g., to catch a bad guy). They also learn how to use their assertiveness and positional authority to gain consent to perform searches that often lead to contraband that ultimately ends in the arrest of the suspect. Of course, none of this works well with the COPS philosophy. On the other hand, I learned some very positive things. The people responsible for creating and putting the new curriculum into practice are trying very hard to train better police officers. Their efforts are commendable. Hopefully, as the new curriculum settles in, the instructors begin to adopt and internalize the philosophy of COPS, and the field training is updated to reflect a COPS orientation, COPS principles will become integrated into the daily work of every police officer. I have learned that it will take a group effort to make this work. Those who recruit and select the officers, train them in the academy and train and socialize them in their various agencies must all be on board. In the future, I plan to follow-up on my original sample of recruits to find out whether they stayed in law enforcement and whether there are differences in their policing careers based on which curriculum they attended. I would also like to interview a sample of the recruits to find out, from their perspective, the extent to which the academy curriculum affected their police performance after having been on the job for several years. I hope that the results of this study will be a resource to police training centers that are attempting to build their own innovative COPS curricula. In the future, the proposed study could be replicated to assess COPS training and its effectiveness on policing practices using larger samples from additional academies. In the end, the study will

PAGE 162

150 provide valuable information on both a public policy and scholarly level. Specifically, it is one of the first analyses of COPS training, and it is an application of social learning theory in a new context.

PAGE 163

APPENDIX CURRICULA CONTENTS Table A-1. Basic law enforcement curriculum: traditional Course name Hours Medical First Responder 48 CJ Defensive Tactics 106 CJ Weapons 64 Legal I 46 Legal II 48 Communications 56 Interpersonal Skills I 66 Vehicle Operations 32 Legal III 32 Law Enforcement Patrol 64 Law Enforcement Traffic 46 Investigations 64 Total Hours 672 Table A-2. Basic law enforcement curriculum: CMS Course name Hours Introduction 194 Vehicle Operations 48 First Aid for Criminal Justice Officers 40 Firearms 80 Defensive Tactics 80 Patrol 57 Investigations 53 Investigating Offenses 40 Traffic Stops 62 Traffic Crash Investigations 32 Court Process 14 Rescue 5 Bombs and Explosives 22 Crowd Control 13 Criminal Justice Special Topics 20 Total Hours 760 151

PAGE 164

LIST OF REFERENCES Ahern, J.F. 1972. Police in Trouble. New York: Hawthorn Books. Akers, Ronald L. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, Ronald L. 1998. Social Structure and Social Learning. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Akers, Ronald L. 2000. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Akers, Ronald L., M.D. Krohn, L. Lanza-Kaduce, and M. Radosevich. 1979. Social Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory. American Sociological Review 44: 635-655. Akers, Ronald L. and Anthony J. LaGreca. 1991. Alcohol Use Among the Elderly: Social Learning, Community Context, and Life Events, pp.242-262 in David J. Pittman and Helene Raskin White, eds., Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns Re-examined. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies. Akers, Ronald L. and Gang Lee. 1996. A Longitudinal Test of Social Learning Theory: Adolescent Smoking. Journal of Drug Issues 26: 317-343. Akers, Ronald L. and Christine Sellers. 2004. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Alpert, Geoffrey P. and Roger G. Dunham. 1997. Policing Urban America. Waveland Press: Illinois. Alpert, Geoffrey P., Daniel Flynn, and Alex R. Piquero. 2001. Effective Community Policing Performance Measures. Justice Research and Policy 3:79-94. Aultman, M.G. 1976A Social Psychological Approach to the Study of Police Corruption. Journal of Criminal Justice 4: 323-332. Bennett, Richard. 1984. Becoming Blue: A Longitudinal Study of Police Recruit Occupational Socialization. Journal of Police Science and Administration 12 (1): 47-58. Bernard, H. R. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York: AltaMira Press. 152

PAGE 165

153 Birzer, Michael L. 1999. Police Training in the 21 st Century. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Pp. 16-19. Birzer, Michael L. 2003. The Theory of Andragogy Applied to Police Training. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 26 (1): 29-42. Birzer, Michael L., and Ronald Tannehill. 2001. A More Effective Training Approach for Contemporary Policing. Police Quarterly, 4 (2): 233-252. Bittner, Egon. 1975. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. New York: Aronson. Bordua, D. J. and A.J.Reiss. 1966. Command, Control, and Charisma: Reflections on Police Bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology 71: 68-76. Bradford, David and Joan E. Pynes. 1999. Police Academy Training: Why Hasnt it Kept Up With Practice? Police Quarterly 2 (3): 283-301. Britz, Marjie T. 1997. The Police Subculture and Occupational Socialization: Exploring Individual and Demographic Characteristics. American Journal of Criminal Justice 21 (2): 127-146. Buerger, M.E. 1998. Police Training as a Pentecost: Using Tools Singularly Ill-Suited to the Purpose of Reform. Police Quarterly 1: 27-63. Buerger, M.E., A.J. Petrosino and C. Petrosino. 1999. Extending the Police Role: Implications of Police Mediation as a Problem-Solving Tool. Police Quarterly 2: 125-149. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. Local Police Departments, 1997. Washington, D.C. Capece, Michael and Ronald L. Akers. 1995. Supervisor Referrals to Employee Assistance Programs: A Social Learning Perspective. Journal of Drug Issues 25 (2): 341-361. Carter, D.L. and A.D. Sapp. 1992. College Education and Policing: Coming of Age. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: 8-14. Chappell, Allison T. and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. 2004. Integrating Sociological Research with Community-Oriented Policing: Bridging the Gap between Academics and Practice. Journal of Applied Sociology/Sociological Practice 21/6: 80-98. Chappell, Allison T., Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Daryl Johnston. 2005. Police Training: Changes and Challenges. Pp. 71-88 in Critical Issues in Policing, edited by Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert. 5 th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Chappell, Allison T. and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. Applying Social Learning Theory to Police Misconduct. Deviant Behavior 25: 89-108.

PAGE 166

154 Cheurprakobkit, Sutham. 2002. Community Policing: Training, Definitions and Policy Implications. Policing 25 (4): 709-725. Community Policing Consortium. 1999. About Community Policing. Available: (site viewed August 23, 2004) http://www.communitypolicing.org/about2.html Conser, James A. 1980. A Literary Review of the Police Subculture: Its Characteristics, Impact and Policy Implications. Police Studies 2: 46-54. Conti, Norman. 2001. Ceremonial Degradation of a Doctoral Candidate: An Essay on the Social Circumstances of Graduate Student Ethnographers and Other Inmates. The American Sociologist 32: 89-97. Cordner, Gary W. 2001. Community Policing Elements and Effects. Pp. 493-510 in Critical Issues in Policing, edited by Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert. 4 th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Cox, Steven M. 1996. Police: Practices, Perspectives, Problems. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Crank, John P. 1998. Understanding Police Culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Dantzker, Gail, Arthur Lurigio, and Susan Hartnett, Sheila Houmes, Sigurlina Davidsdottir, and Kristin Donovan. 1995. Preparing Police Officers for Community Policing: An Evaluation of Training for Chicago's Alternative Policing Strategy. Police Studies 18 (1): 745-770. Decker, Lisa Kay and Robert G. Huckabee. 2002. Raising the Age and Education Requirements for Police Officers: Will Too Many Women and Minority Candidates Be Excluded? Policing 25: 789-802. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1993. Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics Survey (LEMAS). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dunham, Roger and G. Alpert. 1989. Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Eck, John E. and William Spelman. 1987. Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem Busters. Crime & Delinquency 33: 53-70. Encandela, John A. 1991. Danger at Sea: Social Hierarchy and Social Solidarity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 20: 131-156. Fogelson, Robert M. 1977. Big-City Police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

PAGE 167

155 Fridell, Lorie, Jerry Murphy, Tom Jordan, and Brian J. Vila. 2002. The Cop Crunch: Identifying Strategies to Deal with the Recruiting and Hiring Crisis in Law Enforcement. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL (Paper Presentation). Frost, Thomas and Magnus Seng. 1983. Police Recruit Training in Urban Departments: A Look at Instructors. Journal of Police Science and Administration 11 (3): 296-302. Fyfe, James J. 1996. Training to Reduce Police-Civilian Violence. In Geller, William A. and Hans Toch (eds.) Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gaines, Larry K., John L. Worrall, Mittie D. Southerland, and John E. Angell. 2003. Police Administration. 2 nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Germann, A.C. 1969. Community Policing: An Assessment. Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science 60: 89-96. Glenn, Russell W., Barbara R. Panitch, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Elizabeth Williams, John Christian, Matthew W. Lewis, Scott Gerwehr, David W. Brannan. 2003. Training the 21 st Century Police Officer: Redefining Police Professionalism for the Los Angeles Police Department. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Goldstein, Herman. 1987. Toward Community-Oriented Policing: Potential, Basic Requirements, and Threshold Questions. Crime and Delinquency 33 (1): 6-30. Goldstein, Herman. 1979. Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. Crime and Delinquency 25 (2): 236-258 Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Greek, Cecil, Kyubeom Choi, Shun-Yung Wang, and John Higgins. 2000. The Future of Community Policing in Florida: Final Report. Florida State University School of Criminology. Online: (site viewed June 13, 2004) http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/greek/future/futurefinalreport.htm Greenberg, Martin A. 1998. The Model Precinct: Issues involving police training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 67 (9): 14-16. Greene, Jack. 1989. Police Officer Job Satisfaction and Community Perceptions: Implications for Community-Oriented Policing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (2): 168-183. Greene, Jack R. 1997. Partnerships for Community Policing: Building Public Safety Confidence in Los Angeles: A Monograph. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

PAGE 168

156 Greene, Jack R. and Stephen D.Mastrofski. 1988. Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger. Greenwood, Peter W., Jan M. Chaiken, and Joan Petersilia. 1977. The Criminal Investigation Process. Lexington, Mass: DC Heath. Haarr, Robin N. 1997. Patterns of Interaction in a Police Patrol Bureau: Race and Gender Barriers to Interrogation. Justice Quarterly 14: p. 53. Haarr, Robin N. 2001. The Making of a Community Policing Officer: The Impact of Basic Training and Occupational Socialization on Police Recruits. Police Quarterly 4 (4): 402-433. Haberfield, M. R. 2002. Critical Issues in Police Training. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman. 1984. Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49: 149-164. Harris, Richard. 1973. The Police Academy: An Insiders View. New York: Wiley. Herbert, Steve. 1998. Police Subculture Reconsidered. Criminology 36: 343-369. Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Holdaway, Simon. 1983. Inside the British Police: A Force at Work. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoover, Larry. 1975. Police Educational Characteristics and Curricula. Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Hunter, Ronald D., Pamela D. Mayhall, and Thomas Barker. 2000. Police Community Relations and the Administration of Justice. 5 th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kansas City Police Department. 1980. Response Time Analysis: Vol. IIPart I, Crime Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kappeler, Victor E., Richard D. Sluder, and Geoffrey Alpert. 1998. Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing. Waveland Press, 2 nd Ed. Kelling, George. 1978. Police Field Services and Crime: The Presumed Effects of a Capacity. Crime and Delinquency 24 (2): 173-184. Kelling, G. and M. Moore. 1988a. From Political to Reform to Community: The Evolving Strategy of Policing. In J. Greene & S. Mastrofski (eds.) Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger.

PAGE 169

157 Kelling, G. and M. Moore. 1988b. The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives on Policing, 4, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice (November issue). Kelling, George L., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and G. Brown. 1974. The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Police Foundation. Washington DC. Kennedy, David M. and Mark H. Moore. 2001. Underwriting the Risky Investment in Community Policing: What Social Science Should Be Doing to Evaluate Community Policing. Pp. 511-530 in Critical Issues in Policing, edited by Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert. 4 th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. King, William R. and Steven P. Lab. 2000. Crime Prevention, Community Policing, and Training: Old Wine in New Bottles. Police Practice and Research 1 (2): 241-252. Knowles, M.S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. New York: Cambridge. Knowles, M.S. 1990. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Krohn, Marvin D., William F. Skinner, James L. Massey and Ronald L. Akers. 1985. Social Learning Theory and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: A Longitudinal Study. Social Problems 32: 455-473. Kuykendall, Jack and Peter Usinger. 1975. Community Police Administration. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Lab, Steven. 2000. Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations. 4 th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson. Lab, Steven. 2004. Crime Prevention, Politics, and the Art of Going Nowhere Fast. Justice Quarterly 21 (4): 681-692. Langworthy, Robert and Lawrence Travis. 2003. Policing in America. A Balance of Forces. 3 rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn and Michael Capece. 2003. Social Structure Social Learning (SSSL) and Binge Drinking: A Specific Test of an Integrated General Theory. In R. Akers. And G. Jensen (eds.) Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A guide for the New Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions. Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn and Richard Greenleaf. 2000. Age and Race Deference Reversals: Extending Turk on Police-Citizen Conflict. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37: 221-236. Lipset, S.M. 1969. Politics of Police. New Society 13: 355-358.

PAGE 170

158 Lord, Vivian B. 1998. Swedish Police Selection and Training: Issues from a Comparative Perspective. Policing 21 (2) 280-291. Lundman, Richard J. 1980. Police and Policing: An Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lurigio, Arthur J. and Dennis P. Rosenbaum. 1994. The Impact of Community Policing on Police Personnel: A Review of the Literature. Pp. 147-163 in The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises, edited by D.P. Rosenbaum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lurigio, A.J. and W.G. Skogan. 1994. Winning the Hearts and Minds of Police Officers: An Assessment of Staff Perceptions of Community Policing in Chicago. Crime and Delinquency, 40: 315-330. MacDonald, John M. 2002. The Effectiveness of Community Policing in Reducing Urban Violence. Crime and Delinquency 48:592-618. Maguire, Edward R. (1997). Structural Change in Large Municipal Police Organizations During the Community Policing Era. Justice Quarterly, 14 (3), 547-576. Marion, Nancy. 1998. Police Academy Training: Are We Teaching Recruits What They Need to Know? Policing 21 (1): 54-75. Mastrofski, S.D. and Ritti, R.R. 1995. Police Training and the Effects of Organizations on Drunk Driving Enforcement. Justice Quarterly 13 (2). Mayhall, P.D., T. Barker, and R.D. Hunter. 1995. Police Community Relationsand the Administration of Justice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCampbell. M. 1986. Field Training for Police Officers: State of the Art. National Institute of Justice, Washington DC. McClendon, McKee J. 2002. Multiple Regression and Causal Analysis. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. McEwen, Thomas J. 1984. Evaluation of the Differential Police Response Field Test: Final Report. Alexandria, VA: Research Management Associates, Inc. 277 pgs. McEwen, Tom. 1997. Community Policing Training Survey: Draft Report. Unpublished Manuscript, Institute of Law and Justice, Alexandria, VA. McLaughlin, V. and Donahue, M.E. 1995. Training for Community-Oriented Policing. In P.C. Kratcocski and D. Dukes (Eds.), Issues in Community Policing. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

PAGE 171

159 Merton, Robert K. and Alice Kitt Rossi. 1968. Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior. In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, edited by Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer. Pp. 26-68. New York: The Free Press. Niederhoffer, Arthur. 1967. Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Oliver, Willard M. 1998. Community-Oriented Policing: A Systemic Approach to Policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Palmiotto, Michael J., Michael Birzer, and N. Prabha Unnithan. 2000. Training in Community Policing: A Suggested Curriculum. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 23 (1): 8-21. Paoline, III, Eugene, Stephanie M. Myers, and Robert E. Worden. 2000. Police Culture, Individualism, and Community Policing: Evidence from Two Police Departments. Justice Quarterly 17: 575-605. Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pate, Antony M., Mary Ann Wycoff, Wesley G. Skogan, and Lawrence W. Sherman. 1986. Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report. Washington DC: Police Foundation. Peak, K.J. 1993. Policing America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Peak, K.J. and R.W. Glensor. 1999. Community Policing & Problem Solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. Task Force Report on the Police. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reaves, B.A., and A.L. Goldberg. 1999. Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers (NCJ 171681). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Roberg, R.R. 1994. Can Todays Police Organizations Effectively Implement Community Policing? In Rosenbaum, D.P. (Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 249-57. Rosenbaum, Dennis P. and Arthur J. Lurigio. 1994. An Inside Look at Community Policing Reform: Definitions, Organizational Changes, and Evaluation Findings. Crime and Delinquency 40: 299-314. Sadd, Susan and Grinc, Randolph M. 1994. Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing: Descriptions of Programs in Eight Cities. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

PAGE 172

160 Sampson, Robert J. 1997. Collective Regulation of Adolescent Misbehavior: Validation Results from Eighty Chicago Neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research 12 (2): 227-244. Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1989. Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94:774802. Savitz, L. 1971. The Dimensions of Police Loyalty. In Police in Urban Society, edited by Hahn Harlan. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Scott, Michael S. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Senna, Joseph J. and Larry J. Siegel. 2002. Introduction to Criminal Justice. 9 th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Shaw, Clifford and Henry D. McKay. [1942] 1969. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sherman, Lawrence W. 1978. Scandal and Reform. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sherman, Lawrence W., Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. 1989. Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place. Criminology 27:27-55. Skogan, Wesley and Kathleen Frydl. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Skogan, Wesley and Susan M. Hartnett. 1997. Community Policing, Chicago Style. New York: Oxford University Press. Skolnick, Jerome. 1966/1994. Justice without Trial. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sloan, Ron, Robert Trojanowicz, and Bonnie Bucqueroux. 1992. Basic Issues in Training: A Foundation for Community Policing: Making the Transition to Mission-Driven Training. The Community Policing Series. Flint, MI: National Center for Community Policing. Sparrow, M.K., M.H. Moore, and D.M. Kennedy. 1990. Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. New York, NY: John Wiley. Spelman, William. 1993. Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime? Journal of Criminal Justice. 21:481-495.

PAGE 173

161 Spelman, William, and Dale K. Brown. 1981. Calling the Police: Citizen Reporting of Serious Crime. Police Executive Research Forum. Washington DC. Sutherland, Edwin. 1947. Principles of Criminology. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. Swanson, Charles R., Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor. 1998. Police Administration: Structures, Processes, and Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Trautman, Neal E. 1986. Law Enforcement Training: a comprehensive guide for the development of effective law enforcement training programs. Springfield, IL: Trojanowicz, Robert C. 1982. An Evaluation of Neighborhood Foot Patrol Experiments in Flint, Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Trojanowicz, Robert C. and Dennis W. Banas. 1985. Job Satisfaction: A Comparison of Foot Patrol versus Motor Patrol Officers. East Lansing, Mich.: National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice. Trojanowicz, Robert and Joanne Belknap. 1986. Community Policing: Training Issues. The National Center for Community Policing. The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center: Michigan State University. Trojanowicz, Robert C. and Bonnie Bucqueroux. 1990. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati: Anderson. Uchida, Craig D. 1993. The Development of the American Police: An Historical Overview. In R. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds.) Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Van Maanen, John. 1973. Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization. 32: 407-418. Van Maanen, John. 1974. Working the Street: A Developmental View of Police Behavior. In Policing: A View From The Street, edited by Peter K. Manning and John Van Maanen. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc. Van Maanen, John. 1975. Police Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police Department. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (June): 207-228. Van Maanen, John. 1978. The Asshole. In The Police and Society, edited by Victor Kappeler. Illinois: Waveland Press. Walker, Samuel. 1977. A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of Professionalism. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.

PAGE 174

162 Walker, Samuel. 1999. Police in America: An Introduction. 3 rd ed. Boston: McGrawHill. Walker, Samuel and Charles Katz. 2005. The Police in America: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Warr, Mark. 1998. Life Course Transitions and Desistance from Crime. Criminology 36: 183-216. Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford. 1991. The Influence of Delinquent Peers: What They Think or What They Do? Criminology 29 (4): 851-866. Westley, William A. 1970. Violence and the Police: A Sociological Study of Law, Custom, and Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilson, James Q. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior. MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. 1982. Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly 249 (3): 29-38. Winfree, L. Thomas, Jr., Gregory M. Bartku, and George Seibel. 1996. Support for Community Policing versus Traditional Policing among Non-Metropolitan Police Officers: A Survey of Four New Mexico Police Departments. American Journal of Police 15: 23-50. Worden, Robert E. 1990. A Badge and a Baccalaureate: Policies, Hypotheses, and Further Evidence. Justice Quarterly 7: 565-592. Wycoff, Mary Ann and Wesley G. Skogan. 1994. The Effects of a Community Policing Management Style on Officers Attitudes. Crime and Delinquency 40: 371-383. Yates, D.L. and V.K. Pillai. 1996. Attitudes Toward Community Policing: A Causal Analysis. Social Science Journal 33: 193-209. Zhao, Jihong and Quint C. Thurman. 1995. Community-oriented Policing Across the U.S.: Facilitators and Impediments to Implementation. American Journal of Police 14 (1): 11-28.

PAGE 175

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allison Taylor Chappell received her Bachelor of Science degree from East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina in 1998. She enrolled in the Master of Arts program at the University of Florida in Sociology in 1999. After receiving her Masters degree in August 2001, she continued to study at the University of Florida in pursuit of her doctoral degree in Sociology. Her main areas of interests are criminology (specifically, policing and social control). Allison has accepted a position in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 163


