by
Robert Trojanowicz
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University and
The Research Team Consisting of:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
William White, President and Chief Executive Office
Marilyn Steele, Program Officer
Holly Hudson, Program Assistant
The Mott Foundation Board of Trustees and Foundation Staff
Flint Police Department
Chief Mac Durbin
Deputy Chief Joseph Wilson (retired)
Deputy Chief Bruce Benson
Lt. Robert McFadden
Sgt. John Benthall
Sgt. Kenneth Burns
Sgt. Gerald Dickenson
Sgt. Arthur Evans
Off. Lee Esther Black
Off. Paul Coon
Off. Gloria Dickenson
Off. Jeffrey Drake
Off. Jimmie Edwards
Off. Gary Elford
Off. David Florida
Off. Joel Florida
Off. David Ford
Off. David Grace
Off. Hiawatha Greene
Off. Guy Hazzard
Off. Thressa Horton
Off. Gary Jennings
Off. Barry Joseph
Off. Mary Kimes
Off. Jim Lane
Off. Mike McKinsey
Off. Mitchell Moore
Off. Gary Morrow
Off. Alvin Nelson
Off. Lloyd Nicholson
Off. Joseph Petrella
Off. Dennis Pommrantz
Off. Dennis Reidsma
Off. James Sevick
Off. Delois Thomas
Off. Houston Tipton
Off. Clayton Turner
Off. Norm VanNatter
Off. Lloyd Whetstone
Off. Charles Woods
Off. Ladale Woods
MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Methodology
III. Evaluation Results
IV. Discussion of Key Issues
V. Summary
VI. Tables
VII. Appendices
| Note: With funding from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, has established a National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center to provide dissemination of information, technical assistance, education, and training. The following toll-free number is available for additional information about the services. 1-800-892-9051 |
The criminal justice system has not been particularly adept at anticipating social trends. In many ways this is understandable since most criminal justice practitioners have been forced because of rapid social changes to be crises managers rather than long-term proactive planners. Leadership in the future clearly belongs to those who correctly predict the coming needs of society and construct courses of action to meet those needs. A neighborhood foot patrol program is one way of responding to the needs of the community, linking the police to community residents so that crime control can be proactive rather than reactive.1
The stability of neighborhoods is affected by excessive mobility, unemployment and citizen apathy. It is presently difficult for residents of neighborhoods to be a cohesive force focused on community problem solving.
Public servants, including the police, often do not have intense interaction with the public and most of the, problem-solving process is highly formalized, impersonal and sterile. Informal communication is a rarity and motorized police officers can easily become isolated because of sporadic contacts with the public.
Because of this lack of informal face-to-face contact, it is difficult for the motorized police officer to empathize with the community, understand the life styles of its members and provide meaningful linkage, between citizens and governmental services. In addition, information needed to prevent and control crime is often lacking. In order for the quantity and quality of information to be improved between citizens and the police there needs to be contact, communication, and trust.
When there is not relevant information and linkage, crime can flourish since the probability of solving crimes and apprehending offenders is exceedingly low without the assistance and cooperation of neighborhood residents. A neighborhood foot patrol officer can be the catalyst for encouraging citizen involvement emphasizing self-help and neighbors "looking out" for each other.
As long ago as 1968 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice emphasized citizen involvement in crime prevention. The report recommended that:
The obligation for law enforcement and social control still rests with each individual, however and citizen involvement is necessary to make the system work. Even though the police may be charged with the role of protecting citizens and their property, their, typical duty is investigatory rather than proactive. For example, an incident occurs, a citizen calls, and the police respond. By the time the police arrive, however, the offender has usually disappeared and the police can only collect the facts and react to an event that already happened.
The traditional expectation of the police as the sole deterrent force should at least be questioned. It is also naive to assume that greater police reactive efficiency will automatically dissolve the problem of crime. A frequent cry for efficient "law and order" is not a substitute for effective prevention. Nevertheless, many police are rewarded for viewing their job as one of technical efficiency while processing offenders. A police officer may be promoted not because of service to the community but because of the number of traffic tickets that are written and/or arrests made. Yet, the officer may spend up to 80 percent of the time in service activities and only 20 percent in apprehending and processing offenders. Paradoxically, the training usually emphasizes the reverse. The majority of the training is spent in learning techniques of apprehension. and processing and only a small percent in gaining skills in service activities. Traditionally, the police officer did not deal with activities such as civil rights marches, or various other public rallies and neighborhood meetings. This is a new area for which police often have little or no formal training. In addition, officers are usually not trained in how to mobilize community resources, how to link citizens to community agencies, and how, to effectively work with the public so that citizens can provide their own self-protection. The neighborhood foot patrol program in Flint, Michigan has demonstrated that proactive programs can be initiated and operated if there is a partnership between the police and the community.3
The Political Process in Crime Prevention
Political participation is the essence of American
democracy.
Politics is the arena in which competing forces vie for natural and
social
resources. To work well it must be dynamic and forceful. For example,
the
citizens of Flint voted on August 10, 1982, to increase their property
tax millage to insure that the entire city would be covered by foot
patrol
for at least a three year period.
Long ago, Alexis de Tocqueville searched for the key variable that lent cohesiveness and viability to the concept of democracy in the emerging American nation. He identified the abundance of voluntary associations as the variable that moderated individualism. There can be little doubt that in the early stages of the American development such association was broad, intensive, and utilized to exert political clout. It is highly likely that every American judge, attorney, sheriff, jailer, or police officer of the 1800s and early 1900s had an extremely good grasp of the values of community, the decisions that had to be made relative to crime and social control, and the resources needed to maintain the community in a "healthy" state. 4
Such knowledge was commonplace in a less complicated and formalized society. The increasing complexity of our technological society has changed much of this. It has also perhaps masked the fact that communities still make such political decisions. These decisions are more important today than ever before because of dwindling resources. Community based crime prevention programs, neighborhood foot patrol in particular, will succeed or fail depending on the extent to which they take account of the political realities and dynamics of the community.
Political processes essential to our democratic society are, however, subject to every sort of human abuse. Criminal justice practitioners are subject to a multitude of pressures both overt and concealed which have a strong and sometimes derogatory influence on them. Negative political forces, for example, exert pressure on criminal justice practitioners either to attach certain kinds of deviants or to avoid identifying them. Special interest groups or highly influential citizens may perceive the crime problem to be of low priority and urge that available funds be channeled into areas they believe more important. Elected officials are highly susceptible to such pressure since the support of special interest groups is often necessary to secure election or re-election. Community residents, through their neighborhood associations, can begin to understand the total spectrum of community power and the strengths and limitations of their criminal justice system. Community residents will act and engage in politics in the best sense of the term and become involved in competition for scarce resources if they are given the opportunity and leadership is provided. The foot patrol officer, although not becoming involved directly in the political process, can be a catalytic force in gathering information, disseminating it to the residents, and acting as a resource to help to evaluate the effectiveness of governmental services in neighborhoods.5
It is not a simple process, however, because political dynamics affect the police officer even more than they do the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and correctional personnel. Democratic and objective police work depends upon the environment of the community and the political decisions that guide police priorities and citizen interactions. It is tempting to assert that mere objective enforcement of the law is sufficient to the task. But in a society such as ours with the massive compilation of laws, public consensus about law enforcement priorities is often elusive without effective leadership.
The melting pot theory of cultural assimilation connotes much more cultural consensus than actually exists. Research points to the continued and increasing viability of ethnic and racial subcultures in our society.6 The survival of distinct ethnic and racial groups implies existence of different life styles, social and political behaviors, and values that may or may not be in conflict with the institutional values of the larger society.7
Cultural diversity alone, however, does not make policing a more difficult task. Other variables complicate the problem. Population transiency, urban density, community isolation, advanced technology, apathy, rapid national and international change-all serve to compound the problem of attaining social cohesiveness and consensus. The focus of much of the conflict that arises in such a state of flux is the police function. For better or for worse the police reflect the integrity and democratic processes of the communities they serve. In any case, they are visible and they invoke and apply executive power. In addition, the way the police officer's authority and the way the legal system's authority is projected in the community depends greatly on the administrative structure and the philosophy of the particular police department.8 The foot patrol officer can effectively influence that structure as well as transmit to the neighborhood organizations the most appropriate way of attaining positive response from the police system. The effective foot patrol officer is sensitive to the policing needs of the particular community and can act as a catalytic link to insure that services are provided.
The foot patrol officer can influence the delivery of police services and become indirectly involved in the political process without compromising the ideals of the police in a democracy. How then can the officer raise the level of public debate? There are two primary ways: (1) Officers can demand clear public guidelines and role definitions relative to their law enforcement functions. By demanding clear community guidelines the issues are raised, the decision-making level is identified and all citizens in the community are alerted to the availability of the political processes to express their needs. The police are agents of the public. By demanding that the public establish clear goals and priorities the police do no more than fulfill their role and place responsibility on the public for establishing exactly what services are mandated and with what priorities, (2) The police can disseminate information. Few public officials can have more insight into the total community situation than the effective police officer. Each social group within a community essentially lives in a specific environment and regardless of mass media dissemination of information they may be largely ignorant of the ways in which other citizens in the community live. Police officials, and in particular foot patrol officers, are perennial favorites as speakers for a wide variety of civic and neighborhood organizations. It is unnecessary and improper for them to express judgments about the different life styles and living conditions but an objective factual presentation may have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the social conditions in the community. Regardless of the impact, the feedback to the public by the police fulfills the public need to have a factual basis upon which to decide whether change is necessary or desired. Such feedback is positive political action in every sense of the word.
In addition, criminal justice practitioners, and in particular the foot patrol officer, who would encourage a community based crime prevention program must marshal financial resources by convincing community leaders that increased social power for neighborhood groups does not necessarily mean that their social power will be diminished--or by convincing them that continued neglect of the crime problem within the community is not functional. The foot patrol officer must obtain consensus for program action by recruiting individuals and groups in the neighborhoods across socioeconomic lines. Power relationships are critical aspects of program development. These relationships are at once less sinister than they sometimes appear and more important than an assumption of the innate goodness of man would indicate. To be aware of the process allows at least the social certitude needed to initiate and plan for a comprehensive neighborhood crime prevention program.
The
Neighborhood
Foot Patrol Program of Flint, Michigan
This volume describes a program that was implemented
in Flint, Michigan: The Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program (NFPP)
sponsored
by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. This program can best be
described
as a "grass-root" effort, since it was initiated at the community level
with the citizens involved in the establishment of the NFPP from its
conception
to its implementation and continuing operation.
The emphasis of the NFPP is crime prevention, consequently, police and citizen participation and cooperation are necessary in the formation of block clubs and other neighborhood associations. These are designed for the purpose of fostering improved crime prevention and thereby an improved quality of life. The Flint Police Department recognized that it is the primary agency to insure that crime prevention programs are implemented. The NFP officer serves as a catalyst for community crime prevention programs and a linkage person to governmental services for residents, always emphasizing that for crime prevention and control to be effective the residents need to be the "eyes and ears" of their own neighborhoods.
The Flint, Michigan NFPP began in January 1979 in response to two problems that were deemed hindrances to effective crime prevention: (1) the lack of comprehensive neighborhood organization and crime prevention involvement, and (2) the lack of personal contact and interaction between city police officers and community residents. It was believed that the implementation of a properly conceived neighborhood foot patrol program could initiate organized community involvement in the crime prevention process, while at the same time serving as a basis for improved police/community relations.
The citizenry first became involved in considering the NFP concept in November 1977 when a citywide meeting was convened with all citizens of Flint invited to provide input for the crime-reduction program. At this first meeting a general plan, was presented to them for their reactions and input. In January 1978 another citywide meeting was held. Due to the interest shown by the citizens, it was decided that meetings would be held at the neighborhood level within each of the 12 planning districts of the city. Representatives of the city police department attended these meetings to explain the neighborhood foot patrol officer proposal to the neighborhood residents.
At these neighborhood meetings the residents were asked if they wanted a neighborhood foot patrol, and, if so, to designate the location of the target, or experimental areas. Once the target area was named, the residents expressed their special needs and problems as well as the number of officers needed and the hours they would like the foot officer to patrol. The residents also helped to decide where the neighborhood base would be located. It was suggested that they choose a central location accessible to the entire community.
A third citywide meeting was held in March 1978. Each of the various groups from the smaller meetings discussed what the final plan would be with advice and input provided by the city police department. The meetings concluded with the establishment of 14 target neighborhoods considered as experimental areas.
The benefits of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program were considered to be twofold. First, the NFPP would serve to stimulate the development of comprehensive anticrime neighborhood organizations in each of the target areas with neighborhood foot patrol officers providing catalytic assistance and expert advice to the community organizations leading to the formation of neighborhood associations. Second, the neighborhood officers would, through their patrolling activities, be in close contact day-to-day with the neighborhood. They would become familiar with the residents and problems of the community and then be able to link them to appropriate governmental services and resources.
The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation granted $2.6 million to the City of Flint for the original foot patrols serving 14 experimental neighborhoods as well as more supplementary patrols which began in 1980. Michigan State University was awarded $251,932 to evaluate the program. This report focuses on the findings in the 14 experimental areas. These areas were located in many different neighborhoods of the city, not just in the business areas (see Appendix B).
Methods of Evaluation
The Mott Foundation grant for the Flint Police
Department's
Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program established 10 basic goals. They
were:
The following were the main methods of evaluation:
In choosing the subjects for these interviews, the Michigan State University research team adopted a twofold strategy. First, an effort was made during years two and three of the program to interview a large number of community residents chosen at random. By doing this, the research team believed it could accurately assess community attitudes toward the Foot Patrol Program. Yet the research team also wished to have some sense of how community attitudes toward the Foot Patrol Program had evolved over the course of three years. Consequently, an effort was made each year to contact and reinterview residents who had been interviewed in previous years. This group is known as the panel of respondents.
For the first year evaluation of the program, six panel residents in each of the 14 foot patrol areas were selected at random and subjected to an extensive interview. At the time of the second year evaluation only 48 of the original panel of 84 residents were willing or available to be interviewed. They were reinterviewed, and, in addition 320 new residents were randomly selected and interviewed using a shortened questionnaire form. When the third year evaluation was being done, 44 members of the original panel of 84 were willing or available to be interviewed. They, along with 56 residents selected from the 320 residents first interviewed the previous year, were extensively interviewed with the longer questionnaire. In addition, 280 new residents were randomly selected for interviews with the short form for the final year.
Interviews: Business People, Block Club
Leaders,
and Clergy
The Michigan State University research team treated
business
people, block club leaders, and clergy as a group apart from the
community
at large. It was believed that this group was, by virtue of the
occupations
and interests it embodied, more likely to be informed and socially
active
than a group chosen from the general population.
For the first year evaluation, 23 business people, 23 block club leaders, and 20 clergy were randomly selected from the 14 foot patrol areas. Most of the interviews were conducted face to face and some by telephone from the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Due to the, nature of their responsibilities, some of the respondents-- particularly the business people-- were unable to give the undivided attention necessary to complete the interview. In these instances a follow-up survey was mailed to those respondents who agreed to complete it.
The second year, an attempt was made to recontact the 23 business people, 23 block club leaders, and 20 clergy interviewed the previous year. After completing as many interviews as possible, a follow-up survey was mailed to those who had not responded. Further attempts were made to contact them by telephone and in some instances additional surveys were mailed or delivered in person. Of the original group, 11 business people, 18 block club leaders and 20 clergy were interviewed.
In the third year, 14 business people, 17 block club leaders and 9 clergy were recontacted and willing or available to be interviewed.
Interviews: Agencies
Representatives of social agencies were also contacted.
This was for the purpose of determining the number and the
quality
of referrals made to these agencies by foot patrol officers. In 1979,
19
social agencies were contacted; 21 in 1980 and 19 in 1981.
Interviews: Foot Patrol Officers
All of the officers assigned to foot patrol (including
22 foot patrol officers and three supervisors) in the 14 experimental
areas
were interviewed in person for all three years of the project. There
was
an additional supervisory interview in 1980 and 1981 because a
lieutenant
was added to the program.
Interviews: Motorized Officers
For the initial evaluation, interviews were obtained
from 45 motorized officers operating in the foot patrol areas and 23
motorized
officers from nonfoot patrol area (for response comparison). During the
second and third year evaluation, however, there was a significant
decrease
in the number of motorized officers willing to be interviewed.
Twenty-four
motorized officers in foot patrol areas were interviewed in 1980 and 16
in 1981. No motorized officers in nonfoot patrol areas were willing to
complete questionnaires in 1980 and 1981. During this time period, the
city of Flint, Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the
nation.
