The Status of Contemporary Community Policing Programs
Robert C. Trojanowicz
Hazel A. Harden
National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
MSU is an affirmative-action, equal opportunity institution.
This publication was made possible by a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. The information contained herein represents the views and conclusions of the author and not necessarily those of the Mott Foundation, its trustees, or officers.
Copyright © 1985 National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center
Decreasing police budgets will dictate that more effective methods of policing be developed. Police departments will need to find more efficient ways of utilizing officers' "free patrol time." It has been estimated that between 40 percent and 60 percent of a motor officer's shift is free patrol time. In Flint, the figure is 49 percent. Granted, the free patrol time does not occur in one block of time during the shift, but there are large enough segments of time to allow the officer to park the patrol car and mingle with the public. Then, contact can be made, communication facilitated, and trust developed so that the exchange of information to prevent and solve crimes can take place.
Unfortunately, motor patrol officers are reluctant to leave their patrol cars for fear of not being able to respond quickly to emergencies. They also are uncomfortable in casual interactions with the public fearing harassment, ridicule, and even danger.
The above reasons for officer reluctance to leave the patrol car are usually unfounded. Most responses to citizen requests are not of an emergency nature, and if they are, the adjoining motor patrol officer can respond almost as quickly. Obviously there needs to be coordination between adjoining motor beats so that both officers are not walking at the same time.
Similarly, fears of citizen harassment and ridicule are usually unfounded; and, in fact, most citizens welcome officers in their businesses or in their neighborhoods. Most importantly, there is evidence that officer safety may actually be increased when patrolling on foot (Trojanowicz, 1985). Via the natural, regular interaction between the officer and citizens, a relationship of mutual support is established and relevant information is exchanged--information that may lead to the solution of crimes and greater safety for both the officer and the citizens.
Because it is often difficult to persuade motor officers to leave separate--regular funding supported motor patrol, and the special tax millage supported foot patrol. However, many citizens, not understanding funding issues, were irritated because they felt the increased tax millage did not provide for increased officers as promised.
Policy makers must ensure that citizens understand how programs are funded. If the innovative program is merely viewed as a means of appeasing citizens or gaining increased tax dollars without increased services, then the program will ultimately fail because it will lose citizen support.
Special Interest Groups
Community policing programs, i.e., foot patrol, are very popular and therefore susceptible to pressures from community political leaders. Local politicians will find it tempting to try to exploit foot patrol programs. Foot patrol officers know the community well, are respected, and are in day-to-day contact with a lot of voters. Politicians may well try to have foot patrol officers do favors for selected individuals or help with election year canvassing. Effective supervision can greatly reduce or even prevent negative political influence, and specific departmental policy related to this issue will help avoid unprofessional conduct.
Demands made by individuals other than politicians will occasionally be a problem. Various residents will seek to monopolize the foot officer's time. In addition, business people and school administrators may expect unwarranted foot officer presence in their businesses or schools.
The larger problem, however, is that in some communities special interest groups from the upper middle and wealthy classes (or businesses) may either misuse a foot patrol program or react negatively to its implementation. Foot patrol is egalitarian, affording police protection to all citizens. Thus, if there are only limited police resources in a community, spreading them out more evenly will reduce the special interest groups' chances of receiving "special treatment."
For this reason, the working class and lower socioeconomic segments of the community are usually much more receptive to foot patrol than the upper middle class or wealthy who may have had their interests served ahead of others. In many communities, if not most, the impetus for foot patrol comes from the working, lower socioeconomic or middle class areas in the community. Foot patrol is viewed by these groups as a more personal, human response to community needs as well as a way of increasing police service.
The policy implications are obvious. Innovative police programs need the support of community decision makers. If the decision makers are overly influenced by those groups that resist foot patrol, then the chances for the implementation and successful operation of a program are minimal.