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101123_AAAADJ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T19:22:46Z PACKAGE UFE0011615_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7986 DFID F20101123_AACDSH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chappell_a_Page_039thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
60693ef4a167ad9838adfbc2a8e4dfd8
SHA-1
9caf28e3b9439238eece354edcd38f20f0161f52
29919 F20101123_AACDRT chappell_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
5c7c333567c261855cf4be754a5e161a
f36b491f4393185a42b4930ebf67b4e4f53a663f
127877 F20101123_AACCPF chappell_a_Page_009.jpg
7da2cf10986440ed0c96c4f1a3ff575c
b3fd5b39e96ca8414ee01372d5b7528a2b788f7a
1053954 F20101123_AACCOR chappell_a_Page_065.tif
d4e02505225f5f4ca275c0575b035ef9
c1057b17002e55aff37654a5a91c8e4b8d5fea18
33116 F20101123_AACDSI chappell_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
5a5111fdba1f88ccae63191ef32a3920
10a23dd2b95b09538a472f73d16cbaecf0e0a0db
8126 F20101123_AACDRU chappell_a_Page_032thm.jpg
c18b23ee06db7e8227bf2272e4a1b281
beda611c9519f805c37bb956c4343890d1384817
27390 F20101123_AACCPG chappell_a_Page_010.jpg
f6d4c73c39862cf8d6579d9ace222cf5
12c7b1b5df0c9c4e1a2a9f5faa7b3853b6e49064
8086 F20101123_AACCOS chappell_a_Page_043thm.jpg
1ef48c303452433f9e93b049ad0944fa
88a968f21086b0a619ef09aef4a45706ac3ff22d
8265 F20101123_AACDSJ chappell_a_Page_041thm.jpg
7a7450e6de780128f9b402d321aa1d0c
bd6114e6292d330305c44dd69efececc80784f1e
78718 F20101123_AACCPH chappell_a_Page_011.jpg
9490cc8ed6e75caebe626b66cf78377a
c411a53abb2b047a6cd93861d0f44691f84a92c7
32898 F20101123_AACDSK chappell_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
a6e011e10df8b93dbe57b4b941e70d85
d51b798630ac9ad1722705ce9fd0fc1f13ae5eb0
33664 F20101123_AACDRV chappell_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
10653774e2ed5c524abcea44b2d1d0f9
2c555b3d7e7da14b32e4ea030e22dc2a3152f85a
79672 F20101123_AACCPI chappell_a_Page_012.jpg
31935ee2e40e0e8091e45e647941f750
de1a3abf9f89987d857b6a9a0a1e70186caec6a8
102623 F20101123_AACCOT chappell_a_Page_081.jpg
c900b98da0749637ed07602a0799d488
9d3e8e93603d55be1977b4c952bdbfcf1ee10a82
8207 F20101123_AACDSL chappell_a_Page_042thm.jpg
521038016b7b7ec47fdc8f7535c1775b
6fc7ad9cee2ce62d4cf53bce2e26871258236bdb
8235 F20101123_AACDRW chappell_a_Page_033thm.jpg
ee9c7838c5f7e262a9f46f2cc3d02b31
ce2e5ed2dbe4b0e98461f0dcd440643c63378bed
88471 F20101123_AACCPJ chappell_a_Page_013.jpg
ddbbd912fd2c4153299ea81256a76d9b
50d42128e7a6753c993cac325e987008f58b2467
1830 F20101123_AACCOU chappell_a_Page_083.txt
904b1a55aee846541563b77e05569fe5
d5736031ada0486636dc9e7d08d33d01a988eb90
8541 F20101123_AACDTA chappell_a_Page_051thm.jpg
055ebc1e2852143ab14c25ea693c1111
fb97531b512c765574aafac8715662a2e6a0980f
34495 F20101123_AACDSM chappell_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
77600f2909b15ff99793589495e83ad5
83c69a003b6857b7ce000376bdd9bdb27ac86f6c
33175 F20101123_AACDRX chappell_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
a59bc1a3c724761f4b90895f0e633a5b
274a3828341f50f2961e2ab7c991066c445a4673
103165 F20101123_AACCPK chappell_a_Page_014.jpg
59d256b6f300a34b8e9f3710901a5e61
472887ea90912b70ec40f2ca1fad303eb8943163
8259 F20101123_AACCOV chappell_a_Page_038thm.jpg
d1b8bcad82a5a53cdf230df8dfcde9a3
8a71645f45d90608106f54fc1fc3676727ccf251
1756 F20101123_AACDTB chappell_a_Page_052thm.jpg
d002396cb6c87891bdc7e2e0ff373f7d
c6f1a1a164de4cb3696566923c8c8d650ad52b34
34105 F20101123_AACDSN chappell_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
8f50c3c4e9ae180a026bc20ee77a6929
8caca3718cdd4b8d4b98b733140b62e1b5537a17
7875 F20101123_AACDRY chappell_a_Page_034thm.jpg
6cdd08cd4eea99807cf0a0fd8c9d564b
05f587109e0b336f33ed5aa11238c5cb0fc9b95d
102610 F20101123_AACCPL chappell_a_Page_016.jpg
764c0a1a7fead1b7edf7cf4f28bfb433
2ba7e11865fec29e62ecd2b169092db3e1330e82
100790 F20101123_AACCOW chappell_a_Page_036.jpg
e32f725c0a54eb055675720111143549
30f666b58f96b717257caea4670bd78ccdba98a0
6425 F20101123_AACDTC chappell_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
f1be819f9b43eeeb22e803ea1c8afe33
e0c151b65ab4fa97355f88160e95236110d9ec93
8028 F20101123_AACDSO chappell_a_Page_044thm.jpg
0b85df42b0cb1a723386ad6f91b3b57a
58c6d79360c48cb0f3dc58226e9a59c6f2c9390c
33036 F20101123_AACDRZ chappell_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
82b1ee8bd939ba9b0568910e1db8b281
59ce1bca88b3fbf690739fc8a161f2dbd103bffd
101556 F20101123_AACCPM chappell_a_Page_019.jpg
b72a75e0df5f07e995c8a315aaf9c371
e604f7188be43659d2ea4d62886962a7cf4dd959
112161 F20101123_AACCOX chappell_a_Page_027.jp2
98ee7e0652afee5305b586ed4e60ba64
857237bef44bb03ed335b3997c987731329d56d5
98954 F20101123_AACCQA chappell_a_Page_034.jpg
842810657012ca6c0f8f517e51a6278d
958d13d34f9d0a98690f5b60287b0e434328513b
7390 F20101123_AACDTD chappell_a_Page_053thm.jpg
d0da7fd86d1c3739953afadb4f57be04
2dad8397095a808f8c58fb1a53ea65c042c59fb0
33213 F20101123_AACDSP chappell_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
8c65559d5ea339863b0c35195f43a988
cb8936544e6284e1062abedea477d222fc2e0fad
93327 F20101123_AACCPN chappell_a_Page_020.jpg
043d65dce0f5db99200d6968cda2aebd
2b24b0fa4af692e973a7ff0edc2ba77c0020c945
263379 F20101123_AACCOY UFE0011615_00001.xml FULL
c253a5d32b30c7f029ef91911f5e42e0
c997f1eeefc4e004e0c0f8b64f699f97fbe0ebae
100876 F20101123_AACCQB chappell_a_Page_035.jpg
5a0df344c43c6f293591af05140c4790
5cc909af86aab0da8fab18b8f535fd454b6789be
8057 F20101123_AACDTE chappell_a_Page_054thm.jpg
c6dcef1173cf6bdff1f7f87db1f34adc
3591629e4b92eaaaa5aafd998a19498084e77076
8277 F20101123_AACDSQ chappell_a_Page_045thm.jpg
ebe70d9205b6becf256d4eb815574588
5d38ef95bba1fa709f868e3c84c72f3299b9ac79
100716 F20101123_AACCPO chappell_a_Page_021.jpg
afb1cf9f1e8e3c17c8a2f0c2934146fb
fe1f0be5b3dd91664f0a3332d4cf95c6233e638a
85576 F20101123_AACCQC chappell_a_Page_037.jpg
65601a5cd5a3e1adf340ab73d0dd500b
49fc5edfb258507ba22277cb9c52b6c95974527a
31154 F20101123_AACDTF chappell_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
984a3fab87b3a08db4ff6b33fdfeca15
db199afbb472d714abf0a50486337f62604759ab
33709 F20101123_AACDSR chappell_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
6a1956f3ff7adffdde43a8f6907b0411
ca072db7d59f01f6e790b81128a1bb87db7166ab
97288 F20101123_AACCPP chappell_a_Page_022.jpg
64caf80690fb9a0905da1cf207165757
22eb1186edc791395664060b391512d4a22987a8
102634 F20101123_AACCQD chappell_a_Page_038.jpg
d27634889a2b2226959b2859c6cb99ae
cc2f2c6cc087ff08282db764da1e15d2e82dc3eb
8119 F20101123_AACDTG chappell_a_Page_055thm.jpg
fc981397b2c7691ed4f74cd02784f20f
02cd590c5a889b0a3fa81ecc8284799745744fc5
8315 F20101123_AACDSS chappell_a_Page_046thm.jpg
c04dbe15277a6e021e2acffa0d6f540c
82ae307b4eb855ea565d8757345d281adc0556d7
103212 F20101123_AACCPQ chappell_a_Page_023.jpg
ec1191136b16763b7b5e78dd4e8175ce
95ca399906a0cdb8e91107ab6f5712cbf4b15a18
100889 F20101123_AACCQE chappell_a_Page_039.jpg
742e5c700165a81c36f2b8acb2c574dd
c04b72255ecebfcf641a1c4ec102029beba7923e
32647 F20101123_AACDTH chappell_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
f60e5914f27c7d57fe32cb11e655d2e2
99420cc5aae09fe9fc4d56d54bb5cf8755759a85
34402 F20101123_AACDST chappell_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
c7250952aa40430ff72723bacfadc964
c904bed12eeaab06b68fea03c11f85a7208d2449
37650 F20101123_AACCPR chappell_a_Page_024.jpg
0a3c58d6c308c4698735ec8a863e1311
6c131e6a4fa37bd84525eb08f9a8559431315f51
99657 F20101123_AACCQF chappell_a_Page_040.jpg
ead89766da4d69ed2019c5a16c98410f
bde82311ff418fbcdffed885c5be7344d582451d
8055 F20101123_AACDTI chappell_a_Page_056thm.jpg
5ac3db6a1786870c46b83c873d2f968c
f3ab8f40f0a4d4ad6d387217085d200dbd5c4903
F20101123_AACDSU chappell_a_Page_047thm.jpg
b93a01bf0e26562d8a764022d203e536
8c4ea9a6a4059f7e14214a28817cc36041dae8de
90470 F20101123_AACCPS chappell_a_Page_025.jpg
4903292684667885640d3f12d45ddc38
28a62a7d75192321ec6251dc8987b133426f5871
107050 F20101123_AACCQG chappell_a_Page_042.jpg
3c8e4573ca23f4b75bd80c2c760f2dac
e2882a738046e068bf72a2719e700a25096f160a
30806 F20101123_AACDTJ chappell_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
900b84f5415e7b34783e32fd0958f0eb
70650642d92fd9a0719605df9e8291d308cdccf6
8188 F20101123_AACDSV chappell_a_Page_048thm.jpg
683c436322a0b5d07361e6b1a48dbca1
f35df0d4c47f96ed5a191038ecd2512ec736757e
101987 F20101123_AACCPT chappell_a_Page_026.jpg
6ddc136b73a06a68a42c80c00ebb21d6
ab07668e342a51a13b3ca5bd3697276d8d447907
103567 F20101123_AACCQH chappell_a_Page_043.jpg
ac4b9d52211a7497e8e8f0f8fed50d7b
d81a2570fb2e6ca66659e5277e33c381b68ff6d4
7813 F20101123_AACDTK chappell_a_Page_057thm.jpg
8c436fb229446f551b3aa8446ff3d30d
192cc13d03476e20c91f7a3278a6fbaf4391d8e7
100182 F20101123_AACCQI chappell_a_Page_044.jpg
3000f599c582e5b45784fac163e398e9
94e15e58bf3cb88496c1163e98e7429915f3ab6a
30402 F20101123_AACDTL chappell_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
539aba6c5e060ff748e7e11ffe0ea98b
f347388dd69eeb640b70debc946fd28edd8323f1
31646 F20101123_AACDSW chappell_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
a8973d2d6f0f5e683fb0c4949d06cbd0
7f2dea9e494e090fd4d3dfecb2fa15cde8183495
104367 F20101123_AACCPU chappell_a_Page_027.jpg
c7086f07187aca77b51fea7bef962fdf
022dc61e9d536765ddbe90daba30c14613abeb41
103606 F20101123_AACCQJ chappell_a_Page_045.jpg
f67a7568b65da8b733050ce7f95ebfc5
425e4c216528cb1def2200e35ea972949c76d769
34470 F20101123_AACDUA chappell_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
bd65d44bfc84d06f3296e42ac391dce1
6241fc8c41400d569803fe9c971a5efbdff90346
8062 F20101123_AACDTM chappell_a_Page_058thm.jpg
1242a68046a9f67f18e60c9914372793
028ff2346e530fcb14b05cf08880b755eafd0295
8280 F20101123_AACDSX chappell_a_Page_049thm.jpg
c14062895d4b713ad0e08907597be317
e16f5359e0765d2a099c579144d8e2c067c7d614
103260 F20101123_AACCPV chappell_a_Page_028.jpg
5ee7381c5430de25f208eef208c71580
df80aeda6b99c921f32dc4d6c293f2b50fcfa7d1
104781 F20101123_AACCQK chappell_a_Page_046.jpg
b9ea7eb86351b54fab4d8e2604a15daf
7f51091cca57a56f5767c2e5c6376b6133728a27
8304 F20101123_AACDUB chappell_a_Page_066thm.jpg
a4dcb12e3d65037ae90f98340edc8959
04f1ce55f96b2b6d364bf4abb04ab89a3c74faf8
32087 F20101123_AACDTN chappell_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
0b458a4bde48c84d0a3d58a0bb0c60e3
d93721d8b5718eaf2366a734a67b6feb90a0a83b
8503 F20101123_AACDSY chappell_a_Page_050thm.jpg
63c4ffbeab3819f7ebcd4d2001cfb2a7
ac9c6255ba93ad38fd18d879c102124cea9a344c
98236 F20101123_AACCPW chappell_a_Page_029.jpg
7a06cfc0b9ea1c9810b43bd405a3a91f
5fab8d8081be83ebac29ba86a4697c9ccbbbf974
94812 F20101123_AACCQL chappell_a_Page_048.jpg
2a6d9b5896029166ef6b087859d45e2f
47ce9152dfabcc4d6e1a2a5db2d21d24bf1307e1
32719 F20101123_AACDUC chappell_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
15cd4ed63abb2e9bce7849cf2d77485e
e58af8747d9c8c311716fd67b5586e8d3c3d6b86
8099 F20101123_AACDTO chappell_a_Page_059thm.jpg
fb399bed9a1fda05f345c88096110ec7
1403ec9b8ec86e1ca384a0bba374b0460c6c3fae
34248 F20101123_AACDSZ chappell_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
18283248cfbc3264c5fe3ccb09920f61
ddbd30995da1aeaec3cf8ea5ef1227f2c9c5a9d8
94098 F20101123_AACCPX chappell_a_Page_031.jpg
a1ce815b144be85570963ce68a95ca32
d4261fe8215719f84d84687203a1200908fd18e0
105186 F20101123_AACCRA chappell_a_Page_065.jpg
5fc9a2ad7456c37369e3ddd9c0a77398
d7faafb74068a053ae2720622bdd99120f6e73dc
105310 F20101123_AACCQM chappell_a_Page_050.jpg
8f124534449b99f68d020668729e1ebd
3eab51f35eeef80a275a9bcf21351ddbf0a8d108
8364 F20101123_AACDUD chappell_a_Page_067thm.jpg
7ef80fe7b607068308b59e7e68f9d6cb
86a95409bf4ed4dc7889671d02ee630d98d1397e
31349 F20101123_AACDTP chappell_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
1a28133d3ddb3ae5c368365679c66ad7
ec2b0a9a1f36dafd185f86f95f3fb4d7068aa206
102596 F20101123_AACCPY chappell_a_Page_032.jpg
0a000986ddbbfca7fd173b2e10d55f77
9d0af112ace6107a2932dc1242ac59be393e8352
100055 F20101123_AACCRB chappell_a_Page_066.jpg
67e39ccc9f4aeeeb009cf6f2fdfc6dd3
c8ed4524518c83c582a8e4a486fa2b0b53ce2048
101875 F20101123_AACCQN chappell_a_Page_051.jpg
281719f1b4288924960a07772ca008fb
fdb87379665b5e8233e311a1dcef0602f4d4a821
5864 F20101123_AACDUE chappell_a_Page_068thm.jpg
7216c5e3479adc638a33c706f7715d00
5924fefc9f3de8921635e86973fc21ac9429a525
8161 F20101123_AACDTQ chappell_a_Page_060thm.jpg
d63502511a82f0893e1df437ca5e5ae3
327ef2759beb4bff8acab484c445eac75c68a613
100853 F20101123_AACCPZ chappell_a_Page_033.jpg
4f54a07bcd11b401e114f68940ffda84
b8372b47a8f4157190922fcc04211a6b3ceca782
72233 F20101123_AACCRC chappell_a_Page_068.jpg
c2c5d29e71af16b0acbbbe54189aa1a5
05e22c26b38f6ad936c40ce09e8cf1c266c3c9fe
18829 F20101123_AACCQO chappell_a_Page_052.jpg
c525f7fc6833a937fa9692d0bbf80f9c
f78eb9816ec721ffc6c5b79f97593e2dd0eb4e97
29792 F20101123_AACEAA chappell_a_Page_164.QC.jpg
f8326aad1fed9ff8570727a468ca3f79
8d7040d34164d49ca9f5fb61a30ee2a92701f5ce
6673 F20101123_AACDUF chappell_a_Page_069thm.jpg
144dd6648592350868c3bcc6fc78db43
58e16d54198fd7b3bedbeb75c9b5beb5593c5ee4
32578 F20101123_AACDTR chappell_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
ac7da0e04c64297301fed409f2cefe07
860f9b57c66fa5da3e3b20dad02f8ceb7df1c07f
81627 F20101123_AACCRD chappell_a_Page_069.jpg
2af55de61424aefa3df0329260c61517
cc7a5df2c860df17669e050ff584d39db32159ca
88284 F20101123_AACCQP chappell_a_Page_053.jpg
b736ee3f73b2c5bf27bc942972cc3e73
7b685d876b87dc54b6498edb70af4097a9dd65c2
8826 F20101123_AACEAB chappell_a_Page_165thm.jpg
c6d8534748fc42b5436fa61bd1db70d5
53381a8e0f5ffb50804d20fd0a363bf340893364
26709 F20101123_AACDUG chappell_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
b2d575da3fd3b2a7a4d56e7c32374d42
7ed73d4fc750434cf476b1f3b9baaebff381b981
8507 F20101123_AACDTS chappell_a_Page_061thm.jpg
bdba57075a04687a14356e5c88240529
2b2e15b087795559068df767d3225c521e940d8f
100778 F20101123_AACCRE chappell_a_Page_070.jpg
fc1703f17bbb086da3cd5a5071c64ab5
479060d5cd74030e8026dde682c04c6592824198
100842 F20101123_AACCQQ chappell_a_Page_055.jpg
ece3a70e5a6c9fb0cd02a7645e7beac9
593bda43482dc9435cc959f9e2045ba00bbdcc43
36168 F20101123_AACEAC chappell_a_Page_165.QC.jpg
99b21568aaebde5fdb78947ed49e43ac
000547d804bc14381566cea10bdcba0644b49244
7859 F20101123_AACDUH chappell_a_Page_071thm.jpg
5593291e8d5b43416ebcf036200d509d
4a92a89d6df71da82f2c9d291fb3f6152c36931a
34489 F20101123_AACDTT chappell_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
f0747d2a125e2b6ddf6a0351830e85b1
66211086d76d51fcee01f09f3b3addff6fe6df66
97270 F20101123_AACCRF chappell_a_Page_072.jpg
46750463bfec54fd0e61733be1e36537
c27507c458355c69246809ef364373319ec287ee
97187 F20101123_AACCQR chappell_a_Page_056.jpg
81cdbb139987723dba2b8d5ac775d971
5fbbb060217b8f7eabeb44ed1ace55356eb1dc2f
30869 F20101123_AACDUI chappell_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
73a19c63c5a9cc23dbb5730859d954d1
9bf472917f50f990c3db24689808339932114599
8131 F20101123_AACDTU chappell_a_Page_062thm.jpg
190138d947b7656028117e34124a7df4
b425a30df08170de3c493076426753d61943df2a
105946 F20101123_AACCRG chappell_a_Page_073.jpg
83d2e7bce6af08f103b3c68aeac64796
016f6b9581956557971e0938b5f6270a1892b8ea
93784 F20101123_AACCQS chappell_a_Page_057.jpg
0b40c338def3065de3fb4208e9cbf992
6f60c284141cce7383ad6115a63f201d2bd9dd91
34552 F20101123_AACEAD chappell_a_Page_166.QC.jpg
b4269a6b125ce88010815ae81a92ce39
77366a52020c9bb69c35cb191e1bed793d639df4
31925 F20101123_AACDUJ chappell_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
15e60b18970ac31427e30ce1dd738ab9
5a35990c3d9e4555aedebe4c1a337e96475206b1
32368 F20101123_AACDTV chappell_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
13920a7af5d05cbc88eebfc68fd491dd
ac84fc9ee5ad8159f8bddf7a5e4ec663eb50c89f
92542 F20101123_AACCRH chappell_a_Page_075.jpg
2fd8df079ab8258cc34c757a47951cec
c84aac72ac444dd09c688e4d72545a0077ec9f9d
100013 F20101123_AACCQT chappell_a_Page_058.jpg
2ae8fffba3db0429e8223f974ebea2fc
8daa1aaf15e36a2ad4212be39328d59a20163210
8941 F20101123_AACEAE chappell_a_Page_167thm.jpg
36701190fcf12112d685ab9ecd45d349
de6504576fb2da4b19a2fd03942d34213982fe50
8664 F20101123_AACDUK chappell_a_Page_073thm.jpg
290c4c287980a63d10f3cd5e03e2d200
1e28c281c5ed326ed3712b25f5ae7ed42937b0cf
31864 F20101123_AACDTW chappell_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
a91831c2015f9270ded2a7e499c3558b
9e17f16dcc4df6e7db0e92fd636251587f33454d
98948 F20101123_AACCRI chappell_a_Page_076.jpg
6df42c038c1c2fb1880245852d8fe3ec
3b7cfa71e19be6f755c05981846ed92d789565ba
98753 F20101123_AACCQU chappell_a_Page_059.jpg
939ecb0f72e18fabd273e178ff0682ba
51aa4b7c11884d27d66f29bd2f9e85a7b8b596b5
36057 F20101123_AACEAF chappell_a_Page_167.QC.jpg
1ecaaaee8e86378bde69c55a816e784b
4365f7c6f171e532392f5acfbb31dcad044651b0
34240 F20101123_AACDUL chappell_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
7bfe414d42189af85b38c9f669e6c428
81ac1ab0ade9b3e46b9e4f5e1ba9f79be646a3b5
56093 F20101123_AACCRJ chappell_a_Page_078.jpg
2d7e314bd0ecdcfb6cfa6054f710fcb9
682abb38a4dfb17e5cc5af539c383f11003855fa
8513 F20101123_AACEAG chappell_a_Page_168thm.jpg
0c4b879308a3d3783d94a3d8d7f9e4cf
ad6a2dd3d9511e7390f76b11faadac9f77c7aff9
8004 F20101123_AACDVA chappell_a_Page_083thm.jpg
f5a13ad991092971fa649e0a790756bd
73643369226a24180d39335ed543513da47e1a32
31776 F20101123_AACDUM chappell_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
cfa9f5b6367cd93d85576e945235490e
9302984374c237cf3ffa74b12815f477101bf182
8185 F20101123_AACDTX chappell_a_Page_064thm.jpg
590918c8abfd3481bc14a8e422b0ae37
37ab1c25788433fc44fdb95ca747589a92c72906
98776 F20101123_AACCRK chappell_a_Page_080.jpg
2091de10a643827bd5ca25078adc75e8
2caac46279a08816617cf5c2b46907322e306578
100018 F20101123_AACCQV chappell_a_Page_060.jpg
6cf183d79112fa53bf46857543123a44
78044477035b3f2518e0ec6aa1a62c5aad205419
33260 F20101123_AACEAH chappell_a_Page_168.QC.jpg
6a28484283d7e87094870f935817922c
8719f6b57ccc1a58c94baacf4be5cd449d1e4687
30492 F20101123_AACDVB chappell_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
fb3eb9ccfbb3f169168e64e2a7f9293f
cb2decff12f05bbe2bd73a834ab8462efb0be6bf
7632 F20101123_AACDUN chappell_a_Page_075thm.jpg
8823d57ddb6035e5dea7d8d95a26e8b7
9bad2ac10ed591d09bc6e0391eb57850d6c668ea
31578 F20101123_AACDTY chappell_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
de31c9a62ef8329709240b07b4fe2725
744f4060028316277fd3feaefdd331f987a7254a
99908 F20101123_AACCRL chappell_a_Page_082.jpg
0ce22fda5ff45b6bd1404210eb9154f1
280198e814fc5f84583e6825ffb45998dbf85631
106895 F20101123_AACCQW chappell_a_Page_061.jpg
e104ccb8ebafde98b1bed758f49739da
fdbb8a5e4e7fa0333f75cf15420b689e5a0f48e9
8699 F20101123_AACEAI chappell_a_Page_169thm.jpg
885e7b039061c8e1513ed85406813e4b
80366676c937ccec4d5680101b64b88c43831837
7782 F20101123_AACDVC chappell_a_Page_084thm.jpg
a67b2f1bedb94d5a0929623d4d75193f
8a11542f0c022d3c632b2840c9bf25412488e7e4
8089 F20101123_AACDUO chappell_a_Page_076thm.jpg
f0875519e034460ae7aa7866f5f183af
9369d771b96d00226968f20a9831639c57eb5924
8272 F20101123_AACDTZ chappell_a_Page_065thm.jpg
584019384b87b4577af348d938da323d
e55ff5f6bf681f217b2f0619725de196def296d2
102720 F20101123_AACCSA chappell_a_Page_100.jpg
702ec5c18bffe1e22a871714fe158035
ae9205bb868030cb116564d8cff27e7abda49aa1
94823 F20101123_AACCRM chappell_a_Page_083.jpg
183bcb4d34e2d9415db411ae99b95065
3961e0b30419c28ea7315e62ff36b8ece1808587
100199 F20101123_AACCQX chappell_a_Page_062.jpg
1b233d35973b037afdc48cf76f973d1f
9575b977d8f5a46e22d60fc4f8c6056b1c3c76a8
34909 F20101123_AACEAJ chappell_a_Page_169.QC.jpg
f0eb969d41260873961d696a11d8b5a2
70269054f3c932696b4f3ffd2b8da604a891ee91
7960 F20101123_AACDVD chappell_a_Page_085thm.jpg
c7d2a730ff7827bc244aadc68c9ba065
d52ba497baca3128497cfecdc2eb9fdcde800c51
31781 F20101123_AACDUP chappell_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
befbf4ea2ea66ce68512c9de200bef4b
df979a5289a540fd4cacf2db120a7ceb9be320a5
97957 F20101123_AACCSB chappell_a_Page_101.jpg
fb1c0096fcc9e1ceaef629b0e8e14157
40b2441d29d345919ddfc8f878063e550c68f40b
87839 F20101123_AACCRN chappell_a_Page_084.jpg
c173a064ac83e3b897ecf5f72a0521a0
00b7bc0d1decba6b03db1940f228e6737736b101
99036 F20101123_AACCQY chappell_a_Page_063.jpg
9f8d7e47bcb49fd5212ce3cf9cab12a7
e7878620157011e144a4a8338209cc0de379bb7e
8472 F20101123_AACEAK chappell_a_Page_170thm.jpg
9606e7192587af3fd92ba2fc36849e39
5da2cc0c28a61de6146105b54d4956b063db199b
31082 F20101123_AACDVE chappell_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
c2fe61578d71236e0c77a6b531617a25
269f0db410db06c3488a8592f83b1d112477fc99
8214 F20101123_AACDUQ chappell_a_Page_077thm.jpg
6a293f2108a5f6f9f9bcc1df8a2c9f08
55db816089f282965b3c2e09137d0a6a3dcdcca4
96399 F20101123_AACCSC chappell_a_Page_103.jpg
12488d73eb2d7bfab75e01c09900ffc8
369cbacb87ac38d6fa6cdf3a45b3d232afdfa453
95666 F20101123_AACCRO chappell_a_Page_085.jpg
8ecb5f066dc54f0424f278a27bebbbff
cf0a20154fe0812c772279b342706a4fd157d134
97551 F20101123_AACCQZ chappell_a_Page_064.jpg
8b1ea536130260af4c71a4c51059feb9
2ed9ad5d98b0e5ecdc641cec46eb8c9dcbc4cfe9
33325 F20101123_AACEAL chappell_a_Page_170.QC.jpg
5e7d75373a6b0d991d4b4cf0d04040f2
16040209f4ca17706b813447ff279b173fffa397
3748 F20101123_AACDVF chappell_a_Page_086thm.jpg
dca315b6de150e8598cbd3ba4f259dde
b1558ec635658374d16430b5e7ed77af92d4b97c
32678 F20101123_AACDUR chappell_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
16feab18fe70b11270a02ff594749567
10a8d055fda63faad08bc1ab7eb2eb23f5347a59
F20101123_AACCSD chappell_a_Page_104.jpg
fde2f9fb4d2b9df7a89c035b2ca5c90f
5d9e14816d029ef7b6088223c8df97c33382ed6d
42220 F20101123_AACCRP chappell_a_Page_086.jpg
9c4a68f714366c074a08b9d2b6d2fa9c
43e5829d9ab69a641ab1c9e6f572023a18d8e254
8749 F20101123_AACEAM chappell_a_Page_171thm.jpg
b3e55f173978309071f51089bcbcbe83
800a07280ef8afee1774df3236e229e2a39e553a
13583 F20101123_AACDVG chappell_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
842c1bc0d3e7eea186cd9c19c30fd643
03df31fb4df86025208b629a4a1f555fb738b03a
18815 F20101123_AACDUS chappell_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
78f6126672bfa8c5e5819b480315f6e1
537e6142cdd104b82b1e13dfd73895536bd9c324
102295 F20101123_AACCSE chappell_a_Page_105.jpg
9008f5e6b81898e188593d84386f79e2
a0e6929c225d422433a191b0ad295be169310e73
78674 F20101123_AACCRQ chappell_a_Page_087.jpg
3c47e72c051667ed57e9711c05ffe5f5
7b8cdf1c4342b43fe3ce1f751d8f0795db157744
34865 F20101123_AACEAN chappell_a_Page_171.QC.jpg
e50aaa1bc4f9fb2993980267acb29dc3
f508c9015c5cc573498e62c1b3c037ebd398a8bc
6609 F20101123_AACDVH chappell_a_Page_087thm.jpg
83ff9f98ab528e7de82e324b70bbd6e7
f38d0848c03fedebe7b4ae8d070fc3f80faa62a4
6464 F20101123_AACDUT chappell_a_Page_079thm.jpg
8a448c71bfd18fa1967caacc15d0bd6e
00ee37de624536c412b6dd7a784d78758dcb8833
95517 F20101123_AACCRR chappell_a_Page_088.jpg
33c05c59c4fbd830ac239d8c2a0fbe6c
c7260764c2bbd138717649213e2be7c574c88f50
99335 F20101123_AACCSF chappell_a_Page_106.jpg
eb459630586742ba21ff1d5a8ba98849
a8b47cf86d262296a22c2685b4320889ceb50aaf
8206 F20101123_AACEAO chappell_a_Page_172thm.jpg
df79f551de6d5ee4a95c47fbc1d7a7e2
e97cd286b1e0a6757ca22702990c51d8a9adf68a
7739 F20101123_AACDVI chappell_a_Page_088thm.jpg
d73b50cf37a0aa25bc08c93de713fd58
eb65a2e91830b9a316ea855144bf5fca56195045
26192 F20101123_AACDUU chappell_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
28e894ebc7c0107e99af37b0c3aac72f
6b6e5b54eb6c86e3318fdd487983906c6b4b00b1
94952 F20101123_AACCRS chappell_a_Page_089.jpg
ca7b9083d167b78ff686961c74da0c58
b76e597f2431e0d7d9ee751e8335a0718d41af86
103777 F20101123_AACCSG chappell_a_Page_107.jpg
1c62486bb4c4232dbc385e5cab887b74
2fee765b0a6050539ab50434105f75c3a8ddbc22
32315 F20101123_AACEAP chappell_a_Page_172.QC.jpg
0d721c4cefa48f53e953c84736587bc4
5f528f16031f92266ee656314c9a14e98e9caa13
31433 F20101123_AACDVJ chappell_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
bb032cff0cf294bd3e451c28aac64608
eeff5e345b58d729e218a7a850b06b3fc5ed679a
8118 F20101123_AACDUV chappell_a_Page_080thm.jpg
ecee4c0ad56c666b805b0173f6ff57e8
cd97481f3495401ef617e6ce91871cb78688feae
95631 F20101123_AACCRT chappell_a_Page_090.jpg
0da476804dafce07fc8570a17ee575a6
cdbb915082cb6dca2621eb39c342ff9dd70bbdb1
102141 F20101123_AACCSH chappell_a_Page_109.jpg
f72e52cfb0679145f2a8fc3d7f072742
96ee9f49912c20d7a9dee06c71603ed7c39e65c6
8563 F20101123_AACEAQ chappell_a_Page_173thm.jpg
e35f12ba67566d59960b1ddbc9c83204
fb385f5380452d2454afcd77a41536336993452e
7669 F20101123_AACDVK chappell_a_Page_089thm.jpg
8b99a0803310deb6cc20f19b151037fa
bace5d1d0373b0d11f5efd82b936444959c94a60
31615 F20101123_AACDUW chappell_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
9db062844f912a74e7b6149e7d34f757
8be9bdd2c0286b53347f5fbd57cf59d71072ef67
103577 F20101123_AACCRU chappell_a_Page_091.jpg
49f878855a5393eaa40498ec2962f5b0
082103d96a02e3be8fadb04e03e51f405da8322f
101029 F20101123_AACCSI chappell_a_Page_110.jpg
f20d877a403529f60c87f58610726d32
ff1b11273ef1c6d3a14865f48b5da6033dccb4bb
6888 F20101123_AACEAR chappell_a_Page_174thm.jpg
514dab3f2460c6bc7bbbdd408238258d
1ec25877a176b4b6e6072f768c0422716bfc32a2
30677 F20101123_AACDVL chappell_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
06ada015af70d1734677d6e77002c6a5
6f23fc7e5a97696ea16587d037e4598dcb71bf5b
8321 F20101123_AACDUX chappell_a_Page_081thm.jpg
4abf461522f62644d88a361ab7357b23
5ca76d784c36fb4b45708c2701e7f0680b5cbf6c
99266 F20101123_AACCRV chappell_a_Page_092.jpg
0c63319fa15a7a51182717c5c8f8cd39
38274cea8574f2c604f8afac091268f5552cdc8e
97337 F20101123_AACCSJ chappell_a_Page_111.jpg
036752db69901b8f6fe90b427f239398
b89bd5ff0a60a52c3d4afab7a95ec16caf35ddee
26696 F20101123_AACEAS chappell_a_Page_174.QC.jpg
a9a6d9b51f22031f14ee68c295e83492
a16910cfeb625c539be1b320551337eda64981b3
6917 F20101123_AACDWA chappell_a_Page_098thm.jpg
b3cb02f7b2578540c442da83a54d219d
372762fd837df06f32fd53137dd5b7df6f8be2cb
7844 F20101123_AACDVM chappell_a_Page_090thm.jpg
f3befbda0eb7b6973e39521f55e03cc3
266f40c5a7d4ce0c6b38652a1e7f3730f5773a6f
99358 F20101123_AACCSK chappell_a_Page_112.jpg
927a52af118516a61ad83b6a8366d78e
1000dad68e51e7e54c7dbbce8fd2abb65b52fd46
12047 F20101123_AACEAT chappell_a_Page_175.QC.jpg
f2e0c1e4fcb92c2ce4f81ccf96c37f81
cde3c802dcb93a14d3ebfeb6dbf0be680a4f9690
27499 F20101123_AACDWB chappell_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
c642d10b4629fdb880a1a82a0f54c255
b1a73c929901d47e1ef8ef24594b117242b47c2d
31642 F20101123_AACDVN chappell_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
1ac56343bd5a47e42f0f8746e7ee8ceb
944b4ebb0c2b2e1b7e8bc38f9be9d41a8473e5b6
33835 F20101123_AACDUY chappell_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
195b3976adee415be630170d10e39ec7
685c9ab5605d2ac3a8e3e7a5074b85ac292c7f94
98893 F20101123_AACCRW chappell_a_Page_093.jpg
a43e87203f78a3fac6796cb836adb5e1
4ef19067d9f33082b14940528f519aa5fb705ba4
97473 F20101123_AACCSL chappell_a_Page_113.jpg
74ddc37c74881a818d2a7bfde58e698f
97bc4d623f51c22e752e791d15cac2d7ba6c1771
203181 F20101123_AACEAU UFE0011615_00001.mets
1e4f586c265e55860abf16a2c1701c6b
9ffeb6fd6d82e3d24cd60a2b775a2e3d41280781
31183 F20101123_AACDWC chappell_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
a3add83c1b0e99a9d81db25b976fda19
484726f2a549d34b053d97d5e99a120fc139cbf3
8385 F20101123_AACDVO chappell_a_Page_091thm.jpg
486dd8294f08819706c1f82ac51872c2
2fdf8137d060c3112146cb1148f5316fc57837bd
32521 F20101123_AACDUZ chappell_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
7ec19e41eb6447143841525656e0a06a
b373ea217168005edd80b3274d521fe992d3de1c
12339 F20101123_AACCRX chappell_a_Page_094.jpg
27cac11a7a182cc27bbf6c871f5732a4
b8f2a6d0b00879cc8d1dbec631fa12e068771001
96574 F20101123_AACCTA chappell_a_Page_129.jpg
0010d039651656c1f1d1ee6c66e94ed5
4851981e5a97ecc4104eb2af3f86cf5d8246b65c
101426 F20101123_AACCSM chappell_a_Page_114.jpg
230955c7e6d6cfd1624039f9202f9a83
6f569a1755cc788573b3e725d473eaf726ac9df1
8430 F20101123_AACDWD chappell_a_Page_100thm.jpg
3abf71a5bfdf692023cee6c1c82383da
2d714b0c8407340c1d769bb39232c7c20e775f27
33587 F20101123_AACDVP chappell_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
5ae841d4c4eae22c6e1c8d3fa1f47ff6
9dd8332fbcf16af27173ab12cf10696f820df767
40841 F20101123_AACCRY chappell_a_Page_095.jpg
3949b47012acfda770f1bdb834f251a0
577d83e62f9a6f3cfc291d4602604cc77c983ea2
104167 F20101123_AACCTB chappell_a_Page_130.jpg
43a82047d988d31886631f3cde4af85d
88783e49a8d9282338644cec5227b5bf7bfab46f
100238 F20101123_AACCSN chappell_a_Page_115.jpg
29f6f7a535ae060c48950c87b09bb764
efbc8225b793920f5ae9a0b6c607585745a73f28
33027 F20101123_AACDWE chappell_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
ac12af2e396b128cf13c2891f33dafc9
5640cf62e078c23a05cb5846db6f217a71abe32c
7972 F20101123_AACDVQ chappell_a_Page_092thm.jpg
92980c118647388d50eb6c156d98eac2
0694e2eab9ba20557b13c4c36477acad2b367e2c
95581 F20101123_AACCRZ chappell_a_Page_099.jpg
745b9d7eec13be409577ff7e23c1c6dd
e3eaeaf5a3e52d02d126500018d76d892cdf1630
103353 F20101123_AACCTC chappell_a_Page_131.jpg
0435014835a1997124ab607ede371174
4c7b76c58b110c50ad83c358a1248b07f9d02066
102650 F20101123_AACCSO chappell_a_Page_116.jpg
20f3e70f3a9f414a31494150e13382cf
64fbdbe30666016fdf642fb0261b65504627d2b0
8436 F20101123_AACDWF chappell_a_Page_101thm.jpg
e56dbdc55183ea0bacf92282d5fc3108
6935e10cfa61816aa31759e7fd449bca1625c472
32776 F20101123_AACDVR chappell_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
6664f36540e51259174f15140ca3a4bc
3f953f21d43788f89b191155ebca24e79033414c
106773 F20101123_AACCTD chappell_a_Page_132.jpg
82292928886845b235a346042aa0d418
fbf43981bfc5484b7c25518b91bc8a5e67ed9834
117757 F20101123_AACCSP chappell_a_Page_117.jpg
731ec7899f8a8d622866ee6a072aeda9
9e75bb79ac49b0c79202a3c568087ed08101e0d7
32468 F20101123_AACDWG chappell_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
cafe553d4e713cc9672f0cefcaf4ba83
ca23222880b24e905af75a62fc0138dd2a5a8f1b
8311 F20101123_AACDVS chappell_a_Page_093thm.jpg
53ab278a439756183dd8a279ddd2a7fc
72661e32f9fd9874c13c4db4d448920493a76083
103772 F20101123_AACCTE chappell_a_Page_133.jpg
d6d524c854a8e1076baab8e5cfcdf641
35a035cc96be3a3fd99ad23cc1f8c00ff609cde4
101009 F20101123_AACCSQ chappell_a_Page_118.jpg
1db4e3c30a99ca26ad0000ae235e1f40
6e1df4f864d96e93de10ad26d122669d283aa7af
8000 F20101123_AACDWH chappell_a_Page_103thm.jpg
8dac09952a09da50e6b61b8941df32f9
2c907165d7132ab07fd3c72320da4e7cce676987
31984 F20101123_AACDVT chappell_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
3f406ba88d71a4ca6d0d7abe277ac350
59ab2fce6fc8908db181e05134df62d30f9219f1
104798 F20101123_AACCTF chappell_a_Page_134.jpg
6f711c677540ef184994e63d313fd15e
77f7ad9bc203b7722ed87519e6a7cb48393cf577
101879 F20101123_AACCSR chappell_a_Page_120.jpg
996a04a88f903506950b51f854763476
c594c27240361e62daad57db36d1e83abdf1e57b
8124 F20101123_AACDWI chappell_a_Page_104thm.jpg
e41f106066803cc8351c16c2df719d46
565cfb7a8b5b8c672596e195a7bf31c7638cc7b6
4601 F20101123_AACDVU chappell_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
cfc4b7c680581153bd9986add1bc3445
371adfaf4c916a1109cbbaef6169d7fc2d19e8ac
100140 F20101123_AACCTG chappell_a_Page_135.jpg
04dd6fd29c74077a41e3d958affea28b
4b8fa15684a168a9418a4310275134ec3e86dce8
104543 F20101123_AACCSS chappell_a_Page_121.jpg
9b9f392b56aab675fac00ae809db2036
3742aa2123694c5499f1e656f0f0d78f1c3a6b95
32204 F20101123_AACDWJ chappell_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
a3f2b31b630f6b180945940e59d567e5
6629b73a40d0c34ca8d793196f491b0b9c794650
4739 F20101123_AACDVV chappell_a_Page_095thm.jpg
969b9d1bc8e8fb1b7390665322ee2850
169ba95332190343b7db951d189ae0b5f9d8925b
103180 F20101123_AACCTH chappell_a_Page_136.jpg
aa91aaace03da8e0190cb8d36f08403c
b3b90b88cd4381cf64d65dad113ef799cdcad1a2
109639 F20101123_AACCST chappell_a_Page_122.jpg
9ea5a1ff019917d8e99cf40eaa5d95a1
f957d20ac10d477c5fb58ad50ba6b2f41055f3c1
8247 F20101123_AACDWK chappell_a_Page_105thm.jpg
c71a22e3719bc4772ca931d7f0350a5b
25ea08b2e47057f3a5f3e1f3e6342e042a3cff81
14982 F20101123_AACDVW chappell_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
1ba3bc6cbe4bc1a25408c304329dadda
303e1bf98295a7975efb9708b66197ca017838ca
100518 F20101123_AACCTI chappell_a_Page_137.jpg
1a96f4c5b051d125def4469c4dcefaa9
b1252b1d366c5d589375dc55bfb2fc1c08d01349
92337 F20101123_AACCSU chappell_a_Page_123.jpg
f428a4c55cbb6a842dd608c8105693a7
9a1a74ae617fe6812cf2fd39eeb48249a3055d46
32917 F20101123_AACDWL chappell_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
7b19d02030d9870259921e7e28893ea6
a9ac1d20514a5224940b9f04bd4ff8d5f5d1189c
4322 F20101123_AACDVX chappell_a_Page_096thm.jpg
311dc1cf205325dbb1e0697488a89543
27d8e7b2d54bb3b81310925d63394b0d6e36ae22
102819 F20101123_AACCTJ chappell_a_Page_138.jpg
3afaf788f073aa19af9a4a521776fd50
f9d3628fd6bfd96c2dee611c98fc2b4fb89724f2
99356 F20101123_AACCSV chappell_a_Page_124.jpg
4550dd25e0dabd84ed05a373ecf52af7
47439e3443831bfb287d4676939f1143350a6b39
32358 F20101123_AACDXA chappell_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
a0b93b00b3debe8f68022e2d40879b66
7a43e35d19ac1cb1da6d0647f76eb9da31d816a8
32233 F20101123_AACDWM chappell_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
b79d4051fecf3771cf14be95dc040044
24a4ef2d214b68de38a9a14fe7e144d0f3b575c3
7231 F20101123_AACDVY chappell_a_Page_097thm.jpg
9b431beefaa9eec207772c5d6bbbdf91
87100d298b0a72d0a5f9402f995a54c5801bc62e
97786 F20101123_AACCTK chappell_a_Page_139.jpg
f034a33681d5359a4c38da6bea214c63
7441a3854885bfb7ca3992a2fcb20e3d24a13501
103941 F20101123_AACCSW chappell_a_Page_125.jpg
9f51338138aa56206d9d76ed553f017d
5e916adad26dd9551db8b5ba2adb8f3a0ba4b602
32882 F20101123_AACDXB chappell_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
5867707078d83f9cca653875273732ff
713dc12872dfb3f803e7a6fb50a482a524f04dc4
33784 F20101123_AACDWN chappell_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
45a9df5a6d6e34790e2d76885d1b6959
d064b32e1a4188d6e7715684e16f978f8dd52dad
96128 F20101123_AACCTL chappell_a_Page_141.jpg
678bbafaec5283c2ab3e0857a2f3a03b
b3b8fe7a4c6d33c0dc4bb369d03ff55d29f74529
34687 F20101123_AACDXC chappell_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
3c5d51086194eb0b0c1c788f6a799804
a7e65ac0e453b27a422bb8a0590d687523ee97df
8557 F20101123_AACDWO chappell_a_Page_108thm.jpg
0b3a4c8dd72715ec203b400a48ce6f30
287ecf0a8c605e38690b40e7e754963462df50ad
26424 F20101123_AACDVZ chappell_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
23868b98bb63c46c219ea89c96c4eac3
3084e10ffeff3b566763f46496cda1dba2b2fbc5
100774 F20101123_AACCUA chappell_a_Page_161.jpg
bc4e446739409d7a3cba7cf23f8041f1
dccee63ad7e9ace3e319d8f2235817205e172135
99711 F20101123_AACCTM chappell_a_Page_143.jpg
6ad6e03c3a80406593217ef448d357b2
e11a2db5fc396c515f5155dbf4023e3eea58fcc1
97850 F20101123_AACCSX chappell_a_Page_126.jpg
f9c0ac1200326e0a252ea683db30d669
9d9ef0edc96d9649ec5ce68b1aafc9c44f2d9a8d
8520 F20101123_AACDXD chappell_a_Page_118thm.jpg
c1fa59e8ffc8551c047ca922e6a8c36b
1f9dfbc40b5973d29c5757d2b391b15d4c47c9a0
34031 F20101123_AACDWP chappell_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
626bca18354151d0e100530d73771816
e74750cc2788d23baee233b36ef606f49f3b72e3
48620 F20101123_AACCUB chappell_a_Page_163.jpg
dba62d5fe8255862db04c99441412a35
8ea5ae04ebb900c4864f07c14fa2238949086204
95491 F20101123_AACCTN chappell_a_Page_145.jpg
135b4148f1178c84659718c7003f0c0e
5170fca9463423cbb736e8bb2cdfc6a40f8f1335
118490 F20101123_AACCSY chappell_a_Page_127.jpg
84a8e10beafb4f1e70a2eb3bde541ec4
816ff06b2a2e9c7cc6ba9901d37cd93747af9f71
33465 F20101123_AACDXE chappell_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
eb28c3142916314ceac13829272311f5
249349b155beb372995146df927eddd0a2de2718
8344 F20101123_AACDWQ chappell_a_Page_109thm.jpg
4282cfcd8987977e1d5c23ec802e47d4
78788b6a4070f338325e194f648df0f2dbf4304d
101506 F20101123_AACCUC chappell_a_Page_164.jpg
a13ad5828106599ff299a64b8286d5fe
c158ae9089252188344ddf63fcc3938a0d5fc1bf
102233 F20101123_AACCTO chappell_a_Page_146.jpg
b494eec473eb810c0d71894cd626141a
0c4f171b1229f9c748a11f011908187aa5857048
101857 F20101123_AACCSZ chappell_a_Page_128.jpg
9f3941af47a2b696c7a2a75c7475e3d1
61f469b0fd835d8b6f7c2973919d4a647b919c6b
8261 F20101123_AACDXF chappell_a_Page_119thm.jpg
b6b9c9c8e50144f6b0be4158b1376315
16e88e668ed1ddeca017d6bdb25fe7389a2c974c
32761 F20101123_AACDWR chappell_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
fb5655af23a8de77f39c3521d4f9505c
c063f62c40ee016ac5556aab6d0f15f19e637a43
126725 F20101123_AACCUD chappell_a_Page_165.jpg
67fead272c06b18748889534d32ae793
2be8b28efcb985d1869817768df83084f79d23a0
97499 F20101123_AACCTP chappell_a_Page_147.jpg
2276e71ddc3e6bf6b54ef62f5a9d9a25
6ab1488d9d75a0aa8b2d7257490da8e77224755e
32844 F20101123_AACDXG chappell_a_Page_119.QC.jpg
96a79e718ad13046160059fb37a1afaa
c5a2b06bba43896f6e32763681ff19ba8e7df85b
8353 F20101123_AACDWS chappell_a_Page_110thm.jpg
59c34dba6f739206f404886a2fad0898
95565a818abcbcb407de938efb9d36e83d8fd58c
117888 F20101123_AACCUE chappell_a_Page_166.jpg
827063a40689bd81a591423c03e9aa09
ce486e50f0b890d2a102c79b1cef987c6dc396ee
98629 F20101123_AACCTQ chappell_a_Page_148.jpg
3a97cd7fff55a8d9b72e28e0efeff13d
5f06a2fa3129189dd3e6228430069e769275eb52
8156 F20101123_AACDXH chappell_a_Page_120thm.jpg
45e0319b88f322fcf14bd9975e537279
acb9cb05b28f0af5646b16560d07b268d400e08b
32775 F20101123_AACDWT chappell_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
10874f7c566451efdcf517ad9be2288b
905096cd6e2141db7ce1f6ccef81096ede27bb20
126844 F20101123_AACCUF chappell_a_Page_167.jpg
9c6220f8461c774a2e19c2d972303e16
3b4a9903325f176ee5b17e0c6b6cf2aff4c5fcf8
96129 F20101123_AACCTR chappell_a_Page_149.jpg
a577e71315993baab70fe6dd3126ae47
918e1a8ba9a4b6ce05324fab154df5a2ae58850d
F20101123_AACDAA chappell_a_Page_018.tif
fa849fcd309b16565d5d7810f30b1df6
32f08ba3b7301bd7400444bc626cc79503589a22
8439 F20101123_AACDXI chappell_a_Page_121thm.jpg
3dc5e82e1b92570beb1b194ff3e61ba8
fe95b3cde47a79f6fea68415cf4a8704c7f24f7a
31173 F20101123_AACDWU chappell_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
eb9ed66af7496c4c831dcbf04f0c2ffa
b39ead3158951cb34665210aa82889e587c302b1
106571 F20101123_AACCUG chappell_a_Page_168.jpg
f89f150e94047f1619716422efcc60a2
6d2477d6586e6c02653c93c800ca9b0d2fdbdaf8
100124 F20101123_AACCTS chappell_a_Page_150.jpg
1f6008deb60a0f513bcc6f62b689563b
c9b6201a15c4e6799bf410828f1e40c2f697f757
F20101123_AACDAB chappell_a_Page_019.tif
