on A DESCP m T35 hm" ud" This stu :ierlying aSS‘JY . 1. That fezerrence and p {:31 Q- n ' of Gamma i'h‘ ‘ ,uc ieal of the «med on trad; ad a: e as yet 2 | 2. Thafl :5 v - .ne nation ' s y N: ’ ‘§‘ep‘ “95 toward 4. ma‘ + . Police adrr Ate e115: f" ! L FOIIOw: :‘n. M5019 I the my ,KAJ/(’/;V* ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN METHODS AND THEORIES OF CRIME PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS BY Albert Gerald Isaac This study was initiated by consideration of two underlying assumptions: 1. That certain methods and theories of crime deterrence and prevention which are in use throughout the field of Criminal Justice, and which form a basis for a good deal of the training and education in that field, are founded on tradition and "common sense" value judgements and are as yet untested. 2. That it is vitally important, especially in view of the nation's rising crime totals, that research be directed toward these certain methods and theories in order that police administrators, trainers, and educators may have the benefit of proven practices to use in their pro- fessions. Following these assumptions the author set out to answer the following questions: ‘ Consideri relates V crime det sent star 2. Is this 1 has it re 9.‘ ‘nlCh Cg researc‘r $4.643 ~ . «a: an “C -_ Albert Gerald Isaac 1. Considering the historical basis of the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deterrence and prevention, what is the pre- sent status of the theory? 2. Is this theory based on untested assumptions, and has it received credibility through traditional use while being carried on by the medium of training and educational programs in Criminal Justice? 3. In police programs which use and promote the theory of visibility and mobility as effective in crime deterrence and prevention, does a data base exist which can provide a starting point for future research aimed at testing and evaluation of this theory? The effort to answer these questions prompted this study of police patrol, particularly as related to speed in mobility as embodied in the heliCOpter, with the added intention of generating some useable hypotheses for future research. It was also intended that some useful recommen- dations might result. Thus the objectives of this study are two-fold in that it will describe the processes under discussion for purposes of inspection by researchers while at the same time it demonstrates some of the systems in present use which are being developed to evalulate patrol theories and methods with an eye to generating useable hypotheses and some acceptable and helpful recommendations. Chapter I d 3'35, describes thz gets: and presents 3:233:15. Chapter II Li: expounds the 254-39 Patrol and r 3111;. and edges. ChaEter 11: passes which an Ch pter I'.’ tamed. This Ch: it: :21”; with the In... . . - '\ "n‘ .u.c:4\_10n. ChaPter v Albert Gerald Isaac Chapter I describes the purpose and scepe of the study, describes the problems of theory and method in police patrol and presents the basis in history for these theories and methods. Chapter II consists of a review of the literature which expounds the theories and explains the methods of police patrol and relates them to the administration, training, and education of police officers. Chapter III provides a view of the sources and methodology of collecting the data used to describe the processes which are under study. Chapter IV furnishes a description of the data obtained. This chapter offers some minimal data analysis but only with the intention of providing a more complete description. Chapter V is a summary of the study. It presents justification for the description, a general overview of the previous chapters, and an answer to each of the ques- tions asked at the outset. As a further answer to these questions, the author provides some of his own conclusions and finally, as the ultimate end of a descriptive study, offers hypotheses for future research which are generated by this study, and recommendations for consideration by the profession of law enforcement. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN METHODS AND THEORIES OF CRIME PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS BY Albert Gerald Isaac A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1976 C) COpyright by ‘ ALBE RT GE RALD I SAAC 1976 Dedicated to My wife, Virginia For encouragement, and oh, so much patience ii Iwish to tr | Warner Eli Litre Ccrporation Linda Geh‘r. :iteizhnicai am; My working Kitchigan Stat-c- Arthur F. Zinnal Justice 6: 15.; and guidancei And I Wars-J 1.: given by my c- Dr. 3618 ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank: Warner Eliot, for permission to use the unpublished Mitre Corporation study data. Linda Gebhard for excellent typing, proofreading, and technical advice. My working partner, Captain Burton L. Yungfer of the Michigan State Police, for encouragement and advice. Arthur F. Brandstatter, Director of the School of Criminal Justice and former Detroit police officer, for help and guidance. And I want to acknowledge with gratitude the special aid given by my committee: Dr. Dale Alam for last minute heroics in my hour of need; Dr. Walter Scott, for giving me a view of the unchanging face of education; Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Chairman, for gentle prodding and erudite direction; And of course, my teacher, Dr. Robert Trojanowicz who has made me understand that knowledge is worth any effort. iii 3? OF TABLES. . h-~A-vyflfi- 1“. ~‘6r-vflvVLLUo' . nnnnn Areas for of Visi] Historica The Tradi AmeriCa Significa 6031 of t Design c£ Linitatic 5317.33?! .e. FEYJI'P‘. LIST OF TMI‘ES. O C O O O O O O O . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Sc0pe of Study . . . . . . . Limitations of Study . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE THEORETICAL SETTING OF THE STUDY OF POLICE PATROL C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Areas for Study Concerning the Theory of Visibility and Mobility . . . . Historical Background of the Theory . . The Traditional Passing of the Theory to America. . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . Goal of the Study . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . Limitations of the Study. . Summary . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . Views of the Rationale of Patrol . . . Speed in Mobility Brings More Visibility Some Doubts About the Rationale . . . Suggestions for Testing or Measuring the Rationale . . . . . . . Enter the Helicopter, More Speed--More Visibility. . . . . . Implications for Trainers and Educators. smary O O O O O O O O O O 0 III. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . Basis of Necessity for Description . . Sources of Data. . . . . . . iv Page vi 13 15 21 22 23 23 25 26 29 42 43 57 74 81 84 84 86 “..n?e . I wvr' TechniquEE Proposed r Sumary Bases for Data from The Vehic; Frequency Patrol. The Probln Patrol.‘ The Chest; Examples I Tucson, :L Detroit, f COlLL‘Tbus, Lansing, Los An e1 Warren? 3: San BeIn- Pasadena 1 ‘arYIand waSuinr-v gt: T‘e YOunr- Frog! (1 Fairfax L RiCthnd San Frar‘- Simmary K S VH‘ REY; FindinCS AdditiO: COncluSi thiCat 9Com. LEr :JQDICES I 3*:3'! - ‘Q '4‘ lx A. Authgr '\ 'LL‘ “\ ‘3 ‘U “:OGPRXP H‘l Chapter Techniques of Data Collection. Proposed Potential of Dat Summary . . . . . . IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE,DATA . Bases for Evaluation. . Data from the Past . . The Vehicles . . . . Frequency of the Use of Helic0pters in PatrOI. o o o o o The Problems in Using Helic0pters for Patrol. . . . . . The Chester Survey of Mission Evaluation 3. Examples of Evaluation Formulae . Tucson, Arizona . . . Detroit, Michigan. . . Columbus, Ohio. . . . Lansing, Michigan. . . Los Angeles, California. Warren, Michiga San Bernardino Bounty, Califo orni Pasadena, California. . Maryland. . . . . . Washington, D.C. . . . The Young Evaluations of Programs . . . . . Fairfax County, Virginia Richmond, California. . San Francisco, California Summary . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . Findings. . . . . Additional Findings . . Conclusions. . . . . Implications for Trainers APPENDICES Appendix A. Author Survey Instrument. B. Chester Survey Instrument BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . a eli CO pt r e and Educators Recommendations for Further Study 0 O O O O l Page 89 90 102 104 104 105 115 132 145 155 159 160 167 170 176 180 185 186 187 188 189 190 194 196 196 197 199 208 214 215 218 219 222 228 237 U‘\I . LQ'.’ Pfi‘f‘rn‘ u VII. Hoc-u- Per‘or~e ‘ngna‘. Selected Cczparat i". 1976 Infi‘re Agenci. Specii f ‘- Table 1. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Law Enforcement and Related Missions Performed by Helicopters for. Selected Agencies . . . . . . . . Comparative Helicopter Cost Data (Annual Basis) . . . . . . . . Comparative Helic0pter Cost Data (Hourly Basis) . . . . . . . . . Cost of Helic0pter Patrol Eight Hours Per Day (Annual Basis) . . . . . . 1976 Inventory of Law Enforcement Agencies Using Helicopters Including Specification Data. . . . . . . . Inventory of Helicopters Used by State, County, and Local Police Agencies by Manufacturer and Model . . . . . . Distribution of Flying Time in Sample Agencies by Average Hours Per Month . . Temporal Distribution of Flying Time in Sample Agencies by Average Hours Per Month. . . . . . . . . . . Counties and Localities Using Helicopters in Law Enforcement Activities by Population, Area Size, and Density . . Operational Problems Reported by Sample Agencies by Frequency. . . . . . . Answers to Question 22 by Sample Agencies According to Frequency . . . Answers to Question 23 by Sample Agencies According to Frequency . . . vi Page 107 108 108 109 117 133 134 134 136 147 150 151 2L N.) U. Answers to 2 Agencies 9 Answers to '. Agencies .. 1 Major Missi and Modal Ratirg b" by Po pale Major Miss; ard MC da- Rating b Tucson P31; Tucson Pol, Findings O 33“ (01" H H- f‘ Four“; “‘1 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Answers to Question 27 by Sample Agencies According to Frequency . . . Answers to Question 31 by Sample Agencies According to Frequency . . . Major Missions, Average Mission Priority, and Modal Helic0pter Effectiveness Rating by Mission for County Agencies by Population Groups. . . . . . . Major Missions, Average Mission Priority, and Modal Helicopter Effectiveness Rating by Mission for Local Agencies by Population Groups. . . . . . . Tucson Police Evaluation Factors . . . Tucson Police Cost-Benefit Analysis Findings. . . . . . . . . . . Detroit Police Evaluation of the Effect of Helicopter Patrol on Crime. . . . Detroit Police Helic0pter Program Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation. . . . Detroit Police Statement of Accomplish- ment of Helicopter Proqram. . . . . Columbus, Ohio Police Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness of HeliCOpters and Cruisers. . . . . . . . . . . Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Change in Crimes Reported After Use of Heli- copter Patrols in Zone 1 . . . . . Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Change in Crimes Reported After Use of Heli- copter Patrols in Zone 2 . . . . . Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Changes in Serious Crime After Use of Helic0pter Patrols in Zones 1 and 2. . Lansing, Michigan Police Five Year History of Part I Crimes for Third, Fourth, and First Quarters. . . . . vii Page 152 154 157 158 165 166 168 168 169 173 174 175 176 179 til Los Angeles Repressit and Non-E Between 1 It I .‘ n. Los Angeles Helicopte as to Prc 3-1. Ratings of Heliccpt Question Table Page 27. Los Angeles Police Comparison of Repressible Crime in Helic0pter and Non-Helicopter Patrol Areas Between 1973 and 1974 . . . . . . . . 133 28. Los Angeles Police Report of Special Helicopter Investigative Flights as to Productivity . . . . . . . . . 184 A-l. Ratings of Mission Priority and Helicopter Effectiveness, Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 231 viii The put? can of those re' :21? on the Pen" ixect effect 0” :esearchers who ? uitheories. The stui :lzat those ceth: :rage police a; :3 structure c; 3. higher ec‘uca: Because '01. cd ‘z‘qty “ to sp GET Q .=:: v4...“ :st of all : Pertine: '1 Visibility 5. "45511111 be :7 q Q§‘ .c, k avase exist e"--"'aluatioh a INTRODUCTION Purpose and Sc0pe of Study The purpose of this study is to provide a descrip- tion of those methods and theories of police patrol which rely on the belief that visibility and mobility have a direct effect on crime by deterring or preventing criminal actions. The study is intended to provide useful data to researchers who may wish to test and evaluate these methods and theories. The study also prOposes to describe the influence that those methods and theories exert on the persons who manage police agencies and train policemen as well as those who structure curricula and teach criminal justice courses in higher education. Because the theory of visibility and mobility is related to Speed of movement, the study will focus on the fastest of all police patrol vehicles, the helic0pter. Pertinent information concerning the police theories of visibility and mobility will be discussed and examina- tions will be made in an effort to determine whether some data base exists which might be the foundation for research in evaluation and testing of those theories. The 9111'?C ;: effort to gene This st: :azion pertainin :ey relate to c the scarcity of i :etl'cc‘s to highe erally based on ::.e questioncai «1 r1 :etween author ‘ C The purpose of the study might then be restated as an effort to generate some usable hypotheses for future researchers. Limitations of the Study This study is limited by the narrow sc0pe of infor- mation pertaining to police service evaluations insofar as they relate to crime deterrence and prevention along with the scarcity of material which relates police theories and methods to higher education programs. The thesis is gen- erally based on all such material that was uncovered and the questionnaire results lack any direct personal contact between author and respondents except by mail. 9 3 m In orde: :rzethods it W the history 05 ‘ ;-:ssihle to fin: 7;si'cility and z tense and prez-‘e: The fun are generally p sites of line a; The lin .2 . . «rectly bearir as patrol, inv: CHAPTER I THE THEORETICAL SETTING OF THE STUDY OF POLICE PATROL In order to prOperly explore any police theories or methods it will be useful to observe at least part of the history of that profession. In this setting it may be possible to find the basis of the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deter- rence and prevention. The functional programs of most police organizations are generally patterned after the military with basic divi- sions of line and staff. The line division is charged with the duties most directly bearing on public safety and law-enforcement such as patrol, investigation, and traffic control. The staff function is expected to provide support services like personnel, record keeping, training, labora- tory work, and educational programs.1 ¥ 1V. A. Leonard, Police Organization and Management (Brooklyn: Foundation Press, Inc.,"1951), p. 83. See also A. C. Germann, Frank D. Day, and Robert R. J. Gallati, lgtroduction To Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Spring- field: Chas. C. Thomas, 1969), PP.'144-47T A great a 'street' functic: ';a:ir.:rcund nd 1:; 123:5, patro .- few, are traditi are consider» The sele is :ecyc ing of separtnent' s ow: firiation that Howeve r, T3355, in the l; P at :5 ‘ “er r en ce y the a‘ory h ”F4. ye r/ H. r, n) — A great deal of the procedure used in the line, or "street" function of police agencies is derived from a background and history of tradition. Such concepts as uniforms, patrols, visibility, and weaponry, to name but a few, are traditionally deemed to be part of the "right" way and are considered necessary, proper, and most efficient. The selection and training of recruits, as well as the recycling of experiential knowledge back into any department's own educational system, is based on the foundation that proficiency must be built around these time honored concepts of policing a community. However, when these same ageless concepts are viewed in the light of the two very important facts of lack of research and lack of results in diminishing, or even controlling crime, they may not appear to be the most effi- cient or even the most useful methods available to police departments. Scant research has been done on any of these tradi- tional methods of police functioning. There is a real need for a closer look at such police practices as patrol, to determine whether or not this is the most efficient method of protecting the public from certain types of criminal incidents. The patrol function is largely based on the theory Of deterrence of crime through visibility and mobility. This theory posits that a person will be less inclined to conmdjza.criminal act in the "presence" of police. Aihbénrally' the .22, through 53* 1:35 prevent the enema-tor. With the :fficer is able ‘ ragiily than on 7;si':iiity and t ';:esence.' Fol IELLity, this 5 it; in the pol; :ertain types of Since, f m, 1"‘ver the are 11% use of heli ~area COVE rat: Additionally, the theory holds that a patrolling officer will, through mobility, come upon crimes in progress and thus prevent the completion of the crime or arrest the perpetrator. With the use of the speed of the motor car the officer is able to cover a far greater area much more rapidly than on foot and to provide a considerably increased visibility and thus increase the appearance of police "presence." Following the theory of visibility and mobility, this should indicate a greatly increased effici- ency in the police mission of protecting the public from certain types of criminal incidents. Since, theoretically, the faster the patrol and the greater the area covered, the more efficiency that evolves, the use of helicopters in patrol functions ought to enable an area coverage far greater than ever before and provide much more visibility, if it is true that there is some relationship between visibility, mobility, and the crime rate in the community. Interestingly, one study observes that the police do not initiate, and cannot remove, the human conditions that give rise to and stimulate crime, and this study says that, as a result of this, the police departments of America have a limited ability to act against crime.2 ‘ 2President's Commission on Law Enforcement, Task Force on the Police (Washington, D.C.: Government Print1ng Office, I967), p. I. Hezertheless, t1" Licking towards 2:32. And, be: arts are able t see.‘ solutions. 95.132 cont‘unit'J 12:". are based reproven as ca :5 crime. In order benecessary £01 533339 in resea eRita-tion of a. Eff-ma ‘ nuts and tne Al'ea \ ——‘—l 1' Re: ““4"! that re 0,, ' .. crime dSte, # 'm. “V. A, "231.: . ‘el'at 1 On ,, :Egii‘in' in? Of a ‘a. .9: ‘ future use Nevertheless, the communities that employ them insist on looking towards the police for a solution of the problem of crime. And, because of the expectation that police depart- ments are able to solve the problem of crime, it becomes vital for the practitioners in law enforcement to actively seek solutions. It becomes a constant priority of the police community to provide some public safety services which are based on scientifically tested procedures which are proven as capable of providing deterrence or prevention of crime. In order to accomplish this priority mission it will be necessary for the practitioners of criminal justice to engage in research geared to provide scientific testing and evaluation of all of those areas of the profession where the methods and theories are as yet unproven in value. Areas for Study Concerning the Theory of Visibility and Mobility Therefore, this study will: 1. Review the historical background of the t1he<>ry that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to Crime deterrence and prevention and attempt to determine how the theory began. This is important to any further col'1&‘-ideration of the theory in its present state since the beginning of a theory provides the philosophical setting for future use . 2. Probe effirt to discove | tat the theory I“. .2". The literatl | (tether the theor I :xzugh 'cor:.o. palice generati :l repetition. 3. Exa'f. E’Ilice departmen' 3933' to search . . C) :3 It is of asi‘bihtY and r 3:8 and Preve: 351.1295 that t‘: at y. _ ‘ ”“9 Pollce t: TQIiCulm Of C» 14038 . It w: REF «I crime he 2. Probe the literature of law enforcement in an effort to discover whether any evidence exists to indicate that the theory has been subjected to scientific testing in use- The literature should provide some insight into whether the theory has been tested or granted acceptance through "common sense" value systems and passed on from one police generation to another to become traditional through repetition. 3. Examine some of the methods being used by police departments to evaluate programs founded on this theory to search for a data base for future test and evalu- ation. It is of added importance that the relationship of Visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deter- rence and prevention be tested and evaluated when it is realized that the theory becomes a part of the curriculum 0f the police training school and also becomes part of the Curriculum of criminal justice programs in higher education. Historical Background of the Theory In the early English history of community protection from crime the monarch Alfred the Great (870-901) began the system of mutual group obligation, where all the local citizens were responsible for his own and his neighbor's actions. It was everyone's duty to raise a "hue and cry" when a crime happened and round up citizens to pursue the mlSCBreant like a baying pack. If the criminal escaped, all . .u. ' 7" '.‘ :Jrsuers “e; 'u i "I . I ‘ ‘ — ”Sltec on t; to I". [,1- III uvv*ly, ten ti .'- ’vla. a . -v- "3- fi‘ n'n-‘v‘ «7‘; u..~‘3 J5 lluo.u¢ ‘ 4 b l .. I ‘ _ ‘ urn 0‘ +~n c' a ‘ A his. ‘7',“5Pr.’ C V‘V“ ,PA véuobvob. ‘ O ’ 5‘. FHA "50 Lue P‘Jw‘cr t ‘VVh' “.f Mama‘s . D ‘. ~A~~ 1 .I ‘n."* s vu..._.“‘*b‘17 :Yr‘. ‘ J'\ a "A .. . u...“ C: .. iv- in 7!.) AL I,- - ~ ‘ “’A ‘ .._~ q ~ww..ers to «_‘ I Q ‘ V a“ PP” . Glut-jbt pa V» *¢ 1.4:: 0' P :‘v H YVfiv .‘b “2‘8 (33:,— . Q I,“‘ ... 1.. , ‘ ‘u! aL . O :nI s.‘ 2* d3 ‘ s I ha‘ 11- ‘Id '3 "I“ ‘~ , n: ‘11“ a; tko ' A£‘_ I_.I“ .1 ...‘l 'C4t . ‘ eflrv E:'Vc‘ “3'33" n n. Uf r GIN . ‘3 t‘\ the pursuers were fined by the Crown.3 This responsibility was Visited on ten family groups known as "tithings." Sub- sequently, ten tithings became a "hundred" and, in turn, groups of "hundreds" were formed into "Shires." The "reeve" of the shire at first was expected to see that the citizenry carried out their "hue and cry" duties, but later branched out to take part in the pursuit.4 From that day to this, the shire reeve, or sheriff, has had "posse comita— tus, " the power to enlist the aid of citizens to chase criminals. During the reign of Edward I (1272-1307) the system (Df (:cnmmunity protection known as the "Watch and Ward" came into use in the larger English cities. This system utilized householders to protect against fire, guard the city gates, and arrest perpetrators of any criminal offenses. These People were appointed from a rotation roster to serve the COmmUnity at no pay. They were allowed to hire substitutes and as a result, the protection force of any given city was made 11p of the human dregs of the area.5 The system even- tually deteriorated; or improved, as the viewer beholds, to a system of regular, paid, night watchmen who seemingly did llttle more than roam the streets at night shouting the \ an 3J. Daniel Devlin, Police Procedure, Administration -43i£2£ganization (London: Butterworth and Co., lgéé), p. 3. 