F J U S T I C E National Institute Of Justice

2y ago
12 Views
2 Downloads
359.33 KB
15 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Milo Davies
Transcription

SG OVCRAMSDEPANBJ A C EIOF FOffice of Justice ProgramsNT OF JMEUSRTCETIU.S. Department of JusticeIJBJ OO F OJJ D PRJ US T I C E PNational Institute of JusticeNational Institute of JusticeResearch in ActionJeremy Travis, DirectorSeptember 1994Rural Crime and Rural Policingby Ralph A. Weisheit, Ph.D., David N. Falcone, Ph.D.,and L. Edward Wells, Ph.DPolice practices vary from one area toanother, and studying the varieties ofpolice behavior can yield importantinsights into the role of law enforcementofficers in a community. Most studies ofvariations in police behavior have beenconducted in urban settings. Neglectingrural policing and rural crime might bejustifiable if there is nothing about policing, crime, or the community in ruralenvironments that precludes directlyapplying knowledge from urban areas. Itis evident, however, that rural environments are distinct from urban environments in ways that affect policing, crime,and public policy.Issues and FindingsDiscussed in this Brief: An overviewof the research literature and an analysis of rural crime and rural policingissues, and how the distinctive elementsof the rural environment affect them.Key issues: Although rural crime rateshave been lower than urban crime rates,patterns of rural crime indicate both theexporting of urban problems to ruralareas and unique problems.The following discussion examines whatis known about rural crime, rural policing, and how they are shaped by the ruralenvironment. It is obvious that ruralpolicing is shaped by the nature of ruralcrime and the features that distinguishrural culture and rural life. Consequently,the discussion begins with a descriptionof what is known about rural crime.Rural crimeThis section first examines rural versusurban crime patterns and then shifts to adescription of patterns of rural crime.Changes in rural crime are also considered, and they are followed by a discussion of special issues and emergingproblems.Rural crime versus urban crimeMost research concludes that crime isless frequent in rural areas, and it is oftenspeculated that greater informal controlsin rural areas protect against high crimerates.1 The belief that crime is less frequent in rural areas is supported by recent Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) datathat present crime by type and population group. Of particular interest is a Crimes such as homicide, rape, andassault are more likely to occur amongacquaintances than is true in urbanareas.to share internal problems. These characteristics may result, for example, infailure to report a crime out of the beliefthat it’s a private matter. Crimes unique to the rural environment include agricultural crimes (e.g.,thefts of crop and timber) and wildlifecrimes (e.g., poaching). Major differences among rural areasexist, such as border areas may haveproblems with illegal immigrants whileother areas may have illegal marijuanacrops.Key findings: Even though less isknown about rural crime than urbancrime, available information indicatessome key dimensions: Rural law enforcement officers, morethan their urban counterparts, often workwith lower budgets, less staff, lessequipment, and fewer written policies togovern their operations. Despite theseproblems, rural police appear to be moreefficient than urban police and more respected by the public. Urban drug trafficking has been seenas the driving force behind the spreadof drug use and the development ofgangs in rural areas. Features of the rural culture that affect law enforcement operations includeinformal social control among citizens, amistrust of government, and a reluctanceDifferences among rural areas as well asdifferences between urban and ruralareas have implications for crime andlaw enforcement responses. Previousstudies have been limited and sometimescontradictory; explanations should besought through specific examination ofparticular rural crime issues.Target audience: Rural law enforcement officers, State and localpolicymakers, and researchers.