There were many layoffs in the police department, and the local and
county
jails were under court order to release offenders early as a means of
alleviating
overcrowding. Morale among the motorized officers was low. Also some
felt
that their fellow motorized officers were being sacrificed to the Foot
Patrol Program and they resented it. It should be noted, however, that
their resentment did not accurately reflect the facts since the money
for
the 14 experimental foot patrol areas came from the Mott Foundation
grant.
Some of the additional foot patrol areas, however, were staffed by
former
motorized officers not being supported by grant funds. A separate
evaluation
was also done on those areas and Appendix D
provides
the summary results.
Crime Statistics
The crime statistics for 1978 were gathered in each of
the 14 foot patrol areas prior to the establishment of the Foot Patrol
Program. The 1978 figures then served as a basis of comparison with
figures
gathered in 1979, 1980 and 1981-- the first
three years of the Foot Patrol Program. By comparing these statistics,
the research team hoped to gain another perspective on the
effectiveness
of the Foot Patrol Program. It must, however, be emphasized that crime
statistics must be approached cautiously. They are only one indication
of the effectiveness of the Foot Patrol Program and are not in
themselves
proof of its success or failure. It is, for example, possible that a
rise
in the incidence of reported crime can occur precisely because the Foot
Patrol Program is effective. If, as a result of the Foot Patrol
Program,
citizens feel safer they will be more inclined to be out in public a
healthy
sign by almost any standard. Yet when more people are out in public,
there
may almost inevitably be a rise in actual crime. In this case, it must
be remembered that if actual crime is up, proportional crime is
down-and
proportional crime is the more relevant statistic in assessing the
health
of a community. Similarly, residents may be more inclined to report
crime
if they feel that the chance is greater that the foot patrol officer
will
follow up on their complaints and bring them to a satisfactory
conclusion.
Monitoring
The daily routine of the foot patrol officers was
monitored
by means of personal observation, interviews, and through an
examination
of the documentary evidence. In order to aid in this process, a
community
resident of Flint was employed to attend block club and neighborhood
association
meetings, to conduct interviews, and, to interact informally with
community
residents.
One of the main purposes of the monitoring process was to see if the foot patrol officer in a given area was conscientiously walking his or her beat and making contact with the citizens. In order to determine this, the residents were asked the following straightforward types of questions:
Are
you aware
of the Foot Patrol Program in this neighborhood?
Do you
see
the foot patrol officer?
How
often
do you see the foot patrol officer?
What is
his
or her name?
Have you
personally
talked to the foot patrol officer?
Have you
talked
to your neighbors about the program?
What do
your
neighbors think of the Foot Patrol Program? Do
you know
the functions of the Foot Patrol Program?
Do you
know
of any programs that the foot patrol officer, in cooperation with
community
and residents, is involved in?
What do
you,
as a Flint taxpayer, expect from your Foot Patrol Program?
Are you
satisfied
with the Foot Patrol Program?
Has the
Foot
Patrol Program lowered the crime rate in your neighborhood?
What do
you
expect of the Foot Patrol Program in your neighborhood?
Has the
foot
patrol officer encouraged citizens to report crime?
Has the
Foot
Patrol Program increased the safety of women, the elderly, and young
people?
Do you
feel
safer because of the Foot Patrol Program?
Do you
have
any suggestions for improving the Foot Patrol Program?
Do you
know
the names of neighborhood leaders?Sampling the officers' reports helped to ascertain how much time the individual officer spent attending block club and neighborhood association meetings, following up on juvenile complaints, and establishing crime prevention programs. Much of the information used in the sampling, however was self-report information provided by the officers themselves and the reporting method was sometimes sketchy.
Media Content Analysis
Community and school newsletters and flyers were
examined
for articles prepared by the foot patrol officers. Such articles can be
an important means of informing and involving the community in the
crime
prevention process. The articles assess the degree to which residents
are
aware of crime problems and crime prevention activities of foot patrol
officers.
The research team designed and implemented a coding process for the purpose of analyzing editorials, articles, and letters to the editor which appeared in local newspapers. (The Flint Journal, The Flint Voice, The Flint Spokesman, and The East Village Reporter were the papers regularly examined.)
Overall Evaluation
The following is a discussion of the specific
methodology
that the research team used to determine the extent to which the Foot
Patrol
Program achieved the goals established in the Mott Foundation grant.
Goal #1 To decrease
the
amount of actual or perceived criminal activity.
The actual criminal activity was measured by collecting
and coding crime statistics in the 14 foot patrol districts during
1979,
1980, and 1981. These statistics were then compared to the statistics
taken
from the same areas in 1978-- the year
before
the Foot Patrol Program began.
The perceived crime indices were derived from information provided by the interviews.
Goal #2 To increase
the
citizens perception of personal safety.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted.
Goal #3 To
deliver
to Flint residents a type of law enforcement service consistent with
the
community needs and the ideals of modern police practice.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted.
Goal #4 To create a
community
awareness of crime problems and methods of increasing the ability of
the
law enforcement agencies to deal with actual or potential criminal
activity
effectively.
This goal was assessed by examining the evidence of the
interviews and by performing content analysis of editorials, articles,
and letters to the editor which appeared in local newspapers.
Goal #5 To develop
citizen
volunteer action in support of, and under the direction of, the police,
aimed at various target crimes.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were
conducted.
Goal #6 To
eliminate citizen
apathy about crime reporting to the police.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted.
Goal #7 To increase
protection
for women, children, and the aged.
The original intent was to use the crime statistics and
the interview data as a basis for comparing Flint's experience with
that
of another city suffering comparable economic difficulties.
Unfortunately,
police layoffs and the dislocations caused by a crisis in the
automobile
industry made it more difficult to determine the extent to which the
safety
of women, children and the aged was enhanced. The research team did,
however,
collect the appropriate crime statistics for 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981
and interview questions were asked relating to this specific objective.
Goal #8 To monitor
the
activities of the foot patrol officers.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted as
well as by examining police department records.
Goal #9 To measure
the
interface between foot patrol officers and other units of the Flint
Police
Department and referrals to other agencies.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted.
Goal #10 To
evaluate the
impact of training on the performance of foot patrol offices.
Information relevant to the evaluation of this goal was
gathered from the various series of interviews which were conducted.
Procedural Evaluation
Quite obviously, any attempt to assess the Foot Patrol
Program must involve a continuing examination and re-evaluation of the
daily routine followed by the foot patrol officers. The following
routine
was established by the Flint Police Department as a "typical day" for
foot
patrol officers.
A telephone answering service will be installed on the base station telephone. The number will be distributed throughout the neighborhood for calls of a routine, nonemergency nature. Residents will be instructed to call in emergency matters to Central Communications.
The residents will be informed of the officer’s general beat location (on an hourly basis) beforehand so that any resident who wanted to contact an officer could do so by calling one of the "key houses" where the officer will be checking in every hour. Day-to-day communications with neighborhood residents will be on a person-to-person basis.
The neighborhood officer will communicate with the rest of the force through the use of a hand carried radio. The officer will be able to communicate with other foot patrol officers, car patrol officers, and the Flint police station with this radio.
There were three training programs for the foot patrol officers in addition to the initial recruit training that all police officers receive.
The first was a two week program at the Flint Police Academy in November/December of 1978. The topics included: problems of aging, voluntary action, neighborhood block clubs, human relations, and juvenile procedure and departmental procedures. The second training program took place at Michigan State University on December 10, 11, 12, 13, 1979. The topics included: organization and structure of foot patrol, working with the community, interpersonal communication and conflict resolution, the role of the foot patrol officer as compared to the traditional motorized officer, stress and police, dealing with juveniles inside and outside the court, utilizing supervision, and city ordinances and police-community relations.
The third training program was held at the Flint Police Academy on November 4, 5, 6, 1981. The topics included: a dissemination of the results of the first two years of the evaluation, working with juveniles, obtaining community input, the goals and objectives of foot patrol, procedures and paperwork, arrests and appearance tickets, abandoned cars, block clubs, newsletters, referrals to other agencies, helping the elderly, working with other Flint Police Department units, making public presentations, pertinent city ordinances, city code enforcement, neighborhood complaints, NFP image, and creativity-input-discipline.
In 1980, 1981, and 1982 a Michigan State University research team evaluated the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol in 14 experimental areas to see how well the 10 goals for the program were met (see Appendix B for a more, precise description of the experimental areas). For the purposes of evaluation the research team examined crime statistics, monitored the activities of the foot patrol officers, and conducted content analyses of articles, editorials, and letters which appeared in the local media. The primary method of evaluation was, however, the series of interviews which were conducted with community residents, block club leaders, business people, clergy, foot patrol officers, motorized officers, command officers, and representatives of various community agencies. The interview questions, as mentioned earlier were designed to provide data on a wide range of variables including experience of crime, crime reporting, the performance of Flint police officers, recommendations for police improvement, the degree of community awareness of the Foot Patrol Program itself (particularly of the number and kinds of activities in which the foot patrol officers are involved), and knowledge of citizen leadership within the Neighborhoods.
To reiterate, several different interview formats were used with the various surveyed groups. With respect to the community residents the research team followed a twofold strategy. First, in each successive year of the study an attempt was made to conduct follow-up interviews with a panel of residents who had previously been interviewed. These residents will be referred to as the panel study group. Second, an attempt was made in years two and three to conduct a large number of interviews with residents who had not been contacted previously. The research team believed that this system of mutually reinforcing interviews would prove to be a highly reliable index of community attitudes toward the Foot Patrol Program. By conducting the follow-up panel interviews the research team hoped to gain an impression of how community attitudes toward the Foot Patrol Program changed from year to year. And by interviewing a large number of new residents in years two and three the team hoped to gain an accurate sense of how closely the attitudes expressed in the follow-up interviews correspond to the attitude of the community at large (see Appendix C for the number of interviews with each group and descriptive characteristics of the respondents).
For the evaluation of the first year of the program, six residents were randomly selected from each of the 14 foot patrol areas and intensively interviewed. This was the original panel. At the time of the second year evaluation only 48 of the 84 original panel members were willing or available to be interviewed. Consequently, supplementary interviews were conducted in the second year with an additional 320 residents using a shortened questionnaire form. For the third year evaluation, 44 of the original 84 panel respondents were available to be interviewed and this panel was increased by recontacting 56 of the 320 residents who bad been interviewed with the short form the previous year. This panel of 100 residents was intensively interviewed. In other words, the panel had 84 members the first year, 48 the second, and 100 the third.
In the third year an additional 280 residents were interviewed using the short form. Of these 280 residents, 14 were block club leaders, 14 were business people, and nine were clergy from local churches. These 37 residents gave the Foot Patrol Program highly favorable evaluations. They felt that the foot patrol officers were highly motivated and effective, not only in protecting the neighborhoods but also in encouraging the citizens to become actively involved in their own protection. Their attitudes toward the Foot Patrol Program will be discussed intermittently throughout the remainder of the report.
The major focus will be on information provided by the 280 randomly selected residents who were interviewed for the first time during 1981. This is the latest data available and it should be the most reliable since it was gathered after the improvements recommended by the Michigan State University research team were in place. The information these 280 residents provided will be compared with information provided by the panel members as well as with information provided by the 320 residents contacted for the first time in 1980.
The following, then, are the results of the evaluation as they relate to the 10 specific goals of the Foot Patrol Program. Problem and issue areas that were noted in the program will be the subject of the fourth section of the report and will be dealt with there in greater detail.
Goal #1 To decrease
the
amount of actual or perceived criminal activity.
One purpose of the Flint Police Department foot patrol
experiment was to examine the impact of new foot patrol techniques on
the
delivery of services. Before doing this, however, several cautionary
notes
are in order. We must, first of all, guard against unrealistic
expectations.
No experiment or program, regardless of how well designed and executed,
can have an immediate and dramatic impact on long established social
patterns.
Improvement, if it comes, is almost always slow and modest.
Furthermore, social action and intervention have few simple measures of effectiveness. Take, for example, the issue of citizen perception of crime. Citizens may feel safer because they are safer in reality; but studies have also shown that citizens will feel safer if their neighborhoods are more orderly on the surface or better lighted--though these things may have nothing at all to do with their actual safety.
Crime statistics, too, must be examined with a full knowledge of the variables that can affect them. When crime statistics show a rise in crime rates, it may indeed be because a given social program or the actions of the local police have been ineffective. But it might also be due to a change in the demography of the neighborhood. Young people, for example, tend to have higher incidences of criminal activity than the elderly. Then, too, a rise in the crime rates might be due to the disintegration of some other source of social control. Neighborhood associations, to use just one example, have traditionally been an effective means of binding citizens together and quelling deviant and destructive activity. If such an association had existed in a given neighborhood, and if, for whatever reason, it had begun to disintegrate, crime rates could be expected to rise.
Interestingly enough, a rise in the crime rate might actually indicate that police work has been effective. In order to understand this seeming paradox it is necessary to realize that the gap between actual crime and reported crime is always large. And crime statistics are based only on reported crime. Consequently, any rise in the crime rates could simply be an indication that more crime is being reported. The fact that more crime is being reported could be attributable to the fact that there is less citizen apathy-- which could in turn be attributable to greater citizen confidence in the police. This is a particularly important point to bear in mind in relation to the Foot Patrol Program. For the Foot Patrol Program operates on the assumption that a decrease in citizen apathy and greater citizen confidence in the police are positive things. Yet as has been shown here these positive things can lead to more reported crime and thus a rise in the crime rates.
Similarly, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between actual and proportional crime. When citizens are frightened they take steps to ensure their safety--they may, for example, simply refuse to go out at certain times of day. Their precautions might help depress the crime rates, but from a social point of view this degree of citizen fear can hardly be called healthy. When, on the other hand, citizens feel safe--feel, that is, that the forces of social control are working-- they will be far more likely to be out doing their business and enjoying their community. Of course, when more people are out in public there is likely to be an increase in actual crime; however, there may at the same time be a decrease in proportional crime--the ratio of actual crime to the number of persons exposed to criminal activity. Put less abstractly, this means that the man or woman in the street might actually be safer.
None of this is meant to suggest that crime statistics should be ignored. They are one indication of the comparative health of a community and they do affect the ways in which the police deploy personnel. What cannot be emphasized enough, however, is that crime statistics should never be viewed in isolation. They do not necessarily convey an accurate impression of the degree of citizen safety in a community.
Crime Rates for Flint and Cities of Similar
Size
Table
1 provides the rate per 100,000 of offenses reported in Flint. The
crime rate steadily increased between the years of 1978 and 1981, the
ending
period of the three year evaluation study. A comparison of 1981 and
1978
reveals that only murder and automobile theft decreased--murder
from 23 to 21 incidences and automobile theft from 776 to 594
incidences.
All other crimes-- including rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny--increased in Flint during
this
time period.
In relation to other cities of a similar size throughout the nation, Flint has a higher rate of serious crime per 100,000 offenses reported in every category except automobile theft. These figures may be a bit soft since methods of reporting crime differ from locale to locale, but the impression they convey is probably accurate. Flint has a higher rate of serious crime, citywide, than similar sized cities in the nation.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the crime statistics in the 14 foot patrol areas between the years of 1978 and 1981. The crimes listed include burglary, automobile theft, assault, vandalism, robbery, criminal sexual assault, larceny from a home, larceny from a person, and larceny from a vehicle.
In 1978 there were 4,085 crimes. In 1981 there were 3,731 crimes. This represents a decrease of 8.7 percent between these years 1978 and 1981. In 1979 and 1980 there was a decrease of over 25 percent in the rate of serious crime from the base year of 1978. Even though there was an increase in the crime rates between 1980 and 1981, the overall decrease for the three year period is 8.7 percent. This does not take into account the overall increase in the rate of crime generally in Flint from 1978 through 1981.
One of the most startling findings was the decrease in the number of calls for service which were taken in 1981 as compared to the base year of 1978. There were 678 calls for service taken in 1978 and only 384 taken in 1981--a decrease of 43.4 percent. What the research team found through interactions with police officers and citizens of the 14 foot patrol areas is that the foot patrol officers were dealing with many of the less serious complaints in an informal manner. In other words, complaints about barking dogs, parked cars, broken windows, problems with juveniles, etc., were often dealt with effectively on the spot. The citizen was not forced to make a formal complaint which would have tied up a motorized patrol car. If, for example, Johnnie Jones broke Mrs. Smith's window, Mrs. Smith would wait until the next day when she would contact the foot patrol officer. The officer would then go to Johnnie Jones's house and work out some kind of arrangement between the Jones and the Smiths. This appears to be a far more effective process and is one of the reasons why calls for service were off so dramatically.
Relative to the crime statistics, all categories of crime, as Table 2 shows, were down in 1981 as compared to 1978 except for burglary and robbery. The largest decrease was the crime of criminal sexual conduct (46 percent). The rest of the decreases ranged from 11 percent to 29 percent. If the two crimes that increased, burglary and robbery, were eliminated from the statistics, there would be a cumulative decrease of 21.8 percent in the other seven categories.