41bid. Pp 5Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 48-49. 3,2, the weatht 1:135 or net. In 1748 ,....;a. of cr‘W," “:nv‘V“! “"" v-‘GI‘P —f\ y" .u...:.s to mU‘l t: ':6'fl1 ' pun/o, an out{ tiers” the Bow , . “z”- I n::-‘. 5.”;5T‘t to a :F‘ ‘ L wk" to re: H 1.13%" ' "1 15 I‘OOte Just 3 h b. . a. q -.,-, A“ 4 «add Saw tL. - a”? ‘Qg.. F. 0:1 .p. ’U H n ‘l’ .4:- (D (D time, the weather, and the fact that "All is well!" whether it was or not.6 In 1748 Henry Fielding designed a plan for the pre- vention of crime in England which suggested a need for well paid policemen, mobile highway patrol, and a force of runners to move swiftly to the scene of a crime. These plans resulted in the formation of an inner city " foot patrol," an outer "horse patrol" and the famous "Thief Takers" the Bow Street Runners, who responded swiftly to the scene of a crime.7 It is notable that here was the germ of a long continuing theory that the ability of a police department to affect crime has a direct relationship to its ability to respond rapidly to the scene of a crime. This theory is rooted in the subject of this research. Just past the mid-point of the eighteenth century, England saw the start of an industrial revolution. Machin— ery for large scale production was replacing manual Opera- tion and enormous industrial growth evolved. With this growth came hordes of workers to swell the cities and create the first slum areas. This industrial revOlution also created a whole new population, the indus- trial wage slave and dependents, living in virtual poverty \ 6President's Commission, Task Force on the Police, P- 4. p Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 9 4. 1 wtable t0 ‘ wt .8. 3395 than u- Q “4 ‘. A!“ p b" :u ..- :“F‘VY‘GV‘F‘ insoo‘d‘ivhbv O 4 PW-vnp L‘cdtrs PA. ,_ {\JI - I 4 a a: k» ‘. f‘ it 'V— “ no .: 10 and unable to escape from the tangle of obligatory subservi- ence. The magnet of industry drew more peOple into the cities than were readily absorbed and this brought about a teeming poverty where a quest for survival initiated a new era of crime and ushered in the first examples of juvenile delinquency. Crime increased at an incredible rate as law breakers engaged in every crime known to man at that time. Every road was a working area for highwaymen, foot- pads literally covered city streets (they are called muggers now), bank robberies numbered in the hundreds per year and prostitutes were practicing their profession in all areas of the country. Many citizens began carrying arms, and householders were using animal traps to protect their homes from burglars. Vigilante groups were formed and interestingly, the cities also began to try a new tack in the struggle to eradicate crime, a savage criminal law.8 The severity of the penalty for law violations was increased until even the offense of picking pockets was punishable by death, but it is notable that at public hangings of pick-pockets, others of the brethren were mingling with the crowd plying their trade. The theory of using punishment as a deterrent was found wanting. 8T. A. Critchley, A History of Police in England and Wales (London: Constable and Co., Ltd., 1967), pp. 32-34. There wa :WWfig ways .avvpbt taxing citizens ‘ I A :Z’EIQUS gOl lye there was the 2. truercial £ “‘" fallure .35 the fact 3:53:10? 0 ‘l 91-... nut: ye . . nt 1: ‘i Q. A. tx‘J. \ n U 11 There was much discussion in England at this time concerning ways and means of facing the problem of pro- tecting citizens from criminal actions. There were also numerous police groups besides the Bow Street Runners. There was the Merchant Police, a group hired by commercial establishments, including banks, to protect against theft in commercial establishments; the Marine Police, hired by the West India merchants to protect the docks and ships; the Parish Police, hired by parishioners for protection inside the parish boundaries, and the virtually useless Watch and Ward, which was still in existence.9 But none of these had any official responsibility to, or communication with, the public at large. A later police commission found that the reason for the failure of the police systems in existence at that time was the fact that "no scheme could reconcile the freedom of action of individuals with the security of persons and prOperty."10 And, it might be added, one of the difficul- ties facing the citizens of America in the latter part of the twentieth century arises because of the same reason. However, in the early 18203 Sir Robert Peel, British Home Secretary, made a very significant observation 9Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, p. 54. 10Royal Commission on the Police, Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1962), p. 10, note 6. fl ' 1 . q 5" «b . 3C! :1;" 4". ’_1.'~a Tet-SC babe-1" . 9:11:13; CC‘ aresult of 3:32;}: the Ezlice In a: Sir 0-- 1 53.3.5 of c .35th t“ . \- .‘elr "En ' v 1:0" ,I 12 that, although the police could not eliminate crime, poor police methods could contribute to social disorder and good policing could have an impact on the control of crime. As a result of his beliefs, Sir Robert introduced and guided through the English legislature "An Act for Improving the Police In and Near the Metropolis."11 Sir Robert's police plan provided for some funda— mentals of community policing that are still in effect to this day. These included: 1. A stable, efficient, quasi-military force 2. Government control of police 3. Deve10pment of police strength by time and area needs (records) 4. Central headquarters 5. Securing and training of proper personnel 6. Probation periods for new policemen12 This first force of one thousand men were the first police groups to wear a regular uniform. They were, as might be expected, placed under the control of the Home Secretary who created them, and, in fact eventually came to be known, after their founder, as "Bobbies," which they are called even now. This police force proved tremendously successful in combatting crime, was followed by requests from rural llIbid., p. 16, note 6. 12Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, pp. 55-56. 'ke :33 {CI 11 :1 a.- .E at". S ~ A. .v -p- G “.‘b H‘ ~‘F‘ no j..‘. n I «Q s..v'._c “0‘ Ad Y ‘ late C v a “fine..- ‘bbs. {5 «Liv, C ~ 1‘3 f‘ "I ‘. ‘ “L‘~“‘ L ‘V f”. u‘. a 13 areas for like agencies, and in ten years created a national hero in Sir Robert Peel. The Traditional Passing of the Théory to America America followed the mother country through virtually the same paths on the way to selecting some work- able means of protecting people from those who would harm them in their daily lives. The first attempt at citizen protection was in 1636 in Boston, where the citizens formed a night "Watch" which had its counterpart in New York two years later with the added innovation of rattles, to warn evildoers that the "Watch" was near. In this situation, the "Watch" was made up, as in England, of the human dregs of the city, and was even used as a punishment when town drunks were forced to serve on the "Watch." The first daytime paid police were created by ordinance in Philadelphia in 1833 and these were eventually followed by Boston in 1838 and by New York in 1844, where the legislature provided funds for municipal forces throughout the state. In 1845 New York City got their first police organization, and then Chicago, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Newark, and Providence followed suit with organized city police departments. This probably can be seen as the beginning of the present day method of policing communities, when it is noted that in 1856, New York City adopted full uniforms, which led to the adoption ‘- rap-"Er H_--~AA. ~¢ -.c ‘— O .a‘ a. .3 S. a» -’-~,~‘ - ~-v..t‘~.4 b- 4. +5 .3 I. ‘v- ‘u-A -0. b...— a ,_no. 5..., Q an- d :c .3 s 5 LL. .— -‘.. ‘£ 0 s "'\h. ‘.‘~\l 14 of regular uniforms for police forces virtually everywhere in America. It is interesting to note that the early days of policing saw many evils caused by the spoils system which created a new department of police every time a new mayor was elected. The members of the new group won special promotions, granted enforcement favors and helped in political battles against opponents of the administration. In some instances, the method of electing police officials was tried, but only served to increase political chicancery in the departments where it was used. The road to freedom from complete political servitude began to appear after 1881, when a dissatisfied office seeker assassinated Presi- dent James Garfield. The reaction to this affair led to the passing of the Pendleton Act in 1883, which extended Civil Service to federal employees and eventually was incorporated in most of the governmental positions.l4 Another improvement to appear on the police horizon at the turn of the nineteenth century was the advent of the training school to replace the system of having a recruit policeman learn his job duties and how to carry them out from whichever older officer he happened to be near while 13Bruce Smith, Sr., Police Systems in the United States (2nd ed.; New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), pp. 155-6. 14 Germann, an Enforcement and Criminal Justice, p. 60. 13 tn. AV. “ ‘9 0.. t... . .A~--\I y ya? ‘0'." .' , ¢ ":'v\lv‘ vgdA-l “ y;~'“‘ ‘ 1 ovv‘. do \- ‘ h»...- a. pa 5 v" "' A v x o of... v: _~ yan- ..- ‘ I -‘LV'P 3'.‘ F .-"'O ‘vu. -' - h:- " 6’ b..s., ‘5‘; 1’ F 1:..- ‘v .u.=. ’i‘nzzl .. .b‘v“b 15 'new on the force.15 Not until the 19408 and even later, however, did most police departments establish permanent training schools intended for the purpose of preparing a recruit to be a proper law enforcement officer. Training a police officer to do his job properly, necessarily involves preparing the officer to do a very complex job. As early as the third decade of this century the Missouri Crime Commission reported that in the ordinary American city an officer was expected to be responsible for the enforcement of thirty thousand federal, state, or local laws.16 But the history of the profession in America reveals no new methods or theories and demonstrates a dOgged determination to cling to tradition in the beliefs concerning visibility and mobility in patrol as the key- stone of crime deterrence and prevention. The "common sense" philosophy prevailed and the fact that the theory was based on untested presumptions apparently went unnoticed by trainer and teacher alike. Significance of the Study One notable commission, highly staffed with many knowledgeable experts in all fields, including a few in law 15Elmer D. Graper, American Police Administration (New York: MacMillan Co., 1921), pp. 109-10. 16Preston William Slosson, The Great Crusade and After, Vol. XII of A History of American fife. ed. 5? Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., andfiDixon R. Fox (New York: MacMillan Co., 1931), p. 102. 8 .a‘ C; K333 IE? 0 0 CEEEDL o ao’flr “-4. u A -..u5 u ..- .— '. y b .p-é ‘- A rlbi «. Cu 2. 3 a t to ”54's.; '5‘ u Au uw. .n.‘ . .. 3‘ r1 no :1 .o .: 16 enforcement, has arrived at the conclusion that although many departments are reorganizing and modernizing in use of technology and improved techniques and other departments are on the threshold of doing so, it is the departments that remain static which cause a burden on the machinery of justice, and are detrimental to the process of achieving a truly professional police service.17 It remains to be shown, however, whether the failure to control crime occurs more often in SOphisticated departments than in old fashioned ones. Additionally, it should probably be noticed that a well known and widely used police education text, in describing some of the negative aspects of police service, point to certain problem causes. Two of these, in particular, bear some scrutiny. In the first, mention is made of the fact that prohibition era habits of the public and police of the era caused some of the present day prob- lems for public and police today.18 If the authors are suggesting that prohibition created either an apathetic public or a dishonest police system they are either triply naive, or assume their readers will be. Honesty is owned individually as the result of one's own value systems and not visited from era to era by legal systems. l7President's Commission on Law Enforcement, Police, ‘18Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: p. 63. 17 Secondly, the same authors note damages done to law enforcement during 1941-1945 when departments accepted the "scrapings of the manpower barrel" and gave poorly quali- 19 It makes one fied individuals civil service tenure. wonder where the authors got such data, if it is data, and if they have ever checked to see source of recruitment in the many personnel problems that are'happening today and which include young officers involved in robbery, rape, murder, and narcotics. Or perhaps one might view the further statement of the same authors that depression recruiting (1929-1941) somehow brought fine young people into police work, who were able to withstand the tempta- 20 Factually, it is probably one of tions of prohibition. the existing educational frustrations that even in a fine text book on policing, such unempirical generalizing happens, apparently as a result of the authors following traditional belief systems. There are, in the United States today, over 40,000 police agencies of one sort or another employing more than 400,000 peOple. The vast majority of these are local police departments, most of them small agencies in towns and villages. There are about 50 federal agencies, 200 state level groups, 3,700 city, and 3,100 county police 191bid. ZOIbid. Y 9 ass 5 fiafe Inlfi—v- ‘8 AI- .- 'oa.Vl .h-r u 0' ‘F 5“: 2,— I H us A .1 i.“ ‘5 L . V ~.ie Q 161 E .‘-‘ 6C “a ’ § 18 agencies. Thus we are still faced today with one of the foremost problems of the community of old in that the process of enforcing the law is extremely decentralized and each officer's authority is usually confined to a single, comparatively small jurisdiction. And while the delicate balance between protection of rights and protection of people rules against any all- encompassing and overriding police authority, it is a fact that decentralization creates barriers between agencies, brings about a difficult style of communication and pre- cludes, in many instances, inter-agency aid and cooperation. Some federal and state agencies have helped in coordination in a few cases but generally fragmentation exists. The problem of decentralization must be confronted by greater inter-agency cooperation and communication at the local level. In the main, more police manpower is generally cited as one of the foremost needs in communities where crime is an important factor of daily living. And, generally, police personnel has continued to increase in numbers with- out any certainty as to whether or not there is a positive relationship between the number of police and the amount of crime. As a result, no one knows, or has any real indicator of the per-capita need for police enforcement personnel in any community. In the five year period from 1969 through 1974 the national average of police personnel per 1000 inhabitants ~ a r358 fro “ Pr 33:8 i b. 1C8 81'- Q I. n A L L abou rty :PA‘G .‘Ju ‘x. 19 rose from 2.2 to 2.5. Nationally, large cities of 250,000 or more inhabitants had, as a group, risen from 3.1 to 3.5 police employees per 1000 inhabitants.21 Presumably, increases in police manpower are part and parcel of specific attempts to prevent crime in America. Usually, during those periods when the rise of crime is more visible because of the phenomena of elections and campaigns, the public outcry is for more policemen and stiffer laws. But, it is noted historically that the severity of 22 And it punishment has little deterrent effect on crime. would seem that the addition of more police personnel is also, in and of itself, a failure at controlling crime when we note that in the same period, 1969 through 1974, the population rose from 201,385,000 to 211,392,000, an increase of about 5 percent while crime climbed from 7,366,900 offenses to 10,192,000, 38.3 percent higher.23 During this five year period, crimes against property rose 37 percent, murder climbed 40 percent, assault 47 percent, rape 49 percent, robbery 48 percent, and bur- glary 53 percent. Included in the robbery category are 21Clarence Kelley, Crime in the United States (Washington, D.C.: 0.8. Government Printing Office,i1974), p. 221. 22 p. 54. Germann, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 23Kelley, Crime in the United States, p. 55. ':V“a Vises 1n .lb 5 0‘ ‘ :z' cemercial Vnod :reatly mpact a ‘ s: :requentiy ~ ‘~---: 5 an :....:.n.a.;tes. :2ch: are supp: Staggent pol 1 C1 This 9. :zzipresent pol ;::jects such a 11:33 while pa Ziility, .350 On unt63 20 large rises in street robbery, chain store robbery, robbery of commercial houses, and bank robberies.24 Murder is not one of the crimes which is generally greatly impacted by police patrol methods since the crime so frequently occurs indoors and between relatives or acquaintances. It is such crimes as robbery and burglary which are supposedly subject to suppression by proper and frequent police patrol. Many police administrators, both ancient and modern, as will be shown, contended that the guesence of a police officer could deter crime by first removing the Opportunity and second by convincing the miscreant, by the same presence, that any attempt at crime will fail.25 This gives rise to the theory of visibility, the omnipresent policeman who, while really not omnipresent, projects such an image by appearing in many different loca- tions while patrolling, through the use of speed in mobility. The significance of the study then, lies in the very serious possibility that the public safety may well be in jeOpardy because the police efforts against crime are based on untested assumptions which may be totally erro- neous. It is vital, therefore to: 24Ibid., pp. 11-55. 25These theories are advanced by Vollmer, Wilson, Chapman, Brostron, Smith, and International City Managers Association plus many others whose works are reviewed later. Y. .- .9.-- L. C nrh". \ .-'.-~. .v Q .3 .5 .1 ' a i . fi-v-x 5A£~ ‘ ‘ ..;... :--.:e 23 1 p C a C a 2‘ a: .n. a.» a: .Pn 21 1. Locate these assumptions, identify their origins and trace their use and maintenance in police service to the present time. 2. Describe certain police methods and theories, their reliance on these untested assumptions and the rela- tionship of this reliance to police procedure, training, and education. 3. Use this information to point the direction of future test and evaluation of these assumptions and, in the event that test and evaluation prove the assumptions are false, to aid in the development of new theories and methods of crime deterrence and prevention. Goal of the Study And so, while the manpower needs remain largely undefined, the management of police departments seek ways to improve the performance and ability of their present staffs. The attempts to improve the present staff capability are channeled in two directions; one toward the refinement of the recruiting, training, and education processes to provide departments with the finest and best educated per- sonnel available and one toward improving the physical systems and methods to arrive at the most efficient point in the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehen- sion of criminals. I ..\r C ~vA-v’,‘ VA '5‘.“ “'5‘. uav ': O - . .... -0.P"‘ .a A0. .- ‘ ‘vto‘ d-” a ‘A '9 _.v...u c a? 2. C. a: .5. ‘I t IA flu .‘s L- I E is ‘H c 22 Therefore, this study will deal with the theory of visibility and mobility which concern the deterrence and guevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals, and the theory's relationship to the training and education processes in criminal justice prOgrams. The study will aim to provide a complete description of the theory's back- ground, origins, and present status and to probe for evidence of a data base to provide material for future test and evaluation. Design of the Study This study, then, will trace the history of the theory of visibility and mobility as related to crime deterrence and prevention and discuss the philosophy of policing that arose out of the history of the theory. The literature of the profession will be used as a probe instrument for the dual purpose of determining the present status of this theory in police training and educa- tion and to try to locate any testing or evaluation proce- dures in regard to the theory. In addition, some probing of the profession of policing will be conducted by questionnaire to ascertain perceptions of the practitioners and to get a look at the methods of evaluation now in use or under discussion con- cerning the theory of visibility and mobility. The linking of visibility and mobility to crime deterrence and prevention necessarily implies that speedier ability prC greater cri: 53:2, the st palice patrr canceming ' 0 05' .‘ .35 ‘38 in 81“ 5‘.ts: ks ‘ C . . ‘5‘ K :r: ‘M V-\ E's 5- l"\ §“S () 23 mobility provides increased visibility and, of course, greater crime deterrence and prevention capability. There- fore, the study will focus on the fastest of all forms of police patrol mobility, the helic0pter. All available data concerning these vehicles will be presented in this study for use in future evaluation. Eimitations of the Study The theory of visibility and mobility in police patrol as effective in deterring or preventing crime will not be tested or evaluated in this study. That must await actual field test conditions to be conducted under scien- tific guidelines over a goodly period of time in several areas. This study will only be concerned with the first basic step in research leading to test, a full and accurate description of the process in question. Therefore, this study will make no judgements as to the value of the theory but will concern itself with an attempt to provide full information for future researchers. It is hOped that the study will provide some usable hypo- theses and some practical recommendations for the utiliza- tion of the data obtained in the study. Summary Chapter I has identified the setting of the study and provides a view of the philOSOphy of police patrol. This chapter details the birth of the theory which contends 3f he cri u..- ‘1. Cue baieor“, 24 that visibility and mobility are effective in deterring and preventing crime and notes that the theory began in England and was transported to the American colonies to become part of the criminal justice program in the United States. This chapter also points out that, although it became apparent that crime and police personnel were both increasing far more rapidly than the nation's population, the theory was retained unscathed. Even though concerns about police training and education began to surface there is no indication of any concern among trainers or educators of the police that a good deal of the subject matter of police training and education might be based on a theory that was untested and unevaluated and arose from "common sense" values to be carried through the profession by tradition. Chapter II probes further into this theory by examining the literature of the profession of law enforce- ment. The statements, writings, and teachings of those who were the administrators, trainers, and educators are examined to trace the philoSOphy of the theory to its present day status. 1 15 9‘ W, ‘.¢$ h. -_‘ pave ..p\-& 5’ -~\ 24 Q» ~: 3. p s v\ - c.-‘. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter the literature of law enforcement will be used as one of the probe instruments of the study. There is a scarcity of information concerning the relatively new phenomenon of law enforcement and the search for the philOSOphy of such a theory as visibility and mobility must be gleaned from what literature is available. Information about the testing and evaluation of police patrol methods and theories in relation to any effect on crime is virtually non-existent. The review of the literature in this chapter will demonstrate this lack of information. It will be noted that Chapter II provides frequent references to the lack of a proven method of testing police patrol methods and theories. Those methods of testing and evaluation which are noted in the literature are geared to demonstrate the effectiveness of one police program or another in providing "work" statistics. These are often a compilation of calls for service, numbers of persons contacted, paper 25 ~n~mlated, ' it is andcuot’ weary, these valuation ir. the3r1es can 3353§ing the Simssmn o: prim} . “Allty am 1 Nate hlg‘. .57 26 accumulated, or locations and conditions observed. While it is undoubtedly important to report the functions of any agency, these reportages do not constitute testing or evaluation in relation to the effect of the function on crime deterrence or prevention. The literature of policing describes the philosophy of patrol very positively in many instances and is often unhesitating in deciding that certain police methods and theories can actually, when used "effectively," result in changing the intention of a potential criminal from commission of a crime to honest endeavors. Here in Chapter II can be seen the tendency of police administrators, trainers, and educators to pass police method and theory from hand to hand, almost verbatim in some instances, without questioning whether or not the process has ever been tested or evaluated. yiews of the Rationale of Patrol Since the use of the heliCOpter in police service is directly related to the police mission of crime preven— tion, it will be useful to discuss those theories of police patrol service relating to the use of conveyances to provide mobility and, even further, to discuss those theories which relate high visibility and speed in mobility of patrol directly to crime deterrence and prevention. These theories are the foundation of the training and education curricula 32' police acad gatrol practic From t axis-ace of tr. literature st: aiezettent t2; aéefimtion a; first it is as". case in a pa: :v is 5011 the jo} L The 1 27 of police academies and criminal justice schools regarding patrol practices. From the earliest times in police history there is evidence of the use of various forms of patrol. Much of the literature stresses the importance of "effective patrol" as a deterrent to crime. However, there is nowhere to be found a definition of "effective patrol" other than an assumption that it is any patrol method which controls or prevents crime in a particular area. Williams (1967) says, "If you are on the job where and when you are most needed, the troublemakers and crooks will decide that your beat is not a profitable one in which they can Operate."1 The President's Commission on Law Enforcement noted that: "Efforts must be made to schedule police patrol at the times when, and the places where, crimes are most likely to occur."2 While these principles are certainly worthy to con- sider as guidelines, they do leave much to the ability of a police administrator as a seer of future events. There is a considerable body of literature which relates high visibility and rapid mobility to "effective patrol" but there are few studies which offer evidence of a 1E. W. Williams, Modern Law Enforcement and Police Science (Springfield, 111.: Chas. C. Thomas, 1967), p.’30. 2President's Commission, Crime in Free Society, p. 52. E at 011511 e who Sic. .9 t? t or 9 fl 3 . n-0 2 u ETEI‘. in C 53A Luv s-Abb any. 6;" ufifi .I < ”,1 V I i. 1 .. . . p . . C C. t t a E 3. a; \«i .....\.ci;quc on» Q.» h _ u I o 2‘ W n.» A. . m 2H “9:. “A“ mus MP» :‘x “we a: a .fi. .. . I. . u.» s t has 28 relationship between the actual deterrence of crime and "effective patrol" except as to areas of saturation. And even in cases of deterrence through saturation, there are those who view such efforts as resulting only in a temporary shift or displacement of crime.3 History records little, if any, statistical documentation of what constitutes "effec- tive patrol." It is interesting to observe that the idea of paid professional police was still meeting with a great deal of resistance in the English speaking world during the latter part of the eighteenth century.4 The inherent suspicion that policing would go beyond the simple concern for public safety and abridge individual freedom persisted in lands that were truly inundated with crime. Nevertheless, the watchmen on patrol, such as the "Charlies," named after King Charles II, in whose reign they were initiated, were paid, although at a scandalously low figure. These watchmen were mostly drunks or buffoons who patrolled about the town announcing the time and weather to all honest citizens and their impending arrival to the 3John G. Kinser, "Crime Displacement," The Police Chief 41 (August l974):66-67. Also note American Bar Asso- Ciation Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, "Stan— dards Relating to the Urban Police Function" (Tentative Draft, 1972), p. 56. 4T. A. Critchley, p. 35. Supra Chapter I, Note 8. lasbteake rs. theory of pat: was tanned by seats-i to let, my citizens An ea; :‘j-Jc . 1. '““T POllce CPines: CCRCeiVab tions: n0 gig“?! r Dteak in restraine maintain Our City COKJSSi: F08d: :g‘nc‘ ‘ Md 0n t‘» ‘5‘ 29 lawbreakers.5 Still, this system probably provided the best police protection in England at that time. This system also provides early evidence of the theory of patrol and visibility, and even though the watch was manned by the less than excellent, its very regularity seemed to lend a certain stability to the community which many citizens of the time viewed as beneficial.6 Speed in Mobility Brings More VisiBility An early police historian, Raymond B. Fosdick (1920) visited seventy-two cities in the United States to study police systems. In discussing the patrolman, Fosdick opines: Conceivably, therefore, if he is alert and conscien- tious, no crimes will be committed in his vicinity. Highway robbers will not Operate, burglars will not break in from the street, and pickpockets will be restrained from activity. If it were possible to maintain enough policemen continuously to cover all our city blocks we could be guaranteed against the commission of crime in our streets. Fosdick reports that the Detroit police department placed on the street over 150 Fords with one officer driver 51bid. 61bid. 7Raymond B. Fosdick, American Police Systems (New York: The Century'Co., 1920), p._354. But also see American Bar Association, "Urban Police Function," p. 56. "It has never been doubted that the presence of a police officer at any given spot will deter the commission of a crime in the immediate View of the officer. But it is obviously not economically feasible to consider such a plan for policing. . . ." to replace f scbility f8] mnths. FOE that, becaus to do the wc Alor Detroit, Wi] iatroit was have a munic sively in pc crime preve: :0 the mote] What stem the formidal Crimina: amY wh: by a CO: and Me;- I at the Hea; acts as effect ‘ radio ii stiCku§ EVer be; perCent inclinec Quest 30 to replace foot patrolman. As a result of the new speedy mobility felony complaints were reduced the following two months. Fosdick tells of a Detroit official who stated that, because of this speed in mobility, two men were able to do the work that formerly required five officers.8 Along the same lines, the police commissioner of Detroit, William P. Rutledge, in a 1929 speech, noted that Detroit was the first police department in the nation to have a municipally owned police radio station used exclu- sively in police work. Rutledge foresaw a bright future in crime prevention with the addition of radio communication to the motor car's speedy capability: What is the most effective means we can employ to stem the tide of lawlessness? What weapon is the most formidable with which to battle the unseen army of criminals which constitutes the vicious minority--an army which acts as one man because it is bound together by a common desire to make a living by defying the law and preying upon society? I am convinced that in police radio we have found the weapon. The psychological effect of quick capture acts as a powerful deterrent to crime. The actual effect is being recorded daily on the log of our police radio in Detroit. We are catching and convicting more stickup men, robbers and other vicious criminals, than ever before. Prosecutions have increased fifty-four percent. All of which is discouraging the criminally inclined parasite, who will soon find it best to adOpt honest employment as his means of livelihood.9 81bid., pp. 311-13. 9Proceedings of the 1929 Annual Convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, "Radio in Police WOrk," William P. Rutledge (New York: Arno Press, 1930). pp. 68-71. Th1: visible, hi crize was s became the to L Cue cc 4,; r) (3 :J‘ .‘J n: Lu (I) '(1 in 31 This view of the deterrent effect of a highly visible, highly mobile patrol becoming the total nemesis of crime was shared by many able police administrators. It became the creed of police work. August Vollmer, one of the most respected of early advocates of police professionalism said: . . . the mere sight of uniformed patrolmen diligently patrolling their beats, is sufficient in many instances to intimidate the professional crook and deter some of the community's weaker members from committing infrac- tions of the law.10 Vollmer was deeply committed to the improvement of police service and was one of the earliest advocates of speed in mobility of patrol. He was extremely enthusiastic about motorized patrol: . . . with the advent of the radio equipped car a new era has come. . . . Districts of many square miles . . . are now covered by the roving patrol car, fast, efficient, stealthy, having no regular beat to patrol, just as liable to be within 60 feet as 3 miles of the crook plying his trade--the very enigma of this Specialized fellow who is coming to realize now that a few moments may bring them down about him like a.” swarm of bees--this lightning swift "angel of death.11 10August Vollmer, "The Police Beat," Samuel G. Chapman, ed., Police Patrol Practices (Springfield, 111.: Chas. C. Thomas, 1972). p. 315. 11National Commission on Law Observance and Enforce- ment, Report No. 14, The Police (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930), pp. 90-98. the literat value of pa V0? and ears 0 infomatio the police 0. Organiza: the core 31:50!) 5;: fesire U m 540 so 32 These two principles of patrol, visibility and speed in mobility (or omnipresence) are repeated throughout the literature in a recurring theme as the proof of the value of patrol. Vollmer also viewed the patrol system as the eyes and ears of the department executive and believed that the information discovered on regular patrol could be used by the police executive to formulate future plans.12 0. W. Wilson, another of the demi-gods of police organization characterized patrol as being as the base of the core of the police purpose of preventing criminal acts. Wilson says crime results from the co-existence of the desire to commit a crime and the belief that an Opportunity to do so exists. Wilson sees the Opportunity diminished by the presence of a police officer.13 Wilson notes that an impression of omnipresence is created by: ". . . frequent and conspicuous patrol at every hour and in all sections of the community."14 12Vollmer, Police Patrol Practices, p. 315. 13O. W. Wilson, Police Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950)} pp. 80-85. 14Ibid. ted 1 erre rea F b is typ bk 600'. . 32" re 1 i‘ 5“! ‘a.. 0 V o *a Ll bes 535119 ca r01 33 Here again is a statement of the belief in the deterrent effect of a visible, patrolling policeman. But here, also, is added the requirement of high visibility created by a presence at all hours, everywhere. Obviously, this type of presence requires either a very large number of policemen, or a method of patrol which would assure coverage of large areas of the community rather quickly. Wilson specifically suggests speed in mobility. Interestingly, O. W. Wilson also points out that the patrolman serves as the eyes and ears of the police adminis- trator, a function noted by other police administrators in the description of the purposes of patrol.15 Wilson also notes that a patrol officer in an auto- mobile can cover a far larger area than when on foot, and will, besides arriving at a given point much sooner, be in a better physical condition to take police action. And as a result of this increased mobility, Wilson finds the auto— mobile patrol the least expensive and most effective method of patrol.16 15Ibid., p. 81. Also note Vollmer, Police Patrol Practices, p. 315. 161bid., p. 94. 1C 1 A to 90 .7 LC in V cm ‘ a . 0.1 rarly l CIEaS ‘- Q“‘ 34 The International City Managers Association also sees the patrol function as the eyes and ears of the police administrator. The information gathered by the patrol force is depended upon heavily by the administrator for solutions to police problems.17 This manual views the patrol function as all encom- passing and believes that if the patrol function were to be 100 percent effective there would be little or no need for specialized operating divisions. This work also sees the principal duties of the patrol force as the prevention Of violation of statutes and ordinances, the arrest of offenders, and to give aid, relief and information. In order to carry out these duties there must be active patrol of all streets in all areas, particu- larly where crime occurs frequently. Patrol, this volume says, diminishes the potential offender's belief in the existence of an Opportunity to successfully violate the law. It does not, however, say why this is 50.18 It can probably be assumed that this view is based, as with others, on the ”common sense" principle. Richardson (1974) writes of the first mechanical increase in police mobility with the advent of bicycles in the 18905. Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt of the New York 17International City Managers Association, Municipal Pglice Administration (Chicago: International Managers Association, 1954), pp. 255—65. 181bid., p. 256. 'E‘ I -..v- a. A: . p. . “I a. .1 .3 Fa 5 1'11 A Holy... a... 'y 35 police department, created a bicycle squad of one hundred men. These machine mounted men were better able to deal with runaway horses, law breaking bicyclers and, because of increased mobility, could cover a larger patrol area in less time. Richardson also reports that by 1910 the automobile flying squad was common; its purpose.to rush policemen to crisis or crime points.19 Richardson observes that response time is critical to effective police performance. He cites the results of a Los Angeles study which tells of criminal arrests made where average response time was 4.1 minutes and no arrest made where the average response time was 6.3 minutes. Richardson also cites that more than one-third of all arrests were made within one-half hour of the commission of the offense and almost half of all arrests came within two 20 hours after a crime had been done. While this data seems to indicate that speed in arrival at the crime scene is essential to the possibility of arrest, one notes, according to the same statistic, that over half of the arrests came after two hours had passed. Richardson mentions that computer systems are now in use to monitor response time and tells of the Chicago Police 19James F. Richardson, Urban Police in the United States (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1974), pp. 117-18. 20 Ibid., p. 117. rte: .-‘ O" och-0' . v H... .4; aw in! .Hu .1 E “a. Ho {AM ““ A-‘ ..' ‘ *8 CI §\.. -d~ '11.“. 1 \ Ict“‘ NF.- 9» 'EPart: 36 Department's splendid, new speed oriented communication system and New York's advanced communication time saver called Sprint. He cautions, however, that no matter how swift the response to the crime scene, the results at that scene would be dependent on other factors, which are not susceptible to improvement by mechanical means. He cites that the result at the scene may be most affected by recruiting, training, and management. Richardson does not mention research as a factor.21 Samuel G. Chapman (1964) says of patrol: ". . . there is no more effective machinery for achieving the goals and objectives of law enforcement than through the medium of uniformed patrol."22 Chapman also sees that the police must be an effec- tive crime fighting machine to make the streets of the community safe. Since each citizen cannot have his own policeman, or even have one on each block of his city because of the prohibitive cost of such a large police department, Chapman prOposes that the solution lies in: ". . . the adOption of a type of patrol that convinces potential offenders that they lack the opportunity to commit crimes successfully."23 211bid., pp. 117-20. 22Samuel G. Chapman, ed., Police Patrol Readings (Springfield: Chas C. Thomas, 1964), p. ix. 23Ibid., p. x. a t q " "'1é~A.A. :- U n O‘ fl 9 VLCCE - x | Sle a ny{~" ' one“... IH-n- . . L .:. A: 1. ;l .a e. r :1 c 2. ‘i v. I e5 .w u 4 Vs Q . 1. u . l .\o at. v1 y. a x c . c ya .ic .se . y» no C q \ ag e \u. C; .3 :1 v. z. 6 as 2. .3 .a a“ 2. a. ..q A. . .F 5.. 37 Chapman reiterates, as do many police experts, that desire and opportunity are the concomitants of crime. He feels, however, that the presence of an officer only stifles desire, while effective patrol diminishes the opportunity to commit the crime and must convince the crime planner of the high risk of arrest.24 By inference, at least, Chapman is pointing out that a police officer cannot, by his mere presence, obliterate a criminal desire, but the police presence can serve to con- vince the criminal that there is a small chance of success and a great risk of arrest. It should be added, though, that this small chance and great risk are directly related to this time and place. In this same work, Brostron (1964) states that desire plus Opportunity equals crime. Each element, he says, is dangerous but action occurs when they are combined. Brostron believes that if either element can be controlled, a crime cannot occur, but he looks on law enforcement as having very slight effect on criminal desires other than to blunt or frustrate them. He says that the Opportunity to commit a crime is the point at which an effective patrol strikes. Brostron proposes that Cain could not have killed Abel had a third party restrained Cain. In fact, Brostron feels that the mere presence of the third party would have 24Ibid. l. l C s u r c ‘1. A. u a. .. 2 C. r. 9.. r. us lZStan1 38 had a sobering effect on Cain.25 Again, it might be added, this might only be true so long as the restraint or presence continued. It seems to be a truism, as cited by Brostron, that if it were possible to control either desire or Opportunity, no crime would occur. It is also true that there seems to be no active research to indicate that any method has yet been discovered to control or curb criminal desires per se, or to control or even diminish criminal Opportunity generally. A brief study of progressively rising crime figures year after year would seem to bear out this failure. Brostron proposes that a department can do more work if the mobility is increased by adding men and cars, whose crime deterrent value, incidentally, is increased by painting the cars a conspicuous white. This added mobile patrol provides greater area coverage in less time and makes possible frequent passage of any given point, with instant radio communication. Again, high visibility and speed in mobility as the key ingredients of crime preven- tion.26 But Clift (1965) says that police are not just "thief takers." He sees the police as engaged in all phases 25Curtis Brostron, "Strategy and Tactics," in Police Patrol Readings, ed. Samuel G. Chapman (Springfield: Chas C. Thomas, 1964), pp. 76-77. 26Ibid., p. 78. 39 of public safety and feels that the most important duty is the preservation of peace. Patrol is for the purpose of giving general assistance to the public. The public, according to Clift, does not necessarily want the police to be constantly running "hither and yon" but just "to be there."27 Thus the promotion of the theory of deterrence through high visibility. McNamara (1969), writing in the introduction to a reprint of Graper's book on police administration, states that the problems and controversies are the same in the last half of the century as they were in the first half. Graper was one of the earlier advocates of speed in mobility when he noted that a booth system, employing one Officer in a booth with a phone, and one officer on patrol, could cut the arrival time, at certain locations from forty-five minutes to eight minutes.28 Leonard (1951) points out that patrol is the most important phase of police management and observes that special divisions are necessary only to the extent that patrol falls short of 100 percent efficiency.29 27Raymond E. Clift, A Guide to Modern Police Thinking (Cincinnati: The W. H. Anderson Co., 1965), p. 158. 28John McNamara, in Introduction to Elmer Graper, American Police Administration (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1969), Intro. p. iii. 29Leonard, Police Organization and Management, p. 221. See also InternatiOnal City Managers Association, Municipal Police Administration, p. 255. t, inc _5‘ .— paw-4 .fir—q “r, p J .v...i¢.“.4 -’ “RAH -: webv Jilu u v 1 - A. CI'l Ca‘rr“ 5 " ~14. C er 6 H u‘. rel e... .3 t a .F. {a ‘ i Li. 40 Leonard holds that all other line units in a depart- ment, including traffic, detective, and the like, are secondary and collateral to the patrol function.3o Leonard also points out that Speed is important in increasing the response capability when answering calls for aid or when patrolling an area.31 Folley (1973) views the purpOse of patrol as per- forming a distribution of police officers in such a manner that will eliminate or reduce the Opportunity for citizen misconduct and increase the probability of apprehension if a person commits a crime. Folley cites these two items as a criminal's chief concern and says that where effective patrol minimizes his chances of success, he will refrain from committing a crime. Folley points out that, in order to be effective, the patrol must minimize response time, and believes patrol must be motorized.32 Folley sees the frequent appearance of a police car as presenting an illusion of police saturation. He feels that the apparently obvious presence of police officers will discourage potential criminals. He notes the modern use of helicopters but sees these mainly as traffic controllers, 3oIbid., p. 222. 3lIbid., p. 261. 32Vern L. Folley, American Law Enforcement (Boston: Holbrook Press, 1973). PP. 108-9. zerey wac patrol ca ('7 41 mercy wagons, area searchers, and as directors of ground patrol cars in felony chases. Folley also relates speedy response directly to apprehension but does not furnish any data to explain the relationship.33 Caldwell (1972) proposes that to implement crime repression the patrol officer must deny the criminal the Opportunity to commit crime, by creating an impression of omnipresence in his patrol district. Caldwell also repeats the oft made suggestion that the patrol officer ought to be highly visible in his uniform and patrol car to deter the criminal. He views that it is important to make up for lack of manpower or speed by strategically planned placement patrol personnel to provide rapid response.34 Caldwell's statement supports the view of the President's Commission (1967) which opined: The object of patrol is to disperse policemen in a way that will eliminate or reduce the Opportunity for misconduct and to increase the likelihood that a criminal will be apprehended while he is commit- ting a crime or immediately thereafter. The strong likelihood of apprehension will presumably have a strong deterrent effect on potential criminals.35 331bia., pp. 114-19. It is interesting to find that one who prOposes speed in response and patrol sees no such use for heliCOpters. 