Community Social Problems
Foot patrol is only one method of dealing with community social problems. The community must have a commitment to solving problems like inadequate housing and education, unemployment, and racial tension. Foot patrol officers can only affect social policy in a limited way. If there are deep-seated racial problems in the community which go unresolved, a foot patrol program will be viewed as a slick public relations effort implemented to gloss over the major community problems, and appease residents who are concerned about governmental services, including crime prevention. Effective community policing programs need to have the long term commitment of community and departmental decision makers. They should not "come and go" depending on the social and racial climate of the community at any particular time.
Contemporary Community Policing Programs (1)(2) Fifty-five additional departments had had direct contact with the National Center either by telephone contact, by participation in one of the training programs, or by being the recipient of an on-site technical assistance visit. They were also administered the questionnaire. Finally, seven departments identified through a literature search were administered a questionnaire.
It is believed that the 143 departments in the survey represent most of the departments that have programs. These departments were committed enough to community policing that they returned the survey postcard or had contact with the National Center or had their program written up in a law enforcement publication.
The number of respondents could have been increased by telephoning every department in cities with over 15,000 population and asking if they had a community policing program.
Thirteen foreign police departments were also sampled, using a mailed questionnaire (Appendix B). Although the foreign sample is obviously not exhaustive, it nevertheless provides the reader with a "flavor" for foot patrol around the world.
Results of the United States
The following are the results of the survey of the U.S. police departments (including one Canadian department). Appendix C lists the departments that have a community policing program. A survey number is assigned to each department. Periodically throughout the text numbers appear in parentheses designating that a particular department has the program feature mentioned. The reader may desire to make a contact with the designated department for additional information. Telephone numbers, the number of sworn officers in the department, the number of officers participating in the program, the type of program(s) utilized, and whether or not there is written information about the program, are provided.
The reader should be cautioned that in many cases the numbers given for officers in the program were best estimates at the time of the telephone call. The operation of the program often was dependent on the amount of manpower available that day. So, community policing deployment fluctuated. Where an asterisk (*) appears, it means that the manpower fluctuated extensively or that the interviewee was unwilling to even make an estimate.
The activities identified with community policing programs include foot patrol, park and walk, motorcycle-scooter-walk, team policing, special purpose vehicles, horse patrol, the use of auxiliary-reserve-volunteer citizens, and neighboring response units.
Areas of Program Operations
The following are an indication by percentage of the areas in cities where community policing is in operation: downtown business districts, 51 percent; all parts of the city, 21 percent; shopping centers, 12 percent; business and recreational areas, 9 percent; and residential areas, 7 percent.
Most of the community policing programs operate in downtown business districts and shopping centers. However, there are many programs in low income housing projects and areas with high density populations. In addition, there are some programs that operate in residential areas, especially during the recreational season (#47, #65). Some departments designated that their programs function in distinct ethnic neighborhoods (#119, #122). Tourist-oriented cities extensively use foot officers, and in one tourist area, officers were effective in gathering intelligence as well as developing positive lines of communication between strikers and the police department (#92).
The size of the beats varies from both sides of one street (#92, #58) to a five to six block square area (#120) to a much larger area necessitating a scooter for transportation (#113).
There are a variety of means used to facilitate interaction. They range from bicycles to scooters to three-wheeled vehicles. In one community, officers walk in all but the summer season, when they ride motorcycles (#82). In other communities a variety of approaches are used in the department ranging from walking, to riding motorcycles, to driving distinctly colored automobiles.
Expansion or Contraction of the
Of the departments surveyed, 28 percent stated that their program had expanded over the last three-year period while 41 percent said it had remained stable. Twenty-two percent said it had contracted, while 9 percent were unsure.
There are programs that expand and contract depending on the season and special needs of the community. Some programs use a combination of methods during, for example, peak pedestrian times, i.e., the officer may walk part of the time, ride a motorcycle, or ride an all-purpose vehicle the rest of the time (#9).
