legitimacytrustsocialcapitalandpolicingstyles.pdf

182

Author’s Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James Hawdon, 654 McBrydeHall, Department of Sociology (MC 0137), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; e-mail: [email protected].

Police QuarterlyVolume 11 Number 2

10.1177/1098611107311852http://pqx.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital,and Policing StylesA Theoretical StatementJames HawdonVirginia Tech

There currently is no consensus about why attitudes toward police vary by neighbor-hood. An unexplored explanation is that resident trust of police and perceptions ofpolice legitimacy may depend on neighborhood levels of social capital. This articleconsiders the relationships among trust, legitimacy, procedural justice, social capital,and policing styles. Treating trust and legitimacy as conceptually distinct, how neigh-borhood levels of social capital influence these perceptions and the style of policingthat is most likely to promote these perceptions are discussed. Issues concerning themeasurement of trust and legitimacy are also considered.

Keywords: trust; legitimacy; policing; social capital; community policing

Effective policing requires citizen cooperation (Alpert, Dunham, & Piquero, 1998;Cordner, 1997; Eck & Rosenbaum, 1994; Greene & Pelfrey, 1997; Skogan,

1998). To stimulate such cooperation, many policing initiatives attempt to makepolice “part of the community” (Hawdon & Ryan, 2003). Integrating police into thecommunity can be difficult, however, especially in communities with a history ofpoor resident-police relations (Grinc, 1994; Parker, Onyekwuluje, & Murty, 1995;Sadd & Grinc, 1994). One means of improving resident cooperation with police isto increase residents’ perceptions of police legitimacy and trustworthiness (Hawdon,Ryan, & Griffin, 2003; Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler& Huo, 2002).

A growing body of literature supports the claim that resident perceptions of policetrustworthiness and legitimacy are critical for cooperative relations between residentsand officers (see, e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Although the existing research is com-pelling, it is theoretically incomplete and underspecified. First, much of the researchon citizen trust of police and perceptions of police legitimacy conflates the concepts oftrust and legitimacy. While these concepts are interrelated, they are conceptuallydistinct and can be analytically separated. Second, the existing literature does not

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 183

consider how trust and legitimacy operate within different social settings. There cur-rently is no consensus about why attitudes toward the police vary by neighborhood(see Brown & Benedict, 2002). An unexplored plausible explanation is that trust andlegitimacy may be dependent on neighborhood levels of social capital. Third, theexisting literature argues that issues of procedural justice are critical for establishingperceptions of trust and legitimacy (see Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;Tyler, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002). However, researchers and theorists may have mis-specified the causal direction among these concepts. Finally, the policing style thatis most effective in promoting a sense of legitimacy will likely depend on the largersocial environment in which the policing occurs. Existing literature fails to discussthis potential relationship. This article addresses these gaps in the existing literatureand offers theoretical predictions concerning the role of legitimacy and trust in dif-ferent types of neighborhoods. Moreover, predictions are made concerning the styleof policing that is likely to best promote a sense of procedural justice in each type ofneighborhood.

The argument proceeds in seven stages. To begin, I review the role of trust andlegitimacy in creating positive police-resident relationships. I then discuss trust andlegitimacy and argue that these are analytically and conceptually distinct. I nextconsider the causal direction between perceptions of legitimacy and perceptions ofprocedural justice. In the fourth section, I briefly review the concepts of bridging andbonding capital at the neighborhood level. I discuss the various styles of policing inthe fifth section. I then outline how neighborhood levels of social capital can influenceperceptions of trust and legitimacy at the individual level and determine the style ofpolicing that is most likely to promote these perceptions. Finally, I address issues ofmeasuring the concepts of trust and legitimacy.

Theoretical Issues

Trust, Legitimacy, and Resident-Police Relations

There is a consensus among researchers that citizen perceptions of police trust-worthiness and legitimacy increase the willingness of residents to cooperate withpolice and comply with the law (Sherman, 1997; Stoutland, 2001; Sunshine & Tyler,2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For example, in a sample of New York Cityresidents, perceptions of legitimacy and trustworthiness were positively associatedwith cooperating with police even when factors such as education, income, and eth-nicity were controlled (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Perceptions of legitimacy can alsoincrease resident compliance with the law (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990;Tyler & Huo, 2002). Using logic similar to Hirschi’s (1969) regarding his concept of“belief,” Tyler argues that if people believe the police are legitimate, they will engagein self-regulatory behaviors and conform to the law. There is evidence to support this

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

claim. In a longitudinal study conducted in Oakland and Los Angeles, Tyler and Huoconcluded, “if people generally viewed legal authorities as legitimate, they weremore likely to indicate that they followed the law in their everyday lives” (p. 106).The self-regulation that derives from viewing the police as legitimate is distinct fromperceptions of risk of being caught and punished for misbehavior (Sunshine & Tyler,2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002).

There is also a consensus that perceived trustworthiness and legitimacy of thepolice increases when officers conduct their business in a manner that promotes“procedural justice” (Matrofski, Snipes, & Supina, 1996; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman,& Sherman, 1997; Sherman, 1997; Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997; Tyler &Huo, 2002; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). For example, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) foundthat “procedural fairness,” measured by items such as the police “treat everyone in yourneighborhood with dignity and respect,” produced the strongest effect on perceptionsof police legitimacy. The magnitude of this effect far exceeded the influence ofresident perceptions of police performance, assessments of “distributive justice,” orany demographic characteristic of the residents. Tyler and Huo (2002) report similarfindings among Oakland and Los Angeles residents. The greatest perceived reductionin serious crime in Chicago occurred in districts where residents believed police wereresponsive to their concerns (see Sherman, 1997). In Milwaukee, repeat domesticviolence was lowest among arrestees who thought police treated them respectfully(Paternoster et al., 1997).

There is also a consensus, although not as widespread, that community policing,with its emphasis on seeking resident input and “getting to know” the community,increases perceptions of procedural justice more than traditional policing does. Agrowing body of evidence supports the claim that perceptions of the police are influ-enced by resident contact with police (Cheurprakobkit, 2000; Cordner & Jones, 1995;Hawdon et al., 2003; Paternoster et al., 1997; Stoutland, 2001; Tyler & Huo, 2002),and community policing aims at increasing positive police-resident contacts. Communitypolicing reduces complaints about police (Kessler, 1999), increases officer-initiatedinvestigations (Kane, 2000), and generally improves relations between residents andpolice (Greene, 1999; Skogan, 1994; Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).

Finally, demographic characteristics influence perceptions of police. Of all demo-graphic characteristics, ethnicity produces the strongest effect on perceptions. Severalstudies indicate that whites trust police more than Blacks or Hispanics (Ackermanet al., 2001; Brown & Benedict, 2002; Cole, 1999; Hawdon et al., 2003; Norris,Fielding, Kemp, & Fielding, 1992; Seron, Pereira, & Kovath, 2004; Sunshine & Tyler,2003). Norris et al. (1992) note that of all groups, Black youth tend to have the mostnegative and hostile feelings toward police (see also Fine et al., 2003), although themajority of Black residents hold positive attitudes toward police (Regulus, Taylor, &Jackson, 2001). In addition to ethnicity, income and age are positively related and edu-cation is inversely related to perceptions of police legitimacy (Brown & Benedict,2002; Hawdon et al., 2003; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

184 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 185

Given this literature, the links between policing, resident perceptions of proce-dural justice, perceptions of police legitimacy, and resident cooperation with policeappear straightforward. The basic model is that community-policing tactics increaseresident perceptions of procedural justice. This increase in procedural justice enhancesperceptions of police legitimacy. In turn, residents who perceive police as beinglegitimate are more likely to cooperate with the police and comply with the law.Although this process allegedly holds regardless of the demographic characteristicsof residents, blacks, youth, and the poor will hold officers in less esteem and withholdtheir cooperation from officers more than White, older adults, and the middle andupper classes do, all else being equal.

Although the existing research is compelling, it is incomplete. Most importantly,much of the research on citizen trust of police and perceptions of police legitimacycombines the concepts of trust and legitimacy. For example, Tyler (1990, p. 25; alsosee Tyler & Huo, 2002; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) defines legitimacy as the “accep-tance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of anexternal authority.” Yet, the operational definition of legitimacy is “the perceivedobligation to obey the directives of a legal authority, trust in the institution of policingand in individual police officers in one’s neighborhood, and affective feelings towardthe police” (see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 539). The measure of legitimacy includesitems such as “the police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for thepeople in your neighborhood” and “the police in your neighborhood are generallyhonest” (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 540), which tap resident trust in the specific officerswho patrol their neighborhoods. However, the measure also includes items such as“you should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think they are wrong,”and “disobeying the police is seldom justified.” These items tap the acceptance of thepolicing institutions as legitimate more than trust. I argue that trust and legitimacyare not the same phenomena and should be treated as discrete concepts. Trust andlegitimacy are analogous to what Tyler and Kerstetter (1994) call personal andprofessional moral authority, respectively.