Relative to burglaries and robberies, it should be noted that most are committed during the nighttime hours when most foot patrol officers are not working (see Discussion of Key Issues for an expanded discussion of working hours). In any event it is very difficult for an officer on foot to have an effect on these particular categories of crime. Foot patrol officers were, however, effective in dealing with automobile theft, assault, vandalism, criminal sexual assault, larceny from a person, larceny from a home, and larceny from a vehicle.
There was a decrease of crime in 10 of the experimental foot patrol areas, an increase in three areas-- 901, 903, and 914-- and, crime stayed the same in one area-- 904. As the Discussion of Key Issues section of this report will expand on, all areas were increased in size over the experiment. In the areas where crime increased or stayed the same, the area size increases were the following: 901 expanded four times the original, 903 expanded one and a third, 904 was 20 times larger, and, 914 was five times larger than the original size.
Table 2 provides additional crime statistic information. For example, the percentage of each crime for each foot patrol area is shown. Comparisons between 1978 and 1981 can be made for all crimes and all foot patrol districts.
Citizen Perception of Crime Reduction
When the 280 citizens were asked in the final year of
the evaluation if the Foot Patrol Program had reduced the crime rate in
their neighborhood, 48 percent said it had; fewer than 15 percent said
it had not, while the rest were unable to offer an opinion (Table
3). This compares favorably with the, responses from previous
years.
Over the three year period in which the Flint Foot Patrol Program was
in
operation there was a progressive increase in the number of citizens
who
were convinced that the program does in fact deter crime.
There has been a corresponding reduction in the victimization rate of the panel respondents-- particularly with reference to daytime crime. During the first year of the study, five crimes were perpetrated against members of the panel during the morning and early afternoon hours. By the third year of the study, though, only one panel member was victimized by daytime crime. Indeed, one of the common complaints about the Foot Patrol Program is that there is not enough foot patrolling done at night. The patrol has been so effective that the citizens would like it expanded. All of the evidence the Michigan State University research team has been able to develop shows that the Foot Patrol Program does deter crime and could be effective at night-- perhaps even against burglary and robbery
Goal #2 To increase
the
citizens' perception of personal safety.
The 280 respondents were asked if they felt that crime
was a more serious problem in their neighborhood than in the other
neighborhoods
of Flint. Only 14 percent of the respondents felt that crime in their
area
was a more serious problem than in the rest of the city. Forty-nine
percent
felt that their area had less than average crime problems, while
another
26 percent rated the crime problem in their area at about average. When
asked what particular crime concerned them most, the majority of the
respondents
indicated that they especially feared burglary (Table
4).10
The 280 respondents were also asked if they felt safer because of the Foot Patrol Program. Almost 70 percent felt safer, though many qualified their response by saying that they felt especially safe when the foot patrol officer was well known and highly visible. This is another area where the positive response rate increased over the life of the study-- a fact which is the more impressive because the program has had difficulty at times. There was, for example, a period of time near the end of the second year and the beginning of the third year when some of the foot patrol officers were not working appropriate hours. At other times the program has been hampered by expansion of the patrol areas, by excessive rotation of the officers, and by layoffs (Table 5).
Again, the responses of the 280 citizens were corroborated by the panel interviews. Although the 14 foot patrol areas were chosen specifically because they had problems with crime and with resident fear, most of the residents feel quite safe. This was true in 1979 and is still true at the end of the third year of the project. There are, however, some inconsistencies and fluctuations in the data which require examination.
In the first place, it is necessary to realize that there is often a discrepancy between the way citizens respond to survey forms and the actual degree of their fear; their verbal responses are often different from their behavior. They often do not seem to realize that the coping strategies they develop for dealing with their environment might have been motivated by fear. Thus, they might profess to feel safe while at the same time adopting protective devices such as guard dogs, guns, or evidence of identification of valuables. This discrepancy was noted by the persons conducting the personal interviews. People seem to feel that their own lives are going well even if they think others have difficulty. They seem to think that fear affects them very little even if they think that it affects those around them quite a bit.
Because this is so, the Michigan State University research team designed the survey form to elicit information on the actual degree of citizen fear. The citizens were asked directly if they felt that fear influenced their behavior. But at the same time, as an indicator of how free and safe the panel of residents actually felt, they were asked how often they walked in the daytime, in the evening, and at night. The research team believed that the frequency with which residents felt comfortable walking in their neighborhoods would be a reliable indication of how safe they actually felt. And it was around these issues that the discrepancies in the data arose.
As Table 6 shows, the years 1979, 1980, 1981 affected the perception of crime as a problem. Crime was seen as less of a problem in year two than in year three. It is likely that this is due at least in part to the fact that the foot patrol areas were expanded in year three. The foot patrol officer was often less visible, and residents did not have as close a contact with him or her as they did in the first two years of the program.
Table 7, however, shows some conflicting data. For awhile residents did feel that fear of crime affected their behavior more in year three than in year one or two, they did not always act as if they believed this to be the case. A two-way analysis of variance for the effects of year indicates that residents were less apt to be walking in the daytime during year two-- an indication, presumably, that they felt the least safe during that year. In other words, while they said that they felt that crime affected their behavior more in 1981, they acted as if they felt safer. Both of these findings were at the .01 level of significance. Because of problems of the interpretation of the data, the research team used many different interview formats; namely, the panel and the expanded sample as well as informal interactions.
As a further test of how safe the residents actually felt, they were asked if they ever considered moving from their neighborhood because of the crime problem. In every year the majority response was negative-- the residents indicated that they would not consider moving. There was, however, a slight increase in the number who said they would consider moving during year three. These respondents still formed a distinct minority, however (Table 8).11
Both foot patrol and motorized officers were asked questions similar to those asked the resident panel. Table 9 shows that foot patrol officers saw criminal sexual conduct as being significantly more important in years two and three than it had been in year one (the level of significance was .01). Vandalism, by contrast, was seen as less of a problem by the foot patrol officers during years two and three (the significance level here was .06).
The foot patrol officers also found juvenile crime to be less of a problem during the final two years of the evaluation.
These findings are explainable and are the result of the fact that the role of the foot patrol officer has evolved and changed over the life of the program. Throughout the course of the program, foot patrol offices have been effective in dealing with juvenile crime and vandalism. Thus, in one sense, the foot patrol officers do not think of these things as great problems because they are confident that they can deal with them effectively. But, at the same time, they have, as the result of technical assistance from the director of evaluation, begun to be more concerned with more serious crimes like criminal sexual conduct.
The director of evaluation urged the department's administrators to have the foot patrol officers become more concerned with serious crime because of the animosity which arose during the first two years of the study between the motorized and the foot patrol officers. Some of the motorized officers nicknamed the foot patrol officers the "grin and wave squad" because they were perceived as not being concerned with serious crime. The motorized officers felt that they were expected to deal with serious crime while the foot patrol officers had the luxury of following up on juvenile complaints and generally dealing with less trying situations. This unproductive situation was alleviated a great deal when in year two the foot patrol officers began to deal with serious crime. Thus, the concern for such serious crimes as criminal sexual conduct which the foot patrol officers expressed is the direct result of a redefinition of their role.
Police officers were also asked about their own safety in carrying out their duties and activities in the 14 neighborhoods. While the foot patrol officers generally saw themselves as being safe in each of their activities, a few changes did occur over the three year period. Foot patrol officers did think that their safety, when walking their beats, declined significantly (at a level of .05) during year three. The most likely reason for this is that the area size of the 14 foot patrol districts was dramatically increased in year three. Many of the officers were suddenly on unfamiliar ground among people they did not know or recognize and this naturally led to increased anxiety (Table 10). The size of the foot patrol areas is something which will be discussed in a great deal more detail in the fourth section of this volume.
Goal #3 To deliver
to
Flint residents the type of law enforcement service consistent with
community
needs and the ideals of modern police practices
The purpose of this goal was to continually direct the
energies of the foot patrol officers toward the areas of greatest
community
need, and this necessarily implies a high degree of input from the
community
residents. Of the 280 residents interviewed during year three, 42
percent
felt they knew what the duties of the foot patrol officers were. They
listed
patrolling, working with neighborhood groups, taking complaints, and
working
with young people to be the proper functions of the foot patrol
officer.
Many also thought that the foot patrol officers should function as
general
problem solvers in the community (Table
11).
When the 280 respondents were asked what they expected from the foot patrol officer, 27 percent said protection, 19 percent said patrolling, 12 percent said a high degree of visibility and availability, and 6 percent said the taking of complaints (Table 12).
Of particular interest is the fact that over 64 percent of the 280 respondents said they were satisfied with the Foot Patrol Program. Only 18 percent said they were dissatisfied with the program (the remaining 18 percent did not offer an opinion). This contrasts very favorably with the data from the previous year when, for example, the 320 respondents of year two were asked a similar question and 58 percent indicated that they were satisfied with the program. In addition, 27 percent of the 320 respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the Foot Patrol Program-- that it had not met their needs. Therefore, satisfaction with the Foot Patrol Program clearly and dramatically increased over the three year period (Table 13).
Forty-eight percent of the 280 respondents had suggestions as to how the Flint Foot Patrol Program could be improved. Nearly all of the 48 percent who had suggestions felt that more foot patrol officers were needed since that would inevitably lead to more effective patrolling. A significant number of respondents felt the current patrol areas were too large. They felt that decreasing the size of the patrol areas would enhance the officer's visibility and availability and at the same time lead to closer contact between the officer and the citizens. It should be mentioned that the foot patrol officers also felt that their, effectiveness was diminished when the patrol areas were expanded.
A comparison of these 1981 statistics with those gathered in previous years provides a further indication that satisfaction with the Foot Patrol Program is increasing. Seventy-four percent of the 320 respondents who were interviewed in 1980 had suggestions for improvement. The fact that 48 percent of the respondents had suggestions in 1981 suggests real improvement (Table 14).
The foot patrol officers were also asked questions related to the ideals of law enforcement. Foot patrol officers more than motorized officers said that they improved community relations during the course of their job. Undoubtedly this was because of the closer interaction with the residents which is the very nature of their job.
Both motor and foot patrol officers felt that they were doing a job the department wanted the first year of the study. The analysis of the variance data shows that this perception weakened at the .05 level of significance for the foot patrol officers over the course of the study. Despite this, however, the number of officers who felt they were doing a job the department wanted was always high.
By contrast, the supervisors indicated in each year of the study that they did not feel they were doing a job the department valued very highly. They, however, came to see themselves as more valuable in each succeeding year of the study. The dissention associated with the early years of the Foot Patrol Program clearly affected the morale of the supervisors. There were also the inevitable adjustments that had to be made. Roles had to be redefined and one sergeant who was ineffective in the Foot Patrol Program was rotated off the job.
The research team was particularly concerned that the foot patrol officers, more than the motorized officers or supervisors, would feel cut off from headquarters and the rest of the department. The foot patrol officers have a separate roll call from the motorized officers. Unlike the motorized officers they do not report to the station for roll call every day and miss the fraternization with colleagues which goes on there. This did not, however, prove to be a particular problem in any year of the study. Foot patrol officers felt the most isolated in year two and the least isolated in year three with direct effect of the year of study attaining the .05 level of significance in the analysis of variance (Table 15).
Again, supervisors showed a different pattern. Their feelings of isolation increased over the course of the study. This, too, is probably attributable to the changes in the command structure. What this information suggests is that the foot patrol officers find satisfaction in their job which compensates for their lack of contact with others in the police department. They evidently enjoy the independence they have and the high degree of support they get from residents of their patrol areas. This impression is, moreover, only confirmed by the questions relative to the ideals of law enforcement. In the first year of the study both the foot patrol officers and the motorized officers agreed that police officers should be accountable to their peers. Over the three years of the study though the foot patrol officers exhibited a declining concern for this at the .05 level of significance. They increasingly came to see themselves as accountable to the community rather than to the police department.
One important aspect of the Foot Patrol Program was the interaction which took place between the foot patrol officers and the members of the community. Foot patrol officers, far more than motorized officers, felt that knowing the community residents and teaching them to report crime were important law enforcement goals. This has important implications for personnel selection since it says so much about the kind of person who is an effective foot patrol officer.
Ideally, foot patrol officers, might be more involved in providing counsel to residents who have problems. But all of the information shows that they, unlike the motorized officers, have strong interest in this function. This interest manifests itself strongly in each year of the study. In addition, the foot patrol officers agreed strongly over the three years of the project that reassuring residents was an important aspect of the job-- another point of departure from the opinions expressed by the motorized officers. Foot patrol officers showed a willingness and desire to conduct special classes for residents, and, in general saw communication and community involvement as being very important. Motorized officers, because of their jobs and the duties they perform, placed more importance on aloofness or professional detachment.
A related question asked officers the importance of several activities listed in Tables 16 and 17. In the first year, both the foot patrol officers and the motorized officers thought that maintaining order was very important. In year two, the foot patrol officers did not rate the maintaining of order as highly; however, by year three they again thought it was very important. It should be remembered that during the second year the Foot Patrol Program was at the peak of its effectiveness. The officers knew their neighborhoods, were comfortable in them and felt in control. Consequently, the maintenance of order was not such a high priority. As has, however, been mentioned several times, the foot patrol areas were unduly increased in size during the third year. The officers did not know the areas or the residents as well and they had, in any event, more territory in their areas than they could reasonably handle. This caused anxiety and a sense of powerlessness which in turn caused them to reemphasize the need to maintain order.
In all three years foot patrol officers thought that enforcing the law was important. Another police goal, maintaining public acceptance, was rated quite important by both the foot patrol and motorized officers during the first year. For the foot patrol officers, its importance went up in year two and then declined dramatically in year three-- another result of expanding the size of the patrol areas.
Over the three years of the study, the foot patrol officers consistently placed a greater importance on helping victims than did the motorized officers. They also placed a great importance on preventing crime in all three years. Neither the foot patrol officers or the motorized officers placed too great an importance on moving up in the department. In this they are probably just being realistic since there will not be many promotions in the Flint Police Department in the near future. In the case of the foot patrol officers this is probably due also to their interest in the community and its residents. They seem to enjoy the personal contact with the community and express little interest as a group in administrative work. Foot patrol officers also expressed a greater interest in improving their skills than did the motorized officers. Here too the percentages held for all three years of the project.
The enthusiasm foot patrol officers expressed for their jobs varied significantly by year. Each successive year they expressed less enthusiasm for their jobs at the .05 level of significance. There were intervening variables such as unemployment, layoffs, excessive rotation of officers, problems in the command structure, and expansion of the foot patrol areas. But it is evident as well that the duties of the foot patrol can be emotionally exhausting and several officers indicated that "burnout" was a problem. More will be said about this problem in the fourth section of the volume.
Goal #4 To create a
community
awareness of crime problems and methods of increasing law enforcement's
ability to deal with actual or potential criminal activity effectively.12
Any community crime prevention program must be
concerned
with the problem of reported crime. Consequently, the research team
asked
the 280 respondents if they knew of unreported crime and, if so, how
much.
Fewer than 12 percent of the respondents said they knew of unreported
crime.
Most felt that citizens did report crime, especially serious crime.
Again,
a formal complaint was often not made because the matter had been
successfully
dealt with by the foot patrol officer in an informal manner (Table
18).
The respondents were asked if the foot patrol officer encouraged them to report crime. Over 62 percent of the respondents said the officer did encourage them to report crime; fewer than 5 percent said that the officer was indifferent-- the rest expressed no opinion (Table 19).
When the respondents were asked if they had been a victim of crime over the three year period, 27 percent said that they had. Of that 27 percent, 56 percent said they had reported the crime to the police; the remaining 44 percent had not. These statistics need some qualification, however, since further questioning revealed that a number of these "crimes" were in reality minor incidents involving broken windows, stolen bicycles and the like (Table 20).
The victimization rate among the panel respondents was also investigated over the three year period. During the first year, 24 of the panel of respondents were victims of crime-- 22 of them for the first time. Seventy-two percent of these crimes were reported to the Flint Police Department, predominantly via central dispatch since they occurred during the hours when the foot patrol officers were not working.
In year two, 11 residents reported being the victims of crime. Sixty percent of these crimes were reported-- again, predominantly to central dispatch. During the third year, 13 subjects were victimized by crime and 10 reported it to the police. These figures show a decrease in victimization in years two and three over year one. Table 21 shows the breakdown of incidents by the type of crime.
The crimes mentioned by the residents in the survey occurred mostly in their immediate neighborhood and mostly during the evening or night when most foot patrol officers were not working. No dramatic change was noted in the times when crimes occurred and most residents indicated that they were generally satisfied with the response they got from the police, (Table 21).