Some programs have contracted over the years because they primarily operated in the central city business district. Businesses have closed or moved, greatly reducing pedestrian traffic (#13). Many programs fluctuate depending on the amount of manpower in the department. If special events or other detail like executive protection deplete the manpower, then the community policing program is given a lower priority. Other programs are affected by economic factors. Foot patrol is sometimes expanded to conserve fuel. Often a program is started as an experimental effort and then e police department at a particular point in time. For example, in departments that had budgetary problems, saving gas may be a priority; thus, officers park their squad cars for periods of time. Auxiliary police officers and/or citizen volunteers are used in some communities to supplement regular police services or free up sworn officers for response to serious crimes and investigative follow-up (#45, #65). Some programs coordinate their activities with formal citizen organizations that use block captains as leaders for community crime prevention initiatives (#118). Traffic control at peak times in larger cities was also a reason stated for putting officers on foot. Specialized reasons for using a community policing approach, for example, vandalism to boats in a recreational area, were also mentioned (#79). In addition, some tourist towns increased community policing in response to increased traffic and cruising during vacation time periods (#78). Particular problems that come and go, such as large numbers of youths congregating in shopping centers and malls, were also mentioned as reasons to utilize a community policing program. Some programs target protecting certain groups like the elderly (#133). A few departments survey community residents to determine what their problems and priorities are (#85).
Category four, like category two, emphasizes increasing a sense of safety, especially merchant safety. In several cases a program was started because business people had requested additional officers to enhance their own safety and to create a perception of increased security in customers. In some cases plain clothed officers walk in stores during times of peak pedestrian traffic (#23).
Improving communication between the police and citizens, the final category, includes programs that were started to increase positive interactions between the police and the public, a public relations oriented effort (#53). One department indicated that one of the main purposes of their program was to improve relations and trust mitigating the chances for another civil disturbance (#68).
Interviewees did mention, however, that in the past, many community policing programs were initiated primarily as a public relations tool to improve the image of the police. The contemporary approach emphasizes the provision of quality law enforcement service, with public relations being a secondary positive effect. One administrator stated, "If police officers do good police work, they will be doing public relations work at the same time" (#73).
The vast majority of programs are funded out of regular police budgets (94 percent). Some departments, because of an unanticipated need, receive supplemental funding from regular revenues but at times other than the regular budget cycle. In some cases merchants also contribute extra funds for equipment. There is very little state funding of the programs (1 percent), and on occasion a federal government grant is obtained (5 percent). In some cases there is a combination of funding with a grant providing equipment and the department committing the manpower.
Placement of the Program
In a large majority of cases the program is located in the patrol division (91 percent) although special operations was the housing for the program 7 percent of the time. In limited cases the traffic division operates the program because the officers' main duties were traffic related (2 percent).
In most cases sergeants supervise the program (57 percent). There are several programs, however, where lieutenants (21 percent) and captains (18 percent) are the immediate supervisors. In one program a major supervises the activity while in another the chief has assumed that responsibility. In the rest, there is shared responsibility (4 percent).
In most of the programs the supervisor, of whatever rank, has ready access to the chief executive and it is perceived that there is departmental commitment and support for the program.
Size of Program
The size of the departments having a community policing program varies from very small departments to New York with almost 24,000 officers.
The availability of manpower is the primary consideration in choosing the method of community policing, although some departments use a designated percentage of the total sworn force (#69). Parking enforcement officers sometimes work in close cooperation with the beat officers (#75) and some departments use officers on an overtime basis to walk beats.
|Number of Officers||Number of
Foot officers walk most often when pedestrian traffic is heaviest. In one case, Community Watch people patrol during the Christmas season in their own automobiles acting as the "eyes and the ears" of their police department (#12). Store hours and special events are two of the primary reasons for deploying the officers on a particular shift and at specific times during the year. In one case two officers work in a car and take turns walking. In that way the car always remains in service to cover emergencies (#38).
The particular characteristics of the community has a great bearing on the type of community policing program. For example, recreational areas that have beaches often have both day and evening officers. Communities that have many special events, like concerts, also have officers on foot mingling with the community.
Foot patrol also depends on the seasonal characteristics of the particular community. In some communities a program that might be used quite extensively in the warm weather may not be used in the winter (#45). Expansion of the program takes place during the summer in many communities because of increased youths on the streets and tourists (#64). Most community policing programs keep their deployment patterns flexible (#133).