Reconsidering Trust and Legitimacy

Legitimacy, at least that which is based on rational grounds, rests on a belief inthe legality of enacted rules and the right of those in authority to issue commands(Weber, 1978). Weber states:

In the case of legal authority, obedience is owed to the legally established impersonalorder. It extends to the persons exercising the authority of office under it by virtue ofthe formal legality of their commands and only within the scope of authority of theoffice. (pp. 215-216)

Thus, obedience is due not to the person who holds the authority but to the impersonalsocial order that granted him or her that position. The individual’s authority applies only

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

within a specified sphere of competence that has been defined as part of the divisionof labor, and the means of compulsion at his or her disposal “are clearly defined andtheir use is subject to definite conditions” (Weber, 1978, p. 218). The legitimateauthority of an individual officer is therefore based on that officer occupying a rolewithin the institution of policing. It is the institution that is viewed as legitimate ornot, not the individual occupying the position.

Conversely, “trust” deals with the behavior of a specific individual. Trust is the beliefthat a person occupying a specific role will perform that role in a manner consistentwith the socially defined normative expectations associated with that role (i.e., whatsociologists call the actual role). Trust deals with specific individuals occupyingspecific social roles. For example, a wife trusts her husband if she believes he willact in a manner consistent with the actual role of “husband.” That is, the wife believesher husband will be faithful, and that he will be a confidante, friend, and companion.Yet, this wife’s trust is specific. Although she may trust her nonmedically trainedhusband in the role of husband, she would not trust him in the role of thoracic surgeonwhen she needs open-heart surgery. Trust is therefore role-dependent and role-specific.

Applying this insight to the police, an officer will be “trusted” when a residentbelieves he or she will behave in a manner consistent with the actual role of police offi-cer. The public expects officers to behave like professional officers, which includesperforming their duties “within a set of fair, public, and accountable guidelines” (Seronet al., 2004, p. 666; also see Weitzer & Tuch, 2004; see Deakin, 1988 for a detaileddiscussion of police professionalism). If the officer performs in such a manner, he orshe will be “trusted” as an officer. Citizens do not simply grant officers trust; instead,officers earn trust through their behaviors. As Tyler and Kerstetter (1994, p. 46) note,“each police officer . . . builds his or her own reputation within the community anddoes not receive deference merely by holding a particular office.”

Therefore, legitimacy applies to a role position within the impersonal socialorder; trust applies to whether or not the behavior of an individual conforms to thesocial expectations concerning the role he or she occupies. The role is legitimate; theindividual is trusted. Thus, it is possible to “trust” that an officer will be honest, fairin the administration of justice, and treat residents with respect without believing thatan officer has the “legitimate authority” to dispense justice. For example, the “anti-police”sentiments found among residents in some neighborhoods may reflect a rejection ofthe institution of policing rather than the rejection of a specific officer. A specificofficer may be well liked and trusted extensively. The “police,” however, may beconsidered “thugs” or “corrupt.” Conversely, a resident may consider the institutionof policing as legitimate but not trust an individual officer. The news periodicallyreminds us that “bad cops” exist and that not all officers can be trusted; however,most residents still consider the institution of policing to be legitimate (Ackermanet al., 2001; Brown & Benedict, 2002; Regulus et al., 2001).

186 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Legitimacy and Procedural Justice

Recognizing the concepts of trust and legitimacy as analytically distinct, we mustconsider if the causal direction between perceptions of procedural justice and legiti-macy is correct. Perceiving the institution of policing to be legitimate may lead to per-ceptions of procedural justice rather than procedural justice leading to perceptions oflegitimacy. Thus, compared to those who do not accept the police as possessing legit-imate authority, those who are disposed to believe in the legitimacy of the police mayconsider their procedural tactics and outcomes to be just, even if the tactics are lessthan “professional.” Moreover, such people are more likely to trust individual officers,even if past personal experiences have been less than trust producing. These people arealso likely to cooperate with police, even if they do not trust individual officers oranticipate a favorable outcome because of their efforts. Conversely, those who are dis-posed to doubting the legitimate authority of the police are more likely to view anencounter with police as being “unjust” and less likely to trust an individual officer,regardless of the officer’s objective behavior. In addition, such a person is unlikely tocooperate with police, even if a criminal personally victimizes him or her.

Research supports the argument that perceptions of legitimacy may cause per-ceptions of procedural justice. For example, Brandl, Frank, Worden, and Bynum(1999, p. 129) found “global attitudes toward the police influence evaluations of thepolice in particular contact situations.” Thus, a person’s attitude toward the policeshapes whether he or she interprets police behaviors as just or unjust. Similarly,Reisig and Chandek (2001) claim citizen expectations of police performance are asimportant as the officers’ actual performance in determining citizen satisfaction withpolice. This causal direction also makes logical sense. People are likely to form theirgeneral impressions of the police before they have any personal contact with them.These impressions, in turn, influence the interaction between the individual and thepolice when such contact does occur. Individuals who hold the police in high regardare more likely to act deferentially toward the officers. Officers, in turn, are thenmore likely to treat individuals respectfully. Conversely, an individual who viewspolice with hostility is more likely to act defiantly toward them. The police, in turn,will treat that individual more suspiciously and possibly less respectfully. All thingsbeing equal, those who perceive the police as being legitimate are more likely to betreated fairly by the police than those who view them suspiciously. This situationmay produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This argument is not to negate the importance of police behavior. On the contrary,police also have preconceived perceptions of the individuals with whom they inter-act. Research indicates that police alter their policing tactics in disadvantaged neigh-borhoods. Police working in high-crime minority communities are more likely to usecoercion (Smith, 1986) and have higher rates of police misconduct (Kane, 2002).Officers also behave differently depending on the characteristics of those with whomthey interact. For example, although Black, Hispanic, and White motorists are

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 187

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

equally likely to be stopped, Black and Hispanic motorists are approximately threetimes more likely than whites to be searched (Durose, Smith, & Langan, 2007).Thus, officers apparently approach individuals differently depending on the neigh-borhood they are patrolling and the individuals’ characteristics (Black, 1980; Wilson,1968). When officers approach individuals respectfully, those individuals will likelyshow deference toward the officers. Conversely, when officers approach individualssuspiciously and accusatorially, those individuals will likely respond in a defensiveand possibly disrespectful manner. As Drury, Stott, and Farsides (2003) argue, policeperceptions can lead to tactics that ironically create the very hostility that the policewere seeking to avoid.

Thus, there is likely a reciprocal relationship between perceptions of legitimacyand perceptions of procedural justice. Moreover, the perceptions of an officer needto be included in the model relating legitimacy, procedural justice, and cooperationwith police. Existing research has not considered the possibility of these reciprocaleffects nor the potential effects of an officer’s perceptions.

Trust, Legitimacy, and Social Capital

Separating the concepts of trust and legitimacy highlights another problem withexisting research. Despite evidence that neighborhood conditions influence residentperceptions of police bias (see Weitzer & Tuch, 2005), existing studies do not ade-quately consider the social environment in which evaluations of police trustworthi-ness occur. Certain settings are more likely to engender positive interactions than areothers. We know the social environment influences policing tactics (Black, 1980; Kane,2002; Smith, 1986; Wilson, 1968), and neighborhood conditions influence residentperceptions of police (Brandl et al., 1999; Brown & Benedict, 2002; MacDonald &Stokes, 2006; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). However, existing models do not includethese insights in a theoretically consistent manner. For example, in their extensivereview of the literature, Brown and Benedict (2002, p. 556) state, “there is no consensusabout why attitudes toward the police vary by neighborhood.”

Most of the existing research that has considered neighborhood influences onperceptions of police focus on structural characteristics of neighborhoods such as theneighborhood’s ethnic composition or levels of poverty (e.g., Kane, 2005); however,recently, MacDonald and Stokes (2006) found that depleted levels of perceived com-munity social capital contribute to higher levels of distrust of local police. Althoughthese researchers measured social capital at the individual level, this research sug-gests that aggregate levels of social capital may also influence resident perceptionsof police. Moreover, aggregate levels of social capital will likely moderate the rela-tionship between policing styles and perceptions of procedural and outcome justice.In addition, there is evidence that neighborhood conditions influence policing styles(see, e.g., Klinger, 1997; Sampson, 1986; Schulenberg, 2003; Stark, 1987; Wells, Falcone,& Rabe-Hemp, 2003; Wilson, 1968); thus, aggregate levels of social capital will likely

188 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

moderate the relationship between policing styles and perceptions of procedural andoutcome justice. To build these theoretical links, I turn first to the literature on socialcapital and then consider variations in policing styles.

On social capital. Social capital consists of “features of social organizations, such asnetworks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit”(Putnam, 1993, p. 35) and results in high levels of interpersonal trust and interaction,and norms of aid and reciprocity, and high rates of civic participation (Putnam, 1993,2000). Social capital, as conceptualized here, is an ecological characteristic and afeature of the social structure, not of the individual actors within the social structure(Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 1999). We are most interested in the trust dimensionof social capital.