a89845f192852d64b69ac92ba382b9a2
4efed7a78e58ff4d0dcba1fc715a87c65ff116f9
33386 F20101123_AACDXJ chappell_a_Page_121.QC.jpg
c26bbf7e920f0e9a223f84cc4c2f86b7
ac54d5dc8ffdff73f8d1f5038cb15f53181bc49e
8009 F20101123_AACDWV chappell_a_Page_113thm.jpg
ecda1cab5398fa571be497271a27b056
523518daff5a14054b8b76a086e3aa94ae8055a5
124056 F20101123_AACCUH chappell_a_Page_169.jpg
eda04e0dae685d583d9032109d2c7eff
acb587ce16f5aab72ffb956aac241b57fb9b6851
98340 F20101123_AACCTT chappell_a_Page_151.jpg
795d9e00eab21f8dcde69caad3225387
55bf1865fc45493a9601357da3d5394f6c519b43
F20101123_AACDAC chappell_a_Page_020.tif
4f1f86f62f21871242c848518e71203f
006a7f7b0b0e57312ee4c8274cdcdeb61a16fa90
8795 F20101123_AACDXK chappell_a_Page_122thm.jpg
20ebf617f560a58c53945bcf2031b724
b9e6fc81a1b536af866146e92863b39400cfbecd
31997 F20101123_AACDWW chappell_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
4350e8f8f8b0b950530b0b2e62ced733
8d291c6ab0a447b6fa35c01704a3c893f4639788
114740 F20101123_AACCUI chappell_a_Page_170.jpg
f8e2e2ab876f9030bf2265e24829fbd0
8d650d0b6ef3504e6e8fc67fdbd38c65a37e9fb9
79750 F20101123_AACCTU chappell_a_Page_152.jpg
5318a0e3b2ec0b861fc41906b8f67345
e038d3c09679ab7130a0cb7ade267f6162f133ec
F20101123_AACDAD chappell_a_Page_021.tif
3204878119711757dbf814dce4268f7e
5699204d28c5cfd0e82c52f5e9cad27e636b5cbd
35645 F20101123_AACDXL chappell_a_Page_122.QC.jpg
341a3ba0a0187754f27437bac7eb45f5
6c537ce8e93e3d236592ae276943c6b0010ae1f8
8228 F20101123_AACDWX chappell_a_Page_114thm.jpg
1bc06c0a86f7d11519523369720fe154
e1902025bdc46a9d10cc2ba66373fa04ba732eb0
126105 F20101123_AACCUJ chappell_a_Page_171.jpg
7846dbcc701cf7e0d9be4ce9662f5796
8ea71c8b45a92da2b822b229a86a762d206c67ff
98238 F20101123_AACCTV chappell_a_Page_155.jpg
7cfa3ebefa39fa62fc7469e96e1d4d04
5234c1eb93f34ac572b487cb9648943e751b6d60
33661 F20101123_AACDYA chappell_a_Page_132.QC.jpg
66027367e2f08ed1f530181ade3c324e
99599b8925a7bf8e7d93beb1dfceb3ff3ebc3020
7601 F20101123_AACDXM chappell_a_Page_123thm.jpg
e9a0328d3e7899a0f19ae08724bfa1c5
61a8fa8b4b791a7aa5116f0168f927d0b98d827b
33888 F20101123_AACDWY chappell_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
b041ac9e99e807fdcc155b7c168bed29
738ee283f95bf692bf61b0518a087acb99fd7c6a
112247 F20101123_AACCUK chappell_a_Page_172.jpg
1587b8041c7eef8e3b083323b8690c74
5c36244142a9a1781423854264dc54ab2e01be7d
97567 F20101123_AACCTW chappell_a_Page_157.jpg
8f7d4cb38761e8e278c57acd5e3411db
d55d1226ad4d55a58da1d05dd118f01ac441af6f
F20101123_AACDAE chappell_a_Page_022.tif
6b1129117b38433a3bfc07551c86afc3
82f94e20da073d3c2c22ce2a3de1ba8225597b50
7978 F20101123_AACDYB chappell_a_Page_133thm.jpg
31788050e301dcaaccf7564529ae9fd3
07f8538de0960621e8feaca79892d6d2c6f1114c
30283 F20101123_AACDXN chappell_a_Page_123.QC.jpg
5fb809c97e8556a6caf35aaa03cc3bb9
dd61cd81cd8acc2ba568b858e1f8c67675ca05e1
8342 F20101123_AACDWZ chappell_a_Page_115thm.jpg
55a62352c7a1c0260957bc5059f609d4
e785733b4847574b3d379a93d6db7b6d9f87c96f
120895 F20101123_AACCUL chappell_a_Page_173.jpg
42d35d9f2cccca18ad5a1f34fd7f69b6
71fcc99ae00f1033d18c9a87ae92a0bca7f56f7a
93007 F20101123_AACCTX chappell_a_Page_158.jpg
d0a07663649181066dded083f2090f2d
6d64818d838bb585a60a693291105d3044f46e08
F20101123_AACDAF chappell_a_Page_023.tif
5cae5a9b1704ebfcdc0fa9c0daf83ae1
255a15376431651862640746b0ee128c48c77f1e
8421 F20101123_AACDYC chappell_a_Page_134thm.jpg
9852c017f08b9b5ad86d3b9cfef96aa2
558bbf27e985d83dde23c40c6955bf7e73d07e9b
7787 F20101123_AACDXO chappell_a_Page_126thm.jpg
07e5a1b3a4ce178a8f9409be6784eacb
49c7c832902a6a742795c68a077850d14ea2fd13
88693 F20101123_AACCUM chappell_a_Page_174.jpg
f15077c1557a05ed76465a82f0c10725
61ba582cbc4e6b4dbd8fb400dcaaa73ddba950b6
F20101123_AACDAG chappell_a_Page_024.tif
c337b5dc50f8c61411602fbd5f8280ef
7f438a5d837487b39aff0d0efe534c091267d5d0
107314 F20101123_AACCVA chappell_a_Page_021.jp2
a66db30e8bc8cf707498e998162d9aa5
f11db3e98e1991a0c407c0f71f750c124aea9040
33850 F20101123_AACDYD chappell_a_Page_134.QC.jpg
5c7b45659031443df8868036dc212003
6ec6f096245d73ca4846b4e19337b74903e46045
31873 F20101123_AACDXP chappell_a_Page_126.QC.jpg
6b3caaf6d9b432cccd9a447aef538344
f1f99ea12655cfef28840b62051bfb4706cd2dd1
37890 F20101123_AACCUN chappell_a_Page_175.jpg
14b4d7a632d3d113a44ddd678c1663c5
478e8dc57d6ceebf8b716899d36eefa1ca8f0a68
100799 F20101123_AACCTY chappell_a_Page_159.jpg
cce42510b8d72829c6984930d5922c9c
8efb6f043941832bb9e7d95f2382138c2816349b
F20101123_AACDAH chappell_a_Page_026.tif
2bbabd131f34afd91bc78ed0e2abe8c4
1859591ad25751c1a9776b3aa2199cee9f19c6b2
105801 F20101123_AACCVB chappell_a_Page_022.jp2
ac6004fd26d43c5983369aeb8164b61d
ec34f516b5a7ff821abb98af55c83b9dacdafa5a
32534 F20101123_AACDYE chappell_a_Page_135.QC.jpg
9d667a4901be5b00c9696632547cace2
35b401391ac2deb78f8d36b1f5eb4b46cde244bf
8324 F20101123_AACDXQ chappell_a_Page_127thm.jpg
d24e1979d5bacbf73393c0eadc374512
b5ad370e048bcc43f0ea312d144c20370d3d6c9d
23733 F20101123_AACCUO chappell_a_Page_001.jp2
0358699eac56ff7bf1ab494b565d7490
fae30b47d72f14a94c3600365e75a5bce90b1c3c
98985 F20101123_AACCTZ chappell_a_Page_160.jpg
ea914d89c6a8ebf6ef8341fc23176747
d3f942aaab1e2a290e8e8e019b6f82792feedb72
F20101123_AACDAI chappell_a_Page_027.tif
236420bffdf8f5afb47a65e85e983853
fb621b935c5d88332c91846651e11b6714c4ffa9
108513 F20101123_AACCVC chappell_a_Page_023.jp2
1f4e5eeae617fee340c9cd566d517434
2f431d25bbc49ef83a21dc80098c554af18cc3ac
8532 F20101123_AACDYF chappell_a_Page_136thm.jpg
314a13abb9ff390a21547c955bbf7831
e1a711e404f0a8129f86bc55b4cb1166dff66c2c
8527 F20101123_AACDXR chappell_a_Page_128thm.jpg
b6b1fb533627f92b3c761ca23c5f0d78
cb741209e07d763f5e22d54dcf2a89bf4667a372
94024 F20101123_AACCUP chappell_a_Page_003.jp2
8936f8253b29c214b078b2be9182cd73
ae1bc68f87aed77c0db68c9251fac269744f0d61
F20101123_AACDAJ chappell_a_Page_029.tif
6e305db8615702c350a4e2805bdcb81b
2b35c07a3cb415c9e31be57ce879a4865e2f3b52
40130 F20101123_AACCVD chappell_a_Page_024.jp2
ce399093e0637e07cca953cbd7bb70cb
8ce2fd8bc84e332b73dfdd8d9ff7c1549e180dad
33422 F20101123_AACDYG chappell_a_Page_136.QC.jpg
3d2b4664b50f5a73088bc04fbd875b3b
84134fc3a9d097baecea36f5996fc7f397a666d4
33605 F20101123_AACDXS chappell_a_Page_128.QC.jpg
2f8128208c203b5af643a506228b26f3
afc3634b7a670ef4ca5e0e67c21d63ddbc3ded16
104888 F20101123_AACCUQ chappell_a_Page_005.jp2
76e341e42f3e4bd1edb4d8a435326eab
b40597a27a2e9114990cf10c035ba13734af3459
F20101123_AACDAK chappell_a_Page_030.tif
a367edc02fd3ef386a9178748e424a64
cc79e36c2ce9b93f4259cb8c976ad8433224c296
95569 F20101123_AACCVE chappell_a_Page_025.jp2
4dfe9f0df5bb66f08201483ad962f12e
6018d26b9f6c43aedf0271274427e26a4ba699a8
8219 F20101123_AACDYH chappell_a_Page_137thm.jpg
bbaf6e8d2c0bda60e6f8b51a0cab852f
afca8d6e0c6053a7ecb9cc486ba9f660214d73df
7926 F20101123_AACDXT chappell_a_Page_129thm.jpg
65f64353c4e2e7adb6bc63ec4383a4bd
94091add7fc48a08f78dd269edf9d67009aa5d1e
15560 F20101123_AACCUR chappell_a_Page_006.jp2
085633b94d70379b91c511f71d55698a
3b8bbaa93d81e2821ca6d634ee2302e6b04675a4
F20101123_AACDBA chappell_a_Page_049.tif
56c9e7600ad7a5143f1d290666bcd6bb
8ad5a2ba18050825e10d66cf9b453626661318b0
F20101123_AACDAL chappell_a_Page_032.tif
62618c685ad15772512de152300738ca
2e37c3ee6d8e1e8b0388ff35eb7a2009ec2449d8
108128 F20101123_AACCVF chappell_a_Page_026.jp2
ad3c9dca64a3f83fb1f55b10e3ee527c
e1fc7380643d39d3652d45e700b04e8f3d08c25d
33016 F20101123_AACDYI chappell_a_Page_137.QC.jpg
f963d8a18abd77d96bf7dca183dc9525
a76cbeba0ef8da08b6c47d65af85b66bf99152e1
31279 F20101123_AACDXU chappell_a_Page_129.QC.jpg
333e780ff505c71d519b2bd41fe4fb49
e131e2cf38b3dc57c1f3e6c9a7b0a93b0497f65a
1051978 F20101123_AACCUS chappell_a_Page_007.jp2
3df69bec317e359907c96541014a63f2
713911c1baa6493a5ac369cfb250b757904edb9e
F20101123_AACDBB chappell_a_Page_050.tif
207a254d66bbbfd0a4a4f34ba65b16fe
e44e2f2b0a0d6b15c2d644d1da0c8491a34e5109
F20101123_AACDAM chappell_a_Page_033.tif
5e045ca3598b85e6efa71fc3d3a24f3f
1ac9964cafec57c092f3208b759589e52d7645d6
106940 F20101123_AACCVG chappell_a_Page_029.jp2
d85788a071f09dd78eb8fdfb2e28bc5c
132b94f6ead42175a71d803a926927eb88d4857d
8358 F20101123_AACDYJ chappell_a_Page_138thm.jpg
d367131c54b61c6454b7c70229cad46f
e8e2e352d808e704ccec8d5358379662cbaa5efa
F20101123_AACDXV chappell_a_Page_130thm.jpg
53457b3ef66301d6301d64d3b3338fc7
f0a8118e649cbb1e539d9ef74455494468565247
1051936 F20101123_AACCUT chappell_a_Page_009.jp2
78f878ef9eeeae64ec36ab3c03d7d396
36a294c28071bc3a15a7cbce86f5ca2e9b6df9ec
F20101123_AACDBC chappell_a_Page_051.tif
6173af3e133381b50d7290425db32662
bf8da7f45dfeaa4a8b4fa9cd1b85d009ed1c76e5
F20101123_AACDAN chappell_a_Page_034.tif
f61b85cf7636b204f9f7f03a11bd3a5a
6e8ef19b2f40ebd6c775111e99111fbd59613968
103229 F20101123_AACCVH chappell_a_Page_031.jp2
b7663d5b8335f38e4431169e0cb4159d
3b27cbccff4e7904007d6707120a92a81406646b
F20101123_AACDYK chappell_a_Page_138.QC.jpg
9e695a477a3a5601386311e47e8fc921
342f705087806a08e90eb71f67094b4b6465378d
32840 F20101123_AACDXW chappell_a_Page_130.QC.jpg
a174977d0d0c64a155a16f218265c34f
2938014537dc0c376fa42870891d6a7584f4935e
82147 F20101123_AACCUU chappell_a_Page_011.jp2
a09a5341acf20b7581477ed2942fe59e
9433faeb2ad8edc93b34c0bb49fe494e060a0413
F20101123_AACDBD chappell_a_Page_052.tif
de2ad4fa356133314dc664b977b984ee
a8036618320ef4ce3dc624c1026b4856ca8c9064
F20101123_AACDAO chappell_a_Page_035.tif
a5a91b995ecf6ddb39aa6adb05a3d902
969202ec60672b9b2fe67e71cbde540d5be33741
109948 F20101123_AACCVI chappell_a_Page_032.jp2
86b7c1d88ba5433e0c27ff0a9c5c1432
56e2c9ce4cca3314ac8e9b9062339037289c0db9
F20101123_AACDYL chappell_a_Page_139thm.jpg
a0d6b2424ec3b041519201db0a0c92b3
9a6fc8c1229c72faed60b76c8639cc4cd9f57063
F20101123_AACDXX chappell_a_Page_131thm.jpg
c09506b794ec5686c62984481b1ff0a9
7c05e620cfbc6dd527f9907676de925663845736
110336 F20101123_AACCUV chappell_a_Page_014.jp2
aa957ff1b2abdfdc73736a4887a9089d
0377df676bd9513cb9aa1d7bbcf15420128af7c8
F20101123_AACDBE chappell_a_Page_053.tif
33daf84a87745faa85b56199093bab9d
ec78cff53f714e6d8bd2b26ad14428cf85e71e03
F20101123_AACDAP chappell_a_Page_036.tif
f78f0b1613cacc268461fb96f2d71997
8f2968dccbad13cb25ba963038a890b98f511eed
108605 F20101123_AACCVJ chappell_a_Page_033.jp2
5c5f8a10cc3c9f6e77ede094f50f820d
71d48a20614333d79815e791106fdbcf8422fb8e
8022 F20101123_AACDZA chappell_a_Page_149thm.jpg
cf0d0be25212f8c85dac57f776b6074b
49654983d9f2eab4d2c075bbf911e41913c3fb66
F20101123_AACDYM chappell_a_Page_140thm.jpg
3c017168a45c1730821f93ecef9bbf01
f11c6e5f82c6c0dc2ab5c07101a542f27fe3921b
33770 F20101123_AACDXY chappell_a_Page_131.QC.jpg
f301356f330e19007539d615894205a8
513a207e1ee7349a00d2183f37a165eeb504522a
128648 F20101123_AACCUW chappell_a_Page_015.jp2
67ef5648d3df5590eea98535c92324ca
728b93529e6524be6f03b6de6fcddc5dcf7a6f1d
F20101123_AACDAQ chappell_a_Page_037.tif
c057e7acd111c524ff78f7d2d4db07d8
1653d991eedb4a3d23fa751bee8884a550077103
107158 F20101123_AACCVK chappell_a_Page_034.jp2
6ec9ba35b7f466ddab48c0f6a9e9f52f
13e124177508829f80f8652756c452272e75abe5
30108 F20101123_AACDZB chappell_a_Page_149.QC.jpg
b20f98bdf23e805b04a7be475843be9b
e0375eda453e08e0cbd65b7a7d1e03a910783e4b
32581 F20101123_AACDYN chappell_a_Page_140.QC.jpg
3fab1aeb71ace0f5bb56b905d01e3272
f6ef94ed09b3c3a9a9a3a8b3e4d8b639af5d43fe
F20101123_AACDXZ chappell_a_Page_132thm.jpg
1471c2fe4134ce41e9e0432720fc6c48
c6b835e2752e82f80ef6480fc98197877447dafb
108983 F20101123_AACCUX chappell_a_Page_016.jp2
8da9caacb077c434d7f6b400cb137847
ec55a80d9cea653c6417d7bec730b617c23305cc
F20101123_AACDBF chappell_a_Page_054.tif
51552f51055d32db65ea5369a93aeeb6
696f09e76dfbdeedb1b5e2685c496c307a3b5c76
F20101123_AACDAR chappell_a_Page_038.tif
0e5d2efbe643cc83effa4dab70fc4d42
fbb1fcc138f5407173908e7cbc0b64cb08001aec
109444 F20101123_AACCVL chappell_a_Page_038.jp2
b917ac2dea0ec83820685306690cdd73
c7ee041a0348394d16d5f13fb5cd2fe99bc6aa08
8129 F20101123_AACDZC chappell_a_Page_150thm.jpg
d48e710fc33abe4d274a6d5a695b30b7
faaf4255b591d38fbd7ad60302d48777c0ce3c51
8097 F20101123_AACDYO chappell_a_Page_141thm.jpg
b3bed5b525c3362638c6107d47abc6e7
b8eea63bc95fb0d8cc7f93bc6701d31f9c84123f
108330 F20101123_AACCUY chappell_a_Page_018.jp2
91674531732d178ec21e7cd0e365b80a
86e82649b66cd9d9edd67acbc74b657cc3b6b24f
F20101123_AACDBG chappell_a_Page_055.tif
bb053d2b848f8b77f46feeff0101c01f
4e6cab52de034bc5af599e2f39309c4947a07c41
107262 F20101123_AACCWA chappell_a_Page_060.jp2
27b51c875e2c2ae7f470316b96eb3127
4df355b5ba7963fd564f5d1a099e54b514469733
F20101123_AACDAS chappell_a_Page_039.tif
e72d8b903a29d9f92d54abe7b25c8021
c1737ec9d1a358b8136f4d9e7302c140a0de490b
107130 F20101123_AACCVM chappell_a_Page_040.jp2
2bf0492854b9c5406d8503399f919d82
1052ae2916359f8874fead373dcab352251e2e32
32656 F20101123_AACDZD chappell_a_Page_150.QC.jpg
c20a8ca5811889c34f85593c1878f06f
da73f3f70792210dc1d9bc06235bbd71aca1a737
7695 F20101123_AACDYP chappell_a_Page_142thm.jpg
055e8c5e76d5a6eb465daf9ad10f5e7e
c354efec45c09f5a023857c501224eafa0829879
F20101123_AACDBH chappell_a_Page_056.tif
e9caefa662c451ecea95022eb113f739
56363b749b6444dc7fd81fc7689b4ff537637cab
113409 F20101123_AACCWB chappell_a_Page_061.jp2
8e398fbfe064f72a3c8305ca9fde0e3e
6f4db6032bc64d6380bedb132060b5f54a8301ad
F20101123_AACDAT chappell_a_Page_041.tif
f42c8aa90aa055cf053d7f6168a9e8ae
2237f4a9284f583fe47dda48de950f3facc6d731
115250 F20101123_AACCVN chappell_a_Page_042.jp2
efae226703c1f51a0b8eaf53b7fc6f3d
d6666d7a6fefc76c0693f7eb30448e8fad14fbf4
8258 F20101123_AACDZE chappell_a_Page_151thm.jpg
1be896bf15ef50251036ad5b8cbfab8d
343552822f60c2504ab989684e0ec90ee684fec1
30804 F20101123_AACDYQ chappell_a_Page_142.QC.jpg
3653fa20dee4f4ba61f171ae2bb95be5
9e789394a01da30bec04e2b5ae8415adaf779f63
99540 F20101123_AACCUZ chappell_a_Page_020.jp2
bb469d7d92b4334a5cd7523b5e521aea
32d760217ace5348196f87c53eb6e569b61e07ff
F20101123_AACDBI chappell_a_Page_057.tif
e8772a7db96858c3aa92715a1ca0247e
ea51c52d1b3d997f162d1e69370ab71625d630bc
105859 F20101123_AACCWC chappell_a_Page_063.jp2
6ee9e55bb9875fb6cf25bda788ca8b47
8bfb921c1eca9a1402c639a9ea31c1500b840ac9
F20101123_AACDAU chappell_a_Page_042.tif
63661c2c55b383598d6859bd04d44bca
6ef04a2deb26f0dc355ca6585cdfcd3831ba116a
106046 F20101123_AACCVO chappell_a_Page_044.jp2
b2bbcb7d5776af9b8114279aecbb6413
977056ac885155eca5c7276f9d8b2557b38a74e4
32091 F20101123_AACDZF chappell_a_Page_151.QC.jpg
8c0eefebf1fcaab5074d3a07a143b762
ec777007d94d85417aadf50dbdf55452864cf32b
F20101123_AACDYR chappell_a_Page_143thm.jpg
005a4d1f7f18a64be1467137b22c5a3c
23df633cd850ae8e5b7e903d7a2ce87dba3da51b
F20101123_AACDBJ chappell_a_Page_058.tif
872c413d600413a2fe7268f8fdfbd4b0
ca2fcfcb6a8e224a626d1fa00ee79dc42c637f04
103999 F20101123_AACCWD chappell_a_Page_064.jp2
90d5d0d3e96c37910d7be6e2d1637175
0748e54b4207670dd7137ad71e57876eeb8640fd
F20101123_AACDAV chappell_a_Page_043.tif
6f0c27c666d11dc7ccc45eb73099a080
09237bfa392597721dc0429b6d5a5721b3b509c4
110506 F20101123_AACCVP chappell_a_Page_045.jp2
2eee5a1c0896126b032bfc2729732507
4b8970fc0d1a0421548bc7409b71def0da04bc9a
25912 F20101123_AACDZG chappell_a_Page_152.QC.jpg
1ed72e21ca5c90cd7ca6cba6cca76b5d
f0a95921311a00936c52da73cdfb8cf8ab87f1db
31802 F20101123_AACDYS chappell_a_Page_143.QC.jpg
1b39bbaf3a8020072c38d7827feac9d9
8366a19f7703277bd5f6293b17e0f5fa6f257409
F20101123_AACDBK chappell_a_Page_059.tif
80ec31e8cbf87591966ead021d6135a8
c977d02bce587a62dbce31bcdbde85fb28fec31f
106824 F20101123_AACCWE chappell_a_Page_066.jp2
98011beebd21b6a374e7e60be91fb898
371101267d6714c23dc640dbb5ffe1eb9b5d1ff0
F20101123_AACDAW chappell_a_Page_044.tif
f08316fdd982a6136c40889fc4b8a103
51abaa5662efa4034038db9e3d99539f3ade85cb
112353 F20101123_AACCVQ chappell_a_Page_046.jp2
29cd61a21f9e34b15ddfaa19dfd0b773
57da78e30e46bc2337f8caa73498f3058d68f5ba
28383 F20101123_AACDZH chappell_a_Page_153.QC.jpg
d0f4f1b299a812bb87cd269b1789ebd9
be1930b9cb8d65dfdc1543b9d07772f5babedf10
8519 F20101123_AACDYT chappell_a_Page_144thm.jpg
6d03975889db157de9fb043acd015a24
e3f15cd1725e7ef617021dfe79468e6136f9b003
F20101123_AACDBL chappell_a_Page_060.tif
7c5c7a6b8ead43a9272112fc618dace2
520f4201ef8cb3e35612b907750696659d579378
110574 F20101123_AACCWF chappell_a_Page_067.jp2
4e3cd64b990d748dfdbac6e0272422be
d8b5cddaab120df3ffbd4bce8b96ba55c9ea64f4
F20101123_AACDAX chappell_a_Page_045.tif
20c754b94962e808a2cc89e77f229774
0ebf6b94bc8d34c8f116e7559d48771f15ed8d42
111680 F20101123_AACCVR chappell_a_Page_047.jp2
1aa05f953602db9cc00f0d7dbcbeac9a
432e7eff32bbed822b16cf3c8c19e8ccd5f87850
F20101123_AACDCA chappell_a_Page_079.tif
e85fb03abc1efbb96cd723c1354ecf0f
e331a135fda64d5b42e26e8fe434b4dba4cb8f87
33062 F20101123_AACDZI chappell_a_Page_154.QC.jpg
9528ec49152758bd78e9ceb2e9524457
d94b85cfdca6051e0c26857f891b84fdf179c274
33910 F20101123_AACDYU chappell_a_Page_144.QC.jpg
d89481d7f9541042f5e606b5a4dd8a11
fc5f1f08892fa0f4697ee2c5f1df21da91566b6c
F20101123_AACDBM chappell_a_Page_061.tif
bc8daa2c1fe6b77a01827e1f48955215
b0bd349143bb6e9de39e396540ef73edf87b5be1
77082 F20101123_AACCWG chappell_a_Page_068.jp2
0c75e8e14f207c7e5bee61e5fdded35b
7e0f40ed8f9928663a813dfa5f075906772a2dd2
F20101123_AACDAY chappell_a_Page_047.tif
e2f3581c65d53b36ff58946ed202b3b9
7c1d101c89dc76c57614cd8715c8352ed747305b
100609 F20101123_AACCVS chappell_a_Page_048.jp2
63827500a26b4bb9a5377a74eea864a7
537f34f8a7172ccba3fb651dcfd8ace5634ffea6
F20101123_AACDCB chappell_a_Page_080.tif
5e24d43a2d3576d19ec005166fad76fc
d283b3bb2a5b6189158282873c9d1f2b1b1d8a75
7893 F20101123_AACDZJ chappell_a_Page_155thm.jpg
27a00eb9f887e82bf5d78dc737ec62ab
73560661fd0ae4a0c9e7fc9c87a97244f7f8d4f0
30947 F20101123_AACDYV chappell_a_Page_145.QC.jpg
c1470c9607215532a5ae3e89d22880a2
200931ef41fb31129176bcb055bf3f959dfeb199
F20101123_AACDBN chappell_a_Page_062.tif
4427f153649b4a54f563eab84cbc83c0
12f1ddab9e2b3b94258594e064ba21a6098ba3fc
86104 F20101123_AACCWH chappell_a_Page_069.jp2
7e78655cc9fd137651bcc4238a213319
2548a516f992fd3341459ed1c6f2a77ea065970a
F20101123_AACDAZ chappell_a_Page_048.tif
b09ed1101757ff0d38fa020cb803ac21
b384135066ef228984d761cec736cb2142f33f79
112724 F20101123_AACCVT chappell_a_Page_050.jp2
f30f8cb6e73077bc489602f4f3898b01
58c36d51caeb6721cf34604b150d5a3c4629f315
F20101123_AACDCC chappell_a_Page_081.tif
2bf7e6565f310a801e50519f818b7297
54b1d8fa8368407b17d26fe57006cf17c2ab698e
33228 F20101123_AACDZK chappell_a_Page_155.QC.jpg
86372665ffe741729c392597f9f5bd14
77eeefe7f2573c2634756d8d870bbc969f69d79b
F20101123_AACDYW chappell_a_Page_146thm.jpg
f1987e824da6eb9bae470deb697b898d
13328ee0eebf603e191ec76c6a18e84f96deb189
F20101123_AACDBO chappell_a_Page_063.tif
ea4e9299fccf2b81f81d5758b9df8a8d
9d4c5a146fce6fe7ba34c6876d0bccea9159564f
99259 F20101123_AACCWI chappell_a_Page_071.jp2
bfb83a5f1f341d854023d31380c5be16
8b5fbc07eeb9ad69f13c5f5371c4a5c6c40c708f
20143 F20101123_AACCVU chappell_a_Page_052.jp2
e665aa447182a257633ebd1689116f65
aa9328edb7b3c651fc3d2f669acdd04625aa92c3
F20101123_AACDCD chappell_a_Page_082.tif
555c98a695c4827fc6a43aff0cf25664
7e246200d70baa8ced69058fa26ccd1d0f6e2a30
8013 F20101123_AACDZL chappell_a_Page_156thm.jpg
bacde72fea3aaead8256dbfa88a4c2e3
b254b9b96a20ae11a2b6284c4aab9a3b936e8f92
33606 F20101123_AACDYX chappell_a_Page_146.QC.jpg
5cdd09d7a7bae7ad3ef60da45d7454b9
371f9695039d96af86d39973403c41f062f3ed21
F20101123_AACDBP chappell_a_Page_064.tif
c61468288095d11f7f5c5d55e59b80a6
6113069281d8f604d4a0514c5f56a1511fda8614
105855 F20101123_AACCWJ chappell_a_Page_072.jp2
b7e1cd24334af0853c3b95abb0cd56ae
49cbd83dd70f8e87c2e41b55ba881488f3ae07d9
93098 F20101123_AACCVV chappell_a_Page_053.jp2
ed2181edc07ab7c25049d2320bbb6aa1
c7eb5679640ffdf4eea52eb8621a35e526456d75
F20101123_AACDCE chappell_a_Page_084.tif
ef0047adfffa89c26e51c7097137ac56
0072644841ee207ed4e18d3f3ea26f735095522e
31332 F20101123_AACDZM chappell_a_Page_156.QC.jpg
65d25fdf86531c57735931da449573b9
8a1c54ac624be20b3eac3c16b802b4d5323bd01e
31886 F20101123_AACDYY chappell_a_Page_147.QC.jpg
cdaebd51638a0571650ed90e1852591b
02fae13616a21555c3ce035710f78033eff50865
F20101123_AACDBQ chappell_a_Page_066.tif
b69be68499d620ab7f2d5907683b7509
75d0bca9eeca2d02c545d974be9c4527f58949ab
113131 F20101123_AACCWK chappell_a_Page_073.jp2
4e7d6b5ab012a3430ded346147fda7b1
867d4a79f73496d4c2248f7dbb23bed87de47798
105408 F20101123_AACCVW chappell_a_Page_054.jp2
2b3a6823cfb2f58b2889b3ea2e8826b8
e923ef43484280aef51258d7bf25ef31318fb3cd
F20101123_AACDCF chappell_a_Page_085.tif
bf7f62ba7b4448d21d21f4ba1ab2b663
688bd238d0f6d7c99f1bdd6a02433d58fe222542
7851 F20101123_AACDZN chappell_a_Page_157thm.jpg
dac82235d888483453d38f41f7a6ba49
fa56526ef31c64a8821d02be6952c0bdb6915429
31663 F20101123_AACDYZ chappell_a_Page_148.QC.jpg
12532bc5f8d967ceb53d7e5fa76374bd
63f33c125feaa1f3fca3a0a788cf569c536dd7d3
F20101123_AACDBR chappell_a_Page_067.tif
23f2de7564bf11c0a8415154b00b17f7
f0731abb621d34fb9e108b71c1ad162901b289e2
99904 F20101123_AACCWL chappell_a_Page_075.jp2
e6d3547ce45039de291f7f1707426ada
adb764b537a6195d2a6b54688bcbd9a16d9c5747
102359 F20101123_AACCVX chappell_a_Page_057.jp2
b38c88f67a490f5bf799da0d47d8f6d2
19c289fb8c2847f230e80f131956af76589ebeaf
32165 F20101123_AACDZO chappell_a_Page_157.QC.jpg
7139800454d7b473c6cd7ae2c61bb754
18ccc19f954fb98404a827a00b29e4644aaa076b
49606 F20101123_AACCXA chappell_a_Page_096.jp2
309582659899b10b07a07d4ae07fb4df
40e65cf14a3122d5654d7ca16c5063206464b7e8
F20101123_AACDBS chappell_a_Page_069.tif
f75ad81a733550550a21058e599b71d8
ecc8c14a4da1e5fef322bfb66f6b9a14878b222c
59962 F20101123_AACCWM chappell_a_Page_078.jp2
d0613e10803c3bf6dc3b44186270924b
4065e153038a2852a7bb0ee58463576011dedd50
108183 F20101123_AACCVY chappell_a_Page_058.jp2
33bdae0e018a427481037ae174996ba9
ab6ffc607fc1fe68118f29b2c9caf9f5e2260583
F20101123_AACDCG chappell_a_Page_086.tif
f6abeddbe2894992da38b0f33039435d
7878df0037bcc121e6ace1d55189ae870e8e04ff
7797 F20101123_AACDZP chappell_a_Page_158thm.jpg
1df1072437ee476f66a6e4f94bde71a2
a1a45c560bc374dad17a2ef02b94482e90e5b963
84765 F20101123_AACCXB chappell_a_Page_097.jp2
db7f0ad2e2805192a9b7bc816ffcf25b
42593b7a1c0d851c1d957ac80127e237db2a7d8e
F20101123_AACDBT chappell_a_Page_070.tif
4d3ca9d17a4c588ecdc429fec23ad37c
580bbb7da197a82a1227cf13679da9962943f61e
106061 F20101123_AACCWN chappell_a_Page_080.jp2
7680f817fa6ad67921c947b43b9191b4
450ff0c1e2193a24aa43a9bc072bc356816e7988
107759 F20101123_AACCVZ chappell_a_Page_059.jp2
559691d43e517d1e5763c6758331fcfa
ec8e8f81435a2c0a542f4b59324209cfcfcd099f
F20101123_AACDCH chappell_a_Page_090.tif
e5cd22aef4671280b28ea123a9e83c2b
48202eabfdeb67dc0a1e51400c76944476bdb4c5
31171 F20101123_AACDZQ chappell_a_Page_158.QC.jpg
7b48b4f0609fde23b0704fa00c627b88
d9fda1c4086b6e43c63c5667a09d67431a00e117
F20101123_AACDBU chappell_a_Page_071.tif
d32b295e8bea9bbbcf81bdefd7cb3221
d13bcbf2c715f0bf68c9557b5be5d2f4ce57487b
106553 F20101123_AACCWO chappell_a_Page_082.jp2
802c8fd7fccd23d95c149d86e3178c27
1bb5719734d52bd4d8b05dc04bfedfe164905f17
F20101123_AACDCI chappell_a_Page_091.tif
5681da7b9324685256db91695f8014b9
4590ec1bda7498216fada417544f518a866d658c
91207 F20101123_AACCXC chappell_a_Page_098.jp2
22b1dfd0aaa9241929f0d911eacc0165
425039b7f003d563c84a0497314dbb127cf7aedf
7826 F20101123_AACDZR chappell_a_Page_159thm.jpg
dad8bd7777bbf6405e86ae16a326f0c4
eb060f942ae82a0bb43215eec4800a39e0b6d882
F20101123_AACDBV chappell_a_Page_072.tif
402a3d70e3e946f91b1aef9d34c19857
15de9a18cadc4af2cae95fd12bee30e9b00a7a40
95839 F20101123_AACCWP chappell_a_Page_084.jp2
dcdc545309124bb18f29963675748edc
a2c6e6a85925eed44c4d80157b774e42c952c7d1
F20101123_AACDCJ chappell_a_Page_092.tif
0f7370f07cc2ed9a860f89944b70ed4c
72be3f445f5a377ca14cc83a821c35fdae18de11
102961 F20101123_AACCXD chappell_a_Page_099.jp2
490a52d0bfd8a9a7f85fa7d46b4ff81d
86813c9b031daa7b6e39a5744e1f9be53fb8845b
32353 F20101123_AACDZS chappell_a_Page_159.QC.jpg
2d141044bcb0729772a9b68ac75d57a9
57ee3b0335318db7cf8f238f4ccb072a8ec1027b
F20101123_AACDBW chappell_a_Page_074.tif
73a28c6462783a36a1fd16ded63abe64
cbdf989b624bb0b296791d72051bf0f77cf91495
102188 F20101123_AACCWQ chappell_a_Page_085.jp2
6a521362b7863a1ed25fc1fda4d2ba27
02ff9605578e563ca9badd3bc5f5d0be75986f2e
F20101123_AACDCK chappell_a_Page_093.tif
86cbf8fd24a6577a242625f1cf5ccded
9b7c938451ef9036c2d311dd2bd52f46c501a952
109643 F20101123_AACCXE chappell_a_Page_100.jp2
b21bd9d92a053ad92b2c24aa51cae9d3
753f03161d01257063b5669e5af6d87b1b88a6e6
7999 F20101123_AACDZT chappell_a_Page_160thm.jpg
33b5892e15822aa80158e7c6bccd5951
5d1a8c5acac5e5467c65e43dcf9cfad93b018e9f
F20101123_AACDBX chappell_a_Page_075.tif
185b621ac6432cf660bcc40dbea6a4cf
e0ce381d7f2149532dd0b95f81b2d5e73544542e
44985 F20101123_AACCWR chappell_a_Page_086.jp2
4d9bcdee2930182da0a8f56ae9871348
522308d880428d283974817685187146911a7c61
F20101123_AACDDA chappell_a_Page_116.tif
dabc5ff81d4dbe82f54bebbf5f674bfe
ceff1eca33a9a32abf9d932d43fd321c27577fc3
F20101123_AACDCL chappell_a_Page_094.tif
1c710eb14cb616ea30e7ea5b48d044ab
3ab28204a8538d49cf38b107a38672d7c0a7da9d
104871 F20101123_AACCXF chappell_a_Page_101.jp2
572680991b2e46f6d922731d4dd5d32b
5a565b185731c4f92f25722ea07edf235bf670c3
32540 F20101123_AACDZU chappell_a_Page_160.QC.jpg
2456c7eb895ecd1dfcb2aaa9980036ab
0af8c4582de0282b99291660553f8d7305c2def2
F20101123_AACDBY chappell_a_Page_076.tif
6a14fd1ec18ca3be0e7770ebdfcb4397
6f3464dd882ce33bcc9e7052fd769611f8d1e702
82955 F20101123_AACCWS chappell_a_Page_087.jp2
4c0f3eba7392264805507d576515b40b
a46962dbdd0ba4eb9bb8f4091db15e934d5c47a9
F20101123_AACDDB chappell_a_Page_117.tif
c129048fbb7c049732bf071bef73923d
61ac7fd2d6efb7227ca9c2394dcbdd7e357d0da7
F20101123_AACDCM chappell_a_Page_096.tif
a8222d412517b66c5ab6fd536bfb3039
8a3051f1db0c8d1a5c5621059a2db715cd72cc14
105479 F20101123_AACCXG chappell_a_Page_104.jp2
1e98e1c0751c2e29e6cee457b37f1059
b7b5432c89016c86ad574c1a1edf23d578eccbf4
8285 F20101123_AACDZV chappell_a_Page_161thm.jpg
4bb9ec8d2dae540f98560d9e774b786a
bedd4b754982b1606c61ae93eabb3ec2c573c9b7
F20101123_AACDBZ chappell_a_Page_077.tif
683ce3d5075d4bbce1ba29402dc463e2
b0089b913977c15dec952d776659f682a7ca9863
103707 F20101123_AACCWT chappell_a_Page_088.jp2
edc4a91ff78c9493c14b721382ae764f
810de1aa874f39eb85e3a875b2b56926eb25b302
F20101123_AACDDC chappell_a_Page_118.tif
351894316e71ce7c0f6df034e9b05c6e
15cc3e333f86ad1acfbca0805bc20dde365b39ad
F20101123_AACDCN chappell_a_Page_097.tif
662f50458d9d543202b591c85cc14f2b
4767cedfcc699cca423bf785ac09e077dcc848a2
106009 F20101123_AACCXH chappell_a_Page_106.jp2
ae29efd68ee5df14b7d5becdea412d44
fac84cca938aa1f34e5c9d7bc4d8b552e2ac45ed
32755 F20101123_AACDZW chappell_a_Page_161.QC.jpg
f97f7a546cdc891296971d92a95a0c66
45949bce3da2892442c372641a14fef8e6cde3bc
101780 F20101123_AACCWU chappell_a_Page_089.jp2
b528d2645a9c76e18e5813ea42e9a28a
4a743f6a32504f792d9b8db9248a775f40540daa
F20101123_AACDDD chappell_a_Page_119.tif
4df10deb46a3564e03fb5b06a81178c5
1269e0111f4ca43291e65e7a0331aa7918a581c3
F20101123_AACDCO chappell_a_Page_098.tif
5faef8e2045a665ac586dc643602cc21
50ff79d042bf951f193006a3ca26f534fbae9078
109691 F20101123_AACCXI chappell_a_Page_107.jp2
3358e862084060575b89ac99807705e8
f66b0065d337ad9f4e089bdb1e7715e234baae35
5322 F20101123_AACDZX chappell_a_Page_162.QC.jpg
5989409a43fb50f1dd1c29d3e530aa39
43f043031379888b9828bf59f36ec22e69f8bedc
103459 F20101123_AACCWV chappell_a_Page_090.jp2
8a25e5ab011dc49384553bf3a0493052
4a71e303d4ecb6538f95196c99f3af031481bdf3
F20101123_AACDDE chappell_a_Page_120.tif
c251f8b4d6e1ee9679d95a32c6172734
cbaecd828898c257cd5122afb8eaacc72f530a1e
F20101123_AACDCP chappell_a_Page_100.tif
9b55618e45503c8cf6f0bf2b3ab04dd4
8628ef97b99254544b739f088a59fdfb596d8114
111475 F20101123_AACCXJ chappell_a_Page_108.jp2
484847c82626c558b2219da0ee6a106b
b9b9cb0cc75cbd0aab1c40e1398e2e97657d97ef
14843 F20101123_AACDZY chappell_a_Page_163.QC.jpg
ccf3813c36c93396bb5b80e37fc17abf
83a7bfd37f3ffcfbaa5e14f1a42be6a59c9d671b
106186 F20101123_AACCWW chappell_a_Page_092.jp2
fb311d33a9b1f957a26114167e69de47
c472e8f1e749fab12a8bdf2020b6a93153fd6c86
F20101123_AACDDF chappell_a_Page_122.tif
67cac4809f5a94f0c3ed40645c81d16b
87e65291ed1a1ef2e780bfb7651b481b016d2eff
F20101123_AACDCQ chappell_a_Page_102.tif
b547aa3ce901addfbe773f1e78e86b26
66ee2433589f15721969fa4769a366f3e6881271
106507 F20101123_AACCXK chappell_a_Page_109.jp2
33c29e7614aad64d57afb25930f83038
dfab014b1dae30709f7575f359c9e47448571171
7605 F20101123_AACDZZ chappell_a_Page_164thm.jpg
03ccaffd6705473e37e7dd163339a1d5
915d04fa4a3c2252152dfb81f047d6d26c035a14
106302 F20101123_AACCWX chappell_a_Page_093.jp2
e452169ddaaff4abcd4685c3c5910fe0
e5b79b22ab3636711698961dd086a58ae27552ac
F20101123_AACDDG chappell_a_Page_123.tif
e4082e3d0db04a5d3beb4fb59547e219
1686972f2904e7a1cc470393262efa47499f634a
F20101123_AACDCR chappell_a_Page_103.tif
78d506b01bf0dd6de709dac338ef76d9
4099cb14213c7fdd64da5c4e85babb75a8670345
F20101123_AACCXL chappell_a_Page_110.jp2
c9fb1d452274eed25990b3d54be7d7dd
a924ec96acad7fff7148009793aec510a38663ed
13131 F20101123_AACCWY chappell_a_Page_094.jp2
17a6b53736a00f377f673a090195a1e2
ecef6c9208df0bca1172fc62dc9d1b56d6ce48cd
125309 F20101123_AACCYA chappell_a_Page_127.jp2
c84ef0881e2a41cd89849c86d5c8b19a
c0524df6514380878f2e66b50a19547bba2095ae
F20101123_AACDCS chappell_a_Page_105.tif
afa4f22ed0319d88e1f4c70ef824f799
1f3a267dae9a35ed387ddeea0226ad432ecd0f7f
105475 F20101123_AACCXM chappell_a_Page_111.jp2
050ddd00c4a7fe73ad9363248b6a1356
37217884484da263be1efbe5daa8217c0e7ebe39
43303 F20101123_AACCWZ chappell_a_Page_095.jp2
638b188be89615d9b54c4feeb84746d2
1890e0e2776416ab1afbb756a28ee516ef209e71
F20101123_AACDDH chappell_a_Page_124.tif
fef6c8b9c5443d1f99e39d3f31bf691b
ad1a84ce15a26dba6a4b597d369320da794306ca
108361 F20101123_AACCYB chappell_a_Page_128.jp2
23046ad729627a3c6ee39d2d9c339ffb
17410892dc541e221f21585fdc3a5c1eb52cc180
F20101123_AACDCT chappell_a_Page_106.tif
90edc534ab1654c8b514aa03045ef8ae
5729fd30991e5a2b0ff07545a7b6c7ca96ddf5bc
105218 F20101123_AACCXN chappell_a_Page_112.jp2
7c05c3486bbb6fb063caed9a98878e09
7050756b8d01bb3f7b675a418e326f849fd9c333
F20101123_AACDDI chappell_a_Page_125.tif
f87dabb6ff262bea1f1ef64225cfcd9c
710bdee7b6b65b8c24024b46c55bb8b8e6bbd423
102299 F20101123_AACCYC chappell_a_Page_129.jp2
2bd1e1c1f371f59a4fcd51334dbba6c8
cf66a4b08d9b7d5258e1c46144cbeb59ad465457
F20101123_AACDCU chappell_a_Page_108.tif
472a2f85579633699dbf78114a1e5c14
c72e1427c17d102a720ab4137c7647d8d557c747
102090 F20101123_AACCXO chappell_a_Page_113.jp2
d10591f9ed0c772d1b8fb69f185851de
55d7d9b6969910bf79e73e2e05fbee2ae3b80eac
F20101123_AACDDJ chappell_a_Page_126.tif
2e0eb7d8e1253542cfd8bfda4ab2691b
eb7529fb677bc456852b5c41edacb5c7f4829456
110328 F20101123_AACCYD chappell_a_Page_130.jp2
08d018146005e736ac9a5d1e68cc051c
012d8b935200951fc59547959a4c9aab4540e499
F20101123_AACDCV chappell_a_Page_109.tif
11e32a2ca9f4e857674d99cc1cf3b2c6
80396d9324efc1fa0724bc0534a081520fa79fda
108638 F20101123_AACCXP chappell_a_Page_114.jp2
d793e170c19d2cb4d006d3246c615e9a
9c8167e652e856d825660c559dcf38e5234112bb
F20101123_AACDDK chappell_a_Page_127.tif
35a77e0d27633c2c7b801027018e424d
9a4e43c5f44871544f6a07066aa42ea9bce96502
111214 F20101123_AACCYE chappell_a_Page_132.jp2
b9bedf050f93929ba835d43486487935
acf779f4b02f7da9dc53cda25b153b8963008e3d
F20101123_AACDCW chappell_a_Page_110.tif
b5c9def0cdd49802acf81d0d05507103
63d2070c2368e607e50889591a261f7b79330cca
105670 F20101123_AACCXQ chappell_a_Page_115.jp2
1aeebcd89760ef491dc275ceffe06f3d
b8cc1f8a0dec726b6468f562a48fb87e100687e0
F20101123_AACDDL chappell_a_Page_129.tif
b3a1b19b4638aeac3034d0f535aa83e3
6ad6c2a579128828410758903452a8b636ae5695
109479 F20101123_AACCYF chappell_a_Page_133.jp2
e5763f2af9b7fbc39688de522e73bb61
0cbc0da66e3bd2c325a9534adfe66620d9e8b9db
F20101123_AACDCX chappell_a_Page_111.tif
e30e41a73b0f2cf840638b42b5f10167
0c9cec02f04ac62d8929de6839954eb3396357d8
110304 F20101123_AACCXR chappell_a_Page_116.jp2
ea489ad27866b90a4364b241b9a52234
e51139bd8a962b41d150c4916540e2cd63b567b0
F20101123_AACDEA chappell_a_Page_147.tif
876d6545afd86ffc32083c94adf2698e
d67582bb9b6b1f3e5f438e65652760e3f8b582e7
F20101123_AACDDM chappell_a_Page_130.tif
3c5c8cf5f39f8639c4517f25041ba2f5
fe4382c6c0e1334d996050e0b00e400a5fef4411
109146 F20101123_AACCYG chappell_a_Page_134.jp2
60af8df80d159a208dca960a55bfa45c
ae5622adc45f9a33d4bab05ad2afb758d892ede8
F20101123_AACDCY chappell_a_Page_112.tif
89a5782a5c543c64e3fbfe25a586720a
27a6f84d85ae03e064c48045a49a6d8ee4dc79ac
125446 F20101123_AACCXS chappell_a_Page_117.jp2
2b11cfc33c889fcb41ed1fb639495551
f1ebc4524fbab47ba97a1f6c7102bb707f0b43a6
F20101123_AACDEB chappell_a_Page_148.tif
b6f33c5e0565085b02ec331abf247ab0
9cabd7120d408b5ea391f54a484b33f7d26e6eed
F20101123_AACDDN chappell_a_Page_132.tif
6d89c3a406c93a67ffbc48a5b97bcfcc
536ff4a3a6855fb01df5cf371f6cea9eab8cfc13
106841 F20101123_AACCYH chappell_a_Page_135.jp2
98ebd52aee9fc4dc109cc7de37fd4be2
d948feca3a98aae1765351d37452a301c01767a0
F20101123_AACDCZ chappell_a_Page_115.tif
569be1b4e5fc18344ae43c9eb0e6eaea
cfa9c5a4eef87deb719d93908a757686c8467f4a
108557 F20101123_AACCXT chappell_a_Page_118.jp2
7f4b237e304194342114c949afd073f0
04575f2ba71d440ea3bdee41e13a8e6f376ff371
F20101123_AACDEC chappell_a_Page_149.tif
13eff79e653e44cc28636f34ed126d3d
5b5b568282cc017ac188e461f0f775d6fa395c93
F20101123_AACDDO chappell_a_Page_134.tif
a308127c86e727986c11f3f830a4e078
2474fd850a6b3c2a935a6bb09a92863e26bb6187
110448 F20101123_AACCYI chappell_a_Page_136.jp2
8917e3e145784317d5d3148c9bf0ecea
c6232576f1faf0684d3990b5fd99ee1dc78e6be0
108489 F20101123_AACCXU chappell_a_Page_119.jp2
e4ea3c6459203846b50e3bd5e4d0c3a6
d4677c0f1dd41bda7ed25f24f0b61d55a00e15d7
F20101123_AACDED chappell_a_Page_153.tif
59e9f7f489bcbca3177b37363c4d8564
491d3bafa7cae0ac2dbb7994ca84c4050ad485b3
F20101123_AACDDP chappell_a_Page_135.tif
7f0918a67558b37f9551188f89b7a2bf
2463b6bc096b7c15d72e74232db0378e64d523ef
103197 F20101123_AACCYJ chappell_a_Page_139.jp2
b838bfe3f65b3704824155be721471f1
b7e3e7919166c4cdeee31411c429871dff51f23b
108392 F20101123_AACCXV chappell_a_Page_120.jp2
485a90a8eebd3577cd97ae02b69f88d1
2bd430c4150d4f99fa94c8df5de1175f332c9722
F20101123_AACDEE chappell_a_Page_154.tif
94a15d491ae4cd26a6a46c64b10cd302
97153e7485bf5c4453c77afe497132c197f3fa0e
F20101123_AACDDQ chappell_a_Page_136.tif
4fdf41fe838fff23f6d495220bded111
fcdb34d32a862f6c1771da6c7deced5708385be0
107965 F20101123_AACCYK chappell_a_Page_140.jp2
672c3f759e4715179ecde3c5863f7288
bcec79f0161b924f3935f169cfbe5685e102c439
112717 F20101123_AACCXW chappell_a_Page_121.jp2
d55bbe155b8deb10ea876e61034651a1
fcab47a220b7eb3a1a78425054f648058bb00c3c
F20101123_AACDEF chappell_a_Page_155.tif
649335b88b26424bf0a9cf01b7fdaff6
b1def8d8d0bec513b6cb8bdd603aee3c310afaa8
F20101123_AACDDR chappell_a_Page_138.tif
198abce7a8f584a4ae59800d05c26468
8f48442c80a399f769931238aeb8f1f0ebc9be7e
103213 F20101123_AACCYL chappell_a_Page_141.jp2
c3eb0e2786161c1977d85ac989e61462
b755b5e18a33ce6b71d0d99f4edbb48edee4ba3b
116526 F20101123_AACCXX chappell_a_Page_122.jp2
3454e856e5cbc3b04e1e9dc918f24afa
5d6cc40f16114695acdd792bd393df84fb0e8756
F20101123_AACDEG chappell_a_Page_157.tif
39d07dcb61d977e6dbb297c24762014b
d3412c01aa2f304bb278ad0caac07e546c6556ce
F20101123_AACCZA chappell_a_Page_161.jp2
cc724c1116616b18ffe3323573fb2b81
7f604ec150094915fe5d8c7d8754c801491adcd8
F20101123_AACDDS chappell_a_Page_139.tif
395e571ececd147b2a507572bee592ce
090a15306909a4f0788632a311979ec1a94b7be3
106095 F20101123_AACCYM chappell_a_Page_143.jp2
95950965d74217f39bf4efce71074351
1a879ede90cf3c709a7b1bd04466e4bdf183a0cd
106325 F20101123_AACCXY chappell_a_Page_124.jp2
195fa6bf86721af9d449381f7c93d0e5
b6c682cc3f901b3a3ffb2f9989bf7209940c5182
F20101123_AACDEH chappell_a_Page_158.tif
d72244553a5e9b5ae9f6c6283752ab85
5512b39e799ebc44c58ac8faaafdfdcc83c1a383
15167 F20101123_AACCZB chappell_a_Page_162.jp2
ffc5baeded6fd6cbc842326300e0726f
23f1d75924e783ed7de18ba574ec5cf6672b65ae
F20101123_AACDDT chappell_a_Page_140.tif
b5fcaff62824335f8c45de837cd71289
4b0c8a1d62ade57fc2f71a319afc120a7a54dce7
110518 F20101123_AACCYN chappell_a_Page_144.jp2
c1a86040165ca5eaec4ab47360b5afca
73b002f84ff7cafd04f73eb1d83f53cb35de1949
103334 F20101123_AACCXZ chappell_a_Page_126.jp2
64066143eb5e296a45c35ebdf1d364a2
7c8962f682a062785ed57d27adc08d1e8838edd9
50290 F20101123_AACCZC chappell_a_Page_163.jp2
44387cd454078a965c107c4584266da2
36014a1f7563b4c4e68ea58ce151086de5514dcc
F20101123_AACDDU chappell_a_Page_141.tif
36cfad6267cee41ee67a8d3f183a1964
190ac973f0d973a6dfaeebdbaade7f478530cb46
99447 F20101123_AACCYO chappell_a_Page_145.jp2
178ea4dff208c177e80c50acc0eb6ed3
3211df3b983733a54fe62557b2fdea464e793e29
F20101123_AACDEI chappell_a_Page_159.tif
6e5125fa772b056da3ba5b69088a87a0
c2f07f9fb56cdb72170196657337ad8024bf2392
107457 F20101123_AACCZD chappell_a_Page_164.jp2
f02e0a1772135c9a4ce587d0de6f8e33
a5027bd7f7b6d95fc6a40a3f9221213f9362d60e
F20101123_AACDDV chappell_a_Page_142.tif
6fef56fa807f4c69a2306934164de6ae
443bc18967a78f0699a60d703b9bda568b39ce85
105082 F20101123_AACCYP chappell_a_Page_147.jp2
6563c99be3d6c95cffcf07f1184b51f4
f8a99c0504b83ebe4def32afd44cacfead6edccf
F20101123_AACDEJ chappell_a_Page_160.tif
7184dee6cc07cb0e41f0c63d79350d9f
6dcdd7f124e8dfe28181269d2350a46c93b5d6ff
130021 F20101123_AACCZE chappell_a_Page_165.jp2
e67c10f153a347e5b897e7a5568c211b
c4475b82abae3238b8ac9056f35209a83023cbb1
F20101123_AACDDW chappell_a_Page_143.tif
987125cf90ac794af1a632eb3aeeeb57
7b6fe04e00eea2cfc9faa8263c88285de308fa10
104071 F20101123_AACCYQ chappell_a_Page_148.jp2
2be182e39a277215f18018f05c374e28
949af4dd3f7c82a2a24525d92c332c27d13f50ac
F20101123_AACDEK chappell_a_Page_162.tif
9a94a86ca42e1a46bfd3c3e38fcf3023
21abb850ce1bd8513dd28170f9b729b252ac98fa
1051964 F20101123_AACCZF chappell_a_Page_166.jp2
bd08fac3276f9ced32b1042915c0c0b2
092871e74033c995b51fecb957b224e1553a25b5
F20101123_AACDDX chappell_a_Page_144.tif
4cd8e4bc9d2dbb8dbab2756c11ca2b8c
43dc068a8c0c230fa38fc6c7b0f43071a89cca8c
107507 F20101123_AACCYR chappell_a_Page_150.jp2
69e7f7f5e86e34f4b312de2f1f536013
5005bdede91ccd04da5d1e13b4273f62a118934e
47839 F20101123_AACDFA chappell_a_Page_004.pro
47571333b37afec61e4d60f98e970a41
a1b1c48a08913a6e87e50db7dc22e9199fd3267c
F20101123_AACDEL chappell_a_Page_163.tif
b1bcba9aed38eb095a6eeeb45c895fb6
1d7658f355897f9495d6d33fdf0f78dfe97a6ed2
119632 F20101123_AACCZG chappell_a_Page_168.jp2
2ea989af68e38ddf13b5466366c67714
8ba72425561391e2eb144e9bfbff46513ca10ece
F20101123_AACDDY chappell_a_Page_145.tif
e5a2787f3dfbe2b059c8230f4d3934c6
ad8c4bc13d087a86eeb19b8f59d41e7258bad814
104890 F20101123_AACCYS chappell_a_Page_151.jp2
4495833afbdfb9a262dc13d79432a579
1fcdc642e014226e2fbd607d234c7eee75387c81