34Harry Caldwell, Basic Law Enforcement (Pacific Palisades, Cal.: Goodyear PuEIishing Co., I972), pp. 31-45. 35 President's Commission, Challenge of Crime, p. l. 42 Some Doubts About the Rationale But Misner (1969) shows that policemen in large urban areas spend less than 30 percent of their working time dealing with crime or other enforcement duties. Misner reports: Rather than patrolling on foot or on a bicycle, today's policeman has an automobile, even a heli- COpter. His basic tasks, however, are essentially what they were in 1910, and his increased mobility has reduced his casual, day to day informal involvement with members of the community.36 And James O. Wilson (1968) draws attention to the complete lack of a proven methodology for testing law enforcement prOposals. Because of this failure Wilson believes we stand the hazard of turning a practical problem into an ideological argument. He notes that some are passionately choosing sides over whether the best method is to arm or disarm the police, to love or hate the courts, and to hire or fire prison guards. Wilson sees as a possibility that, because of emotional arousal over crime, we may dangerously oversell our ability to repress or lower crime rates. Wilson finds that, in order to secure from Congress enough funds for a program that may reduce auto theft by 5 percent, we may have to guarantee Congress and the people a 20 percent reduction in murders.37 36Gordon E. Misner, "Enforcement: Illusion of Security," The Nation 208 (April l969):488-90. 37James Q. Wilson, "Crime and Law Enforcement," Agenda for the Nation, ed. Kermt Gordon (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1968), pp. 179-206. u;-‘ u.-n a-i: 8 Ce )1 L» ’.' 4.1: n ‘4 O eriw' C. fern N “X: 43 Suggestions for Testing or Measuring the Rationale There have been, in recent years, some suggestions for evaluation of police programs but it will be noticed that the overwhelming majority of the plans for improving police production, and evaluating this improvement, deal with management problems and tend to revolve around the paper count and data processing procedures. Personnel prob- lems are dealt with along with programs for streamlining the process of policing a community. Many new methods have been prOposed and designed that make use of the latest technology for communication. Training method evaluations abound, but very few of the newest efforts at improving the police services are concerned with researching the basic tenets of the profession in relation to their impact on crime. There was an interesting research test in New York during a four month period of 1954. The purpose of the experiment was to determine precisely what number of men would provide adequate policing in a busy New York precinct. The Twenty-fifth precinct was peopled by White, Negro, and Puerto Rican citizenry and was considered one of the most lawless areas of the city. Basically, the police personnel assigned to the unit for the four month period were more than doubled. Compared with the same four month period of 1953, felonies were reduced from 1102 to 488, a drOp of 55.6 per- cent. All crime went from 1,757 down to 1,273 a loss of 44 27.5 and the number of cases cleared by arrest increased from 568 to 948. The clearance rate rose from 32.3 percent to 74.5 percent. The writer of this report insisted that it was not a "saturation" experiment, but whatever the semantics, the personnel was doubled, and true, the statistics were, as the report said "dramatic."38 However dramatic the results of this experiment were, they were also incomplete since there was no follow-up of any kind and no study of the crime statistics in adjacent areas. The assumptions that crime is either prevented, deterred, or merely displaced by such patrol practices can only be proven by proper experiment which is not conducted in a vacuum of inconclusiveness. This experiment was how- ever, even though incomplete, at least a beginning attempt to try to find prOper perspectives in policing through testing. It has been demonstrated that while many police administrators frequently theorize that the presence of a police officer will destroy, or at least diminish, a poten- tial offender's belief in the existence of the opportunity to successfully commit a crime, nobody provides any empiri- cal proof of such a statement. Apparently the repetition of 38Report "Operation 25," Police Patrol Readings, ed. Samuel G. Chapman (Springfield: Chas. C. Thomas, 1964), pp. 342-57. 45 this creed, plus its basis in what is called "common sense” give it a credibility without testing. The American Bar Association (1972) notes that there is a wideSpread belief among police administrators that patrol activity constitutes the most important response that police can make to the crime problem but at the same time these administrators seek to devote more resources to patrol there is a growing awareness that relatively little known regarding the value of police patrol as a deterrent to . 39 crime. This study continues: It has never been doubted that the presence of a police officer at a given spot will deter the commis- sion of a crime in the immediate area within view of the officer. But it is obviously not economically feasible to consider such a plan for policing nor is it likely that citizens would desire to have a police presence in the numbers that would be required for such coverage. There have been a number of dramatic highly-publicized experiments in which areas have been blanketed by police officers, but these have proved little more than the obvious, that the pres- ence of a police officer will deter crimes in the immediate area subject to his view.40 Larson (1972) reports that preventive patrol is "supposed" to deter individuals from committing crimes but observes that there is considerable disagreement in police circles about how to achieve prevention and deterrence. Larson perceives that there is a need for extensive 39American Bar Association, Urban Police Function, p. 56. 40Ibid., p. 57. X p. .3 2. a ,o ”I _. e. 2. e.. no to“ .3 Ac ~m V. E z I .1 2. r E S A: V I- ‘ ‘ ‘Qa‘ . t Hi C .1 n3 t . . bk n QV AU .\I,\ u is it J N v \P 46 experimental and analytical work to determine to what extent patrol deters and prevents crime.41 When it is considered that the twin theories of visibility and deterrence occupy important niches in police planning and equally high places in police training and education, the lack of research mentioned becomes a critical matter demanding full attention. » The literature of policing has furnished some measurement guidelines but most of those seem to be aimed at improving the internal operations in police departments, or providing for a more orderly distribution of personnel, services, and equipment based on efficiency scales and not necessarily geared to impacting crime. One police training and performance study noted that: The very basic questions of what does a policeman do, and what skills and knowledge does the policeman need to do his job effectively, need to be answered. The methods used to find these answers must meet the standards of scientific research and must be rigor- ously tested at every step.42 The President's Commission (1965) decried the fact that: The most effective way of deploying and employing a department's patrol force is a subject about which deplorably little is known. Evaluation of differing methods of patrol depends on trying out those methods 41Richard C. Larson, Urban Police Patrol Analysis (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972), pp. 33-34. 42National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, "Police Training and Performance Study," Director, George P. McManus (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), p. iii. Strep st; trol a d H.‘ vicy o Zlit Ed vyfii 3“ IA e EIIQH 8 b VF! 47 over long periods of time and calculating the changes in crime rates and solution rates that the changes in patrol techniques have produced.43 Larson (1972) records the efforts of the St. Louis, Missouri police department to provide for scientific resource allocation based on predictions of numbers on units needed to answer calls for service. Larson notes that the 1966 St. Louis study demonstrated the feasibility of the quantitative approach to patrol resource allocation problems and also showed that there is a strong need for new models specifically related to police patrol Operations, including response and patrol activities in the field. Larson adds that many administrative problems arise from a lack of policy oriented measures of patrol effectiveness.44 Larson further illustrates that using reasonable parameter values, the crime intercept possibilities of patrol appear remarkably small. For instance, if a patrol passes a given point once an hour, then the possibility of intercepting a one minute crime, a street robbery for one, is one in sixty, without calculation, it might be added, of the possibility of the crime not being observed by the patrol officer. Larson poses the question that monitorable street patrols require more research as to their crime deterrent effect.45 43President's Commission, Challenge of Crime, p. 95. 44Larson, Urban Police Patrol Analysis, pp. 40-42. 451616., p. 147. 15 3‘1.» 48 In general, it should be noted that Larson poses useful and accurate assessment methods which are based on the assumption held among police administrators that improvement of the police mobility systems, especially in regard to resource allocation, patrol presence and response time, will aid in the prevention of crime. There are no attempts by Larson in this book to show any relationship to crime prevention except by presuming that speed begets efficiency in performance. Larson describes response time as ". . . a limited, but useful, proxy measure of effectiveness whose reduction is widely accepted as a desired goal."46 Some recent suggestions for measuring performance are notable if only because they indicate continuing efforts to discover some useful scale. The problem, as always, lies in relating the measurement to some result in impacting on crime. Holzer (1974) suggests a measurement for evaluation of police service which consists of a count of total output functions, both as to paper work and street functions. Each item of output would become part of the total picture of police productivity. Holzer warns that there seems to be no effective way of measuring, or evaluating different items of output. He suggests that, because of this, measurements of output can most likely only be accomplished on a group 461bid., p. 32. Presen‘ mine 1. 3315151 .IY " A an J‘rgr 49 basis. This system would measure the entire police depart- ment's efficiency by piece-work.47 Knowles and De Laduranty (1974) observe that police agencies tend to evaluate employees primarily on the basis of personality and behavior rating scales. These authors point out that the duties and responsibilities of today's law enforcement officer have changed considerably within the past two decades but they note that the methods and procedures of evaluating the performance and effectiveness on an individual officer have remained relatively static. Knowles and De Laduranty believe that research into present performance evaluation techniques is vital to deter- mine if there is any real capacity to measure accurately and consistently the performance of policemen in a changing environment.48 Hirsch and Riccio (1974) contend that preventive patrol and response to calls for service are not the ulti- mate objective of police agencies but are necessary requisites for deterring or preventing crime. These writers describe patrol service as a mix of crime and non-crime services with the mix balance determined by local objectives and priorities. They suggest placing 47Marc Holzer, "Police Productivity: A Conceptual Framework for MeaSurement and Improvement," Journal of Police Science and Administration 1 (1974):459-67. 48Lyle Knowles and Joseph C. De Laduranty, "Perfor- mance Evaluation," Journal of Police Science and Administra- tion 2 (March 1974):28:33. 50 differing values for all police activity with the highest value based on such factors as the seriousness of the crime, frequency of the crime in areas patrolled, and length of time in the activity. They suggest, for instance, that an arrest for a serious crime in a neighborhood where serious crimes seldom happen, is of more value than one in an area of frequent crime incidence.49 This is certain to be one of styles of format used in measuring police productivity but it will have to be related to the impact that such performance has on crime in the community in order to meet the demands for more research into the subject of improving the police perfor- mance in crime prevention. Morgan and Fosler (1974) suggest that in this economic downturn period, police productivity, in order to absorb the drain of less revenue input, must increase. These authors suggest that: There are great Opportunities for improving police productivity in virtually every police department. With care and discretion police activities can be more precisely measured to provide the information to police managers that is needed for identifying problems and improving performance. Morgan and Fosler observe that only at the department level can the tools of productivity improvement be tested. They suggest the following formulae for measurement: 49Gary B. Hirsch and Lucius J. Riccio, "Measuring and Improving the Productivity of Police Patrol," Journal 9f Police Science 2 (June l974):169-84. Ma}: ave 1'13 pat Me . *JI 51 Making a greater proportion of existing patrolmen available for active patrol work (up to a reasonable limit; this does not necessarily mean preventive patrol). Measure: Patrolmen assigned to active patrol work Total patroimen ‘ Increasing the "real patrol time" of those who are E assigned to active patrol work. ' Measure: Man-hours spent on actual patrol (time servicing demands for police service) Total patroIiman-HOurs Utilizing patrol time to best advantage. Broken down according to three principal objectives of patrol. OCrime deterrence. (l) Victimization survey, (2) Seiected use of crime rates, and (3) Response time. Measures (for response time): Number of calls of a given type responded to in under "X" minutes Total caiis of Ehat type Number of calls responded to in under "X" minutes Resource devotéd’to response OApprehension. Measure: Arrests resulting from patrol surviving the first judicial screening Total patrol manéhours 0Noncrime.services. Measures : Noncrime calls satisfactorily responded to Total noncrime calls L c v54 ‘ .JU U “#6 38 C Stra‘. ”:1 ahlie 5 :. ed 52 Noncrime calls satisfactorily responded to Man:hours devotéd to non- crime service calls Disturbance calls for which no further attention is required Total disturbance caIls ' 50 This presents an interesting view of the theory that production measurement must be department wide because, while suggesting that many factors of police activity be measured, the method includes the use of both crime rates and "quality" arrests, i.e., arrests which survive the first judicial screening. And so, the search for a way to test the efficiency of the police in their mission of crime continues in the face of a real need to either prove the methods now in use or discard them entirely and perhaps start over again. The call for research must be answered, since the old reasons for doing things a certain way have not been tested. One very important (historically) research experi- ment in patrol was conducted in Kansas City, Missouri, from October 1972 through September 30, 1973, designed to measure the effect of patrol on crime and the citizens apprehension of crime. The experiment summary noted that police patrol strategies have always been based on two unproven but widely accepted beliefs that visible police presence 50J. M. Morgan, Jr. and R. Scott Fosler, "Police Productivity,“ Police Chief 41 (July l974):28-30. It even nr pl. C E .1 u l‘ . this "\IJ N l I . . YA C a .u n1 3» .C .3 3 e . e . O H. A“. 1.‘ vi .r“ 'L Via bib “'4 .l 3. .1» .n 01 . J. L. . . T. r ‘L ”IV .01- ".N :Hlu :‘ “a. on find «an s t» e e. 3. EL. .15. a.» -Q Q OE, . o u- I“ 53 prevents crime by deterring potential criminal and that the public feels safer because of this patrol presence. Three controlled levels of patrol were utilized in the year long research. In one area, the police entered only in response to citizen requests; this was the "reac- tive" area. In a second, or "pro-active" area, the police visibility was doubled, and even tripled, while in the third, "control" area, the normal patterns of routine patrol and response were continued. Analysis of all data gathered in the experiment showed that these three areas did not undergo any significant change. There was no significant difference in the level of crime or citizens' fear of crime in any of the three areas.51 To measure the impact on crime the department used a victimization survey, police crime records, police arrest data and a survey of businesses. It was felt that the victim and business surveys would add supportive credibility to the other two sources of data. To measure citizen fear during the experiment, attitudinal surveys of area house- holds and businesses were combined with a survey of citizens who experienced encounters with police and estimates of citizen satisfaction recorded by participant observers. Twelve different findings were brought forth from the experiment, the most important of which were the 51George F. Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preven- tive Patrol Experiment, A Summary Report, Preface Statement by Joseph D. McNamara, Chief of'PoIice (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1974), p. v. - “an“! , _ . ~.+-Z£ .'.'- “ .1 1L a: 3‘ o 3"”. - 1 .v-.lt if” #1. t .3 . a.» u... .. a .. . 2 a v . .C 2 e L w PU L» C c 54 findings that crime remained relatively constant as did citizen fear of crime.52 The vital segment of this experiment is that it was probably the first such research which faced the problem of testing some police beliefs which have been, as mentioned earlier in this paper, passed on from one generation to another generation of police administrators, trainers, and educators. The study may have stirred a century of silt from the bottom of the police think tank. This experiment has been subjected to some criticism by other police administrators and researchers. Davis and Knowles (1975) pointed out that the Kansas City research provides five major hypotheses concerning patrol which suffer from or are suspected of both internal and external validity. Davis and Knowles point to some outright errors and infer that the experiment is so affected by external validity as to be generalizable nowhere except possibly Kansas City, Missouri, if even there.53 Davis and Knowles pinpoint errors in area size and consequent population density figures. They also note that certain conclusive statements, particularly those relating to citizen perception of patrol conditions and citizens fear of crime are largely from unsupported assumptions. 521bid.. pp. 20-36. 53Edward M. Davis and Lyle Knowles, "A Critique of the Report: An Evaluation of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment," The Police Chief 12 (1975):22-29. flaming-'11-." '1 'V _ L If‘V "‘sse Cl .Ahv :Eat the .319“de 5.1 U! Ll, r... JQ [15.xnh 55 These critics note that certain patrol areas labelled "reactive" are, because of being contiguous to "proactive" and "control" areas subject to almost continuous patrol observation. They note this condition would reflect a different "presence" of patrol than claimed by the 54 researchers. Kelling and Pate (1975), conductors and authors of the Kansas City experiment and subsequent Summary Report and final Technical Report, defend the five hypotheses dissected by Davis and Knowles on the basis of pointing out that the criticism was aimed at a summary report which was intended for non-technical readers. The authors answer questions concerning: Hypothesis 1--The Victimization Survey--found no statistically significant differences in crime in any of the sixty-nine comparisons made between reactive controls and proactive beats. Hypothesis 2-—measured direct and indirect effect of the experiment on citizens' perceptions and found no significant differences in citizen per- ception of patrol in any of the three areas. Hypothesis 3--Citizen fear of crime was found to be not significantly affected by differences in patrol procedure in the three areas. Hypothesis 4—-The amount of police response to request calls was not significantly affected by variations in patrol procedures. Hypothesis 5--The patrol variations had no signifi- cant effects on traffic accidents.55 54Ibid., p. 25. 55George L. Kelling and Tony Pate, "Response to the Davis-Knowles Critique," Police Chief 12 (1975):32-38. on the Kan: plate in a‘ of Davis a: observing hem with this study l aft-i experi and time. parison 0' T SCiEntifi since the 199116 in: b? exper; lidicatn some of 1 scru tiny 56 Kelling and Pate demonstrate that the Summary Report on the Kansas City patrol experiment is not technically com- plete in all aspects. The authors ably defend the criticism of Davis and Knowles point by point and end the defense by observing that both the summary and the final report are heavy with warnings that no generalizations are claimed for this study, and they warn of the limitations inherent in any experiment which is specifically conducted as to area and time. They do suggest the possibility of useful com- parison of the data.56 This Kansas City experiment is probably the first scientific experiment concerning police patrol procedure since the beginning of the profession. The critical dia- logue initiated by Davis and Knowles, which is responded to by experimenters Kelling and Pate is a new and healthy indication that police departments can and will subject some of the "time honored“ concepts of policing to the scrutiny of experimental research. Murphy (1975) notes, in commenting on the Davis- Knowles critique, that it takes courage, confidence, management skill, and an open, informed mind for police administrators to face the hard challenges of experimenta- tion in large urban police agencies.5l7 561bid., p. 38. 57Patrick V. Murphy, "A Commentary, The Davis- Knowles Observations," Police Chief 12 (l975):30. thecry of prwentior for prever for demons patrol ar remarks c tion Of I CEPBbilit 57 Enter the Helicopter, More Speed--More'VIsibility Undoubtedly, police administrators, following the theory of visibility and mobility in crime deterrence and prevention looked on the helicopter as a beautiful new tool for prevention patrol because they: ". . . offer a potential for demonstrating a police presence, for searching a large ; patrol area, and for responding rapidly . . ."58 But i there is no evidence that any of these administrators viewed the new tool in police technology as one that would put the crooks out of business as noted earlier in the remarks of two prominent police chiefs welcoming the addi- tion of radio equipped police cars to the crime prevention capability.59 Guthrie and Whisenand (1968) report that the heli- copter came into police use in New York City in 1947 and from then until now has come into use in many departments in the United States. The first evaluative test of heli- copters as an asset to patrol took place in Lakewood, California, over an eighteen month period of 1966-67 under the auspices of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department with funding from the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance of the Department of Justice. Evaluation was by California State College. Guthrie and Whisenand report that among the 58President's Commission, Science and Technology, p. 14. 