11Police ProcessDae-Hoon KwakMichigan State UniversityCJ 335 Summer 20066/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006Lecture 8Police Patrol II:The Backbone of Policing2Outline for the lecture6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Identify major research studies on the effectiveness of patrol• Explain how current philosophies of patrol differ traditional approaches• Introduce some of alternative ways to improve the traditional patrol3The Call Service Workload6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Volume of Calls- Workload produced by 911 systems varies widely • Types of Calls: Handling “anything & everything”- 29.1 % crime-related calls (just 3% for violent crimes): not crimefighters, but peacekeepers or problem solvers- Most CFS: order maintenance, conflict management, service (especially, family problems)- Many situations require the exercise of discretion- “Hotspots”: Minneapolis Study (5% people Æ 64% CFS)4Aspects of Patrol Work6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Response Time (RT)- Quick RT will increase the probability of an arrest and public satisfaction, but little effect on clearance rateCrime DiscoveryC.F.S DispatchDiscovery timeReporting time Processing time(2m 50sec)Travel time (5m 34sec)5Aspects of Patrol Work (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Response Time (cont.) - 75% of all reported crimes are discovery or cold crimes(only 25% involve crimes)- Discovery delay time: 1 hour for property, 30 min for personal crimes of violence-Victims took an average of 4 to 5.5 min to call the police- Citizen satisfaction with police service is affected by RT. (e.g., more than 15 min, less satisfied)6Aspects of Patrol Work (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Officer Use of Patrol Time - Traditional negative stereotypes: “Donut shop”- Committed time: officer occupied with handling calls- Uncommitted time: patrol, non-police related activity, stationary police-related activities, residual time-POPN studya. P.O.s (beat) spend: encounters with citizens (20%), patrol(20%), traveling(15%) b. CPO spend: encounters with citizens (14%), patrol(9%)-Arrest: Major impact on use of time (1-2 hours processing)27Aspects of Patrol Work (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Evasion of Duty - Officers can create free time by delaying a call• High-Speed Pursuit (HSP)- HSP is a situation where a P.O. attempt to stop a vehicle and a suspect knowingly flees at a high rate of speed- Poses serious risk to P.O., suspects, other drivers, bystanders (e.g., 33% resulted in accidents, 17% for injuries)-“Dark figures”: short duration, don’t report when violated dept’s policy8The Effectiveness of Patrol6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Does Visible Police Presence deter crime ?- Since LPD, the basic assumption is adding more P.O.s on patrols will increase the deterrent effect- Research in 1950s and 1960s did not meet contemporary standards of research a. Operation 25 (NY) – did not control for displacementb. NYC experiment9The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (1972-73)-The first experiment testing the effectiveness of patrolthat met minimum standards of scientific research- Research designa. 15 beats in S. patrol division (out of 24, 9 eliminated)b. 15 beats matched crime data, # of CFS, ethnic composition, median income, etc.10The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (cont.)- Research design (cont.)c. Three level of patrol: reactive, proactive, and controlR = No preventive patrolC = Normal patrolP = 2-3 times more patrol11The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (cont.)- Research design (cont.)d. Measurement: the impact of the different levels of patrol on criminal activity, community perceptions and attitudes, police behavior and PD practicese. Data: UCR, NCVS, other source (e.g., RT, PO’s use of time, officer attitudes)-Findings: “No impact on crime, citizen feelings of safety, change in behavior or lifestyle, and attitudes toward the police”12The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (cont.)- Findings (cont.)a. Challenged traditional assumptions about patrolb. Crime and FOC did not increase in reactive beat- Reasons for the findings and limitationsa. Did not control traveling among beats, people did not seem to notice the different level of patrol (i.e., residual deterrence or phantom effect)313The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (cont.)- Reasons for the findings and limitations (cont.)b. Patrol is spread so thin: doubling is not have any additional impactc. Crimes not to be deterred by patrold. Tested only the level of police patrol rather than actual police activity-Since then there have been many critics of KC study, but it remains a foremost study to police patrol14The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (1978-79)- Tested the effect of foot patrol on crime and public perceptions- Research Design: similar to KC studyRetain = ContinuedDrop = EliminatedAdd = Instituted15The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (1978-79)-Measurement: the effect of different levels of FP on crime, arrest rate, and community attitude (using survey)-Findings“Additional FP had no effect on the crime rate, but FP reduce citizens’ fear of crime, more positive attitudes toward the police”16The Effectiveness of Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• ConclusionsQ: Does Visible Police Presence (adding more P.O.s on patrol) deter crime ? A: Based on two empirical researches, it can be concluded that simply adding more police officers on patrol will not deter crime.17Improving Traditional Patrol6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Traditional Approaches- Patrol deterred crime, quick response is important, maximize patrol coverage (e.g., FP -> VP, one officer unit)• Different Response to Calls- Calls classified according to seriousness of the calla. Immediate response by S.O.b. Delayedc. No police response- Increased both citizen and officers’ satisfaction, and overall quality of CFS system18Improving Traditional Patrol (cont.)6/1/2006CJ 335 Summer 2006• Telephone Reporting Units (TRUs)- Handle calls when citizen reports crime but no immediate