Putnam and others distinguish between bonding and bridging capital (Brehm &Rahn, 1997; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Messner, Baumer, & Rosenfeld, 2004; Szreter,2002; Uslaner, 2000). Bonding capital is the trust of specific others, such as friends,coworkers, and neighbors. Conversely, bridging capital extends beyond one’s immedi-ate social circles to others with whom one has no direct ties or few personal connec-tions (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Putnam, 2000). Bonding capital holds people together ingroups while bridging capital connects people across diverse groups. Bonding capitalis specific; bridging capital is generalized (Uslaner, 2000). Bonding capital is personaland requires intimate contact; bridging capital connects to people, groups, and institu-tions in the impersonal social order.

Noting the distinction between bonding and bridging capital allows us to tie theseconcepts to perceptions of legitimacy, trust, and procedural justice at the individuallevel. It is important to remember that bonding and bridging capital are characteris-tics of a neighborhood while legitimacy, trust, and procedural justice are beliefs ofindividuals.

Since bonding social capital is the connection among people within a group, itproduces its most profound influence on levels of trust. All else being equal,members of aggregates that have high levels of bonding capital are likely to trustindividuals within their group. However, they are less likely to trust individuals whoare outside their immediate group. Members of aggregates with low levels of bond-ing capital are often suspicious of everyone, including members of their immediategroup. In contrast, bridging capital relates to connections to the larger social orderand has its strongest effect on perceptions of legitimacy. In settings high in bridgingcapital, individuals are likely to view the dominant institutions as being legitimatesince they are connected beyond their immediate group to the larger social order.They are therefore likely to feel a part of that social order and a sense of responsi-bility for people beyond their bonded group (Szreter, 2002). The members of suchgroups will likely believe the institution of policing is legitimate. Conversely,members of a low bridging capital group are more likely to view the larger socialorder with suspicion and are less likely to adopt the dominant culture’s perspective

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 189

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

that the social order, and the institutions that comprise it, are legitimate. Consequently,they are less likely to view the institution of policing as being legitimate.

Next, those individuals living in neighborhoods with high levels of bridgingcapital are more likely to define police behaviors as promoting procedural justice.Conversely, those living in neighborhoods with low levels of bridging capital are lesslikely to define police behaviors as promoting procedural justice. Bridging capital,therefore, directly influences perceptions of legitimacy and indirectly influences per-ceptions of procedural justice and resident willingness to cooperate with the police.Bonding capital, however, has little influence on perceptions of legitimacy; however,it directly influences the importance of officers’ behaviors in shaping perceptions oftrust and procedural justice. Thus, bonding capital indirectly influences residentwillingness to cooperate with the police.

While bonding capital most directly influences trust and bridging capital mostdirectly influences legitimacy, the combination of these two forms of social capital willeither amplify or reduce the effect each has on trust and legitimacy. The combinationsof social capital will also create specific social environments that will influence whichstyle of policing—the watchman, the legalistic, or the service style (Wilson, 1968)—is most effective. After briefly reviewing these policing styles, I will consider howeach style would likely function in neighborhoods with various combinations ofbridging and bonding capital and, therefore, varying perceptions of police legitimacyand trust.

Policing Styles

In his classic study of eight communities, James Q. Wilson (1968) identified threestyles of policing. These included the watchman (or order maintenance), the legalistic,and the service style. These well-known policing styles are highlighted here. Thereader should remember that these are “ideal types” and that most police forces andpolice officers employ aspects of all three styles. However, as Wilson and others haveargued, departments have unique cultures that emphasize one style over the others.

The watchman style. The watchman style of policing sees order maintenancerather than law enforcement as the officer’s principal function. Although all officersdisplay a concern for order maintenance, “in a few places this style becomes theoperating code of the department” (Wilson, 1968, p. 140). In this style, administrators,to the best of their abilities, influence officer discretion

by allowing them to ignore many common minor violations, especially traffic and juvenileoffenses, to tolerate, though gradually less so, a certain amount of vice and gambling, touse the law more as a means of maintaining order than of regulating conduct, and to judgethe requirements of order differently depending on the character of the group in which theinfraction occurs (Wilson, 1968, p. 140).

190 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 191

This style of policing maximizes officer discretion. Officers judge the seriousnessof legal violations “less by what the law says about (the infractions) than by theirimmediate and personal consequences” (Wilson, 1968, p. 141). Thus, community leadersare not arrested, minorities are “either ignored or arrested” and “private” affairs, unlessserious, are overlooked and handled informally (Wilson, 1968, pp. 141-142). In general,officers are allowed and encouraged “to follow the path of least resistance” (Wilson,1968, p. 144).

Because the watchman style of policing emphasizes order maintenance above lawenforcement, distributive justice is paramount when handling disorderly situations(Wilson, 1968). Violators get what officers believe “they deserve” and what “theydeserve” has more to do with contextual factors—the time of the disorder, place wherethe disorder occurs and personal characteristics of the person violating the norms—thanit does with the legal proscriptions concerning the behavior. Therefore, different nor-mative and behavioral standards are applied to different groups, and what is “orderly”varies by community and the characteristics of the person committing the offense.

The legalistic style. In contrast to the watchman style, in departments where thelegalistic style is predominant, administrators use what power they have to induceofficers “to handle commonplace situations as if they were matters of law enforcementrather than order maintenance” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172). In legalistically orienteddepartments, the abstract principles of law direct officer conduct and therefore limitofficer discretion. The police will apply the normative values the law prescribes as thesingle standard of community conduct. That is, officers are likely to apply universalstandards and do not consider how norms may vary across neighborhoods or groups.As a result, they typically detain and arrest juvenile offenders, issue numerous trafficcitations, and vigorously combat vice crimes. In legalistic departments, officers “makea large number of misdemeanor arrests even when, as with petty larceny, the publicorder has not been breached” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172).

Because the emphasis in legalistic departments is on law enforcement, officers areencouraged to view justice as solely based on individual culpability (Wilson, 1968).According to a legalistic model of policing, the characteristics of the offender or the cul-tural environment in which the act occurs should not influence the handling of a givensituation. Instead, “the only just distinctions that may be made among (offenders) areon the basis of their behavior in areas defined by the law” (Wilson, 1968, p. 188).Wilson recognizes that the standards legalistic officers actually use in handling cases“will rarely be fully in accord with the standard required by the legalistic department,. . . such departments do have an effect on police behavior” (Wilson, 1968, p. 189).

Legalistic departments also emphasize professionalism. Dress codes are strictlyenforced; officers are strongly encouraged to treat the public courteously; technicalefficiency and “modernizing” police work are highly valued (Wilson, 1968). Thesedepartments try to produce as much output as possible, no matter how it is valued.

The service style. Finally, in the service style of policing, officers take seriouslyall requests for either law enforcement or order maintenance. Unlike officers with a

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

192 Police Quarterly

watchman style, service-oriented officers respond to requests despite the character-istics of the requester or the environment in which the request is made. However,they are less likely to make an arrest or impose other formal sanctions than officerswith a legalistic orientation. In service-oriented departments, “the police intervenefrequently but not formally” (Wilson, 1968, p. 200). Service style policing usesdecentralized administrative units such as substations or precinct stations. In addition,service style policing is more likely than the other styles to use foot patrols insteadof motorized patrols. These tactical strategies are designed to keep the departmentsmall, local, and “close to the people.” Service-oriented departments have high“regard for the opinion of the community” and emphasize community and publicrelations (Wilson, 1968, p. 203). Administrators and beat officers try to develop“various control procedures that make service a major concern to officers at everyrank” (Wilson, 1968, p. 203).

Although advocates claim community policing includes more than the servicestyle of policing (see Stevens, 2001, 2002), the service style is similar to what wenow call “community policing.” Like the service style department, the philosophy ofcommunity policing endorses citizen input, a broadening of police function beyondcrime fighting and law enforcement, and personal service that tailors police effortsbased on local norms and individual needs. Strategically, community policingemphasizes crime prevention based on face-to-face interaction among permanentlyassigned officers and residents (Cordner, 1997; Kelling & Moore, 1998; Stevens,2001, 2002). Thus, like the service style of policing, the purpose of communitypolicing is to emphasize “non-adversarial problem solving in lieu of traditionalstrategies which conflict with normative structures in the neighborhood” (Alpertet al., 1998, p. 319). Community policing attempts to reinforce the area’s informalsocial controls (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).