During the three year period, the foot patrol officers saw neighborhood residents becoming more active in reporting crime at the .05 level of significance. At the same time, however, they saw the neighborhood associations as playing a less active role in informing citizens; this too was at the .05 level of significance (Tables 22 and 23). No doubt this is partly due to more direct contact between the officers and the individual citizen. But it is also possible, especially in the third year, that the increased size of the patrol areas made it impossible for the foot patrol officers to maintain their close relationship with the association leaders.
Goal #5 To develop
citizen
volunteer action in support of and under the direction of the police
department
aimed at various target crimes.
Since a high level of community awareness and a high
level of communication and interaction between citizens helps greatly
in
the deterrence of crime, the research team was interested in the extent
to which citizens talked to each other, particularly about crime
problems
and the Foot Patrol Program. It was found that 44 percent of those
interviewed
had talked to neighbors about the Foot Patrol Program; the other 49
percent
had not. This question was not asked of 7 percent (Table
24). In nearly every instance, the respondent indicated that the
neighbors
they had talked to liked the program. In fact, less than 1 percent of
those
interviewed indicated that the neighbors they had spoken to disliked
the
program. There is no reason to expect that these percentages would not
hold up in the event that more of the respondents talked to their
neighbors
about the Foot Patrol Program (Table
25).
The percentage of respondents, 49 percent, who did not talk to their neighbors about the program was relatively high. There are indications, however, that interaction between neighbors has increased over the life of the program; and there are further indications that the foot patrol officer, chiefly through the programs he or she has initiated, has been the catalyst that has brought about the increased interaction. Many residents have attended meetings organized by their local foot patrol officer. At these meetings they were able to discuss community programs or problems with their neighbors. Often this proved to be the first step in organizing the community against crime and in favor of the Foot Patrol Program. This is an important issue and the last section of the report will elaborate on the numerous programs the foot patrol officers initiated.
A separate evaluation was done of the several supplemental areas in Flint which were not a part of the original 14 experimental foot patrol neighborhoods. In those areas, the percentage of respondents who did not talk to their neighbors about crime prevention was much higher than the 49 percent recorded in the experimental foot patrol areas. The residents of the 14 foot patrol areas are much more interactive with their neighbors a very encouraging sign since one of the keys to crime prevention is cooperation among the residents of the neighborhoods. An organized and mobilized neighborhood is inevitably a safer one and the foot patrol officer can function well in this setting as a catalyst of community development and as a liaison between the community and governmental agencies (Appendix D).
The evidence of increased interaction between neighbors prompted the research team to ask the 280 respondents if they were aware of the number of community programs initiated by the foot patrol officers. Over 30 percent knew of the officer's involvement-- approximately the same percentage as knew the previous year when the 320 citizens were interviewed. The projects where the officer's participation was most visible included block club meetings, safety programs, crime prevention programs such as "operation identification," and school and juvenile programs. Although 30 percent is not an especially low figure, it does suggest that the officers in the 14 foot patrol areas could do more to alert the citizens to the existence of those programs and services which are available (Table 26). As was noted earlier, this is an important point which will be examined more fully in the fourth section of the report.
As a further measure of community interaction, the 280 respondents were asked if they knew the names of neighborhood leaders who were well respected and influential in local affairs. It was found that only 29 percent of those interviewed could give specific names (Table 27). Although this figure represents an improvement over previous years, it is still an indication that too few citizens are aware of one of their most valuable neighborhood resources-- namely, their neighbors. And even though this percentage is low, it is still much higher than percentages derived from interviews in foot patrol areas other than the 14 experimental neighborhoods. The 14 original neighborhoods are more closely organized and more aware of their leadership than are the other foot patrol neighborhoods (Appendix D).
Goal #6 To eliminate citizen apathy about reporting crime to police. (See Goal #4.)
Goal #7 To increase
protection
for women, children, and the aged.
Since one of the primary goals of the Foot Patrol
Program
was to enhance the safety and well being of women, children, and the
aged,
the 280 respondents were asked if they felt the program had succeeded
in
this area. Over 61 percent said that it had; 8 percent said it had not,
while the rest offered no opinion. This too represents a dramatic
departure
from the findings of the previous year. When the 320 respondents were
asked
the same question in 1980, only 47 percent said that the safety of
women,
children, and the aged had been enhanced while 20 percent said it had
not
(Table 28).
When the 280 respondents were asked how protection for women, children, and the aged, could be improved, 19 percent felt that while the foot patrol officers had been helpful in teaching self-protection techniques, more could be done in this area. A number also pointed out that citizens cannot rely wholly upon officers but must take precautionary measures themselves. Another 20 percent of the respondents said that the addition of more foot patrol officers would enhance the safety of these groups (Table 29).
Goal #8 To monitor
the
activities of the foot patrol officers.
Monitoring the activity of the foot patrol officers was
an important component of the program. Over 90 percent of the 280
respondents
were aware of the Foot Patrol Program and their awareness came from
three
major sources: 38 percent had seen a foot patrol officer, 29 percent
had
personal contact with the foot patrol officer, and 11 percent had
learned
of the program through media coverage (Table
30).
The fact that 72 percent of the respondents had either seen or had personal contact with the foot patrol officer indicates that the officers are actively involved with residents. This is, moreover, an area in which the Foot Patrol Program showed a substantial improvement over the previous year. Although seeing the foot patrol officer, having personal contact with the officer, and media coverage were chiefly responsible for the high degree of community awareness of the program, there were other important factors as well. A number of residents heard about the program through friends, neighbors, and in many cases through their school-age children-- a clear benefit of the officers having been active in the schools (Table 31).
When respondents were asked how often they had seen the foot patrol officer their answers varied greatly. Some said they saw the officer several times a week, while others reported seeing him or her only occasionally (Table 32).
It is clear, moreover, that responses to this question raise important issues for the Foot Patrol Program generally. The areas covered by the various foot patrol officers are geographically, socially, and economically very different. The foot patrol supervisor, the individual officer, and the community residents must determine which activities the officer should emphasize in a given area-- within of course, the boundaries of departmental policy and sound police practice. All areas cannot be served in exactly the same fashion since there are differences in geographic size and community need.
In other words, an officer in one area may do extensive foot patrolling and be seen often, while an officer in another area may be engaged in less visible but no less important activities such as attending block club meetings, following up complaints, and organizing juvenile activities. But while approaches may vary, the need to keep the public informed remains constant. When a routine is established for a foot patrol area, every effort should be made to inform the public of it. The citizens should know the officer's functions and duties and they should know how often they can expect to see him or her. When the citizens are not kept properly informed they tend to have inflated expectations and feel that they should see the officer much more often than is reasonable.
Many residents, over a third, know their officer by
name.
When asked if they could name the foot patrol officer in their area, 36
percent knew the officer by name; the other 64 percent did not. In many
cases, however, the person being interviewed attempted to describe the
officer, and in approximately 50 percent of those cases the description
was found to be accurate. One further point bears noting. And that is
that
high name recognition is largely the result of the efforts of the
individual
officer. Name recognition was highest in those areas where the foot
patrol
officer was very active and worked hard at making personal contact with
the citizens-- often by using business cards
which could be referred to when the need arose
(Table
33).
Over the three year period, the research team examined daily, weekly, and monthly report, of the foot patrol officers to ascertain the extent of their participation in block club and neighborhood meetings and the extent of their juvenile and family related contacts. The research team also examined the flex-time records to see how the Foot Patrol Program supervisors, had used flex time to compensate foot patrol officers for the time needed to fulfill these necessary functions-- most of which took place in what would normally have been the officers' off hours. Unfortunately, these records are fragmentary and inconsistent, and are not, therefore, highly reliable. The daily, weekly, and monthly reports are written by the individual officers, and not in any systematic departmentally regulated manner. The flex-time reports indicate when flex time was used, but not always how it was used.
Foot patrol officers were expected to prepare
community
news letters on a regular basis. The content of these newsletters and
the
frequency with which they appeared was monitored by the research staff.
These publication were designed to aid in the crime prevention effort
by
informing the citizens of problems which existed in the community, by
making
them aware of services available, to them, and by instructing them in
precautionary
measures which could be taken for their self-protection. The following
figures indicate both the number and place of publication of articles
that
appeared during the three year study period.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
| 11 School | 31 School | 28 School | ||
| 6 Community | 26 Community | 26 Community | ||
| 1 Church | 6 Not Indicated | |||
| 18 Total | 63 Total | 54 Total | ||
Working with juveniles is one of the important aspects of the Foot Patrol Program; consequently, a careful attempt was made to monitor the amount of contact the foot patrol officers had with juveniles and their families. Thus, the daily booking sheets from the juvenile bureau were examined and the addresses of the juveniles involved noted. When the address of a juvenile was within one of the 14 experimental foot patrol areas, the research team checked to see if the foot patrol officer responsible for the area had made follow-up contact with the juvenile and his or her, family.
Once again, however, it should be noted that inconsistencies in the daily reports hindered the effective assessment of how many juvenile and family related contacts were initiated by the foot patrol officers. Similarly, no exact estimation of the degree to which the foot patrol officers were involved in attending block club and neighborhood association meetings in conducting school crime prevention programs, or in organizing recreational activities is possible.
This is not to say, however, that no valuable information has been developed concerning the involvement of foot patrol officers in juvenile work. The members of the research team interviewed many people and spoke informally to many others, and as a result they were able to form a strong impression of the nature and extent of the contact foot patrol officers had with juveniles. It is an impression, moreover, which is consistent over the three year period of the study and which is consistent with the sketchy documentary evidence which is available.
In general, it is safe to say that foot patrol officers have been extensively involved with juveniles in their areas. This is particularly true in a public sense. That is, foot patrol officers have been particularly good about conducting field trips to amusement parks, accepting speaking engagements, and participating in such things as the Police Athletic League. At the same time, however, the evidence also suggests that foot patrol officers have been somewhat reluctant to become involved with juvenile offenders and their families in a private setting (Appendix E).
The panel of residents was also asked a series of questions designed to develop information about the amount of time foot patrol officers were spending on traditional police activities, as opposed to the amount of time spent on the activities specified in the Mott Foundation grant. The first year evaluation revealed that the foot patrol officers spent most of their time patrolling, followed in order by receiving complaints, counseling on crime prevention, following up on complaints, and counseling victims of crime. The mean shown in Table 34 indicates that foot patrol officers have not greatly altered their priorities during the three year program. An analysis of variance was run to determine the effect of the year on the way foot patrol officers budgeted time. That analysis showed that foot patrol officers reported spending less time patrolling during year two at the .10 level of significance; this does not, however, approach the level of statistical significance, the .05 level. The analysis also revealed that officers were spending proportionally more time counseling victims in each successive year of the study; the level of significance here, however, was only .07 (Table 34).
Goal #9 To measure
the
interface between foot patrol officers and other units of the Flint
Police
Department as well as referrals to other agencies.
The respondents were given a list of six important
police
activities and asked who performed them more effectively, the foot
patrol
officers or the motorized officers (Table
35). The six areas were: (1) preventing crime, (2) encouraging
citizen
protection of themselves, (3) responding to complaints, (4)
investigating
the circumstances of crime, (5) working with juveniles, and (6)
following
up on complaints.
In four of these six areas, namely preventing crime, encouraging citizen self-protection, working with juveniles, and following up on complaints, the 280 respondents agreed that the foot patrol officers were more effective than the motorized officers. As Table 35 illustrates, their agreement was by large margins.
Citizens in eight of the 14 foot patrol areas rated foot patrol officers more effective in investigating the circumstances of crime. The percentages in this category were, however, much closer, and the citizens in the remaining six areas rated the motorized officers more effective. Many of the respondents felt that the foot patrol officers had an edge in this area because they knew their districts well and had gained the trust of the residents. Having the trust of the residents gave the foot patrol officers greater access to information which aided in the solution of crime.
Only in the area of responding to complaints was there a genuinely mixed reaction. Citizens in nine of the 14 areas rate motor patrol officers superior. Citizens discriminated quite sharply between the kinds of complaints involved. The superior mobility of the motorized officers gave them an advantage in responding to certain emergency situations. It was, however, their mobility and not their training which gave them this advantage. When foot patrol officers were available to respond to an emergency situation they were judged equally effective. And in responding to minor or chronic complaints (that is, complaints not requiring immediate and decisive action), the foot patrol officers were judged more effective.
It is worth noting that the business people, block club leaders, and members of the clergy who were among the 280 respondents rated the foot patrol officers superior in all six categories.
The police officers themselves were asked to assess the comparative effectiveness of foot patrol and motorized officers in these six areas. Members of the foot patrol tended to see themselves as superior. By contrast, members of motorized patrols saw little difference in the performance levels exhibited by the two groups. The response of the foot patrol officers varied little over the three years studied and corresponds closely to the responses given by the 280 citizens (Table 36).
The panel of residents was also asked to rate police performance. When asked how well the Flint police in general performed their duties, the panel of residents said they did a slightly better than average job. This was true across the three years of the study with no statistically significant difference in the analysis of variance. The panel rated the motorized officers at about the same level as the police in general. The foot patrol officers were rated slightly higher than the police in general the second year, but there was no statistically significant change in their rating over the three year period. The response of the panel is contrary to the responses given by the 320 residents interviewed in 1980 and the 280 residents interviewed in 1981. Both those groups rated the foot patrol officers significantly higher.
When asked if the Flint Police Department needed improvement, the residents indicated that it did, but not to any great extent. The response was the same in all three years of the study. The response of the residents here is at least slightly inconsistent. On the one hand, residents rate the Flint Police Department slightly better than average. Yet on the other hand, they see no great need of improvement.
In regard to the foot patrol officers' contact with community social agencies, there is a definite change from year to year. During the first year, foot patrol officers mentioned little to moderate contact with the agencies listed in the questionnaire. During the second and third year, however, contact with these agencies was increased. Officers reported increased contact with elementary schools at the .05 level of significance. There was a slightly greater increase in reported contact with programs for the elderly; again the statistical level of significance attained was .05. Foot patrol officers also reported having more contact with employers during year three at the .01 level of significance.
One of the reasons that there was less contact between the foot patrol officers and the community agencies during the first year of the program was that during that year there were neighborhood service representatives available to perform the important linkage function between the community and the government. Budget constraints in Flint forced the elimination of these positions during the second year of the Foot Patrol Program. Thus, the foot patrol officers had to redefine their roles and become more active in making referrals. Although the foot patrol officers have become more conscientious about making referrals, this remains one area where improvement is needed (Table 37).
Nineteen relevant agencies were surveyed to determine the number of referrals foot patrol officers made to them. Two of the agencies, the Genesee County Commission on Substance Abuse and the Flint Building Safety Division, do not accept referrals. Of the 17 agencies which can be contacted by the foot patrol officers, only eight have the kind of data retrieval system which can provide information on the number and origin of referrals. Table 38 provides the available information on the amount of contact officers have had with the community social agencies.
Foot patrol officers had no formal contact with the following agencies: the L.I.F.E. Program, the National Alliance of Businessmen, the Genesee County Probate Court, Intake Assessment Referral, Big Sisters, Transition House, Stepping Stone clubs, Volunteer Action, and the Genesee County Health Department. They had some contact with the Genesee County Social Service Department, Genesee County Family Services, S.A.F.E. House, Positive Action for Youth, and Sexual Assault Crises. Finally, the foot patrol officers were in regular contact with the Citizen's Action Center, the, Mayor's Office on Aging, and the Genesee County Animal Control.
As is reflected in Table 39, foot patrol officers saw an improving relationship between the police department and the courts in each year of the study. In addition, they saw increased safety in the neighborhoods in each year of the study and also a high improvement in police-community relations. During the first two years of the study, the foot patrol officers rated the overall importance of the Foot Patrol Program itself very highly. In year three, however, they rated it less important at the .05 level of significance. As has been mentioned several times, there were a number of intervening variables which could have adversely affected the performance of the Foot Patrol Program in that year. The patrol areas were expanded, there was an especially high unemployment rate which in turn led to layoffs in the police department, there was a court injunction aimed at alleviating overcrowding in the county jail, and the city jail was closed. All of these events could be expected to reduce police morale.
Although the situation has recently improved a great deal, one of the major problems in the Foot Patrol Program has been a lack of cooperation between the motorized officers and the foot patrol officers. In order to clarify the areas of agreement and disagreement between these two groups of officers, the research team interviewed both formally and informally a number of foot patrol and motorized patrol supervisors using a 14 question form. The questions themselves may be found in Appendix A: what follows here is a summary of the supervisors' responses.
Question 1-Supervisee Contact. Both the foot patrol supervisors and the motor patrol supervisors agreed that greater mobility and better radio communication equipment made it easier to contact motorized officers. In addition, the fact that motorized officers had a more structured schedule-- including a daily roll call at the station-- made contacting them easier.