Index offense rates, including homicide, are higher for urban areas than forrural areas. The gap between rural and urbancrime is greater for violent crime than forproperty crime. The rank order of offenses for property crime is roughly similar for urbanand rural areas. That is, larceny is themost common crime and motor vehicletheft the least common crime in bothareas. The greatest difference between ruraland urban crime is robbery, which occursalmost 54 times more often per 100,000citizens in urban areas. The rank order for violent crime isthrown off by the large rural-urban difference in robbery. The urban rate is much higher forcrimes with the most similar rates acrossareas, such as rape.Substantial rural-urban differences arealso found from national household victimization surveys, such as the NationalCrime Survey (NCS). The 1990 NCSreported that the percentage of households indicating any form of victimization in urban, suburban, and rural areaswas 30 percent, 23 percent, and 17 percent, respectively. This pattern of differences appears to hold true for bothviolent and property crime. A researcherfound that approximately 25 percent ofvictimizations of rural residents tookplace while they were away from theircommunities, while this was true foronly 10 percent of urban residents. It wasconcluded that rural residents are morevulnerable to robbery when visitingurban areas.2 This also means that theusual rural-urban comparisons of victimization rates probably understate thedifference in victimization between thetwo areas.controls, particularly the declines in acommunity’s density of acquaintanceship.”4Instead of comparing rural and urbanareas, some studies have considered ruralcrime alone.3 This research generallyfocuses on patterns of rural crime anddocuments variations in crime acrossrural areas. Thus, a good understandingof rural crime requires not only appreciating how it differs from urban crime,but how rural crime and rural justicevary across rural communities.Trends in rural crimeThere has been concern that rural andurban crime rates are converging, and theissue has raised considerable debate.Some have argued that with moderncommunication and transportation, ruralurban differences are shrinking throughwhat has been called “massification.”5UCR data from 1980 through 1990 canbe used to make rural-urban comparisonsover time for both violent and propertyoffenses. These data show that in bothlarge cities and rural counties, violentcrime rose between 1980 and 1990,while property crime changed relativelylittle. Contrary to the convergence hypothesis, the gap between rural and urban crime changed little during the1980’s.In addition, a number of researchers haveconcluded that rural areas experiencingrapid growth will also experience a disproportionately large increase in crime.In 21 of 23 studies, crime grew evenfaster than the population in rural communities with rapid population growth.In fact, crime increased at three to fourtimes the speed at which the populationincreased. Researchers speculated that“the accumulated findings may best beexplained by narrowly focusing onchanges in community social structurethat accompany rapid growth and resultin impairment of informal socialWhen changes for specific index offenses are considered, the greatestchange for violent crime is for robbery.In 1980, the rate for robbery in urbanFigure 1:Annual Rates of Personal Victimizationper 1,000 persons over age 21180160crime rate per 1,000comparison between crime in cities of250,000 or more and that in rural counties, counties that are outside metropolitan statistical areas and cover areas notunder the jurisdiction of urban policedepartments. Examining UCR indexcrimes for 1990 reveals several interesting patterns:140 120100 80 60 40197419771980198319861989YearCity Suburban RuralSource: Constructed from data presented in Bachman, Ronet, “Crime in MetropolitanAmerica,” Rural Sociology 57(4), 1992, 546–560, and Bachman, Ronet, Crime Victimization in City, Suburban and Rural Areas, Report for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992.2