49549 F20101123_AACDFB chappell_a_Page_005.pro
d151e259444a8c16cd9746639660ae73
05c97f154d636af320fda2966921297c9ae536fb
F20101123_AACDEM chappell_a_Page_164.tif
0433148b8c8dbf02e906143589b120e6
87034e13130c52cd7cfbf2a4a22d36fac5de14fe
121144 F20101123_AACCZH chappell_a_Page_170.jp2
a9fc5df23019da894f24f2d31d53cc43
c717aa2c63609d046a1f2ccdaf85c2b69197acc7
F20101123_AACDDZ chappell_a_Page_146.tif
3a1e0b4687876195e0b463ac5d9e3d17
7d327c837c76edb70225d176820e9d0d41605401
85260 F20101123_AACCYT chappell_a_Page_152.jp2
b76481760dc30c4c776e53bf0bf04a33
65652d86e54eb607b7088e4e557503f538899671
5831 F20101123_AACDFC chappell_a_Page_006.pro
4a3c82014e29f6a57b76068a10a96424
3198537669bd7246041068b388dc01dbd6ccf985
F20101123_AACDEN chappell_a_Page_165.tif
4b3e365aaf0da56184d0b3cd5ff4fafa
293fd2b0b9a43d235445f27e41e46cbc18873242
132074 F20101123_AACCZI chappell_a_Page_171.jp2
4cbb4d66e4ed69dced27882e8e653acc
cd5c4fda39f6323e35e22a293f57f85825cfc2c0
93931 F20101123_AACCYU chappell_a_Page_153.jp2
6f36943056e41ed5775433b787f1116d
7da381eadb0dd0e8208706c6c1389fcd466cd724
76935 F20101123_AACDFD chappell_a_Page_007.pro
b3ba7aab9433a43d659afafe87e75048
d6cde0ca9727c3ff604e6ae268463d96b0c238ca
25271604 F20101123_AACDEO chappell_a_Page_166.tif
1e5999a0a0b91b85b424632fb670a785
94963fe5e6a292812601d4416d0c26cda27c360f
117472 F20101123_AACCZJ chappell_a_Page_172.jp2
5634e56926301d6cc24214880a4845b0
d38684cb66cd9ca2b039a534ed9ca305d57de745
106539 F20101123_AACCYV chappell_a_Page_154.jp2
2c5215c4adc7372e20dedc0770c43820
6b028419b131eaffce0025621502e6b000cef410
103441 F20101123_AACDFE chappell_a_Page_009.pro
a57391f99e45062cb0a773c113db451d
09b772bbfd9f0f923fce6c6123db3b07bd35fa39
F20101123_AACDEP chappell_a_Page_167.tif
2d8e9930c5e526052a72a48375462cf0
e375fa8c5615934896e8bef48e07e75c46481fec
93996 F20101123_AACCZK chappell_a_Page_174.jp2
54bf55464e5f9ba61fca6d6ad4e6f7de
5cbfe739577ff1d7afd1578fbb30fa96313e3583
100570 F20101123_AACCYW chappell_a_Page_156.jp2
d06fb7510f845c80c4e6764a3175ad70
5021728f87199228c4816d6917e84666cb6a9dfc
12019 F20101123_AACDFF chappell_a_Page_010.pro
f82eecb7cf6210737b0110fe3aa086ba
7e2c0ee39fc92c895cdb9a55810ce0f6cff16e1a
F20101123_AACDEQ chappell_a_Page_168.tif
d5bbf07c8148f3a3c4f0f36a2eb497bf
f7e4ca7aa8a4ddfacf69f2148d8c2ae89b306188
39206 F20101123_AACCZL chappell_a_Page_175.jp2
7cd986b1319f9343eff15758fa77da21
cd68bd02bc26c2cbd7f5739c0618f4048822c79c
105254 F20101123_AACCYX chappell_a_Page_157.jp2
06ee42f435090365ff3a80ceea9a9aac
c42edde44b3deae24f90c1faa6faf5e440035b34
36851 F20101123_AACDFG chappell_a_Page_011.pro
60480a6fa2360a01fc1bff2cddb74a59
b87ed0b7d4b9b7fb43d1367d52f660edae021019
F20101123_AACDER chappell_a_Page_169.tif
d3c61b2e8747963e583f6ab66dbdc094
4eb9cb6be3a1c4f5cec1d7d7b71664d13afc59f4
F20101123_AACCZM chappell_a_Page_001.tif
c64a66e9773f2af5250d4c608f80bc8b
d355b47ceb754556d40b8247758baebb1d5a1faa
108052 F20101123_AACCYY chappell_a_Page_159.jp2
af609d6fa752866def1f2302fbac7503
1302342ddb8871d8a0272b710e979075601e1db2
38895 F20101123_AACDFH chappell_a_Page_012.pro
cad217f16b3b446040b678c557456b00
97fa97bc7d1bd3317a93e094e7627e2ec4508579
F20101123_AACDES chappell_a_Page_170.tif
3abf7779694c160e1aae15ec357e8745
daa223dfc83bd26aafd8d6b44ec033c38858af06
F20101123_AACCZN chappell_a_Page_002.tif
9a0028755e0c34697510e7324a60027c
d121e3de1a307f2c26dd4eb3513b6e33da0f8ffa
104321 F20101123_AACCYZ chappell_a_Page_160.jp2
e2640f4e258cf3da431cbf407cb77722
e8bd7350a44d74ee5dc71ddfdd79306e002139a5
42715 F20101123_AACDFI chappell_a_Page_013.pro
94bbbe73d70cc5147296dac8d30af9d7
5e5332182c4b765d367f1efd275b0244a6cf2b09
F20101123_AACDET chappell_a_Page_171.tif
eead63a9e19dd2834d475c461547b553
ccfdae5b930b29f17efddfe1c75891ae2fb970d0
F20101123_AACCZO chappell_a_Page_004.tif
cc860fbfbd2315a20706e982ae22010f
81ebc629045916044d30ef34622b8bd21560bc07
F20101123_AACDEU chappell_a_Page_173.tif
bd32701feadd010c894c252052c6191d
0142c324925457f30d78229ee873ceb3f929d61d
F20101123_AACCZP chappell_a_Page_007.tif
a61d3ec942dc75842f7baaacd247f62d
36eef021e94707e3e7ef865c51958bd55cf3348d
50383 F20101123_AACDFJ chappell_a_Page_014.pro
42852fbdeb3f1ccb444bc9246b17677f
145dd1e80d2f0813fd12bdd5d186f8d3643c376a
F20101123_AACDEV chappell_a_Page_174.tif
b9cc7584499bb3d6ee8fea38cc23be63
db4c48c3514b696658ef8006ab32e16d89c25344
F20101123_AACCZQ chappell_a_Page_008.tif
17a1e3da2992a82ced1efae40be7bac0
759f5fd447993288c4e554b5bf1c4706f0d03648
60738 F20101123_AACDFK chappell_a_Page_015.pro
ed470a047f909a0d0c1ba833c6426d2c
d59768e0dece64a38efbb0ed49895cae8d1d12b7
F20101123_AACDEW chappell_a_Page_175.tif
2a76861574b95a6fbd01e2d7c8e751db
e07faa2346f793c6e3d694a94592fe53e240d429
F20101123_AACCZR chappell_a_Page_009.tif
b1b146ee8cd2ca67c176c6f23d5bff2f
3c65187d6112d60094f9c2e44b9ecfa3593d4ae7
48398 F20101123_AACDGA chappell_a_Page_034.pro
7d7122e5f0f4c5a879ab4529148882ff
c00347299556f77832ff1cc42cce4993b82f591a
50522 F20101123_AACDFL chappell_a_Page_016.pro
2320b7302ce95a45ea8ad4068b39925a
4ce68652a3f1f1f0f74dd48c9355c97c2ff8325e
7990 F20101123_AACDEX chappell_a_Page_001.pro
93ab1fd7e83afd1bccde7fbf9802e060
7492eeb44f1306c8ab77c65cf24cb17569f2f50d
F20101123_AACCZS chappell_a_Page_010.tif
c919fa6e2b3fef9a39d2d7e27d60ed88
c8831d44a6ca21995cbba163a4e332dc04f98508
48695 F20101123_AACDGB chappell_a_Page_035.pro
2166f8e51a13cbc5f3824d0a994d4eee
eda0a1a6c590e2c163abdac16f59c93d4af930c3
52058 F20101123_AACDFM chappell_a_Page_017.pro
64479d43e2a5d185aacf6071ff270388
5db3f625162732aaa99b874275c2c5de4ca39868
1281 F20101123_AACDEY chappell_a_Page_002.pro
30d8993612be14dde1806955662a045f
40119cd32e8078fd0349173706b27ab33507bd90
F20101123_AACCZT chappell_a_Page_011.tif
e3782149c8e29ee46e35f17f1c0a1bf8
248667a5d827f19ad2deadeafc00f13e1242eb31
48831 F20101123_AACDGC chappell_a_Page_036.pro
f08ca50add6694a22f6b923d9cf9c2c4
aeabe309503262fa0f65e195b50a833e05ab0458
50469 F20101123_AACDFN chappell_a_Page_018.pro
32f6a887bc72540358024cdd65e1b762
396469987d0c782e75af42fb823deb0d7d0ad08b
42610 F20101123_AACDEZ chappell_a_Page_003.pro
43f74435b308aa48dd90b12015311ccd
7e725cb17e59561b77dc6008506eb5cf02948f1d
F20101123_AACCZU chappell_a_Page_012.tif
67c119bf985ac39417dbe22aff8a8537
c8b0bb42704a2c2711079c634bd03cab1e87849f
40534 F20101123_AACDGD chappell_a_Page_037.pro
9061761d746d8b91206f5bedc56d8b36
ae5e40a9bf7b6eb63fca4b70022e4cd4aafab476
50005 F20101123_AACDFO chappell_a_Page_019.pro
fbef48ed297b39e63de1ecbeff35e447
3c774522479438d58533ddbfd293af67aec7526e
F20101123_AACCZV chappell_a_Page_013.tif
64ab2a9a4d3c1adfa31faafd18f18233
6b8a4be941fb9799296ec5e7675e3ad14d5cc070
50261 F20101123_AACDGE chappell_a_Page_038.pro
0c1a74df07da8a2034ba211677778082
e33eed61b9d28312b8c6b6c61f7d43e2c63ab972
46099 F20101123_AACDFP chappell_a_Page_020.pro
b37866b5569418f591ff3030b0095445
39fe807f7fef05d6a513edd2957bde6b3676827a
F20101123_AACCZW chappell_a_Page_014.tif
67daeed3788b92b17315de1e496f5aad
41da59877b85becf52ed50f7bbe404e67b576636
48787 F20101123_AACDGF chappell_a_Page_040.pro
faae00e75f06e45b5f58fb3ea46f8122
d743a7975979bf96c90a522f44e8ba190e9949a3
49438 F20101123_AACDFQ chappell_a_Page_021.pro
889aa492511344a06773f26cb0fa258f
56ef286b3cf2640e56b933b7cde319c3c69f084c
F20101123_AACCZX chappell_a_Page_015.tif
1a31fd7a0bf29a7e42aac78db5dec914
1dbc4752106d645516d2843f27575551cb20d3a6
49999 F20101123_AACDGG chappell_a_Page_041.pro
245839074305531f4010ab8ca36c87bb
91f32a6f3439a1a445024a87040423f4c6c3f180
48815 F20101123_AACDFR chappell_a_Page_022.pro
f9a3c7daffd91e7d8c81d86956770c24
ef922537b9a31d7492b42544672d479f7afb89a8
F20101123_AACCZY chappell_a_Page_016.tif
c056f1ae747a39ec5c86ee6b3d2dce4e
632475f90dc97b3d8bb2a7c1f3febd30aece9a51
53940 F20101123_AACDGH chappell_a_Page_042.pro
15f91ee8ad8048cdd52aa5f182ae9712
5175e28385e18b918af984b72e39b90c5f2ca6af
50836 F20101123_AACDFS chappell_a_Page_023.pro
bb36b8c162ae5323be6812c7faa133c2
030601ea04cccc8ada60b3d629d1bd37d742b7a1
F20101123_AACCZZ chappell_a_Page_017.tif
40440fb566138cae819ad6ce1189ebbf
aade8526a2efc22b95d44445b673d4ff70380385
50567 F20101123_AACDGI chappell_a_Page_043.pro
0a5b4d9308c8ed8d95e4345e6e4bea55
512d5b27366f652fbe76cf1b819ba392360646aa
17216 F20101123_AACDFT chappell_a_Page_024.pro
369b037c1ad5d34f45cb2c71e4eb755d
9f1fcbe61979528adad3878406a5e8d412233c0c
49205 F20101123_AACDGJ chappell_a_Page_044.pro
7a5d3d1a1ea3362ed005bcd6ed356c6a
fe842869c210b0754efb5913bac568f4189c6578
43851 F20101123_AACDFU chappell_a_Page_025.pro
5d08b55a4f322b0d7cd6605b3b34895c
bac7f18883a0f47fa12eb54418f3d5964abccbf3
52092 F20101123_AACDFV chappell_a_Page_027.pro
776ffd181a456810fe18cf9761096d6b
bb798d5348d34eafc869e23eddca4f2ec25c4be5
52649 F20101123_AACDGK chappell_a_Page_046.pro
0a84de8deadba2614c28eaa5fd9f6390
0b2c7ffdbf8a280d2e924274281500764de53fa8
48873 F20101123_AACDFW chappell_a_Page_029.pro
9e3328fe9dba23a4e8c59c9b6fb763ef
24560566126cfe7c714f120ea52e3934243ab385
53344 F20101123_AACDGL chappell_a_Page_047.pro
72d5a6a1e9678df8aca81be5fb48c952
576726b31b1af8eff99e97339fe8d3b721b375ca
49083 F20101123_AACDFX chappell_a_Page_030.pro
2daea6f674f60ffc8adf19d2ed60ea92
7afe7970a62714a12f9b83d196bd720bf5ca62bc
51149 F20101123_AACDHA chappell_a_Page_067.pro
30bc90b36de311d7e2616bd0ed1706cd
f12bcf916a2218757d8b937c258eaf2f4cd584ac
46590 F20101123_AACDGM chappell_a_Page_048.pro
3026cf8698e26a044e428889eb766457
d8c77dfff95db8d9e9cc70a90079fbabfc3d2c8b
47706 F20101123_AACDFY chappell_a_Page_031.pro
5ab28929a3d56c8e789e254b604810d3
43d1895119af9d77d5557a1646754af6498794c6
34575 F20101123_AACDHB chappell_a_Page_068.pro
37555c7d483e0cba12657e58bbc0dd32
484fcaa3afa1f694f0012dd5b6c8832b7257ce1c
49801 F20101123_AACDGN chappell_a_Page_049.pro
13393eaf0fd64bbd6fcf26029240cfc2
81861adf0fbcd3dec4b4f718121490bc37e383a1
50148 F20101123_AACDFZ chappell_a_Page_032.pro
5ba5ff918a5d215cfb19b92cef8d4c7a
c07e9ea8288217998dd5035c7419ba3713540ed0
38905 F20101123_AACDHC chappell_a_Page_069.pro
3f2aed1fecb5ddfd5f4419cef9e9f3bd
b5328a8310862ca9e9b9f047eb2abef78b0a0453
7726 F20101123_AACDGO chappell_a_Page_052.pro
5ac97e515b82884a1069095c26f360df
387f7d0a1a3563f7c1b9c6aaa2e10290c890308d
49352 F20101123_AACDHD chappell_a_Page_070.pro
f82c95896b164d454c4e2e76fe805c5b
0e602c6348a0b468735271922c3680972973dd88
42692 F20101123_AACDGP chappell_a_Page_053.pro
1b863059ef7aa598133fa963d40e3283
6d8ce1177e753d7ee7ff824237fe996b503ae7c1
53691 F20101123_AACDHE chappell_a_Page_073.pro
87a886f10dd1e36b27505d037a5c6280
8ba19176d7f4abc19575c001bcda9f497c9bffef
48113 F20101123_AACDGQ chappell_a_Page_054.pro
3a598c0c2066b7a78a8264426723165c
53a1d86e84003e11e7cf7700c6a61bd93da47657
47243 F20101123_AACDHF chappell_a_Page_074.pro
5683aa0f08558ffce20c32c8af244c9d
c213daf4cd2697dbb2063b50e060a878fec2f2c5
49875 F20101123_AACDGR chappell_a_Page_055.pro
dd5a8e58fcf2e1b05ed288e62e9d5499
f1fdf8c550927d9317a1eff7c0bd7a1c002989d7
45447 F20101123_AACDHG chappell_a_Page_075.pro
763c24873be018ca5462c1763eb7a7a1
b888ebe97f535b72a96326aa9714208df59391bc
46562 F20101123_AACDGS chappell_a_Page_057.pro
ed6f92e7310c63a9e53074b41237d9cb
835918f8503abe8d92c216c661cab31f13d0d92b
50516 F20101123_AACDHH chappell_a_Page_076.pro
e617aee02e1008a2b4805df03d19a6da
d685de4ded8be8b87bbe9a896e1fd2a9f28deef3
51237 F20101123_AACDGT chappell_a_Page_058.pro
318df24856d5fe1720de38bdd80f6ea8
ad46b234b435152b34e8a4a088deb365843d6ae0
26095 F20101123_AACDHI chappell_a_Page_078.pro
29b10c499589e24fb1690df8006de653
aae80cf4ea08d8d0d7794ec2d0d9a6cf4d25e912
49156 F20101123_AACDGU chappell_a_Page_059.pro
b2116f2a9808d840db296835da67db22
592c70841b53d6b5bd6d13ef15d54ae7477e112e
48994 F20101123_AACDHJ chappell_a_Page_080.pro
9f8803487e16d82d7569aae2d2b47752
f49fce621b002ecec66168f2859f6063b7638ccf
50415 F20101123_AACDGV chappell_a_Page_060.pro
71b93ea7c18e50e0161fd05063ac7d5f
edad070629993fd4ab499df61a9567ec6c4b28e9
50318 F20101123_AACDHK chappell_a_Page_081.pro
1e90258489f46c1a2a1c7487393796dc
b6bc1fdd2e3afb3f4a0cbc37c0a571051cc276d8
53424 F20101123_AACDGW chappell_a_Page_061.pro
56edee303d89bce99c4cf51d34309783
67a9c665a4573e6ac365bb3aebe79940f7ab7498
49262 F20101123_AACDGX chappell_a_Page_062.pro
df51b8f51f8d2e574ee41a1894207940
85718ba41e23b209c6b058a0dc47c05255f1e53c
51576 F20101123_AACDIA chappell_a_Page_100.pro
ab0a939d9b8434eefab73acab80609e2
fb050d4ee67a17c9b91abdc1f7ccc0abba951070
49193 F20101123_AACDHL chappell_a_Page_082.pro
7277bea648da72dc0d904bb52877e94c
5ffee8b2a4ae2401e30fb2dd195824604a6ac641
49903 F20101123_AACDIB chappell_a_Page_101.pro
3240e54d9ce7b3fbf1d13a7f43fbf738
3517421a12c5cc3fe8e6ea2803530c29d684e05e
46290 F20101123_AACDHM chappell_a_Page_083.pro
4f88bd0937a83a12d0c71320e29956ce
0894aac115080edb162e969afe991861063c845f
49137 F20101123_AACDGY chappell_a_Page_063.pro
93fabfc463fba08ecb9193ca7e2d025d
3547308f31dc2041aa773d637d197c0f6942d64b
61166 F20101123_AACDIC chappell_a_Page_102.pro
169deee9636c2969ed5d321acd8a905a
89ded82939edd821964629b67f4b0030ed14b7cc
47524 F20101123_AACDHN chappell_a_Page_085.pro
95627944022f6b9c43d63c2e343c9022
f784a570d826d74086204ca0fcd43fa77f83cead
52235 F20101123_AACDGZ chappell_a_Page_065.pro
64c5d0687a657523c70bd209b631c891
fbf966340f052b3b1973c945329f89b0b3cf6259
48000 F20101123_AACDID chappell_a_Page_103.pro
8d4083c7145e799fb3624a14a1554631
9fef88b6133d2376dd4247756c732e2c3ac51f27
19405 F20101123_AACDHO chappell_a_Page_086.pro
f5c26f331dbcdfd645f4e411ef4d48bf
c7187cde3e117306ba20984522dce57cd00a56d4
49183 F20101123_AACDIE chappell_a_Page_104.pro
98c08a8fd8c98b4ed16c450ae72e7d7e
7542ed7acbc5edf297932214154457d12cced6b3
37234 F20101123_AACDHP chappell_a_Page_087.pro
747449bf4859385e9b71bb66e730a9e6
4d90b09f9f9342f791601fdd203e993563419283
51741 F20101123_AACDIF chappell_a_Page_105.pro
b2f83b8256718e0e5c8c521ab35dada4
7b40dd220e8cc5cf7c79cb7c40f6e706c8019f81
46975 F20101123_AACDHQ chappell_a_Page_089.pro
84ac4dabd4200ae0a41dee2868cb34a0
020d218f1cbf4b503413f320a5dc170c8a19ffd7
49952 F20101123_AACDIG chappell_a_Page_106.pro
19a4b94e5a8d4f1d92f79065cfe179b0
65886ce33db39ec3efdd287199646f8e9e16ec94
47541 F20101123_AACDHR chappell_a_Page_090.pro
bb80867984fd0454a697d31f3c7da2e5
de10553d1777df93e296895c4a75ee00fc3d16c1
54787 F20101123_AACDIH chappell_a_Page_107.pro
4b84768f0708703f2f0436040d208ec2
2b733a4f203f6a727b5c66e70aef6560bdc44711
51265 F20101123_AACDHS chappell_a_Page_091.pro
d5681f3c04ed14a367aa2c426c8ec8de
11a30f357b94e378fd2a23e14518b4f0b1d34349
52845 F20101123_AACDII chappell_a_Page_108.pro
246c5e46e6f20c58974a34026d189cfd
77ca8c12f4671e57dee4063decad5d2bba920bef
49006 F20101123_AACDHT chappell_a_Page_092.pro
616b756a657c0d65772f1be016483895
4d9a2abfcc95fe11f5d1c496d8f7ba62a0cef0ff
52176 F20101123_AACDIJ chappell_a_Page_109.pro
8b15565aa513926a71a9860378eb3d0b
d4f91e34c4b91517bf15acce56f0a7a03edb4891
48987 F20101123_AACDHU chappell_a_Page_093.pro
2191c572079484c211dba6eef863fd5c
8c1774b0d3e6d81efc1e75205761092d19b50b0d
51137 F20101123_AACDIK chappell_a_Page_110.pro
73cd8d4ac1e18460e5751912ac3c5753
7876b313bc00753822d3c2a6dab03ba6ceb2e379
26713 F20101123_AACDHV chappell_a_Page_095.pro
7cb468de646335946ed85d837d627ea7
523bf840c02397a0042f310373ecc964e2a77a5f
48888 F20101123_AACDIL chappell_a_Page_111.pro
490974376a79992f02f3985ae22d7045
d5758e6315dcfcdfdf53ce8f49a8129297eeb457
26286 F20101123_AACDHW chappell_a_Page_096.pro
78f15438d6576748dfa4be1bbcbeb327
7b4b553b31dd58f55cd8dfa029a14598573cb2e0
47511 F20101123_AACDHX chappell_a_Page_097.pro
255c6ea8e6eb8ec974a681283765ac61
b91cf09a8901adf419ed79e4458dcff4ae270494
51673 F20101123_AACDJA chappell_a_Page_128.pro
04f772712253fe19b89d616efee0247b
4f3b4a1315181a1902e2e3ab271d17e0b7b9570d
48796 F20101123_AACDIM chappell_a_Page_113.pro
368597642657f2a208561663dad12d34
2edf5da538cd6d66f71ca31b9fd573ede7e9da84
42434 F20101123_AACDHY chappell_a_Page_098.pro
359665ac697bc257da19b0e270c21c8a
b758813234dee18c03feba4d53382de35a452222
47034 F20101123_AACDJB chappell_a_Page_129.pro
a1301f0455b2ffff1f18ea41ca7a7ba6
4f0ac19603c57c8b8374a6160b3215ec9cf5a5f9
51541 F20101123_AACDIN chappell_a_Page_114.pro
4f3b13fef1e4111d5d6ffb337fd6fab4
60a14ed209e19f174ffe4ffd8997685bef920fa2
47615 F20101123_AACDHZ chappell_a_Page_099.pro
ebc1a8dcc8020ccd09a997438b9c0b02
7f3b81c05bbc048cc368d35b5ac3ef43b69586a1
101753 F20101123_AACCGA chappell_a_Page_041.jpg
dfc8520172b1966bdd41b7e2ce2abbb1
565a786dccbbff37493cead90a6d2d03564d57e2
51911 F20101123_AACDJC chappell_a_Page_131.pro
d867b0703f412fe959df633950e8ef98
62fd50c0e177bd18103c1786ceb62a204197c1e2
50602 F20101123_AACDIO chappell_a_Page_115.pro
c6dbf71038c5d9018966951d404714b9
19b9558f9306fabab477b7d2ef40e34e14a268d4
84985 F20101123_AACCGB chappell_a_Page_079.jp2
94e56ac7ef309e1fb27e2196e10be7eb
45665a97f9fa4f6e9bf90e4a3af370ed1669b68b
53649 F20101123_AACDJD chappell_a_Page_132.pro
4eedd9fe721a32e0822458e0a5eaea7e
54534b38894e7c8a4dc51f653b80e8125653c4c5
96834 F20101123_AACCFN chappell_a_Page_074.jpg
98b6c5663bea4b98033cc91f1e3173d7
5617491b2d1ee145b5ad447883fe5353dc55c695
52698 F20101123_AACDIP chappell_a_Page_116.pro
3c9acc8f03d0778d5eef2c07d3b9650e
8d3bc0680e4f5844f08393bcdfc85b1585851445
109395 F20101123_AACCGC chappell_a_Page_019.jp2
b134784398131d33732fd96333214f68
1596c0e96cdd8ef7229b421f9fd5ff6123555232
51181 F20101123_AACDJE chappell_a_Page_134.pro
b96e0428239e2d5ab530e06b89bcfc39
a2a0ca08210d127d9b78ddba9199e650acdddce7
7257 F20101123_AACCFO chappell_a_Page_025thm.jpg
24688b558df00e4b9c190fdefbea28a2
943ee647e7487a13633d2514dcdc14c4aa68d60a
63870 F20101123_AACDIQ chappell_a_Page_117.pro
6534423f6b397733c3b5f57a6e41a2d1
c56f1148fbf7b19ed9f7377abfc1e64df8af1f4e
7994 F20101123_AACCGD chappell_a_Page_116thm.jpg
e2e1f7f7e0f8c160be46b4a5d1f2c157
ae95371fc8fa217e211d280b450a233bd23ac904
50453 F20101123_AACDJF chappell_a_Page_135.pro
c75c8dfa0e9f308c8771826a5d637011
cb4fc9d920bc0530501d7f6946d5f380eda14ab6
2009 F20101123_AACCFP chappell_a_Page_143.txt
139f4a95b407f92b54b531028aad548e
da8a64045fda15a719612a90f4904be098dbbb78
50883 F20101123_AACDIR chappell_a_Page_118.pro
e94fe9bfb788134734934910d7ce1775
f70deb5c7cadd48421a6bc3b5efca894bbb06abe
1223 F20101123_AACCGE chappell_a_Page_094thm.jpg
becd93d4a5011f54427c453d72649cd2
99ae52b0387b56e4c093d3c7de5a11931c336e32
51769 F20101123_AACDJG chappell_a_Page_136.pro
6267044443ca28e470abb48720c9230c
85c5e238901c6862418039934b53683a7862bd59
F20101123_AACCFQ chappell_a_Page_006.tif
f87f0a338d97885407f58233e003d068
7ad5a3253245195fd7dadd4c394d8bd7c710ea7d
50599 F20101123_AACDIS chappell_a_Page_119.pro
f54ea49935b986d5565d1d91fb26db42
9e0f1094bdf0ec6452e82d754ca6fed44c401612
46284 F20101123_AACCGF chappell_a_Page_123.pro
8ed72b0d325cf3391753f658516505bd
118d475283ddee0c618e520bdc0e191e67280ffc
50827 F20101123_AACDJH chappell_a_Page_138.pro
5d812bd26d84f6e91863ec7fbf92abc9
42e7bbe8cf265decb2fd641228b0ae3fc11d7256
7917 F20101123_AACCFR chappell_a_Page_099thm.jpg
2d6d2b3c59f1f4ee00b5b7da30c31933
6f58d6475ada06375ee9bb7d315d94075fa82744
F20101123_AACDIT chappell_a_Page_120.pro
5fc48fa58213121abfd169c8aa3722ec
6ccb177905678910dd4a20db0de338dca8db4ccf
99377 F20101123_AACCGG chappell_a_Page_158.jp2
ad9ed178dfe822799ea8a03f7b28f311
01e357bc477df15ac27f44beeaba8f1ddd3c175e
49054 F20101123_AACDJI chappell_a_Page_139.pro
26560902f6dab461a59c1e8324108d42
c4e5ccef5c5d9d8253b3ec6692f56b3efc469dce
95549 F20101123_AACCFS chappell_a_Page_142.jpg
59e95bcf091b1b8caf57dc795d8b2f56
6bfd9718be43f63a88db0f558ca5a9d781fd41da
54357 F20101123_AACDIU chappell_a_Page_121.pro
f22a8f77b410f163237080f5c4aa2fab
f940726aabccc5ee509010ed60456373ca3b9a7e
45081 F20101123_AACCGH chappell_a_Page_084.pro
2c20a2e4f591e552fade21239055c52b
472f57ebb9f9fa19cb06b2cf1ca6d4803d93c244
48499 F20101123_AACDJJ chappell_a_Page_141.pro
f76a29bc8fad9ec9880ea07354328681
22dc0ba0a6206169f8152d80ce1bc932bc9df768
F20101123_AACCFT chappell_a_Page_150.tif
ee20426b7d9d24db2860c26d9938a99c
c41c02cb244a99ffd75c47be76a4bef894c8213c
56298 F20101123_AACDIV chappell_a_Page_122.pro
0e180a5a0f0fe3d6c6ab22c27b6a8868
ccf1cfb9fbdc61d09677d50ceea10c4b626c2c4c
52493 F20101123_AACCGI chappell_a_Page_133.pro
b20e912c60e4c9bad534f314d68565c8
74b5ad5e3dbb8de58f5fe115420127d706de168a
47390 F20101123_AACDJK chappell_a_Page_142.pro
0410f010efabb2e158834425e6cedf68
a2e25e533eecf2a7c370c6254b57fc7c3cac79eb
49586 F20101123_AACCFU chappell_a_Page_077.pro
f7535c964ebc2f0f4be98e5aa700e8ba
07562256b84cc6bacc04bed76d8963659d1bc019
49912 F20101123_AACDIW chappell_a_Page_124.pro
48cfc7cbd84a31fb8741e732311edf3b
b6d518533d67ee2f238c473bcdac03526fe22657
F20101123_AACCGJ chappell_a_Page_147thm.jpg
9c0d5d52510ef8237a780e1ac7f5a620
61dad7a03d1e8553bdbeac1246285c472137a18e
49927 F20101123_AACDJL chappell_a_Page_143.pro
588a70d7975ab9a5da8e0137d20ed957
c2f23e3ea5906b3b2e533fa3e544916079690c39
60031 F20101123_AACDKA chappell_a_Page_165.pro
593c7fc005067c9ee190d78e7b91c394
9b9982fb9a1f048de5aec9cf10c68331c4e9c936
101456 F20101123_AACCFV chappell_a_Page_142.jp2
5a071057219020b8e554330e17f8f944
c02f6ee7aaf23adcd6557c08f08961a5f2528017
52134 F20101123_AACDIX chappell_a_Page_125.pro
3f3c3850b3827af70cd4086921df46b9
f8bf8cca470293bda7578c3347a01aeb6850db2d
3183 F20101123_AACCGK chappell_a_Page_007.txt
e7acd33ad807667088dae990b6f3a5be
dc786f8b2abcc64d713f21b5f8a3a8878cc8ff66
46611 F20101123_AACDJM chappell_a_Page_145.pro
e57c2d059d8a335162088d3f7a64a689
1e07ea2f3b33b5916fefbb3c10f0825e0cff505a
61229 F20101123_AACDKB chappell_a_Page_167.pro
2d668b8a878a49a655e5252034fe8cbc
b9716ce501b5dde54dfb9329a186000e22610a45
8376 F20101123_AACCFW chappell_a_Page_117thm.jpg
1dcd282f4db36dc063c6ebec7784e80d
ea6a84c3be1fcafeedd21fde5911db99860fa8df
48177 F20101123_AACDIY chappell_a_Page_126.pro
e126b4821228644945af98ef7ab261c9
02acdc256232b6d2c261004af2fb45d40a1375e4
54779 F20101123_AACDKC chappell_a_Page_168.pro
16154b33f25e17e54f7c0616c0b6ad5b
e9356eae9a9014d041833c1b99bd2a88ca7cffad
1417 F20101123_AACCFX chappell_a_Page_162thm.jpg
5f0335403bae884d9aeb6f5057e5e6ea
59b75aaff80418b789e884fe6d69ebec8f8151b4
61639 F20101123_AACDIZ chappell_a_Page_127.pro
f908a74b90c9870ada1d9e2e6d8dd5d0
d38b40291763eb2a2e644b772cd3ef39903c71ad
F20101123_AACCHA chappell_a_Page_114.tif
6f5edfb619d280d85700176eb682aaeb
02e37fb0bea1e04f7141d9ab756f9829bebad464
130681 F20101123_AACCGL chappell_a_Page_173.jp2
9245f20217ad542ca00eb2bb340dc952
ae1581f0c0a684401dc657270952ddeb94c01e98
51751 F20101123_AACDJN chappell_a_Page_146.pro
2d6d3df3c86d8fbef6117723f7b79da1
97432bf548c238632d384ea25e65579babc38fec
58373 F20101123_AACDKD chappell_a_Page_169.pro
965f257e1757046a9ec575033154198c
7cff5f737bc88cba14e9693ce730d613709d2a88
4171 F20101123_AACCFY chappell_a_Page_009.txt
a4fd368d277cda9665fe3bc67813b716
2ac67c0babafb4f58dff7d2e55a88268452a5ebc
87348 F20101123_AACCHB chappell_a_Page_098.jpg
13e877c73289050b51f3d08857cd62e6
9dd7537a3d6d1587ee8abd35d575e9c3b8e15b44
14264 F20101123_AACCGM chappell_a_Page_162.jpg
d928140a822c8dd1cfb28aae2fc68176
c356132eed4b715e48df0f27893a54359fcfb6d1
48755 F20101123_AACDJO chappell_a_Page_147.pro
8ea490be9c0133c4b3ee5e33735f3c72
eceedac875c1e5404463d05cc143c1c1f9843263
55177 F20101123_AACDKE chappell_a_Page_170.pro
bb040a2ada2b84ac72b6c4db2f03afc4
4c9f825afa34a328e589282d786e91d076d8711a
8334 F20101123_AACCFZ chappell_a_Page_004thm.jpg
1db3334095cdd8617b1ba6055b4a4ef1
5f3c4e1b2429afe05a016677ba96dd3d1826c1fc
8042 F20101123_AACCHC chappell_a_Page_029thm.jpg
ea7e4146f335c20eb13427c66d3e1391
3f862b7301e2e31991bfba48cf981ce84dc1295b
109776 F20101123_AACCGN chappell_a_Page_081.jp2
67e95766d871477e7a65209e16834b95
47fb00a17ba87d36d779ef3ddf3e8b3be95807bf
46927 F20101123_AACDJP chappell_a_Page_149.pro
e92e30711724ec69b3e4867b677dff26
b5a5160b01cec71ed7ff8177aea47ca349dc0f88
59189 F20101123_AACDKF chappell_a_Page_173.pro
d0b3bfbdc691a18081f7449235442d2c
e09a86b4b1dd516f16ab694c76a8f8f5bede5e7a
8090 F20101123_AACCHD chappell_a_Page_124thm.jpg
58ebdd7e427af44adc735b25b83a60de
61ebf260bef82e9733f690d1f1fee073902f8c99
101386 F20101123_AACCGO chappell_a_Page_083.jp2
99648dcef9e15385ad026b4b79a03cfd
e8f0450b79c49c5098c372360fc29288ea6a4558
49901 F20101123_AACDJQ chappell_a_Page_150.pro
3ae75c741ac296dc427fccad11e57306
9e3e5feffacfb8787a56ab9465b35f4a1204d6a1
41385 F20101123_AACDKG chappell_a_Page_174.pro
2f30fa1b9b1b7740fcb881e6951bd8a7
78812550e138216acc5e29a9aaef3e7c262b9d20
33012 F20101123_AACCHE chappell_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
a67956fb3e9910f08ae1e4a1093669ff
2cf416cccb52589700568980edfc3afff8688622
34651 F20101123_AACCGP chappell_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
cb126ce3b523c8ec89fe24ba6175ea15
5652ea8f6e1d44302bd067a170351f267eb772dc
48825 F20101123_AACDJR chappell_a_Page_151.pro
24ae354e42be2bad33577038d0a33b04
8eacc49847462489521d8229531a1d7864755705
16529 F20101123_AACDKH chappell_a_Page_175.pro
15beff4dfae1ae4c03126fda095c6d9c
5b63dc2fafce9daefa33830f6b560d3428ff2f01
102244 F20101123_AACCHF chappell_a_Page_049.jpg
fffc0aab34e26dc018b36317a9d016c1
c0e31a70449078da25f20b6ef423c224d91e0237
109636 F20101123_AACCGQ chappell_a_Page_051.jp2
a6d2d40507721d556ae22905dc70061c
1cb3d2ba6952115e084024d3ba030971fb7d76fe
38713 F20101123_AACDJS chappell_a_Page_152.pro
dd31c0bc3eafd1c1e8e08f833604737f
c02fb7a50fa9c93e44fde2d86182a9e8b75355db
422 F20101123_AACDKI chappell_a_Page_001.txt
41ccffc987f85692e4863abb48913c60
a5aef0e0467b1d6a7deff2e1dc393de4cdf6ce9c
43061 F20101123_AACDJT chappell_a_Page_153.pro
b1129d1bdffaed4c7cbd463dcd62dec6
8b48293794a3d3f307c8a168ba2e9dfe5914923f
110018 F20101123_AACCHG chappell_a_Page_105.jp2
cb5dc79a48bd29059d9b93745a0e9765
e437fbd5c5c4285c7d89156ae69faa6bf1c887f7
106329 F20101123_AACCGR chappell_a_Page_077.jp2
c761bd590dd08ff07ed4dc4d032b14bc
58ee8e488b83f3df826a60f16bc941ba2a86e780
117 F20101123_AACDKJ chappell_a_Page_002.txt
55ec565b7e7d25062eee5338072f1b66
2dc6358df513e69b0314747897a1228639c4cfb0
49857 F20101123_AACDJU chappell_a_Page_154.pro
5604a038a5606cf6637b5a5968c0aee5
0a7659cc8cabea6f9f29105d35bec2d07f5a0886
50980 F20101123_AACCHH chappell_a_Page_161.pro
611a9ce941ff222b3df7034b2d41e6b5
cacbc3a25ff967cfed33dfea49230ce11da71191
110790 F20101123_AACCGS chappell_a_Page_028.jp2
ca7b35e4ef2b6c0e365a129d0d44d63c
a505ec9e9b558396f6fb96631b4588c261e0baf5
1719 F20101123_AACDKK chappell_a_Page_003.txt
916cdeb41c8f1d0ff73851c64fb426db
086ce55746a3a5fcfe84e9f34c1ee122531d5ef8
48668 F20101123_AACDJV chappell_a_Page_155.pro
c0124d3ab216422a5a54661478420844
9d5481622805da3dd502f95b6fca74f436731106
7517 F20101123_AACCHI chappell_a_Page_020thm.jpg
ce8cfa7a009cef9dd0b983dde923c2f8
0c1a5ea480a1bf29c087b097034e85fb1aa44aed
7962 F20101123_AACCGT chappell_a_Page_112thm.jpg
e2bcf6dfaefdc31b5c879ec5e2817b0c
4e7343f5481c7c8e93f2d79915eacbe36063fbbf
1897 F20101123_AACDKL chappell_a_Page_004.txt
9b03de4b495f57ee183fb21a47eddfb6
e7bb08b10afe2d8fb30576c6585d02ae9223ba5b
48133 F20101123_AACDJW chappell_a_Page_157.pro
65b077721a8d22bc679b5c98e91ca258
33df5cc1e742092f7a4fa989d3db6401f5629ac1
110234 F20101123_AACCHJ chappell_a_Page_008.pro
185ee6f0977290bd92382f0de4c65d37
23191c00e9a9d04e2764447e834bef7370c86c6e
106078 F20101123_AACCGU chappell_a_Page_076.jp2
92d289754d0420fb85b5ac1be85d5342
724fde48e6d9b4a81b7368259ad6ae2619cdbedc
2024 F20101123_AACDLA chappell_a_Page_023.txt
dbbf5cb4ab4656d4c029a440b3fadb51
97d7e7dc38cc834cf952fa2f52ed3389ab63c8e5
1962 F20101123_AACDKM chappell_a_Page_005.txt
68765c4406682853eb6158ffbbf83dd4
97c7435851573e91b810568c225bb48f19c2ba03
49804 F20101123_AACDJX chappell_a_Page_159.pro
e0e2d0de1e561ee0848b836c4fec9c79
6532bff518bb92c2ae8b7da2e31debb68b769ac9
88847 F20101123_AACCHK chappell_a_Page_037.jp2
1b7697655039a9e3ba2993d825147189
15bb483ebbd2cf83c7ebd7d83c8b2aae3c9dc170
51122 F20101123_AACCGV chappell_a_Page_112.pro
24006825f540aab7a449417fb7606d3b
0f1c359ffbd87a1ac1d47b9429fb854b15a54133
691 F20101123_AACDLB chappell_a_Page_024.txt
c0b9763cac37196d333e6851d9a61a93
5c3fca50b0391e335899e58b01a7e483b1304ff5
235 F20101123_AACDKN chappell_a_Page_006.txt
992c6c4e7028fdbded45fb1761fb654a
219b43c961a6670b907287b078389ccf545c9118
5785 F20101123_AACDJY chappell_a_Page_162.pro
eecd1a82bbea0be2d4177568b4107e73
8b212d0d60e87e4bb4f4449e04b0048933469b96
14515 F20101123_AACCHL chappell_a_Page_006.jpg
938160ef1e86afae52a1013cf6db2b21
c1ca1e9991916d4711394290a9dca79c10442da6
108889 F20101123_AACCGW chappell_a_Page_041.jp2
80f3397df762dd9007d7b24eadd27b48
1d7e5c168174b1b1ff7836caa4ebabcc392ac86c
1851 F20101123_AACDLC chappell_a_Page_025.txt
0569a23747391c2693735084d64efddb
1926dbad2d166b03269e8f0a5059aa97d97ae8dd
26598 F20101123_AACDJZ chappell_a_Page_163.pro
888c88bd9718464222a01c5ae72d74e5
6e0c47ad7b7eb7103ca2f0b18e5c2487c6c89f94
31284 F20101123_AACCIA chappell_a_Page_139.QC.jpg
1d4b899739eb20cc42e8987776bb2f79
898e0ba6978427d678c9456699171560a2b0f888
100262 F20101123_AACCGX chappell_a_Page_154.jpg
2c679790e46f3375d97ea376b16b4440
ef03224d4ffa09939a18c3084375b05dec12d400
1993 F20101123_AACDLD chappell_a_Page_026.txt
52dd6e30d4ed54838699910f24c9bcba
f22aacbce6b9707c430a26e468416119c452a3c0
4488 F20101123_AACDKO chappell_a_Page_008.txt
25a6f7b072f28768f1b6cecdf4f40029
02f16b209e224481664319cd81f71d663e499b2d
F20101123_AACCIB chappell_a_Page_040thm.jpg
196007c16f473f03489a8cbbb33194e6
36ee616d0a862770acffb0942cfeefb58313742d
108241 F20101123_AACCHM chappell_a_Page_039.jp2
bc199413c2ed8b05a05d58930d039fcd
19ce5e36f001d7f5806ff75ad73e4a5920eb6746
8412 F20101123_AACCGY chappell_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
47df43eb4d3f68f10be04a48729ee552
f167b14e665c2e441c627cb122d5ec1eae1c2cec
2048 F20101123_AACDLE chappell_a_Page_027.txt
5aff4fc88ab7fc3d066906d010acec49
9949b01711cba0da2968997fcf54cd1c89b2a5cc
527 F20101123_AACDKP chappell_a_Page_010.txt
784e6a32afc05c2a3ad83137627547ea
b4e1fe0120648ed714fadd7fab6f893239884c3d
79647 F20101123_AACCIC chappell_a_Page_097.jpg
bf1062fde2cfd9f7ac6577f469c63844
61576e5e3fce12bb181d527e7cbb223a3babd5db
F20101123_AACCHN chappell_a_Page_003.tif
ca7666918c2b3cda91354759a66143e1
258b86937625c2c315337a838100a3f8f3c6fb6d
113551 F20101123_AACCGZ chappell_a_Page_102.jpg
17ed111f49b6f12e2a9fe8d480a2fd41
76d0a6f0a15052ef0a221fe535b7214bd48c6926
2059 F20101123_AACDLF chappell_a_Page_028.txt
53bd28212435159ad49d56ebbb6952eb
fe7920d55a6eca68fc501985ad3bc09272dc4a47
1651 F20101123_AACDKQ chappell_a_Page_011.txt
8b7a6eaf55ebad168349ff21b66c0754
749e8ff41207450544cd5a83f7e46ee9e7f91c56
2420 F20101123_AACCID chappell_a_Page_015.txt
a438943241b0a52e7666d2c2fdd731b8
d587f2afc6d0b7ce3e82f34c6f0e218be8b47f7a
110186 F20101123_AACCHO chappell_a_Page_146.jp2
a89eda11cc4f6eaba8df842d83ecad59
ca0fd10b92e58eead1769c818d408e49c11e9417
1936 F20101123_AACDLG chappell_a_Page_029.txt
623f65e3b25d4cb38bd78446ccbfdd22
74fe2a2ada148c3071906580bf1fb9a53226b3a3
1543 F20101123_AACDKR chappell_a_Page_012.txt
49f916ff5e7e4edf6f8e358cf2f04354
35230dd3ecc8fbf85ed883c0d37e3928626c3ad7
5343 F20101123_AACCIE chappell_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
adbb7be4b3a172f68a963245babf1ddb
d2ea0cde30a760b2a046e1c969a2cb5c7860ecb0
F20101123_AACCHP chappell_a_Page_046.tif
17d3034d97b0afeb46ebb9ee5540df6f
39c0f52a29d5444b7e1a84d6fca0ff7d696894f5
1996 F20101123_AACDLH chappell_a_Page_032.txt
6bd58a56a62bd40b0f463bfee51f5727
1fb2b00d802420b7ef44a8137c9e8e990a95ae09
1804 F20101123_AACDKS chappell_a_Page_013.txt
eda7e570d9aaf62cc804cae374539113
5a92982bad103c39a07420c7824a35ae0b546e70
1793 F20101123_AACCIF chappell_a_Page_098.txt
a5c6139dbae3cd0ddbfac61c94faeb76
2699ce4b2148dccfccb0d659e35c6ae686c3e98f
F20101123_AACCHQ chappell_a_Page_125thm.jpg
70d4b0b54c166625e745c29456a5d0a2
fd7b3f111f9f719a8b30251b84981ae18dc675c1
1955 F20101123_AACDLI chappell_a_Page_033.txt
04e549f445e6ed1d80f14802d34a41f0
7e38e0e333f3781d2922bae2acf20061b63431f2
2013 F20101123_AACDKT chappell_a_Page_014.txt
7309d915e19b78e618e20dae42173eea
0475834371692bb19f959864f83ff591811f209f
31316 F20101123_AACCIG chappell_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
0b9fe75d4da05d4af88988f14ff55868
fe785fa413bb6a87a076d96c162fcbf0156aa9f3
52242 F20101123_AACCHR chappell_a_Page_172.pro
9be70752b48b9e122db8ed3c86009c00
8f54c8c7743b36a56fcd606ec068eaa86015d789
1910 F20101123_AACDLJ chappell_a_Page_034.txt
4a460a01144d05baf376c3907bd27444
6eebccdb3186c856964221cdebab690b1f686cc7
1988 F20101123_AACDKU chappell_a_Page_016.txt
1849faa047e6c00975e305eb57d970b2
9daeb38748716580c1f51f44ad0a0f38c067335b
47139 F20101123_AACCIH chappell_a_Page_156.pro
a3ded1d7b336241965ec5528b4e04067
17fb7de317fb65313b2660d13d976188a705ebeb
28658 F20101123_AACCHS chappell_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
5d748dcdff7ca0eb85e1b2aa6ef353bc
902d9b9b5c7fd218be4fef25ce07dc43cc698aef
1913 F20101123_AACDLK chappell_a_Page_035.txt
b198475b366268784a35b9dd52801839
2977347b91a54ed3ff929602523f23cb681d36cd
2085 F20101123_AACDKV chappell_a_Page_017.txt
c13d6fbff0d2c8558ab12f5f0aa1c90b
9bd8d590da4b4d6b7ffe5621c0ce51a2106a447f
46066 F20101123_AACCII chappell_a_Page_096.jpg
cbf7f62ea019e2b619326c5f075dac15
be165233612c67d00266ab9f0d0fa0cc085fd122
4866 F20101123_AACCHT chappell_a_Page_002.jpg
2c4f5f8a7971d5b1c221e9ecd3f80ba0
59d6127b177a5f6455efdc4892207d4c3c946bff
1931 F20101123_AACDLL chappell_a_Page_036.txt
a9f32bf919f2ff23137760ebbfded8db
70540e3480e93f741f50ac25606c29a1da7dd297
1968 F20101123_AACDKW chappell_a_Page_019.txt
0c677b2198e75dbbccc97e49e3ade1b6
15bd6f59ad2370262a574ee9fc97d1c3a8c3385c
108260 F20101123_AACCIJ chappell_a_Page_036.jp2
0043772fed41d8522f49b940382d2578
a5985fb8a9f2de422a98dde468b7c4142299b5bc
24947 F20101123_AACCHU chappell_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
00b7021f8e108469aa227100f8563031
e64e9b1818e9fcbddb6f412a5172cdc7a5f07766
1906 F20101123_AACDMA chappell_a_Page_054.txt
7df3b53319e6b8284c551b3bf494caaa
ede8de9ce8b7342c49664aba0676e89274ff7b03
1707 F20101123_AACDLM chappell_a_Page_037.txt
283373202369dc1984556edf5a41f7f9
327eb4cdbb995109ff456f027594de82c0c3591e
1874 F20101123_AACDKX chappell_a_Page_020.txt
b18ece535fdb0ab0677e4d02b27aa28e
6022eb0351756f14c15d8fdd84b8108967cffec3
F20101123_AACCIK chappell_a_Page_121.tif
5d36db74e6e5fb922905da42088e6e1b
8f6b767307ab71a3920dabb621c91c4e4b17de72
48204 F20101123_AACCHV chappell_a_Page_164.pro
6e3293f0776f68d7cafadea8af56f4eb
8d8a509b914b722a99a5faeb74c253e648972c46
1995 F20101123_AACDMB chappell_a_Page_055.txt
e31cefcd0ae4fe82aec0f57fdbbc0bec
f6f129769528cb2a0b822f081abf785d855ac9f5
1984 F20101123_AACDLN chappell_a_Page_038.txt
16755ce66f43dab0d53c7ace429fef97
a52ab44ab42ad8b0e773037d1e9be451a24441cb
1942 F20101123_AACDKY chappell_a_Page_021.txt
66916ef26af28bf8217a6e9bc59a337a
7b252ea2913cae5405c2e0d5fc15bf79e973662e
109025 F20101123_AACCHW chappell_a_Page_055.jp2
64909de47d52c65f9b691fa3af845bd8
abe7d98d50f0530d35778b4648a6c5806a8ebbe6
8384 F20101123_AACCIL chappell_a_Page_018thm.jpg
ba613ac3ede2c3d5516e002406ff521a
7d320baf78d33f57e81707973a7bfa4a6729e5f3
1912 F20101123_AACDMC chappell_a_Page_056.txt
957ae0b155d5df923376ca55f4a8b54f
37489b997c7af94b33fb272cdea56b6c6f352347
1985 F20101123_AACDLO chappell_a_Page_039.txt
3984000eee68627790ea2349ee521aeb
486ca90557681b19bd0bb4040ccb86c0f544569c
1922 F20101123_AACDKZ chappell_a_Page_022.txt
a8bf246863482987920c113e990cd7a7
a2871300181fb4e530351283d70d07311e45dc47
2075 F20101123_AACCHX chappell_a_Page_125.txt
c9ac55f70917927be363e4634ed40d2b
3d29e54a9f14d08579877f4939259ef2018007c6
49747 F20101123_AACCJA chappell_a_Page_026.pro
8794c998f81b9ce7756d401f0e4f9907
87baa1cc6003800e5089345473eee3421052fcc7
31526 F20101123_AACCIM chappell_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
df888bbd80653e37b828e54e2c253954
3e556596d41f21a12e96712d3c731476cff9a736
1840 F20101123_AACDMD chappell_a_Page_057.txt
e9bd6d6bcb774e1fef1ef54166dd41f4
5cfcb173bea9d03ee796dc7ac66e1fc55c0f3124
F20101123_AACCHY chappell_a_Page_031.tif
03d0a486f6519ee1c29b0a041036b1d6
deb29d8d5e9abc0b1df81927547d98a66ba246e0
2031 F20101123_AACCJB chappell_a_Page_136.txt
aee3cb97c0de65e97f17568ff9bd61ec
0477d8ba5577c357a2b34b906934478c54a25752
2049 F20101123_AACDME chappell_a_Page_058.txt
a720976312f19a05faaa7e4dcd0ee81d
8138addc7c94b6eb62bae46f1bb9bce80f8fae1c
1959 F20101123_AACDLP chappell_a_Page_040.txt
a45cdf955e72471208761c213cf60c2f
a3c1fe1bc2be8fb0388eef156d02e53abf96741f
8467 F20101123_AACCHZ chappell_a_Page_102thm.jpg
204209d43773b4ef3b064e60f3eee83a
265dc426caad6b1dbf2a612c2212380cca291b5f
8175 F20101123_AACCJC chappell_a_Page_135thm.jpg
07d257c8252fda063947d37321308d03
0351f34e6b88069bffc936ce7bef290aa957f6bf
2077 F20101123_AACCIN chappell_a_Page_108.txt
53919e6b7d38e2646e54fffd6a1cd0e0
2de75d65b5217d33987d1b6150fe7308cc2bf995
F20101123_AACDMF chappell_a_Page_059.txt
35e5c918105d17c8ef21e13dc27b01e1
9f1f6b18fc67cba0cf47e3900502153d47f1c4d3
1969 F20101123_AACDLQ chappell_a_Page_041.txt
48bf7938d2dda6c2a806f3c9ac69cf05
0a72784325de2b0beb5de62e8ff764223b3f1366
F20101123_AACCJD chappell_a_Page_156.tif
04e723213e28213f02ff6318365232cc
eb96e273ca9df6bfd00b65b5322e9e9665db6b50
8138 F20101123_AACCIO chappell_a_Page_107thm.jpg
16af7a61538bf65b836e6e21820ff6ec
de9ac7b413c635fd8996d646c2513bd7901df7f0
F20101123_AACDMG chappell_a_Page_060.txt
f292a7e116c7fc29adb8257cf7ca3f9b
808b12c9dd442345475175498e9d309b6658d21f
2147 F20101123_AACDLR chappell_a_Page_042.txt
83409dd9cf17028e59ad10fbd3cb8c85
123b8e892cafc8259a7919fbe9453d7b4e3f47f5
46843 F20101123_AACCJE chappell_a_Page_088.pro
12bf84cfca9aa2c4496a7f1d4f64aed4
b9cf98d970e7d8660ac46aafe8bde3cedef8263b
93704 F20101123_AACCIP chappell_a_Page_156.jpg
29869c1d8222520c7f8e52fc7792bc14
7f746f697687189c64d61e9e856d87e8531275dd
2130 F20101123_AACDMH chappell_a_Page_061.txt
66f55edb24a1774b21a7dff3c1aea56f
2d89c0d2ef004ec3ae597037ebbc0ee0d494371c
1994 F20101123_AACDLS chappell_a_Page_043.txt
f628d262082f3a59e2dd6c20225dc863
67de03eaa91a4f459aade294c0ec8cc4eabe628d
1685 F20101123_AACCJF chappell_a_Page_079.txt
752bd67bbbdcf62e060372c028a85473
3be00f76d0400ff592a67708a28dd9bb4a19af0e
F20101123_AACCIQ chappell_a_Page_113.tif
8f2d924c403fb41434bc7ddba9038579
2dc9031673c0cd8bfb9df71479b661fa327986ea
1940 F20101123_AACDMI chappell_a_Page_062.txt
79514690c117515cc1295e25d4bb920b
dc0eb3f82dd90731d8e699c5e807c28ff4153d24
2068 F20101123_AACDLT chappell_a_Page_046.txt
a418a6a91989cf56f557fa25d1f87177
d396a6a33072e200012ca1a84afb1a2aff99f757
49638 F20101123_AACCJG chappell_a_Page_148.pro
6369a29a2d92adeeeb6a07fe35f6dfb6
e883499eabaf9ac2f487e3dba1f0cf77e246bfdf
8787 F20101123_AACCIR chappell_a_Page_166thm.jpg
74163eaef5983f2e94d5154ce6c3cc66
22eb14b50acd160dc1bf5cd349f1f041d9c839e2