Question 2-Supervisory Control. Both groups of supervisors indicated that it was harder to monitor the activities of the foot patrol officers. The foot patrol officers have more varied assignments, are inside buildings and houses for longer periods of time, and have far more flexible schedules and routines. All of these things make it easier for a foot patrol officer to "get lost" or "hide" if he or she is inclined to do so.
Question 3-Developing Rapport. There was some disagreement in this area. One group of supervisors thought that the competence and demeanor of the individual supervisor was the most important factor in establishing a rapport between the supervisor and the officer. Another group, however, felt that the less structured environment in which the foot patrol officers and their supervisors functioned was more conducive to developing good rapport. Given the nature of their jobs, foot patrol officers and supervisors were apt to come together in informal situations-- for example, at community meetings where they had both been invited to speak.
Question 4-Supervisory Problems. Both groups felt that the fact that a poorly motivated foot patrol officer could, with relative ease, "hide" from his or her supervisor was a problem. In addition, foot patrol officers who are not ambitious can develop special relationships with some community residents or business people and not only "hide out" from their supervisors, but also spend a great deal of time with just a few residents of their area.
Question 5-Supervisory Respect. There was a broad consensus of opinion on this point. Members of both groups of supervisors surveyed said that the main factor in gaining respect is supervisor competency. Whether the individual supervisor was involved with foot patrol or with motorized patrol was seen as being of secondary importance. This opinion was not, however, unanimous. Some felt that it was easier for the foot patrol supervisor to gain the respect of supervisees because of the extensive informal contact. On the other hand, some motorized supervisors felt it as easier for them to gain the respect of their supervisees because they are more often involved together in dangerous situation where the officers depend on their supervisors.
Question 6-Roll Call. All of the supervisors indicated that instituting a roll call for the Foot Patrol Program would increase accountability and lead to definite improvements.
Question 7-Supervisory Pressure. Both groups agreed that foot patrol supervisors are more apt to experience pressure from the upper police administration, from other supervisors; and from local politicians. Since their routine is less rigid, foot patrol officers are often asked to perform new duties on the spur of the moment-- without adequate planning. A number of supervisors mentioned that politicians try to use foot patrol officers as "political tools" in their home neighborhoods-- a development which the foot patrol supervisor must try to avoid.
Foot patrol supervisors felt that their motorized counterparts did not appreciate the complexity of their job, the political sensitivity of the decisions they had to make, or the difficulty of supervising officers in a less structured environment. Conversely, some motorized supervisors felt that the kinds of decisions they had to make and the hours they had to work made their jobs more difficult.
Question 8-Supervisory Promotion. There was general agreement that the competence of the individual supervisor was the primary factor in determining promotions. The majority that felt this way noted that the testing procedure is the same for all supervisors, and noted further that there will not be many promotions in the near future. There was some feeling that it was easier for motorized supervisors to get promoted because motorized patrol supervisors are exposed to a variety of different calls and situations as a result of their law enforcement duties.
Question 9-Supervisory Motivation. Opinions as to why an officer or supervisor would go into the Foot Patrol Program varied greatly. Some felt that the Foot Patrol Program offered more variety of work and an exciting opportunity to become involved in police-community types of activities. Others felt that officers and supervisors wanted to be part of the Foot Patrol Program because the hours were more pleasant and because they expected to avoid the uglier and more dangerous aspects of police work.
Question 10-Supervisory Role. The respective role of the foot patrol supervisors and the motorized patrol supervisors were seen as very different. The role of the motorized patrol supervisor was seen as more clearly defined, with the responsibilities of the position chiefly directed toward the efficient running of the police department. The role of the foot patrol supervisor was understood to be less routine and to involve a far wider range of contacts. Whereas the motorized patrol supervisor worked within the structure of the police department, the foot patrol supervisor was expected to interact with members of the community at large.
Question 11-Advantages of Being a Supervisor. The role of both the foot patrol supervisor and the motorized patrol supervisor were seen to have advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of being a foot patrol supervisor were numerous. The hours were better, there was more room for individual initiative, and there was a certain amount of prestige in being a part of a popular new community program. On the other hand, the foot patrol supervisor is subject to a wider variety of pressures, and there are certain inherent difficulties in maintaining control over foot patrol officers.
The motorized patrol supervisor, on the other hand, has a more clearly defined job, has an easier time supervising his officers, and is subjected to less interference. But the position has its disadvantages. The routine is more rigid, the hours are not as pleasant, and there is less room for individual creativity or initiative.
Question 12-Supervisory Authority. The supervisors were also asked which group the foot patrol supervisors or the motorized patrol supervisors, had the more authority and responsibility. Both groups thought their authority was equal though their responsibilities were very different.
Question 13-Supervisory Evaluation. Both groups felt that their roles and responsibilities were different enough that they should have distinct criteria for evaluation. Since they must deal with a wide range of individuals and groups, foot patrol supervisors must have strong interpersonal skills. And they must, in addition, have a sound sense of how society actually operates. The motorized patrol supervisor does not, perhaps, need such a wide range of skills, but the skills he or she needs are needed in depth. Motorized patrol supervisors must know the law and its applications and be able to make quick decisions in life threatening situations.
Question 14-Future of the Foot Patrol. Most of the supervisors interviewed believed that the Foot Patrol Program has been good for Flint and that its merits are such that it deserves continued support. They felt, however, that economics would ultimately determine whether it continues in its present form. There was general agreement that the program will be greatly reduced in the event that it is supported solely by city funds.
Goal #10 To
evaluate the
impact of training on the performance of foot patrol officers.
In the Methodology section of this report it was
mentioned
that there were three specially tailored training programs for foot
patrol
officers in addition to the recruit training that all officers receive.
Throughout the three year period the research team gathered information
on the officers' opinions about their training. They were particularly
urged to make concrete suggestions as to how the training could be
improved.
This information was then transmitted to the Flint Police Department by
the director of evaluation as part of the technical assistance
component
of the program. Attempts were also made--
largely
through individual consultation and training--
to improve the performance of the foot patrol officers. In addition
layoffs,
transfers, and personnel rotations created the need to train all
persons
entering the program so that they could more adequately know their role
and how to deal with the problems peculiar to foot patrol.
Each year the research team asked how important the different types of training and the different skills learned had been in preparing the officer for his or her task. Of particular interest is the fact that the foot patrol supervisors generally looked upon the various aspects of training as being of less importance than did the foot patrol officers. This finding holds for the first year of the study when both foot patrol and motorized officers were interviewed, and it holds for the second and third year when the foot patrol officers and their supervisors answered the questions. The analysis of variance for the effects of year upon these aspects of training reveals no change. The relative importance of certain types of training and skills as maintained in samples taken from all three years. There was a strong consensus among the officers that their practical police experience most effectively prepared them for foot patrol work. This was followed closely, however, by a variety of skills learned in training. The foot patrol officers felt that interpersonal skills and communications skills were most important to their jobs (Table 40).
Area Size
One of the major complaints citizens expressed
throughout
the three year evaluation period is that they did not see their foot
patrol
officer often enough. This was true in the first two years of the study
and was especially true in year three. There were several reasons for
this.
For instance, six of the foot patrol areas originally had two officers
assigned to them. When the second officer was removed from these areas,
the citizens naturally reported seeing an officer less often. Then,
too,
there were some problems with officer performance. Some officers were
reluctant
to work during the evening when most crime took place. Others were
simply
not active enough in their areas after they made their initial rounds.
They failed to recontact citizens they had previously met, and failed
to
establish new contacts with citizens who had moved in during the
intervening
period.
The primary reason for citizen dissatisfaction in this area was, however, the fact that the foot patrol areas were greatly expanded during the third year of the program. The expansion of these areas ranged from an extension of one and one-third times the original area in Beat #903 to an extension of over 20 times the original area in Beat #904. With extreme expansions of this sort, there can be little wonder that citizens would notice a reduction in the number of times they saw the foot patrol officer.
Furthermore, the expansion of the foot patrol areas had an effect on officer morale. Almost to the officer, they felt that the increased size of their patrol areas impaired their effectiveness. They felt that it became physically impossible to maintain the kind of close contact with the community which is so central to the concept of foot patrol. And in this, the view of the officers is supported by the crime statistics. For while overall crime was down 8.7 percent over the three years of the project, there was a substantial increase in the crime rate between 1980 and 1981. This is a very clear indication that the foot patrol areas had been expanded beyond their optimum size during that year.
Initially, it was felt that a foot patrol area should not be larger than the area an officer could cover on foot during a day while at the same time performing his or her other duties. In time the ongoing evaluation process revealed that the foot patrol areas could, without negative effects, be expanded to the point that the officer could cover them in two days while at the same time performing his or her other duties. Unfortunately, however, intervening factors like politics ultimately determined the size of the areas. The Foot Patrol Program was popular and very effective-- particularly during its second year. Quite understandably, all of the areas of the city wanted their own officer. A scarcity of resources made it impossible to do this and maintain foot patrol areas at their optimum size, yet the political pressures were such that the areas were expanded anyway.
Interestingly enough, though the increased size of the foot patrol areas has led to citizen dissatisfaction, to a degree of demoralization among the foot patrol officers, and an increase in the crime rate, it has not seriously affected the positive perception of the program among the residents. The citizens quite clearly believe that foot patrol can be a workable and effective police activity and want it to continue.
Determining the area size is dependent on many factors such as: What are the expectations of the community? What do they want as top priorities? How does this relate to the overall goals of the police department? What are the community resources? How dense is the population? What is the crime rate? What is the age of the population? and How organized is the community?
Base Station
The placement of the base station is an important
aspect
of any foot patrol program. The facility in which it is located should
be readily accessible to the citizens and should be the sort of place
where
there is naturally a great deal of citizen interaction; at the same
time,
however, there must be enough privacy to allow individual citizens to
talk
to the foot patrol officer about confidential matters. In the Flint
program,
most of the base stations were located in neighborhood schools, though
senior citizens centers and private houses were also used. Generally,
this
worked out very well; there were however, some problems associated with
using the schools which should be noted.
On the positive side, locating the base stations in the schools kept the foot patrol officers in close contact with youngsters in the community. In addition, it proved to be an effective aid to communication-- many citizens reported hearing of the Foot Patrol Program from their school-age children. When problems did arise it was because a particular school principal overused the services of the foot patrol officer as a disciplinarian and general solver of school problems. Even though dealing with schools and school children is naturally a part of the foot patrol officer's duties, it is a service which can be abused when the officer's role is not made clear to the school principal. Therefore, when base stations are established in schools, it must be made clear to the principals that the foot patrol officers belong to the whole community and not just to the school. They should feel free to use but not overuse the services of the officer.
Communication
As has been mentioned a number of times the importance
of communication to a foot patrol program cannot be overstated. Indeed,
one of the central goals of any foot patrol program is to improve
communication
between the community and the police. And, of course, any large
organization
police departments included, must develop effective lines of
communication
between its various departments if it is to operate effectively.
Consequently,
the Michigan State University research team evaluated the effectiveness
of communication in three important aspects of the Foot Patrol Program:
(1) communication between residents and foot patrol officers, (2)
communication
between foot patrol and motorized officers, and (3) methods of
communication
used by foot patrol officers to keep the community informed (e.g.,
newsletters,
business cards, brochures, etc.).
Communication with Residents. The series of regression analyses presented in the previous section of the report indicated that communication is an important variable affecting the perceptions and behavior of community residents. This has important implications for the Foot Patrol Program. For if the foot patrol program is instituted to change the perceptions of the residents, the program developer needs to decide which groups of residents should be targeted by the program for maximum effect on the community as a whole. That is, the program developer must decide whether the program should interact primarily with neighborhood leaders, with less vocal members of the community, or with both groups equally. For a new foot patrol program, the department's initial analysis of whose perceptions are to be changed requires at least some interaction with both groups.
Thus, the community meetings which took place between the Flint Police Department, members of the Mott Foundation, and neighborhood leaders, were an excellent starting point for discussion and for identification of issues. It was, however, also clear that the average resident probably did not attend such meetings or vote for the officers of the associations. For this reason, more personal contact was needed with community members who did not belong to organizations if the ideal level and type of foot patrol activity was to be determined.
An attempt to initiate this additional interaction was made during the second year of the Foot Patrol Program. Ten open meetings were held in the 14 foot patrol areas (several of the foot patrol areas held joint meetings). At them, the community at large was given an opportunity to question Mott Foundation representatives, members of the Flint Police Department command, the foot patrol officer for the area, and the director of evaluation from the Michigan State University research team. Representation at these meetings went far beyond the formal leadership of the neighborhood block clubs. Many citizens with no formal group identification came, listened, asked questions and made suggestions.
The constant community feedback over the three year period of the project proved to be one of its real strengths. Through the interviewing process, through the informal contacts between members of the research team and members of the community, and through the various meetings a high level of cooperation between the police and the community was created and maintained. The citizens better understood the problems in their areas and what they could do to prevent them; and the police, with the aid of the Michigan State University research team, were able to keep abreast of developing problems in the community. In several instances, approaches used in the Foot Patrol Program were altered to good effect as a direct result of interaction with the community.
This is not to say that there were no problems of communication. Again, most of them stemmed from increasing the size of the patrol areas. In the first place, enlarging the patrol areas had the effect of reducing the percentage of residents the foot patrol officer could interact with personally. But, more than this, increasing the size of the patrol areas tended to blur the distinction between neighborhoods. Not all neighborhoods have the same problems, and when the foot patrol areas were increased in size, it made it that much harder to reach a consensus over what measures were to be taken in a given area.
Communication with Motorized Officers. A second important aspect of the communication process is the interaction between foot patrol officers, motorized officers, and other units of the police department. When the Flint Foot Patrol Program began there was a great deal of antagonism between the foot patrol officers and the motorized officers. The motorized officers felt that the duties of the foot patrol officers did not constitute "real police work," and the fact that nearly a third of the original foot patrol officers were new recruits from the police academy did not help matters at all. Put baldly, the motorized officers saw the Foot Patrol Program as being staffed by "rookies" doing an easy job.
As a result of the ongoing evaluation and certain specific recommendations made by the director of evaluation, communication between the foot patrol officers and the motorized officers improved over the three year period. The evaluation revealed, for example, that new recruits were not generally suited for foot patrol duty. It is almost always better to staff the foot patrol with officers who have some experience in motorized patrol and who know the community. As more experienced officers joined the Foot Patrol Program it took on a greater professionalism. Perhaps more importantly, however, the foot patrol officers began to take serious calls and to communicate directly with the motorized officers. The willingness to take serious calls elicited respect from the motorized officers; this increased communication enhanced understanding.
In addition some improvement in the relations between these two groups occurred simply as a result of the way in which the Flint Foot Patrol Program evolved. At one point, there were a total of 46 foot patrol areas in Flint. Staffing these foot patrol areas necessitated taking officers, often the most skeptical, off of motorized patrol and putting them on foot patrol. In due course, these skeptics came to see how difficult foot patrol duty could be. A motorized officer moves from district to district each day; he is isolated from the community by the very fact that he is in an automobile, and he can maintain a comfortable detachment. The foot patrol officer by contrast, must return to the same area day after day, and must deal with the people and problems that are there no matter how incorrigible or intransigent.
Finally, a great deal of improvement was noted when the Foot Patrol Program began to function smoothly, and the motorized officers came to appreciate the extent to which the existence of a foot patrol made their jobs safer and easier. They often found that the local foot patrol officer had identified a problem before it became critical, and when problems did become critical, they found that the foot patrol officer had information about the neighborhood and the residents which was very valuable. For all of these reasons, a previously skeptical motorized patrol came to look more favorably on the Foot Patrol Program.
Though reduced, the hostility between the foot patrol and the motorized patrol has not been completely eliminated. Part of this, to be sure, is a blind opposition to change in some quarters. But part of it also is a sincere disagreement over the way in which scarce resources should be allocated. In the foot patrol areas subsidized by the grants from the Mott Foundation, there was no competition for resources. In the foot patrol areas not subsidized by the Mott Foundation, however, this was a real issue. Money spent on the foot patrol in those areas is money which would probably otherwise have been spent on motorized patrol. The members of the Michigan State University research team believe, nevertheless, that the evidence supports the contention that money spent on foot patrol is money well spent. As noted earlier the citizens of Flint approved a proposal to increase their taxes so all sections of the city can have foot patrol coverage after Mott Foundation funding is terminated.
Foot patrol command officers could have alleviated some of the hostility if they had done more to inform the motorized patrol of the role foot patrol officers were trained to play in providing effective police protection to the residents of Flint. This could have been done by preparing memos, or it could have been done by appearing before the motorized officers at roll call. In any event, a more sustained effort could have been made to inform the motorized officers of the ways in which the functions of the foot patrol intermeshed with their own functions to improve service to the community.