Although Wilson’s typology is dated, it still captures the major policing styles usedin the United States (see, e.g., Peak, 2003; Walker, 1999). As previously mentioned,most departments and officers use a combination of styles; however, departments andofficers do adopt a dominant style. By the mid-1990s, community policing becamethe “dominant strategy of policing” in the United States (Cordner, 1997, p. 451);nevertheless, variety in policing styles still exist, especially in smaller and nonurbandepartments (Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, & Cox, 1997).1

Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles

The connections among neighborhood levels of social capital, policing styles, resi-dent perceptions of the legitimacy of the policing institution, and resident perceptionsof trust in specific officers can now be explicated. Recalling the difference betweenbonding (trust of specific others) and bridging capital (trust in those with whom onehas few personal connections), there are four possible combinations that are foundwithin neighborhoods. These combinations are neighborhoods with (a) high bridgingand bonding capital, (b) low bridging and bonding capital, (c) high bridging and low

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 193

bonding capital, and (d) low bridging and high bonding capital. How would percep-tions of legitimacy and trust likely vary in each of these neighborhoods and whichpolicing style would mostly likely be effective in each of these neighborhoods?Moreover, where are issues of procedural and distributive justice most important?

High bridging and bonding capital. Being connected to the impersonal socialorder, members of a neighborhood with high levels of bridging capital likely con-sider that order legitimate. Given this disposition, they will approach an individualofficer with an initial sense of trust. The individual officer will enjoy this generalsense of trust unless his or her behavior proves that this trust was unwarranted. Thatis, the officer must “lose” the residents’ trust. However, given the close ties amongthe residents, as exemplified through their high levels of bonding capital, it would berelatively easy for an officer to lose the residents’ trust. Because of the tight networksamong residents, residents would quickly learn about any officer misconduct. Thus,although initially individual officers will enjoy a high level of trust among the resi-dents, the subsequent behavior of an individual officer patrolling the area is criticallyimportant. In such a setting, the emphasis is primarily on treating residents respect-fully. That is, the emphasis is on procedural justice (Stoutland, 2001). Provided anofficer behaves as an officer is supposed to behave, he or she will likely be trusted.Professionalism is of the utmost importance. The style of policing that most protectsan officer’s high initial levels of trust is therefore a dispassionate, yet courteous, styleof traditional legalistic policing.

Although traditional legalistic policing would likely be the most appreciated stylein high bridging and bonding neighborhoods, the high levels of legitimacy affordedthe office of the police would likely make any style of policing, provided it wasimplemented with respect to the general professional guidelines police follow,acceptable to residents. Given the police office is generally accepted, individual officerswould likely enjoy a level of professional authority. That is, residents would likelydefer to the judgment of the officer because the office he or she occupies is perceivedto be legitimate. Nevertheless, the professionalism of the officer is of utmost impor-tance, and the legalistic style of policing advocates a professional-client approach topolicing, more so than other styles.

High bridging, low bonding. Residents of high-bridging, low-bonding neighbor-hoods are connected to the impersonal social order. They are therefore likely to viewthe office of the police as legitimate. Moreover, because of this perceived legitimacy,individual officers are likely trusted initially. However, since this type of communityis not internally bonded, the behavior of any given officer has less influence on theoverall levels of trust for individual officers. Any misconduct in which a specificofficer may engage is likely to remain unknown to most members of the unboundedneighborhood. Therefore, it is harder for the police to lose the residents’ trust. In thissetting, perceptions of procedural justice are less important than perceptions of outcomejustice (i.e., effectively controlling crime). Thus, provided the neighborhood remains

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

194 Police Quarterly

safe, few residents will know—or likely care—how this safety was achieved. Even ifa resident’s sense of procedural justice was violated, other residents would not likelyhear about this violation. What they will see is that the police are effectively con-trolling crime. As previous research indicates, residents of high-crime neighbor-hoods desire less crime and more police protection, and many residents in theseneighborhoods support aggressive enforcement, including violations of civil liber-ties, if such actions result in a safer neighborhood (Rosenbaum, 1994; Sampson &Raudenbush, 1999; Stoutland, 2001). Therefore, provided the neighborhood remainsrelatively safe, residents will likely perceive the police institution as legitimate and anygiven officer will be trusted, at least initially. In these neighborhoods, police visibility,regardless of the style of policing, would likely be important since it influencesperceptions of outcome justice (Hawdon et al., 2003).

Low bridging, low bonding. Because of the low levels of bridging capital in theseneighborhoods, most residents are relatively unconnected to the impersonal socialorder. Thus, many residents will question the legitimacy of the institution of policing.Given this, individual officers often begin their relationship with the neighborhoodin a disadvantaged position of high suspicion and low trust. Yet, because of the low levelsof bonding capital, the residents of these neighborhoods may not trust each othereither. As in any low-bonding capital neighborhood, residents’ perceptions of outcomejustice are paramount. Violations of procedural justice, although not recommended,could go unnoticed by most residents. However, unlike the high-bridging, low-bondingneighborhood, the low-bridging, low-bonding neighborhood is likely to be more dis-advantaged and may suffer from higher crime rates. Thus, promoting the perceptionof outcome justice is difficult in these areas. In this environment, an order mainte-nance style that diffuses disorderly situations that may escalate to criminal activitieswould likely be the most effective type of policing.

Low bridging, high bonding. These neighborhoods will be the most difficult topolice. The low levels of bridging capital will dampen the perceived legitimacy of theinstitution of policing. In addition, the high bonding among the residents creates anenvironment that protects “insiders” from “outsiders.” Officers, as outsiders, are notlikely to be trusted, further deteriorating the lack of legitimacy with which they entera situation. In fact, officers in these neighborhoods are likely to be approached withlatent, if not manifest, hostility. They are outsiders who represent a perceived illegiti-mate impersonal social order. They have “no business” being here and “no right” toimpose their will on residents. In these situations, the emphasis is primarily on issuesof procedural justice. Officers must “earn” the residents’ trust by respecting not onlyindividual residents, but also the neighborhood’s culture and traditions. Residents ofthis tightly knit neighborhood will quickly share stories of any officer misconduct ordisrespectful behavior, thereby further eroding any sense of legitimacy in the policeas an institution. The legalistic style of policing, with its militaristic approach andclose association with the dominant social order (Wilson, 1968), will likely violate

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 195

the residents’ sense of community. An officer employing a legalistic style of policingwould potentially be seen as violating procedural justice by imposing the impersonalsocial order’s normative standards on the residents. As Wilson (1968) notes, thelegalistic style often results in minorities and other disenfranchised groups barringthe brunt of law enforcement. Since disenfranchised groups often have higher crimerates, they will frequently experience the law’s power (Black, 1980; Slovak, 1986;Wilson, 1968, p. 172). The greater use of law in poor neighborhoods will often “beexperienced as harassment” (Wilson, 1968, p. 172).

In these neighborhoods, community policing will not only be the most effectivestyle of policing but possibly the only style that will not inflame the already tensepolice-resident relationship. Even if it is difficult to establish, community policing isthe best approach for winning the trust of residents. Table 1 summarizes the pre-dicted relationships just described.

Methodological Issues

Although the theoretical discussion generates the above specific hypotheses, it iscurrently impossible to test the model with existing datasets. Sampling and mea-surement issues must be addressed before the model proposed herein can be tested.

The proposed model specifies relationships across levels of analysis. That is,neighborhood-level characteristics are predicted to influence individual-level out-comes. Thus, to test the model properly, researchers must conduct hierarchicalanalyses (individuals are nested in neighborhoods). Although hierarchical tech-niques are now commonly used, the expense of collecting data from numerousneighborhoods is prohibitive. To generate a useful data set, a sufficient sample ofresidents that can reasonably represent the neighborhood must be collected fromseveral neighborhoods. Then, researchers must collect data from a sufficient numberof neighborhoods to ensure that the sample is reasonably representative and theanalysis has sufficient statistical power (see Twisk, 2006 for a discussion of poweranalyses and correction factors for multilevel studies). Although it is unlikely that wewill ever have sufficient resources to gather a nationally representative sample ofneighborhoods, a sample of neighborhoods such as that collected for the Project onHuman Development in Chicago Neighborhoods could provide the needed data tobegin testing the model. This sample, which has been widely used, included 8,782residents in 343 “neighborhood clusters” (see Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997 fora discussion of the PHDCN data). Unfortunately, this data set does not offer measuresof all of the concepts discussed in this article.

In addition to an adequate sample, researchers must be sensitive to measurementissues if they are to test the proposed model. Specifically, they must carefully measureperceptions of police legitimacy and perceptions of trust in the police. As argued earlier,the concepts of trust and legitimacy are conceptually distinct; however, most commonlyused measures of “trust and legitimacy” (see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) include items

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

196

Tabl

e 1

Pre

dict

ed R

elat

ions

hips

Wit

hin

Spec

ific

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Se

ttin

Perc

eive

d M

ost

Lev

els

Lev

els

Leg

itim

acy

Initi

al P

erce

ptio

Impo

rtan

ceE

ffec

tive

Bri

dgin

ondi

of P

olic

ing

of O

ffic

of P

roce

dura

l Im

port

ance

yle

Cap

ital

Cap

ital

Inst

itutio

rust

wor

thin

ess

Just

ice

of O

utco

Polic

ing

Hig

igh

Hig

igh,

but d

epen

dent

ery

high

Rel

ativ

ely

unim

port

ant

Leg

alis

ticon

off

icer

beh

avio

igh

Low

Hig

igh,

less

dep

ende

Rel

ativ

ely

low

Ver

y hi

ghA

ny s

tyle

. Vis

ibili

on o

ffic

er b

ehav

ior

of o

ffic

ers

is c

ritic

alL

owL

ow,b

ut c

an b

e ea

rned

Rel

ativ

ely

low

Ver

y hi

ghO

rder

mai

nten

ance

Low

Hig

ery

low

Low

,dif

ficu

lt to

ear

xtre

mel

y hi

ghR

elat

ivel

y un

impo

rtan

omm

unity

-ori

ente

d (s

ervi

ce)

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 197

such as “you should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think they arewrong.” Such items reflect the acceptance of the policing institutions as legitimatemore than trust and therefore conflate the concepts. Consequently, new, more carefullyconstructed, measures are needed.