59Cf. supra Rutledge p. 30; Vollmer p. 31. conclusion. Sky “right ‘ l. patrol vein activities aircraft. l 2. similar n5 58 conclusions reached in the study which was called Project Sky Knight or PSK, were these: 1. Although the PSK helicopters were utilized as patrol vehicles, it must be recognized that some patrol activities are not capable of being handled effectively by aircraft. 2. Evaluation of PSK and future projects of a similar nature cannot be based on statistical data alone. 3. Under certain conditions, aerial units can sub- stitute for or totally replace ground patrol vehicles. 4. The heliCOpter cannot maximize its capabilities if it is narrowly confined to geographical areas that parallel those of ground patrol units. Not only does the helicopter operate in a dimension new to police patrol, it must be programmed so that its unique capabilities will be maximized. 5. In urban and suburban areas it is not generally feasible for helic0pters to land and give assistance, except in extreme emergencies. 6. Even experienced helicpoter pilots cannot operate police helicopter units effectively without special police training. 7. Despite earlier assumptions, special identifying markings of phsyical locations throughout a city patrolled by experienced pilots and observers are not necessary. 8. While it is recognized that "on-view" patrol has certain values and that original observations may very “A.“ .\ ."r-mg “We“. ‘11 -7 \ well initi suggested oriented a should be :erely orl PM Uh. 1C8 ‘ar .2. wk)“ 7"».. pre r Y C. '_o 59 well initiate important activities of Sky Knight, it is suggested that Sky Knight patrols should be primarily task- oriented and that a far greater amount of patrol time should be on a specifically assigned basis rather than in merely orbiting around the patrol area. 9. Relocation of Sky Knight base of operations from an airport facility to the Sheriff's Lakewood Station park- ing lot proved to be of extreme importance. Having the police facility as a base of operations should always be given preference. This allows helicpoter crews to communi- cate informally with ground patrol unit crews and super- visors in the police station. 10. The performance of the observer in the helicop- ter is the single most important determinant of the degree of effectiveness achieved in operating helicopters as police vehicles. 11. All helicopter observers should be selected from officers assigned to ground patrol units and then provided with special training. 12. It is highly probable that the police helicopter will be used, at times, for providing assistance to other city or county departments. Because of this probability, the heliCOpter should have the capacity to seat, if only on a temporary basis, three people. 13. The optimal benefits of the helicopter in police work will occur only if sufficient geographical area - ' ‘n at l' I i «- I'll. ’r is involv V {narser : was the t M] 60 is involved and the level of called-for police services (number plus type) is moderate to large. 14. One problem quickly became evident, and that was the threat of community rejection of the project before it could really get started. There was substantial and negative public reaction to the noise of the helicopters w being used in aerial surveillance of the city. Resorting to an expediency, Sky Knight patrols were flown at higher altitudes during the next three months, and subsequent to this increase, complaints decreased in number. However, Sky Knight effectiveness was reduced to an unacceptable level. The authors report that this last problem was solved when the manufacturer was able to effectively silence the rotors but the lesson of community acceptance had been learned the hard way. Finally, Guthrie and Whisenand present statistics from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department which indicate that, even with the removal of two radio cars from Lake- wood's force, major crimes, including robbery and burglary, decreased in Lakewood while increasing in the rest of Los Angeles County. The authors observed that one might reasonably claim that the absence of increased crime or decreased police service was probably due to the presence and operations of Sky Knight units. Guthrie and Whisenand contend that the benefits of such service in terms of community satisfaction, officer security. tively. L helicogte sore abstr dimensions repressior Tl aregenere stant pol ; Tl capabilit Elfi'llal r Observati all mover. e—4 61 security, and crime deterrence cannot be measured objec- tively. They believe that even the cost-effectiveness of helicopters must be rationalized subjectively and suggest some abstract value returns such as the psycholOgical dimensions of deterrence, omnipresence (of patrol) and repression (stifling opportunities for crime). They also suggest that the helic0pter can generate a regenerative community support through awareness of con- stant police protection. The authors conclude that the helicopter has special capability in deterrence or repression in selected areas; minimal response time; increased omnipresence, night time observation; high speed chase of fleeing vehicles; and over- all movement flexibility. They feel the only restraining factor involved would be the relegation of the helicopter to "routine" activities.60 It might be useful to comment at this point that while, as the authors say, crime may have decreased in Lakewood because of the helicopters, it might also reason- ably be inferred, in the absence of other statistics, that the increase in crime in the rest of the county may have been because of the presence of helic0pters over Lakewood. Bower (1968) tells about the use of the helicopter in Denver, Colorado, and recounts the tale of tests 60C. Robert Guthrie and Paul M. Whisenand, "The Use of Helicopters in Routine Police Patrol Operations: A Sum- mary of Research Findings," Police Patrol Readings, ed. Samuel G. Chapman (Springfield: Chas. C. Thomas, 1972), pp. 266-75. conducted over high'. searchlig chief in fighting iron rot gatrol t 62 conducted in which detectives posing as suspects were chased over highways and finally brought to heel in the bright searchlights of the police "chOpper." He reports that the chief in Denver felt the police had a new valuable crime fighting tool and by "pinpointing" areas of illegal activity from robbery to purse snatching, the "eyes in the sky" would patrol them. Bower observes that the helic0pter was also seen as useful in high mountain rescue work in ski areas.61 There are many articles and stories similar to the Bowers information that have appeared from time to time in daily newspapers around the country. Generally, these accounts tell of a rescue from water, a highway chase or a city incident in which the use of the helicopter is described in glowing terms. Some early attempts at justi- fication were couched in such terms and phrases but none really approach the factual level needed for evaluation. Much of this type of literature may have more his- torical value than any use in determining the efficiency of helicopters in the prevention of crime. Occasionally, such a story carried statements which convey the message of success in fighting crime, as in an article by Ayoob (1974) which reports that the Massachusetts State Police heliCOpter came into use in 1970 and is highly useful in high speed chases.and combat situations. Ayoob also cites 61Don Bower, "Crime Copter: Denver's Car in the Sky," Police Patrol Readings, ed. Samuel G. Chapman (Springfield:‘Chas. C. Thomas, 1972), pp. 275-81. fit” and rescue n0 furtheI K at“; 510“ V mmmt'i taste! 9‘ i‘iignts work 103 kept in provide: tests 0 the tes certain area re 63 the helicopter's application in crowd control as an obser- vation post. Ayoob adds that this helicopter has done wonders in traffic control, criminal investigations, pursuit and rescue but does have its limitations. Ayoob furnishes no further evidence of either usefulness or limitations.62 Krumrei (1974) reports that the Detroit Police aviation unit has, in two years of operation, converted the community's complaints about noise into demands for heli- copter presence in the air. The unit schedules helic0pter flights from 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. coinciding with precinct work load. During prime crime hours, four helicopters are kept in patrol over the four sections of the city. Krumrei provides statistics which indicate that during the 1971 tests of the helic0pters major crimes decreased in all of the test areas. These figures are alone and unsupported and contain no follow-up or indication of contiguous time or area results.63 A further example of this type of evaluation presen- tation is made in a later report on Project Sky Knight (psx)64 by Whisenand (1973): 62Massad F. Ayoob, "Small Helic0pter Wings Are Effective for Law Enforcement," Law and Order, November 1974, pp. 77-80. 63David T. Krumrei, "Up, Up and Away," Michigan Police Officer, Winter 1974, pp. 26-65. 64See Guthrie and Whisenand supra at page 57. "V _‘.;_-u.- Ir" Lqr“ _ '— ‘I? “g male yard the mite and 207) 64 City of Lakewood, California (5-10—68). In responding to a burglary just occurred call in a resiential area at 11:35 p.m. The Sky Knight helic0pter observed two males of a similar description inside a nearby school yard. Ground units were directed by the helic0pter to the location where investigation proved the males com- mited the burglary. They were subsequently arrested and 628 stolen property recovered. (Refer File Y-SSS- 207) And, Whisenand also reports: City of Bellflower, California (5-10-68). The Sky Knight helicopter responded to a silent burglary alarm at an electronics store during early morning hours. Being the first unit to arrive, Sky Knight contained the building, utilizing spotlights, until ground units arrived and observed a window pried Open. A check of the interior resulted in one suspect being arrested for burglary. (Refer Y-555-159)66 Whisenand tells of the early returns from the initial helicopter tests in Lakewood, California, under a grant from the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance (now the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) during eighteen months of 1966 and 1967. He observes that the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department had used helic0pters since 1955 and provided some experiential information about them: Assignments from the beginning were varied and numerous. 1. Rescues average more than one per week. 2. Rapid transportation of specialists annually saves many hundreds of man-hours and tax dollars. 3. Used as a surveillance platform, the heli- c0pter has proven time and again that there is little hope for a suspect to escape once he has been spotted. 4. In major operations, helicopters provide field commanders with a highly mobile observation and communications command post. 65Paul M. Whisenand, "The Use of Helicopters by Police," The Police Chief 36 (February l968):32. 66Ibid., p. 34. in: cra prc TM det a repo: which i technol would P fashion 65 5. The float-equipped helic0pters have been instrumental in land and sea rescues and have, on several occasions, been used to tow disabled small craft. 6. As patrol vehicles, helicopters continually prove to be a major factor in the apprehension of criminal suspects. 7. High speed chases, gang fights, vandalism and numerous regulatory offenses are continually deterred by aerial surveillance.67 Whisenand does not furnish any specifics for items 6 and 7 other than footnoting that the information is from a report by the department. This is the type of statement which is typical of stories which describe new police technoloqical tools. Statements like item number seven would probably by difficult to document in empirical fashion. Whisenand mentions that Project Sky Knight (PSK) came into being in June 1966 with six major objectives: 1. Improve Police Response time. 2. Demonstrate successful daytime surveillance methods. 3. Initiate effective nighttime surveillance. 4. Increase patrol observation. 5. Increase officer security. 6. Reduce crime in the project area.68 If these objectives are listed in order of priority it is interesting to note that the objective of reducing crime in the area is last. 67Ibid., p. 34 681bid., pp. 34-36. .55 hisisenand primary f and for s i 0 6“” F ,1 VV»;".‘»& 3 Lu I Cit dis in Ni: (Rt 66 Whisenand tells us that eighteen months of experi- mental helicopter use produced a plethora of reserach findings which are reported in detail elsewhere.69 But Whisenand does report here that the researchers place primary focus for success of the program on field commanders and for success of the units on observers, who must be in command of the aerial unit. Whisenand mentions that it was discovered that, while "on-view" patrol has certain values, heliCOpter units should be task-oriented and should patrol on specific assignment basis.70 Whisenand further narrates: City of Paramount, California (5-11-68). At a major disturbance scene, Sky Knight directed ground units in effectively dispersing approximately 200 juveniles. Nine persons were arrested for various offenses. (Refer File Y-556-429)71 and continues: City of Lakewood, California (5-28-68). While checking Lakewood Shopping Center area, Sky Knight observed a male loitering around vehicles in the parking lot, and eventually sitting inside one of the parked cars. A ground unit was directed to the male, and as a result of the Sky Knight crew's observations, the suspect was arrested for attempt grand theft auto. (Refer File Y-563-190)72 Both of the above instances are among those sprinkled throughout this article. These stories are repeated as 69See Guthrie and Whisenand, supra p. 57. 70Whisenand, "Use of Helicopters," pp. 36-37. 711bid., p. 33. 721bid. narrated t earlier, 9 police at such reco'l questions the arres‘ Me Tc Heli Ai Cox» duril 67 narrated because they appear to be typical, as noted earlier, of stories concerning the use of helicopters by police at the beginning of such innovative proqrams. Each such recounting leaves the reader with some unanswered questions in his mind, such as, the final disposition of the arrested persons. A predictive evaluation of the Santa Monica heli- copter program was made by Chief Reinhold (1968) who provided these figures: Minimum daily air time would be ten hours, which will provide six complete (block by block) patrols of the city in each twenty-four hour period. A similar patrol intensity with patrol cars would require at least six cars, which (due to "called for" services, are seldom, if ever, available at the present time. Comparative annual costs for such coverage are: COMPARATIVE TYPE OF PATROL ANNUAL COST Patrol Car Vehicles (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 21,900 Manpower (18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,848 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Helic0pter Aircraft (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 85,775 Manpower (6) . 62,928 M ' Comparative equipment costs and special instruction during the first year of operation would equal $108,400 for the helic0pter police patrol as opposed to only $20,100 for the six fully equipped patrol cars. However, after the first 21 months, the heli- copter patrol will produce a minimum annual savings of $52,000.73 73Earl Reinhold, "Helicopter Patrol," A Memorandum prepared for City Managers Office (Santa Monica, Calif.: March 26, 1968), pp. 4-5 quoted in Whisenand, "Use of Helicopters," p. 40. “QT? - ‘m‘ eraluatic provide r SERVICE 68 The obvious questions concerning this type of evaluation arise because of assertions that helicopters provide more intense patrol because cars are on "service" calls. One wonders who would answer the calls when heli- copters replaced the cars. Or perhaps the assumption is that the helic0pter patrol would be so intense that no E”. _. F’ service calls would be forthcoming. "as It At any rate, when one looks at how Chief Reinhold provides a financial statement and predicts by the use of those figures, a $52,000 annual saving, it becomes evident L that the use of helicopters is often subject to some very unusual systems of evaluation. It is also interesting to note historically that a later study of the Santa Monica department reveals that the city did get and operate two helicopters from 1968 to 1972. Two were necessary because one was usually grounded for maintenance. A full time mechanic was hired to provide from six to ten hours flight time in two shifts per day. Maintenance and fuel costs were approximately forty dollars per hour. When it is considered that maintenance and fuel would cost $140,000 per year, for the ten hours of patrol, it can readily be seen that the police chief's predictive evaluation was, to say the least, inaccurate and incomplete. In addition, the citizens of this 8.3 square mile community virtually bombarded the police department with complaints about noi abandoned PHASE pro Enforcems police d! crime ar but note 510335411 1C 69 about noise from the night patrols. In 1972 Santa Monica abandoned the use of helicopters.74 Lateef (1974) offers a brief evaluation of the PHASE project (Police Helicopters For Area Selective Enforcement) which was initiated in Columbus, Ohio, by the police department in 1972. Lateef points to the decrease in crime areas patrolled by the three helicopters in use there, but notes the existence of other variables, such as better communications and more officers per unit area. Lateef directs attention to the reduction of 14 per- cent in the crime rate in Columbus in helicopter patrolled areas and the increase of 4.9 percent in non-heliCOpter patrolled areas and suggests the possibility that the inci- dence of crime has merely been shifted to a different location. This report is largely incomplete as are many such early evaluations.75 Maltz (1971) does one of the early summaries of the use of helicopters in law enforcement. He observes that the burgeoning use of these machines by police are attributable to two factors--the steady increase in crime and the growing financial assistance to law enforcement agencies 74J. M. Chester et al., A Preliminary Survey of State, County and Local Law Enforcement AgenEies Utilizing Air Borne vehicIES (McLean, Virginia: Mitre Corporation, I975W Vol. I. pp; 12-13. 7SA. Bari Lateef, "Helicopter Patrol in Law Enforce- ment--An Evaluation," gournal of Police Science 2 (March 1974):62-65. T1("l_ o‘ service projeC‘ City, I 70 from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the federal government. Maltz also points to the encouragement of police agencies using helicopters and attributing reduc- tions in crime rates to the use of helicopters in patrol service. Maltz tells of the Lakewood, California, helicopter project (Project Sky Knight) in 1966 and the 1969 Kansas City, Missouri, helic0pter program and notes that neither project had a follow-up study or any study of the adjacent areas to test for crime displacement. Additionally, Maltz points out that Kansas City failed to allow for seasonal crime rate variations. Maltz also indicates that there is a difference in whether the deterrent effect rose from the helicopter "presence" creating actual risk of apprehension or if it sprung from the program's publicity which could bring about a "perceived" risk of arrest. Maltz sees the latter as creation of a risky program using a "paper tiger." Maltz dissects the theory of deterrence in connec- tion with helic0pters and discusses the actual ability of a police observer to see crimes in progress from five hundred feet in the air. He believes that an effort ought to be made to measure the deterrent effect of helicopters as to all conditions of patrol. Maltz suggests that the prOper use of helic0pters should involve the analysis of the types and number of incidents for its use. These should be temporally “I w cocrdi H 1'!) ea 71 coordinated with predictive uses in order to have heli- copters in the air and possibly prepositioned. This, Maltz notes, is an old police manpower position play. Maltz pointed out, as has earlier been noted, that helicopter evaluations are frequently baseless. He shows a model of that method contrasted to his prOposed evaluation model. ‘ Model: 1. Present (As it might appear in a police department's annual report): In 1970, the police helicopters were instrumental in effecting three arrests of robbery suspects. This is a 50 percent increase over 1969. 2. Proposed: Dispositions of 146 "Robbery in Progressf:Calls Success, No False e.g. arrest Success Calls Helic0pter 3 17 24 Success rate using Used helic0pter:_3 = 15% 20 Helicopter 6 44 51 Success rate not Not Used using helic0pter: 6 = 12% 20 Helicopter not used because: Helic0pter used unsuccessfully Not scheduled to fly at because: that time 21 Unable to locate suspects 8 Unscheduled maintenance 10 Long time delay in On another assignment 8 getting to site 5 Pilot not available 4 Other 4 Other _1 1776 5 76 Michael D. Maltz, "Evaluation of Air Mobility Programs," The Police Chief 38 (April l97l):34-39. ‘1""“rm 51 P» 1.... 72 This is not a particularly useful method of deter- mining impact on crime but may be handy as a contrast to the skimpiness of what Maltz designates as the "present" method. The idea prOposed by Maltz that all helicopter patrol ought to be evaluated as to deterrence is a very significant point which leaves only the question, how? Davis (1971) tells of the 1969-70 Los Angeles police helic0pter program, Air Support To Regular Operations (ASTRO) which tested with the use of two helicopters in selected patrol areas. Patternless patrols were flown in peak crime hours. Davis notes that the program was evaluated exten- sively, thoroughly, and scientifically by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of Pasadena, California, as to effectiveness. The Laboratory summary reported that in both test divisions the resulting changes where actual offenses committed were significantly lower than the predicted offenses, could only be attributed to the helicopter patrol Operations.77 Davis defends the report in the light of the Maltz78 criticism which delved into the difficulty of observers noting crime in progress. Davis tells of how one helicopter observed watched a pedestrian enter a store 77Edward M. Davis, "Astro: Los Angeles Police Department Helicopter Program," The Police Chief 38 (Novem- ber l97l):10, 66-67. 78See Maltz, supra p. 70. ‘1 LI) 5 oeari .- wearing made a: pom: Prool recei Th4 A.L‘s } the "r Practic 99min: a 67. 95 air. (Febru; 73 wearing one type of clothing and exit a few minutes later wearing different clothing. A radio unit was summoned and made an arrest, after investigation, for shoplifting. Davis agrees with Maltz, however, in the risk of creating a "paper tiger" by posing a "perceived" risk of arrest and further agrees that a serious research into evaluation is needed which should include response time and cost effectiveness.79 Incidentally, it may be historically important to note that the arrest incident related by Davis may be the ' first claimed case of the use of the helic0pter to deter such crimes as shoplifting. Felkenes (1969) presents an interesting aspect of the use of helicopters for police speed control when he points out several instances where states were having problems in traffic enforcement because the ground officer received the information from the air officer. The traffic misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the officer. This legal problem has been largely resolved by the use of the "radar" speed detectors on ground units, and which are practically the only methods in use presently.80 Felkenes also poses an interesting question con- cerning the use of helic0pters in police surveillance during 79Davis, "Astro: Los Angeles Helicopter Program," p. 67. 