Furthermore, all members of the foot patrol, officers as well as supervisors, could have helped rectify the situation if they had been more conscientious in establishing informal social contacts with members of motorized patrols. The director of evaluation suggested, and not naively, that foot patrol officers "take a motorized officer to lunch." Such informal interaction could only improve communication between the two groups of officers to the great benefit of the police department as a whole. It is only fair to add, before leaving this issue, that while the performance of the foot patrol supervisors could have been improved on this point, their overall performance was excellent-- an accomplishment which is the more commendable because they were often overextended and working under difficult circumstances.
The director of evaluation also made two other suggestions for improving communication between these two groups of officers. The first of these suggestions is that at least some of the foot patrol officers be allowed to spend half their time in a patrol car and vice versa. Instead of having just a few officers in foot patrol the number could be doubled and more motorized officers could become a part of the foot patrol program.
The second suggestion was that officers not stay in the Foot Patrol Program for a period of time which would lead to "burnout." The specific amount of time would depend on each individual officer and the area he or she is in. For example, for an officer in one particular area a three year period may be maximum, while for a different officer in another area five or more years may be appropriate. In addition, a rotation of officers would give many motorized officers, who so desire, a foot patrol experience. This would help eliminate boredom and "burnout" in both groups, and in the particular case of the motorized officers, it would place them in a closer contact with the people they serve. Both of these suggestions, it will be observed, are aimed at breaking down the rigid separation of roles which currently exists between the foot patrol and motorized officers. Both are part of a total police effort to serve the community, and the efforts of both can only be enhanced when their knowledge of their respective activities is increased.
Some problems also arose from the manner in which central dispatch interacted with the Foot Patrol Program. Early on in the program, central dispatch had no clear guidelines which told them when it was appropriate to assign a call to a foot patrol officer. Part of this was due to the fact that the role of the foot patrol officer was not well defined; but, in addition, the foot patrol officers had varied schedules, and it was not always evident, to either the residents or to central dispatch, if a foot patrol officer were actually working in a given area. Therefore, residents were making most of their calls to central dispatch, and central dispatch, following established custom, was assigning them to motorized patrols. This was especially true in the case of serious calls.
In the second and third year of the program great improvements were made in this area. Foot patrol officers were expected to respond to all calls, regardless of the seriousness, if they were close enough to do so effectively. Furthermore, there was, during the last two years of the Program, much better coordination between the foot patrol officers and central dispatch. The foot patrol officers were more accountable for their time, and central dispatch, being better informed of their schedule and activities, began to assign them the proper number of calls.
Methods of Communication. The third and final aspect of communication which was studied relative to the Foot Patrol Program involved the methods foot patrol officers used to keep the people in their areas informed about community problems and police services. On occasion this involved an active use of the news media, but more frequently it involved the preparation of items for newsletters or brochures which were then disseminated to the public. Some particularly effective foot patrol officers also used business cards as a means of ensuring that residents knew their names and knew where they could be reached.
The number of times each foot patrol officer used a newsletter during the three year period was tabulated. The preparation of these materials was one of the major objectives of the Foot Patrol Program. Unfortunately, the performance of the foot patrol officers in this area was erratic when it was existent at all. This was a disappointment since far more was expected of the foot patrol officers in this respect than they actually produced. The foot patrol officers very much seemed to want to avoid this formal method of communication. Possibly, their training did not prepare them for this function and this is not an activity typical of traditional police work.
The foot patrol officers did somewhat better when they were not forced to write. Again, some innovative officers used business cards to make it possible for residents to reach them more easily. Other officers did not, however, do this. Similarly, the more aggressive and confident officers held group meetings and talked to community residents in group situations; the less confident officers did not. Through informal contacts with the residents and with the officers the research team found that many of the less successful officers were organizing programs and activities; they just lacked the communications skills necessary to publicize their existence.
In summary, the importance of keeping the public informed is widely accepted. The public expects it, and the foot patrol officers themselves acknowledge its importance. It is not enough, however, to acknowledge that communication is important. In the future a greater effort should be made to reward those officers who conscientiously and effectively work to communicate with the public. Quite clearly, a greater emphasis on communications skills would help greatly and training programs should address this issue.
Following up on Complaints
In the initial phase of the Flint Foot Patrol Program,
the foot patrol officers were extremely effective in following up on
complaints--
they had plenty of time for this activity, the areas they had to cover
were conveniently sized, and it was seen as an important part of their
job. Furthermore, the fact that they knew the community residents
better
and enjoyed their trust often meant that they had access to better
information
than did the investigators or the motorized officers. This information,
in turn, improved the ability of the police to solve crime.
Unfortunately,
the expansion of the foot patrol area deprived the foot patrol officers
of the advantage they had in the following up of complaints. They
necessarily
had less time for these activities (though there were more complaints
than
they could follow up on), and since they were less familiar with their
beats they were less able to gather valuable information.
The method by which the foot patrol officers receive complaints was also a source of some difficulty. At times there were delays in the foot patrol officers' receiving the information and this hindered the crime solving process. In some cases the foot patrol officer was not getting the complaint copies until after an investigator had been to see the resident. This irritated some residents since they were forced to give their version of events twice, and, of course, it helped create the impression that the police department was poorly organized and inefficient. The Michigan State University research team tried to determine how many complaints the foot patrol officer actually followed up on. Unfortunately, the available records were not sufficient for this purpose. It was simply not possible to tell who was actually doing the follow-up--whether the foot patrol officer, a motorized officer, or an investigator. Neither was it possible to determine how many complaints were followed up on in a given foot patrol area.
Following up on complaints created the possibility of problems with the police union. The word "possibility" here is key, because in actuality the union was very reasonable. They did not harass the Foot Patrol Program with technical complaints and threats of job actions, though they might, on occasion have had the "technical" right to do so. In general, the union members seemed to recognize that the Foot Patrol Program was not in any way designed to take unfair advantage of them and seemed to recognize further that any improvement in police-community relations would ultimately be to their advantage.
One potential source of difficulty with the union was created by the very fact that foot patrol officers were used to follow up on complaints. In doing this, it could be interpreted in some circles that the foot patrol officers were doing the work of investigators, and investigators constitute a specially designated personnel category. This produced some grumbling from the ranks, but on the whole the union was very cooperative in not creating formal problems.
There were several potential union problems associated with the schedules foot patrol officers followed. Many union contracts provide for an extended notice time before a shift change can be initiated. In other words, the employer is required to give the employee ample notice of any change in his schedule. This sort of contractual provision does not always square well with the actual practices of a foot patrol program. The needs of a community are not always so predictable that they allow for this sort of extended notice. Meetings are at times called on short notice, and if the foot patrol commanders ask the officers to attend they may run the risk of violating the union contract.
Again, none of these difficulties arose in Flint. In fact, the union actually discouraged frivolous complaints by officers in the traditional motorized units. Hopefully, this spirit of cooperation will extend into the future. However, Flint, and indeed any city interested in establishing foot patrol program, should keep these issues in mind when they are negotiating their contracts with the police union. The innovative practices of a foot patrol program are often at odds with the traditional demands of unions.
Cost Effectiveness
Police administrations will always ask if foot patrol
programs are cost effective. Citizens will want to know if these
programs
are administratively sound and budgetarily feasible. The evidence
developed
by the Michigan State University research team over three years clearly
indicates that foot patrol programs are cost effective. If the purpose
of the price is to prevent crime, to solve crimes which do occur, and
to
involve citizens in the law enforcement process, then money spent on
foot
patrol is an appropriate use of public funds.
It is important to remember in this respect that motorized patrols are very expensive to maintain. They involve, at the very least, the cost of the automobile, the cost of fuel and repairs, plus the cost of any electronic gear--radio equipment, radar, computer, etc.-- which are on board. All of this is in addition to the office's salary. Now in certain emergency situations-- a burglary in progress for instance-- motorized patrols are absolutely necessary. However, much of the work police officers do is not of an emergency nature, and motorized patrol can be an inefficient way of dealing with routine calls. Quite simply, many situations do not require the use of such expensive technology.
What the three year study revealed is that citizens began reporting minor kinds of problems to the foot patrol officer who often dealt with them informally. The savings potential here is enormous. For when problems are dealt with informally, a burden is lifted from the criminal justice system-- the police and the courts are then freer to deal with the more serious problems of the community. Again, the problems were dealt with effectively at the lowest possible expense.
Whether the goal is crime prevention or the apprehension of criminals, gathering information is the "name of the game" in police work. And in the gathering of information foot patrol officers proved to be more efficient and less costly. This only stands to reason. Patrolling on foot is far less costly than patrolling in a squad car, and, precisely because he or she is on foot, the foot patrol officer has more personal contact with the residents, is trusted by them, and has access to better information.
Most police departments know that motorized officers have problems developing certain kinds of information; because this is so they use undercover officers whose business it is to collect information in a surreptitious fashion. To be sure, there are cases where the use of undercover agents is perfectly appropriate and necessary. Often, however, the use of undercover officers involves needless risks to the officer and needlessly antagonizes the community. Citizens, particularly the young and members of minority groups, often resent the use of undercover officers and this resentment can lead to increased risks for those officers involved. Furthermore, they resent this practice since the use of government "spies" is offensive to some of our most cherished democratic traditions.
In many instances, foot patrol officers can gather the same information in more budgetarily efficient and more socially acceptable ways. It is relevant to remember that in the early years of the century police departments did not extensively employ undercover officers for the simple reason that they didn't need them. Much of the information undercover agents developed was available to anyone who knew the community well, and it was available to the "cop on the beat." The same situation exists today in areas where foot patrol is employed. A foot patrol officer who is alert and knowledgeable about the community can collect most of the information which undercover officers regularly produce-- and at far less cost. Undercover officers can then be used in the extreme situations in which they are most appropriate.
Above all, foot patrol does lead to a reduction in crime. The evaluation indicates that when foot patrol officers are given responsibility for a reasonably sized area crime and calls for service go down. When the crime rate goes down, a city can begin to redirect its resources into other important areas. But one cannot think of savings to the city alone. Crimes have victims, after all, and any drop in the crime rate brings associated savings to the population at large.
In other words, foot patrol officers can perform many traditional police functions more cheaply and efficiently than can other units of the police department; and since they do reduce crime and calls for service, they benefit the entire society. It is, however, difficult to quantify some of the most tangible benefits of the Foot Patrol Program. The evaluation showed that as a result of the Foot Patrol Program citizens felt safer in their neighborhoods and there were signs as well of a growing mutual respect between the residents and the police. These are very important aspects, yet it is extremely difficult to valuate them in dollar amounts.
Crime Statistics
The limitations of crime statistics is a subject which
was discussed in detail in the Methodology section of this report.
Suffice
it to say that crime statistics are influenced by a great number of
variables,
and it is inherently unwise to use them as the sole measure of the
effectiveness
of a program.
A more specific problem in the use of crime statistics was the research team's inability to use a control group. The research team was able to compare the 1978 crime statistics from the 14 experimental areas with the statistics gathered in the same areas during 1979, 1980, and 1981. However, the original plan was to make an additional comparison between the 14 experimental areas and 14 adjoining areas over the same three year period. Comparing the crime statistics in the 14 experimental areas with those in 14 adjoining areas would have given the research team some sense of the extent to which crime rates across Flint fluctuated from year to year; such a comparison would also have revealed the extent to which crime was being pushed into adjoining districts by the Foot Patrol Program.
Unfortunately, the research team did not have the resources to use a control group. The Flint Police Department did not have its crime statistics computerized during the major part of the project. In order to use a control group it would have been necessary to hand pull the crime statistics for all three years in all 14 adjoining areas. This would have been an enormous task, well beyond the resources the research team had at its disposal. In order to develop the 1978 crime statistics for the 14 experimental areas, it was necessary to hand pull beat area crimes from 37,000 complaints. A similar number of crimes for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 also had to be hand pulled and tabulated. It would have been necessary to hand pull approximately the same number of complaints to collect the crime statistics needed for a control group. In addition, with the expansion of the foot patrol program beyond the 14 experimental neighborhoods, many of the proposed control neighborhoods ultimately had their own foot officer, at least in part of the area.
It should, however, be emphasized that while a control group would have been theoretically desirable, the lack of one does not indicate any uncertainty in the findings of the evaluation study. There is no data to even suggest that the findings in this report do not accurately reflect the effects of the Foot Patrol Program on the neighborhoods where it was operative.
Critical Incidents
Two critical incident examples which occurred during
the three year period were dramatic examples of the effectiveness of
the
Foot Patrol Program. The first involved a situation which developed
after
a double homicide at a north side discotheque. An angry crowd formed
and
seemed on the point of confronting the motorized patrols on the scene.
The officers saw only an angry mob in which they recognized few if any
individuals. The members of the crowd felt similarly menaced by heavily
armed officers they didn't know. When, however, several foot patrol
officers
arrived on the scene the situation rapidly improved. The foot patrol
officers
recognized a number of individuals in the crowd. They explained the
position
of the police department to these individuals and urged them to
be calm; at the same time they made it clear to these members of the
crowd
that they understood their anger because of miscommunication.
Communication
was established between the police and the residents; both felt less
threatened
and, as a result, the situation rapidly cooled off. The residents knew
their foot patrol officers would be back in their neighborhoods the
next
day to update them on further information. The foot officers had
developed
rapport and trust with the residents and it paid off in quelling this
situation.
The second incident involved an armed robbery in which an accurate description of the suspect and his car was obtained. Motorized officers saw the car and were watching the house where it was parked. Soon after, the foot patrol officer for that area arrived on the scene. He told the motorized officers who lived in the house and gave a description of the suspect. Because he was familiar with the area, the foot patrol officer was able to provide even more detailed information. He knew, for example, that the man in question drank heavily and that when be did, his wife always went to her sister's house a few blocks away. One of the officers called the sister to see if the wife was there. She was, and she provided further information to the officers. They learned that the children were safe with their mother and that the suspect was alone in the bedroom drinking heavily. With this information the officers were able to raid the house quickly and confidently and no one was hurt.
Admittedly, these two examples were chosen because they were instances where the foot patrol officers and the motorized officers worked particularly well together to avert a dangerous situation. This should not, however, be allowed to obscure the fact that the two groups of officers working in tandem can accomplish things which they could not individually accomplish.
Intervening Variables
There were several intervening variables during the
course
of the three year project including rotation of command officers,
political
intervention, layoffs, and racial tension. At the same time, there was
a court injunction mandating a reduction in the inmate population in
the
Genesee County Jail, greatly reducing the maximum inmate population. In
addition, the Flint City Jail was closed for financial reasons. There
was
a general feeling that it was pointless to work at apprehending
criminals
when there was no place to put them and they would have to be released.
Whether this was a just attitude or not, it existed, and it affected
all
of the police officers including the foot patrol officers.
During the course of the Foot Patrol Program there were two different commanders. Both were very effective commanders, but they were different in administrative style and the foot officers had to adjust to the different styles.
In general, it is important for a foot patrol program to enjoy strong support from the top levels of police management. The Flint Foot Patrol Program was very fortunate in this respect since it had strong support from the Chief of Police in addition to having fine foot patrol supervisors and commanders. These men had very difficult jobs. The city of Flint was experiencing great difficulty during the three years of the Foot Patrol Program-- it had, in fact, the highest unemployment rate in the nation. In this crisis atmosphere there was constant competition for funds and services and even minor decisions were subjected to intense public scrutiny. The police administrators had to continually balance the political demands of the community against the demands of sound police practice.
There were, in addition, some minor racial tensions both in the community and in the police department. The foot patrol unit had a good mix of black and white officers as well as male and female officers, and while the members of the research team heard of problems between black and white officers at times, they never witnessed them directly. In any event, there is no evidence that racial tension between foot patrol officers affected the Foot Patrol Program. Other units in the Flint Police Department did not have the high percentage of black officers the Foot Patrol Program had. Perhaps because of this there were comments from time to time about the foot patrol being a "black oriented unit." Again, this talk never led to any obvious kinds of problems.
Working with Juveniles
One of the major responsibilities of the foot patrol
officers was to make contact with juveniles in the community. Indeed,
some
of the foot patrol officers felt that the director of evaluation
over-emphasized
the importance of these contacts. Their opinion is to be respected, and
it is certainly true that a foot patrol officer has many important
duties
in addition to making contact with juveniles. It is, however, difficult
to see how the importance of juvenile contacts can be, overemphasized.
Juveniles do, after all commit a great deal of crime, and this is a
pattern
of behavior which often continues into their adult lives. Furthermore,
the young are impressionable and can be influenced positively. Never
again
in their lives will the odds in favor of successful social intervention
be as high. And since the foot patrol officer knows the community and
knows
the individuals and families in it, he or she is uniquely qualified to
meet with juveniles and their families in an effort to straighten
things
out.