areas was 35 times greater than the ratein rural areas. By 1990, robbery was 54times more frequent in urban areas, andmost of the increased difference was aproduct of increasing urban rates andmodestly decreasing robbery rates inrural areas. A lesser increase was observed for aggravated assault rates,which were 3.7 times more frequent inurban areas in 1980 but 5.3 times morefrequent in urban areas by 1990. Theurban-rural gap narrowed very slightlyfor rape rates and widened very slightlyfor murder. For property crimes, thegreatest change in the gap between urbanand rural rates was for motor vehicletheft, which was 7.7 times more frequentin urban areas in 1980 but 13.3 timesmore frequent in 1990. Burglary andlarceny changed little.Overall, UCR data do not support theidea that crime rates in rural and urbanareas are converging. One problem withUCR is that crimes of particular concernas emerging issues in rural areas such asgang activity and drug trafficking arenonindex offenses and are not reportedby population density.NCS permits considering changes invictimization rates over time. The NCSdata show that the percent of householdsreporting victimization for any crimedropped from 1973 through 1990 acrossboth urban and rural areas. Data in figure1 show little support for the argumentthat urban and rural crime rates areconverging.Data on violent crime in selected California counties were used to argue thatthe gap between rural and urban crimewas less important than their relativepatterns of change over time. The statistics demonstrated that changes over timein urban counties were followed bychanges in rural counties, and one researcher concluded that cultural changecontinually generated in major urbanareas diffuses to smaller cities and thento the rural areas.6 Cultural cycles,whether they be of violent crime, fashion, or inventions, begin in urban areasand ripple out through the countryside.This argument is consistent with contemporary observations about the expansionof urban drug trafficking and gangs intorural areas, an issue to be addressed inthe next section.Special issues andemerging problemsThe focus on rural-urban comparisonshas also meant a focus on particularcategories of crime, often the streetcrimes listed in the UCR. Many issuesrelevant to rural policing, such as gangactivity, do not neatly fit these categories, or are emerging issues that have notbeen explored in the professional literature. What follows is a sampling of thesetopics, often based on reports in thepopular press. Because many of thesediscussions are based on anecdotal evidence, the information should be interpreted with caution. However, these areareas that merit further research and maybe of increasing concern to rural police.Gangs. Stereotypically, gangs are aproblem that involves inner-city (oftenminority) youths. For example, somecontemporary gang research includes nodiscussion of gangs in suburban andrural areas.7 However, there are numerous discussions of how urban streetgangs diffuse out to the countryside.8Many of these discussions see drug trafficking as the driving force behind thespread of gangs to rural areas, a movefacilitated by an improved interstatehighway system.While the focus is primarily on urbanstreet gangs in rural areas, biker gangshave a long history of criminal activity inrural settings.9 Unfortunately, bikers arenotoriously difficult to study,10 and fewdetails of their activities are documented.Substance abuse. Another issue is theproblem of substance use, includingalcohol and illegal drugs. This issue hastwo dimensions: use by rural citizens andcriminal drug trafficking organizations inrural areas. Professional literature hasdiscussed the issue of drug use, while theissue of rural trafficking organizationshas more often been addressed in the3popular press. Alcohol, among the mostpopular of the mind-altering drugs, is ofparticular concern in rural areas. Eachyear more people are arrested for drivingunder the influence (DUI) than for anyother single offense, and DUI is morecommon in rural areas.11 The findings areless consistent for illegal drugs, thoughstudies are more likely to conclude thatuse is more frequent in urban areas.One way to compare rural and urbanareas is to use self-report surveys. Onesurvey found that rural youths beganusing both legal and illegal drugs at ayounger age, but a higher percentage ofurban youths were users.12 Anothersurvey compared adolescent drug usein three rural communities with the druguse in an urban community, and itconcluded that the differences in druguse among rural communities may havebeen greater than differences betweenrural and urban areas.13 This surveyemphasized the importance of localvariation and suggested that local policies and programs for rural areas not bebased on aggregate national data.An indirect way of comparing rural andurban drug use is to use arrest statistics.Researchers compared drug arrest data inNorth Carolina for urban and rural counties between 1976 and 1980 and concluded that rural arrest rates wereconsistently lower, and no evidence wasfound that rural and urban rates wereconverging.14 Another study estimatedthat the rate of drug arrests in urbanareas is nearly four times that in ruralcounties. The researchers speculated thatbecause most drug enforcement isproactive, variations in arrest ratesamong jurisdictions are more the resultof differences in enforcement effortsthan of differences in consumptionpatterns. 15Recent reports suggest that patterns ofurban drug use, including crack, arespreading to rural areas.16 Whether thesereports anticipate emerging trends or aremerely isolated cases remains to be seen.They do signal another area that shouldbe monitored closely.