80George T. Felkenes, "Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Aircraft in Law Enforcement," The Police Chief 36 (February l969):28-30. patrol < into a : sco; beir spec is < Felkenes caneras provider eventual illustr< thEOrieg Crime d. aUthori1 trators impact 1 the fie SOuthEr \ 74 patrol over private property. Felkenes boxes the problem into a standard of reasonableness: . . . whether the thing done, in terms of its form, scope, nature, incidents and effect, impress as being fundamentally unfair or unreasonable in the specific situation when the immediate end sought is considered against the private right affected.81 Felkenes points out that any police use of long range cameras or listening devices ought to be constitutionally provided for. He suggests that the entire proqram may eventually need new legislation.82 Implications for Trainers and Educators The literature reviewed in this chapter has amply illustrated the belief of police administrators in the theories of visibility and mobility as hearing directly on crime deterrence and prevention. These authors were largely authoritative police procedure experts, as police adminis- trators, trainers, and educators, and have had an enormous impact on the retention and sharing of these theories in the field of criminal justice. Tenney (1971) reported that the University of Southern California has offered law enforcement degrees since 1929 and Michigan State University had offered a 810.8. vs. Cook, 213 F. Supp. 568, (1962). 82George T. Felkenes, "The Right of Privacy: Police Surveillance by Aircraft," Journal of Police Science and Administration 1 (l974):345-48. crc i atio: :etnoc Rachel 1935. cf p C wltho- Visib to an \a | U 1 so pu 9 huh .rr‘ .V\ n 75 Bachelor of Science degree in Police Administration since 1935. By the fall of 1968, there were 261 proqrams in law enforcement available in 234 separate institutions of higher education, according to a survey conducted by the Inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police. Tenney noted that this survey found that the five leading texts in law enforcement courses in higher education included Wilson's Police Administration and the Inter- national City Managers Association's Municipal Year Book.83 These volumes have become part of both training and higher education in law enforcement and both volumes promote the theories of visibility and mobility84 as the prime patrol methods in crime deterrence and prevention. In Chapter I it was pointed out that some police theories and methods have been built on a basis of tradition without actual test. It was observed that the theories of visibility and mobility as directly related to crime deter- rence and prevention have been passed along from agency to agency, from administrator to trainer, and from teacher to pupil and have gained credibility in repetition. As an example of this it is notable that one midwest police department issued a training bulletin which explained 83Charles W. Tenney, Jr., Higher Education Programs in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice‘lWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 51. 84See Wilson, "Police Administration," supra at p. 32 and Municipal Police Administration, supra at p. 34. 76 to officers those situations when a helic0pter might be of use . This bulletin was composed largely of incidents from activity reports of a West Coast police department: Crimes-in-Progress 1. At 2:19 a.m. on January 20, 1971, the helicopter responded to a reported armed robbery at let and Arkansas. The air crew observed a vehicle leaving the scene, and directed approaching ground units to stOp it. Upon stOpping, the occupants of the vehiCle jumped and ran. During the chase the helic0pter illuminated the area and two men were apprehended after a brief exchange of gunfire. Responding to a silent burglar alarm at an auto- motive supply store, helicopter crews observed a burglary suspect attempt to escape through the darkness, utilizing a hole in the fence at the rear of the store property. Unable to avoid the lights from the hovering helicopter, the suspect surrendered to Deputies directed to him by air crews. (Sheriff file Y-365-966) Dispatched to the Village Del Market on the report of two suspicious subjects. Located the subjects at the rear of the market. They then fled on foot. Ground crews were directed to the subjects. Two male adults arrested for attempted B & E. Time 12:36 a.m. A car salesman observed a suSpect speed from the lot in a stolen red sports car. He reported the theft to Lakewood Station. Sky Knight was alerted by radio and quickly located suSpect and vehicle speeding through residential streets. Switching to air-to-car frequency, Sky Knight directed ground units toward an intercept. Aware of, but unable to escape the helic0pter, the suspect panicked and lost control of the car, hitting a tree. Uninjured, he attempted to hide in bushes but was observed continuously by the helicopter crew and taken into custody at that location. (Sheriff file Y-275-010) 1-12-72, 1207 hours, Helic0pter #182 was dispatched to the location of a possible house burglary in progress. The heliCOpter crew arrived over the scene and spotted three subjects running from the rear of a house as a ground unit pulled up in front. They got into a black over red car and -'V tri We aft in out ti( gear the grr sys 77 tried to elude us by driving around in circles. We directed ground units to pursue the subjects, after following the subjects for about ten minutes in a high speed chase. The three subjects jumped out of the car and ran in three different direc- tions. One subject ran into a garage and the helicopter crew kept that subject pinned in the garage and directed ground units to him. We kept the other subjects in sight and directed the ground units to one subject and used the P.A. system to direct two citizens to capture the third subject, who was trying to escape on a transit bus. At 6:20 p.m., Helicopter 181 responded to a dis- turbance with a gun involved at 773 1/2 South Front Street. As the cruiser officer was knock- ing on the door a subject was observed by the helic0pter crew climbing out of a window onto the roof. He then crossed to an adjoining building, where he drOpped to the ground. His location and direction of travel was radioed to 110 Cruiser and the subject was arrested. Chases 1. Two armed robbery, kidnap and grand theft suspects fled on foot into the dark, after a collision with a police unit. A responding Sky Knight crew quickly observed the fleeing suspects and flooded the area with light, giving them no place to hide. Ground units easily located and arrested both suspects. (Sheriff file Y-345—678). A sixteen year old reckless driver, pursued into Sky Knight territory by ground units of four policing jurisdictions at speeds in excess of 120 MPH, pulled to the side when overtaken from the air. His reason . . . "I thought I could outrun the police cars, but when I saw the heli- copter, I knew it was all over." At 5:40 p.m., Helic0pter 182 responded to a radio call that two cruisers were involved in a chase at Starr and Dennison Avenues. The crew observed the two subjects, who had bailed out of the car, enter a building at Starr and High. They directed ground units to the location. As one cruiser arrived the two suspects ran out the rear door and north in the alley. The helicopter crew advised the ground units and the two subjects were arrested at Wall and Smith Place. 78 At 4:35 p.m., Cruiser 21 put out a chase involving a red motorcycle in a field south of Tamarack, east of Karl Road. 182 Helicopter spotted the motorcycle in a new apartment complex, notified and directed ground units to the scene and the arrest was made. Missing Persons Report of a senile lady who walked away from a nursing home on Swigart Road. We located the lady and directed a ground unit to her. Location of Objects At 2:50 p.m., Helicopter 182 received a request from the Homicide Squad to search the area north of Fifth Avenue and Leonard and east of Glick's Warehouse for a dress that was torn from a woman, in a rape, during the night. 182 Helicopter crew found the dress in a field of high grass on the west side of the warehouse. This property was recovered and held as evidence. Location of Suspect Persons/Vehicles 1. Assisted ground unit locate a green Cadillace that was looking for in the area of Town and Country. Located the car and directed him to the car. Time 12:49 a.m. At 8:32 p.m., Helicopter 181 was dispatched by radio to Glenwood and State Streets where a wanted felon was running from a ground unit. The subject was spotted by the helicopter and he ran inside a bar. This information was relayed to the ground units and he was caught and arrested. 11-18-71, 1058 hours, HeliCOpter #182 was dis- patched to Southview to assist ground units in locating several subjects involved in an unarmed robbery. The ground units were on foot in a wooded area in the park and were directed to the subjects by use of the aerial P.A. system. This resulted in six (6) arrests. Dispatched to assist a ground unit who lost a suspicious car on Wilington Pike. We located the car and directed the ground unit to its location. Time: 11:00 p.m. bull are this cope u n 1‘ t v. 79 5. Ground unit requested our assistance in locating a subject on a motorcycle who fled from him. Subject was located. Time 6:55 p.m. 6. At 8:13 p.m., Radio dispatched Helic0pter 181 to locate a personal injury motorcycle accident in the wooded trials northwest of Riverside Hospital. The youth was found lying on the ground where he had wrecked and the emergency squad crew was directed to him by the helicopter.85 These incidents, repeated as part of a training bulletin, seem aimed more at selling the program than they are to be used for actual training purposes. Stories of this type can be found in other evaluations of police heli- copter programs.86 This same department began helicopter patrol in July of the same year and the first reports were much the same as the type referred to in the training bulletin as witness these incidents reported in the local newspaper: To cut down on the response time for the 'copter, the craft spends as much of its on-duty time in the air as possible. It circles in various sections of the city for periods of about one and one-half hours each, according to Sgt. Jerry Mills, helicopter unit chief, and is ready to answer on a second's notice any crime-in-progress calls like robberies, bur- glaries, prowlers or high speed chases. One night about 1 a.m., police got a burglar alarm call from the drug store on South Cedar. The copter and a patrol car arrived at about the same time and the aerial craft covered the area with its glaring search lights while officers went in and found the burglar hiding behind a door. Mills said that was a classic example of what the c0pter is 85Lansing'(Michigan) Police Department, Training Bulletin #5, April 3, 1974. 86See Whisenand "The Use of Helicopters," Supra p. 66. :N CK 80 supposed to do--support ground units and contain a suspect with its lights and loud speakers. Another night civilians reported four subjects going through Salvation Army boxes on the east side. The c0pter flew over and directed ground units to the looters. Last Saturday night someone was reported going through trucks at the Lansing Candy Co. on May Street. Using its light, the c0pter followed one figure from the scene as he pushed a bicycle between two buildings, then got on and rode to Johnson Street, went north across Oakland to Porter, then west and finally cut between two houses and stopped beneath a blue spruce tree. "Mind you," said Mills, "the observer identified it as a spruce tree, not just a pine. They radioed their information to a patrol car and the officers drove right up to the tree and arrested a juvenile. And it was a blue spruce, too." And the third night out, the c0pter crew partici- pated in a high speed chase of a car that sped west on Jolly from Logan at speeds up to 100 miles per hour. Mills said the faster copter got close enough to the car to apparently convince the driver he couldn't get away, and the pursuit car easily caught up with it. Mills predicted that future chases may not reach such speeds when drivers become convinced they can't get too far. In one of its most dramatic successes, the chOpper was the first unit on the scene after it was reported persons were on the roof of Cumberland School. The copter's public address system kept the would-be van- dals at bay until a police car arrived. These recitals are typical of the passage of patrol system values from one police agency to another without scientific testing. These statements are all the more in need of review when it is realized that some of them are a part of the training material offered to police officers in at least one department. Without testing there is no other material avail- able. There is no proven method to teach to police 87Dick Frazier, "Eye in Sky COpter Here to Stay," State Journal, Sunday, July 7, 1974, p. B4. 81 recruits. There are no curricula for them in the area of police patrol which are based on scientifically tested and evaluated theory to be used in higher education programs in criminal justice. Summary It has been illustrated by the literature, that the addition of technological advances to patrol systems which increased visibility and mobility were often hailed as the beginning of the end of crime. This has not happened yet but the theories of visibility and mobility are still part of police training and educational programs. If these theories are to have continued credibility in use, training and education, in the face of continually rising crime rates, they must be subjected to full and continual research until proven or rejected. The report of the President's Commission (1967) pointed out the crux of the problem confronting both the trainer and the educator in criminal justice: Research methods must be devised to produce accurate understanding of current practices and, so far as it is measurable, their impact upon crime and the com- munity. Adequate evaluation of existing practices may require the collection of a substantial amount of data not now gathered. Study of alternative prac- tices may be aided by a willingness to engage in experimentation and demonstration projects. 8 88President's Commission, "The Police," p. 25. Conce What t0Ols and m Visib 82 Public relations releases, stories and articles to please the community, and incomplete, inconclusive statis- tics have, thus far been the only proof offered that these theories are correct. There has been a minimum of experimental research conducted in the field of criminal justice. In fact, the .W previously reported patrol experiment in Kansas City, Missouri, may well be the only scientific attempt to con- duct an experiment concerning these theories.89 The literature reveals little information concerning ":- helicopters and their use in police patrol as a highly refined and capable tool in patrol procedures. Their relationship to the theories of visibility and mobility in crime prevention and deterrence has widely been fostered on the basis of speed. Since there is a paucity of information concerning helicopters, this study will begin to provide what is seen as some basic information about these new tools with a view to providing the starting point for closer and more incisive looks into one area of the theories of visibility and mobility in crime deterrence and prevention. The importance of those theories in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated when it is realized that these theories are an integral part of police practice, training, and higher education and when it is further realized that a goodly number of people may depend on their 89C.f. Kelling, Kansas City Patrol, Supra p. 52. being theori are it tinuor ment 5 questi 83 being factual. Because of this, it is essential that these theories be looked at in detail until all their components are identified and described, and then subjected to con- tinuous research until their real impact on crime is proven. In addition to using the literature of law enforce- ment as a probe instrument this study made use of two questionnaires to obtain additional data. One questionnaire was devised by the Mitre Corpora- tion for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and was directed to all agencies using aircraft in law enforce- ment. This data is unpublished at this writing and was used by special permission of the Mitre Corporation and designated as the Chester survey. The other questionnaire was devised by this author and was directed to police departments using helicopters in patrol work. Both questionnaires are detailed in Chapter III. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Basis of Necessity for Description This is a descriptive study of certain methods and theories of police patrol; specifically those concerning and associated with visibility and mobility. In Chapters I and II the material has illustrated the basis and beginnings of these methods and theories. It has also been shown there is a firm belief that speed in mobility contributes heavily to increased visibility and provides a greater capacity for crime deterrence and prevention. This belief is still part of the very cornerstone of police training, education, and planning. Because of this belief in the efficacy of speed, the study focuses on the use of the helicopter for patrol service. It has been demonstrated that some previous studies of police patrol practices have been largely oriented to public relations and frequently consist only of tales about police chases and captures. Other studies have been con- ducted seriously, as though for the purpose of justification, but have failed to provide for validity. These studies 84 ’I-m ONCE CdUS rela rate whic Cans impo Pict 85 have resulted in the release of statistics which are incom- plete and conclusions which are invalid. This is especially true of heliCOpter studies. Campbell (1973) refers to the "one-shot" study, in which a single group is studied only once, subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause change, as scientifically valueless.1 s It is of critical importance to discover whether a relationship exists between visibility, mobility, and crime L rates when it is considered that crime has reached levels I which threaten the very life style of many communities. 1 It is of equal importance to probe for such rela- tionship because police education, training, and planning rely heavily on the presumed existence of this relationship. And, as demonstrated in Chapters I and II, this presumed relationship is a large part of the very fabric of efforts to deter and prevent crime. In order to prOperly evaluate a process, or to seek cause and effect by experimenting in a process, it is important to provide future researchers with a complete picture of that process as it exists. An accurate description of an existing model is vitally important as a basis for suggesting avenues of evaluation. A true depiction of all the existing features 1Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Ex eri- mental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand’McNally, 1973): P. 6. of an) to eve of the Chapte evider visibi deterr 86 of any phenomenon under study must be the first step leading to eventual evaluation and testing. Sources of Data One source of data in this study was the literature of the profession. The review of this literature in Chapter II was actually conducted as a probe to search for I evidence of the philOSOphy which perpetuates the belief in visibility and mobility in patrol as effective in crime deterrence and prevention. The literature also furnishes views of those leaders of the profession of policing as they concerned this theory both in relation to use in practice and promul- gation in training and education. As part of this picture, it was considered useful to conduct an inventory of all helic0pters in use by police departments in the United States. This information, even without additional comment or analysis should be of value to researchers, whether experimental or historical. When viewed with other information sought in this study, it is considered that such data might provide one of the keys to some suggestions for eventual evaluation of the process for future testing. This evaluation would be doubly important because of its reflection on crime prevention and on criminal justice training and education. Dewey (1938) made the point that "the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does RCC m' This the 1 visit over inclm numbe; civil nunbe; 420 he 87 not mean that allexperiences are genuinely educative."2 This may turn out to be especially true of the repetitious experiential recounting connected with the use of heli- copters in police patrol service. The continual reiteration of certain types of incidents which seem geared to gird the helicopter in policeman's clothes may be miseducative in the long run. The implied support of the theories of visibility and mobility without test are undoubtedly carried over to training and education programs. In 1960 there were 31 civil government agencies including police departments using 97 helicopters. A small number were non-police agencies. By 1975, there were 203 civil government agencies using 632 helic0pters. This number includes 154 police agencies using approximately 420 helicopters. Although one large city police department began using helic0pters in the late 19403 and some other police agencies made sporadic experiments with these machines, it was not until many surplus military helic0pters were coupled with federal grants through the Omnibus Crime Bill,3 2John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1963 reprint), p. 25. 3Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968: "To assist state and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, fair- ness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government and for other purposes." Ina-4‘ hf ‘fi’F...’ J“..L-‘A'.A-' hat t dosso etrol c gre servic ries vary 5 thicj mich .nvol‘ [sing ddit .ist: iYPes iOme Ede; / Fr? 53/ ' r‘ (D J- H ‘ - {3 () H O r- (‘3 F r: 4 r e V‘ r: F? 5" '6 88 that the phenomenon of the hovering patrol vehicle really blossomed in the criminal justice agencies of America. Due to the relatively short time that this airborne patrol vehicle has been used by police departments there is no great bank of information available. Lists of police agencies using heliCOpters in patrol service were obtained from two sources--the Aerospace Indus- tries Directory (1974) and the Mitre Corporation's Prelimi- nary Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies Utilizing Airborne Vehicles (1975).4 These lists were combined into one roster which includes all police agencies in the United States involved in the use of helicopters as police vehicles. In addition to providing a list of police agencies using helicopters, each of these sources provided some additional information. Aerospace provided an alphabetical listing of the agencies along with a brief inventory of the types of helicopters in use.5 Aerospace also furnished some brief statistical data relating to certain types and models of helic0pters.6 4Aerospace Industries Association, Directory of Helicopter Operators in the United States, Canada and’Puerto Rico (washington, D.C.: Aerospace Industries AssoEiation of America, Inc., 1974); and J. M. Chester et al., Preliminary Survey of State, County, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Utilizing Airborne Véhicles, vol. 1 (McLean, Virginia:_The Mitre C6rporation, 1975). 