1903 F20101123_AACDMJ chappell_a_Page_064.txt
b831ef7f678f94636d8c6f035bd55368
55426618e818a1c27dfd7a920afb7caf0752023f
2112 F20101123_AACDLU chappell_a_Page_047.txt
2b0bd959510cef5dae49624f02f03da1
46b8a5c314bc1df68f245b665529544e7bd0b753
6301 F20101123_AACCJH chappell_a_Page_152thm.jpg
472124ee321b4a10283b2dc689da1cad
8b65a3355be58ccc218c90daecde5b2aa1e01334
34192 F20101123_AACCIS chappell_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
22f3de5721f30a91f07fe5a15a108ffb
e6ac263746fca8350204199215af31b327d35413
2078 F20101123_AACDMK chappell_a_Page_065.txt
4ce3fa687a18df632bb716bb781345da
df8aefd934e241b5288bc1f8c2549013969e46fa
1885 F20101123_AACDLV chappell_a_Page_048.txt
5a915a37148457ff9e9cb0dff7076e1c
69f9a1981ef6d16c581b47dab8430a80f2c64604
4810 F20101123_AACCJI chappell_a_Page_094.pro
13504001d86e7bd8ab7ee6fa55a28d8c
d265dbb6adfa65b34e083b78e900d4b94acfdf62
F20101123_AACCIT chappell_a_Page_008.jp2
f43269f360de28b551584ea8cfc3278a
c25661fa03bd9fcbdae5935de1734a0e4ce164b5
1949 F20101123_AACDML chappell_a_Page_066.txt
b7d30be9d2ec2facb15ef8ed02dffc44
8908fa0e72a27aacc44b16abcf9a09ef00e2662c
2020 F20101123_AACDLW chappell_a_Page_050.txt
1a96c96dedd46112274fb9dd2921d194
a269c4fe8a70e6540093443895cbc2535125fe2e
33018 F20101123_AACCJJ chappell_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
f6401c4139a68e2955be71bee97c3a83
8de7be6ebcdaa6afab05b95e68c14c947910ba5b
60240 F20101123_AACCIU chappell_a_Page_171.pro
32c6c61cc1dd05a696c7a7c64b37160b
1008c3d0dd53e30926cae89dc3ddf8505ec05429
1887 F20101123_AACDNA chappell_a_Page_085.txt
1084b7a4ac48283bcddf0dc6b08df067
dd89ab08e50360942ae2956587f00c92f0a44ad5
2035 F20101123_AACDMM chappell_a_Page_067.txt
bf422eaf33f5e1df689aaaa652484c3f
c0c639d405d24c1c9285f28265e6af29bf294a47
1975 F20101123_AACDLX chappell_a_Page_051.txt
a0f7e3ee1c042b11b068d4e6ac973014
3192ed4a569c5fd51ae151689c50ce998c4e34e4
128334 F20101123_AACCJK chappell_a_Page_008.jpg
073c26d1f2256f306d457202f7e21c78
d91209eb66337758eccb41de87c79493e9140594
107337 F20101123_AACCIV chappell_a_Page_138.jp2
8584e67d68fa09d19fe503f2c75a3624
9b0aff6909ca071474c0d6674b0c71536616a3b3
780 F20101123_AACDNB chappell_a_Page_086.txt
390630854dbd5306d6f6426379907d72
4cb7f19b127cc317dce944e785ef5a725d0d99b6
1681 F20101123_AACDMN chappell_a_Page_069.txt
cfd6b4c642b133c99c72030c64ad0604
2c4d64030c566bc2451074b49cc2199c1fbfd555
350 F20101123_AACDLY chappell_a_Page_052.txt
cc1436a5cfeca83d49a044f4c6b80c8a
5e3f57effbbc702d0953350ee18fca2f77cd67f2
F20101123_AACCJL chappell_a_Page_074.txt
9d904770b0bffb390247d28d9a3c6a56
ef75e23c4cd65c79f672d68065f9c360a6539a3d
102554 F20101123_AACCIW chappell_a_Page_119.jpg
dd7cb09a07fadc1e87bca5f0f43bcef6
71f3c89006e7513c47dbe0c1ec57ed73c2351592
1617 F20101123_AACDNC chappell_a_Page_087.txt
4e4d54188e7942c8c4b42662d7323d6b
6a4a145dd5ab63dce0da15b6aa75617034fd8c8c
1954 F20101123_AACDMO chappell_a_Page_070.txt
49a0d9202ab6c77e1af668599728f6d2
a648a549286a94d15085a907e78e3b4258613183
1800 F20101123_AACDLZ chappell_a_Page_053.txt
d2ddb5fe45a9299ed5a5d19f2f3e408a
3d3053e9645e127b488cde50317e11de2f0a2b31
104795 F20101123_AACCKA chappell_a_Page_155.jp2
8f316f13174d3a935cabb5aa760426bc
4ce994b29495ef55ca45b88eb90fc36bc82f13b5
109597 F20101123_AACCJM chappell_a_Page_131.jp2
99f5aab14206c7ff4d815d6294c33432
2bad44554ee6fd029b197997bbf59d3cc799daca
45725 F20101123_AACCIX chappell_a_Page_158.pro
6e90816d7b279b06b6a8cdee33eae064
2e817b11fb736f7191c6642b6f3c2bf69117c710
1852 F20101123_AACDND chappell_a_Page_088.txt
0703d129ba7725b0645228b34c6002b5
5fc8f20887d3bbba7b5966e8801358d799da3bd4
1805 F20101123_AACDMP chappell_a_Page_071.txt
809216d83026fe5bd6eb46eb763adcc5
92041d06669ad581d63c6a5d86b3e12d88d5e5be
32227 F20101123_AACCKB chappell_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
29125a2eee365e6fa1758e955418efc6
a5a032bae2b3ed97579a33c1990f64c2de20be09
103676 F20101123_AACCJN chappell_a_Page_144.jpg
b5f3846c75b896270c693cd7efa7535b
accd82d9a201e86f8d5792173c07023f1cd0f995
103049 F20101123_AACCIY chappell_a_Page_004.jp2
192209108a61509985b2c91695d3e9af
8301e58ea1ccf2d3bf73e063595b6641233119e1
1892 F20101123_AACDNE chappell_a_Page_089.txt
03601693e6c12b8841a0fee4cc4c4f68
f167e62d82f870ec9850f11895fbdf7eefa18758
111273 F20101123_AACCKC chappell_a_Page_091.jp2
eac825f798297cb3e1d5e6c3320499cd
714975fe64265ccabfcb8586c5f54568921680f9
F20101123_AACCIZ chappell_a_Page_089.tif
6e0a499351caf4e5446fd21aa2a05b24
fe724d565039a57880ca9a47a7bac6045f64486f
1881 F20101123_AACDNF chappell_a_Page_090.txt
7b7a1d5ff9ef28ec1059ec435e31c22f
2f02abd9da17249b171f52b4fee971e07c78fa18
1909 F20101123_AACDMQ chappell_a_Page_072.txt
ba95bfd20d5f613f7fa2898636df869a
170add4b7a674461dc9e6bf01c0e1e595093029b
52431 F20101123_AACCKD chappell_a_Page_045.pro
f6689689c8d97d9a21645da05ff9f887
ccc823681ea89b54809caac11d98719758892983
103465 F20101123_AACCJO chappell_a_Page_074.jp2
e666e313add7fa8629557fc4330239e1
cb7a28447396f83051e6271d6eff4aef3ba42345
2033 F20101123_AACDNG chappell_a_Page_091.txt
7ace653930bb4dd1f0872a2c399390b9
a10cc86046378dfe9209a8fbe6877997cadf709e
2104 F20101123_AACDMR chappell_a_Page_073.txt
a2ea022315b0e588ee112cc30d94d9a7
4698f9b05d310fa8f0eb00ff4c0a649197851671
107633 F20101123_AACCKE chappell_a_Page_062.jp2
3bdf86cfe2edf98fdef66a6b2f470d68
5bc6594ef15a88d690d3bec4732032b595aacabb
F20101123_AACCJP chappell_a_Page_088.tif
0050aa6202d69cd70bdea1ccead145bd
bead889b79bf101bac7d291ca4c37fc6f54f16a5
1965 F20101123_AACDNH chappell_a_Page_092.txt
1e9f83c43660e5bf328a6ef800b378b7
ad2f27a1103ea902e3eec139a814be272a836d3f
1801 F20101123_AACDMS chappell_a_Page_075.txt
5286ab6a32f0464763fdd74c1f809757
6c5a828eb7d3e2ddbd3c8b3e38286d6f28952339
8063 F20101123_AACCKF chappell_a_Page_148thm.jpg
bf3cc823f38129e7c087370f011d5df6
f19f6aa66c99923b74d52931e969eb728c6b7740
1935 F20101123_AACCJQ chappell_a_Page_139.txt
9f2150d0c10eb613722cc087b776a9c6
3b96de380c011f81c711ade738867be0d8a27d19
F20101123_AACDNI chappell_a_Page_093.txt
3331c2920da54d71e4878e80cef6bde8
088a3b993ec957d1ff0d8b74350a373987405954
F20101123_AACDMT chappell_a_Page_076.txt
084ba4bef3e1bc5b09c99f1ead3cb1ad
5c8c798fe2b29d2c8c0679b343fed7167693ea6d
49752 F20101123_AACCKG chappell_a_Page_039.pro
3a72a8069e9babd567fbd6b943526996
593075c933698347a77cd78b715c45dbaf51f478
38579 F20101123_AACCJR chappell_a_Page_079.pro
df03f755c3675b03438f68516cbe0b3c
42489ba0167a249cb7cfe249a879b01650105deb
F20101123_AACDNJ chappell_a_Page_094.txt
162b5a1055e5e488e6e2f37675fedc02
9ec113d7a5a39f288a220e14fae349370da0d96c
1953 F20101123_AACDMU chappell_a_Page_077.txt
353a532f36650b97db55c99685138dba
9737a00f0421b9c44e417be59163bcaa2087c8ac
F20101123_AACCKH chappell_a_Page_074thm.jpg
7279d4f2923c096a9c9fd08503892034
b7aeb32f243004b8eb69809f4379e3c8230047a3
24155 F20101123_AACCJS chappell_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
9d2e96e45da2c90e708c190e4bbca6cb
d9284b5b404c37e42c6c623c9a8665dae700c05a
1368 F20101123_AACDNK chappell_a_Page_095.txt
7efd6a3f274526b3ae42fbd73034463e
5d20b43199193560d0d98e1aeec133f0110a89d8
1090 F20101123_AACDMV chappell_a_Page_078.txt
2f60ed1cc2fa93cd49315ce9890c2bae
5d5497e0d99a4448a70092c6c09ab0106dca9482
8268 F20101123_AACCKI chappell_a_Page_030thm.jpg
828101e39a572ded12296af8b414c3fb
5cd9f1730785f08ecd148900f02769dfe00c15f1
121485 F20101123_AACCJT chappell_a_Page_015.jpg
1b33d3ae5c9f8d9379d886aa851d0f86
08c1634395ab7f4c366b2fbb8100641a094dfa01
1215 F20101123_AACDNL chappell_a_Page_096.txt
4ffb5472b1a1073bd78fbc22716cb673
c9adccb8c1657f67e14a5cc6c1e89bfee723aa16
1948 F20101123_AACDMW chappell_a_Page_080.txt
dc4c8f0a43bf4c6d114d02c454179fcc
67c9df28d7f49ed09b1fbe411e806a101e76cd51
4838 F20101123_AACCKJ chappell_a_Page_078thm.jpg
46e728267e2fec25087403aff4694c7d
1c0882ff7475bfd840aea855ea83309984919bef
1379 F20101123_AACCJU chappell_a_Page_068.txt
c5d404b7737e02dcddca5920010311a9
f5a9d79ad229406dc425db8871c401356481a48a
F20101123_AACDOA chappell_a_Page_116.txt
8c3d5ec169668ec9dc93276141a05175
d3ac3ea8b8f073be856d1466f4004b5cdc67e14f
2165 F20101123_AACDNM chappell_a_Page_097.txt
58e2a6f0eb21986879c23a612d35a05b
ad2a2c093478eaf8f7e0081aefe6d641cc98085e
1983 F20101123_AACDMX chappell_a_Page_081.txt
26028c4e499773692c7a3bbfca2213ad
bed833db552c14ed25bd14bc890b0e84c4ae31a8
34726 F20101123_AACCKK chappell_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
ead4658efbe2fc3b92db059a75f061f2
a299167e0b416b74ab718df11a8f5263efa86b32
106942 F20101123_AACCJV chappell_a_Page_070.jp2
945c25311261bd3b4261c7f83b907748
0cc637eed664b97002b38f2b9e38b09addede530
2527 F20101123_AACDOB chappell_a_Page_117.txt
23d28f47944cfc03b4c8d9fe0eaaf284
bd730daf460faa22f7265a034e34f835ec6ddb66
F20101123_AACDNN chappell_a_Page_099.txt
b7c9d775f6f36a926625e8e604794d46
faaca5b5daeadf991c8c50ba23fc584816d49e6e
1944 F20101123_AACDMY chappell_a_Page_082.txt
6f268ffc86651b0e2e424c4525d8ce08
5affd3d03acf1ed2e53508d75b72e56922e24c2c
1051981 F20101123_AACCKL chappell_a_Page_167.jp2
eb1a14b76fdb13add344843f74416738
511f10c0c23976c7f9be4679cea418b71a83fd30
103555 F20101123_AACCJW chappell_a_Page_047.jpg
b1521dd28231c3326fa86f3258bccf38
423a53e1312736d28489bb6f087f4a26742fb149
2004 F20101123_AACDOC chappell_a_Page_118.txt
3f862982b08dd213ef253148a531f3e6
f02ac2b914f0ad6a5e6b794b74c44d5672766968
2036 F20101123_AACDNO chappell_a_Page_100.txt
4537a3f5e825ea832ac96cb39d356ec3
0ac9b58ea8af8e0a0ee2f3bf42e0e6a517e73369
1820 F20101123_AACDMZ chappell_a_Page_084.txt
b34ee20d307a2c57bf8b8b47f4289045
9cfbc23daf4506199b8ce27737e271f6e6262b6f
108208 F20101123_AACCKM chappell_a_Page_030.jp2
2c62b3725d80d9c09d92f627069bfbe6
0cbbfa25ff74f207dd493202057d1bd1f3088430
2273 F20101123_AACCJX chappell_a_Page_166.txt
4821e218c51e7e425a80a224a3127d39
aa1a06c19799f39dbee918f4e2a886470c2bbdc4
101182 F20101123_AACCLA chappell_a_Page_140.jpg
ce78fea9fda4f612e33e3be6e8d9b930
2a6f5f7356a2d265dff7534dc4d520547cd0d0d8
F20101123_AACDOD chappell_a_Page_119.txt
a02628a7bcb988f0c3c18986d60acb58
0a26b834a2c55a315ea775f2a517e9645b6dac09
1970 F20101123_AACDNP chappell_a_Page_101.txt
b4f6c374964298063b3c668ff997837c
ef6e6696d654e8a7d89c294276e3cbf67060abe5
48235 F20101123_AACCKN chappell_a_Page_056.pro
6588762a6b7fa494c1f82fdf1844a3c8
1e129e5fd33125a469e9b93919430554cbcaba14
104061 F20101123_AACCJY chappell_a_Page_067.jpg
86292b7458687d2cc13c0c8d443c84aa
614ac6e82e15490eba5bc86945808740b4cfae8a
111685 F20101123_AACCLB chappell_a_Page_065.jp2
92366b490e74f4541183fbc916f238cb
6c136b4bc3e087017c05204857011e21e573a523
2087 F20101123_AACDOE chappell_a_Page_120.txt
8395c9849f73b9ae7cf6000b327b2ce4
29e2c1d85f10908566dffa98d546f3ec659f9cfa
2423 F20101123_AACDNQ chappell_a_Page_102.txt
0d6d31431c420735f6c6649668ae9e5f
00d3fd3c62a0ad982589520dc433f60ef7b9398b
105846 F20101123_AACCKO chappell_a_Page_017.jpg
3bdc6cb9a66f0a9084d6ef0709dbc197
deda7c971b1f21aad67d1216ea7f16d42fc61c0e
5784 F20101123_AACCJZ chappell_a_Page_002.jp2
d42504de15ee89e62279c199afa7d335
cd811d6028460e7285f77a97799759a04b7b52ef
472727 F20101123_AACCLC chappell_a_Page_010.jp2
fad5c868eb5dabde9f3f9019ed939582
c9172857b9f6c0dc7a80910b9d60a501232c842c
2132 F20101123_AACDOF chappell_a_Page_121.txt
cffda64bfd583455e27b39991164eff4
8f9612a0f8aec113ae2104c481093dc217fa7061
F20101123_AACCLD chappell_a_Page_028.tif
712f7e0d6763059518efae253ce0b455
9de4324ca67088527e743fb13c7acebfdb7e60d9
2219 F20101123_AACDOG chappell_a_Page_122.txt
a0ff87669c2e5b091f6f6b5fe585251f
1f756d207ee92151400f62a54a75f6d112190f39
1924 F20101123_AACDNR chappell_a_Page_103.txt
00db7f311a39aa8b7e43780a78e84d28
6649e68f7fd598eeb1c8fddce4fc84c70d6926ec
F20101123_AACCKP chappell_a_Page_128.tif
7df1aea28984954476a34ff5df82523c
2d34a2dcd3fd1e535adce3d23384feecb7c1da14
F20101123_AACCLE chappell_a_Page_078.tif
6bd781828ae66bc95f6c088de6a9831f
a0baa1e6b07b72d3f8357861890e73273f70f06d
1835 F20101123_AACDOH chappell_a_Page_123.txt
df8e5e8692f2125c64780c2b4bd66d82
f1a95525193c51a3cec09db57e1eed7b4f967d1d
F20101123_AACDNS chappell_a_Page_104.txt
7457c3e235166a6af519a41e99d00563
0353f797353f25c8c3ba3726b301fbe14f9d9456
48840 F20101123_AACCKQ chappell_a_Page_160.pro
d7b0c2fd1c4f2e58b332587a1c255ab9
d7373830ae7195cc832251c77b7f263042237dfa
F20101123_AACCLF chappell_a_Page_101.tif
8142bff99275e7ef8681e657f7e30c65
f281dbc194c64ad42a3bc218a7ced90e18aeb8a9
F20101123_AACDOI chappell_a_Page_124.txt
3ccd69cfbf818f62db61a09febfc16c0
738428cafad92202a4c68e97929e5684d052a69c
2041 F20101123_AACDNT chappell_a_Page_105.txt
2c9e947f970398818f7c2c32c83b31d9
0769483c6bab8d9d1adff9fcb72adf784cab316b
27902 F20101123_AACCKR chappell_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
1dd8b10225ac887408bf42725c8d0143
6ba4ad412915ec2909eb7fe78accad9eeb0f56e4
33543 F20101123_AACCLG chappell_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
1206cd1e3c90f7ed71116ffb7b09aa3a
5f09122776d1366a8e79c0736770aeb4b8846ffa
F20101123_AACDOJ chappell_a_Page_126.txt
7a6e74a9166d997734dbed7b3449fac6
431f2fd82ae937adc250ab11cf99721984cee71a
2145 F20101123_AACDNU chappell_a_Page_107.txt
4d37fab35830633fc7884dd43abd2206
6eaa5e9d8bf5d8ccfb0628bc4c3e4d2bbc010f06
F20101123_AACCKS chappell_a_Page_095.tif
3da63ebc5a35dd38828ffe05726f0dc7
961d10dc42fd8e8f9bd698810ff5468f8f2908b5
F20101123_AACCLH chappell_a_Page_068.tif
39cf212b584b70434c715c9f2cce4a12
5e2d319e5d00f37985768fd08d60d9460a02757a
2476 F20101123_AACDOK chappell_a_Page_127.txt
2c06c43ebc48fa875ec85598e77ffb50
f66864ffa1efd57731eaf93ac0b4c204f35fce80
2017 F20101123_AACDNV chappell_a_Page_110.txt
017574fa2174a19937e30e148eb082ea
3f06fd0edc7abe1f9d93f60861f2bc8aefd6d002
49782 F20101123_AACCKT chappell_a_Page_137.pro
9c74e7e29d2985fb00f4de9278685b6a
5ddbc83cd0ee753d06a64213e8006f9245500596
7707 F20101123_AACCLI chappell_a_Page_072thm.jpg
a914a3187fd53253b83cbdf2742c7c7e
5d6b53d6a46fe9ed47f32882e249615115f107f2
2040 F20101123_AACDOL chappell_a_Page_128.txt
7f45fa343e2f9bd2fa55bcee0f067bb6
895652750cba91f6cb7d5733fb671a143887a36b
1925 F20101123_AACDNW chappell_a_Page_111.txt
377ae1a19a03272860e02d478829688e
47b12c47b0fe3cbe9ca5c6126ed6504bf0af9a9f
27749 F20101123_AACCKU chappell_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
8f7b7b0caa2866aac0a8443803d7bf1d
3e4552523f460be0b41f845f823a8a0144d8ac55
8208 F20101123_AACCLJ chappell_a_Page_106thm.jpg
5b6870205d9b9c5d7bf1e65c811ba5a6
8aa467a23acb6a3a5b82fc1430b44ca08c39eed7
F20101123_AACDPA chappell_a_Page_147.txt
53143619877d9ba86df8dfa41e6ec28e
877a37a013602f5bd5459b69f8ae8a9cdc45bf24
1894 F20101123_AACDOM chappell_a_Page_129.txt
055d0273b6387f3777ea2a4d5ba66c15
53518101e20f60de93a76759d7fca5c8c0e9d1c8
1934 F20101123_AACDNX chappell_a_Page_113.txt
f421746f6d01349eafbf17ba44f568b0
aef0e06c8d51ebf5032d6c96087adbd25d4d0510
32325 F20101123_AACCKV chappell_a_Page_120.QC.jpg
7ef3bb5e6177e291b71d7df8e6f88ae6
2ff655665aacd43003298cf0a3934ea9254c92ba
49508 F20101123_AACCLK chappell_a_Page_033.pro
f79e1ab66c49acbde4fd9e668e624aa0
3372eba513aaec96fa7eb0e4f00c7e3a4faa9865
F20101123_AACDPB chappell_a_Page_148.txt
0b837046aff111114bffbac8d05d6a96
3c67431ba77732c4c88875c952406378553170b4
2056 F20101123_AACDON chappell_a_Page_130.txt
ff7fc322cbd3f22ce705c3b6608dc323
11423be847550ec0a00500e50437f9462ce07c04
2030 F20101123_AACDNY chappell_a_Page_114.txt
85fa698cb148936ae7c658ffd5e4cce5
34a7e3b642166ed6e6c76eecbca9a7d0396f54ff
F20101123_AACCKW chappell_a_Page_152.tif
4d8a6d489e9b7dc127c212f4ee999392
4b8d9222917b74e4d82545aa51040cb4781d46cd
1956 F20101123_AACCLL chappell_a_Page_044.txt
ce3c9da668b514fd778220ea1b105606
e766c31291574e613bc754cd412f4f8acefc47be
F20101123_AACDPC chappell_a_Page_149.txt
c79a103890956d43100145363ab5f698
e41f7c3de7ff0e520fd3687b2e164b338dc8ae82
2042 F20101123_AACDOO chappell_a_Page_131.txt
da442e71554828af9e5a61bab06c0e60
8e610436b2fdefb3e9bdcda55e83875739de9f6c
2000 F20101123_AACDNZ chappell_a_Page_115.txt
ca7fea8860d31a31dcd33224cc9953cb
3d8078b2716059ef999c8ec0d3507c3b8d197995
44843 F20101123_AACCKX chappell_a_Page_071.pro
285e86dadf5722d00f6ab972a87d3407
ecca1bf12345a15bb6ee067004a6d60414458e12
49242 F20101123_AACCMA chappell_a_Page_066.pro
eebd48563d494fa09d4f2ea4015bdfde
fb605d6117f6712d69bc4c36d0f0c0f0b584974f
F20101123_AACCLM chappell_a_Page_104.tif
d04db4e0bf5223a019ccad1332e565f6
db8c563a6736cfa8a9e0d3ddf5002cf05b8b6499
1974 F20101123_AACDPD chappell_a_Page_150.txt
16d1a140b177bc552e542dac3331aa56
e440b288f7a7fd32face62fcb7f7277c3d49c7a1
2139 F20101123_AACDOP chappell_a_Page_132.txt
7ccc9599b5001daac489e01afa320a38
08729a9d2a240c701c6bf3c50bd4f2908ef3b9b4
51102 F20101123_AACCKY chappell_a_Page_140.pro
06deaf0f071093c7c5eb2dc193151ff8
1c0f200ef2ceddd9298f889165f73ceb4542ef51
F20101123_AACCMB chappell_a_Page_133.tif
443a10e08254fb65c236a60ec59cc866
12175c940da74940a531b7326565c32dfe0b7f12
F20101123_AACCLN chappell_a_Page_025.tif
4fea31c96e86797b20625b6df10dfb26
2d390775e6a4930f1c4f3e3877e80d880dcce4fa
1929 F20101123_AACDPE chappell_a_Page_151.txt
13150e1a7091684fb8188b41fe2fc4e2
153dc8557ff6f62330f32fd6c06a9b4001264e2f
2096 F20101123_AACDOQ chappell_a_Page_133.txt
b1d486f515659e2dda1fd4538c0c5222
b4179c25aea44b9e49ebf22a6327d10cebcf72dc
1958 F20101123_AACCKZ chappell_a_Page_031.txt
76bdc40cea9788e00a2b65838cd3abb2
fe0185ab59481ad5d00d636de8a5b36b9b9c3323
F20101123_AACCMC chappell_a_Page_107.tif
dcfa982e10fffb855ee550206e06e58c
4994d17d6649c8ce021675bcc45ffdc858eca19e
97112 F20101123_AACCLO chappell_a_Page_054.jpg
74be916b8a9ce572b4c0c0a945da9dc5
3d54fe6845a733168f1854121af3c304ce5684e0
1548 F20101123_AACDPF chappell_a_Page_152.txt
789ba98332548ab9fe7b893fc08c15be
df2164a8e6c3a9bb2101a4f17dade98fc678cc87
F20101123_AACDOR chappell_a_Page_134.txt
49e3903d682fcc68ca7a544d41937454
e484d8702422bbb300a0fabc28e302782dbde91c
50133 F20101123_AACCMD chappell_a_Page_051.pro
cd17e1fd70241df5356f11111e9135f7
85186dd755acf18af6d927c7145b6d79b4a2b21f
F20101123_AACCLP chappell_a_Page_151.tif
0bce6d41998313ffbf4621e1b4ff1ab9
9c0d25edb3d20b5f86fb69dce33f392dba428a83
1809 F20101123_AACDPG chappell_a_Page_153.txt
9f775afec9f1a64e8b5834ea26e11527
2f58dacea5a6c6ec54e2d8d7e7cef2fc848b26f9
48166 F20101123_AACCME chappell_a_Page_064.pro
e7d27d5538bd53946d36fb1b65251e4a
00e170b3ed355e1135020ef8a5773dbea3787bb9
F20101123_AACDPH chappell_a_Page_154.txt
66aa8e6d6c7c7a417ae922e71a2424ad
c4c249aa5aebdbb02ee598e02d1467d6be0fb074
2003 F20101123_AACDOS chappell_a_Page_135.txt
d1822a972bf0fa80cb97ffb65e8d27ae
8db96ecaeda3fe932052b0e0114574af5643059f
51336 F20101123_AACCMF chappell_a_Page_050.pro
2383ddd245f44febf34a913db8ba8469
ce87ecb26d1dabf1ff9c1d503414f5e4dd285447
79791 F20101123_AACCLQ chappell_a_Page_079.jpg
d41d4997b8cc11cf9588d1a27a6c8ce1
6d64d2c26360d6727bdc0651504a01fb4936ef96
1957 F20101123_AACDPI chappell_a_Page_155.txt
eac1fbf66f629f010d14509be837d055
996c97a15377f64bf8c129a3fdbad8e083856e6f
1971 F20101123_AACDOT chappell_a_Page_137.txt
f9c12ae0a012b59882c2a6f98344b3b4
23238f7fe4d7d07d79266d3af0779b0e91044317
3192 F20101123_AACCMG chappell_a_Page_175thm.jpg
f398497afbcdc0b14b17f543ba82d559
806c3624b43a3f6fb91bdab8b6d99c8227dcdd49
32259 F20101123_AACCLR chappell_a_Page_133.QC.jpg
f12a8a0002f975ac11fe165d53ff85ee
133ea3d1f867d9b27e3a4b99a265e43847c286de
1859 F20101123_AACDPJ chappell_a_Page_156.txt
1f62bdfa4b7a0f9cdf25608fcba67410
af6dd55596f01fccf1172c057452ea5eef6ce537
2028 F20101123_AACDOU chappell_a_Page_138.txt
676555657c2836f7f57e92ef99aa8e43
af1c087dad0b8124e8549fe154a511201208ec26
F20101123_AACCMH chappell_a_Page_040.tif
0008d82cf62d370d9efff88cc88563a6
bc4cb58861d65834a7e7dfb1d3926521ce1a489d
8406 F20101123_AACCLS chappell_a_Page_154thm.jpg
8b9c6457d54a1c83cc4e247a1854b824
a0a7896dcca4ded0e6a1396182655a73ec842bb8
1902 F20101123_AACDPK chappell_a_Page_157.txt
2a4027f5f8d6d7ddd620953a218413ac
fb24e0166c34610a0369ba7bfd65abb96c2cbac9
2011 F20101123_AACDOV chappell_a_Page_140.txt
a96d7859ecc5ec40128c51809f943843
abf49962fcd140333700586a905801fe8f3c63ed
F20101123_AACCMI chappell_a_Page_045.txt
aaae1450664ba22b5649783202777be2
83befc72393e7faa0ceff778a083e59244e34086
F20101123_AACCLT chappell_a_Page_099.tif
5d2345853e686162cc4e7cd28dd15cd4
9c8bfb1b435ba2cd9684bd5a61742c661cf09d8c
1837 F20101123_AACDPL chappell_a_Page_158.txt
cb0859025df9ff718964d1f41c6a5a29
c2ae7fd7d4d418d28d61aba915b94693a57c7237
1916 F20101123_AACDOW chappell_a_Page_141.txt
67afcf977addc2e6b36c29c9674ab9f1
186c9866640aa2688ca3e145986b5c99d81ce5aa
91516 F20101123_AACCMJ chappell_a_Page_071.jpg
cdfce9f0b09d650e5a5b78574e80a4af
295886ea383ea690b60248273cd1862f87acba2a
109782 F20101123_AACCLU chappell_a_Page_043.jp2
0c810ce7124281dcce073258a7ea8d8f
fecdb1b486217bff862f1c1d53d1e7f6ecddcb41
707 F20101123_AACDQA chappell_a_Page_175.txt
a4535f53246525aee07c0d42a2e3fa5a
9a56f8fa4d80f5f4777fa31774aae45a00308ef9
1999 F20101123_AACDPM chappell_a_Page_159.txt
ed4e8b04af6979462ba97cb8440f2f17
26f922a38b03dd12bc89e74c369fefd894c5e8ff
1883 F20101123_AACDOX chappell_a_Page_142.txt
9ab2051cdb4fc1a39f159b6ae5162064
8d9a135ba1aff4f4e93f2a02fb7246334df31d2a
F20101123_AACCMK chappell_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
38bfc10d0592446c9edf10cdee525643
5a82a89b2d11bd778aead060893f8a537ab25c26
105001 F20101123_AACCLV chappell_a_Page_108.jpg
7a94e4f20a61bd35390dcddb133b688f
062e2de329aa4f8ff1a4e336b3215f36cfba4277
823782 F20101123_AACDQB chappell_a.pdf
1b267da8b6d207b024e61a88e54812d8
eb6077ca985489bb667a36b4673b0a0e785def2b
F20101123_AACDPN chappell_a_Page_160.txt
87f2e2338e0d156c08fd132fa7b788b9
10efbecec4c3f21c1133f0506b574c8b6b596664
2061 F20101123_AACDOY chappell_a_Page_144.txt
7367df6cc0020bed9db1338bc89cf255
70b506e34f4eb4852e569993a65b082fd1b606d7
F20101123_AACCML chappell_a_Page_083.tif
ea361b9ddf99501e63451a4cc6aa8825
d492554d56093cf93bad7b33a81c75da7bc8a711
8153 F20101123_AACCLW chappell_a_Page_063thm.jpg
694269fe27d5bfe2e48d84dbbcc1b020
5222729366af5a87d05d75993d5556d61cb71ec3
F20101123_AACDQC chappell_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
5830995c54bed9fd0e0cfbf9fad2602f
e9032fce2ff9c8c857490ba11bf78f23a2d43b3e
2012 F20101123_AACDPO chappell_a_Page_161.txt
65ae1c94ee9645d2e51a918de7e976b1
76a9bff304676169624f47d12964704aed4761cf
1845 F20101123_AACDOZ chappell_a_Page_145.txt
dcf27234aad824628e59b61f70a005fd
4b65b9feaf09acf54c108330d8e6023ed23b02d0
33421 F20101123_AACCNA chappell_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
50d15e37e85b59da8ab9be7b36981dc2
e1d3b9ac5498ee9bb32d9d00107d6349099cc42b
2052 F20101123_AACCMM chappell_a_Page_109.txt
87077f1a1dc6a2b5825c484d89026723
350be42d28e34f4ba215953416673b1ec4c92cbb
109493 F20101123_AACCLX chappell_a_Page_049.jp2
0dd6be4e881cca916d39ecbe832ddbd8
bed4f9c317d9eac0d75116ba292053286500b1a9
627 F20101123_AACDQD chappell_a_Page_002thm.jpg
a49cd69d6c31830a4626b18bd2e61efe
3d32b7087dc6a4032a75ec4a5e7447482847cd2f
274 F20101123_AACDPP chappell_a_Page_162.txt
1a2240875da7ec956a76051f630f8970
a36a92628b5dd5ea65121cceac0cc9055fd12b1b
34323 F20101123_AACCNB chappell_a_Page_173.QC.jpg
abe859d181adc72590aface76689e7d0
9f66cf98d721cabc54c5fe0199f3fdf832c80b0e
34832 F20101123_AACCMN chappell_a_Page_125.QC.jpg
fb9cc9fdaa4dafaaa3a6418fee3d8f7d
b73650de02d69194aa79ebaaf09d310f66f2ce01
93375 F20101123_AACCLY chappell_a_Page_013.jp2
f4e4e5083b811e60c3e99d14b6a317b6
2deeb43c198f5aa91a6142be73e246432bf1402d
1646 F20101123_AACDQE chappell_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
2627088d352ef8b34f00ff77568acb70
4de30dc886438a98624c7bd001de6b674f3d5755
1305 F20101123_AACDPQ chappell_a_Page_163.txt
bfa413068d80d03852adaa38193a570a
d90f58c864381791bb29989c2754635ec441dba2
F20101123_AACCNC chappell_a_Page_137.tif
87dcdf25f0f04d9c03b615cf49aaa158
0b7b5bf054cf99521006650681971be911201529
88911 F20101123_AACCMO chappell_a_Page_153.jpg
3b0116c7ac8381005fe3b050eebd9d11
a42d4dfb25a1d631c9aee9eb523110c55d0f1c7b
F20101123_AACCLZ chappell_a_Page_112.txt
93645c219553931fbb0349e369f326ea
3c6d56b3e5cdce182038312b87db52e3aa1e3cbe
7307 F20101123_AACDQF chappell_a_Page_003thm.jpg
927408ee63caf13a2559ca921945eafc
cefa024a43aec605620777d4e904595412a04d8b
F20101123_AACDPR chappell_a_Page_164.txt
a3fd350dc8b9d5f7d3e0a106ce622348
056bbdb393743119fc98262bb45daa10c20a3c63
51484 F20101123_AACCND chappell_a_Page_028.pro
b8cd1f7c5cbf1b9ac6cb54bdbe00bddd
fc7cc7a1735cd8a8856ab5f403c7ddafeb9c5264
101056 F20101123_AACCMP chappell_a_Page_030.jpg
55aab318c4c09cd4a73bba6bf67367e1
699f5ed4919bee18df7f10fe67d622790c99c610
28783 F20101123_AACDQG chappell_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
131cb689cbe2706b0133cf9c16272f8b
5f688a322db0f7ac6385c1f98938b0529fa0a744
2417 F20101123_AACDPS chappell_a_Page_165.txt
2955067f9d86e5c6bcfe1c998fa11335
ba99e6a418effdcd9e437f8d06bcbdaafcc2ace0
106001 F20101123_AACCNE chappell_a_Page_137.jp2
b78b5aa6a73d2f8cc9db63a33611b90f
8faf3ac561388a0ad8d3beaa2c30ec05de7daa61
7885 F20101123_AACCMQ chappell_a_Page_021thm.jpg
efbfc6e4a6d91c56356cb8ebfbd2eca2
45cd872eb6c8a7b793b572c8601dcb56f465d32b
31586 F20101123_AACDQH chappell_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
98af871cd2f1e66beb176993b04953a3
d9cd97f8d72baf47a90c8397dabf7cd60ff16aaa
128849 F20101123_AACCNF chappell_a_Page_169.jp2
d86d4e520669aaf0f6562b2833b70d2b
aa62f0b6b03af1248326bfe7882e6fb94cb35de1
F20101123_AACDQI chappell_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
ef8a1fde8658ee096fb49326e1ae2a3e
aa8db34d08cd6c9f5de1a2a8813b56eff47f7de3
2482 F20101123_AACDPT chappell_a_Page_167.txt
a8d6a7a1da0117e043d3a9d14342f52c
85643b10723920b1767100191a1f98325173cf2b
1513 F20101123_AACCNG chappell_a_Page_006thm.jpg
470eee9d17483aac2c69ca2c213f945f
4cc02e2aee125ba8af37df9a068bc76ed6798616
F20101123_AACCMR chappell_a_Page_030.txt
cc73062615d3ab2e47d50cbe71852556
68c0d83ef5f517aaf924ac10daf3878c079d6a1e
5303 F20101123_AACDQJ chappell_a_Page_007thm.jpg
a291f2da01a12046e1fe861eced1d915
19972d0d228d1e9c20d7f9492051b102b0bfb77d
2210 F20101123_AACDPU chappell_a_Page_168.txt
24946ce4b47ef7c71cf84de21503ef57
acfc90667755688f2eadae619e8bcc4f2f1f8609
52256 F20101123_AACCNH chappell_a_Page_144.pro
ae09b0f04b7d40dcd2d69c4cc1c26209
f28e799e6ca2b41f641fdf23d2e7caa1d51fddcc
3693 F20101123_AACCMS chappell_a_Page_163thm.jpg
5de6f79a146aa3772cad7b9daa571390
75cc6716338e966534fae7816128865b7e81a7df
21340 F20101123_AACDQK chappell_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
218617fc355cb201a4e965ab15c12841
6762156fe40f2f57f694d075b2bd5b0d160b9abc
2363 F20101123_AACDPV chappell_a_Page_169.txt
a363391bc85c418e0b390c914f3f920c
337172549606e210e2987f0c593a5268c1f5d1b8
32756 F20101123_AACCMT chappell_a_Page_124.QC.jpg
1d0c19af8b86155a5bd0fad6ab6d40bc
4ce25fd127a0dc1aecc6f3afe7e1da09f63c9ad7
33287 F20101123_AACCNI chappell_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
409c4ed44735899003d1549e2b874295
c207ed14a0b41f6236e325c297f61817bf941434
27540 F20101123_AACDQL chappell_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
37a1e758343e3f2a003507d7192d9c54
94df0df1b86c00a3211faec53049eb88df6ef650
2275 F20101123_AACDPW chappell_a_Page_170.txt
5a8d70cfcc5df73986719d1879714c55
5dd65ef70951574ac247bc1fb3557c60f8015786
48105 F20101123_AACCMU chappell_a_Page_072.pro
3f18fbf1570d00ec5be837b2543dc85d
a05c4212167e937486005749fc8295598da0eaa5
15313 F20101123_AACCNJ chappell_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
48f9b489aebddf1eb3a20bc166d9c30a
6c08b9794d9ad8333dd262d1b2490cce4887d36d
34965 F20101123_AACDRA chappell_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
1e5b567812cb07efac6adfdfcc5de4a3
51dc86077d8cdbd7e752112f4154047e336422e9
6903 F20101123_AACDQM chappell_a_Page_009thm.jpg
b902199616b1ab6312e842c9ff46dcef
e8a7d22dc88f277d7c5478d1969b346a492caf8f
2435 F20101123_AACDPX chappell_a_Page_171.txt
7fd37163a78df6c0e16d712e96e3f9a6
eba0af0760e5b6dbb48794d52dd4a0e61eb087a6
112859 F20101123_AACCMV chappell_a_Page_017.jp2
fb0ededbf13c89facc826bb449084769
4be03b668eba15428f1175fd4f7daf6eb3f97dc5
98610 F20101123_AACCNK chappell_a_Page_004.jpg
a91ee8f9c91aca4e952294b46132ed82
6f55922e247762d8a2b2c888194a1679fe3c04d9
33541 F20101123_AACDRB chappell_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
ef77c8f8ce9de2fd834922c7cedff82b
4d1fd0f84a6bd1c48ed013086b2dcc0b311d9fde
28935 F20101123_AACDQN chappell_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
e9c0bb0d5aae131338f5e65254074308
e6ff34c76ec0f3ebcf7caeeffab3b6c7737c65a9
2131 F20101123_AACDPY chappell_a_Page_172.txt
862ae586e005e033fb160af5c9d57f9f
4e790ce1ab00fae5f3bfe3b0e8a733a53d9498be
106632 F20101123_AACCMW chappell_a_Page_035.jp2
a1751454d1f31036265882f10ba4e7a7
cd11c6e3ef7aa8be0e4e66712cde3919f86f591f
F20101123_AACCNL chappell_a_Page_073.tif
b197cc5af181c1884c5233c50270b8c4
e17c94298d4624336df230178c071895de0c5265
8295 F20101123_AACDRC chappell_a_Page_019thm.jpg
c93754d1a26d5c3852cd05f1866a1011
462649ee348dd3b399321a6490956a2ea5900a0a
2241 F20101123_AACDQO chappell_a_Page_010thm.jpg
3f53f1ea81e42a6093333df38327aa8b
e6ecdccc0e4d8b89ba2297b92cfe81bb2afa684e
2399 F20101123_AACDPZ chappell_a_Page_173.txt
6ad13c5ced9427043a55b491ec72811c
36ad7779108604dca4439ac5d06f3849491390af
F20101123_AACCMX chappell_a_Page_106.txt
155e25a1e3cd07c770b5b70f271a26b3
2331c36f8c2388440576cf8f291fdec67939b263
1736 F20101123_AACCOA chappell_a_Page_174.txt
53191b172d425ef18527f6946c6261a7
e975b68257608aac0ff9517bc212fcda325e1361
35534 F20101123_AACCNM chappell_a_Page_127.QC.jpg
40678a0cbc7cd67580b7d670aa1e8285
f7d170c8a0fa4ec52e6aadc8ddadfd6c1a8dcc75
32631 F20101123_AACDRD chappell_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
640edfdeadf024f8a6af76461d5bf3c2
61078bec94da8252785cbdc2b9197e69eaa1dea4
6326 F20101123_AACDQP chappell_a_Page_011thm.jpg
85bbf1b136d4ea5426cd5597e1d117fb
abb0ceedd9fac181c15be767bb230b8c3f7b2b08
7980 F20101123_AACCMY chappell_a_Page_070thm.jpg
7388f86c7022a342fae73084fbcce8c0
8da7cb510b125350892e89d188e64556aead7d3c
F20101123_AACCOB chappell_a_Page_161.tif
50ea1f9af2b72f0d89bbb11987d91b33
7e1bcab43e5dce9bad20cfeb0e38d454619447c7
F20101123_AACCNN chappell_a_Page_082thm.jpg
25a34f528165e749ab53daaf5bfefa53
22448b3b184e36e333329beb2837a3bfaf7e4227
30518 F20101123_AACDRE chappell_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
3111b2a2ee248d3c0b61365c059c829c
657e8c6a3c580d9bda311408909d96062add1a59
24375 F20101123_AACDQQ chappell_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
47fc43edfa15bef5978e9b4adb5c003c
68248dfe5a6969c8650ae1bf32de1b500881a5c6
98034 F20101123_AACCMZ chappell_a_Page_123.jp2
4868a8d4a65746b3256c094504f1c919
bcb5510ab5be2cdca9cfe337d0f7eb40c409279d
2111 F20101123_AACCOC chappell_a_Page_001thm.jpg
ae286d64c25d2295f6cb4feb873547f2
3effb01f711497df0c97eccf353cdaf0e74b7398
104144 F20101123_AACCNO chappell_a_Page_056.jp2
e8710554689cd761754164800f95e5b7
897581d101b1ee5d4dd3cdf325001fdcc5b61f3a
8142 F20101123_AACDRF chappell_a_Page_022thm.jpg
22cf86a06fce37403a2f058cc79a9538
73f65dc9e12dd069e8f6d7ac6b2a54501222651e
6510 F20101123_AACDQR chappell_a_Page_012thm.jpg
6e271bd7ef024c10719406407562133d
f61188ae91dda44facee0d194b160e654bf284b5
103046 F20101123_AACCOD chappell_a_Page_103.jp2
bc084086aeb5244e9396d98ca35ed6d0
736731a74ed559faece7e7e48f6bf4c8cb81972c
6641 F20101123_AACCNP chappell_a_Page_008thm.jpg
92808483f504307530150dff9d4ab522
e2bd06deb10f24f1c7511cad1d14776f71d728e6
8327 F20101123_AACDRG chappell_a_Page_023thm.jpg
3c646053c27f1b52c795227f2ce16397
408ca3f01186b6b994f5835880eddabb6743d992
7219 F20101123_AACDQS chappell_a_Page_013thm.jpg
8a997f3a55d169260e0b827a6e59685b
3c1c36705a0e05f1e2c70dec794b29dc060db23a
7793 F20101123_AACCOE chappell_a_Page_145thm.jpg
81528b7c826c8065326aad45ca44bb08
b4361c8e0b246621dbed85c5e7f521711efa9c19
2039 F20101123_AACCNQ chappell_a_Page_018.txt
7a2a6c0f85d368a4e4ab6b34306cc741
0822a64cd3c9f6322608dd743bec16b435c82c8a
F20101123_AACDRH chappell_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
ccb467d02e262c0832c310b22e510694
4feeed77a30d4caf526b3ece2708ea0d5467782e
8267 F20101123_AACDQT chappell_a_Page_014thm.jpg
852c4b0b63aa16e53f4f074a6a2d2ec1
49cfb5d1eb4a667ad9a672efda1fe2109b8cec32
110409 F20101123_AACCOF chappell_a_Page_125.jp2
6bf4c351ceebb4e9813d7c0bb7ed3497
b027bba662c54376009b0c004bf01aab9cd1ad70
F20101123_AACCNR chappell_a_Page_131.tif
d694313472ccfcf090ceb21850cf2349
396364ca7101876f22a71707eec578e0a40b8f00
3132 F20101123_AACDRI chappell_a_Page_024thm.jpg
c875f1112fcf7b8b670c7e3e5cfca892
cc6e9e2556fd7603c060e3e8bc5d398d6891a3f4
52421 F20101123_AACCOG chappell_a_Page_130.pro
4faba5f9b182cffa2e99cffcd550aecb
606aa39d563315a0f2ef2f039c55adb3874f46f4
12796 F20101123_AACDRJ chappell_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
22b17f0c8bda7512472330610be5f6d0
5f4843274bfbd597af8f1fb4294a99fb3819ec1c
34011 F20101123_AACDQU chappell_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
5ae7d85f141710814cfdd3934cc1a254
a50816b156f537ab4a5d2b54d0d8fa9b803fbed6
101784 F20101123_AACCOH chappell_a_Page_149.jp2
e2284b8f72cd8e4deb3721212b81f05e
a1a7a5bf265b04d251e32d26cd214c4a939dd4db
7133 F20101123_AACCNS chappell_a_Page_153thm.jpg
71d9052ef43fc48a9b06a41814957918
ebe5aca23f340d35442a28549cbd4b74bfc14b86
28731 F20101123_AACDRK chappell_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
6814eeb259980e244ef1d190a21376e8
71a3f198e35a3a3fb0dee6ccaa3e44ee2526c9f5
8534 F20101123_AACDQV chappell_a_Page_015thm.jpg
eb0da0eb37c6169f24809ec1aae7b789
f6658065e914eed4e970eeab07c66404e3fbfda5
F20101123_AACCOI chappell_a_Page_087.tif
b0af41cd5a3e66e0bdea827d08c3d75b
442ee22ecf1beeacb867dd333812c327c1ba1ce6
F20101123_AACCNT chappell_a_Page_172.tif
237f1d0d038ef80aa87d450f3e105720
6a8d9fcf9613adcff1587728f5eb693bda944698
8184 F20101123_AACDRL chappell_a_Page_026thm.jpg
6300943563adc8efa31365abdb4a1780
96b97c147022aa9aad9e6b284626e78e704daf4e
37001 F20101123_AACDQW chappell_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
2fec944ef535c0f02ef33703c716f18a
40e0076d924a56713fd6acc5b622f791f6754b55
8018 F20101123_AACCOJ chappell_a_Page_111thm.jpg
e2727890afb458fa4c76ab9802dcab27
1a32ea6d548a21a41f5571e5fd4a3cb4c0b1a6b5
122049 F20101123_AACCNU chappell_a_Page_102.jp2
15a6dc7bfb2455fdeaef9d73abd53d10
23df536e8621969b15e9c69910ea754c42c0ec46
F20101123_AACDSA chappell_a_Page_035thm.jpg
3f061871a4bcec59749215de45342699
61f8c5ae7a29cf3e89041db9875c6300aa13dffa
33615 F20101123_AACDRM chappell_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
03f55117d0403a10a0fe51ca6420f21a
572e804ded7b4eb1219d91571f90798044b10cfa
8465 F20101123_AACDQX chappell_a_Page_016thm.jpg
7c73727098e7c7bc16716c735b924394
6d9794bbb069cd307bf42c4f3c4aee57652d83f4
99691 F20101123_AACCOK chappell_a_Page_077.jpg
ff5ee5bb77c29b16c0f16592c41f8b3c
8a0735fc64f82f3ee078a1cb0939761481fae153
31457 F20101123_AACCNV chappell_a_Page_141.QC.jpg
b7b7bbb82e29b7521c9ca1e2b20cabc0
83287f0c4866ff208d638755d524125dfc0473fa
32135 F20101123_AACDSB chappell_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
cedc10869a50677bafb05772618d0ced
f07ef1818ac2dbe4a50a65971a42a82529583600
8526 F20101123_AACDRN chappell_a_Page_027thm.jpg
1462c841a71f84c69cf0bf2f4fa3bd1e
9366eed5b6ca3a81095cb010e53d3f3dd94c7830
33363 F20101123_AACDQY chappell_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
14875a7fdbfd0e9d8356f87010667dab
d00a2e1a78672acaa66010537c405d4027f0e040
1947 F20101123_AACCOL chappell_a_Page_063.txt
dc74643bebbfaa35f5f4e4266a04091e
a07639a8414386639ee1637e0fba8b609eaaa746
F20101123_AACCNW chappell_a_Page_146.txt
9e8406ad0f9322a1aeae7e6d8c959ec6
d6be9bc349cbd0134eb85b8dd73618636007ab0b
8322 F20101123_AACDSC chappell_a_Page_036thm.jpg
87b635362999312fa7414908bd278675
f89084fed460ea854667c64bff456e1f53ad0341
33597 F20101123_AACDRO chappell_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
c7824e3ce51d99cec74293bec5e6bcd3
21cebf10e398ca0e1b652969b8b8835596da3a4c
8477 F20101123_AACDQZ chappell_a_Page_017thm.jpg
6d38d08ad3d7962090cde30e00d60143
e8f044b30cbddf814222a999e1465900e4a305db
8356 F20101123_AACCOM chappell_a_Page_005thm.jpg
145c76e92b71ddf7e89518e8db5236f3
77184626086d2f9c4790285b2206f3166fc45052
F20101123_AACCNX chappell_a_Page_005.tif
785833c18c680c2b293ffd2c674c2324
091bc2a420c4c55ac5d41d06e50231a0d37d0bd3
32137 F20101123_AACDSD chappell_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
fbda0e79d5de15c6dcbf031170a2103b
d839e01312860d86ac184cf2f0ee68df7fa3d6f0
8401 F20101123_AACDRP chappell_a_Page_028thm.jpg
0617967f71890e239c35c5822e46fb23
d69362bffe93dbf57f1516d32bc57f15e40c1610
24430 F20101123_AACCPB chappell_a_Page_001.jpg
4b7d638651a882d218b1f7607a7601ec
712ec236fc414bbd55d33a6a637532d4bda25aa3
26155 F20101123_AACCON chappell_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
4b72bfe1c69ada7cc818b0e6679747b9
f6860f9a1917ab841e2f6aaeb590a2795af80454
84888 F20101123_AACCNY chappell_a_Page_012.jp2
cef3674c0818a2b0f871a95300030329
de380d2ef394706535e0eeb39096655bab517344
6857 F20101123_AACDSE chappell_a_Page_037thm.jpg
356aaf64d04e8e78070233629ffa39ba
528e6b79a537f0617e68e45250842a746f5a0696
31949 F20101123_AACDRQ chappell_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
9cc5e4ad7ea1b00acd11774bf1ecb022
5721468052ece6d0de24696cb75b3a2758180e1a
89719 F20101123_AACCPC chappell_a_Page_003.jpg
6d307d1566707a8f510b8e2fac5096fa
85ea11f19ad28b93a69b2e56864ed6df7793f2b3
F20101123_AACCOO chappell_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
a58d41f6dc3df6d99a1ec399e985000b
18d6a7469e05512d3c5f183489ce8b2cfea97e51
F20101123_AACCNZ chappell_a_Page_049.txt
1c02db6498d3e942bdfc2e6650f35bb1
5cf8ef08ef5ffb6d60d607d8ee4ab8f5c6ab7ac5
27762 F20101123_AACDSF chappell_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
186c6910f0f5c83f263844f1c16b5b7c
eb9100efbab4771f314963f1a4f162a00109fc89
32546 F20101123_AACDRR chappell_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
92f390250e6532293289156b1be59dd8
7b747d13433506b3dee466ccd7aed56d520d0462
F20101123_AACCPD chappell_a_Page_005.jpg
d718a4a08016ef24b4e66e3480f52215
0fb193b237269b6d74648e7155f664f0a2ca369c
101131 F20101123_AACCOP chappell_a_Page_018.jpg
b0b1cd8e342bcbd41944229752c2678d
c5b99ab2f11419c1ef5205ba2ffafaa3284c1f54
33130 F20101123_AACDSG chappell_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
777b9c1be3daff1a397ae2a8e9187eb9
250ad29cb1ed9a6f5abda4caefd8b531131c4544
7387 F20101123_AACDRS chappell_a_Page_031thm.jpg
cdb6ef3c65bffbd49cca7695a02350ce
973dfcd0964124bff46eec8d66af6d72e70cd773
95326 F20101123_AACCPE chappell_a_Page_007.jpg
c8511253846db2d29637ff08f13d5e2b
8633fd1f25a9ec2986552c498ae810190373a9f4
56004 F20101123_AACCOQ chappell_a_Page_166.pro
31f7cd92913d9ee299e08ffc2fb9dacc
da64c476103a803e2fc486546067e9550d49d226