The issue of drug trafficking and production in rural areas is less understood.Some reports suggest that rural areasmay serve as production sites for methamphetamine, designer drugs, crack, andmarijuana.17 Other reports argue thatrural areas have become important transshipment points for drugs destined forurban areas.18 The problem is exacerbated by an improved highway systemand by the large number of isolated airstrips set up for corporate farms and forcropdusters serving rural farmlands.Vice and organized crime. There isgood reason to believe that vice andorganized crime are features of the ruralenvironment.19 For example, small communities near major highways often haveproblems with prostitution set up fortruck drivers. Also, areas that were traditionally involved in moonshining andbootlegging can use some of the sameroutes and expertise to transport drugs,stolen auto parts, and other illegal merchandise. In 1989, the so-called“Cornbread Mafia,” operating out ofKentucky, was discovered to have marijuana operations in at least nine States.By April of 1990, 86 people were arrested as part of the operation, and thegovernment had confiscated 475,000pounds of marijuana on 33 farms.20 Atthe same time, a group of more than 30people operating out of the Southwest,who called themselves “The Company,”ran an elaborate indoor marijuana operation. At the time of the group’s arrest,approximately 1 million in growingequipment was seized by authorities.21While anecdotal evidence suggests thatvice and organized crime are also a ruralproblem, there is simply too little information to make general statements or toeven speculate on similarities and differences with urban organized crimegroups.Violence. The nature of rural interactions means that crimes such as homicide, rape, and assault are more likely tooccur among acquaintances than is truein urban areas. This, combined with thegreater distrust of government, may alsomean that the police are less likely to becalled when these crimes occur. Giventhese factors, both investigating andpreventing violent interpersonal crimesin rural areas may require different strategies than in urban areas.Some of these issues can be illustratedusing the studies available on domesticviolence in rural areas. In an observa-tional study of families in a rural Appalachian community, given the fictitiousname Raven Ridge, it was noted thatboth the police and prosecutor werereluctant to act in abuse cases and, as aconsequence, women were reluctant tocall them for assistance:“Most people I met agreed that policeprotection in Raven Ridge was inadequate. John explained that it took atleast an hour for an officer to arrive aftera call was placed, and that once thecruiser arrived, the officers would sit inthe car and beep the horn rather thancome to the door. His explanation forthis behavior was that so many officershad been shot responding to domesticcalls that few were willing to risk goingto the door. . . . Acceptance of a man’sauthority over his wife and the belief inthe sanctity of the home, together withofficers’ belief that they would be indanger if they responded to domesticcalls, resulted in the failure of the legalsystem to provide protection for physically battered women. . . . Given thegeographic isolation, lack of protection,and lack of economic opportunitiesavailable to them, women acquiesced tocontrol in the short term while thinkingabout ways to improve their situationover time.”22In a study of police jurisdictions in Ohio,it was found that the highest rates fordomestic violence disputes were in theleast populated jurisdictions. In neithercities nor rural areas were the policelikely to make an arrest following a domestic violence complaint, though theywere somewhat more likely to in urbanareas. 23Even less is known about rural-urbandifferences in child abuse, but two studies by the National Center on ChildAbuse and Neglect24 suggest the issue isworth further study. The first study wasconducted in 1980 and the second in1986. The studies differed in one important respect. In the 1980 version, abusewas defined as “demonstrated harm as aresult of maltreatment.”25 The 1986 studyincluded a definition of abuse that mirrored the 1980 definition, but also in-Rural patrol can include the Nation’s inland waterways.4