Early on in the Foot Patrol Program, officers were reluctant to become involved with juveniles to any great extent. Many felt that this was the proper work of social workers-- not police officers; and, in any event, the original job description did not sufficiently emphasize the role foot patrol officers were to play in the juvenile justice system. Throughout the period of evaluation, foot patrol officers were told that they were deficient in this area. As a result some improvement did occur. Constant adjustments were, however, necessary.
During the second year of the program, the foot patrol officers reported a dramatic increase in the number of juvenile contacts. Upon closer investigation the research team found that some of the officers had not really altered their behavior toward juveniles-- they had just begun reporting every contact with juveniles regardless of how slight or trivial. Passing a park with 100 juveniles in it might, for example, have been counted as juvenile contact.
As Appendix E shows, the research team sought to distinguish between two types of juvenile contacts during the third year of the project. Type 1 juvenile contact was identified as contact with juveniles on a one-to-one basis. When the foot patrol officers made arrests, engaged in counseling, or followed up on complaints it was identified as Type 1 contact. Type 2 juvenile contact, then, was contact made in groups-- at assemblies, outings, organized playground activities and so on. As Appendix E clearly shows, there is a great deal of individual variation in the number and quality of juvenile contacts made by foot patrol officers. Much depended on how great a priority the individual officers placed on this particular activity. In a general sense, however, there was a marked improvement in this area over the life of the project.
To assist the foot patrol officers in better record keeping, the research team helped the officers develop a juvenile/family contact sheet and log. It was hoped that this would facilitate record keeping and make it easier for the research team to evaluate the performance of the officers in these areas. Although many of the officers did not use this material, some did; again, much depended on the priorities of the individual officers.
One further point relative, to juvenile activity and the Foot Patrol Program needs to be made-- though it does not, strictly speaking, have anything to do with the three year evaluation. In or around April of 1982 a gang problem developed in Flint, and it gradually became more serious. The director of evaluation suggested that the foot patrol officers could take an active role in helping to solve the problem. Gang members can be notoriously hard to deal with when the gang is actually assembled; when, however, they are alone or with their families they are often more tractable. Again, the foot patrol officer is in a position to intervene at the individual or familial level. The officer could inform the gang members that the authorities have recognized them and that it is unlikely that they will escape serious trouble if they persist in their activities. At the same time, however, the officer could offer to do what he or she could to help the gang member find more socially acceptable outlets for his or her energy. In addition the foot officer can also coordinate his or her activities with other community institutions like the schools and the courts.
Layoffs--Transfers--Reassignments
Layoffs, transfers, and reassignments all caused
problems
for the Foot Patrol Program in the three years studied. A couple of the
officers with the least seniority were excellent foot patrol officers,
and they, unfortunately, were, among the first to go when layoffs
became
necessary. Furthermore, budget cutbacks led to bumping which, even
under
the very best of circumstances, led to some instability in the program.
In the worst instances, bumping brought some of the less motivated
motorized
officers into the Foot Patrol Program. Fortunately, the foot patrol
commanders
quickly recognized the situation and it was rectified.
Disruptions in staffing also altered the positive relationships which the foot patrol officers had established with the community residents. Sometimes the community was not informed that their foot patrol officer had been reassigned. This was particularly damaging since the Foot Patrol Program made such a point of seeking community input in the establishment of staffing models. When officers were removed without adequate notice having been given to the neighborhood they served, many residents took it as a sign that their opinions were not, after all, so highly valued.
Neighborhoods which had been comfortable with one officer were forced to adjust to a new one, and the new officer often had difficulty learning his new job and responsibilities. This is another intervening variable which cannot be predicted but which can negatively affect a program. The fact that changes were often made suddenly and without due notification to the citizens only made matters worse; it caused many citizens to look upon police management with suspicion. Even though layoffs, transfers, and relocations could not have been avoided in most instances, the community should have been informed that though their officer was leaving, they were going to have a new officer and the program would continue as before.
Seven of the experimental areas kept the same officer through all three years of the project; however, four of these areas originally had two officers. What this means is that citizens in 11 of the 14 experimental areas were forced to make adjustments over the three year period. No government agency, of course, can guarantee that there will be no transfers or turnovers; a foot patrol program is no exception. Personnel transfers should, however, be kept to a minimum. They should be done on a rational basis, and the public should be duly informed. It goes without saying that no officer should be in the Foot Patrol Program who does not want to be there-- nor should any officer be placed there for disciplinary reasons.
Profiles--Burnout
Those officers who work out best in foot patrol are
those
who have had experience as motorized officers, are naturally outgoing,
and who like working with many diverse groups of people. Foot patrol
officers
must also be independent thinkers so that innovative approaches to
crime
prevention and control can be initiated.
Inexperienced officers many times are not comfortable using informal approaches to problem solving. In addition, as one veteran officer put it, "many young officers have to get the ‘tail light’ chasing syndrome out of their system before they make good foot patrol officers."
It should be emphasized that being a foot patrol officer is a very difficult job-- particularly for those officers who take their responsibilities seriously. Foot patrol officers have to work effectively without much direct guidance, yet, at the same time, people in the community are constantly making demands on them. Foot patrol was a politically "hot" issue in Flint during the three years of the study, and officers were subjected to this political intensity. Most important of all, foot patrol officers were constantly in contact with difficult, and at times desperate, people.
For these reasons, officer "burnout" was a problem during the three years of the study. At least three officers indicated that they felt burned out and wanted to be transferred. The research team believes that there were other officers who felt that way but did not say so directly. As mentioned earlier supervisors have to constantly evaluate their supervisees to determine whether they are entering the "burnout" syndrome. Some foot patrol areas are much easier to serve than others, and some foot patrol officers thrive on the pressures of foot patrol.
Programs--Projects
One of the most positive aspects of the Foot Patrol
Program
was the sheer number of community action programs which the foot patrol
officers either initiated or helped organize. Foot patrol officers were
involved in an enormous range of activities--
from helping citizens install safety devices, to conducting
self-protection
clinics, to conducting fundraising for various groups. Appendix F lists
all of the programs and projects that the officers were involved in
during
the three year period. It is an extensive list and an impressive
testimony
to the energy and resourcefulness of the foot patrol officers.
Community residents came to appreciate and expect a high degree of officer participation in community programs. When the residents did not feel that their officer was sufficiently involved, they were usually quick to make their opinions known. The program evaluators were often the first to hear of citizen complaints, and when it involved an individual problem which could be dealt with directly, the complaint was relayed to the foot patrol superiors as part of the technical assistance role. In one instance, citizens took matters into their own hands and distributed a petition calling for the removal of their foot patrol officer. The matter was ultimately settled after a community meeting in which the problems were aired-- but the fact that citizens were willing to take such measures is a clear indication of how seriously they took the Foot Patrol Program.
Role--Training
Early on in the program there was some confusion as to
the exact role of the foot patrol officer. It wasn't entirely clear,
for
example, whether they were expected to take serious calls, whether most
situations should be handled formally or informally, whether they
should
use force in making arrests or call a motorized officer if force was
necessary.
The situation was further complicated the first year by the existence
of
neighborhood service representatives. The neighborhood service
representatives
were in each district and were expected to provide linkages between the
community residents and various governmental agencies. Budget
constraints
in Flint forced the elimination of these representatives during the
second
year of the Foot Patrol Program, and the foot patrol officers were
assigned
many of their duties. The addition of these new responsibilities did
nothing
to help clarify the role of the foot patrol officer.
Since this early period of confusion, the role of the foot patrol officer has become considerably clearer to all concerned. Among foot patrol programs, the Flint program is unique in that the foot patrol officers have all the powers and responsibilities of any officer on the force. They take serious calls, become involved in dangerous situations when necessary, and use force in making arrests. The limitations of their role are only those imposed by a lack of mobility. At the same time, however, the role of the Flint foot patrol officer is distinct in two way. First, foot patrol officers are community organizers-- the catalytic agents who encourage citizens to band together in the effort to combat crime. Again, the assumption is that an alert, informed community is essential if crime is to be controlled. Second, foot patrol officers, are expected to be one of the links between the community and those government services which are available. The assumption here is that a great deal of crime can be prevented by appropriate governmental intervention.
Another unique aspect of the Flint program is the high degree of community involvement in police activity. Community residents are constantly encouraged to make clear what they expect from the Foot Patrol Program and from the Flint Police Department generally. All of this, of course, must take place in the context of what is legal and what is sound police practice. Because of the importance of the foot patrol officers' community activities the administration should resist the temptation to "raid" the foot patrol whenever an officer is needed for a special assignment
As mentioned earlier, the role of the foot patrol officer will vary from area to area. Some areas will require more patrolling, while in others more community organization will be necessary. The role of the officer should be structured enough so that he or she can be consistent in responding to community needs; yet the role should also be flexible to the point that the officer can respond to the uniqueness of the neighborhood.
When the officer and the supervisory staff have, in conjunction with the needs of the community, worked out a routine for a particular area, the public should be informed of the details. For when citizens appreciate the full dimensions of the foot patrol officer's job, they are far more reasonable in their demands and do not become disgruntled if they do not see the officer patrolling every day. They realize that if the officer is not on the street, he or she is, for example, probably following up on complaints or attending a community meeting.
The following chart illustrates how, through a process of mutual involvement, the community, supervisors, department administrators and the foot patrol officer can arrive at a definition of the officer's role which is acceptable to all.
The basic idea of this method is that each of the four groups should have some influence on the role the foot patrol officer is to play. Each group indicates what activities it thinks the foot patrol officer should stress, and each group also indicates what it thinks members of the other three groups will suggest. Once all this information is gathered, it is compared to determine the areas of agreement and disagreement. This, then becomes the basis for structuring the foot patrol officer's role in a way that will satisfy all four groups-- the supervisor, the departmental administrators, the foot patrol officer, and community residents.
Diagram of the Matrix Method for Development of the Foot Patrol Officer’s Role
|
|
|||||
| Norms and Behavior
Perceptions Held by: |
|
Department
Administrators |
Supervisors |
|
|
|
Foot
|
1. Perceived norms and expected behavior as it relates to the foot patrol officers’ role 2. Description of actual behavior 3. Statement of alternatives for role definition 4. What criteria should be used when evaluating foot patrol officers? |
1. Perceived norms and expected behavior as it relates to the foot patrol officers’ role 2. Description of actual behavior 3. Perception as to what alternatives the other system will select for role development 4. What criteria should be used when evaluating foot patrol officers? |
|||
|
Departmental
|
1. Perceived norms and expected behavior as it relates to the foot patrol officers’ role 2. Description of actual behavior 3. Perception as to what alternatives the other system will select for role development 4. What criteria should be used when evaluating foot patrol officers? |
1. Perceived norms and expected behavior as it relates to the foot patrol officers’ role 2. Description of actual behavior 3. Statement of alternatives for role definition 4. What criteria should be used when evaluating foot patrol officers? |
|||
| Supervisor |
|
|
|
|
|
| Community
Residents |
|
|
|
|
|
| *Use the same criteria that are presented in the cell showing the foot patrol officer’s perception of department administrators. | |||||
The role may be altered over time as a result of changing community needs, but it will, nevertheless, continue to be structured in such a way as to be acceptable to all of the interested parties. The needs of the citizens are taken into account, and the foot patrol officer has the satisfaction of helping to define the nature of his work. The supervisor and departmental administrators provide technical expertise and ensure that the foot patrol officer's role squares with departmental policies. In particular, they ensure that the role does not violate the job description for departmental police officers.
Training is closely aligned with the development of a solid role definition. Once the role is formulated, the officer is trained in the skills needed to effectively carry it out. In addition to the training given to all Flint police officers, three training sessions were specifically directed at foot patrol.
As part of the ongoing evaluation, officers were asked how effective their training had been and what might be done to improve it. Officers continually indicated that their role needed a clearer definition and that they needed additional training in crisis intervention and in interpersonal skills. The final two training sessions were then developed in light of this information. In addition, a private consulting firm, September & Associates, was involved in a program designed to aid officers in the use of their weapons. This program had a community relations component as well-- a series of simulated exercises designed to show the difficulty of police work. Thus far, this particular program has produced positive results.
Training for foot patrol officers is complex. They have to know all that a motorized officer knows, but on top of that, they must know the community and its resources. The director of evaluation made several suggestions as to how training could be improved. It would, for example, be appropriate to have more joint training between foot patrol and motorized officers. The Flint Police Department purchased video tape equipment with the idea of taping critical incidents in the community. Such tapes, it was felt, would greatly aid in training foot patrol officers. Unfortunately, financial difficulties in the Flint Police Department and in the community at large made it difficult to implement many of these suggestions.
Social Agencies
It is very important that foot patrol officers become
acquainted with the social service agencies in the community. Many foot
patrol officers were effective in this area; section three of this
report
mentions those agencies the officers contacted the most often. In
general,
however, the research team believes that the foot patrol officers did
not
contact these agencies often enough. In defense of the officers, it
should
be noted that there was confusion as to how great a priority should be
placed on these contacts, and, as was mentioned, this confusion was
deepened
during the first part of the project by the presence of neighborhood
service
representatives in the foot patrol areas. On occasion, too, officers
ceased
contacting certain agencies because experience showed that the services
the agency provided were not particularly valuable and/or available to
many community residents.
Although churches are not considered social agencies as such, they are often an important community resource. The research team contacted members of the clergy in the 14 experimental areas to determine how much contact they had had with the foot patrol officers, and to seek their opinion of the Foot Patrol Program as a whole. Although they evaluated the program very positively, the clergy felt that some of the individual officers could have made better use of the churches. Churches are an excellent place to learn of community problems and make contact with citizens, and since they are already organized, churches are in a position to help solve those problems which are identified.
Supervision
In the evaluation section of this report, the problems
associated with supervising a foot patrol program were enumerated. Foot
patrol officers do not have a regular roll call; they are spread
throughout
the city, and less motivated officers have a greater opportunity to
"hide"
in area residences and businesses. Supervision of a foot patrol
program,
then, is inherently difficult.
But, in addition, the foot patrol supervisors were overburdened with duties not related to foot patrol or typical supervision. They were expected to perform such functions as grant writing, making speeches, and conducting training. They were often forced to react to crisis situations which took them away from direct contact with the officers they were supervising. Some officers reported that their supervisors had rarely been in their patrol area. Because of this, it was difficult for the officers to discuss problems in their areas with their supervisor. In some cases they simply had no common frame of reference.
The afternoon shift supervisor, in particular, had two major problems. First, he had too many officers to supervise-- usually about 18; and second, some of the officers that he expected to be on duty were given special assignments that day and he did not learn about those special assignments until he got to work. At the very least this was a sign of ineffective communication between the Foot Patrol Program and those who are making the special assignments. The director of evaluation provided constant technical assistance on this problem-- both to the Flint Police Department and to the Mott Foundation. Supervision of the Foot Patrol Program improved over the life of the project. It is more structured now, and the officers seem to be responding well to the changes. Improvements in training and the development of a clearer definition of the foot patrol officer's role have given both the officers and the supervisors a better sense of the balance between control and flexibility which a foot patrol program ideally seeks to maintain. Again, foot patrol officers must be accountable for their actions, but at the same time have the flexibility to deal with unique situations which develop in their neighborhoods.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance was an important aspect of the
evaluation
of the Flint Foot Patrol Program. The research team collected
information,
both formally and informally, and monitored the activities of the foot
patrol officers. When problems were identified, a meeting was held with
members of the command staff of the Flint Police Department, the
evaluation
director, and representatives from the Mott Foundation. Alterations in
the program were made in order to accomplish the objectives of the
program
when it was deemed appropriate.
As a general technique, problem areas were reported to the command staff and to the Mott Foundation before all of the substantiating information was available and before the appearance of the periodic reports. If there proved to be no problem, or if a problem was successfully solved, there would be no further mention of the issue. Only recurring problems that were substantiated by the research evidence were mentioned in the periodic reports.
The director of evaluation also appeared before roll call meetings on several occasions in order to answer questions, explain the research project, or present any other material that seemed helpful or relevant. And, as mentioned earlier, the director of evaluation helped develop and participated in the training sessions which were held. These training sessions generally focused on particular problem areas-- dealing with juveniles, for example-- but they also provided an excellent opportunity for the director of evaluation to explain the research procedure and findings
One of the cardinal principles followed by the research team was that of being open and straightforward with the foot patrol officers and supervisors. Above all else, the research team wanted to avoid creating the impression that they were "sneaking around" behind the backs of the officers trying to find something wrong. The officers were constantly assured that some mistakes were to be expected in a new program and that the officers' impressions and experiences were valuable. In short, a constructive approach was adopted in which the goals of improving the effectiveness of the Foot Patrol Program and, more generally, the Flint Police Department were stressed.