The measure of perceptions of police legitimacy should include items that reflectthe extent to which residents believe the institution of policing has legitimate authorityto issue commands and expect obedience. Thus, a proposed measure of perceptionsof police legitimacy would include items such as (a) “you should accept the decisionsmade by police officers, even if you think they are wrong,” (b) “disobeying the policeis seldom justified,” (c) “communities work best when people follow the directivesof the police,” (d) “in general, the police are corrupt,” (e) “the police should alwaysbe respected,” (f) “the police have a right to tell people what to do,” and (g) “thepolice have no business telling people how to live their lives.” Sunshine and Tyler(2003) use the first three items to measure legitimacy. The additional items shouldbe included to tap better the central aspect of legitimacy: the police’s legal authorityto issue commands and expect obedience.

In contrast to the measure of legitimacy, a measure of trust of the police should includeitems that reflect the extent to which residents believe individual officers perform theirrole as they should. Consequently, trust of the police should be measured directly byusing a question such as “on a scale from 1 to 10, how much do you trust the police inyour neighborhood?” In addition to this direct question, the measure should includeitems such as (a) “the police generally make the right decisions for the people in yourneighborhood,” (b) “the police in your neighborhood are generally honest,” and (c) “ingeneral, the police in your neighborhood are upstanding officers.” These items specif-ically reference the respondent’s neighborhood so his or her attention is drawn to spe-cific officers instead of the larger institution of policing.

Although it is possible that trust and legitimacy are conceptually distinct, theymay not be analytically distinct. That is, the correlation between the two conceptsmay be so high that the concepts would need to be treated as a single construct in anystatistical analysis. Although this analytic overlap is possible, existing data cannotdetermine if this is the case. Only by carefully operationalizing the concepts canresearchers determine if they are both conceptually and analytically distinct.

Conclusion

Although scholars and practitioners know that resident perceptions of trust and legit-imacy influence their willingness to cooperate with the police, we lack an understandingof how the social environment patterns resident perceptions. Noting that trust andlegitimacy are conceptually distinct and using the concepts of bridging and bondingcapital, I argue that neighborhood levels of social capital influence resident percep-tions of the police. Then, I connect these insights to what is known about policingstyles to make predictions of which style of policing would be most effective ingenerating perceptions of trust and legitimacy in specific types of neighborhoods.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

198 Police Quarterly

Finally, I address some of the issues researchers will confront when attempting totest the accuracy of the proposed model.

Although testing the model will not be easy or inexpensive, it would be worthwhile.Given the massive body of literature that demonstrates social capital’s influence oncrime, community development, child development, neighborhood mortality rates andcommunity health, access to health care, and a host of other individual and collectiveproblems (see, e.g., Saegert, Thompson, & Warren, 2001), it is likely social capital alsoinfluences resident perceptions of the police. If this theory is useful in furthering ourunderstanding of how neighborhood conditions influence perceptions of proceduraljustice, it will not only fill a major gap in the literature, but it will also have significantconsequences for police operations. By understanding which policing style generatespositive resident views of police in various types of neighborhoods, officers will befreed from a “one-size-fits-all” model of policing. Instead, they can tailor their policingto the neighborhoods they patrol. Community policing, currently considered the best styleof policing, is expensive. However, it may not be necessary to implement communitypolicing in certain neighborhoods where less expensive styles may be equally effective.If this model is accurate, law enforcement will be able to increase resident cooperation,induce law-abiding behavior, and efficiently target resources.

Note

1. Based on a 1994 national sample, 80% of responding police agencies and two thirds of sheriffs hadimplemented “community policing” programs (McEwen, 1995). However, even by the late 1990s, innearly 6,000 police departments that completed the COPS FAST (Funding Accelerated for Small Towns)application, only 12% had a strategic plan for community policing, only 31% provided community policingtraining for officers, and only 51% met with the community to explain crime prevention techniques. Theserelatively low numbers came from small departments, but the majority of the nonrandom sample wereagencies that either practiced or wanted to practice community policing and were seeking federal fundsto support those activities (Maguire et al., 1997).

References

Ackerman, G., Anderson, B., Jensen, S., Ludwig, R., Montero, D., Plante, N., et al. (2001). Crime ratesand confidence in the police: America’s changing attitudes toward crime and police, 1972-1999.Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28, 43-55.

Alpert, G., Dunham, R., & Piquero, A. (1998). On the study of neighborhoods and the police. In G. Alpert& A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings. (pp. 309-326). Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland.

Black, D. (1980). The manners and customs of the police. New York: Academic.Brandl, S. G., Frank, J., Worden, R. E., & Bynum, T. S. (1999). Global and specific attitudes toward the

police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119-134.Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capi-

tal. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues,

conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies andManagement, 25, 543-580.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cheurprakobkit, S. (2000). Police-citizen contact and police performance: Attitudinal differences betweenHispanics and non-Hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 325-336.

Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system. New York:W.W. Norton.

Cordner, G. (1997). Community policing: Elements and effects. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Criticalissues in policing: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 451-468). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Cordner, G., & Jones, M. (1995). The effects of supplemental foot patrol on fear of crime and attitudestoward the police. In P. Kratcoski & D. Dukes (Eds.), Issues in community policing (pp. 189-198).Highland Heights, KY: Anderson.

Deakin, T. J. (1988). Police professionalism: The Renaissance of American Law Enforcement. Springfield,IL: Charles C Thomas.

Drury, J., Stott, C., & Farsides, T. (2003). The role of police perceptions and practices in the developmentof “public disorder.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1480-1500.

Durose, M. R, Smith, E. L., & Langan, P. A. (2007). Contacts between police and the public, 2005.Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Eck, J., & Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The new police order: Effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in communitypolicing. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 3-23).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fine, M., Freudenberg, N., Payne, Y., Perkins, T., Smith, K., & Wanzer, K. (2003). Anything can happenwith police around: Urban youth evaluate strategies of surveillance in public places. (Youth confrontingpublic institutions). Journal of Social Issues, 59, 141-159.

Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. (1999). Zero tolerance: A case study of police policies and practices in New York City. Crime &Delinquency, 45, 437-468.

Greene, J., & Pelfrey, W. V. (1997). Shifting the balance of power between police and community:Responsibility for crime control. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing:Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 393-423). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Grinc, R. M. (1994). Angles in marble: Problems in stimulating community involvement in communitypolicing. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 437-468.

Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2003). Police-resident interactions and satisfaction with police: An empirical testof community policing assertions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 55-74.

Hawdon, J., Ryan, J., & Griffin, S. (2003). Policing tactics and perceptions of police legitimacy. PoliceQuarterly, 6, 469-491.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Kane, R. J. (2000). Permanent beat assignments in association with community policing: Assessing the

impact on police officers. Field Activity. Justice Quarterly, 17, 259-280.Kane, R. J. (2002). The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40, 867-896.Kane, R. J. (2005). Compromised police legitimacy as a predictor of violent crime in structurally disad-

vantaged communities. Criminology, 43, 469-499.Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1998). The evolving strategy of policing. In W. M. Oliver (Ed.),

Community policing: Classical readings (pp. 96-117). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Kessler, D. A. (1999). The effects of community policing on complaints against officers. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 15, 333-372.Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to

deviance. Criminology, 35, 277-306.Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health

and Place, 5, 259-270.MacDonald, J., & Stokes, R. J. (2006). Race, social capital and trust in the police. Urban Affairs Review,

41, 358-375.

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 199

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Maguire, E. R., Kuhns, J. B., Uchida, C. D., & Cox, S. M. (1997). Patterns of community policing innonurban America. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 368-395.

Matrofski, S. D., Snipes, J., & Supina, A. (1996). Compliance on demand: The public’s response to specificpolice requests. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 33, 269-305.

McEwen, T. (1995). National assessment program: 1994 survey results, National Institute of JusticeResearch in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Messner, S. F., Baumer, E. P., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Dimensions of social capital and rates of criminalhomicide. American Sociological Review, 69, 882-903.

Norris, C., Fielding, N., Kemp, C., & Fielding, J. (1992). Black and blue: An analysis of the influence onbeing stopped by the police. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 207-224.