cluded children “placed at risk forharm,” such as being left alone. Whenthe first definition was used, abuse rateswere higher in rural than in major urbancounties. However, when the broaderdefinition was used, urban rates of abusewere higher. The studies were based on arelatively small number of counties andcould not address contextual issues thatmay have explained these differences.However, the findings suggest there maybe important rural-urban differences andpoint to the need for more research.Hate crimes. Related to the issue ofviolence, though less well documented,are the so-called “hate groups” in ruralareas. Many of these groups are based ona combination of anti-semitism, racism,fundamentalist Christianity, and a deepsuspicion of government.26 One researcher described the literature published by one group, the Iowa Society forEducated Citizens (ISEC):“The literature decries race mixing, gunregistration, the liberal (i.e., Jewish)media, the IRS, homosexuality, theCouncil on Foreign Relations, anddriver’s licenses—the last because byaccepting them, citizens are, in effect,legitimizing what the self-proclaimedpatriots consider illegitimate authority.But the target of choice for ISEC members. . . is the Federal Reserve Bank:root of farmers’ problems and the frontorganization for the international Jewishbankers. 27 Many—especially members ofthe Posse Comitatus—refuse to recognize any government authority higherthan the county sheriff.”28Sometimes these beliefs lead directly toviolence, as when members fight payingtaxes and farm foreclosures, or whenthey commit robbery and theft to fundtheir activities. Many groups weavetogether violence and religion, believingthat Armageddon is near and that theymust be heavily armed for self-protection. As one researcher notes, “Fundamental to the beliefs of the Posse wasthat only rural dwellers would survive awar and that unprepared urban individuals seeking food and shelter would become enemies. Accordingly, followerswere instructed to collect arms andstockpile food.”29 Some try to hasten theinevitable by fostering a race war, or bymaking the banking system collapse byflooding the country with counterfeitmoney.Some hate groups base their beliefs ondistortions of existing rural values andemphasize religion, patriotism, and independence from government tyranny. Thenumber of active members of thesegroups is unknown, but probably totalsno more than 10,000 or 20,000. However, these groups have a high potentialfor crime, particularly violent crime.Unlike urban skinheads, rural hategroups are generally composed of “ordinary” people who shun public attentionfor themselves and their cause. Further,there is evidence of increasing communication among these groups around thecountry through newsletters, publications, audio- and videotapes, and evenelectronic bulletin boards.30Arson. The 1991 annual report of theNational Fire Prevention Associationindicated relatively stable arson rates inrural counties between 1983 and 1991.31The report showed that as the size of thecommunity decreased the rate of arsonoffenses also decreased, from a rate of90 per 100,000 people in cities of250,000 or more to a rate of only 22 per100,000 in rural counties. However,compared with urban areas, rural communities more often lacked the resourcesand staff to fully investigate arson. Smallstaffs and substantial travel distances canslow response time and impede ruralarson investigations. Also, rural firesmore often advance to the “total burn”syndrome, in which the structure is completely destroyed. In fact, the damage byfires in rural areas has been at least threetimes more than the damage in urbanareas. 32 Total burn arson fires often require additional manpower and equipment to sort through the debris.Consequently, rural fires have often notbeen investigated for arson unless thepreliminary evidence was particularlycompelling.5Special crimes. Most of the crimes discussed to this point (e.g., homicide andchild abuse) take place in both urban andrural areas. Some crimes, however, arepeculiar to the rural setting. For example,rest-stop crime and crimes tied to thepresence of interstate highways are bothgrowing concerns. In addition, specialrural crimes include wildlife and agricultural crimes.Agricultural crime. The focus in thisdiscussion on agricultural crime is itsimpact on the country as a whole throughescalating food and insurance prices.Illustrating the scope of the problem, 80percent of surveyed Iowa farmers saidthey were victims of theft over a 3-yearperiod. UCR data do not separate agricultural crime from other offenses. However, each year the UCR does listspecific items of theft and the rate atwhich these items are recovered. Amongthe listed items is livestock, which accounts for losses of approximately 20million each year, only about 17 percentof which is recovered. Researchers haveassembled selected incidents of agricultural crime that illustrate its scope andseriousness. These include: 1 million in annual thefts of avocado,lime, and mango fruit in Florida. 1 million in annual losses totimber thieves and vandals in westernWashington alone. 2 million in annual losses frompesticide thefts. 30 million a year lost to theft fromCalifornia farmers. In addition, these researchers noted thatsingle offenses can be enormouslycostly. They cited embezzlement at anIowa grain elevator that produced a lossof 10 million. They also cited anecdotalevidence that organized crime was activein agricultural crime in several States.33Wildlife crimes. Similar to agriculturalcrimes, wildlife crimes are primarily arural phenomenon. Wildlife crimes,especially poaching, have become amajor concern for conservation policeofficers. According to the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service, during FY 1990 wildlife shipments entering and leaving theUnited States had a declared value ofmore than 1 billion.34 According to a1986 publication, the estimated replacement costs of illegally harvested fish andwildlife exceeded 45 million in Illinois,while the poaching of deer alone wasestimated to cost Pennsylvania more than 93 million a year.35Many rural residents have poached toprovide food for themselves and theirfamilies, while others have prided themselves on simply killing a wildlife “trophy.”36 It was found that for manypoaching was exciting and was seen as atest of wit and skill between the poacherand the game warden. Many poacherswere proud that they could easily outmaneuver the technology and complexmodern strategies of the game warden.In addition, poaching may reinforce therural mistrust of outsiders and ofgovernment.37 “They [poachers] areconstantly in contact with others whosupport an ‘us’ and ‘them’ orientationtoward the larger society. Both gamewardens and the laws they enforcerepresent outsiders.”38Rural setting of crime and justiceCrime and criminal justice do not exist ina vacuum. The rural setting has severalfeatures shaping both crime and policing.This section begins with a discussion ofthe rural environment and then turns towhat has been observed about the functions of law enforcement agencies inrural settings.Geographic isolation. The effects ofgeography alone pose serious problemsfor rural justice, having an impact onsuch things as response time and thespeed with which support services can beprovided. One study, for example, contradicts UCR data and suggests that thehomicide rate in rural areas is higher,and because access to medical treatmentin rural and urban areas is different, evenif the violent act is the same in both.39Similarly, rural officers can expect alonger wait for backup. Geographicisolation can be a particular problem forthe many rural officers who patrol aloneand whose interactions with suspectshave no witnesses. The large geographicareas covered by some rural police alsomake responding to calls more expensiveand more time consuming than in urbanareas.Geography is also likely to have different meanings in different parts of thecountry. A common unit of study forrural issues is the county, which is also aconvenient unit regarding law enforcement and the courts. Counties differ insize (square miles), terrain, populationdensity, and climate. For example, itperiodically happens that hikers are lostin the mountains of Montana for 1 or 2weeks before they find other people. Onewould be hard pressed to find similarincidents occurring in the “wilds” ofDelaware. Clearly, rural officers in thetwo States are likely to confront verydifferent problems.Availability of guns. The presence ofguns is another area in which rural andurban populations differ. It has beenobserved that gun ownership is muchmore prevalent in rural areas where morethan double the number of residentsowned guns than their urban counter-parts.40 While many of the rural gunowners are hunters who use rifles orshotguns, the percentage of citizensowning handguns has also been higher inrural areas than in central cities (23 percent versus 15 percent). It is sometimesassumed that the availability of guns isrelevant to gun-related violence, but thecase of rural areas shows that the relationship is far more complex. While ruralresidents are more likely to own guns, itappears they are less likely to use guns inthe commission of crimes. It has alsobeen found that crime was lowest incounties with the highest rates of legalfirearm ownership.41 Similarly, a 1990report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS) found that the rate of crimes committed with handguns was more thanthree times as great in urban areas—5.9per 100,000 in central cities versus 1.7per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan areas.42Economic factors. High rates of povertyhave long been associated with highrates of crime. Crime has been less frequent in rural areas, although poverty hasbeen a common problem in ruralAmerica. For example, of the 159 highpoverty counties in the United States in1979, only six contained a city with apopulation of 25,000 or more.43 Further,Officer encounters adverse physical conditions in isolated area.6