Sex and Racial Breakdown of the
Most of the officers that are involved in walking the beat are white male officers although 23.5 percent of the departments have two or more females in their community policing programs. In those departments that assign "rookies" to community policing programs, females and minorities have involvement in proportionate representation to their numbers in their departments.
Thirty-four percent said all of their community policing officers are volunteers; 16 percent stated that officers were both volunteers and assigned, and 44 percent mentioned that all officers were assigned. Six percent gave no answer.
The image of foot patrol is changing. Whereas in the 70s it was viewed as either punishment or "retirement," persons are now usually placed on foot based on their ability to communicate and interact with community residents. Using volunteers is the preferred approach but assignment is also used when there are not enough volunteers or when union contracts mandate that assignments be made by seniority (#106).
In some cases, new recruits are required to walk the beat for an initial period of time. Other departments state that they would not use new officers because of their inexperience with the law and their lack of seasoned interpersonal skills. Some departments not only specify the amount of time the officer should spend out of the automobile, they also specify the method to be used--such as parking the car in the middle of the block and walking both sides of the street (#58).
The most often stated requirements for the officers in community policing programs were to talk to the public, in particular with the merchants, to have high visibility, and to be concerned about relations between the police department and the citizens. It was also emphasized that most of the officers were expected to do "basic" police work and in the process of performing their basic police functions, emphasize communication and information gathering. In addition, many of the departments mentioned that their community policing officers are involved in traffic enforcement crowd control, dealing with "undesirables" and, in general, the maintenance of order. Providing feedback to administrators relative to citizen concerns is also an important objective (#125).
Some of the officers, though a small percentage of the total, attend community meetings and work with youths. A larger percentage, but less than 50 percent, follow up on complaints. The most heavy emphasis is visibility--officers making their presence known.
Some departments require that the officer spend various times every hour, or every day, out of the patrol car interacting on foot (#27, #37, #77). The amount of time spent out of the car depends on the department and the availability of manpower (#2, #10).
Although in most departments the same officer does not walk the same beat all of the time, there are a few programs where the beat and the officer are matched for an extended period of time (#19). There is usually much rotation of officers.
In some departments, the officer is mainly an observer looking for unusual situations which may need follow up by motor officers (#40). Other departments encourage intense involvement of the foot officer with the community such as taking youths to games, interacting with citizens in housing projects, and attending meetings and special events (#41).
In some departments there is an emphasize on "solving small problems before they become big ones." Associated with this is a public relations orientation to convince the community that problem solving is taking place (#47).
Some departments emphasize the following up of complaints, spending time interacting with the community, gathering information and enhancing police/citizen rapport (#5).
Other departments require officers to attend meetings and become cers generally are not as enthusiastic about the program as the older officers. Walking at night is not widely accepted (#123). Officers who volunteer for community policing duty are much more enthusiastic about the program than those in programs where the officers are assigned. In the community policing programs where officers are not enthused, they view the assignment as either punishment or an assignment designated for rookies. Some "traditional" officers feel community policing programs are instituted mainly to pacify the public.
Community Acceptance of Program
The interviewees were asked how various segments of the community accepted the particular community policing program. In most communities formal surveys were not administered. The measures of acceptance are the perceptions of the interviewees.
The subgroups and the percentage of acceptance are as follows: business community, 82 percent; politicians, 59 percent; residents, 39 percent; church groups, 9 percent; and other police department units, 48 percent. The varying percentages are affected by the number of do not know/no answer responses for the particular groups. Only the subgroup of "other police department units" showed an unfavorable response (5 percent).
In most cases, not only are the various subgroups accepting of the program, they would like more community policing officers, on all shifts, every day of the week, in most areas of the city. Perceptions of safety were greatly enhanced by the particular program. Statements like "the community is begging for more officers" were not uncommon. There was usually a large negative reaction when a community policing officer was extracted from his/her area (#112).
In one community, reaction to the community policing program was "a double edged sword." The community liked the increased personal contact and officer visibility, but after the program was in place for a while, comments were made, such as, "there seem to be too many people on the payroll" or "does there need to be that many officers?" (#109).
In one business community the bar owners were not enthusiastic about the program because they felt that increased officer presence in their establishments could be detrimental to business (#109).