Parker, K. D., Onyekwuluje, A. B., & Murty, K. S. (1995). African Americans’ attitudes toward the localpolice: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 369-409.

Paternoster, R., Brame, B., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effectof procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31, 163-204.

Peak, K. (2003). Policing America: Methods, issues, challenges (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Regulus, T. A., Taylor, R. J., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). The structure of Black American’s attitudes towardthe police. African American Research Perspectives, 7, 185-206.

Reisig, M. D., & Chandek, M. S. (2001). The effects of expectancy disconfirmation on outcome satisfactionin police-citizen encounters. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24,87-99.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1994). Innovative neighborhood oriented policing: An evaluation of communitypolicing programs in eight cities. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing:Testing the promises (pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. R. (Eds.). (2001). Social capital and poor communities. NewYork: Russell Sage.

Sampson, R. J. (1986). Effects of socioeconomic context on official reaction to juvenile delinquency.American Sociological Review, 51, 876-885.

Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance:Neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777-804.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new lookat disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-651.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevelstudy of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). The social context of police discretion with young offenders: An ecologicalanalysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 127-158.

Seron, C., Pereira, J., & Kovath, J. (2004). Judging police misconduct: “Street-level” versus professionalpolicing. Law and Society Review, 38, 665-710.

Sherman, L. W. (1997). Communities and crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie,J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising(pp. 58-109). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Skogan, W. G. (1994). The impact of community policing on neighborhood residents: A cross-site analysis.In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 167-181). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

200 Police Quarterly

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hawdon / Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles 201

Skogan, W. G. (1998). Community participation and community policing. In J. P. Brodeur (Ed.), How torecognize good policing: Problems and issues (pp. 88-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skogan, W. G., & Hartnett, S. M. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Slovak, J. S. (1986). Styles of urban policing: Organization, environment and police styles in selectedAmerican cities. New York: New York University Press.

Smith, D. (1986). The neighborhood context of police behavior. In A. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crimeand justice (Vol. 8, pp. 313-341). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stark, R. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25, 893-909.Stevens, D. J. (2001). Case studies in community policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Stevens, D. J. (2002). Community policing and police leadership. In D. J. Stevens (Ed.), Policing and

community partnerships (pp. 185-210). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Stoutland, S. E. (2001). The multiple dimensions of trust in resident-police relations in Boston. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 226-256.Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public sup-

port for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513-547.Szreter, S. (2002). The state of social capital: Bringing back in power, politics and history. Theory and

Society, 31, 573-621.Twisk, J. W. R. (2006). Applied multilevel analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 593, 84-99.Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society.

Boulder, CO: Westview.Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and

courts. New York: Russell Sage.Tyler, T. R., & Kerstetter, W. (1994). Moral authority in law and criminal justice: Some reflections on

Wilson’s “the moral sense.” Criminal Justice Ethics, 13(2), 44-53.Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of

motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-282.Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 569-591.Walker, S. (1999). The police in America (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Weitzer, R., & Tuch. S. A. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social Problems, 51, 305-325.Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determinants of citizen perceptions. Social

Forces, 83, 1009-1031.Wells, L. E., Falcone, D. N., & Rabe-Hemp, C. (2003). Community characteristics and policing styles in suburban

agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26, 566-590.Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982, March). Broken windows: Police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic

Monthly, 249, 29-38.

James Hawdon is an associate professor of sociology at Virginia Tech. His research interests include thesociology of policing, community structure and crime, and the sociology of drug use. In addition to his bookand articles on intergovernmental organizations, he has published several articles in the areas of crime, vio-lence, deviance, and policing. His recent book, Drugs and Alcohol Consumption as Functions of SocialStructures, analyzes drug use from a cross-national and historic perspective and develops a sociologicaltheory of drug consumption. The book won the Adele Mellen Prize for Contributions to Scholarship.