5Aerospace, Directory of Helic0pter Operators, pp. 161-85. 61bid., p. 200. agent gover and k 89 Chester's survey encompassed all law enforcement agencies using helicopters in local, county, or state government applications. This list also noted the number and kind of helicopter in use by each agency.7 Chester also provided a considerable amount of data which has been absorbed in and dovetailed with other data obtained in this study. This additional data will be discussed later, in greater detail. Techniques of Data Collection The combined roster included 154 police agencies in 25 state, 64 county, and 65 local governments which were using helicopters. From this population was selected a sample which included at least one local, one county, and one state agency from every state where such service is in use in any police agency of these three branches of govern- ment. There are 11 states that have no such service in any branch of police service in the state. These are: Arkansas New Hampshire Connecticut New Mexico Idaho North Dakota Maine Oregon Montana Vermont Wyoming The final sample consisted of 98 agencies, local, county, and state. Those agencies which were not using helic0pters in crime patrol, such as fish and game agencies, 7Chester, Agencies Utilizing Airborne Vehicles, Vol. I, pp. 17-53. Q I.‘ were Peer last COGS avii' lost 90 were excluded from the study. To this list was added Puerto Rico and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These last two were included because of historical comparison considerations only. Each agency was contacted by one mailing which con- sisted of three separate sections: the first was a letter ‘5 of explanation which detailed the reason for the study, the second was a personal resume of the researcher and the third was a questionnaire consisting of 31 items. The questions were designed with the help and advice of the r research section of the Education Department at Michigan State University. These questions were intended to obtain information concerning the purposes, costs, results, and effectiveness of the use of helicopters as perceived by the users. Proposed Potential of Data It was also intended that information obtained from questionnaire as well as information obtained in the review of the literature in Chapter II and the information from the Mitre Corporation, would be available to use in preparing evaluation designs for future tests or experiments of effectiveness in crime deterrence and prevention. And finally, it is intended that such data be available to the training and education of future criminal justice students and practitioners, particularly those who 91 will use the data for continuing research to test and retest all the methods of police patrol. The author's questionnaire, although it consisted of thirty-one separate items, was actually constructed around five areas which could be the key issues in any attempt at evaluation of a community safety program for future test and experiment. These five areas constitute divisions of importance insofar as any future test program is concerned. Certainly they go directly to the issue of centrality as far as program purpose, process, and impact are concerned. A method or theory of crime deterrence or prevention is closely allied to these five divisions since all relate to community function at large. These divisions are: l. Demographic--encompassing both the physical and political aspects of the observed community. 2. Financial--including community financial involve- ment in the process of policing and those statistics which might aid in providing ways to search for cost-effectiveness of a helic0pter patrol. 3. Purpose and utility factors--which is intended to probe for the utilization of helicopters in rela- tion to the purpose for which they were obtained. 4. Accountability methods--these questions are aimed at learning how the results of the process are demonstrated through the use of performance and selected crime statistics. Q‘JE tic the 92 5. Evaluation--this group of questions seeks informa- tion about effectiveness through the use of selected area crime statistics and the perceived evaluations of the users of helicopters in police patrol. The questions are not numerically grouped by question-function for the reasons that it was deemed statis— tically valueless in the face of the possibility that such grouping might lead the respondent to perceive an over- emphasis on one or another of the areas probed. It was considered important to convey to respondents that this is a descriptive study which is intended to aid research and is not intended to portray any organization or its methods and results in a critical light. These are the areas of probe, and the positions of the questions in the questionnaire: 0 Demographic l. The governmental unit providing salaries for your department is: [:1 1. Village [:1 4. County C] 2- City I:[ 5. State U 3. Township C] 6. Other (please specify) L. ‘m:.- 93 2. What is the "general description" of your juris- diction? Name the two most prominent features: Residential . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural. . . . . . . . . . Educational . . . . . . . . . . Military . . . . . . . . . . . Governmental. . . . . . . . . . Industrial . . . . . . . . . . Natural Resources (mining, forestry, etc.). . . . . . . . Recreation-Tourism. . . . . . . . 3. What is the official population estimate of your ‘ jurisdiction? r 4. What is the total number of miles of public roads and streets (paved and unpaved) and the square miles of land in your entire jurisdiction? Miles of public roads Square miles of land It is important, in any attempt to describe a pro- cess, to provide as complete and accurate a View of the physical environment wherein the process operates, especi- ally in regard to the description of a process which is so related to that physical environment by its very nature, as is the helicopter. Obviously, it would be counter- productive to use an airborne vehicle for anti-crime patrol in areas of forest, water, or over very sparsely inhabited districts. On the other hand, this vehicle might be just exactly suitable for search and rescue missions in such areas. The later discussion of feasibility of various uses for this vehicle will also relate to the size of the area in which it is used and the number of people it serves. 10. 15. 16. 94 a Financial What is the TOTAL budget for your department for the latest fiscal year? Total budget for the latest year is $ What is the TOTAL budget of your entire city, village, township, or county for the latest fiscal year? Total budget for the latest year is $ What is the actual number of all officers and civilians in your agency today? (officersTi (civilians) If any helicopters were purchased through L.E.A.A. grants, did or will your department continue the program after expiration of the grant? Yes [:1 No I: What are the rank and salaries of your helicopter pilots? N2, Rank Salary What is the total cost of housing your helicopters per year? 95 0 Purpose and Utilization 8. How many items of the following mobile patrol equipment does your department own?- Cars Cycles Scooters Planes Helic0pters 9. Were any of these mobile items purchased by L.E.A.A. grants? Yes (number) |§ Cars Cycles ~Scooters Planes Helicopters DECIDE] 12. What type and capacity helicopters are in use in your department? 1. 5. 2. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. 13. 14. 19. 20. 211. 96 How are your department's helicopters utilized? (Please state amount of use in hours per month per unit in average 730 hour month.) Patrol, general, including searches Traffic, regular Traffic, emergency Medical, mercy, transport, rescue Personnel transport UUUUUD Other (please describe briefly) How are your helicopter pilots chosen for duty? Selected from department, then trained. Selected pre-trained from department. DEM] Selected pre-trained from outside depart- ment. Does your department use heliCOpters on general patrol during all time shifts? Yes [:1 No [:1 Do you provide heliCOpter assistance to other police agencies or other units of government? (Total hours per month per unit.) No. Other Police Other Governments Units (hours) (hours) When using a helicopter in anti-crime patrol, do you use additional surface units to assist, or respond to, the helicopter? Number of additional surface units per helicopter 97 These items are specifically directed toward dis- covering how the helic0pter is being used by police agencies as a deterrent to crime. It is also intended that a status or condition picture might be obtained which will help future evaluators avoid errors caused by lack of validity. Question number 21 points out such a possibility. Some departments, realizing that a helicopter can respond rapidly while on patrol, add surface units to speed up sur- face unit response to the need of the helic0pter for cooperation. The resulting personnel and equipment config- uration renders the statistics of that time and area incomparable to statistics of times and areas that are absent these same conditions. The internal validity of any test would be jeopardized by this bias which results from differential selection of respondents for comparisons. This in turn would adversely affect the external ‘validity of any experiment and render it totally ungeneral- izable.8 A part of any descriptive study should be directed toward the discovery and isolation of those segments of the process which lend themselves, by their very presence, to errxars which jeopardize validity. k 8Campbell, Experimental Research, p. 5. 'C' 17. 18. 24. 26. 30. 98 o Accountability In which of the following reporting programs does your department participate? Y (D m 152 F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report Program National Safety Council Annual Traffic Inventory 1:1 131:1! 1:1 1:11: L.E.I.N. (Law Enforcement Intelligence Network) Has your department prepared a separate report of helic0pter activity? Monthly Annually resea 3.22119. DE] DD If your department believes either 22 or 23 above, is there documentation to demonstrate? Yes [:1 No [:1 Has your helicopter program been Specifically evaluated as to its relationship to crime? Yes [:1 No [:1 Will you please forward the information sought in questions 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29, as well as this questionnaire (when completed) to the researcher in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope? This questionnaire grouping is programmed to demon- strate the importance of locating the source of some Statiistical methods of accountability. These figures could enable the future evaluator to "get a handle" on the Prdbldem of using certain performance statistics as proof of 99 productivity in the purpose or mission of the process while relating these same statistics to the results of using the process. For instance, if a process of building a home is accounted for by adding the total bricks and pounds of mortar used, a favorable result may ensue when compared to other house building efforts using these statistics. But in terms of comfort, convenience, and utility or, final intended result, such statistics and their final results in use, while they may be accurate and scientifically gained, are virtually useless because of their lack of relationship to the purpose. Realizing that one can win the brick and mortar contest and still have a badly constructed house without comfort, convenience, and utility it then becomes apparent that these statistics must be used only in relationship to those statistics which bear directly on the purpose of the ‘prtwess. This is especially true of accountability use of statistics in the field of criminal justice. It is briefly notable that the language in questions 24 and 30 may seem out of context because of their phrasing but: it is recalled that these are accountability questions and their references to previous questions are in relation to their position in the entire questionnaire. 9See Appendix A. 22. 23. 25. 27. 28. 29. 31. 100 o Evaluation Does your department believe that the use of the helic0pter in anti-crime patrol has reduced street crime? Yes D No [3 Does your department believe that helic0pter use has reduced any particular category of crime? Yes [—1 No D Category Does your department consider the helicopter most valuable for: Patrol, including search Traffic Medical, mercy, treamtent, rescue Personnel transport DECIDE] Other (specify briefly) Has your program revealed instances in which heli- c0pter patrol seems to shift the crime to areas outside the patrol perimeter? ' Yes D No [:1 Has your helicopter program been evaluated as to cost per mission? Yes [:1 No [:1 Has your scout car program been evaluated as to cost per mission? Yes D No D Will you please state briefly the general view of your department toward the use of helic0pters in police service? 101 These questions assess the user's view of the value of this patrol procedure. Specifically, these questions probe for indications of any impact on crime attributed by the users to this system of patrol. In any future attempts at evaluation, testing or experimentation will be critical for researchers to know where to locate those items which purport to have the greatest degree of pertinence to evalu- ation of any cost-effectiveness in relation to crime deterrence and prevention. In addition to the questionnaire, this study has made extensive use of the material in the Chester study, Volumes I and II (1975) which also made use of a question- naire to survey police agencies using heliCOpters and other aircraft. Some of the information obtained by the Chester survey will be combined and collated whenever possible with the data obtained in the present study. The purpose, of course, will be to provide a description of this process that will be as complete and accurate as possible with the use of the data available. The present study also makes use of test and evaluation reports from the relatively few police agencies which included them as requested in this author's question- naire. These reports furnish some useful information anent the views of police administrators who are trying to test and evaluate helicopter programs at the same time as they attempt to justify their very existence. 102 Summary The data collection thus came mainly from three sources: 1. The literature of criminal justice. In this literature the philosophy of the theory of visibility and mobility in police patrol was sought. The literature was used to trace the passing of this theory from early police departments to those of the present day. In addition, this review of the literature pointed up the absence of research into and testing of police patrol methods and theories. 2. A survey conducted for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration by the Mitre Corporation used a questionnaire address to law enforcement agencies using aircraft in their functions. The author of the present study was granted permission to use the unpublished data received in answers to this questionnaire. This data provided information about helic0pter use and capability. The data also furnished valuable cost data as well as views of the users concerning the performance of helic0pters. 3. A survey conducted by the author of the present study which probed police users of heliCOpters by question- naire. This questionnaire was directed to police agencies which were using helic0pters in their regular function. The data from this questionnaire provided information about the areas where these vehicles were being used as well as 103 views of the users about their value in crime deterrence and prevention. Some evaluative information was obtained in both surveys but in neither case was any evaluative information supported by scientific test. The two questionnaires covered virtually the entire F law enforcement community in the United States. Informa- tion from both questionnaires was combined to provide data i for many of the tables in Chapter IV. ! 4. Another source of data was found in the reports L from police agencies which purported to test and evaluate their helic0pter patrol. Although these data fail to pass the test of validity they go, nevertheless, provide some interesting formulae which might conceivably be of future use in testing and evaluation of police patrol. The final picture drawn as the result of this study will, hopefully, prove useful to researchers of the future by providing the kinds of data which will lead to methods of evaluation, testing, and proving of certain police patrol theories and methods which might then be adOpted and used by police administrators, trainers, and educators to provide a dependable program of crime deterrence and prevention. CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA Bases for Evaluation ' This chapter will describe the data obtained during the study from all sources as described in Chapter III. w . They also include 113 responses to the Chester1 survey as well as 75 responses to the author's questionnaire. These responses, when categorized, will not be additive because, in some instances the data bases, though similar, vary because of the approach. The instant study does not con- sider data from respondents in either study that turned out to be disassociated from police agencies. These data, nevertheless, serve to accurately describe those functions and details with which they deal. The description of the data gathered in this study begins with a roster of all law enforcement agencies using helicopters. Included with the roster is an inventory of the number of helic0pters in use in each agency. This list lChester,'Preliminary Survey of Agencies Utilizing Airborne Vehicles, Vol. II, pp. 15:1579. 104 105 also provides specifications, performance, and financial information including cost of operation. It was deemed useful, indeed necessary, for further research to present a view of what such a vehicle costs to obtain, what it does, and how much it costs to do it. This roster of agencies and inventory of vehicles will be further associated with community and area demographical data in order to complete the picture of the state of the art. This chapter will also discuss and demonstrate some of the theories and methods of evaluating helic0pter patrol effectiveness in the deterrence or prevention of crime which have been, or are now, in use by police agencies. It is intended that this chapter should describe the setting wherein the researching academician should begin his efforts. In these data is evidence that should be useful in beginning evaluation or in planning action research to test the police theories of visibility and mobility in relation to their effectiveness in deterring or preventing crime. Data from the Past The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (1971) presented a report describing how helic0pters were being used in support of law enforcement activities as of March 1970. The report has an inventory of helicopters, including capabilities and costs, both initial and Operating. LI ‘nm‘u, ..r. 106 This report also includes data concerning police usage Of helicopters in relation to the amount of time spent in the various police functions. It is designated as a report which is part of a longer range program designed to evaluate police use of helicopters which intends to include those factors which contribute to effectiveness in law 1 enforcement, surveillance, rapid response time, preventive patrol, and deterrence. These will be coupled with cost, use, maintenance, and other factors for evaluation that is realistic.2 It becomes apparent that there exists a wide variety of calculations concerning the use of helicopters which fluctuate from agency to agency. Note, for instance, the difference between the helicopter manufacturers' computation of costs per hour of Operation and those of the users.3 These are virtually not comparable and this factor could develOp into one of the primary problems to be solved before evaluation researchers are able to devise any cost- effectiveness formulas. The National Institute report tells that law enforcement agencies have measured helicopter effectiveness in terms of decreased crime rates and numbers of criminals apprehended, but adds that it is not known to what extent 2National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, The Utilization of HeliCOpters for Police Air Mobility YWashington, D.C.: U.Sfi GovernmentiPrinting Office, 3See Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 107 s Table l.--Law Enforcement and Related Missions Performed by Helicopters for Selected Agencies.‘ A“: d - ‘ a > d 5' 3 3 8 .3 re? a: § ..;§.: a: . 2: so o“£u3°aou‘laz‘fiat9fi88.a o n O s a - o w m -a s o o m o - o o 32513““.a.§.3??3">"333‘t -acuuc2-¢o< moreaueecaSu asa‘assesasreaasaaasaaso Command Post x x x x x x x x x Criminal Apprehension High Speed Chase x x x x x x Patrol--Rural or Vacant Areas x x x x x Patrol--Seasona1 Areas in Off SeasOns x x x x x x Providing Intercept Direction/Control to Surface Vehicles or Foot Personnel x ,x x x x Response to Alarms x x x x x x Road Block-—Setup x x x Search--Fugitives x x x x x x x Search--Vehicles x x x x x x x x Stake Out x x x x E Surveillance--Active x x x x x x x x x x x g Surveillance-~Covert x x x x x x x x E Surveillance-~General x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a Surveillance--Iboftop x x x x x 3 Tracking Fleeing Suspects x x x x x Narcotics Detection x x x Observation Post x x x x x x Officer Safety x x x x Preventative Night Patrols with Lights x x x x x x x Riot Cbntrol x x x x x x x x Security-~Valuable Surface Movements Transport Prisoners x Transport Specialists to Crime Scene x x x x x x x x x VIP Security x x x x Voice Control of Ground Events x x x x x x x x x Aerial Photography x x x x x x x x x x Air Evacuation (Ambulance) x x x x x x x x Ambulance Escort x x Disaster Warning x x x x Emergency Cargo Transport x x x x x x Fire Detection and Fighting x x x x x x x x Rescue x x x x x x x x x x x x : Search--People Lost x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 Traffic m ______._ 2 Accident Investigation x x x x x x x g Accident Prevention x x x x m Debris and Other Safety Hazard Removal Assistance x x x Motor Assistance x x x x x x x Speed Control x x x x x x Traffic Control--Emergency x x x x x x Traffic Control--Freeway and Highway x x x x x x Traffic Monitoring x x x x x x x x x x Water Area Patrol x x x x x x 'Data as of March 1970, National Institute, Utilization of Helicopters for Police Air Mobility, p. 23. I, ‘u. 108 Table 2.--Comparative Helicopter Cost Data (Annual Basis).* HeliCOpters Annual Cost @ 600 Hrs/Yr Direct Fixed Total Cost Cost Cost Bell 47G-3B-2 $12,498 $16,226 $28,724 Bell 47G-4A 11,412 15,936 27,348 Bell 47G-5 10,032 13,036 23,068 Bell 206A Jet Ranger 21,054 30,450 51,504 Enstrom F-28A 11,220 11,600 22,820 Fairchild Hiller FH-1100 23,226 27,720 50,946 Hughes 300 7,956 9,753 17,709 Hughes 500 15,150 27,250 42,400 *Data as of March 1970, National Institute, Utiliza- tion of Helic0pters for Police Air Mobility, p. 9. Table 3.--Comparative Helicopter Cost Data (Per Hour hr Basis).* List Price Cost Per Hr @ 600 Hrs/Yr HeliCOPterS Aiiiiigt Direct Fixed Total Cost Cost Cost Bell 47G-3B-2 $ 55,950 $20.83 $27.04 $47.87 Bell 47G-4A 54,950 19.02 26.56 45.58 Bell 47G-5 44,950 16.72 21.73 38.45 Bell 206A Jet Ranger 105,000 35.09 50.75 85.84 Enstrom F-28A 39,750 18.70 19.33 38.03 Fairchild-Hiller FH-1100 98,000 38.71 46.20 84.91 Hughes 300 33,630 13.26 16.25 29.51 Hughes 500 95,000 25.25 45.42 70.67 *Data as of March 1970, National Institute, Utiliza- tion of Helic0pters for Police Air Mobility, p. 45. 