Political leaders are usually verbally supportive of the program but they often do not match their enthusiastic rhetoric with financial assistance for more officers. Usually it is left up to the chief to redeploy officers with existing manpower.
Although it was reported that there is animosity between community policing officers and officers in other units, most of the interviewees felt that the acceptance of community policing programs is increasing. Apparently both the stigma of involvement in the program (punishment, a program for rookies, retirement, etc.) and the view that community policing officers are primadonnas is dissipating. Housing the program in the patrol division and encouraging interaction and exchange of information between motor patrol and foot officers are two of the primary factors that are helping to reduce interunit animosity. Park and walk programs, where the same officer both drives and walks, obviously reduces friction and antagonism.
Ninety-six percent of the interviewees felt that their community policing program would be continued. Four percent either did not know or gave no answer. Twenty-seven percent said they planned to expand their program. Forty-two percent did not plan to expand the program while the rest were not sure what the future held. The main variable determining expansion was usually increased funding, while elimination or reduction was usually blamed on citizen and/or command concern about response time.
Some departments were going to try and increase citizen volunteers to either directly participate in the program or relieve sworn officers of non-law enforcement functions. One department reported that they definitely were not going to expand because the program "was not getting the job done." In some cases it was stated that "even if we drop the program, we can always reinstitute it." In these instances the program administrators perceived foot patrol as a common sense approach that requires little planning or special skills.
Several departments have written materials on their program. These range from newspaper articles, program descriptions, evaluations, training material, film, and statistics to job descriptions. Appendix C identifies departments that have written material.
Foot Patrol in Foreign Countries
Continuing research is being done on foreign countries to determine the prevalence and operation of foot patrol abroad. The following will present the general findings of thirteen sampled foreign countries to give a "flavor for foot patrol" in selected foreign countries. The countries sampled were Australia, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Republic of Liberia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Philippines, Republic of the Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, and Spain. (Canada was included with the U.S. data.)
There is more extensive use of foot patrol in foreign countries than there is in the United States. However, motor patrol is still the main method of police operation.
In foot patrol abroad, there is much involvement and contact between the foot patrol officer and community residents. In several of the countries surveyed, foot patrol is a 24 hour a day operation, although the daytime is the most prevalent time for foot patrol. In addition to walking, foreign foot patrol officers make more extensive use of bicycles, horses, scooters, and motorcycles.
Foreign foot patrol officers operate mainly in urban areas and out of the patrol division. The determination of where foot patrol beats will exist is made mainly on reported crime rates. The higher the crime activity, the more chance there will be a foot patrol officer. Population density is also an important factor as are requests from merchants, the amount of traffic activity, and the particular geographic characteristics of the population serviced.
Foot patrol is usually not a permanent assignment, with officers being rotated into and then out of the foot patrol program. In a third of the samples, rookies or inexperienced officers were put on foot beats for their initial training period. In addition, some departments place the less competent and/or the older officers more readily on foot beats.
There is usually no special training given to the foot patrol officers above and beyond the normal academy training. The officers learn the routine and methods of foot patrol through on-the-job training. They are either dispatched to calls or respond on their own initiative as a result of patrolling and observing. In most cases, however, motor patrol officers are usually given the prime assignment of responding to calls, especially serious calls; foot patrol officers are used as a backup. In the majority of cases, the officers walk in pairs--however, single beats are not unusual.
Typical equipment that the foot officers carry include a gun, a police baton, a portable radio, and handcuffs. Additional equipment may be utilized depending on the department. Foot patrol officers spend varying amounts of time on foot patrol activities. The chart (labeled Table 1) illustrates the activities and time spent on each activity by foot officers in the sampled departments.
Foreign foot patrol officers, like their American counterparts, spend time with various community agencies. The most predominant organizations are in the following order: schools, social welfare agencies, local employers, youth organizations, medical services, drug or alcohol agencies, courts, and programs for the elderly.
The most prevalent method of interaction between foot patrol officers and residents is face-to-face contact while patrolling the beat. This contact takes place through field interviews and casual conversations. In addition, about half the foot officers make contact with residents by telephone.