Some very tangible improvements were made in the Foot Patrol Program as a result of the technical assistance. Certain practices were eliminated and others emphasized more strongly. Inefficient supervisors and poorly motivated officers were transferred. At the same time, the research tools were refined. Perhaps the best example of this is the alteration of the questionnaire form used for the interviews. The first questionnaire form was too long and asked too many superfluous questions. It took over two hours to complete and the results were difficult to assess. The research team did not want to emphasize "quantifying the insignificant." The questionnaires used to interview the 320 respondents in 1980 and the 280 respondents in 1981 were considerably shortened, and only the most relevant questions were included. As a result, the interviewing process was facilitated and the information provided by the respondents was more reliable and relevant.
As part of the formal method, several hundred interviews were conducted with community residents, block club leaders, business people, clergy, foot patrol officers, motorized officers, command officers, and representatives of various community agencies.
The major focus for reporting the evaluation results is on information provided by 280 randomly selected residents who were interviewed for the first time during 1981, the last year of the evaluation. This is the latest data available and it should be the most reliable since it was gathered after the improvements recommended by the Michigan State University research team were in place. The information these 280 residents provided was compared with information provided by 320 residents interviewed the previous year and information provided by the panel of residents and police officers that were interviewed every year of the three year evaluation.
In addition there was a monitoring process wherein members of the research team walked with the foot patrol officers and interviewed them and the community residents they met. There were also periodic visits to the foot patrol base stations to determine if the officers were carrying out the duties expected of them.
Members of the research team were also active in the community on an informal basis. They talked with community residents and police officers at various social events in order to obtain information on the effectiveness of the Foot Patrol Program. Since this information was gathered informally, it is not quantifiable. It did, however, provide a commonsense perspective on the Foot Patrol Program which proved valuable in cases where the data were difficult to interpret.
The third method of evaluation was the evaluation of documents. The daily, weekly, and monthly reports of the foot patrol officers were sampled in order to determine how they had utilized their time. Relevant editorials, articles, and letters to the editor which appeared in local newspapers were analyzed for the information they could provide on community attitudes toward the police, toward the Foot Patrol Program more particularly, and toward crime. The community newsletters which the foot patrol officers wrote were examined, and, of course, the relevant crime statistics were gathered.
Section III of this report, Evaluation of Results, provides a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the Foot Patrol Program in meeting the goals established in the grant from the Mott Foundation. What follows here is a brief summary of its conclusions.
Goal #1 To decrease
the
amount of actual or perceived criminal activity.
In 1978, the year before the inception of the Foot
Patrol
Program there were 4,085 crimes reported in the 14 experimental areas.
In 1981, the final year of the three year evaluation, there were 3,731
crimes reported in the 14 experimental areas. Thus, there was a
reduction
of 8.7 percent in the crime rate in these areas during the three years
the Foot Patrol Program was in existence and this does not take into
consideration
the overall crime increase in Flint in general from 1978 to 1981. Crime
was down in all categories except for robbery and burglary and these
two
crimes were up much higher for Flint in general; robbery was up 31
percent
in general compared to 20 percent in the 14 foot areas; burglary was up
57 percent in general and 31 percent in the 14 foot areas when 1978 is
compared to 1981. Many factors affect the crime rate and the reporting
of crime. For example, in contemporary society an increasing number of
unmarried couples are living together. One of the persons may become
disgruntled,
leave the dwelling and take items that he or she considers theirs. The
other person may report this as a burglary. Technically it may be, but,
nevertheless, this is a different situation than when a person returns
home from a vacation to find that their dwelling has been burglarized
by
a stranger. Section III expands on other reasons for the possible
increases
in burglary and robbery.
Although there was a decrease in crime over the three year period, there was an increase between 1980 and 1981. All of the evidence suggests that this is to be directly associated with the expansion of the boundaries of the 14 patrol areas during the latter part of the program.
There was also a sharp reduction in the number of calls for service during the three year evaluation period. There were 678 calls for service in 1978 and 384 in 1981-- a decrease of 43.4 percent. What the research team found is that the less serious complaints, such as complaints about abandoned cars, neighborhood children or barking dogs, were being handled informally by the foot patrol officer. Citizens had an option other than relaying their complaints to central dispatch. As a result, many minor problems were handled more cheaply and efficiently and the motorized patrols were more available to deal with the serious situations.
The series of interviews which were conducted showed that the citizens had a fairly accurate sense of fluctuations in the rate of crime in their community. Crime rates and calls for service were down, and citizens believed that crime was down. Furthermore, they attributed this decrease in crime to the existence of the Foot Patrol Program.
Goal #2 To increase
the
citizens' perception of personal safety.
Almost 70 percent of the citizens interviewed during
the final year of the study felt safer because of the Foot Patrol
Program.
Moreover, many qualified their response by saying that they felt
especially
safe when the foot patrol officer was well known and highly visible.
Police officers in the 14 experimental areas were asked about their safety in carrying out their duties. While foot patrol officers generally saw themselves as being safe in each of their activities, their impressions did change over the three year period. Foot patrol officers did think that their safety when walking their beats declined during year three. Again, this change seems to be directly associated with the expansion of the foot patrol areas during that year. Many of the officers were suddenly on unfamiliar ground among people they did not know or recognize, and this contributed to increased anxiety. The police department in general was contracting in size.
Goal #3 To deliver
to
Flint residents the type of law enforcement service consistent with
community
needs and the ideals of modern police practice.
Of the 280 residents interviewed during year three, 42
percent felt they knew what the duties of the foot patrol officer
actually
were. When asked what they expected from the foot patrol officer, 27
percent
of the 280 residents said they expected protection, 19 percent said
patrolling,
12 percent said a high degree of visibility and availability, and 6
percent
said they expected the officer to take complaints.
Over 64 percent of the 280 residents interviewed in year three were satisfied with the Foot Patrol Program. Eighteen percent were dissatisfied with the program and the remaining 18 percent did not offer an opinion. This contrasts favorably with the data from the previous year. The 320 respondents in year two were asked a similar question, and 58 percent indicated they were satisfied with the program and 27 percent were dissatisfied.
This did not mean, however, that residents had no suggestions for improving the program. Of the 280 respondents interviewed in year three, 48 percent had suggestions for improving the program. Nearly all felt that more foot patrol officers should be hired in order to increase the level of patrolling. Many residents also felt that the patrol areas had become too large; they felt that a decrease in the size of the patrol areas would lead to closer and more productive contact between the officer and the community. The views of the community closely paralleled the views of the foot patrol officers themselves; they felt that their effectiveness had been diminished by the expansion of the foot patrol areas in year three.
Even though the data suggests that there were some problems with the program during year three, a far smaller percentage of the respondents had suggestions for its improvement. Seventy-four percent of the 320 residents interviewed during year two had suggestions for improvement.
Goal #4 To create a
community
awareness of crime problems and methods of increasing law enforcement's
ability to deal with actual or potential criminal activity effectively.
In the third year of the project, the 280 residents
were
asked if they knew of unreported crime, and, if so, how much. Fewer
than
12 percent of the respondents said they knew of unreported crime. Most
felt that citizens reported crime, especially serious crime. In
addition,
over 62 percent reported that their foot patrol officers actively
encouraged
them to report crime, while fewer than 5 percent said the officer was
indifferent.
When they were asked if they had been victims of crime during the three year period, 27 percent said they had. Of that 27 percent, 56 percent said that they had reported the crime to the police; the other 44 percent did not report the crime. This last figure is, however, somewhat misleading for further investigation revealed that many of the unreported crimes involved, in reality, very minor incidents.
Goal #5 To develop
citizen
volunteer action in support of and under the direction of the police
department
aimed at various target crimes.
As Appendix F makes clear, foot
patrol officers initiated and were otherwise involved in numerous
community
programs over the three year period. The energy and resourcefulness of
the foot patrol officers are to be particularly commended in this area.
Program development of this sort, however, requires more than the leadership of the foot patrol officer; it requires extensive interaction between residents as well. To determine the level of resident interaction, the 280 respondents were asked if they had talked to their neighbors about the Foot Patrol Program. Forty-four percent of those interviewed had talked to their neighbors about the Foot Patrol Program. In nearly all of these instances the respondent reported that their neighbors liked the program and thought it effective. Less than 1 percent of those interviewed indicated that their neighbors disliked the program.
The 280 respondents were also asked if they were aware of the number of community programs initiated by the foot patrol officer. Approximately 30 percent knew of the officer's involvement-- roughly the same percentage as was obtained from the 320 respondents interviewed the previous year. The projects where the officer's participation was most visible included block club meetings, safety programs, crime prevention programs, and school and juvenile programs.
Thirty percent is not an especially low figure but suggests that foot patrol officers could do more to make the public aware of the programs and services which are available. In fact, the officers often did not receive proper credit for the programs they initiated because they did not publicize the existence of these programs widely.
As a further measure of community interaction, the 280 respondents were asked if they knew the names of people in their community who were well respected and influential in local affairs. Only 29 percent of those interviewed could give the specific names of leaders in their community. Although this figure shows an improvement over previous years, it is still an indication that too few citizens were aware of one of their most valuable neighborhood assets--namely, their neighbors. And even though this percentage is low, it is still much higher than percentages obtained through interviews conducted in the non experimental foot patrol areas. At the peak of the Foot Patrol Program, there were 46 foot patrol districts. It was found that the original 14 experimental areas were more closely organized than the non-experimental areas, and the citizens in the original areas were more aware of their community leadership.
Goal #6 To
eliminate citizen
apathy about crime reporting to the police.
The results of the evaluation of this goal were
reported
under Goal #4.
Goal #7 To increase
protection
from women, children, and the aged.
Over 61 percent of the 280 respondents felt that
protection
for women, children, and the aged had been increased because of the
activities
of the foot patrol officers; 8 percent said the safety of these groups
had not been improved, while the rest offered no opinion. This, too,
represents
a departure from the findings of the previous year. In the previous
year
only 47 percent of the 320 respondents said that protection for women,
children, and the aged had been improved. A full 20 percent of the
respondents
in that year said that protection for these groups had not been
improved;
the rest had no opinion.
When the 280 respondents were asked what improvements could be made in this area, 19 percent felt that while the foot patrol officers had been helpful in teaching self-protection techniques, this was an activity that could be profitably expanded. A number also pointed out that citizens can not wholly rely upon the officer, but must take precautionary measures themselves. Another 20 percent of the respondents said that the addition of more foot patrol officers would improve the safety of women children, and the aged.
Goal #8 To monitor
the
activities of the foot patrol officers.
Over 90 percent of the 280 respondents interviewed
during
the third year were aware of the Foot Patrol Program. Seventy-two
percent
of the respondents had either seen or had personal contact with the
foot
patrol officer-- a much higher percentage
than
was obtained the previous year. When respondents were asked how often
they
had seen the foot patrol officer their answers varied greatly. Some
said
they saw the officer several times a week, while others reported seeing
him or her only occasionally.
Even though there are no comparable figures for motor patrol, 36 percent of those interviewed knew the foot patrol officer by name. A significant number of respondents know their officer by name. In addition, approximately half of those who could not give the officer's name provided an accurate physical description.
Inconsistencies in the filling out of daily, weekly, and monthly reports made these of limited use in monitoring the activities of the officers. This did not, however, present a major problem since they did provide some information and it was readily supplemented by information developed by other means.
One of the areas in which the foot patrol officers could improve is that of preparing pieces for the community newsletters. This was viewed as an important part of their function, but many of the officers neglected to do it with any regularity. There was, however, some improvement here. In 1979 there were only 18 articles by foot patrol officers in the community newsletters. In 1980, 63 articles prepared by foot patrol officers appeared, and in 1981, 54 articles appeared.
Goal #9 To measure
the
interface between the foot patrol officers and the other units of the
Flint
Police Department as well as referrals to other agencies.
The 280 respondents were given a list of six police
activities
and asked who performed them more effectively, foot patrol officers or
motorized officers. The six activities were: preventing crime,
encouraging
citizen protection of themselves, responding to complaints,
investigating
the circumstances of crime, working with juveniles, and following up on
complaints. In four of these areas--namely preventing crime,
encouraging
citizen self-protection, working with juveniles, and following up on
complaints,
the 280 respondents agreed that foot patrol officers were more
effective
than motorized officers. They also agreed, but by much smaller margins,
that foot patrol officers were more effective in investigating the
circumstances
of crime. The results regarding responding to complaints were mixed;
some
residents rated the motorized officers more effective in this area due
to their superior mobility-- this was
particularly
true in regard to complaints of serious crime.
It is worth noting that the business people, block club leaders, and member of the clergy who were among the 280 respondents gave the foot patrol officers higher marks and, in fact, rated foot patrol officers more effective in all six categories.
The research team also tried to measure the nature and number of contacts foot patrol officers had with community social agencies. Here, too, hard information proved difficult to come by. Neither the officers nor the agencies kept reliable records of the contacts made. Section III of the report does provide evaluative information in this area, however.
Goal #10 To
evaluate the
impact of training on the performance of foot patrol officers.
In addition to the recruit training that all Flint
police
officers receive, there were three specially tailored training programs
for foot patrol officers. These, training periods were spaced out over
the three year period in order to take full advantage of the new
information
that was constantly being developed by the Michigan State University
research
team. In general, the training the foot patrol officers received was
quite
satisfactory and contributed to the success of the program. Increased
training
in such areas as record keeping, report writing, crisis intervention,
communication
skills, and interpersonal relations would, however, be helpful.
It should be noted, however, that the effectiveness of the training programs for foot patrol officers was hampered somewhat by budgetary difficulties. A number of recommendations which were made were never implemented due to a lack of funds.
Section IV of this report, Discussion of Key Issues, elaborates on some of the more interesting and important issues which were raised by the evaluation. They include: the area size of the foot patrol district, the base station where the officer is located, communication, complaint follow-up, cost effectiveness of foot patrol, crime statistics, critical incidents, intervening variables, working with juveniles, layoffs-transfers-reassignments, profiles of foot patrol officers, burnout, programs-projects, report writing-record keeping, social agencies, supervision, and technical assistance.
Conclusion
The Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program experienced
many of the difficulties which one would expect in a new and innovative
program. On balance, however, it was a distinct success. Crime and
calls
for service were down in the 14 experimental areas over the three years
of the program. Furthermore, it was found that foot patrol officers
were
able to perform certain traditional police functions more efficiently
and
more economically than were motorized officers. The residents of the 14
experimental foot patrol areas responded to these developments very
positively.
They reported feeling safer in their neighborhoods, and there were very
clear signs of an improvement in police/community relations as a result
of the Foot Patrol Program.
It is the opinion of the director of the evaluation that the Flint Foot Patrol Program enjoyed a high degree of success because of several unique factors. First, the Flint foot patrol officers were not expected to just be security officers "shaking doors" and deterring criminal activity by their mere presence in uniform.
Second, the role which an officer in the Flint Foot Patrol Program was expected to play was developed out of different assumptions about the nature of police work. It was assumed, for example, that it was better to prevent crime than to react to it, and it was assumed, further, that the various services the government provides can help to prevent crime if they are brought into play at an earlier enough stage. Consequently, an officer in the Flint Foot Patrol Program was expected to provide linkages to these governmental services. He or she was expected to be familiar with the neighborhood, to recognize potential problems, and to make referrals when it was necessary or appropriate.
Third, the Flint program operated on the assumption that citizens, themselves, have an extremely important role to play in the prevention of crime and in the maintenance of public order; they need to be the "eyes and ears" of their neighborhoods if crime is to be controlled. Consequently, the foot patrol officers in the Flint program were expected to function as catalytic agents of the community; they were expected to encourage citizens to work together for their mutual support and protection.
Finally, the director of evaluation for the Michigan State University research team was allowed to provide ongoing technical assistance. The research team, the Flint Police Department, the citizens of the 14 experimental areas, and representatives of the Mott Foundation worked cooperatively together. From its very onset, the program was subject to constructive criticism and change. Problem areas were identified quickly and alterations were made. Ideas which proved unworkable in practice were discarded, and new ideas were generated.
Appendix B -- Description of Areas
Appendix C -- Number of Interviews and Identifying Information
Appendix D -- A Comparative Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Areas
Appendix E -- Sample of Newsletters, Juvenile Cases and Contacts
Appendix F --Programs and Projects
Appendix
G -- Content Analysis of Flint Newspapers
*Additional appendices were in the original report but eliminated in this publicaiton. They were: Directions for Interviewers, Monthly Activity analysis, Code for Content Analysis, Training Programs, Newsletters and Juvenile Contacts, Area Sizes and Extensions, Base Stations, Community Input Meetings, Juvenile Family Contact Report, Gang Article, History of Officers, Removal Petition, Police Officer Job Description, Churches, and Chronology of Meetings. One or more of the appendices will be provided on request.