the 1986 poverty rate in rural areas was50 percent higher than in urban areas.44While urban researchers have expressedalarm over the rise of a “permanentunderclass,” this deep socioeconomicand cultural isolation “has been the experience of generations of the rural poor,especially in the South, where rigid social stratification has kept them out ofthe mainstream.”45 In recent decades theeroding economic base of many ruralareas has encouraged high levels of outmigration by young educated and skilledworkers, which makes future economicdevelopment more difficult.46The economic problems facing ruralareas can be expected to not only affectthe nature and extent of crime, but theresources available to rural law enforcement. Where tax bases are small, ruralpolice departments are likely to be seriously understaffed and without importantresources. One of the authors of thisreview interviewed a local sheriff whosedesk consisted of an old door stretchedacross two half-height filing cabinets andwho had a total of three officers (including himself) to patrol a large county 7days a week, 24 hours a day.While poverty is common in many ruralareas, some areas have experienced economic development. This has been mostevident in “collar counties” that surroundsome major urban areas. An analysis ofcensus data show that the highest poverty levels are in rural nonmetropolitanareas, while the lowest poverty levels arein rural locations within metropolitanareas. 47 In addition, pockets of ruralgrowth can be based on a variety offactors, such as tourism, retirement communities, industry, natural resources, orgovernment services.48 Each type ofgrowth presents its own crime and lawenforcement problems.Social climate. Precisely measuring anddescribing a local culture is extremelydifficult. Ther