Officers are most often supervised and evaluated by the reports they write, by the observation of the supervisor, by feedback from the community, by radio checks, and by crime statistics. In addition, the officers themselves provide feedback on their performance as do the motorized officers patrolling the particular foot beat area. Most of the officers also call in on a regular basis stating their location.
Although the survey information reports that the foot officers generally feel that foot patrol is important and a part of "real police work" there were perceived problems with foot patrol. Many of the difficulties existing in foreign foot patrol programs are similar to those of American programs. The major concern is indifference or apathy of the community and unwillingness to cooperate more with the foot patrol officer. Other often mentioned problems included conflict between foot and motorized officers and the lack of mobility. In addition, there is felt to be problems with performance evaluation of the foot officer as well as difficulties with foot officers abusing their authority or power. The major advantages of foot patrol were listed as the following: increased perceptions of safety by the community, increased access to the police by the public, the improved relations between the public and the police, and increased crime >
|1) Patrolling, observing||7 53.8||1, 3, 6, 8,
9, 10, 12
|3 23.1||2, 4, 13||3 23.1||5, 7, 11|
|2) Checking out complaints||5 38.5||5, 6, 9,10,
|4 30.8||3, 4, 8, 12||4 30.8||1, 2, 7, 13|
|3) Making security checks||2 15.4||7, 10||5 38.5||3, 4, 8, 9||5 38.5||1, 5, 6,
|4) Door to door contact||1 7.7||12||2 15.4||6, 8||6 46.2||1, 2, 4, 7
|3 23.1||3, 9, 13||1 7.7||5|
|5) Counseling or referring families
with juvenile problems
|3 23.1||4, 6, 13||7 53.8||2, 3, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11
|3 23.1||1, 5, 12|
|6) Receiving complaints directly
|2 15.4||5, 10||2 15.4||1, 6||7 53.8||2, 3, 4, 7,
8, 9, 11
|2 15.4||12, 13|
|7) Following up on juvenile
|1 7.7||6||3 23.1||1, 4, 9||5 38.5||3, 5, 8,
|4 30.8||2, 7, 11, 12|
|8) Counseling citizens
on crime prevention
|1 7.7||5||5 38.5||3, 4, 7,
|7 53.8||1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13
|9) Writing reports||1 7.7||5||4 30.8||3, 9, 10, 11||6 46.2||2, 4, 6, 7,
|2 15.4||1, 12|
|10) Appearing in courts||1 7.7||5||3 23.1||9, 10, 11||3 23.1||7, 8, 13||4 30.8||2, 3, 4, 12||2 15.4||1, 6|
|11) Traffic control||1 7.7||5||3 23.1||2, 3, 4||8 61.5||1, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13
|12) Crime investigation||1 7.7||5||6 46.2||2, 7, 8, 9,
|3 23.1||1, 4, 6||3 23.1||3, 12, 13|
|13) Attending community
|4 30.8||3, 4, 6, 9||5 38.5||2, 7, 8,
|4 30.8||1, 5, 12, 13|
|14) Contact with juveniles||2 15.4||6, 7||7 53.8||1, 4, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13
|3 23.1||2, 5, 12||1 7.7||3|
|15) Contact with other agencies||4 30.8||3, 4, 11, 13||7 53.8||1, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10
|2 15.4||2, 12|
|16) Intervening in domestic affairs||1 7.7||6||4 30.8||3, 8, 11, 12||5 38.5||1, 4, 7, 9,
|3 23.1||2, 5, 10|
|17) Providing services||3 23.1||6, 7, 9||6 46.2||3, 4, 8, 10,
|2 15.4||2, 5||2 15.4||1, 11|
|Respondent Survey # Key:||1- Victoria, Australia
|7- New Zealand
8- Northern Ireland
|10- Republic of the Philippines
1. On your response card you state that you have a community policing program (Foot Patrol Program, Park & Walk Programs, etc.) Do you still have the program?