at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 11, 2015pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Bold /ACaslon-BoldItalic /ACaslon-Italic /ACaslon-Ornaments /ACaslon-Regular /ACaslon-Semibold /ACaslon-SemiboldItalic /AdobeCorpID-Acrobat /AdobeCorpID-Adobe /AdobeCorpID-Bullet /AdobeCorpID-MinionBd /AdobeCorpID-MinionBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionRg /AdobeCorpID-MinionRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionSb /AdobeCorpID-MinionSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBd /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBl /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBlIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLtIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadPkg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSb /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScnIt /AdobeCorpID-PScript /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-ItalicOsF /Aldus-Roman /Aldus-RomanSC /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /AmazoneBT-Regular /AmericanTypewriter-Bold /AmericanTypewriter-BoldA /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCond /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Cond /AmericanTypewriter-CondA /AmericanTypewriter-Light /AmericanTypewriter-LightA /AmericanTypewriter-LightCond /AmericanTypewriter-LightCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Medium /AmericanTypewriter-MediumA /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /ArrusBT-Black /ArrusBT-BlackItalic /ArrusBT-Bold /ArrusBT-BoldItalic /ArrusBT-Italic /ArrusBT-Roman /AssemblyLightSSK /AuroraBT-BoldCondensed /AuroraBT-RomanCondensed /AuroraOpti-Condensed /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /Avenir-Black /Avenir-BlackOblique /Avenir-Book /Avenir-BookOblique /Avenir-Heavy /Avenir-HeavyOblique /Avenir-Light /Avenir-LightOblique /Avenir-Medium /Avenir-MediumOblique /Avenir-Oblique /Avenir-Roman /BaileySansITC-Bold /BaileySansITC-BoldItalic /BaileySansITC-Book /BaileySansITC-BookItalic /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /Baskerville-Bold /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Baskerville-Normal-Italic /BauerBodoni-Black /BauerBodoni-BlackCond /BauerBodoni-BlackItalic /BauerBodoni-Bold /BauerBodoni-BoldCond /BauerBodoni-BoldItalic /BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-BoldOsF /BauerBodoni-Italic /BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-Roman /BauerBodoni-RomanSC /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Light /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Benguiat-Bold /Benguiat-BoldItalic /Benguiat-Book /Benguiat-BookItalic /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BoldItal /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /BenguiatITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatITCbyBT-BoldItalic /BenguiatITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatITCbyBT-BookItalic /Benguiat-Medium /Benguiat-MediumItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular /BernhardFashionBT-Regular /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /BernhardTangoBT-Regular /BlockBE-Condensed /BlockBE-ExtraCn /BlockBE-ExtraCnIt /BlockBE-Heavy /BlockBE-Italic /BlockBE-Regular /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /BroadwayBT-Regular /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Caliban /CarminaBT-Bold /CarminaBT-BoldItalic /CarminaBT-Light /CarminaBT-LightItalic /CarminaBT-Medium /CarminaBT-MediumItalic /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonOpenFace /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /CaxtonBT-Bold /CaxtonBT-BoldItalic /CaxtonBT-Book /CaxtonBT-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /Century-Bold /Century-BoldItalic /Century-Book /Century-BookItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Bold /CenturyExpandedBT-BoldItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Italic /CenturyExpandedBT-Roman /Century-HandtooledBold /Century-HandtooledBoldItalic /Century-Light /Century-LightItalic /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CenturySchoolbookBT-Bold /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldCond /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldItalic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Italic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Roman /Century-Ultra /Century-UltraItalic /CharterBT-Black /CharterBT-BlackItalic /CharterBT-Bold /CharterBT-BoldItalic /CharterBT-Italic /CharterBT-Roman /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldCondItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldExtraCondensed /CheltenhamBT-BoldHeadline /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalicHeadline /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Cheltenham-HandtooledBdIt /Cheltenham-HandtooledBold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Bold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Book /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BookItalic /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMR10 /CMR8 /CMSY10 /CMSY8 /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CooperBT-Bold /CooperBT-BoldItalic /CooperBT-Light /CooperBT-LightItalic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DellaRobbiaBT-Bold /DellaRobbiaBT-Roman /Della-RobbiaItalicBT /Della-RobbiaSCaps /Del-NormalSmallCaps /Delphin-IA /Delphin-IIA /Delta-Bold /Delta-BoldItalic /Delta-Book /Delta-BookItalic /Delta-Light /Delta-LightItalic /Delta-Medium /Delta-MediumItalic /Delta-Outline /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /DomCasual /DomCasual-Bold /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ELANGO-IB-A03 /ELANGO-IB-A75 /ELANGO-IB-A99 /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /ElGreco /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /Euclid /Euclid-Bold /Euclid-BoldItalic /EuclidExtra /EuclidExtra-Bold /EuclidFraktur /EuclidFraktur-Bold /Euclid-Italic /EuclidMathOne /EuclidMathOne-Bold /EuclidMathTwo /EuclidMathTwo-Bold /EuclidSymbol /EuclidSymbol-Bold /EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic /EuclidSymbol-Italic /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /EuroSans-Bold /EuroSans-BoldItalic /EuroSans-Italic /EuroSans-Regular /EuroSerif-Bold /EuroSerif-BoldItalic /EuroSerif-Italic /EuroSerif-Regular /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldCondensed /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-BoldOblique /Eurostile-Condensed /Eurostile-Demi /Eurostile-DemiOblique /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EurostileLTStd-Demi /EurostileLTStd-DemiOblique /Eurostile-Oblique /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /FairfieldLH-Bold /FairfieldLH-BoldItalic /FairfieldLH-BoldSC /FairfieldLH-CaptionBold /FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy /FairfieldLH-CaptionLight /FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium /FairfieldLH-Heavy /FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic /FairfieldLH-HeavySC /FairfieldLH-Light /FairfieldLH-LightItalic /FairfieldLH-LightSC /FairfieldLH-Medium /FairfieldLH-MediumItalic /FairfieldLH-MediumSC /FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF /Fences /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Flood /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDAaOsF /FontanaNDAaOsF-Italic /FontanaNDCcOsF-Semibold /FontanaNDCcOsF-SemiboldIta /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold /FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic /FontanaNDEeOsF-Light /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /ForteMT /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FrankfurterHigD /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Demi /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-DemiItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Heavy /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /Freeform721BT-Bold /Freeform721BT-BoldItalic /Freeform721BT-Italic /Freeform721BT-Roman /FreestyleScrD /FreestyleScript /Freestylescript /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-CondensedLight /Futura-CondensedLightOblique /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /Futura-Thin /Galliard-Black /Galliard-BlackItalic /Galliard-Bold /Galliard-BoldItalic /Galliard-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Bold /GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Galliard-Roman /Galliard-Ultra /Galliard-UltraItalic /Garamond-Antiqua /GaramondBE-Bold /GaramondBE-BoldExpert /GaramondBE-BoldOsF /GaramondBE-CnExpert /GaramondBE-Condensed /GaramondBE-CondensedSC /GaramondBE-Italic /GaramondBE-ItalicExpert /GaramondBE-ItalicOsF /GaramondBE-Medium /GaramondBE-MediumCn /GaramondBE-MediumCnExpert /GaramondBE-MediumCnOsF /GaramondBE-MediumExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalic /GaramondBE-MediumItalicExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalicOsF /GaramondBE-MediumSC /GaramondBE-Regular /GaramondBE-RegularExpert /GaramondBE-RegularSC /GaramondBE-SwashItalic /Garamond-Bold /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BoldItalic /Garamond-Book /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /Garamond-HandtooledBold /Garamond-HandtooledBoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-Light /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /Garamond-LightItalic /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-Ligh /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-LighItal /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-BoldItalicOsF /GaramondThree-BoldSC /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThree-ItalicOsF /GaramondThree-SC /GaramondThreeSMSIISpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSitalicSpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /Garamond-Ultra /Garamond-UltraCondensed /Garamond-UltraCondensedItalic /Garamond-UltraItalic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldExtraCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-ExtraBoldDisplay /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-LightShadowed /GillSans-Shadowed /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Gothic-Thirteen /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /GoudyCatalogueBT-Regular /Goudy-ExtraBold /GoudyHandtooledBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-RegularCond /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Black /GoudySans-BlackItalic /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySans-Book /GoudySans-BookItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Black /GoudySansITCbyBT-BlackItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Light /GoudySansITCbyBT-LightItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Compressed /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-Light-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Condensed-Thin /Helvetica-ExtraCompressed /Helvetica-Fraction /Helvetica-FractionBold /HelveticaInserat-Roman /HelveticaInserat-Roman-SemiBold /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-Black /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackExt /HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightExt /HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-Thin /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-ThinItalic /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLight /HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal /Helvetica-Oblique /Helvetica-UltraCompressed /HelvExtCompressed /HelvLight /HelvUltCompressed /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist531BT-BlackA /Humanist531BT-BoldA /Humanist531BT-RomanA /Humanist531BT-UltraBlackA /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackCondB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightCondensedB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /Humanist777BT-RomanCondensedB /Humanist970BT-BoldC /Humanist970BT-RomanC /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Black /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Bold /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Italic /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Roman /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /Iglesia-Light /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Light /Imago-LightItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /ITCGaramondMM /ITCGaramondMM-It /JAKEOpti-Regular /JansonText-Bold /JansonText-BoldItalic /JansonText-Italic /JansonText-Roman /JansonText-RomanSC /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /Juniper /KabelITCbyBT-Book /KabelITCbyBT-Demi /KabelITCbyBT-Medium /KabelITCbyBT-Ultra /Kaufmann /Kaufmann-Bold /KeplMM-Or2 /KisBT-Italic /KisBT-Roman /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Linotext /Lithos-Black /LithosBold /Lithos-Bold /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaHandwritingItalic /LucidaMath-Symbol /LucidaSansTypewriter /LucidaSansTypewriter-Bd /LucidaSansTypewriter-BdObl /LucidaSansTypewriter-Obl /LucidaTypewriter /LucidaTypewriter-Bold /LucidaTypewriter-BoldObl /LucidaTypewriter-Obl /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Machine /Machine-Bold /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /MatrixScriptBold /MatrixScriptBoldLin /MatrixScriptBook /MatrixScriptBookLin /MatrixScriptRegular /MatrixScriptRegularLin /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Bold /Meridien-BoldItalic /Meridien-Italic /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /Minion-DisplayItalic /Minion-DisplayRegular /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps /MrsEavesAllSmallCaps /MrsEavesBold /MrsEavesFractions /MrsEavesItalic /MrsEavesPetiteCaps /MrsEavesRoman /MrsEavesRomanLining /MrsEavesSmallCaps /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /MyriadMM /MyriadMM-It /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book /NeuzeitS-BookHeavy /NewBaskerville-Bold /NewBaskerville-BoldItalic /NewBaskerville-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman /NewBaskerville-Roman /NewCaledonia /NewCaledonia-Black /NewCaledonia-BlackItalic /NewCaledonia-Bold /NewCaledonia-BoldItalic /NewCaledonia-BoldItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-BoldSC /NewCaledonia-Italic /NewCaledonia-ItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-SC /NewCaledonia-SemiBold /NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Bold /NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Italic /NewCenturySchlbk-Roman /NewsGothic /NewsGothic-Bold /NewsGothic-BoldOblique /NewsGothicBT-Bold /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic /NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic /NewsGothicBT-Demi /NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic /NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Italic /NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Light /NewsGothicBT-LightItalic /NewsGothicBT-Roman /NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed /NewsGothic-Oblique /New-Symbol /NovareseITCbyBT-Bold /NovareseITCbyBT-BoldItalic /NovareseITCbyBT-Book /NovareseITCbyBT-BookItalic /Nueva-BoldExtended /Nueva-Roman /NuptialScript /OceanSansMM /OceanSansMM-It /OfficinaSans-Bold /OfficinaSans-BoldItalic /OfficinaSans-Book /OfficinaSans-BookItalic /OfficinaSerif-Bold /OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic /OfficinaSerif-Book /OfficinaSerif-BookItalic /OnyxMT /Optima /Optima-Bold /Optima-BoldItalic /Optima-BoldOblique /Optima-ExtraBlack /Optima-ExtraBlackItalic /Optima-Italic /Optima-Oblique /OSPIRE-Plain /OttaIA /Otta-wa /Ottawa-BoldA /OttawaPSMT /Oxford /Palatino-Bold /Palatino-BoldItalic /Palatino-Italic /Palatino-Roman /Parisian /Perpetua /Perpetua-Bold /Perpetua-BoldItalic /Perpetua-Italic /PhotinaMT /PhotinaMT-Bold /PhotinaMT-BoldItalic /PhotinaMT-Italic /PhotinaMT-SemiBold /PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic /PhotinaMT-UltraBold /PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic /Plantin /Plantin-Bold /Plantin-BoldItalic /Plantin-Italic /Plantin-Light /Plantin-LightItalic /Plantin-Semibold /Plantin-SemiboldItalic /Poetica-ChanceryI /Poetica-SuppLowercaseEndI /PopplLaudatio-Italic /PopplLaudatio-Medium /PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic /PopplLaudatio-Regular /ProseAntique-Bold /ProseAntique-Normal /QuaySansEF-Black /QuaySansEF-BlackItalic /QuaySansEF-Book /QuaySansEF-BookItalic /QuaySansEF-Medium /QuaySansEF-MediumItalic /Quorum-Black /Quorum-Bold /Quorum-Book /Quorum-Light /Quorum-Medium /Raleigh /Raleigh-Bold /Raleigh-DemiBold /Raleigh-Medium /Revival565BT-Bold /Revival565BT-BoldItalic /Revival565BT-Italic /Revival565BT-Roman /Ribbon131BT-Bold /Ribbon131BT-Regular /RMTMI /Rockwell /Rockwell-Bold /Rockwell-BoldItalic /Rockwell-Italic /Rockwell-Light /Rockwell-LightItalic /RotisSansSerif /RotisSansSerif-Bold /RotisSansSerif-ExtraBold /RotisSansSerif-Italic /RotisSansSerif-Light /RotisSansSerif-LightItalic /RotisSemiSans /RotisSemiSans-Bold /RotisSemiSans-ExtraBold /RotisSemiSans-Italic /RotisSemiSans-Light /RotisSemiSans-LightItalic /RotisSemiSerif /RotisSemiSerif-Bold /RotisSerif /RotisSerif-Bold /RotisSerif-Italic /RunicMT-Condensed /Sabon-Bold /Sabon-BoldItalic /Sabon-Italic /Sabon-Roman /SackersGothicLight /SackersGothicLightAlt /SackersItalianScript /SackersItalianScriptAlt /Sam /Sanvito-Light /SanvitoMM /Sanvito-Roman /Semitica /Semitica-Italic /SIVAMATH /Siva-Special /SMS-SPELA /Souvenir-Demi /Souvenir-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi /SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Light /SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic /Souvenir-Light /Souvenir-LightItalic /SpecialAA /Special-Gali /Sp-Sym /StempelGaramond-Bold /StempelGaramond-BoldItalic /StempelGaramond-Italic /StempelGaramond-Roman /StoneSans /StoneSans-Bold /StoneSans-BoldItalic /StoneSans-Italic /StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSans-PhoneticIPA /StoneSans-Semibold /StoneSans-SemiboldItalic /StoneSerif /StoneSerif-Italic /StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA /StoneSerif-Semibold /StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic /Swiss721BT-Black /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackExtended /Swiss721BT-BlackItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackOutline /Swiss721BT-BlackRounded /Swiss721BT-Bold /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldExtended /Swiss721BT-BoldItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldRounded /Swiss721BT-Heavy /Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic /Swiss721BT-Italic /Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed /Swiss721BT-Light /Swiss721BT-LightCondensed /Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-LightExtended /Swiss721BT-LightItalic /Swiss721BT-Medium /Swiss721BT-MediumItalic /Swiss721BT-Roman /Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed /Swiss721BT-RomanExtended /Swiss721BT-Thin /Swiss721BT-ThinItalic /Swiss921BT-RegularA /Symbol /Syntax-Black /Syntax-Bold /Syntax-Italic /Syntax-Roman /Syntax-UltraBlack /Tekton /Times-Bold /Times-BoldA /Times-BoldItalic /Times-BoldOblique /Times-Italic /Times-NewRoman /Times-NewRomanBold /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT /Times-Oblique /Times-PhoneticAlternate /Times-PhoneticIPA /Times-Roman /Times-RomanSmallCaps /Times-Sc /Times-SCB /Times-special /TimesTenGreekP-Upright /TradeGothic /TradeGothic-Bold /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl /TradeGothic-BoldOblique /TradeGothic-BoldTwo /TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique /TradeGothic-CondEighteen /TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl /TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended /TradeGothicLH-Extended /TradeGothic-Light /TradeGothic-LightOblique /TradeGothic-Oblique /Trajan-Bold /TrajanPro-Bold /TrajanPro-Regular /Trajan-Regular /Transitional521BT-BoldA /Transitional521BT-CursiveA /Transitional521BT-RomanA /Transitional551BT-MediumB /Transitional551BT-MediumItalicB /Univers /Universal-GreekwithMathPi /Universal-NewswithCommPi /Univers-BlackExt /Univers-BlackExtObl /Univers-Bold /Univers-BoldExt /Univers-BoldExtObl /Univers-BoldOblique /Univers-Condensed /Univers-CondensedBold /Univers-CondensedBoldOblique /Univers-CondensedOblique /Univers-Extended /Univers-ExtendedObl /Univers-ExtraBlackExt /Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl /Univers-Light /Univers-LightOblique /UniversLTStd-Black /UniversLTStd-BlackObl /Univers-Oblique /Utopia-Black /Utopia-BlackOsF /Utopia-Bold /Utopia-BoldItalic /Utopia-Italic /Utopia-Ornaments /Utopia-Regular /Utopia-Semibold /Utopia-SemiboldItalic /VAGRounded-Black /VAGRounded-Bold /VAGRounded-Light /VAGRounded-Thin /Viva-BoldExtraExtended /Viva-Regular /Weidemann-Black /Weidemann-BlackItalic /Weidemann-Bold /Weidemann-BoldItalic /Weidemann-Book /Weidemann-BookItalic /Weidemann-Medium /Weidemann-MediumItalic /WindsorBT-Elongated /WindsorBT-Light /WindsorBT-LightCondensed /WindsorBT-Roman /Wingdings-Regular /WNCYB10 /WNCYI10 /WNCYR10 /WNCYSC10 /WNCYSS10 /WoodtypeOrnaments-One /WoodtypeOrnaments-Two /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal /ZapfChancery-MediumItalic /ZapfDingbats /ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular /ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold /ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold /ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi /ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra /ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic /ZurichBT-Black /ZurichBT-BlackExtended /ZurichBT-BlackItalic /ZurichBT-Bold /ZurichBT-BoldCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-BoldExtended /ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldItalic /ZurichBT-ExtraBlack /ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-Italic /ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed /ZurichBT-Light /ZurichBT-LightCondensed /ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-LightItalic /ZurichBT-Roman /ZurichBT-RomanCondensed /ZurichBT-RomanExtended /ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /FRA <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> /JPN <FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3092542b308000200050004400460020658766f830924f5c62103059308b3068304d306b4f7f75283057307e30593002537052376642306e753b8cea3092670059279650306b4fdd306430533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103057305f00200050004400460020658766f8306f0020004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067304d307e30593002> /DEU <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> /PTB <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> /DAN <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> /NLD <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> /ESP <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> /SUO <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> /ITA <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> /NOR <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> /SVE <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> /ENU (Use these settings for creating PDF files for submission to The Sheridan Press. These settings configured for Acrobat v6.0 08/06/03.) >>>> setdistillerparams<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000]>> setpagedevice