Research in Action U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis, Director. 2 difference in victimization between the . Report for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992. 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 crime

Related Documents:

La paroi exerce alors une force ⃗ sur le fluide, telle que : ⃗ J⃗⃗ avec S la surface de la paroi et J⃗⃗ le vecteur unitaire orthogonal à la paroi et dirigé vers l’extérieur. Lorsque la

Independent Personal Pronouns Personal Pronouns in Hebrew Person, Gender, Number Singular Person, Gender, Number Plural 3ms (he, it) א ִוה 3mp (they) Sֵה ,הַָּ֫ ֵה 3fs (she, it) א O ה 3fp (they) Uֵה , הַָּ֫ ֵה 2ms (you) הָּ תַא2mp (you all) Sֶּ תַא 2fs (you) ְ תַא 2fp (you

Asset management is the management of physical assets to meet service and financial objectives. Through applying good asset management practices and principles the council will ensure that its housing stock meets current and future needs, including planning for investment in repair and improvements, and reviewing and changing the portfolio to match local circumstances and housing need. 1.3 .

Automotive EMC testing with Keysight Jon Kinney RF/uW Applications Engineer 11/7/2018. Page How to evaluate EMI emissions with a spectrum/signal analyzer ? Keysight EMI Solutions 2 . Page Getting started –Basic terms Keysight EMI Solutions EMI, EMS, EMC 3 EMI EMS EMC Today, We focus here ! Page Why bother? EMC evaluation is along with your product NPI cycle 4 EMI Troubleshooting EMI Pre .

BEC HIGHER PART TWO Questions 13 – 22 You will hear five different business people talking about trips they have recently been on. For each extract there are two tasks. For Task One, choose the purpose of each trip from the list A – H.F or Task Two, choose the problem described from the list A – H . Y ou will hear the recording twice. T ASK ONE – PURPOSE For questions 13 .

Organization Behavior is not a /an a. A separate field of study b. Applied science c. Normative science d. Pessimistic approach 13. “Cognitive theory” of learning was given by a. Skinner b. Pavlov c. Tolman d. Piajet 14. Extension of behavior modification into organization is called a. Enrichment b. Enlargement c. OB Mod d. OB Ext 15. -----is a relatively permanent change in behavior that .

Beverages which are unfit for consumption and which have to be discarded are waste. There are many options available to businesses to manage this waste and this guidance sets out a hierarchy of these options. The hierarchy is based on the waste hierarchy which prioritises recycling and recovery of waste over its disposal. 2.5. Recovery and disposal of waste alcoholic beverages is controlled by .

Ch.1 Basics of Black Holes 8 To Index or with the energy-momentun tensor decreasing as O(Ω) at infinity, ˆΩhasto satisfy the condition ( ˆΩ)2 2Λ n(n 1) (1.1.13) This implies that