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011615/00001

Material Information

Title: Learning in Action: Training the Community Policing Officer
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011615:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011615/00001

Material Information

Title: Learning in Action: Training the Community Policing Officer
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011615:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












LEARNING IN ACTION: TRAINING THE COMMUNITY POLICING OFFICER


By

ALLISON TAYLOR CHAPPELL
















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Allison T. Chappell















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

From the beginning, the first memorable class I took at East Carolina University

(ECU) was Social Problems (taught by Linda Mooney). Linda's stories and perspective

on the world introduced me to a new way of viewing society that would change me

forever, personally and professionally. After that, Bob Edwards (also at ECU) mentored

me as a senior undergraduate student, spending hours explaining the ins and outs of grad

school and what a career in academia would entail. He taught me how to make a vitae,

offered me an opportunity to "do research," and continued to help and support me until

this day. He deserves a huge "thank you."

Barbara Zsembik taught my first methods class in graduate school and served on

my supervisory committee. Though we did not speak as often in my later years of

graduate school, I always knew Barb was there with grounded advice for any problem, be

it personal or professional. She, Mike Radelet, and Marian Borg, taught me much about

writing.

The entire Criminology faculty was always full of useful information about

teaching, publishing, and job searching (including the office staff, notably Dianne and

Hazel in Criminology, and Sheran and Kanitra in Sociology). They are a great group of

people. Karen Parker was the first professor I assisted in the classroom. From her, I

learned the skills and importance of effective lecturing and how to manage teaching

efficiently. She and Aaron also became good friends of ours. Eve Brank became a good

friend and someone that I look up to personally and professionally. I also thank Jodi Lane









for advice on jobs and the dissertation. Joe Spillane gave great advice on life and teaching

and he always offered much-needed humor. I thank Ron Akers for his theoretical insights

about the police. Many graduate school friends also helped me along the way (Brad

Tripp, Melanie Wakeman, Jennifer Matheny, and John Reitzel, to name a few).

I thank those at the Police Academy who trusted me with all of their data, answered

my questions, and let me observe the academy classes. Without these data, this

dissertation would not exist. The people at the academy (notably Daryl Johnston, Tom

Terry, and Jim Murphey) taught me much about the police, police training, and the inner-

workings of the academy. I am very appreciative. The academy recruits who "are" the

data were interesting and fun to get to know. The staff and recruits made this experience

enjoyable and interesting.

I would also like to thank those at the "The" Police Agency, especially Lieutenant

Allan Willis and Lieutenant Scott Meffen. This dissertation is much more interesting

because of the follow-up data they provided. They invited me to meetings, introduced me

to people, and answered my many questions. They are a fun group of people. I really

appreciate the help and friendship of those at The PD.

I met Marian Borg (my supervisory committee chair) during my second semester of

graduate school, in a seminar on social control. She has been a mentor and a friend.

Emotionally, intellectually, and educationally, Marian has been a constant source of

support. Especially at the beginning, she essentially held my hand while I learned how to

write and how to apply theoretically concepts to the real world, and believed in me when

I did not believe in myself. She saw me at my worst and still seemed to like me! I am

grateful.









Lonn Lanza-Kaduce deserves much of the credit for this dissertation. It absolutely

would not have been possible without Lonn. Lonn forced me to think and work harder

than I had before. He pushed me and I am thankful for it. I thank Lonn for putting up

with me when I needed to complain, and when I was completely stressed out and

probably mean to him! Lonn received the brunt of my stress and emotional breakdowns

during the writing of this dissertation and still managed to be nice to me. I will cherish

the memories of our meetings at Starbucks, Northwest Grille, and other various eating

and drinking establishments in Gainesville, where we talked through the issues of my

research and he forced me to think about issues theoretically (much to my dismay). I will

not forget the commitment and dedication he showed to me during the final months of the

writing of this dissertation. I really owe this to him.

I thank my mother, who has been dealing with her own adversity during this time,

but has managed to continue to put my priorities first and make sure that I reach my

goals. She always stressed the importance of education as I was growing up, probably not

anticipating that I would take it so literally! I very much appreciate the support

throughout the years, emotionally, financially, and otherwise.

I thank my father, who showed overwhelming pride in my accomplishments.

Whatever I did, I knew that my father would be proud. My friends (especially Heather)

were always there to listen to me cry and complain and worry and freak out when it

seemed the world was ending for one reason or another. I am sure I was difficult to deal

with at times! I thank them for their support.

Last, but certainly not least, I thank my fiance, Scott Maggard, who has had to put

up with more insanity from me than anyone else has over the past 6 years! It has been a









wonderful experience to share graduate school with him, and I thank him for his

everlasting support. I was never alone in writing this dissertation; I always had Scott by

my side. For that, I am forever grateful.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... ...................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................... ..... ..................... ......... .............

ABSTRACT .............. .................. .......... .............. xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Introduction ........................................................................................................1
C om m unity Policing (C O PS) ............................................... ............................ 2
P police T raining .............................................. 5
Specific A im s/Statem ent of R research .................................. ..................................... 6
S ig n ific a n c e .......................................................... ................ 8
P policy ............................................................... .... ...... ... ...... 8
T h eo ry ................. ... .................................. ............... ................ 9
Limitations and Parameters of the Study ............... ............................................ 11

2 CO M M U N ITY PO LICIN G ......................................................................... .... .... 13

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................13
H isto ry ...............................................................14
The Com munity Era .................................. ..... .. ........ ........... ... 16
C om m unity Policing ...................................................................... 19
Challenges ............................................................ .. ......... 22
Success of Com m unity Policing...................................... ........................ 23

3 FORM AL POLICE TRAINING ........................................... ......................... 25

Traditional Training........................... ... ....... ..... ...... ...... .......... .. 25
The Transition to (COPS) Training .................................... .......................... ........ 27
R recruit T raining for C O P S .............................................................. .....................28
D delivery ...........................................................................30
Challenges to COPS Training ....................................... ... ............31
Community Policing and Police Training: The LAPD.................................... 32
Contextualize the Learning.................................................. 33
Integrate Key Topics Throughout the Curriculum ...........................................33









B uild the Scenario ....................... .... ...... .. ......... .............. ... ........... 34
Conduct a Thorough Debriefing (After the Scenario).......................................34
Com m unity Policing in Florida ........................................................ ............... 35
F field T rain in g ....................................................... ................ 3 6

4 LEARNING POLICE BEHAVIOR AND NORMS: FORMAL AND
IN F O R M A L C H A N G E S......................................... .............................................4 1

In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................................4 1
Social Learning Theory ........................ ............ ............... .... ....... 43
D ifferential A association ............................................................ .....................4 5
Definitions ................................. .......................... ... ............ 46
D differential R einforcem ent............................................ ........... ............... 47
Im itatio n ................................................................4 8
Traditional Police Subculture .................................. ............... ............... 49
Academy Training and Learning COPS .......................... ...............................53
Social Learning Model of Police Socialization for COPS.......................................... 55

5 D A T A ............................................................................. 5 7

Introdu action ................... ..................................... ............. ................. 57
B background of the CM S Curriculum ................................... ..................................... 57
R research at the Police A cadem y........................................... .......................... 59
S e ttin g .......................................................................................5 9
D ata........................................................ 59
The O official D ata..................... ..................................... .............................60
Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing................ .............. ....60
Research Questions .................................... .... ........ .. ..............62
Research at the Police Agency ........................................................62
S ettin g ............. ................. .................................................................... 6 2
D a ta ...................... ... ...... ............................................................. .............. 6 3
Field Training O officer (FTO ) Files........................................... .....................63
Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing................ .............. ....64
Research Questions .................................... .... ........ .. ..............65
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 6 6

6 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 6 7

In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................................6 7
Quantitative Analysis................................. ........ ........................ 67
Dependent Variables: Academy Performance....................................68
Independent V ariables ............................................................................ 69
A N ote on Interaction s.............................................................. .....................72
Q ualitative D ata ................................................................... ........... 72
Police A cadem y ....................................................... ...... .............. 72
P o lice A g en cy ............................................................................. 7 3




viii









7 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................75

In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................................7 5
D escriptiv e Statistics ......................................................................... ................... 7 5
F u ll S a m p le .................................................................................................... 7 5
Split Sam ples .............................................................................................. 76
M ultivariate M odels............... ........................................ ................................. 77
Does CMS Training Make a Difference?........................................................77
Analyzing Performance among CMS Versus Traditional Recruits ..................78
Sum m ary and C onclusion................................................. .............................. 80

8 INFORM AL LEARN IN G .............................................. .............................. 86

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 8 6
Paramilitary Environment.................... ........... ...... .............91
Learning Academy Rules: The Chain of Command, Deference, and
Discipline .............................................. 92
A accepting C criticism ........... ...................................................... .. .... .... ..... 99
Pressure to Perform under Stress.................................. ................... .......... 102
Loyalty, Solidarity and Reliance on Fellow Officers ...................................105
O officer Safety.................................................................... ... 108
Bad Guy and U s Versus Them ...........................................................................113
Police Presence and Assertiveness ............. ..................... ............... 117
Traditional Police Work and Experiential Knowledge............................................122
Law on the Books Versus Law in Action........ ......... ...... .....................126
D iv ersity .............................................................. 13 1
Conclusion ....................... ....................... 137

9 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ................................................ ............... 141

In tro d u ctio n ......................................... .. ....................................... ..................... 14 1
W ay s to Im p ro v e ................................................................................................. 14 3
Instructors .............................................. ........ ........ ......... 143
College-Educated R ecruits ...................................................... ..... ........ .. 144
U pdated Field Training.............................................. ............................ 145
H orizontal Com m unication ...................................................... ....... ........ 146
Adult Learning ........................................................ ........ 146
A Final Thought: Training Versus Education .................................. ............... 146
T h eoretical L esson s ............ ......................................................... ................ .. 14 7
Lim stations and Future R research ................................................... ... ............ ...... 148

APPENDIX: CURRICULA CONTENTS ................................................................151

L IST O F R EFER EN CE S ......................................... .... ........................ ............... 152

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................... 163
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

7-1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ....................................... ............... 83

7-2. Regression models predicting academy performance of academy recruits ..............84

7-3. Regression models predicting academy performance of CMS recruits ..................85

7-4. Regression models predicting academy performance of traditional recruits ............85















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LEARNING IN ACTION: TRAINING THE
COMMUNITY POLICING OFFICER

By

Allison T. Chappell

August 2005

Chair: Marian Borg
Cochair: Lonn Lanza-Kaduce
Major Department: Sociology

Community-oriented policing (COPS) is a new philosophy and practice of policing

that focuses on problem solving, community involvement, and crime prevention.

Academics, politicians, and practitioners alike have lauded COPS for its potential to

enhance public safety and improve police-community relations. Though 70% of police

departments claim to be practicing COPS, the way in which community-oriented policing

translates into practice remains somewhat unclear. While a growing number of studies

are examining various aspects of this policing philosophy, little scholarly attention has

been devoted to the training of COPS officers. This study evaluated how COPS training

is being conducted and whether recruits are learning different lessons as COPS has been

incorporated into training. Specifically, it analyzed participant observation data from a

police academy as well as official records of academy recruits who have gone through

both traditional and COPS curricula. It also used field training narratives and forms to see









how academy training carries over in practice on the streets. The study adopted a social

learning perspective to account for whether curriculum changes translated into

differential learning. Police recruits who went through the COPS curriculum differed

little in terms of academy performance compared to recruits who went through the former

traditional curriculum. No particular "type" of recruit was more or less likely to fail, gain

employment, or achieve higher academy scores. Although there is much that is different

in the CMS curriculum, the lessons that are learned may not be that different. This is

because the normative climate of the police training and socialization experience has

changed little since the reformation in curricula. The normative climate includes formal

and informal lessons about the paramilitary environment, officer safety, the "bad guy"

and "us versus them" mentality, police presence and assertiveness, experiential

knowledge and traditional police work, law on the books versus law in action, and

diversity. These lessons have implications for the way that officers interact with their

department and the citizenry, as well as implications for COPS. Results of this study will

be a resource to police training centers attempting to build their own innovative COPS

curricula. In the future, this study could be improved using larger samples from

additional training environments to assess COPS training and its impact on policing

practices.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Shooting. Defensive tactics. Mechanics of arrest. This is what comes to mind when

most of us hear the term "police training." And that is only for the past 50 years, because

before that, most police officers did not receive any formal training at all (Walker 1999).

The political era, which spanned from the 1840s through the early 1900s, was

characterized by "watchman" style policing, and saw officers recruited informally and

learning the ropes of policing on the job (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Kelling and Moore

1988a). Recruits were not formally screened and any "training" they received was left to

seasoned police officers in the field. Corruption in that time period led to reform

beginning in the early 1900s. Reform, or legalistic, policing introduced basic training of

police officers (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Kelling and Moore 1988a). However, training

varied widely by state, agency, and budget, and most recruits were still insufficiently

prepared for police work (Alpert and Dunham 1997).

We have come a long way since then, and we are now well into the community

policing era (Kelling and Moore 1988a). The new era highlights the importance of

cultural diversity, communications, and problem-solving. Indeed, training is one of the

key elements necessary for community policing to reach its full potential (King and Lab

2000; Senna and Siegel 2002; Zhao and Thurman 1995).

Police recruits learn complex lessons in the quest to become police officers. They

likely begin thinking about the police role long before they apply for the job. Once they









apply, they must go through screening and background checks before being admitted to

the academy. The academy presents many formal and informal lessons and definitions;

some reinforced more than others by their superiors. Recruits spend considerable time in

the classroom learning subjects such as diversity and community relations, and time

learning physical skills, such as driving and shooting a firearm. Once they graduate from

the academy, many of them go to a police department where they will complete 12 weeks

of field training. During this time, they are exposed to several police mentors who help

them transfer their academy knowledge to the street. Valuable lessons are learned during

field training and the effect of field training officers is extremely salient. Throughout this

lengthy process in the police culture, recruits are exposed to trainers, peers, and other

officers-and their ideas about policing and life. Social learning theory helps us

understand which definitions and lessons are likely to become most salient in the police

training experience.

Community Policing (COPS)

"Community-oriented policing" (or COPS) is currently touted by academicians and

practitioners as the answer to crime and disorder problems and police-community conflict

(Rosenbaum and Lurigio 1994). The federal government has also been supportive,

providing financial incentives to agencies who agree to participate in community policing

activities. For example, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, a branch of

the Department of Justice, provided money for over 100,000 new officers for COPS in

the 1990s (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). To date, COPS has been a well-funded

government program (Lab 2004).

The definition of COPS has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Agencies,

practitioners, and researchers tend to define it differently; though most advanced









definitions contain similar principles, including problem solving, community

involvement, and organizational decentralization (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004).

Quality of life and crime prevention are also emphasized (Community Policing

Consortium 1999). Whereas traditional policing was reactive and incident-based, COPS

is proactive and seeks to solve problems that generate repeat calls for service. Generally,

the COPS philosophy posits that officers work with neighborhood residents to define

problems from the bottom up and then work together to solve those problems; rather than

respond to calls for service as separate incidents. In the new paradigm, officers are to

work i//h the "good guys," not just against the "bad guys." Notably, the "good guys"

may not be what officers have traditionally considered as such, but it is their primary

responsibility to work within the networks of the respective communities to find solutions

to community-defined problems (Goldstein 1979). Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990)

offer the following definition of community policing:

Community policing is a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that
police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can help solve
contemporary community problems related to crime, social and physical disorder,
and neighborhood decay. The philosophy is predicated on the belief that achieving
these goals requires that police departments develop new relationships with law-
abiding people in the community, allowing them a greater voice in setting local
police priorities and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life
in their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work from handling random
calls to solving community problems. (p. 5)

Community policing requires the active participation of everyone involved, such as

local government, public and private agencies, community residents, and schools.

Anyone who has a concern for the welfare of a neighborhood must be involved in

safeguarding that welfare (Community Policing Consortium 1999). Research shows that

incivilities, such as vagrancy and graffiti, are the primary causes of fear (Community

Policing Consortium 1999; Spelman 1993). Further, if people do not trust the police, that









will exacerbate their fear. People who feel afraid will retreat into their homes and fail to

participate in the care and maintenance of their neighborhood. Empty, untended streets

send the message to potential criminals that crime is welcome there (Community Policing

Consortium 1999). Moreover, disorder and urban decay invite more serious criminal

activity (Wilson and Kelling 1982).

Therefore, under COPS, the police are to work with residents to restore order so

that residents can feel proud and safe and develop their own informal social control in

their neighborhoods. Police do not have the resources to care for each and every

community by themselves; COPS requires partnerships. This is done in various ways.

Some examples include 1) putting police on permanent beats so that they get to know

residents, 2) setting up mini-stations in neighborhoods, 3) instituting foot and bike

patrols, 4) enlisting community organizations to clean up dilapidated buildings, pick up

trash, and fix "broken windows," and 5) making the area uninviting to criminals

(Community Policing Consortium 1999; Wilson and Kelling 1982). COPS officers must

learn to be advocates on behalf of the neighborhood for which they are responsible. They

also learn to analyze crime statistics (or at least interpret and apply the findings) so to

solve unique neighborhood problems in innovative ways.

If officers show they are willing to help, community members will be more likely

to help officers prevent and solve crimes (by providing them with information about

potential crime and criminals). Eventually, trust develops between citizens and the police

and they can work together to prevent crime before it happens. Neighborhood residents

will be more likely to be visible and tend to their neighborhood when they feel safe and

secure. Ultimately, residents must get out of their homes and show potential criminals









that their behavior will be noticed and that it is unacceptable. Informal social control will

naturally develop. COPS requires a sophisticated officer, but officers are unlikely to have

the ability and knowledge to do COPS without appropriate training.

Police Training

Though community-oriented policing (COPS) has sparked research and debate,

training of police officers within such a framework has yet to receive much attention (or

resources). Police training reflecting a community-oriented approach is a relatively new

phenomenon, although COPS itself has existed in theory and practice since the 1980s

(Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). Historically, training of police officers has often

been slow to keep up with policing practice (see Frost and Seng 1984).

The roles and responsibilities of police officers differ under COPS, and existing

training programs insufficiently address the underlying causes of crime and disorder,

coalition-building, and crime prevention (King and Lab 2000). Traditional training

prepared officers for a narrow focus on law-enforcement duties, rather than the more

generalist approach that community policing entails. Traditional training focused on

physical activities, such as firearms training, physical training, defensive tactics, and

driving. Traditional training also included some knowledge areas such as law, arrest

procedures, traffic enforcement, and officer safety. Neglected were areas such as

communications, diversity, problem solving, and police-community relations.

Finally, some states such as Florida, Illinois and Michigan, have begun to address

the importance of training in COPS in an effort to making COPS a success (Dantzker et

al. 1995; Trojanowicz and Belknap 1986). Further, they have begun to implement basic

recruit training programs reflecting a COPS and/or problem solving orientation. Still, the

few COPS training programs that do exist tend to be in the early stages and may be









struggling with implementation. Their impact has yet to be evaluated (Chappell, Lanza-

Kaduce, and Johnston 2004; Dantzker et al. 1995; Trojanowicz and Belknap 1986).

Specific Aims/Statement of Research

My research seeks to address the gap in the literature by analyzing police recruit

training under a COPS philosophy by comparing it to the former traditional training

curriculum used in Florida. It evaluates how COPS training is being integrated into basic

recruit training and into the initial field work and the extent to which it is producing

differences in police officers in one police training center. The research incorporates a

social learning perspective to account for whether curriculum changes will translate into a

marked change in recruit academy performance as well as on-the-job policing

performance. Specifically, the study will address the following questions in depth:

* How are police officers trained in COPS different from those trained under the
traditional curriculum?

* In what ways are lessons learned in the COPS curriculum different from those
under the traditional curriculum?

* To what extent is COPS supported in the informal culture in the academy and
departmental environment?


What makes this study unique is the timing: As I began my research at a police

academy, the traditional curriculum was undergoing a complete restructuring to reflect an

innovative scenario-based, problem solving, community-oriented focus in what became

known as the Curriculum Maintenance System (CMS) curriculum. My observations

spanned both curricula and thus allow comparison of the two training approaches.

One aspect of training is the formal content of the curriculum, such as classroom

training, skills training, and field training (Lundman 1980). The assumption is that

changing these aspects will produce a different type of officer (hopefully a "better," more









effective officer). Examining this assumption is the first goal of this study. By evaluating

quantitative data measuring various aspects of recruit academy performance under the

CMS and the traditional police training curriculum, my study will assess the extent to

which changes in curricula have produced differences in police trainees and rookie

officers. I will examine background and demographics, academy performance, including

average examination scores, failure experiences, and job placement for police recruits

who entered the basic recruit academy between 1998 and 2003.

Sociological theory suggests that although formal training is important to

behavioral outcomes, the informal content of the academy experience is equally

significant (Lundman 1980). Indeed, social learning theory suggests that behavioral

outcomes are significantly influenced by attitudes/definitions,

reinforcements/punishments, and role modeling that are typically exchanged during

interaction with peers and superiors-both formally and informally (Akers 2000;

Chappell and Piquero 2004). Such arguments indicate that even with significant changes

in the formal curriculum, the transformation towards a COPS philosophy may not occur

if the informal culture among officers remains static.

The second goal of this study is to describe how the formal training and informal

culture among recruits and officers are changing and how these changes-or lack

thereof-affect the implementation and nature of community-oriented policing in both

recruit training and policing practices. I will do this with qualitative data that describe the

informal culture and lessons, as well as the environment at the police academy through

participant observation. I will examine the extent to which COPS lessons are reinforced

informally in the academy and after recruits graduate from the academy and enter their









rookie career by examining the field training records maintained in one police agency

who hires from the academy observed.

In addition to the comparative data, the research also includes post-graduation

observational data on a subsample of CMS recruits. I follow a sub-sample of the

graduates from the CMS curriculum into theirfield training officer (FTO) program at one

local police agency which hires many of its officers from this academy. The purpose of

field training is for the rookie officer to learn departmental policies, procedures, local

laws, and to get "real life" experience after graduating from the academy. It is where the

rookie has the opportunity to apply academy lessons to the field (Alpert and Dunham

1997). The qualitative analysis of field training files allows me to analyze the extent to

which COPS lessons are reinforced in departmental training. Finally, other qualitative

data, including informal interviews and participant observation at the local police agency,

supplement the primary sources of qualitative data and assist in understanding the police

culture.

Through the variety of data on both the traditional and the CMS curricula, I will

analyze the similarities, differences, and relative impact of the new CMS curriculum used

in one particular training academy that threads the COPS philosophy through their basic

recruit curriculum in the State of Florida. I aim to assess whether police recruits learn

community policing from the CMS curriculum in ways that are likely to carry over into

the field.

Significance

Policy

Training of police officers is an adult socialization experience in a quasi-military

environment. How they are trained, the impact of their training, and how they perform is









important to all of us. Officers will be unlikely to have the sophistication to do COPS

well if they are not properly trained. The success of the new paradigm rests in part on

training (King and Lab 2000).

This study is also a lesson in organizational change. The decision to institute CMS

training was made at the state level. Organizations, particularly hierarchical centralized

bureaucracies, are often resistant to change (Gaines et al. 2003; Hannan and Freeman

1984). There may be a degree of discrepancy between the implementation of the

organizational philosophy of CMS and how that philosophy translates into practice.

Implementation problems, organizational cultural barriers, and various forms of

inflexibility can interfere with attempts to transform organizations (Gaines et al. 2003).

We do not know the extent to which this organizational change will translate into practice

at the academy level. The formal effects may be swamped by informal practices and

culture.

Theory

Tenets of COPS are particularly interesting to the sociological researcher. The

concept of "community" and "informal social control" are deeply rooted in sociological

tradition and theory (Sampson and Groves 1989; Shaw and McKay 1969). Shaw and

McKay (1969) argued that ecological and structural conditions of communities shape

crime rates. Additionally, sociological research and theory have long recognized that

informal social control is often more effective in controlling crime and delinquency than

formal social control (e.g. the police) (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Neighborhoods that are

decaying and in transition invite opportunities for criminal activity (Wilson and Kelling

1982). For example, dilapidated buildings offer a place for delinquents to commiserate

and engage in criminal activity. In organized communities, this behavior is informally









controlled because neighborhood residents have social ties and collective efficacy

(Sampson 1997). There is informal surveillance of neighborhood activities, direct

intervention in suspicious behavior by neighbors, and social networking among residents.

Contrarily, neighborhoods with weaker social ties and networks have less informal

surveillance because their residents are more transient and less likely to know each other,

so strangers to the neighborhood are less likely to be noticed. There is more relational

distance and less informal social control. Thus, residents do not identify with their

neighborhood or neighbors as much, nor do they care about its reputation and

appearance.

Because sociological theory teaches us the importance of informal social control,

we should expect that police officers will be more successful to the extent that they can

work within the informal social control networks of their respective neighborhoods.

Police recruits who have sophisticated training in COPS will need to appreciate

neighborhood dynamics and community sociology in order to do their jobs well. The

recent shift in policing toward a community focus (discussed in chapter 2) highlights the

importance of working within the networks of neighborhoods in order to reduce crime

and disorder. The new CMS curriculum explicitly incorporates units related to working

with communities.

Much of the analysis will be guided by social learning theory. Akers (1998) posits

that four variables function to instigate and strengthen attitudes toward social behavior:

differential association, definitions, reinforcement and modeling. The balance of these

influences determines whether one will be prone to engage in certain behaviors. The

central variable in social learning theory is differential association. We learn based on our









exposure to others. The norms of the groups within which we operate, the models we

observe, and reinforcements or punishments that we receive from others shape our

attitudes and behaviors. These groups with which we identify the most and in which we

operate most often have the largest impact on what we learn. Those to whom we feel

closest (as opposed to those who are more distant) are most influential.

Akers argues that individuals develop definitions either favorable or unfavorable to

behavior in interaction with their primary and secondary groups, such as family, peers,

and occupational groups. These definitions are then reinforced or punished, positively or

negatively, by rewards or punishments (either real or perceived). Chapter 4 discusses this

theory and its application to police socialization and training in detail. This study applies

Akers' social learning theory to a new context.

Limitations and Parameters of the Study

This study has several limitations. First, the new CMS curriculum was in pilot

form for most of the time that I was conducting my study. The training is constantly

evolving and may have changed since my data were collected. My follow-up data are

based on a limited sub-sample from only one agency and my follow up is relatively short

term (e.g., only through the field training phase of employment). The study focuses on

one site and therefore, the results must be interpreted with caution-they may not

generalize to other recruits, to other training classes, or to other sites. In addition, as with

many innovations, COPS may need time to "settle in." In other words, new programs

may become more effective over time because their implementers work through barriers

and problems to make them work better. Finally, this study is not evaluation research per

se, rather the access to data before and after the implementation of CMS makes it a

comparative analysis.









This study proceeds by outlining the literature on community-oriented policing in

part one of the literature review (chapter 2). The next chapter reviews the literature on

police training, which is more limited. Chapter 4 extends social learning theory to

provide a framework for understanding how police recruits learn to become police

officers. Supporting literature is included in that chapter as well. Data and methodology

are covered in chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 7 shows the results of the quantitative analysis.

Chapter 8 deals with the qualitative data pertaining to participant observation. Chapter 9

presents a discussion and conclusions.














CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY POLICING

Introduction

Policing is said to have evolved through three recognizable eras: the political era,

the reform era, and the community era (Kelling and Moore 1988b). As it has progressed,

each era has been said to exhibit dominant styles. Hence, the political era was

characterized by "watchman" style policing, while the reform era was defined by its

"legalistic" style, and the community era is defined by a "service" style.

"Watchman" style police were primarily concerned with order maintenance, peace

keeping, and catering to those in political positions. In this era, officers often walked or

biked small geographic areas and became well-acquainted with local residents and their

problems. The political relationships, the lack of supervision, and the absence of policy

and procedure led to widespread allegations of corruption, which prompted a series of

reforms. Police agencies were bureaucratized to increase supervision of line personnel.

The result was the reform era. Legalistic police were aggressive law enforcers who,

in the interest of equality, often neglected cultivating relationships with community

residents. They focused on rapid response to calls for service, rather than solving

problems. Eventually, perceptions of increasing crime rates, civil unrest, and police-

community conflict led to the beginning of the current "community" era.

The community era, known by its "service" style of policing, focuses on problem

solving and community partnerships (Kelling and Moore 1988a; Wilson 1968). The most

popular form of service style policing is known as Community-Oriented Policing (COPS)









which builds on elements of problem-oriented policing, team policing, and community

relations. The philosophy and practice of COPS is discussed next.

History

A detailed history of modern policing is beyond the scope of this study. As a

general history, American policing grew from the British modern police force in the

1800s. By the 1880s, all major U.S. cities had municipal police organizations with full

time employees (Lundman 1980). The first American police were concerned primarily

with order maintenance, rather than crime control (Wilson 1968). They spent their time

controlling the "dangerous classes," and monitoring drunks and vagrants (Lundman

1980). Because of limited technology, officers generally worked autonomously,

patrolling neighborhoods on foot without much supervision from headquarters. Police

officers walked or biked local "beats," often in the areas where they lived. They became

well-acquainted with residents in their respective patrol areas (Kelling and Moore

1988b). Citizens knew their local police officer and relied on him for many things,

including, but not limited to, crime control. The police of this time period were

notoriously corrupt and brutal (Walker 1999). They routinely took payoffs to allow

illegal gambling, prostitution, and drinking. Promotions were paid for, not earned

(Walker 1977; 1999).

The reform era became dominant in the 20th century when society reacted strongly

against the corruption by instituting a strict hierarchical bureaucratic style of policing

(Kelling and Moore 1988a; Wilson 1968). By the 1950s, police professionalism was

being sold as the way to remedy the corruption problems. O.W. Wilson argued that

greater centralization of the police function with an emphasis on military discipline and

obedience would increase efficiency. He argued for closer supervision of line personnel,









motorized patrol, and centralized headquarters (Uchida 1993). Allegations of

mistreatment of specific groups, and special treatment of those in power led to unequal

protection of citizens and reform was in order (Kelling and Moore 1988a).

The reform era exhibited a "legalistic" style of policing and is responsible for what

is generally now known as traditional policing. Though some scholars and practitioners

contend that we have moved beyond this era, it is likely that many departments still

operate within traditional legalistic norms. The reforms resulted in police agencies that

were hierarchical, bureaucratic structures with strict policies and procedures to limit

officer discretion and enhance supervision. Technological advances placed officers in

patrol cars with radio dispatch so that they could respond to calls for service quickly and

efficiently. Officers' beats were rotated to prevent them from developing relationships

(and thus corruption) with individuals or businesses on their beat. Increased emphasis

was placed on the scientific aspect of policing, such as forensics, as a response to

technological advances such as computers. The main focus of the professional police

agency was rapid response to calls for service in order to achieve the utmost efficiency

and professionalism (Kelling and Moore 1988a).

One of the primary goals of the reform era was to limit discretion and autonomy of

patrol officers so that officers did not become agents of politics. They were instructed to

treat everyone equally and impersonally, and endless measures were taken to make sure

that officers did not develop relationships with residents because this had been shown to

lead to corruption in the past. Many say that the advent of the patrol car had negative

consequences for policing as well. It was not only a physical barrier, but a psychological

barrier between citizens and police officers. It prevented officers from building the type









of relationships that they had in the past (i.e., "watchman" era). For example, residents

may not feel as comfortable speaking to an officer about their problems through the

police car window as they would if the officer was on foot (Kelling and Moore 1988b).

Now that police were being routinely rotated through zones, residents were less

likely to develop relationships with any particular police officer. The relationship of the

police to communities suffered as officers were removed from foot patrols, and officers

policed from a distance. Moreover, many residents, especially minorities, felt afraid of

the police because they felt targeted by their strict enforcement. The lack of

communication that had developed in the reform era arguably led to higher levels of

perceived crime, increased fear of crime, and distrust of the police (Uchida 1993).

Crime rates, or at least the perception of crime, had increased, and research was

showing that the professional model, with its emphasis on efficiency and rapid response

to calls for service, appeared to be failing. Perhaps officers needed to work with residents

to prevent problems before they occurred and help residents to feel safer in their

neighborhoods. Research was showing that fear of crime and neighborhood incivilities

were the primary causes of neighborhood resident's dissatisfaction. A new paradigm

would emerge.