109 .mn .m .suasnnoz use mosses How mumuaoossmm mo cosumnasauo .musuaumcH Hmcoaumz .oams noun: mo mm mamas omv.me~ ooo.mm om>.Hm omn.mp com mesons mom.mma ooo.mm om~.m~ mH~.mm com mesons mma.vmm ooo.mm ooa.mm mmo.mHH ooaaumm umaaam cannouamm voe.nna ooo.mm oom.em vom.em ammnm souumcm mam.am~ ooo.mm omm.am mmv.~oa ummqmm umn «mom Hamm mvm.mna ooo.mm oma.mm www.mv muons Hamm mmm.ama ooo.mm omm.se mmm.mm oHou N H nNHuNNH NOm vaH m oo.oo ooH ucouo soc ooo.mNH HN He ooHH uoHHHz as oHHnouHom N NNHnNNH Non cmmH m oo.oo ooH oumum ooo.moH mo mo ooHH uoHHH: ucmuo son as oHHnuuHmm Houuum suzan: QHCMOMflAmU 00mw v N om-mh omH oom N oo.mN mNN suHo maHousm vb mo aaoN morass N moH-Hm NON oom m oo.mN mNN suHo ooo.om Na Na omoN moron: ooHHoa comoss m N mOHuHm NoN oom N oo.om m.om suHo ooo.No as on ooom moron: H moHnHm NoN oom N oo.on m.om suHo ooo.Vm on NN uoom magma: ooHHom choocm N. N ooHnoMH mmN mveH m oo.mv ooH ououm ooo.mmHm NN NN moON HHom Houuoa snanoH: econwud N N vm-mm vNN moo m . . . . . oOmHm msHousm vs . . mNH uoHHHz muomooue ouuum . oxmodd n H mOHuMN vHN nmoH m oo.mm Nv umoo oz msHousm me no amuse HHom N omnoN NHN mHm m oo.mm Ne umoo oz msHousm NN mm one HHom ooHHoa omooHaomaa N H omuoh NHN mHm m . . oo umoo oz nsHousm me no MHzo HHmm H couch NHN mHm m . . .,oo umoo oz msHousm me no mHzo HHom uuHuonm sucsoo cOmuouuon H H moH-NN eHN emoH m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . amuse HHmm uuHuunm sucsoo eunfiooom usamuom n H oNH-mv mmN mam v-N om.en mN umoo oz snouHHHz me No NHze HHom asamusm N oNH-mv omN mom qu om.nm w mN umoo oz suauHHH: me we MHze HHom muomooua ouaum usanaH4 Huuoe .02 em: H.Hzc Hans. nooon .uz sod Hour. .0: acossoa «Hosno> oocHouno mm: Hoooz «as socmoa .ouaum 000mm «one: used . uooo Mom mafia we no snow uses deuce unoHHm condom uwou .ouoo COHueowuHuomm unwosaucH.oueumooHHm: mcwna noaucmm< uceEOOHOucm 3nd uo aneuco>cn chmunl.m manna 118 h.fl.1. 2'. .7-.. L . .. [flair H H NoHuNN vHN NmoH N oo.No oN zoos ooo.HN NN NN oNoNv HHom ooHuozm zocsoo Osceom N N moHuHm NoN com N oo.ooH oNN sucooo ooo.No oN mo oooN Norms: uoHoozw zocsoo oouoz com o N moH-NN oHN NmoH N oo.NN ooN «and ooo.om vN mo mNoNv HHom H NoHuNN vHN NNoH N oo.NN ooN cams ooo.No HN HN mNoNv HHom N moHuvo ooN ooNH N oo.NN ooN <¢ms ooo.Nm HN HN mono HHoo uoHoonm zucsou oooHo com sonuo oNN N H NoHuNN oHN NNOH N oo.oN OON «ems son ooo.vN NN NN mNoNe HHom mango aNN N moHuNN oHN NNoH N oo.oN OON 44mg com ooo.oN HN HN mNoNv HHom uozuo oNN N NNH-N¢H oNN NevH m oN.No ooN 44mg oNN ooo.mHH on vN ooom morons ouHuonm ochuocuom com NH N NNHuNm NVN NNNv mH oo.OON om umou oz moHouam NN oo «N-z zxouome H NNHunm NvN NNNv mH oo.oON om uooo oz msHousm NN mm «Nuz zxmuome H NNHupm NvN NNNQ NH oo.OON om omoo oz msHousm NN NN vNuz zxmuosz H NNHuem NvN NNNv mH oo.ooN om omou oz osHouom NN ow «Nuz saxouome H moHuNN oHN NmoH N oo NNH om zucooo ooo.No No No mNoNv HHoo H NoH-NN VHN NNoH N oo.NNH om zoosoo ooo.No NN NN mNoNv HHom H moHuNN vHN NNoH N oo.NNH «N zucsoo ooo.No mo mo mNoNv HHom N moH-NN vHN NNoH . . oo.NNH cm zocsoo ooo.No NN mo mNoNe HHom N NNHnmNH NNN NovH m oo.oNH om sucaou ooo.NHH NN on com moron: «emu aNN H NoHuHm NoN com N oo.NHH om socooo oNe ooo.ov NN NN omoN menus: H omnmm oNH Nmo N oo.NHH om zucooo ooo.ov No No mmoN moron: . N omumm oNH Nmo N oo.NHH om zoosoo ooo.oe No mo mNoN moron: H oaumo omH Nmo N oo.NHHN om zucooo ooo.ov mo mo mmoN moses: uoHuozm zucsoo moHooc< moq N H moHuNN «HN NNOH N . . . ooH 44mg ooo.No HN HN mNoNv oHHom H NNHumNH NNN NovH m . . . oOH sucsoo ooo.oN N we HN ooN oozes: uuHuozm zucsoo cuox Houoa .oz zoz H.sz Hman moooHo .uz uom Hose. .0: acoszoo oHono> oocHouoo as: Honor an: zooom< .ououm Ooomm cocoa coon umou Mom esHs no mo Hoax use» Hooos oonHm oouoom oooo .voacHucOUIn.m canes 119 “a b ”be msHQusm N H moHnm5 vHN 5moH m . . . moN >uHU o000.0N m5 v0 mmo5v HHom H moanm OVN ooNH m . . . 00N >uHU 000.5m 00 mo m05v HHom OOHHom ecoSom n H NHHumm mMN 0N5 m 00.No moN >uHU 000.vm N5 N5 uHU 000.Nv mo 00 «umN souumcm ooHHOd economom N H moHnHm NON 000 m 00.mm 00m 1#50 000.50 v5 V5 000m monmsm H moHnHm NON 000 m 00.mm 00m auHU 000.0m N5 N5 000n menus: ooHHOm vconoo N N moHuHm NON 000 m m5.mm oNN huHu 000.0v 05 05 000m meson: OOHHOm noowm UHOQSOZ VH 5 omHnmNH 00m m05H m 00.v0H mNH >uHU 000.HOH V5 v5 <00N Hme H ovHuomH mmN mv5H m 00.v0H mNH quU 00m.vNH H5 H5 m00N HHom H 0VHnONH ooN mv5H m 00.v0H mNH >uHU 000.90H 5o 50 mooN HHom N moanm 0cm OONH m 00.0w mNH >UHU 000.Ho H5 H5 mw5v HHom N moHIvm ovm ooNH m 00.0w mNH auHU 00m.0m we we mo5v HHom H moHuvm mmN 5NHH m 00.0w mNH quO 000.0e v0 v0 (vo5v HHom OOHHOA moHomc< moq osHmusm N H 00Hu05 mmN 000 m 00.0v 00m auHU O000.mH v5 50 «N05v HHom H moHnmm NNN mHHH m 00.0w 00m quu 000.mm m5 m5 uouom >uHc3EEOU msHmusm m v m0Hnm5 vHN 5m0H m 00.05 00N >uHU U000.0H v5 v0 mmo5v HHom H omumm omH mmo N 00.05 ooN >uHU 000.Nv 00 mo mmoN menus: OOHHON nooom coumcHucsr H H moHumm NNN mHHH m . . . NNH >uHU 000.mm N5 N5 ¢m05< HHom ooHHom oHevcoHU N N moHnHm NON com m oo.Nm omN >uHU 000.0m v5 V5 omoN mocoom ooHHom emu: oumou H H moHnHm NON 000 m 00.5w 0Hm auHU 000.0m 05 05 UooN mocmsx ouHHom sHonoc< msHQusm N H moHuvm mmN 5NHH vIN .00.00 no hucsou O000.0N N5 50 BNHxa HHom H m0H|m5 eHN 5m0H m 00.00 m we >ucsoo 000.00 0 H5 H5 mmu5v HHom uuHuocm >ucsou eunuco> Hence .0: zmz H.sz Hana. mooon .u: hon House .0: ucoa>cm OHOH£O> owcHeunO mu: H0002 mm: hocoo< .oueum voomm cocoa coca umou Hem oaHa no No use» near Hooos oonHz oousom umoo .ooscHucouuu.m oHnue 120 1.. t: ill'adi ’a'awul'lcs A I, ,. .r... N H NoHuN5 vHN 5NOH N oo.VN oNN umoo oz osHouoN o5 No mNO5e HHom N NoHuN5 oHN 5NoH N oo.NN ONN sucsou ooo.NN N5 N5 mNo5v HHom ooHHoo Nassau coco H H NoHuN5 vHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mNo5o HHom uuHuozN Nassau HQH HHOU zucsoo ooN H H NOH-NN NNN NHHH N oo.NN om <eum aoHuon N H NOHuN5 oHN 5NOH N oo.NN 50N umoo oz osHouom v5 mo mNo5v HHom H ooHuo5 oNN omm N oo.HN 5oN umou oz ooHousm N5 oo NO5v HHom NuHO pom H NoHqu NNN 5NHH N oo.oN 5ON 44mg ooN ooo.mN H5 H5 coo H H NoHuN5 vHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mNO5v HHom ooHHom mucosa H H NoH-vm NNN 5NHH ouN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sNHze HHom uuHuozm sueaoo oHooso H H NoH-N5 vHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NNO5v HHom uuHuozm Nassau coauowuen H H NoHuN5 cHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mNo5v HHom uuHuozm Hoodoo . dado: duo O < oocHoooo mm: Hoooz mm: suoooe .ououm 000mm modem coca umoo use oaHe no no new» use» Hoooa oonHz oouaom umoo 68528.- . N 3nd. ]“2ll a. i L b . .3. N H ONINO ONH NOO N O0.0N NNH NuHo OO0.0N N5 H5 NOON mozosz H OO-N5 ONH OON N O0.0N NNH HoHu omoos H5 No «NON mozooz ooHHoo sumo H H monfllvm mm” 5NHH VIN O I 0 O O O I O I O O O O O I O BMHIF Hflwm “Mfihwnm >ucgou uouuom N H NOH-vO OvN OONH N O0.0N ON zucooo OOO.NN H5 NO NO5v HHom H ONHIONH OON NO5H N O0.0N ON zucsoo OOO.NO NO ON NOON HHom ooHHoo Nocoou cOHuoz N H NmnNO 5NH 5NN N OO.NN 5 umoo oz msHousm N5 co oNNzo HoHHHz H NmnNO 5NH 5NN N OO.NN 5 omoo oz msHousm N5 NO oNNzo uoHHHz uuHuozN Nassau _ ouo3o: H H NOHuN5 oHN 5NOH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mNO5v HHom uuHuozm sucsoo 30608 H H ONHumv NNN mom v-N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NHuze HHom owHuozm zuoooo coHH< v ONHumNH OON NO5H N OO.NN ONH oooom OOO.NOH O5 O5 «OON HHom H ONHnmNH OON NO5H N OO.NN ONH ounom OOO.NOH NO NO «OON HHom ooHHoo ououm ocoHocH N N NOH-¢O NON 5NHH N . . . NO NHHO OOO.vN mo mo oocHoooo «z: Hooo: as: zozoo< .ouaom 000mm cocoa coon umou woe uaHa No no use» use» Haooa uzOHHz oousom umoo .ooocHucoo--.N oHoas 122 “will ’1‘. Iii. L H. msHmhsm 0H 0H moHsN5 VHN 500H N 00.0N 00H umoo oz coca v5 v0 0N05v HHom uoHHOm ououm eHmuooO N N moHnH0 NON 000 N 00.0N 00H NuHu 000.N0 v5 v5 000N mucus: .H 00:00 00H N00 N oo.oN 00H 5uHu 000.0v 05 05 000N menus: ooHHom enema usHmHsm 0 N 00:05 NHN 0H0 N oo.NN 00N Nucsou o000.0N 05 00 05v HHom nsHmHsm v 00:05 NHN 0H0 N 00.NN ooN Nucsoo O000.NH N5 0m 05v HHom uuHuozm OHHH>cOmxueo msHmuom H H 00:00 55H N00 N 00.0N 0v Nucdou U000.5 V5 50 0009 menus: uuHuonm Nassau oHOOH .um msHQusm v H 00:05 NHN 0H0 N 00.5N 50H Nassau O000.NH 05 v0 05v HHom zucsoo NNN H 00HI00 NNN 0HHH N 00.5N 50H < oocHeuno an! Hove: mm: aucoo< .eueum 000mm oases coca uaoo new OEHB No No Hoax snow Houoe oonHz oousom uooo .ooscHucouan.0 eHnda 123 N “IKIVL‘ I u 1E! N 00HIN5 vHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0N05v HHom uuHumcm :mHuom cOmuoumoo H 0vm0NH mmN NV5H 0 00.00H OON Ououm 000.0mH m5 m5 0HHO0N HHom H 0QHI0NH OON 005H 0 00.00H ooN ououm 000.NvH v5 v5 0HHO0N HHom N 5NH|NNH NON vaH m 00.00 ooN dwerz 000.00H 00 00 00HH:L oHHcouHom OOHHON ououm ocmHmHsoq H 00:00 oNH 000 N 00.NN 00H umou oz msHQHsm 05 00 «00N 002090 H 00HIH0 NON 000 N 00.NN 00H («NH 000.50 v5 05 000N mesons H moHnH0 NON 000 N 00.NN 00H 4004 000.00 N5 H5 oooN mason: OOHHom aucooo cemuuuwoo Nxooucox muHu 00v H 00HnH0 NoN 000 N 00.vv 0NN (<04 000 000.N0 N5 N5 Um0N 00203: H 00HIH0 NON 000 N 00.vv oNN >uHU 000.00 N5 N5 000N monocz OOHHom OuH20H3 NOHO OOH H 00H|H0 NON 000 N 00.NN oNH 4004 000 000.00 05 v5 oooN momma: NOHO OON H moHuH0 NON 000 N 00.NN 0NH «(mg «05 000.5v N5 N5 OooN mwcmsm OOHHON oxomos H moHsH0 NON 000 N . . . 00H 50HU 000.00 05 m5 oooN 00:00: H NOH-HO NON OOO N . . . OOH «OOH OOO.No H5 H5 OOON norms: ooHHoo NuHu momcoz H onuvm m0N 5NHH qu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENHze HHom wuHuozm Nucsou couceuw H moanm mmN 5NHH an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aNHze HHom uuHuocm >ucsoo coax newcox N vmuNO vNN 000 N 00.NN m5 umoo oz OOHQusm N5 00 UnNH HoHHH... N vmnN0 vNN 000 N 00.NN N 05 umoo oz msHmusm N5 00 UINH uoHHHm OOHHom monom noowo o3OH msHmusm H 00HnN5 vHN 500H N . . . oNN >uHu U000.0 N5 50 0N05v HHom N moHaHm NON 000 N . . . oNN «(mg 000.00 0 N5 N5 Um0N menus: OOHHON NHHoooooHocH .02 mm: H.HZO H0240 mooon .u: uom Hoary .oz ucweaom OHUHno> cochunO 0m: H000: mm: >ocoo< .oueum 000mm omcom coca umou Hem oEHB no no new» New» Heuoa ucmHHm ouusom umou .ooscHocoO--.N oHooa 124 gain! l!. (D L .I OsHmusm N OOH:O5 ONN 0OO N OO.N5 ONH umoo oz 30: N5 5N NO5V HHOO H NHH:OO NNN ON5 N OO.NN ONH Nucsoo OON.5V O0 O0 «ONO souumcm OOHHon Nocsoo OOOHHOO oonHam N NOH:N5 VHN 5NoH N 00.NN 00H Nucsou O000.0N V5 V0 0N05V HHom uwHuwcm Nucsou owmocoo maHmusm N N0:N0 50H 5N0 N 00.0V 00H umoo oz cooq H5 H0 oNNzD HOHHHm monusm N N0IN0 50H 5N0 N 00.0V 00H umou oz cooq H5 ON 0NN00 HOHHH: H oNH:0NH 00N N05H N 00.00 00H ououm 000.NOH V5 05 <00N HHom oOHHOm ououm cmchon H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N O0.00 OOH ououm OO0.0NH O0 O0 O0ON HHOO OOHHOO ououm muuomacoommoz N NOH:HO NON NOO N O0.0N NNN «ONH OOO.NN N5 N5 OOON Nonsz N NOH:HO NON N00 N O0.0N NNN «<04 OO0.0N H5 H5 OOON Norms: OOHO NON H 5NH:NNH NON VNNH N O0.0N NNN «400 «ON OOO.NNH O5 O5 OOHHOO oHHcouHom ooHHoo ouosHuHOO N NNH:5O 5VN NN5V OH OO.VOH NN umoo oz mszusm V5 . . OVsz zxmuome H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.5N NN ououm 000.00H N5 N5 000N HHom H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.5N NN ououm 000.5NH V5 V5 000N HHom N OVH:0NH OON NO5H N OO.5N N NN ououm OOO.5NHO N5 N5 OOON HHOO OOHHoo ououm OOOHNmoz H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH V:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHma HHom uuHuocm cmHuom occonouuoa H 00:05 NHN NHO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NNH: HHOm uuHuwnm cmHuem , >canos .um H 00:05 NHN NHO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05V HHom wuHuocm cmHuom vuocuom .um H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zNHxa HHmm uuHuocm cOHuom moHuezu .um .oz mm: HHzO HOOHO OOOOHO .uz moo HOHOO .oz ucoszoo OHoHno> oocHouno mm: H000: mm: Oucooc .ououm 00000 00:00 ”OOH umou Mom maHa no no How» Moo» Huooa onHHO oousom umou .UQDCHUCOUII . m UHQNH. .1225 t:jflar if... .I a. oooom NON H OOH:O5 ONN OOO O0.0N ON OO NON OON.NV ON ON NO5V HHOO Houuoo 5:: ouoom HusoOmH: H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ONO5V HHOO ooHHoo uocouoz .H NOHINO NNN OHHH . . . OOH 4404 OOO.5V N5 N5 ONO5V HHOO ooHHoO eooxooo H NOH:5O ONN VVHH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ONH: HHOO OOHuon sucsoo cemHuuom moHausm H ONH:ONH OON NO5H oo.oN NN umoo oz zoos N5 N0 0ON HHOO demusm V NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH OO.NN NN umoo oz coca N5:N0 N0 ONO5V HHOO msHmusm H OOH:O5 ONN OOO OO.NN NN uNoO oz zoos N5 5N NO5V HHOO Houoom NozzOHO HmmHmNHomHs H NOH:VO NON 5NHH O0.0N OOH ououm OO0.00 O0 O0 OVO5V HHOO H OOH:O5 ONN OOO oo.oN OOH omou oz moHousm V5 00 NO5V HH0O N OOH:O5 ONN OOO O0.0N OOH umoo oz NOHONON V5 V0 NO5V HHOO Hoouoo ououm monusm ou000ccHz H VOuNO VNN OOO O0.0N OVN omoo oz co N5 V0 ONNOO HOHHHz mszusm H VO-NO VNN OOO O0.0N OVN omoo oz OO N5 N0 ONNzo “OHHH: OOHQHON H VO:NO VNN OOO O0.0N OVN omoo oz OO N5 ON ONNOO uoHHHz OOHHOO couuoz oooom ON OOHO ON , H OO-NO ONH N00 OO.NV ONH «OOH OOO OOO.NN V5 V5 OOON mucosa N OO-N5 ONH OON O0.0N ONH umoo oz coca OO V5 O0 NOON moron: ooHHoo OOHOOOH 0OH>H0m HoumooHHom >ucsou 0000:00 mo umou m0uocw can 000: ucHHm 0UHHom ucHHh V NOH:NO NNN OHHH OO.5N 05 4000 OO0.00H N5 . . 4NO5V HHOO N NOH:VO OVN OONH OO.5N 05 zuHO OOO.NN N5 H5 NO5V HHOO ooHHoO uHouuoo £000 .uh OOO.HN N N NOHnHO NON OOO OO.5N N NNH 0000 00000 N5 N5 OOON Norms: OOHHOOO Oucsoo 0:>03 .oz Om: H.HzO HOOHO NOOOHO .uz uoo HNHOO .oz uconOO oHoHoo> oocHoonO mm: Hooo: Oz: NocoOO .ououm 00000 00:00 0004 umou H00 0EHB no we u00> ~00» Hoooa onHHz oouoom uOoO .ooocHocoo::.N oHooe 126 blh!ifflflflfiflfihflbl£:.. V H NOHuVO NON 5NHH N OO.NN O0 oumum OON.VN O0 O0 OVO5V HHOO oooom OOH N ONH:ONH OON NO5H N OO.N5 O0 «Osxz NOO OO0.0NH O0 O0 OOON HHOO ooHHoo ouoom xuow 302 N H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N OO.5NH OON ooouN OON.N5H N5 N5 OOON HHOO H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N OO.5NH OON oooom OOO.NNH N5 N5 O0ON HHOO H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N OO.5NH OON ououN OOO.NNH N5 N5 O0ON HHOO H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N OO.5NH OON 00000 OOO.VVH H5 H5 OOON HHOO H 5NH:NNH NON VNNH N OO.50H OON ououO OON.OOH O0 O0 OOHHOO OHHcoHHOO ooHHoO oumom N0mu00 302 N H NOH:HO NON O0O N O0.0N NNN 0400 OOO.5V N5 H5 OOON NonOO H NOH:HO NON O0O N O0.0N NNN OOHO OOO.5N O5 O5 OOON monsm ooHHoo NOOo> NNH 000>0z NOHO ONO H H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH N O0.0H OO «OOH NNH OOO.HV H5 O0 ONO5V HHoO ooHHoO :HoocHH msHmuom H H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH N OO.NH ON 0000 oz zoos N5 V0 ONO5V HHOO OOHHOON socsoo u0um0uc0q moddm H H OVH:0NH OON NV5H N O0.0NH NN O3: .00: OOO.OO O5 O0 O0ON HHOO ooHHoO ououm 0xm0un02 H H NOH:VO NON 5NHH V:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5NHOO HHOO OOHHOO coomoxHN NOHO NOV 0 N NOHuHO NON O0O N O0.0N OON «OOH No0 OOO.5V O5 O5 OOON monsz N OO:NO ONH NOO N O0.0N OON NOHO OO0.0N O0 O0 OOON monosm ooHHoO NOHO NONOOO V N NOH:VO NON 5NHH V:N . . . . . . uNoo oz NOHOHOO N5 . . 5NHOO HHOO H NOHuVO OVN O0NH N OO.HN ONN socooo OOO.N0 N5 O5 NO5V HHOO H NOHnVO OVN O0NH N OO.HN N ONN Oooooo OOO.N0 N N5 O0 NO5V HHOO ooHHoo Nucsoo OHsoH .uN msHmssm H H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH N . . . OOH uNoO oz coco V5 O0 ONO5V HHOO OOHHOON Noczoo moHuozu .uN Hoooe .oz Om: H.HzO Hana. NoooHo .u: so: Hmuzo .oz ucossoo oHoH:0> 00OHuooo :0: Honor Om: OOOOOO .ouuum 00000 00:00 003 0000 H0: 06:. 00 00 ~00» M00» Houoe OOOHHO oouoom uOoo .ooscHocoou-.N oHooe 127 H H NOH:V0 0VN O0NH N 00.5N 5NH «<04 00N.V0 H5 H5 N05V HH00 0OHHom 0uuoHuocu H H NOH:N5 VHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0N05V HH00 00Hu0nm aucsou 0u00 N N ONH-ONH OON NO5H N OO.OOH NN oooom OOO.NNH H5 H5 OOON HHOO HOHHVO NozzOH: ocHHOHOU 20002 5 H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH N 00.0HH 00N quo 000.NN H5 H5 V05V HH00 H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH N 00.0HH 00N zuHU 000.NN 05 05 V05V HH00 H NOH:50 N5N 0HNH V 00.0HH 00N 5uHU 000.NV N0 N0 0N05V HH00 H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.NOH 00N >uHo 000.00H N5 N5 000N HH00 H 0NH:0NH 0ON NO5H N 00.NOH 00N 5OHU 000.0NH N5 N5 <00N HHom H 0NH:0NH 0ON N05H N 00.NOH ooN zuHO 000.00H O0 O0 <00N HH00 H 0NH:0NH 0ON N05H N 00.NOH ooN >uHU 000.0NH 00 00 <00N HH00 0OHHOO 50Hu xuow 302 H H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V05V HH00 0oHHom . uHmcoua ouu0z N H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.N5H 00 5ucsou 00N.0VH N5 N5 000N HH00 H 0NH:0NH 0ON N05H N 00.N5H 00 5u:sou 000.0NH 05 05 <00N HH00 0OHHOO zucsou xHONNON H H NOH|N5 VHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0N05V HH00 00HH0£0 >u:500 0:0quom N H VO:N0 VNN 000 N 00.NV 0NH umou oz msHmHzm N5 N0 oNNzo H0HHH: N VO:N0 VNN 000 N 00.NV oNH umou oz msHQusm N5 ON 0NN:O H0HHHz uwHu0cm Nucsou 0oovcoco msHmusm N H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH N 00VNV ONH zucsou ooN» N5 N0 0N05V HH00 msHausm H NOH:N5 VHN 5NoH N 00.NV ONH 5ucsou 00mm N5 V0 0N05V HH00 H 5NH:NNH NON VNNH N 00.0V ONH >ucsoo 000.N0 N5 00 00HH=h oHHcouHom 0OHHOO >u:dOU 300002 N H NO:N0 5OH 5NO N 00.00 ON 0000 oz OsHmusm V5 N0 oNN:o LH0HHH: H NO:N0 5OH 5NO N 00.0N N 0N umou oz msHmusm N5 N0 oNN:o H0HHH: 00Hu0cm Nucsou 0:0:0u0nu Houoe .02 mm: H.sz H0240 OOOOHO .u: H00 Hmumv .oz u:0&500 0HOHL0> oocHouno mm: H000: mm: 50:004 .0uoum 00000 00:00 0004 umoo H00 05He 00 mo H00» H00» Hoooe uzOHHz mousom omoo .ooacHocoo::.N oHnoe 128 Efirl'thiii‘h 1. at! :. monusm H . . . . . . . . . 00.NN 0N 00000 0000.0 00 VN 35V HHOO maHmusm H . . . . . . . . . 00.NN ON 00000 0000.0 00 0N H05V HH00 00HHON 00000 0:0HOH 000:: H NOH:VVH NOH 0V5H N 00.00 0V . . . . . . N5 H5 HHONOO 0H0H0000 00HHON NH20:38. :000: couz0z H NOH:N5 VHN 5NOH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0N05V HH00 OOHHOO NH30:30:. 50:000: 00000 000 N 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.N5 N0 :00: 00V 000.NNH N5 H5 000N HH00 00000 «00 H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.N5 N0 :40: NOV 000.NNH N5 N5 000N HH00 00000 000 H 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.N5 N0 :40: NOV 000.NNH N5 05 000N HH00 00000 No0 N 0VH:0NH OON NV5H N 00.N5 N0 <¢mq 00V 000.NNH H5 H5 000N HH00 00HHom 00000 - 0H:0>HNO::OO H NOH:HO NON O0O N OO.NH OOH <40: OON.H0 V5 V5 OOON Nonmoz ooHHoo NOHO 050:0Hx0 050:0on . zuHO ONN N NOH:HO NON O0O N . . . O0H «OOH 0N5 OO0.0V O0 O0 OOON Nozoom ooHHoO OcHuooooz H NOH:H0 NON 000 N 00.N0 0HH NOHO 00V.0N N5 N5 OO0N 00:00: H NOH:H0 NON 000 N 00.N0 0HH NuHO 000.NV N5 N5 OO0N 00:00: OOHO ONN N NOH:H0 NON 000 N 00.N0 0HH :00: ON5 00N.NV H5 H5 OONN m0:00: 00HHOO OsnssHou H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH V:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ONH:B HH00 00H00:0 Nucsou 0c>03 H NOH:V0 NON 5NHH V:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHme HH00 00Hu0:0 Nucsoo :0HH4 N ONH:0NH OON N05H N 00.N0 N 00 «09:2 00N.5VHN 05 05 <00N HH00 H0000: 503:0H: OH:0 .oz 0:: H.HzO H0040 OOOOHO .0: 00: H000. .oz ucoesco oHuH:0> oochono 0:: H000: «Oz zucooz .ououm 00000 00:00 oqu 0000 H0: 0EHB mo 00 0005 000» H0009 0:0HH0 000500 0000 .ooacsucou::.N oHnae 129 .000..,: ::.:_ : :rur H NOH:00 NON 5NHH v:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHma HH0m uuHu0:0 Nuczoo 00000 H NOH:H0 NON 000 N 00.NN 0N . . . . . . N5 05 000N 00:03: uuHuo:0 >0csou 00x00 H oleoNH 00N N05H N 00.00H va 00000 00N.HNH N5 N5 mooN HH0m H oanoNH 00N N05H N 00.00H va 00000 005.NHH 00 00 mooN HH0m N 00H:0NH 00N N05H N 00.00H va 00000 000.0NH 05 05 £00N HH0m H 0NH:0NH 00N N05H N 00.00H va 00000 005.NHH 00 00 <00N HH00 >00u00 0HHnam 0006000000 00X0e H 00:05 NHN NHO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05v HH0m v NoH:N5 vHN 5NoH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0No5v HH0m 00HH00 0HHH>:00z H omHImNH omm NO5H m oo.No om <0fimz OOO.NNH 05 O5 <00N HH0m H 00:05 NHN NHO N 00.NN 0N 50Hu 000.N0 00 00 50 HH0m msHQunm v 00:05 NHN NHO N 00.NN 0N 0000 oz 00 N5 50 50 HH0m 00HHom 0H:QE0: H NoH:vm NmN 5NHH v:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHme HH0m 00HHom 0uaan30q H 00:05 NHN NHm N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNHz HHom H NOHuvm NON 5NHH v:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHmB HH00 00HHom 0HHH>xocx msHmusm v NOH:N5 vHN 5NOH N 00.5H NN 00000 0000.0H 05 00 0N05v HH00 H 00H:05 0NN 000 N 00.5H NN 00000 000.00 0N 0N N050 HH0m H 00H:05 0NN 000 N 00.5H 0 NN 00000 000.00 5N 5N N050 HH0m >00u00 no .0000 00000::09 H NOH:00 Nmm 5NHH vIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNHIB HH0m 0UHHom 0HH00 xaowm 000x00 :0300 H 0NH:00 NNN New wuN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9N0=a HHmm uuHuozm N0cso0 c000cHHu0a H ONH:0NH omm N05H N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ooN HH0m N 00:05 NHN NHN N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05v HH00 H00000 N03:00= 0CHHou0U :0900 .oz 00: 0.0:0 00000 0000H0 .0: 000 000:. .oz 0c0a>0m 0H00:0> 00200000 002 H000: mm: 50:000 .00000 00000 00001 0004 0000 00m 0EHB no no 000% N00» H0009 0:0HH0 000000 0000 .0oncqucou::.0 «Hana 130 a.m.... M . h. 1. ' I! . I. . k .. a. Nufio oov N N moanam NON oom n oo.mH oNH ¢c¢O N N 5NH:NNH Non mea m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ooHNIL uawcouwmm wouaom wuoum a madmusm N H wanna vNN moo n oo.ov mm acmq OOnm nu mm OmNmo uoaaaz uoaaom oxaq uNom nous N a moanam NON com m oo.vm oNN Nuao ooo.om ms on OOON awnmsm aufio Oom a mOHuHO NON OOO N OO.vm ONH 44mg oOm OOO.mv an Hp OOON moans: moaaom Magda: :flm >uNu omN H a mOHnNO NON OOO n OO.mN OO 44mg amp OO0.0m NO Nb uOOm mucus: wofiaom acmuamnm N“ v mON-NO NON OOO m oo.om mo >uNo OOO.NO mu ms omON magma: v mONuHO NON OOO m oo.om OO Nuwo OOO.NO up vs OOON mucus: n mONnNm NON OOO N oo.om mo NuNo OOO.NO N5 N5 UOON mucosa muNHom coumsoz H N OOH:O5 OmN OOO m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nobv Hamm woflaom cwocafluum N N mOa-vm mmN 5NHH N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . «vane ”Hon moaaom sane: «you A modumn «AN anH m . . . on umou oz msflmuom ms mo mmunv damn N moanmp vHN anH m . . . on umou oz msflmusm mu no mmuhw HHom n moflumm NNN OHHH m O0.0m ON «amq OOO.Nm Nu NN «moNv Hfiom N mON-vO own OONH n oo.om On aufiu OOO.Nm fin an moNv damn N modnvm own OONH m O0.0m ON Nufiu OOO.Nm mm mm monv damn ooNaom moHHuO maamusm N a mO~-mn vNN anN N oo.oN mm Nucsou oOOO.mN ms mo amuse Haom uufiumnm Nucsoo cmccoqoz n N mOH-Hm NON OOO N oo.oN oov 44mg OO0.00 mp ms omON nmnmsm A OOH-~O NON OOO m O0.0N » - oov mucsou OOm.OO N5 N5 omON mucus: uuaucnm Nuaaou mauuu: Nuuoa .oz an: ..N:O .mOAO noouam .u: nun .mu:. .oz acme>mm oaufinw> owcfimunc mm: vao: mm: aocmm< .oumum umuam oozes oaQa umou umm weak we no umw» now» Noyce unofiam ouunom umou .035 accolam 033. 1L3]. .cofiuuuuommcmua mo unmauummoo u 900 Avv mhmfi Nuusunom uoxoan: n3nowm Hmcofiumz I (mamz Amy “cofiumuumwcwfivd mucoumwmm< ucoswou0mcm ing a «(MA ANV «wmcwwmn HH>NU I no Advaom>ono vwma unawuuw>wunn< «who: v m ovanmma mmN menu m . . . m umou oz msamusm NO v0 mOON Adam H . . . . . . . OH . . . m umou oz msamusm an we NHN anon wowaom cwucsoz . cmwvoCdo Huxoa ovacuu N N 5NH:NNH Nom vmma m . . . m umoo oz msamusm MN v0 ooaamm caflzouwom wowaom 00N¢ ouuoam coax ouuwsm a a . . . . . . . . . . . m umoo oz msamusm mp v0 UMNmo uoNNN: uuwumnm huao xsam camcoomflz msamudm N a voumm VNN moo m oo.Nm om mumum uooo.NN mp v0 mNH mafia“: unamusm N vmnmm vNN mow m oo.Nm oo wumum oooo.vN vs no mNH uoaawm H OmHImNN omm moON m oo.vm ow Boo OO0.00H MN MN OON Hamm ooaaom oumum oNcNMMN> umwx N H meanam NON oom m 00.00 OON cqu ooo.v@ Nb NN UmoN munuzr a moanam NON oom m 00.00 m OON xufiu ooo.om w an an UmON mosvsz oowaom ouuuaom m m modumn vHN NmoH m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmunv Adam unauonm aucsoo nmwaonocm a N modnmn VHN Omoa m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmonv Hawm uuwumcm Nuao adaonu :ommcwnmuz N N moHIMN VHN OmoH m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmuhv aaom oowdom coawm aa:«¢u«> