Assignment 2: Foot Patrol Research
Assignment 2
November 12, 2013
Findings of Patrol Experiments
Throughout the years, there have been many different types of studies done. Many studies done are within the criminal justice field. Some of the major studies done within criminal justice are foot patrols. Foot patrol experiments are done to see if crime would stop if police were more noticeable, and deters potential offenders from committing many different crimes. Kansas City and Newark are two of the main studies to be focused on. There were many different findings based off of these experiments and were studied to determine how people would react. Patrolling is one of the main reasons police believe will stop crime from happening due to police presence.
Kansas City Patrol …show more content…
Experiment was taken place in October of 1972 through September of 1973, by the Kansas City, Missouri Police Foundation. George Kelling was the lead in the experiment, with his research group. Kansas City was divided into 15 different parts where they had many options of patrolling techniques. There were three main areas within these parts that were focused on. Reactive was the first area. It received no preventive patrol, where officers only entered the area in response to calls for assistance. There would not be much police visibility in this area. The second area was called proactive. Police visibility was increased two to three more times than usual visibility. Finally, in the third area, or control area, it consisted of normal patrol as needed. Overall, data shows that within the areas, there really was not much of a difference even with the experiment being in existence. (Kevin, 174)
To understand the findings of the study, there were many different types of data collected. The four main types of data the police used were victimization surveys, departmental reported crime, departmental arrest data, and a survey of businesses. Within this data, they created five hypothesis of how it would work. “For the purposes of measurement, a number of hypotheses were developed, of which the following ultimately addressed: crime, as reflected by victimization surveys and reported crime data, would not vary by type of patrol; citizen perception of police service would not vary by type of patrol; citizen fear and behavior as a result of fear would not vary by type of patrol; police response time and citizen satisfaction with response time would vary by experimental area; and traffic accident would increase in the reactive beats.” (Barlow, 247)
Officers were dedicated to a certain area and they previously patrolled the area that they were placed in, and were to always patrol at their same spot until the experiment was complete. “The remaining 15 beat, 32-square mile experimental area encompassed a commercial-residential mixture, with a 1970 resident population of 148,395 persons and a density of 4, 542 persons per square mile. Racially, the beats within this area ranged from 78 percent black to 99 percent white. Median family income of residents ranged from a low of $7,320 for one beat to a high of $15,964 for another. On the average, residents of the experimental area tended to have been in their homes from 6.6 to 10.9 years.” (Kelling, 8)
With having an understanding of the background behind the Kansas City Patrol Experiment, knowing the findings is the main concern. There were thirteen major findings, which were consistent and expected to be accurate. The first was, “victimization surveys found no statistically significant differences in crime in any of the 69 comparisons made between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Bartow, 259) It was surprising that differences did not happen in crimes that consisted of commercial burglaries, auto theft, and robberies. They all still happened, no matter where the police were located. The second finding was, “Departmental Reported Crimes showed only one statistical difference among 51 comparisons drawn between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Kelling, 20) The one difference was in the category of sex crimes involving rape.
Rates of reporting crime was the third major finding. “Crimes citizens and businessmen said they reported to the police showed statistically significant difference between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Kelling, 20)Rates of reporting crime by businessmen and citizens really had no effect even with the police on patrol.
Fourth was arrest patterns had no difference among the areas.
“Either the number of arrests was too small to allow for statistically analysis, or the pre-experimental pattern of arrests was so distorted that statistical significance could not be determined.” (Bartow, 260) Having a change with the level of patrol did not matter and it was not affected.
Fifth was focused on the citizen fear of crime. Within this finding, there was only fear in the probability of being raped, the probability of being robbed, and the probability of being assaulted. The level of fear was only really greater in the reactive beats since patrolling was only done in this area if the police were called. The level of fear in the proactive beat was only mentioned once. Overall, citizen fear was not affected due to the experiment. (Bartow, 261)
A protective measure focused on citizens was the sixth finding. This area involved having installation of bars, alarms, locks, lighting, weapons, dogs, and taking actions of staying inside. The study concluded that with having more police on patrol, it did not make a difference. Crime would happen anyways, no matter the type of protection. The seventh finding focused on protective measures with businessmen. There was no actual difference as well, and it did not matter for how much patrol of protection that was involved. (Bartow, …show more content…
262)
The eighth and Ninth finding was involved with citizen and businessmen attitude towards police. To them, it did not make a difference of the level of patrol. They really did not notice there was more police on patrol, and instead focused on going through with their day. The tenth finding involved police-citizen encounters. “Citizens and observers alike were asked about such items as response time, characteristics of the encounter, the attitude and demeanor of officers in the encounter, and citizen satisfaction.” Once again, no difference was concluded. (Kelling, 30-31)
Police-citizen transactions were determined to be the eleventh finding.
The behavior towards citizens by police was not affected in any of the reactive, control, or proactive beat. The police still treated everyone the same, even though there might have been more encounters. Response time and traffic accidents were the last two findings. With having more police on patrol, it has been said that response time would be a lot faster, but overall it stayed the same. It made no difference for the police to be there and it was not affective. The police cannot honestly stop traffic accidents, and these are so common that it made no difference with the police being there. Overall, the findings showed that police being on foot patrol was not a main concern. Everything would still happen as they do, and if they had a motor vehicle, it would still be the same. (Trojanowicz,
170-171)
Not only was Kansas City focused on the experiment of foot patrol, but Newark, New Jersey wanted to create an experiment as well. Foot patrol is one of the main things demanded by citizens. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment wanted to answer seven questions. “Does foot patrol improve police-citizen relationships? Do citizens feel safer when officers patrol on foot? Does foot patrol reduce crime? Will citizens report more crime when they have closer contact with the police? Will more arrests be made in foot-patrolled areas? Will foot patrol officers be more satisfied with their jobs and have more positive attitudes about citizens? Will citizens’ fear of victimization be lessened?” (Newark, 1) Instead of having 15 beats like Kansas City, Newark had four beats demographically.
The experiment was not as large as Kansas City, but it had to conclude a lot with their findings. Foot patrolling had little effect on crime rates, although it did have much to be positive about. “Residents knew when officers were patrolling their neighborhoods on foot. Residents in areas patrolled by officers on foot though that crime was less of a problem than did residents in areas with only motorized patrol. Residents in areas with foot patrol felt safer and less likely to be victimized. Residents living in areas with foot patrol took fewer steps to protect themselves against crime. Residents in areas with foot patrol were more satisfied with police services.” (Newark, 1)
I feel as though it honestly does not matter if police are driving motor vehicles, or if they are walking on foot, crime is going to happen either way. With these two experiments that were done, it shows that having more police on foot does not make a difference. As long as police are there to help when needed, then everything turns out for the better. Although it did not make much of an impact if police were on foot or driving, it did make positive notes for citizens to bond with police and feel much safer in their areas. “The results of this experiment suggest that while foot patrol may not reduce crime, it reduces citizen fear of crime. Residents see their communities as safer and better places to live, and are more satisfied with police services. (Newark, 1)
Works Cited
Brandl, Steven G., and David E. Barlow. Classics in Policing. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub., 1996. Print.
Kelling, George L. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington: Police Foundation, 1974. Print.
Kevin Krajick. “Does Patrol Have a Function?” Police Magazine 1. September 1978. 4-16
"The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment." Police Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Bonnie Bucqueroux. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub., 1990. Print.
November 12, 2013
Findings of Patrol Experiments
Throughout the years, there have been many different types of studies done. Many studies done are within the criminal justice field. Some of the major studies done within criminal justice are foot patrols. Foot patrol experiments are done to see if crime would stop if police were more noticeable, and deters potential offenders from committing many different crimes. Kansas City and Newark are two of the main studies to be focused on. There were many different findings based off of these experiments and were studied to determine how people would react. Patrolling is one of the main reasons police believe will stop crime from happening due to police presence.
Kansas City Patrol …show more content…
Experiment was taken place in October of 1972 through September of 1973, by the Kansas City, Missouri Police Foundation. George Kelling was the lead in the experiment, with his research group. Kansas City was divided into 15 different parts where they had many options of patrolling techniques. There were three main areas within these parts that were focused on. Reactive was the first area. It received no preventive patrol, where officers only entered the area in response to calls for assistance. There would not be much police visibility in this area. The second area was called proactive. Police visibility was increased two to three more times than usual visibility. Finally, in the third area, or control area, it consisted of normal patrol as needed. Overall, data shows that within the areas, there really was not much of a difference even with the experiment being in existence. (Kevin, 174)
To understand the findings of the study, there were many different types of data collected. The four main types of data the police used were victimization surveys, departmental reported crime, departmental arrest data, and a survey of businesses. Within this data, they created five hypothesis of how it would work. “For the purposes of measurement, a number of hypotheses were developed, of which the following ultimately addressed: crime, as reflected by victimization surveys and reported crime data, would not vary by type of patrol; citizen perception of police service would not vary by type of patrol; citizen fear and behavior as a result of fear would not vary by type of patrol; police response time and citizen satisfaction with response time would vary by experimental area; and traffic accident would increase in the reactive beats.” (Barlow, 247)
Officers were dedicated to a certain area and they previously patrolled the area that they were placed in, and were to always patrol at their same spot until the experiment was complete. “The remaining 15 beat, 32-square mile experimental area encompassed a commercial-residential mixture, with a 1970 resident population of 148,395 persons and a density of 4, 542 persons per square mile. Racially, the beats within this area ranged from 78 percent black to 99 percent white. Median family income of residents ranged from a low of $7,320 for one beat to a high of $15,964 for another. On the average, residents of the experimental area tended to have been in their homes from 6.6 to 10.9 years.” (Kelling, 8)
With having an understanding of the background behind the Kansas City Patrol Experiment, knowing the findings is the main concern. There were thirteen major findings, which were consistent and expected to be accurate. The first was, “victimization surveys found no statistically significant differences in crime in any of the 69 comparisons made between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Bartow, 259) It was surprising that differences did not happen in crimes that consisted of commercial burglaries, auto theft, and robberies. They all still happened, no matter where the police were located. The second finding was, “Departmental Reported Crimes showed only one statistical difference among 51 comparisons drawn between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Kelling, 20) The one difference was in the category of sex crimes involving rape.
Rates of reporting crime was the third major finding. “Crimes citizens and businessmen said they reported to the police showed statistically significant difference between reactive, control and proactive beats.” (Kelling, 20)Rates of reporting crime by businessmen and citizens really had no effect even with the police on patrol.
Fourth was arrest patterns had no difference among the areas.
“Either the number of arrests was too small to allow for statistically analysis, or the pre-experimental pattern of arrests was so distorted that statistical significance could not be determined.” (Bartow, 260) Having a change with the level of patrol did not matter and it was not affected.
Fifth was focused on the citizen fear of crime. Within this finding, there was only fear in the probability of being raped, the probability of being robbed, and the probability of being assaulted. The level of fear was only really greater in the reactive beats since patrolling was only done in this area if the police were called. The level of fear in the proactive beat was only mentioned once. Overall, citizen fear was not affected due to the experiment. (Bartow, 261)
A protective measure focused on citizens was the sixth finding. This area involved having installation of bars, alarms, locks, lighting, weapons, dogs, and taking actions of staying inside. The study concluded that with having more police on patrol, it did not make a difference. Crime would happen anyways, no matter the type of protection. The seventh finding focused on protective measures with businessmen. There was no actual difference as well, and it did not matter for how much patrol of protection that was involved. (Bartow, …show more content…
262)
The eighth and Ninth finding was involved with citizen and businessmen attitude towards police. To them, it did not make a difference of the level of patrol. They really did not notice there was more police on patrol, and instead focused on going through with their day. The tenth finding involved police-citizen encounters. “Citizens and observers alike were asked about such items as response time, characteristics of the encounter, the attitude and demeanor of officers in the encounter, and citizen satisfaction.” Once again, no difference was concluded. (Kelling, 30-31)
Police-citizen transactions were determined to be the eleventh finding.
The behavior towards citizens by police was not affected in any of the reactive, control, or proactive beat. The police still treated everyone the same, even though there might have been more encounters. Response time and traffic accidents were the last two findings. With having more police on patrol, it has been said that response time would be a lot faster, but overall it stayed the same. It made no difference for the police to be there and it was not affective. The police cannot honestly stop traffic accidents, and these are so common that it made no difference with the police being there. Overall, the findings showed that police being on foot patrol was not a main concern. Everything would still happen as they do, and if they had a motor vehicle, it would still be the same. (Trojanowicz,
170-171)
Not only was Kansas City focused on the experiment of foot patrol, but Newark, New Jersey wanted to create an experiment as well. Foot patrol is one of the main things demanded by citizens. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment wanted to answer seven questions. “Does foot patrol improve police-citizen relationships? Do citizens feel safer when officers patrol on foot? Does foot patrol reduce crime? Will citizens report more crime when they have closer contact with the police? Will more arrests be made in foot-patrolled areas? Will foot patrol officers be more satisfied with their jobs and have more positive attitudes about citizens? Will citizens’ fear of victimization be lessened?” (Newark, 1) Instead of having 15 beats like Kansas City, Newark had four beats demographically.
The experiment was not as large as Kansas City, but it had to conclude a lot with their findings. Foot patrolling had little effect on crime rates, although it did have much to be positive about. “Residents knew when officers were patrolling their neighborhoods on foot. Residents in areas patrolled by officers on foot though that crime was less of a problem than did residents in areas with only motorized patrol. Residents in areas with foot patrol felt safer and less likely to be victimized. Residents living in areas with foot patrol took fewer steps to protect themselves against crime. Residents in areas with foot patrol were more satisfied with police services.” (Newark, 1)
I feel as though it honestly does not matter if police are driving motor vehicles, or if they are walking on foot, crime is going to happen either way. With these two experiments that were done, it shows that having more police on foot does not make a difference. As long as police are there to help when needed, then everything turns out for the better. Although it did not make much of an impact if police were on foot or driving, it did make positive notes for citizens to bond with police and feel much safer in their areas. “The results of this experiment suggest that while foot patrol may not reduce crime, it reduces citizen fear of crime. Residents see their communities as safer and better places to live, and are more satisfied with police services. (Newark, 1)
Works Cited
Brandl, Steven G., and David E. Barlow. Classics in Policing. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub., 1996. Print.
Kelling, George L. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington: Police Foundation, 1974. Print.
Kevin Krajick. “Does Patrol Have a Function?” Police Magazine 1. September 1978. 4-16
"The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment." Police Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Bonnie Bucqueroux. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub., 1990. Print.