The Community Era

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, general civil unrest, including the civil rights

movement, as well as high-profile allegations of officers using excessive force and racial

discrimination, led police agencies across the nation to begin a series of campaigns to

improve police-community relationships (Hunter et al. 2000; Kelling and Moore 1988b).

The public was beginning to question police behavior, and minorities were alleging that

they were not receiving fair treatment by the police. Some of the early reforms were









simply known as "police-community relations," while others, such as "team policing" in

the early 1970s were more organized efforts to restructure police agencies. In team

policing, officers were divided into small teams and assigned to permanent geographical

areas (Swanson et al. 1998). Many of these early attempts were unsuccessful, but they

laid the groundwork for subsequent efforts to reform the police.

In addition, many research studies were questioning the effectiveness of rapid

response to calls for service, one of the main elements of legalistic policing. In fact,

studies were showing that rapid response and preventative patrol did not seem to affect

clearance rates or citizen's perception of the police (Spelman and Brown 1981). Many

calls for service did not need a rapid response, but instead could be dealt with by a

civilian, a scheduled meeting, or a phone call (McEwen 1984). Other studies showed that

resources were being wasted on detectives who were only marginally successful in

solving crimes (Greenwood et al. 1977).

One of the first key studies questioning rapid response occurred in Kansas City in

1974. The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al. 1974) divided

Kansas City districts into three areas. One area was patrolled reactively, one area had

increased proactive patrol, and the third area was the control group. Interestingly, there

was no change in citizen satisfaction with police response across the three study sites.

The study seriously questioned the necessity of random patrol (Kansas City Police

Department 1980).

In 1981, the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment conducted by the Police Foundation

put officers on foot in neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey. It seemed that the officer's

presence and knowledge of residents and outsiders helped to create a sense of order and









informal social control. The foot officers became acquainted with the neighborhood

"drunks" and other vagrants and also recognized people who did not belong and those

who may be a threat. The program did not significantly decrease crime, but it enhanced

feelings of safety on behalf of residents (Pate et al. 1986). Similar conclusions regarding

foot patrol were found in Flint, Michigan (Trojanowicz 1982).

In 1982, Wilson and Kelling published their groundbreaking article in Atlantic

Monthly entitled "Broken Windows." The article argued that a neighborhood with a

broken window that is not repaired will eventually have all of its windows broken. In

other words, urban decay promotes crime, and signs of disorder make a neighborhood

vulnerable. Therefore, the first step in reducing crime is to remedy the disorder, reduce

signs of incivility, and strengthen neighborhoods. Disorder makes residents fearful and

they will become "hostages" in their own homes. There must be a partnership between

the police and the community to restore order and pride to make sure that the

neighborhood does not project signs of incivility so that informal social control can be

established.

Problem-oriented policing (POP) was a movement from reactive, incident-driven

policing to a more proactive approach (Goldstein 1979). The first POP implementation

and evaluation was conducted in Newport News, Virginia and was funded by the

National Institute of Justice in 1987 (Eck and Spelman 1987). Under POP, officers

should target specific "hot spots" of repeat criminal activity (Sherman et al. 1989) and

solve the underlying problems that generate serial calls for service and waste police

resources. (Eck and Spelman 1987; Goldstein 1987). POP uses problem solving models

like SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment). The Newport News study









found that problem-solving reduced the crime rate (specifically robberies, burglaries and

thefts) substantially (Eck and Spelman 1987).

The above movements, studies and evaluations set the stage for community

policing, which incorporates elements of team policing, problem solving, and watchman-

style policing. It also incorporates advanced crime analysis and increased accountability

to the community. Community policing is operationalized differently across the nation.

Indeed, lack of standardization is one of the major limitations to evaluating its success.

Community Policing1

By 1997, a majority of both police departments serving 100,000 or more people

and sheriff s offices serving 250,000 or more residents had personnel assigned to COPS

(Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Law enforcement agencies had, if nothing else,

adopted the terminology of COPS. Initial evidence indicated that officers support COPS

(Winfree, Barku, and Seibel 1996).

Respected commentators argue that COPS is built on a new philosophy of policing

(see Cordner 2001; Greene and Mastrofski 1988; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990;

Walker 1999) that holds promise for improving law enforcement. Oliver (1998: 51)

defines community policing as:

A systematic approach to policing with the paradigm of instilling and
fostering a sense of community, within a geographical neighborhood,
to improve the quality of life. It achieves this through the decentralization
of the police and the implementation of a synthesis of three key
components:





This is an elaboration of an overview provided in Chappell, Allison and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. (I"'2l ).
Integrating Sociology with Community-Oriented Policing: Bridging the Gap Between Academics and
Practice. Journal ofApplied ,'.. .i <. sociological Practice 21/6: 80-98.









* Redistribution of traditional police resources

* Interaction of police and all community members to reduce crime and the fear of
crime through indigenous proactive programs

* Concerted effort to tackle the causes of crime problems rather than to put band-aids
on the symptoms.

Although little consensus exists on the actual definition of community-oriented

policing, several themes emerge that most definitions share: community involvement,

problem-solving, and organizational decentralization (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004;

Oliver 1998: 32-43).

Langworthy and Travis (2003: 393) argue that COPS has important strategic and

programmatic dimensions in addition to the philosophical reorientation. The strategic

focuses on geography (defining areas and assigning officers to those areas), prevention

(solving the problems that routinely lead to calls for service), and substance (reducing

crime and fear of crime). The programmatic focuses on reorienting practices to solve

problems (rather than respond to individual incidents) and includes such activities as foot

patrols, neighborhood watches, neighborhood cleanup, involvement with youth in

athletic leagues and after-school programs, target hardening and environmental design

improvements, codes enforcement and nuisance abatement.

Cordner (2001) also emphasizes the strategic and programmatic but adds an

organizational dimension. He insists that COPS involves different structures

(decentralization, "flattening" of the layers of hierarchy, less specialization, teamwork,

and hiring civilian employees), changes in management (including coaching, mentoring,

empowerment of line officers, and selective discipline), and the collection and utilization

of more information (including the use of performance appraisals, program evaluations,

information systems, crime analysis, and geographic information systems).









On the other hand, Lab (2000) argues that COPS cannot be translated into practice

and implemented well. Kennedy and Moore (2001) warn that evaluations of COPS must

assess program and organizational success. Senna and Siegel (2002: 192-194) succinctly

summarize and review challenges to the successful implementation of COPS: (1)

defining community, (2) establishing the role of COPS officers, (3) changing the

command structure of policing organizations and decentralizing decision-making, (4)

reorienting police values toward the public service orientation required for community

involvement, (5) revising training, and (6) reorienting recruitment.

COPS calls for aggressive decentralization, deformalization and "civilianization"

(Maguire 1997) of police operations. This is accomplished in part through the

establishment of substations, neighborhood stations and satellite offices. The idea is for

the police to move from people-processing units to people-changing units (Mastrofski

and Ritti 1995) in order to serve the community and find creative solutions to social

problems with minimal interference from headquarters. Officers need to have the ability

to search for solutions to problems and not merely respond to incidents according to

narrowly written procedures. Their goals include enhancing quality of life for the

residents of their beat and educating citizens on how they can avoid becoming victims of

crime.

The emphasis of COPS is on long-term problem solving, rather than short-term

solutions (e.g., incident based policing). There should be less emphasis on form, and

more emphasis on results (Goldstein 1987). This involves asking for and accepting input

and suggestions from the line personnel who work in the neighborhoods. In order for this

to occur, there must be less rotation of officers between communities so that officers can









become integrated into specific neighborhoods or areas (Alpert and Dunham 1997).

Finally, officers are encouraged to employ alternatives, such as mediation, to the criminal

justice system (e.g., arrests) to deal with problems in the communities that they serve

(Goldstein 1987; 1990).

Challenges

In order for community-oriented policing to be successful, administration and

management must be on board--from recruitment, selection and training--to the

expectations made of supervisors and the measures of officer productivity (Goldstein

1987). For example, if officers are still rewarded for making numerous arrests and heroic

activity, this communicates to them that the departmental focus remains unchanged (see

Alpert et al. 2001). Thus, there must be a complete reorientation of middle management

(Goldstein 1987, Maguire 1997).

Some researchers have recognized that COPS is unlikely to work in areas that lack

a sense of community (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). In other words, officers

cannot be expected to "build" community cohesion where none exists (e.g. transition

zones) (Shaw and McKay 1969). In neighborhoods suffering from the worst incivility,

the highest levels of transience, and where residents have a complete lack of cohesion, it

may be impossible to establish agreed upon objectives with which to improve the quality

of life (see Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004).

Goldstein (1987) notes that departments need to arrange for line personnel to have

more influence in the development of COPS in their departments. This may help them to

appreciate the increased independence and ability to make a marked difference in their

communities. For example, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) (Greene 1997)

dramatically changed internally before implementing the COPS philosophy externally in









communities. Administrators and management showed line personnel how COPS works

by incorporating departmental input into a complete internal organizational change

(decentralization, more decision-making power to line personnel) before embarking on

launching COPS in the community. LAPD recognized that the department itself had a

long way to go internally before they could handle such an extreme external change. For

example, administrators and senior personnel surveyed line personnel on their needs,

opinions, and feelings about the departmental culture. They also held focus groups and

incorporated the findings into their organizational change. Basically, they learned through

internal organizational change and training consistent with COPS: they learned by doing

(see Greene 1997).

Success of Community Policing

The success of COPS has also been debated. Because definitions and

implementation vary greatly, it is impossible to provide a clear answer. Evaluations over

the years have found that elements of COPS, such as foot patrol, mini-stations, and

problem solving, have been successful in reducing fear, bettering relationships between

the police and the public, and even reducing crime. At the same time, other studies have

failed to uncover such positive results. For example, MacDonald's (2002) recent

evaluation of COPS focuses on limited outcomes. He reports that COPS is failing to

create a significant reduction in crime rates and fear of crime. However, he only

analyzed city-level variables, rather than neighborhood or community-level indicators.

His quantitative analysis lacked the ability to understand qualitative differences in

policing styles of traditional versus COPS officers. He also failed to take into account

training, differing philosophies of COPS, and varying implementation strategies.









Because community policing is an abstract concept and its implementation varies

substantially by location, it is difficult to measure differences between traditional officers

and COPS officers. Some departments adopt the philosophy department-wide, but the

extent to which it is a part of everyday operations is still questionable. Other departments

report that they "do" community policing, but only assign a few specialized personnel to

that particular role, while others split their force evenly between rapid response teams and

problem solving officers (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). No matter what strategy is

implemented, police departments still must deal with traditional crime problems, respond

to calls, and make arrests, while deciding how to implement community policing and

measure officers' performance.

While several studies have found increased job satisfaction among officers

practicing community policing (Kelling and Moore 1988b; Greene 1989; Yates and Pillai

1996), other studies have found conflict in departments implementing COPS strategies

(Lurigio and Rosenbaum 1994), particularly when COPS is not adopted department-wide.

Other outcomes have included more positive views of the community and local

businesses, and more positive views of police on behalf of citizens (Trojanowicz and

Banas 1995; Wycoff and Skogan 1994).

The COPS philosophy has existed for some 25 years and has generated debate

among politicians, academics and practitioners. Unfortunately, it has taken agencies a

long time to take the practice of COPS seriously enough to institute training programs

that integrate COPS and problem solving into their curricula. The next chapter covers the

history of police training and introduces some of the research and literature on new

training approaches that integrate a community based approach.














CHAPTER 3
FORMAL POLICE TRAINING

Traditional Training

Recall that there have been three eras of policing: the political era, the reform era,

and the community era (Kelling and Moore 1988a). Police in the political era were non-

professional by current standards. Little or no training was required or provided to rookie

officers. In most cases, rookies were given a badge, a baton, and a manual and told to

learn the ropes from senior officers. Periodically, a department may have provided

minimal training, but no requirements or standard training existed. Many cities did not

offer any meaningful police training until the 1950s (Walker 1999). In the reform era,

departments aimed to become "professional," and this brought the introduction of

formalized police training.

August Vollmer, a pioneering police leader and scholar, is credited with

introducing education to policing (Alpert and Dunham 1997). In Berkeley, California, he

recruited college graduates to law enforcement and publicized the importance of doing

so. This led to increased emphases on systematic recruit training and education

nationwide. The trend was slow to catch on, however. As recently as 1965, only

approximately 15% of police departments provided or required training (Alpert and

Dunham 1997; Kuykendall and Usinger 1975). In 1967, The President's Commission on

Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published its Task Force Report on the

Police, which called for states to establish minimum selection, training, and education









standards for all law enforcement personnel. States now certify law enforcement officers

who pass standardized examinations (Chappell et al. 2005).

Despite the obvious connection between police training and policing itself, changes

to training practices have historically lagged behind changes in actual policing

philosophies and practices (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Even after certification

became a requirement in 1967, training guidelines were vague at best, leaving individual

agencies responsible for setting requirements and/or providing training. Smaller

departments with tighter budgets were less likely to provide or require standard training,

while some larger, urban departments, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, were

under more public pressure to formally prepare their officers (Greenberg 1998).

Due to concerns about safety, traditional training focused primarily on the technical

and mechanical aspects of acquiring skills, such as honing physical skills, marksmanship,

driving skills, and defensive tactics (Alpert and Dunham 1997), while neglecting "softer"

subjects like communication and problem solving (Birzer 1999). Many academies, or

police training centers, continue to train this way today. Recruits spend 90% of their

training time on firearms, driving, first aid, self-defense and other use-of-force tactics

even though only 10% of their job duties will put them in positions where they need to

use these skills (Germann 1969; Mayhall et al. 1995). Some jurisdictions base their basic

recruit training on a Job Task Analysis (JTA). The reason for this is to ensure that

training reflects the demands of the job. However, JTA reflects what has traditionally

been done on the job and not necessarily what needs to be learned to do the job better or

to prepare new officers for COPS (see Lord 1998; Sloan et al. 1992; Trojanowicz and

Belknap 1986).









Recruit training is generally performed in designated facilities that are referred to in

different ways (e.g., training academies, institutes of public safety, criminal justice

training centers). Some large law enforcement agencies operate their own academies and

pay for the training of their recruits (e.g., Los Angeles Police Department, New York

Police Department). More often training centers are linked with institutions of higher

education, especially those geared toward vocational training like community colleges.

Law enforcement agencies will sometimes sponsor their recruits as they go through

training at the local community college training center. Other prospective officers pay

for their own training in hopes of being recruited after they complete training and become

certified. Training data from the 430 largest U.S. municipal police departments in 1993

showed that wide variation in practice remained-some departments required no hours of

training while others required over 2500 hours (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Department of

Justice 1993).

The Transition to (COPS) Training

We are still in the transition from the reform era to the community era. Training, in

particular, has been slow to adapt to community policing (or COPS). The transition is

especially difficult given the conflicting values and practices between traditional (or

reform) policing and current policing. For example, while traditional policing emphasizes

strict enforcement of the law, COPS emphasizes building relationships between police

and community/neighborhood residents in order to work together to prevent crime and

solve problems (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). The emphasis is on resolving

recurring problems rather than intervening in single incidents. Other attempts to improve

or reform the police have often relied upon new or improved training (Buerger 1998;









Fogelson 1977). Obviously, if community-oriented policing is to be successful, training is

an essential component (King and Lab 2000).

The purpose of community policing training is to "provide officers with a level of

understanding that will allow them to effectively employ problem solving and

community engagement techniques in their daily work" (Peak and Glensor 1999).

Without proper training, officers will be less likely to understand the philosophy of COPS

and/or how to translate the philosophy into effective practice (King and Lab 2000).

Kelling suggests that if service activities dominate police work, then training

should focus more on conflict management, social relations and improving police-

community relations (Kelling 1978). Dunham and Alpert (1989) argue that police

training needs to be less like introductory classes in anatomy for medical students and

more like internships.

One concern is that recruits and officers will not accept COPS because it is not

"real police work." Savannah has addressed this issue in an interesting way by adding

more powerful firearms, more driving courses, and a solid focus on officer safety to

combat that fear (McLaughlin and Donahue 1995).

Recruit Training for COPS

Because the recruit academy is such an important part of occupational socialization

for police officers, it is necessary that training centers teach the philosophy of COPS

during recruit training (Peak 1993). New officers should learn work skills as the basis for

effective implementation of community policing. Few researchers have studied academy

training and specifically looked at its coverage of problem solving and community

policing, but the ones that have invariably reported a lack of sufficient coverage

(Bradford and Pynes 1999; Marion 1998). Bradford and Pynes (1999) examined syllabi









and curricula from 22 police academies and concluded that less than 3% of basic training

academy time is spent on cognitive and decision-making areas, such as scenarios,

communications, reasoning and application. They found that more than 90% of the

academy time was spent on task-oriented training associated with the reactive nature of

traditional policing (e.g., defensive tactics, driving, mechanics of arrest).

Recent developments in policing call for more training and education in a wider

range of knowledge. Those knowledge bases require more reliance on expertise that lies

outside of law enforcement. Given the limited time for training, skills areas and

knowledge bases compete for priority. Changes in policing either lead to shifts in

training priorities or increases in training hours. For example, some curricula, in the

aftermath of September 11, now incorporate lessons on weapons of mass destruction and

terrorism.

The shift in policing toward community relations, problem solving, and COPS

heightens the need for improved knowledge bases and additional skills but does not

diminish the need for traditional skills (Bradford and Pynes 1999; Buerger et al. 1999).

For example, recruits would be ill-served if training in officer safety were short changed.

COPS training augments the curriculum by including topics on human diversity, special

populations (such as the elderly, mentally ill), "assessing situations," public speaking,

ethics and integrity, proactive or coactivee" problem solving, crime prevention, stress

management, domestic violence, and community building (see Palmiotto et al. 2000).

The skills necessary for COPS will not become second-nature if comprehensive training

in the theories and methods of community-oriented policing are not provided. This means

that recruits must understand the meanings and values associated with community-









oriented policing (e.g., building trust within the neighborhood) as well as the skills

needed to conduct community-oriented policing (e.g., SARA type problem-solving).

Delivery

Traditional training in subject areas like law and communications builds on the

pedagogical approach used when teaching children. The pedagogy is teacher-centered

and structured, and it relies heavily on a lecture format (often referred to by trainees as

"talking heads"). This style emphasizes mastery, obedience and discipline, and supports

the narrow focus on law enforcement that characterizes traditional policing. Police

training that uses pedagogical approaches fosters an environment in which the focus

becomes the chain of command, discipline, rules and procedures (Birzer and Tannehill

2001). One challenge facing training is to incorporate alternative learning models more

suited for adults (Birzer 2003, Glenn et al. 2003).

"Training" connotes a teacher-centered pedagogical approach, but recruits who are

learning to become police officers are adults and are likely to benefit from adult learning

techniques. For example, andragogy is the process of teaching adults rather than children,

and it is self-directed learning and promotes the teacher as the catalyst of education. It is

the idea of interactive learning and focuses on the learner-centered approach (Knowles

1990). Dantzker et al. (1995) argue,

If the intent of community policing training is to produce fundamental changes in
policing, then training materials and approaches must explicitly reflect and support
those changes. Learning to think critically, to solve problems, or to share
responsibility with citizens is not fostered by authoritarian and noninteractive
training techniques. (p. 50)

Training for COPS can be more effective if it uses andragogy which integrates life

experiences into training (Birzer 2003; Knowles 1980). The instructor takes on the role of

"facilitator" and helps to develop critical thinking, judgment and creativity in the learner









(Birzer and Tannehill 2001). Andragogy is based on "empowerment" and teaches recruits

to work through problems to solve them. This approach runs counter to the quasi-

military top-down style that predominates in traditional policing. Further, COPS and POP

need "self-starters" and this method of learning fosters that philosophy. "There is a stark

difference between simply sitting through a lecture and actively participating in training"

(Birzer and Tannehill 2001).

Challenges to COPS Training

Training for COPS faces a myriad of challenges (McLaughlin and Donahue 1995),

but training has been shown to be necessary in the implementation of the COPS

philosophy (Cheurprakobkit 2002; Zhao and Thurman 1995). Traditional training is rigid

and strictly conforms to policies and procedures. Part of the reason for this is for

standardization purposes. Police training centers are preparing recruits for state

certification. COPS, with its emphasis on problem-solving, is less amenable to

standardization, and therefore calls for a less rigid approach. Problem solving is, by

nature, unstandardized, but trainers may be uncomfortable with a less rigid approach.

Training changes must filter from the top down and this means that all

administrators, including politicians and city officials, must be informed and trained in

the philosophy and tenets of COPS. COPS takes into account specifics of a community

and therefore, curricula must teach the importance of identifying common community

values and resources as well as recognizing different needs.

Academy instructors are often veteran officers-police insiders-who may have

strong internalized definitions about traditional policing, and therefore may struggle to

accept the ideals of COPS (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2004). Research has shown that

the effectiveness of COPS training is largely dependent on the instructor; specifically his









or her endorsement of the COPS philosophy. In other words, it is important that

instructors are "on board" with COPS themselves in order to be successful COPS trainers

(Dantzker et al. 1995). Many trainers are often senior officers who have spent the

majority of their policing years practicing traditional policing and may be more

comfortable teaching what they know. If instructors do not buy into the COPS

philosophy, recruits are unlikely to.

Veteran officers are frequently the instructors for skills training, but may also be

"drafted" to cover academic subjects like diversity and communications, areas that may

stretch their expertise (Scott 2000). "Subject matter experts" from law enforcement ranks

are also frequently used for in-service training. Some training segments should be

instructed by non-police personnel, such as attorneys, probation officers, and

psychologists (Trautman 1986).

Community Policing and Police Training: The LAPD

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has moved toward new academy

training, which was the focus of a recent RAND Corporation analysis (Glenn et al. 2003).

I use that analysis to illustrate the wave of the future as training incorporates COPS into

its courses and delivery.

LAPD's new policing philosophy recognizes that training must reflect as closely as

possible the actual working conditions for which recruits are being prepared (Fyfe 1996).

Learning content is not enough; trainees must also be able to digest and interpret material

and synthesize it with practical skills. Only this more sophisticated training will enable

officers to adapt to the ever-changing demands of their jobs and to improvise in

unpredictable situations in the field. Glenn et al. (2003) present four elements

fundamental to successful training and consider how each is incorporated into the training









experience at LAPD: contextualized learning, integration of topics throughout

curriculum, scenario building, and debriefing.

Contextualize the Learning

Contextualized learning is an adult learning principle that seeks to tie new

information to existing knowledge bases and real life situations. Similar to andragogy, it

integrates new information with existing knowledge. Based on the assumption that

training should mimic reality, it better prepares recruits for the real life situations they

will eventually encounter. Simulated real life incidents (scenarios) are useful because

they may require the recruit to integrate many knowledge bases with an emergency

tactical situation. In real life situations, police officers are often confronted with a

multitude of issues in a single citizen contact. It is unlikely that officers will be able to

perform a traffic stop, for example, without also having to use communication, law, and

officer safety lessons. The approach frames new information in the context of what is

already known. It recognizes that recruits need to be trained the same way that they will

eventually do their jobs, and that a relationship exists between skills and knowledge. That

relationship calls for a critical problem solving synthesis that changes from context to

context and, therefore, runs counter to the standardization preferred in traditional training.

Integrate Key Topics Throughout the Curriculum

Integration of key topics, also known as "threading," means that selected important

themes will be discussed in relation to each substantive topic or module (i.e., woven

throughout the curriculum). For example, communications lessons (or diversity training

or officer safety) can be reinforced in arrest scenarios, in crowd control exercises, and in

community relations material. Skills and knowledge must be integrated in the field, so

training should not cover subject areas only in distinct, separate units. Integration helps









recruits learn to draw connections among multiple subject areas, which facilitates mastery

over the curriculum and prepares recruits for problem solving challenges when they enter

the field. Recruits will be in a better position to deal with unique contexts and help

develop appropriate responses to a neighborhood's problems.

Build the Scenario

Scenarios allow the recruit to apply contextualized learning and topic integration by

grounding instruction in the "known" while introducing the "new." Scenarios help align a

curriculum with the main tenets of adult learning: learning by doing, reflecting real life,

and making the learning interactive and self-directed (Glenn et al. 2003). Scenarios

inherently require the integration of topics. They transform abstract knowledge into

understandable, practical and applicable skills. Scenarios give recruits the opportunity to

practice applying what they have learned. Instructors and other police officers put

together unique and surprising scenarios that encourage the recruits to "think on their

feet" in unexpected situations to find workable, and perhaps even creative, solutions.

Again, this may cause a problem for the standardization preferred in traditional training

for certification purposes. However, problems are by nature unique, and will force the

officer to come up with creative solutions. This is good for COPS but a challenge for

police training centers who wish to have a high certification rate for their recruits.

Conduct a Thorough Debriefing (After the Scenario)

Consistent and structured debriefings are important to solidify learning. Because

scenarios are unstandardized and involve open-ended interactions, instructors need to tie

everything together in the end and review lessons. The debriefing also informs recruits

about how they have performed and how they can improve. Recruits have an opportunity

to discuss and reconsider their performance, and use their experience as a springboard for









further learning. This reflection is important for adult learning. It prepares recruits for the

feedback loop that is an inherent part of problem solving models like SARA. SARA is an

acronym which stands for scanning for problems, analyzing the factors that contribute to

problems, responding in ways that can alleviate problems, and assessing the results (Eck

and Spelman 1987).2

Community Policing in Florida

Dr. Cecil Greek (and his colleagues) of the Florida State University (FSU) School

of Criminology in Tallahassee, Florida conducted an in depth study of community

policing practices in Florida entitled, "The Future of Community Policing in Florida:

Final Report." This report was prepared in December 2000 for the Regional Community

Policing Institute (RCPI) at St. Petersburg Junior College in St. Petersburg, Florida. The

following section describes the state of community policing in Florida found by this

report.

The purpose of the report was to find out the state of community policing in

Florida and plans to permanently institute community policing in the future. In order to

do this, all Florida police and Sheriff s agencies were sent letters asking them to fill out a

web survey. Questions were asked regarding training, partnerships with various agencies,

budgets, use of information technology, and organizational changes. Of approximately

400 agencies asked to participate, only 73 responded, a 19% response rate. However,

most of the large agencies completed the survey. In general, larger agencies were found

to have made the greatest changes regarding community policing (Greek 2000).


2 Other problem solving models also have a feedback loop. For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (RCMP) use the CAPRA model and Florida Department of Law Enforcement's new CMS
curriculum uses SECUREC (which stands for Safety, Ethics, Community, Understanding, Response, and
Evaluation) to blend crisis management, routine investigation, and long-term problem solving.









The most relevant finding was that 67% of the agencies responded that their

primary recruit academy incorporated community policing into their curriculum, but most

of them only spend 1 to 10 hours on it.

Field Training

Most police officers are required to do field training for approximately six months

to one year after graduating from the academy (Alpert and Dunham 1997). This portion

of training takes place with the agency in which the officer is hired. The purpose of field

training is for the rookie officer to learn departmental policies and procedures and local

laws and get real life experience before patrolling by him or herself. It is reminiscent of

the concept of an apprenticeship (Haberfield 2002). Field training is usually done with a

field training officer (FTO) who is a senior officer responsible for teaching the rookie the

necessary rules of the job. One of the long standing concerns is that the FTO will tell the

rookie to forget what s/he learned in the academy because it was irrelevant (Alpert and

Dunham 1997). The formal goal of FTO is to apply what is learned in the academy

(Haberfield 2002). FTO's should extend the academy experience, reinforcing the ideals

that the rookie has learned in his/her police training, rather than negating it (Alpert and

Dunham 1997).

The San Jose Field Training Officer (FTO) program is the most widely recognized

program of its kind. It began in 1972 in response to an incident in San Jose, California in

which a rookie officer was badly injured and a citizen was killed due to a lack of training

on behalf of the rookie. The San Jose police department decided that rookies needed to

have an "information bridge" mentoring stage to transfer their knowledge from academy

to the field.









Additionally, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards

and Goals recommended that a minimum of four months of coached field training be

included as a regular part of the recruit training process in 1973. They also recommended

that FTO's receive 40 hours of specialized training in the training and evaluation of

police recruits. FTO programs are supported by the Commission on Accreditation for

Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. Therefore, if an agency wants to be accredited, they

must conduct formal field training for recruits (McCampbell 1986)

After graduating from the academy, recruits are assigned to the FTO program.

The San Jose FTO program lasts 14 weeks and occurs in three-four week periods of

training followed by a two week evaluation period. In the evaluation period, the FTO

may dress in plain clothes and act solely as an observer (McCampbell 1986). Training

occurs on each of the three workday shifts (day, evening, night) and is concentrated in

two districts. Recruits are assigned to different FTO's for each period in order to be

exposed to different policing styles and to be sure that one's evaluations are not affected

by personality conflicts (Cox 1996). Each FTO provides training consistent with a

specific curriculum developed for the program and evaluates the respective trainees'

abilities, skills, and knowledge. The San Jose model may be modified for use in

particular agencies (Haberfield 2002).

Research about field training officer (FTO) programs in community policing is

rather scarce. Most of what exists focuses on what we should be doing rather than what

we are doing. What is concerning is that though academy training is making such major

changes in Florida, FTO training is not keeping up. Most FTO programs are based on the

San Jose model, which is now 30 years old (Scott 2000). McEwen (1997) found that









among 532 law enforcement agencies that use FTO's, only 23% require FTO's to have

some knowledge of COPS and only 25% of them provide FTO's with specialized COPS

training designed to help them train recruits in COPS and problem solving. Therefore,

most academy graduates are going into FTO programs where COPS is not reinforced.

Mastrofski and Ritti (1995) warn that the effects of high quality training can

dissipate once officers are exposed to the powerful effects of everyday work, the

organization, and the occupational culture of more experienced and veteran officers.

Therefore, recruits exposed to community policing and problem solving activities in the

academy may find little value in those experiences if field training and their department

afford them few opportunities to apply those skills, if it is not encouraged by supervisors,

and it is irrelevant for advancement and promotion (Mastrofski and Ritti 1995). Van

Maanen (1973) states, "Clearly, it is during the FTO phase of the recruit's career that he

is most susceptible to attitude change."

Haarr's (2001) research highlights the importance of reinforcing of these concepts.

She followed recruits through the Phoenix Regional Police Training Academy basic

training program and then to their respective agencies where they proceeded through field

training and a one-year probationary period. She followed 14 successive classes between

December 1995 and October 1996 and surveyed their attitudes at four different time

periods. At the first day of the academy, she pre-tested them to gather baseline attitudes

toward traditional policing and COPS, problem solving, and public relations. They were

tested again (Time 2) during the last three days of the academy, and again (Time 3) near

the end of field training, and finally (Time 4) after one year of employment. Haarr drew

several conclusions. First, she found that academy class emerged as a significant









predictor variable. This suggests that recruits who train together possibly develop a

unique "class culture" that influences recruits' attitudes. Class culture could be shaped by

a class officer, student composition, or some other factors.

Attitudes were impacted by the COPS academy training, but during field training,

organizational environmental factors became more important in shaping attitudes. For

example, officers who worked for agencies that required officers to engage in COPS were

more likely to endorse it. Overall, pre-academy (baseline) attitudes were the strongest

predictor of attitudes at time four. Ultimately, even though attitudes became more

favorable towards COPS, problem solving and public relations immediately after the

academy, those attitudes dissipated after exposure to field training and the departmental

culture (Haarr 2001).

Obviously, field trainers and departmental culture must "catch up" and support the

COPS philosophy if training in COPS is going to have a lasting impact. Because field

training occurs immediately after the academy, it is the best place to expose the recruit to

COPS and problem solving in practice, thus linking training with practice (Haarr 2001).

Fortunately, some police agencies do have trainees engage in some problem-solving

activities as part of their field training experience. One of the more exciting developments

in police training is a project to develop new field training guidelines and a model FTO

program. Funded by the COPS office, The Reno (NV) Police Department and Police

Executive Research Forum (PERF) are planning to update the San Jose field training

model to better reflect problem solving and community policing (see Scott 2000). The

new training program is called the Police Training Officer (PTO) program and

incorporates methods of adult education and Problem-Based Learning (PBL). It is the






40


first attempt to update field training in 30 years and serves to further institutionalize

problem solving and community oriented policing (COPS website). Obviously, FTO's

must be trained in COPS, and COPS needs to be a formalized part of the field training

experience (Haarr 2001).














CHAPTER 4
LEARNING POLICE BEHAVIOR AND NORMS: FORMAL AND INFORMAL
CHANGES

Introduction

Van Maanen (1973) identified four stages in the process of socialization of police

officers. The first one, choice, refers to the decisions of both the recruit and the agency

which result in a potential officer's recruitment to a career in policing. The second stage,

introduction, refers to academy training. During the introduction stage of police

socialization, recruits are exposed to a mix of formal and informal instruction. Recruits

receive instruction on formal content (including apt illustrations from the field); they are

taught about departmental rules and regulations and other fundamentals (e.g., criminal

and traffic codes, report-writing, weapons, first aid) (Lundman 1980). They also receive

training in the roles, attitudes and beliefs about the occupation through "war stories" and

experiences in the quasi-military environment that go beyond the formal class lessons and

are often related outside of class or during time-out from formal instruction (Langworthy

and Travis 2003; Van Maanen 1973). In other words, they learn informal content

(Lundman 1980).

The third stage, encounter, refers to the period when the rookie police officer is

initially assigned to working the street. This usually occurs in a field training program

whereby rookies are paired with experienced police officers who reinforce and/or

redefine what is considered to be appropriate behavior in the police agency (Langworthy

and Travis 2003). Metamorphosis is the final stage in police socialization. This occurs









when officers adapt to the reality of policing and begin to view policing as a job (Van

Maanen 1973).

Richard Bennett (1984) attended academy training in the early 1970s and identified

three stages of socialization that occur before and during the academy that are similar to

Van Maanen's. The first one, anticipatory, refers to the stage when applicants for an

occupational role begin to anticipate the demands and expectations associated with their

future role and begin to view themselves as role incumbents (Bennett 1984; Merton and

Rossi 1968). Recruits obtain the information about the occupational role from reference

groups, such as the media, or friends and relatives who are already police officers.

The second stage is formal socialization and this constitutes academy training

where the recruit learns the roles, attitudes, and values through the reference group of

experienced officers and trainers at the academy. This reference group serves four

functions. Recruits learn: 1) a set of appropriate normative ways of behaving; including

attitudes, values and behaviors needed to fit into the organization, 2) exposure to

cognitive comparisons to evaluate their personal values, behaviors, and performance, 3)

the group's capacity to support them in terms of feelings of belonging, acceptance and

reward, and 4) the reference groups' ability to withhold acceptance from its members as a

control mechanism (also see Conser 1980).

According to Bennett, the third stage a recruit goes through is informal

socialization. This involves learning appropriate cognitions for successful functioning in

daily police work, such as social isolation and perception of citizen hostility (Bennett

1984; Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1966). The reference group also plays a major role in

informal socialization.









While the previous chapter focused primarily on the formal content of police

training, this chapter will focus on the informal content (Lundman 1980) of the

introduction and encounter stages of police socialization (Van Maanen 1973). Because

the formal and informal lessons occur simultaneously, recognize that the separation is

made only for research purposes. First, I will provide an overview of social learning

theory to provide a framework for understanding police training and socialization in

community policing, and the behavior of police trainees. Next, I will discuss the salience

of the police subculture. Finally, I will discuss the literature relating to the socialization

specific to police training and my study in particular. Social learning theory can provide

an overarching framework to integrate the diverse features and components of informal

training that much of the extant research lacks.

Social Learning Theory

Akers (1985; 2000) developed social learning theory as an extension of

Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory to explain acts that violate social

norms (Akers 1998). The basic assumption behind social learning theory is that all

behavior is learned and the same learning process produces all behavior. Social learning

theory is strongly influenced by symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes the exchange

of meanings and symbols in social interaction (Akers 2000). It grows out of Sutherland's

differential association theory which posits that conforming and deviant behavior are

learned in interaction with others who expose us to conforming and nonconforming

definitions. Akers elucidates the importance of differential association by introducing

learning mechanisms operantt conditioning and imitation) into the mix. Akers posits that

four components function to instigate and strengthen social behavior: differential









association, definitions, reinforcement and modeling. The balance of these influences

determines how one will behave in various contexts.

Reflecting its roots in Sutherland, the overarching construct in social learning

theory is differential association. Those with whom one differentially associates will

influence one's behavior and attitudes. The sources of interaction include family

members, friends and peers, and work or classmates. Those with whom one is more

intimate are more influential than those with whom one is distant. Akers argues that

individuals develop definitions either favorable or unfavorable to behavior in interaction

with others. Definitions are then reinforced or punished by the consequences that follow

their behavior. Importantly, others provide models of behavior to follow and are the

sources of reinforcement and punishment.

Social learning theory has received considerable scholarly attention and empirical

support (Akers 1985; Akers et al. 1979; Akers and LaGreca 1991; Akers and Lee 1996;

Krohn et al. 1985; Warr and Stafford 1991). Its focus has tended to be on explaining

crime and delinquency. However, because it endorses Sutherland's statement that all

behavior is learned in the same way, the learning process can be used to understand

conforming as well as non-conforming behavior. For example, it has been used to explain

organizational behavior in Employee Assistance Programs (Capece and Akers 1995).

Here, social learning theory will provide a framework for understanding what police

learn in training.

In this study, social learning theory will be used to understand the acquisition and

transformation of behavior and norms. Formal socialization is consciously trying to

change attitudes, skills, and beliefs to reflect the new occupational standards consistent









with an organizational shift in philosophy. An organizational change has taken place

(CMS curriculum and COPS), but whether the attitudes and behaviors associated with

such a change have transformed is an open question. Social learning theory provides a

framework for understanding what has (or has not) been learned in the academy under the

new CMS curriculum.

Differential Association

Social learning theory proposes a process of interrelationships among the four

constructs. Differential association is the overarching construct and provides the

framework within which definitions are acquired and the learning mechanisms operate. It

occurs first (Akers et al. 1979). Social groups with which one associates provide the

environment where exposure to definitions, models to imitate, and

reinforcement/punishment of behaviors occur.

Differential association refers to the influences of those with whom one associates.

Direct association or interaction with others who engage in certain types of behavior or

hold attitudes will present either positive or negative definitions toward a specific

behavior (as well as definitions of these groups) (Akers 2000). Primary groups, such as

family and peers, are said to have the most influence, but secondary groups, such as

occupational groups, are influential as well. How much one will be influenced by another

person's models of behavior and attitudes depends on the priority, frequency, duration,

and intensity of the association (Akers 2000). For example, the more time that is spent

with friends, the more influence they will have on a person's behavior. An intense

socialization experience, such as the police academy, may make the occupational group

take on the significance of a primary group.









Akers et al (1979)3 defines a norm climate (or norm quality) as the approving

and/or disapproving attitudes toward behaviors held by others with whom one

differentially associates or holds in high regard. Essentially, it is the recruit's perception

of the general belief system of peers, superiors, and incumbents in the policing

environment.

Herbert (1998) discusses a normative order, which he defines as "a set of

generalized rules and common practices oriented around a common value." He takes this

from Parsons (1951) to capture the importance of internalized values for structuring

individual behavior. The normative order is analogous to a normative climate. Other

researchers have also found evidence of a normative order existing in policing.

The day the new recruit walks through the doors of the police academy he leaves
society behind to enter a profession that does more than give him a job, it defines
who he is. For all the years he remains, closed into the sphere of its rituals...he will
be a cop (Ahern 1972: 3).

Definitions

Definitions are either vocal or sub-vocal behavior learned by modeling and operant

conditioning. They play a special role in social learning because they serve as important

cue or discriminative stimuli for reinforcing or punishing behavior. Acting as internal

discriminativee stimuli," definitions are cues and symbols about what is right, wrong,

good or bad (Akers 2000). According to Akers et al. (1979), evaluative definitions are

developed through interaction with others and modeling their behavior. The more a

behavior is defined as good or justified, the more likely one is to engage in it.

Definitions can be general or specific. General definitions refer to broad ideas like

general principles reflected in religion, while specific definitions refer to attitudes toward

3 Lanza-Kaduce and Capece (2003) argue that the "norm climate" resides at the structural level.









particular acts, such as problem solving. Neutralizing definitions refer to justifications,

rationalizations, or excuses for specific behavior. An example of a neutralizing definition

is thinking that killing is wrong, except in self-defense. The neutralizing definition serves

to make an exception or an excuse for the behavior under a particular condition (Akers

2000).

Differential Reinforcement

Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of anticipated or actual

reinforcements versus punishments that are a consequence of behavior. Therefore, current

behavior depends on the past, present and anticipated future consequences (Akers 2000).

Akers et al. (1979) argues that behavior is shaped by the consequences of such behavior

in a process of operant conditioning. Operant conditioning pairs behaviors with cue or

discriminative stimuli (including definitions); the pairing depends on the consequences

that occur. Behavior is more likely to occur again in the presence of cues when it is

followed by a reward or pleasant consequences, or positive reinforcement, or when

something unpleasant (e.g., a headache) goes away after engaging in a behavior in the

presence of cues, negative reinforcement. Behavior is weakened (i.e., less likely to occur

again in the presence of cues) by unfavorable consequences, orpositive punishment, and

the removal of pleasant consequences, or negative punishment.

The probability that a certain behavior will continue depends on past and present

real or anticipated reinforcements and punishments associated with the behavior.

Although reinforcement can be physical, the theory posits that the principal behavioral

effects are social, especially those come from interaction with others who are close to the

behaving person. Specifically, behavioral effects are most likely to be influenced by those









with whom one is the most intimate (Akers 2000). Behavior results when reinforcement

for one behavior outweighs reinforcement for alternative behavior.

Thus, if community policing is learned in the academy and reinforced in field

training, it is more likely to be continued. If an officer spends her time organizing a

neighborhood clean-up and she is later rewarded for such behavior, that officer is likely

to continue to help clean-up neighborhoods. On the other hand, if the officer observes

other officers reaping awards for making high profile arrests while her community clean-

ups go unnoticed, the officer is likely to stop cleaning up neighborhoods and make more

arrests. Social reinforcement and punishment is the key. If organizing trash pick-ups in

neighborhoods are considered to be "jokes" among peers and are not valued in the peer

culture, that behavior is being punished and is likely to cease.

Akers says that the selection and continuation of associations are functions of

differential reinforcement. In other words, those who disagree with the norm climate

would choose a new "peer group" under normal circumstances. However, in the special

circumstance of the police, it would be more difficult to separate from peers, unless an

officer left policing as a career altogether. Indeed, those who fail to accept and internalize

the normative climate in policing are not likely to receive reinforcement from within the

police ranks.

Imitation

Imitation refers to modeling behavior of others. It is most important when one

initially encounters the social group. Definitions are learned, in part, through imitation. A

newcomer to a social group learns accepted behaviors by watching and imitating

superiors and others who are part of the group. Therefore, recruits learn definitions by

modeling instructors at the academy. They learn attitudes and values about policing









through war stories and informal conversation. The same process occurs in field training.

If officers are solving problems and involving the community in their projects, then new

officers are likely to follow their lead and do the same. On the other hand, if officers only

see reactive policing during their field training experience, they are less likely to see

proactivity or COPS as an important part of their career as police officers.

Police training and socialization involves learning definitions about policing

through differential association with peers and superiors. These definitions are modeled,

reinforced and punished in the police subculture. Next, I will discuss the literature on the

salient police subculture and how it fits with social learning theory.

Traditional Police Subculture

Newcomers to all organizations will identify with the work group to some degree.

However, researchers argue that few organizations instill the same degree of occupational

identification as do the police (Britz 1997; Van Maanen 1978). Skolnick (1966) reports

that the strength of the organizational culture in a police department is so salient that

regardless of personal differences, individuals adopt the beliefs and definitions of the

department. Bordua and Reiss (1966) describe the police organizational culture as a "holy

order" with an intense focus on chain of command, subordination and accountability

combined with a limited opportunity for communication across the ranks.

The police are often described as a social group, differentiated from the general

public, whose behavior is structured more so by informal norms than by formal rules

(Herbert 1998). The police subculture transmits attitudes, values and beliefs from one

generation to another in a learning process (Kappeler et al. 1998). The police develop

"cognitive lenses" through which to view the world (Skolnick 1994). Van Maanen (1974)

found that the ideology of the police subculture serves to "support and maintain codes,









agreements and habits existing in the work place..." The profound influence of the

police subculture is recognized as having a substantial effect on officers' ideologies,

values, attitudes and behaviors (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Conser 1980; Crank 1998;

Skolnick 1994). According to Herbert (1998), officers engage in certain behaviors to

maintain good standing in a desirable occupational environment. It is suggested that

officers learn behavior through the reinforcements obtained from the subcultural group

(Aultman 1976).

Entering the traditional police subculture, or crossing the "thin blue line," has

numerous characteristics. Scholars contend that the screening, selection and training

process produces a homogenous group of officers that share a "working personality" and

extraordinary group solidarity (Alpert and Dunham 1997; Lundman 1980; Skolnick

1966/1994). Militaristic rules and discipline strengthen the cohesion and instill the belief

that officers are isolated from the general public and only have other officers as friends

(Neiderhoffer 1967; Skolnick 1966). Due to the isolation that police officers often feel,

officers tend to spend more time with each other, especially for social purposes (Harris

1973). Therefore, it becomes more important for officers to feel accepted by this peer

group for the development of a satisfactory self-concept (Conser 1980; Neiderhoffer

1967; Skolnick 1966).

Other characteristics of the police subculture include peer loyalty, secrecy, and

shared cynicism toward the public. This is also known as the "us versus them" ideology

(Kappeler et al. 1994; Sparrow et al. 1990; Westley 1970). Similarly, there is a shared

perception of the dangerousness of police work and the related focus on officer safety

that only can be understood by other police officers (Paoline et al. 2000; Van Maanen









1974). Police tend to be suspicious and authoritarian. They are also said to be

conservative in ideology (see Lipset 1969; Lundman 1980; Skolnick 1966)

Many police scholars have touched on the importance and development of

definitions and attitudes in the police context, including various types of norm departures,

like deviant activity. For example, Sherman (1978) sees police corruption as the result of

a "continuous definitional process involving various stages." He contends that police

corruption may be explained as the transmission of cultural values via the influence of

reference groups. Conser (1980) suggests that corruption arises through a process of

interaction during which the individual officer learns such behavior in accordance with

the responses of reference groups.