2. How long has the program been in existence? ____________________________________________________
3. In what area(s) of the city does the program operate? (i.e., business, residential, predominantly of one racial group, etc.)_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Has it expanded or contracted since its inception? ________________________________________________
5. What was the impetus for its beginning? (i.e., business, community, political leaders, community groups)
6. How is funding for the program provided: regular tax dollars, federal moneys, private funding?
7. In what division is the program located? (i.e., patrol, special services, staff service) ________________________
8. What is the rank structure? (i.e., what rank supervises the program?) Does the commander have ready access to the chief?_________________________________________________________________________________
9. How many sworn officers in your department?___________________________________________________
10. How many officers are assigned to the program?________________________________________________
11. What shifts?____________________________________________________________________________
12. What is the sex breakdown of the officers?____________________________________________________
The racial breakdown?__________________________________________________________________
13. Are the officers assigned to the program volunteers? ____________________________________________
14. What are the average years of total police experience of the officers?________________________________
15. What are officers required to do?___________________________________________________________
16. Do the officers in the program like their assignment?______________________________________________
17. What does the community think about the program?
Feel free to answer in your own language (If non-English).
1. a. How do police organizations in your country deploy police forces
on patrol duties?
Circle all that apply:
2. If your police organization does deploy police forces on foot, what
is the proportion of foot patrol among the patrol force?
Circle the correct number:
4. If foot patrol officers are assigned to specified areas, please circle which ones:
1) Rural areas and
5. a) Are there any other government or private security agencies or organizations which perform the same or similar duties to police foot patrol?
6. a) How long each day are foot patrol officers assigned to foot patrol duty? (circle answer)
|7) Following up on juvenile contact sheets||
|8) Counseling citizens on crime prevention||
|9) Writing reports||
|10) Appearing in courts||
|11) Traffic control||
|12) Crime investigation||
|13) Attending community meetings||
|14) Contact with juveniles||
|15) Contact with other agencies||
|16) Intervening in domestic affairs||
|17) Providing services||
| 18) Any other _____________________
1)__________ 2)__________ 3)___________
17. a) What community, government, or social agencies do your foot patrol officers contact? (Circle all that apply)
1) __________ 2) __________ 3) __________
18. How do your foot patrol officers contact residents? (Circle all that apply.)
29. What is the number of crime occurrences per 10,000 inhabitants in your country in 1982?_______________
Symbols and numbers used in designated columns on the following chart are to be interpreted as follows:
X Designates that information is
lacking or greatly fluctuates.
XX Designates that the department has written material available.
2=Park and Walk
5=Special Purpose Vehicle
7=Auxiliary, Reserve, Volunteer citizens
8=Neighborhood Response Unit
Fort Knox KY
Scotch Plaines NJ
Baton Rouge LA
Whitefish Bay WI
Fort Lee NJ
Green Bay WI
Cuyahoga Falls OH
Valley Stream NY
University City MO
N. Olmstead OH
San Luis Obispo CA
N. Miami Beach FL
S. Portland ME
Pompano Beach FL
W. Warwick RI
Palm Springs CA
Walnut Creek CA
Dade County FL
San Fransisco CA
S. Miami FL
Coeur D'Alene ID
Lake Worth FL
Los Gatos CA
Grosse Pointe MI
Albert Lea MN
Grand Ledge MI
Fort Worth TX
Grand Haven MI
Plymouth Township MI
Las Vegas NV
Palm Beach FL
Park Ridge Il
Rock Island IL
Fort Wayne IN
Eaton Rapids MI
Niagara Falls NY
Santa Anna CA
New York NY
San Diego CA
Fort Lauderdale FL
New Haven CT
Rocky Hill CT
Santa Monica CA
Farmington Hills MI
Los Angeles CA
1 (10 Vol)
Kelling, George. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1981.
Trojanowicz, Robert C., et al. An Evaluation of The Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, 1982.
Trojanowicz, Robert C. and Banas, Dennis W. Perceptions of Safety: A Comparison of Foot Patrol Versus Motor Patrol Officers. Community Policing Series No. 1. East Lansing, Michigan: The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, 1985.
National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
560 Baker Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1118
800-892-9051 or (517) 355-9648