Get Your Paper Before the Deadline. Our Services are 100% private and Confidential

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

Link to new order https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/stud/new

link to login page https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/login

New user registration link https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/register

Forgot Password https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/forgot/password

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Question: How does this work?

Answer: Good Question. We are a group of a freelance board of students and professional essay writers. At our website, you may get help with any type of academic assignments: essay, coursework, term paper, business plan, case study, article review, research paper, presentation, and speech. Top writers can help with complex assignments such as dissertations, thesis papers, etc. All of them are professionals possessing excellent knowledge in their field of expertise, perfect writing skills, quality, and speed. When you place an order on our website, we assign it to the best writer. Once the writer finishes the work, the paper is submitted to our quality assurance desk who go through it and ensure it is unique and plagiarism free and that the instructions were followed to the detail. After this step we upload the paper in your account, we also send a copy to the email that you used to register the account with. we can guarantee you that the paper will be 100% plagiarism free. Besides, our services are 100% private and confidential

Question: How do I place an Order after getting to the order page

Answer: There are three major steps in the ordering process

Step 1 ....................................................paper details In this step, you will fill in the instructions of your paper; you can upload any materials that you feel will make your assignment a success. Besides, you can also email us at [email protected] Remember to specify the correct academic level. Please note that sources mean the number of references.

Step 2...................................................... Price calculation Kindly specify the number of pages, type of spacing and the correct deadline. This step will give you the estimated cost minus discount -- you may add the extra features if you wish.

Step 3 ....................................................discount and payment Use the discount code HAPPY2018 to enjoy up to 30% discount of your total cost After this step, proceed to safe payment; you can checkout using your card or PayPal Please note we will send the complete paper to the email you will provide while registering. A copy will also be uploaded to your account

Question: How will I know when my paper is complete? or How will I get the complete Paper?

Answer: Once we are done with the paper, we will be uploaded to your account. A copy will also be sent to the email you registered with. We can guarantee you the following:- 1. Our service is private and confidential; we don't spam or share your contacts with anyone 2. The final paper will be plagiarism free. We will send a Turnitin Report to the email you registered with 3. At our company, willing to do free unlimited revisions until you are satisfied with your paper

Question:- Am a new client, How can I get the guarantee that the paper will be completed and sent to me before my deadline?

Answer: Thank you for expressing your concerns. We would love to have you as our loyal customer. We are certain if we do good work, you will come back for me. Besides, you will give us referrals to your friends and family. For that reason, we can’t fail to deliver your paper within your specified time frame. We will ensure we submit the paper on time so that you can have enough time to go through it, if you have problems with the paper delivered, you can request a free revision. You are entitled to as many revisions as you would wish until you get a paper that satisfies you

legitimacytrustsocialcapitalandpolicingstyles.pdf

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Question: How does this work?

Question: How do I place an Order after getting to the order page

Question: How will I know when my paper is complete? or How will I get the complete Paper?

Question:- Am a new client, How can I get the guarantee that the paper will be completed and sent to me before my deadline?

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

Contact Us