Kappeler et al. (1998) argue that the subculture may facilitate deviant or

questionable behavior by transmitting the beliefs, values, definitions and "manners of

expression" to depart from acceptable behavior. The shared value system allows officers

the opportunity to rationalize, excuse and justify their behavior. Alpert and Dunham

(1997) suggest that because social isolation is a feature of the police subculture, officers

are likely to withdraw into the subculture for support and approval. The result is that the

police officer is "subjected to intense peer influence and control," and this is likely to

include less than ideal behavior. In other words, officers as a group redefine lessons and

modify their behavior in ways that, though not necessarily deviant, are not up to good

standards. Working under little supervision makes these departures from good practice

possible.

One study found that receiving free meals, services or discounts was viewed by

many police officers as a fringe benefit of the job and anticipated little risk of punishment









for these behaviors (Chappell and Piquero 2004). It is clear that the police subculture has

the capacity to reinforce types of police behavior that may fall short of academy or

departmental standards and good practices.

This is important because an academy and agency attempting to formally institute

COPS is facing a significant barrier if the police subculture is not supportive. The

research suggests that the culture is at least as salient-maybe more salient-than the

formal rules put forth by the organization. Observers of community policing regularly

recognize the police subculture as the single biggest impediment to the successful

implementation of policing reforms (Greene et al. 1994; Herbert 1998; Sadd and Grinc

1994; Sparrow et al. 1990).

Some researchers (Paoline et al., 2000) have begun to question the applicability and

salience of the police subculture in today's society. The reason for this is that much of the

literature on the police subculture is dated and based on a time when police departments

were made up of predominately white males and came from blue collar backgrounds with

little college education (Britz 1997; Walker and Katz 2005). With pressure to hire more

women and racial minorities in an effort to reflect the demographic make up of the

communities they serve, some researchers are questioning whether the police subculture

is still as strong as it once was. Robin Haarr (1997) argues, "the initial concept of a

single, unified occupational culture is now being replaced by an alternative

conceptualization of diversity, variation, and contrast within the police organization and

occupation." Nevertheless, in her contemporary study of the police subculture, Britz

(1997) found that the police subculture is still so salient that it overwhelms individual

differences.









Academy Training and Learning COPS

The police academy is structured in a way so that recruits learn to trust only each

other. They are confronted with constant criticism of their inadequacy and status as a

recruit (not-yet sworn officer) but "teased" by the goal of becoming "one of them" by the

instructors and other incumbents (Conti unpublished manuscript entitled, "Lower Than

Whale Shit"). Group punishments and rewards ensure that the recruit cohort evolve into a

highly cohesive group (Lundman 1980; Van Maanen 1975). For example, the

enforcement of academy rules about attendance and appearance force recruits to learn to

rely on each other and see their instructors as bosses and punishers rather than teachers

and friends (Langworthy and Travis 2003). Similarly, loyalty, perceived dangerousness

of the job and suspicion, cynicism, isolation, and a "we-them" orientation start to develop

here (Lundman 1980; Skolnick 1994; Westley 1970).

Militaristic environments in general promote strong bonds between members by

cutting them off from society (Encandela 1991). The academy in particular is intended to

isolate recruits from their outside responsibilities (Conti unpublished manuscript entitled,

"Lower Than Whale Shit"). This intensifies the differential association process and

makes the occupational group more like a primary group.

Further, the militaristic academy structure is rigid and not conducive to learning

COPS. The traditional quasi military environment sends the message to recruits that

policing is only about fighting crime and making arrests. Police training, the creation of

specialized divisions in police agencies, a focus on crime statistics, and traditional

promotion criteria reinforce the strict law-enforcement orientation (Bittner 1975; Paoline

et al. 2000). Thus, the police culture emphasizes law enforcement over a service

orientation and the "aggressive street cop" is the cultural ideal (Paoline et al. 2000).









One of the most important elements to making the new philosophy work is

convincing rank and file officers that COPS is the right thing for them. Holdaway (1984)

conducted a study in Britain that showed the extent to which innovative efforts can be

sabotaged if rank and file officers are not on board with the new philosophy. Rank and

file officers have a tremendous capacity to squelch efforts to innovate if their traditional

values of policing remain dominant (Goldstein 1987, Paoline et al 2000).

In the academy, the recruits learn that their peer group will support them and that

they should support their fellow officers (Van Maanen 1973). Police scholars have often

written about the importance of peer acceptance and approval regarding their own

behavior and beliefs. Therefore, the general level of acceptance/approval toward COPS

in a police department is a determinant of whether the philosophy will be put into

practice. For example, a rookie police officer who recently graduated from a COPS

police academy may be ready to work with the community and problem solve, but if s/he

discusses those intentions with other officers and they express discontent for COPS, the

rookie is less likely to incorporate COPS into his or her own policing practice. Therefore,

if COPS is not the operating philosophy of the department, the COPS training is not

likely to have a lasting effect.

Savitz (1971) looked at police recruits' attitudes toward formal conduct standards

at three different time periods. He found that as recruits advanced from the police

academy to working on the streets, the exposure to the police subculture increased, and

their attitudes became more permissive regarding rules and standards. The officers began

to favor less severe punishments for various forms of misconduct, such as accepting

bribes and theft (Savitz 1971).









Later, Haarr looked at recruits' attitudes toward community policing at four time

periods and found that pre-academy attitudes were the best predictor of attitudes at time

four, even though attitudes changed immediately after the academy. Her explanation is

that even though attitudes were influenced (favorably toward COPS) by academy culture

and instructors, once rookies entered their respective agencies, their attitudes reverted

back to the way they were before they entered the academy (Haarr 2001). This study

suggests the importance of early on-the-job socialization experiences, including field

training (see also Lundman 1980).

Social Learning Model of Police Socialization for COPS

Police recruits enter the training experience with preconceived notions about the

policing role. They meet like-minded recruits with similar backgrounds and the same

goals. In the academy, they are forced to spend all of their time together and work

through their problems together in a highly stressful environment. Differential association

occurs, and they make friends and this new cohort of police recruits becomes an

important peer group. External stressors continue to push them closer as they go through

coursework, physical training, and discipline and obedience. They are learning about a

myriad of subjects-from legal issues to community policing to firearms training-in an

intense formal environment. They are learning definitions about how to be a good police

officer formally-in class-and informally through the police culture. Informally, they

are learning how to balance the intense stress of surviving the academy and interpret the

lessons they are learning. Trainers are their reference group: leaders and models to

imitate, admire and look up to.

They are learning about problem solving, community policing and diversity

through scenarios. But what is learned informally may not correspond with the formal









training instruction in COPS. We should expect a gap between formal and informal

lessons (just like we can expect a gap between the law on the books that recruits learn

and the law as it is practiced on the streets). Indeed, some lessons may be contradictory.

For example, despite formal instruction in diversity, informal lessons may be sexist or

racist (Marion 1998). While such contradictory informal messages are detrimental to

traditional policing, they are devastating to COPS. Social learning theory prompts us to

look at the balance to discern which lessons become salient.

Researchers have noted the importance of an entire police department endorsing

COPS, as well as the importance of winning the "hearts and minds" of police officers in

order to fully implement COPS (Lurigio and Skogan 1994). Essentially, it is the informal

police culture that transmits the "true" overarching beliefs toward community policing

and problem solving (Herbert 1998). Thus, behavior is determined by the normative

climate of a social group (Herbert 1998). It is an open question the extent to which formal

police training in COPS can influence individual officers' perceptions and attitudes

toward COPS. Given the strength of the police culture, it has the capacity for squelching

the effort to making COPS a success.














CHAPTER 5
DATA

Introduction

This study is comprised of a set of interrelated data collection efforts designed to

address several research purposes: 1) how are police recruits trained in CMS/COPS

different from those trained under the traditional curriculum, 2) does a different type of

recruit excel in CMS compared to the traditional curriculum, and 3) what lessons are

learned at the police academy and how do they carry over to placement in a law

enforcement agency? The research was performed at two sites: a police training academy

and one of the law enforcement agencies that hires many of its rookie officers from this

academy. In this chapter, I will discuss the research settings, samples, and types of data

used to address each question.

Background of the CMS Curriculum

In 2002, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Standards and

Training Commission completely redesigned its basic recruit curriculum and created a

new training program reflecting a community-oriented, problem solving approach called

the Curriculum Maintenance System (CMS). The CMS curriculum went into pilot form

in May 2002 and final form on July 1, 2004. As of July 1, 2004, it became mandated by

the state of Florida as the required training curriculum for all police recruits, but for the

classes that I followed, it was closely monitored and constantly updated by Florida

Department of Law Enforcement (via close circuit television and on-site evaluators).









Other feedback mechanisms were utilized as well, such as instructor and participant

(recruit) surveys (see McLaughlin and Donahue 1995).

Changes to the curriculum include: (1) redesign of the basic recruit curriculum

based upon problem solving models (such as SARA or Scanning, Analysis, Response and

Assessment model), (2) incorporation of scenarios as the basis for all training, (3)

Interactive CD-ROMs featuring a number of the problem solving scenarios, and (4)

complete design, on paper, of a virtual community (Spanish Moss, FL) and surrounding

environment (Dogwood County) for use within the scenario-based training. According to

FDLE, the new curriculum is different from the traditional curriculum in the following

ways:

* New instruction focuses on application of learning rather than memorization
* A problem solving model to be used throughout the academy
* Instruction is initiated through scenarios that are set in Spanish Moss, FL
* New curriculum includes lesson plans, support materials, and student workbook
* A new certification exam includes both application and knowledge questions

The new curriculum uses the SECURE model, which is similar to SARA, but adds

and changes several elements. SECURE represents Safety, Ethics, Community,

Understanding, Response, and Evaluation. SECURE combines a first response model to

resolve short-term incidents and a long term model to solve long term recurring

problems. CMS "threads" themes throughout the curriculum. In other words, instead of

covering a single topic and completing it, it revisits certain important themes in each

module. Examples of such themes are problem solving, community policing, and officer

safety. The CMS curriculum is considered a living, breathing document, so instructors

are constantly submitting their feedback to FDLE in order to update and improve the









curriculum. The police academy I studied was one of the first regional training facilities

to adopt the CMS curriculum.

Research at the Police Academy

Setting

The police academy is a training center that provides recruit and in-service training

for police officers, corrections personnel and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). It

includes a firing range, an agility course, physical training areas, a vehicle driving range,

and several permanent buildings and temporary classrooms.

I began collecting data at the academy as a research assistant on a project that my

advisor hoped would be funded. His working relationship with senior personnel at the

academy enabled me to attend and observe training classes, and when I expressed interest

in continuing the research, approval was easily granted. During my initial observations,

the CMS curriculum was still being developed, hence the first classes studied were being

trained under the traditional curriculum. My subsequent observations were of three

classes using the CMS curriculum. Eventually, my participation at the police academy led

to entree into the second setting for data collection, the law enforcement agency.

Data

At the police academy, I conducted two types of investigations. First, I examined

official data regarding academy admissions and screening, as well as performance

measures, such as examination scores and employment. Second, I conducted participant

observation of academy instruction during recruit training. The academy data were

collected under two curricula: a traditional curriculum and the updated CMS curriculum

which threaded COPS, problem solving and scenarios throughout all training units.









The Official Data

I obtained access to official data on a sample of 300 academy recruits, 155 of

whom went through the traditional curriculum and 145 of whom went through the CMS

curriculum. The sample includes all persons who were cleared to enter the Basic Recruit

Curriculum (BRC) from 1998 through 2004. It includes classes 68, 69, 71-75 from the

traditional curriculum and 76-79, 81-83 from the CMS curriculum.

The data include demographics (such as race, age, gender, marital status, education,

and military experience), screening scores (such as writing, cognitive, and physical

agility), background characteristics (including whether recruits had a criminal, traffic or

drug record), and residency and work experience. The data also include academy

performance (test scores, class rank, overall academy score, whether they failed or

graduated the academy, disciplinary record, commendations and awards), and post-

graduation employment status.

Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing

In addition to the quantitative data on each recruit, I also conducted participant

observation of two of the traditional classes and three CMS classes at the police academy.

I spent 100 hours observing courses on human diversity, interpersonal skills and

communications, defensive tactics, investigations, traffic skills, high stress driving, high

risk traffic stops, patrol activities, community policing, scenarios, report writing, death

investigations, and law.

Most of my early observational research consisted of unstructured participant

observation and informal discussions with police recruits and academy personnel.

Talking with recruits and instructors during breaks occupied a large part of my time and

contributed significantly to my understanding of the academy and its people. I chose









classes based on my interest and generally over-sampled classes related to interpersonal

communications and diversity as they are key issues in COPS. I also spent considerable

time observing driving and defensive tactics, but found that those courses contributed less

to my understanding of how recruits/officers interact with the community because they

are taught solely as skill-building exercises. In addition, observing the learning process

was more difficult due to the nature of the activities. For example, in driving courses,

only 1 or 2 recruits would drive at one time, and they were in cars on the range while the

rest of "us" sat and watched. Direct observation was therefore impossible. Much of the

defensive tactics training involved learning how to conduct "take-downs" and the

mechanics of arrests, such as putting on hand-cuffs. Much of it was technical, rather than

communicative and I found it to be less than helpful to my sociological understanding of

police training. Other courses on skills training took recruits into different rooms, again

making it impossible for me to actually see what was occurring. In those situations, other

recruits and myself would simply relax and talk while training was occurring in another

area (such as on the driving range). In contrast, during classroom instruction, I was one of

many others in the room listening to the instructor and taking notes.

During my observations, my role was usually more of an observer, but occasionally

I became involved as a participant. I was often invited to participate as a recruit,

especially in physical-type exercises, such as physical training and defensive tactics, but

usually my dress prevented that type of activity. Other times I was asked by the

instructors to help in scenarios and I often participated in this capacity. I held an unusual

status at the academy; I was neither an instructor nor recruit, but both recruits and

instructors felt comfortable with me. They appreciated my participation in the scenarios









and that participation allowed me to fit in so my presence was "normal." However, my

participation did not occur after the change to the CMS curriculum as things became

much more "by the book" and formal. Also, only a few instructors during the CMS pilot

were certified to teach CMS and these were not the instructors who had previously

invited me to be involved. I interacted with many of the recruits during my observations

who are also in my official data sample.

Research Questions

These quantitative and qualitative data on academy recruits help to address the

following general research questions: 1) To what extent are quantifiable differences in

academy recruit performance predicted by the CMS curriculum? 2) Does a different

"type" of recruit achieve higher scores in the CMS academy compared to the traditional?

3) Does the culture at the police academy support the COPS orientation? Essentially, one

goal is to identify how differences in the two curricula materialize in terms of recruit

performance and academy success (whether a recruit graduates, fails, finds employment,

etc.). A second goal is to analyze the extent to which the culture and environment at the

academy are supporting the COPS orientation.

Research at the Police Agency

Setting

"The Agency" is a medium sized municipal police department serving a city of

approximately 100,000 people that is home to a major university. The Agency is made up

of approximately 275 sworn officers and 90 non-sworn personnel. The Agency has an

aviation unit, a K-9 unit, a forensics unit, a SWAT (special weapons and tactics)Team, a

mounted patrol, and a motorcycle unit. The Agency practices District Policing, which is a

form of Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) which places officers in permanent









geographical patrol areas for a year or longer so that they are able to build relationships

with community residents. The Agency has been practicing some form of COPS since

1985.

Data

At the agency, I performed two types of data collection. First, I analyzed field

training officer (FTO) files for a sub-sample of the CMS graduates (from the recruits in

my official database) who became employed by this agency. Second, I informally

interviewed police personnel and attended various activities (such as DataStat meetings-

to be discussed later) at the agency to get an idea of the inner-workings of the agency and

its endorsement of COPS.

Field Training Officer (FTO) Files

At the time of my research, the director of the police academy maintained

considerable contacts with the Agency. It was initially his idea for me to obtain field

training officer (FTO) files for the academy graduates in order to examine their

performance as rookie police officers. He agreed to call the police agency and ask for

their cooperation with my research. It happened that I already knew some of the ranking

officers from organizing ride-alongs for my community policing course. I was eventually

given access to the complete FTO files of all 40 of the CMS recruits from my original

sample who gained employment by this particular agency upon graduation (of 145 CMS

recruits).

The Agency follows a variation of the San Jose model (see chapter 3). Field

training usually lasts 12 weeks unless the recruit is referred to remedial training, which

could be up to three weeks (per remedial session). Trainees are evaluated by their FTO

each day during their field training (in narrative format) on a form called a Daily









Evaluation Form (DEF). At the end of each stage of training, the FTO evaluates the

overall progress of the trainee and recommends whether he or she should progress to the

next FTO stage (Stage Evaluation). The evaluation consists of a series of scales and an

area for narrative comments. The FTO files also contain all correspondence about the

trainee's progress throughout the FTO program, including emails between the FTO's and

supervisors. Each file is hundreds of pages long and contains substantial detail about the

trainee's behavior and progress. I focused on the narratives (qualitative data only) for this

study.

Participant Observation and Informal Interviewing

I spent approximately 25 hours at the police agency speaking with and meeting

with ranking police officers to find out about community policing, training for

community policing, departmental procedures, and collecting FTO files. In these

conversations, I learned about the informal culture as well as the process of recruiting

potential officers to the agency. I learned specifics about the recruits in my database,

including insights into why some of them did not make it through field training, why they

were fired or asked to resign, as well as information about who has remained with the

agency and excelled. I have also learned about some of the challenges in the agency, such

as the high turnover rate.

I attended approximately 12 DataStat meetings. DataStat resembles Compstat4 in

that the department meets monthly to discuss notable activities in each of the three city

districts, as well as community service activities, traffic division issues, and Personnel



4 Compstat originated in New York Transit Authority and delegates authority and accountability to
command staff for geographical areas. Generally, command staff meet regularly to discuss crime and
disorder problems as well as potential solutions.









vacancies and hires. The chief of the department, captains, most ranking officers and

command staff, some patrol officers, and people from the community (such as me)

attend. It is basically an overview and follow-up of criminal and community activities in

the city. Uniform Crime Reports are also covered. If crime has increased in a particular

area, or there has been a crime spree, potential solutions are discussed and a follow-up is

planned. DataStat meetings are very formal; all guests are invited and formally

introduced, there are no food or drinks allowed, no cell phones or beepers, etc.

Presentations are very professional.

Research Questions

The purpose of the field training data is to examine the extent to which CMS, with

its emphasis on community policing, is reflected in rookie training at one agency which

endorses the COPS philosophy. Field training is the initial job assignment in which the

COPS ideals can be reinforced as it presents the first opportunity to link COPS training

with actual practice (Haarr 2001). I analyze whether the FTO program integrates COPS

and problem solving activities into field training, whether these activities are part of field

training evaluation, and whether they are used in advancing to the next stage and

ultimately to solo status. The idea is that recruits are being trained in COPS at the

academy, but I aim to see if these lessons are being reinforced in the department.

The purpose of the informal interviewing and the DataStat meeting attendance is to

assess the normative climate toward COPS and informal values in one of the police

agencies that hires a large number of graduates from the police academy. This police

department explicitly endorses COPS, but these data give insight into the extent to which

it is internally supported by the department. These observations and interviews offer









another glimpse into the departmental environment and the extent to which COPS is

endorsed at the "brass" level in the department.

The informal interview data and DataStat meetings allow me to understand how the

chief, captains, and ranking officers at the top of the hierarchy feel about COPS and

training. The purpose of this is to determine how much of an impact the CMS curriculum

will have on officers as they embark on their career as police officers in an agency that

explicitly endorses COPS. Is the normative climate at the department supportive of

COPS?

Summary

This study is based on a set of interrelated data collection efforts designed to

analyze the impact of the CMS curriculum on police recruits and their early career

performance once they gain employment in one agency that endorses COPS. With

several types of data, I will gain insight into the extent to which CMS has an effect on

recruit academy performance, field training performance and their policing careers.














CHAPTER 6
METHODS

Introduction

This chapter outlines the strategies for analyzing the sources of data in the study.

The first part of the chapter will address the methodology used in the quantitative

analysis and the second part of the chapter will address the methodology used in the

qualitative analysis.

Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative data on 300 academy police recruits address two interrelated

research goals. The first goal is to examine the impact of various background and

demographic characteristics, including CMS training, on successful recruit performance.

This part of the analysis develops models that incorporate variables identified in previous

literature to significantly influence policing performance. The models also include a

variable that distinguishes between recruits taught under the CMS curriculum and the

traditional curriculum. The main hypothesis to be evaluated is whether CMS recruits

perform "better" (as operationalized here) at the training academy compared to those

trained under the traditional curriculum, holding constant other background variables.

The second goal addressed by the quantitative data is to assess whether specific

background characteristics better predict academy performance among CMS recruits

compared to traditional recruits. In other words, I aim to analyze whether a different

"type" of recruit performs better in the CMS curriculum compared to the traditional

curriculum.









Dependent Variables: Academy Performance

In this study, I use the term "academy performance" to refer to recruits' success in

the academy in terms of "average academy scores" (average score across all

examinations), failure experiences, and whether recruits gained employment upon

graduation. Three variables are used to measure recruits' academy performance: average

academy examination score, failure experience, and post-academy employment.

Average academy score for each recruit is measured with an ordinal variable thus

OLS will be used5. The scale is as follows: 1 refers to an average score of 80% or less, 2

refers to a score of 80.01% to 84.9%, 3 to a score of 85% to 89.9%, 4 to a score of 90%

to 94.9%, and 5 to a score of 95% through 100%. Twenty three recruits were missing on

this variable and mean substitution was used6.

Failure experience is operationalized as a recruit who failed one module or unit, or

a recruit who failed out of the academy. The original variable distinguished between

those who failed any individual module during training and those who were dismissed

from the academy, but due to the limited number of failures, I recorded it into a

dichotomous variable. It is coded (0 'no', 1 'yes') and represents recruits who showed

significant problems completing their academy class. Logistic regression is used for this

model (McClendon 2002).

Recruits' employment status is based on the current information available in the

academy's database when I collected the data (July 2004). It is possible (and probable)

that graduates of the academy who were not employed immediately upon graduation


5 The score was computed into an ordinal variable due to several outliers. The technique, OLS, is robust
(Akers et al. 1979).
6 The analysis was also run without those with missing values and the results were similar.









found employment later on and that is not accurately reflected in these data. Employment

is a dichotomous variable coded '0' for unemployed and '1' for employed. Logistic

regression is used to evaluate differences in employment likelihood between graduates of

the CMS curriculum and the traditional curriculum.

Independent Variables

Previous literature suggests a number of personal characteristics that may affect

policing performance. Though most of the studies do not specify academy or training

performance specifically, some of them may be relevant to being a successful COPS

officer.

There is no research on the relationship between age and police training. However,

some police departments are raising their age requirements based on the intuitive notion

that older applicants will be more mature, have more life experience and therefore make

better officers (also see Lanza-Kaduce and Greenleaf 2000). Another reason for hiring

older officers is that it gives the agency a longer work history to evaluate (Decker and

Huckabee 2002). As recruits get older, they become more responsible and possibly better

police officers. Skogan and Hartnett found that older officers are more supportive of

community policing (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). Age is a continuous variable.

By 1997, racial and ethnic minorities made up about 22 percent of full-time sworn

officers in local police departments (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Some large cities

now have police forces that represent the racial composition of their population.

However, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that "there is no credible

evidence that officers of different racial or ethnic backgrounds perform differently during

interactions with citizens simply because of race or ethnicity" (Skogan and Frydl 2004).

African American officers are more likely to support innovation and change, such as









community policing (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). More ethnic diversity is needed to

represent the community (King and Lab 2000). Part of community policing is having a

police force that represents the community, thus racial minorities may be more likely to

thrive in the COPS environment. Race is coded as '1' if nonwhite (black, Hispanic,

Asian, or other) and '0' if white.

Neiderhoffer (1967) recognized that chauvinism was a major characteristic of the

police culture in the 1960s. Women have historically been thought more suited for

staying home with the children than for a dangerous job like policing. However, women

may be more suitable for the tasks required of community police officers because they

are more empathetic. COPS calls for the use of de-escalation techniques, communication

skills and problem solving, which may be skills that women are better at than men.

Women now make up approximately six percent of all sworn police officers. Gender is

coded as '1' if male, and '0' if female.

There is little literature on the importance of marital status to policing. However,

research on delinquency suggests that those who are married are less likely to be

delinquent and more likely to be serious and focused (see Warr 1998). Thus, they may

perform better in the academy and be better at COPS. Recruits are coded '1' if married or

engaged to be married, and '0' if single, divorced, widowed or otherwise.

Military experience has been one of the favored characteristics for police recruits

since Sir Robert Peele's police force (Alpert and Dunham 1997). It is thought that

because policing is a paramilitary occupation, those who have military experience are

better prepared to deal with the environment. However, given the goals and nature of

community policing, the impact of military experience on police performance seems less









clear-cut. In fact, such experience may actually impede the development of the types of

policing strategies that are at the heart of the community policing philosophy. Recruits

are coded '1' if they are listed as "active duty" or "reserves" in the military, and '0'

otherwise.

An increasing number of police officers have at least some college education

(Senna and Seigel 2002), which is not surprising considering that higher education for

police officers has been recommended by national commissions since 1931 (Hoover

1975). Sixteen percent of state police agencies require a two- year college degree and

four percent require a four year degree. Nine percent of large municipal agencies have a

degree requirement (Reaves and Goldberg 1999). Police recruits with a college degree

are said to be better at verbal and written communication, make better discretionary

decisions, and have greater empathy and tolerance (Carter and Sapp 1992). They are also

said to exercise better judgment and be better problem solvers compared to those without

college degrees (Worden 1990). These are skills important to community policing.

Education is coded '1' if the recruit has an Associate's degree or more education, and '0'

otherwise.

"Special position" refers to recruits who either held a ranking status within their

recruit class (such as class lieutenant, etc.) or achieved an award for excellence or most

improved (e.g., "high academic award" or "most improved fitness"). There is no

literature pertaining to the link between achieving a rank in the academy class and

policing performance. However, logically those who excel in their academy class (and

lead the class) should perform better compared to those who do not hold these positions.









This variable is coded '1' if the recruit held a ranking status and/or won an award and '0'

otherwise.

One goal of this study is to analyze whether a different type of recruit excels in the

CMS curriculum compared to the traditional curriculum. CMS is based on problem

solving, scenarios and community policing. Officers who graduated from the CMS

curriculum are likely to benefit in their policing careers because the CMS curriculum

reflects current policing practices and up to date material. See chapter two for a detailed

review of community policing and its importance to policing in general. CMS is coded

'1' if the recruit attended the CMS curriculum and '0' otherwise.

A Note on Interactions

There are theoretical reasons to explore why background characteristics may

enhance or detract from success in the new CMS curriculum. Because some variables

may operate differently under the two curricula, I conduct separate analyses for recruits

in the traditional academy and recruits in the CMS academy in order to show whether

background characteristics are significantly and/or differently related to performance in

one group rather than the other7.

Qualitative Data

Police Academy

I spent approximately 100 hours at the police academy observing recruit classes,

taking notes, and talking to recruits and instructors. I also met with academy officials on

numerous occasions-sometimes at the academy in a formal meeting and other times for



7 An alternative method to performing interactions is to compute interaction terms. In the research process,
I computed several interaction terms as well (e.g., CMS X education and CMS X race) and they were not
significant in the model.









lunch in informal meetings with my advisor. I took notes on these experiences as well. I

also spent time at the academy while I was inputting my quantitative data and going

through the personal files of recruits. I spent numerous hours hearing stories about

notable recruits (some of whom were in my sample) and interacting with people who

worked in various capacities at the academy.

I typed my notes at home on my computer several times per week. Periodically, I

would read through my notes and generate some thoughts about patterns that I was

seeing. However, I did not focus on theorizing and developing specific themes until I had

been working in the police culture in various capacities for several years and began to

write my dissertation. I read through my field notes from the academy and generated

many different emergent ideas. I grouped the ideas into themes and put them into a chart

(with themes generated from other data sources). I continued to read and re-read my field

notes until I developed sufficiently concise and abstract themes that encompassed my

observations.

Police Agency

I read each of the field training officer (FTO) files in detail. I read some of them

several times, as some files are more complex, lengthy and detailed than others. I took

notes on them and typed the notes. I also made a chart of dominant themes that I then

checked off as I read each file (see generally Bernard 1994).

I spent considerable time at the police department, talking to personnel and

attending meetings (personal and DataStat). I always took notes immediately after the

meetings that I attended.

After I generated all of my themes from my data sources, I made another chart

listing all of the themes and filled in boxes indicating whether the theme was present in









each (or all) of the data sources. This helped me to realize whether themes were present

across all data sources or only one, for example. Reading policing literature, having

conversations with my committee members and re-reading my raw data helped me to

combine themes to develop a typification of the normative climate of police training and

socialization.

I use the qualitative data to describe what is differentially learned in police training.

I set out to analyze the extent to which COPS was integrated into police training and

socialization and whether the normative climate was supportive of COPS. The themes

that I developed characterize what is learned in police training and socialization

according to my observations.














CHAPTER 7
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the quantitative analysis that analyzes predictors

of recruit academy performance. First, I analyze how recruit characteristics affect

academy performance among all recruits. Second, I look at predictors of academy

performance among CMS and traditional recruits separately. In other words, I aim to

determine whether a different "type" of recruit performs better in the CMS curriculum

compared to the traditional curriculum. Results will provide insight as to whether

different types of recruits perform differently under the two different curricula and how

the CMS curriculum impacts the relationships between recruit characteristics and

academy performance.

Descriptive Statistics

Full Sample

The full sample contains 300 recruits from both CMS and traditional curricula. The

sample is comprised of 155 recruits from the traditional curriculum and 145 recruits from

the CMS curriculum. Approximately 24% of the full sample is nonwhite. Twenty percent

of the recruits are married or engaged. Seventy-nine percent are male, while only 8%

have military experience. Twenty-eight percent have an Associate's or higher degree.

Recruits were an average of 26 years old in the academy (median 25, mode 24). Forty-

eight percent of them attended the academy based on CMS (see Table 7-1 for Descriptive

Statistics).









About 48% of academy recruits found employment upon graduation. About 18% of

those who entered the academy failed to complete all of their classes without at least one

failure (and/or they failed out completely; this includes those who failed one or more

units or modules and came back in later classes to complete them). Twenty-nine percent

of academy recruits in the sample either held a ranking position in their recruit class

and/or received an achievement award for fitness, firearms, or academics ("special

position").

Split Samples

The full sample was split based on training mode (CMS versus traditional) in order

to assess whether background characteristics predict academy performance under one

curriculum better than the other. The background characteristics and demographics vary

slightly in the two samples. A higher percentage of CMS recruits found employment

upon graduation compared to traditional recruits (51% versus 46% respectively). CMS

graduates were slightly more likely to be married than traditional recruits (21% versus

18% respectively). Traditional recruits were more likely to have military experience

compared to CMS recruits (10% versus 7% respectively), and interestingly, traditional

recruits were much more likely to have an Associate's degree compared to CMS recruits

(32% versus 23% respectively). Though there is pressure to increase educational

requirements for police officers, there is a "cop crunch," (Fridell et al. 2002) meaning

that many departments are struggling to find qualified police applicants and therefore

have had to lower their selection criteria. Finally, CMS recruits were more likely to hold

a "special position" in their recruit class compared to traditional recruits (34% versus

25% respectively).









Multivariate Models

Does CMS Training Make a Difference?

The first goal of the analysis is to identify the impact of various

demographic/background characteristics on measures of recruit performance. In

particular, the analysis seeks to evaluate whether CMS recruits perform "better" at the

academy compared to traditional recruits.

Table 7-2 shows results for the full sample of recruits. Looking first at predictors of

average academy score, results indicate that nonwhite, more educated recruits, and those

who hold a special position in their class all obtained higher academy performance scores

compared to their counterparts. The strongest predictor among these is special position

status. Significant predictors of failure experience include race and special position.

Nonwhites are more likely to experience failure and those with a special position status

are significantly less likely. Finally, race, age, military experience, special position, and

academy score all significantly influence the last measure of performance: post

graduation employment status. Nonwhite, older recruits without military experience and

those with special position status are all more likely to become employed at graduation

compared to younger, white recruits with military experience who did not hold a special

position in their class.

In general, race was significant in all three models: nonwhites had lower academy

scores, were more likely to fail, and more likely to gain employment upon graduation. In

light of community policing, police agencies are being pressured to hire officers who

reflect the racial makeup of the communities they serve, and this often means hiring more

non-white officers. Therefore, it makes sense that although nonwhite recruits may not









perform as well (in this sample), they were more likely to find employment upon

graduation from the academy.

Recruits who held a special position in their academy class fared better in terms of

academy score, failure experiences, and post graduation employment. This makes

intuitive sense, as recruits who held a special position showed initiative, lead the class, or

showed a significant improvement, either academically or physically, during their

academy experience.

Analyzing Performance among CMS Versus Traditional Recruits

The second goal of the analysis is to identify whether a different "type" of recruit

performs better under the two different curricula. In particular, the analysis seeks to

evaluate how the CMS curriculum impacts the relationships between recruit

characteristics and academy performance.

Table 7-3 shows results for the CMS recruits. Table 7-4 shows results for the

traditional recruits. They can be compared to see which variables predict success

similarly for both types of curricula and which predict success in only one of them.

Looking first at Table 7-3 and predictors of average academy score, whites, recruits with

an Associate's degree, and recruits who held a special position in their class all obtained

higher academy performance scores compared to their counterparts. Significant

predictors of failure experience include age and special position. Older recruits and

recruits who held a special position were less likely to experience failure. Finally, gender,

age, military experience, and academy score all influenced the likelihood of post-

graduation employment at a police agency. In particular, older female recruits without

military experience, who had higher academy scores, were more likely to find

employment upon graduation.









Overall, older recruits fared better in terms of academy performance. They were

less likely to experience failure and more likely to find employment upon graduation.

Recruits who held a special position had higher average academy scores and were less

likely to fail. Higher academy scores were associated with a higher likelihood of finding

employment for CMS recruits. I now turn to the analysis for the traditional recruits.

Table 7-4 shows the results of the regression analysis for the traditional recruits. In

terms of academy score, recruits who held a special position and those without military

experience achieved higher scores. Recruits who were older and married and those who

held a special position were less likely to experience failure compared to their younger,

non-married counterparts who did not hold a special position in their academy class. In

terms of employment, race, age, military experience, special position and academy score

were significant. In particular, older, nonwhite recruits without military experience who

held a special position and achieved higher academy scores had a higher likelihood of

finding employment upon graduation compared to their counterparts.

Again, older recruits fared better in terms of academy performance. They were less

likely to experience failure and more likely to find employment. Interestingly, recruits

with military experience had lower average academy scores and were less likely to find

employment in the sample of traditional recruits. Again, those who held a special position

achieved higher academy scores, were less likely to experience failure, and were more

likely to find employment upon graduation. Higher academy scores were associated with

a higher likelihood of finding employment.

Age, military experience, and academy score had similar affects on academy

performance across both curricula. Thus, no interactions were present. On the other hand,









there were a few inconsistencies across models. Racial minorities received lower average

academy scores than whites, while higher educated recruits earned higher academy scores

compared to those with less education. This could indicate that CMS is a more academic

environment than the traditional curriculum. Could it be that well-educated racial

minorities are earning opportunities in higher education and self-selecting out of

policing? Females are more likely to become employed after graduation from the CMS

curriculum compared to males. This could indicate that CMS is rewarding skills

consistent with COPS.

In the traditional curriculum, racial minorities did not perform as well, but they

were more likely to gain employment. Again, this could be due to pressure on police

agencies to increase minority representation. Traditional married recruits were found to

be less likely to fail compared to their single counterparts. This is consistent with the

literature on delinquency that says that marriage is a social bond (see Hirschi 1969).

Finally, special position was positively associated with finding employment in the

traditional curriculum, but not in the CMS curriculum.

Summary and Conclusion

According to these analyses, CMS does not significantly and consistently predict

academy performance. In other words, recruits going through the CMS curriculum did

not perform significantly "better" compared to those in the traditional curriculum,

holding other variables constant.

As with prior research, I found no consistent, clear cut patterns regarding predictors

of performance in the full sample. Some background variables seem to matter for some

measures of performances, while other measures impact other measures of performance.

"Special position" emerged as a significant predictor among most of the models, which









makes intuitive sense, because recruits who hold a special position by definition must be

motivated (recruits must "apply" to be chosen for a special position). Race emerged in

some of the models as a significant predictor of performance. In general, nonwhites did

not perform as well, but they had a higher likelihood of finding employment compared to

whites. Age was associated with more successful academy performance and a higher

likelihood of finding employment. Surprisingly, military experience was not consistently

significant, and when it did emerge as a significant predictor, it was associated with a

lower likelihood of gaining employment. A possible explanation for this is that I only

looked at law enforcement employment, and ex-military personnel have a high

employment rate in the area of corrections. Correctional officers also go through basic

recruit training.

Education was associated with a higher average academy score in the full sample

and the CMS sample, but not in the traditional curriculum. This could indicate that the

CMS curriculum rewards more educated recruits compared to the traditional curriculum,

which is in line with the COPS philosophy. A higher academy score was associated with

finding employment upon graduation for both CMS and traditional recruits.

In the CMS curriculum, females were significantly more likely to find employment

compared to males. This is an interesting finding in terms of COPS, as females may be

more suited for the skills of a COPS officer than the duties of the traditional crime-

fighting officer. In both traditional and CMS analyses, older recruits were less likely to

fail and more likely to find employment.

Based on this analysis, CMS recruits are not more successful in the academy

compared to traditional recruits. Perhaps some different qualities are emerging as






82


significant in policing, such as education and gender. Now I will turn to the qualitative

analysis to describe the normative climate of police training and socialization.







83








Table 7-1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables


variables
Academy
score
(ordinal)
Failure
(l=yes)


Full
sample
Mean
N=300


SD Range


CMS
recruits
Mean
N=145


Trad
recruits
SD Range Mean
N=155


3.3 .90 1-5 3.3 .78 1-5 3.3 1.0 1-5


.18 .38 0-1


Employment .48
(l=yes)
Indep.
variables


CMS
(l=yes)


.50 0-1


.19 .40 0-1

.51 .50 0-1


.17 .37 0-1

.46 .50 0-1


.48 .50 0-1


Race .24
(l=nonwhite)
Marital status .20
(l=married)
Gender .79


(1=male)
Age
(continuous)
Education
(l=Assoc.
degree)
Military
(l=yes)
Special
position
(l=yes)


.43 0-1

.40 0-1

.40 0-1


26.4 5.28 19-46

.28 .45 0-1


.08 .28 0-1

.29 .46 0-1


.23 .43 0-1 .25 .44 0-1


.21 .41 0-1


.18 .39 0-1


.79 .41 0-1 .80 .40 0-1


26.3


5.1 19-45


.23 .42 0-1


.07 .25 0-1

.34 .48 0-1


26.5


.32 .47 0-1


.10 .29 0-1

.25 .43 0-1


SD Range


5.4 19-46
















Table 7-2. Regression models
N=300 Recruits


Race
(1=nonwhite)
Marital status
(1=married)
Gender
(1=male)
Age
(continuous)
Education
(1=Assoc.
degree)
Military
(l=yes)
Special position
(l=yes)
CMS
(l=yes)
Academy score
(ordinal)
Intercept
R-Square


Academy
score
B (SE)
-.213 (.12)

.211 (.14)

.126 (.13)

-.008 (.01)

.263 (.11)


.02 (.19)

.521 (.11)

.035 (.10)


predicting academy performance of academy recruits


Beta

.101**
.093*

.056

-.046

.131**


.005

.262**

-.019


3.2 (.30)**
.118


Failure

B (SE)
.615 (.34)

-.436 (.47)

-.143 (.38)

.005 (.03)

.250 (.35)


-.843 (.78)

-.1.38
(.47)
.318 (.32)



-1.53 (.99)
.105


Exp(B)
1.84**

.647

.866

1.005

1.28


.43

.251**

1.35



.218


Employment

B (SE)
.410 (.29)

-.407 (.34)

-.147 (.31)

.081 (.03)

.158 (.28)


-1.16 (.50)

.414 (.28)

.207 (.25)

.47 (.15)

-3.84 (.96
.143


Exp (B)
1.51*

.666

.863

1.085**

1.17


.313**

1.51*

1.23

1.6**

.022**


**p<. 05; *p<.10; p values computed for one-tailed significance tests.











Table 7-3. Regression models predicting academy performance of CMS recruits
N=145


Race
(1=nonwhite)
Marital status
(1=married)
Gender
(1=male)
Age
(continuous)
Education
(l=Assoc.
degree)
Military
(l=yes)
Special position
(l=yes)
Academy score
(ordinal)
Intercept
R-Square


Academy score
B (SE)

-.325 (.14)

.08 (.16)

.172 (.15)

-.004 (.01)

.464 (.14)


.11 (.24)

.511 (.13)



3.03
.221


Beta

-.176**

.041

.091

-.024

.249**


Failure
B (SE)

.630 (.50)

.435 (.62)

-.12 (.54)

-.077 (.06)

.413 (.50)


Exp (B)

1.88

1.55

.887

.925*

1.51


Employment
B (SE)

-.189 (.44)

-.403 (.48)

-.617 (.46)

.087 (.04)

.348 (.44)


.036 -.585 (1.1) .557 -1.11(.77)

.311** -.1.35 (.60) .258** .411(.41)

.535 (.26)

.369** .660 (1.6) 1.94 -3.52 (1.4)
-.127 -- .162


Exp
(B)
.828

.688

.540*

1.09**

1.42


.330*

1.51

1.71**

.029**


Table 7-4. Regression models predicting
N=155


academy performance of traditional recruits


Race
(l=nonwhite)
Marital status
(l=married)
Gender
(1=male)
Age
(continuous)
Education
(l=Assoc.
degree)
Military
(l=yes)
Special position
(l=yes)
Academy score
(ordinal)
Intercept
R-Square


Academy score
B (SE)
-.102 (.19)

.344 (.23)

.001 (.21)

-.001 (.02)

.106 (.18)


-.031 (.28)

.586 (.19)


Beta
-.044

.134

.001

-.052

.050


-.009*

.249**


Failure
B (SE)
.636 (.50)

-1.54 (.85)

-.24 (.57)

-.075 (.05)

-.023 (.51)


-1.17 (1.2)

-.1.52 (.79)


.465** -3.06 (1.3)
.148


Exp (B)
1.89

.215**

.787

1.08*

.977


Employment
B (SE)
.869 (.41)

-.477 (.51)

.129 (.46)

.071 (.04)

.067 (.38)


.310 -1.20 (.68)

.219** .583 (.42)

-.417 (.19)

.047** -3.73 (1.3)
-.162


**p<. 05; *p<.10; p values computed for one-tailed significance tests.


Exp (B)
2.38**

.621

1.14

1.07**

1.07


.302*

1.79*

1.52**

.024**














CHAPTER 8
INFORMAL LEARNING

Introduction

Adult socialization is unusually prominent in law enforcement. Training of new

members requires socialization into the internal structure of policing as well as the

cultural orientations of the occupation and the Agency. It introduces the police recruit to

a set of rules and practices that define the meaning of police work. Socialization begins in

the academy, is central to field training and the rookie year, and exists throughout one's

career as a law enforcement officer.

Most discussions of police socialization and the introduction to the police culture

make distinctions between formal and informal components (Bennett 1984; Lundman

1980; Van Maanen 1973; but see Herbert 1998). The first goal of this chapter is to

advance a framework for understanding both formal and informal components of

socialization. Formal and informal aspects of socialization exist (and sometimes differ),

but they function together to establish an environment in which a set of behaviors and

beliefs is differentially learned. Sometimes the formal and informal are directly

consistent, but more often the informal reformulates or reinterprets formal rules to fit

with conceptions of what it takes to do the job on the streets. Other times, the formal and

informal lessons are completely inconsistent.

Akers' (2000) social learning theory anticipates this complexity. It is rooted in

Sutherland's symbolic interactionist notion of differential exposure to definitions of the

situation. The theory explicitly adopts two key learning mechanisms that anticipate









complexity. It recognizes that we are exposed to different models, and its primary

learning construct is differential reinforcement/punishment, which stresses that learning

is the result of the balance of reinforcement/punishment for one behavior over alternative

behavior.

Akers' most recent effort (Akers 1998) integrates the social learning process with

social structural features. Of particular relevance are his arguments that the locations that

learners hold within social groups affect the definitions and models to which people are

exposed and the reinforcement and punishment that they receive. One goal of this chapter

is to evaluate the balance of definitions to which police recruits are exposed in order to

understand the normative climate that characterizes the police training experience.

Social groups have cultural norms, learning environments and socialization which

can affect one's exposure to learning (Akers and Sellers 2004). The various contexts

promote or discourage learning. The normative climate resides at the structural cultural

level (Lanza-Kaduce and Capece 2003) and is internalized by incumbents on a social

psychological level (i.e., through learning). Norm climates cut across levels in that they

can reflect small group structures (e.g., a class), mid-sized groups (e.g., an academy) or

large groups (e.g., a profession). Indeed, Parsons (1951) discussed the importance of

internalized values for structuring individual behavior. He said that social cohesion

results when values are shared across a population. I will treat the normative climate as

sets of rules and practices that define and guide the police training and socialization

experience. The normative climate provides officers with ways of understanding,

interpreting and justifying situations.









I use my own observations of police academy training and my review of field

training files to discuss the normative climate of police training and socialization in the

academy and field training. Several themes stand out. Some themes overlap and

interrelate in theory and in practice, as this is how they emerged in my observations. At

times, my observations fit with prior literature; therefore, I tie that in when relevant.

The normative climate in the police training that I studied is characterized by seven

themes: 1) paramilitary environment, 2) officer safety, 3) the bad guy and the 'us versus

them' mentality, 4) police presence and assertiveness, 5) experiential knowledge and

traditional police work, 6) law on the books versus law in action, and 7) diversity. These

themes have implications for the way that police officers interact with their department,

the way they deal with citizens, and implications for COPS. For example, the

paramilitary environment is structured so that officers practice top-down communication

within the department. It also drives officers to expect deference from citizens. Further,

COPS is said to be hampered by the limited formal autonomy of patrol officers that is

characteristic of a paramilitary environment.

The overarching goal of this chapter is to analyze what is differentially learned in

the police training process. Given the complex messages recruits are exposed to both

formally and informally, I examine what is having the most substantial impact on police

recruits' learning and whether and how that relates to the learning of COPS. Recall that

traditional policing emphasizes a paramilitary structure, incident-driven policing, top-

down communication and arrests, while COPS emphasizes community involvement,

decentralized command structure, and problem solving (Oliver 1998). In order to

examine what is differentially learned in police training, I will treat the formal and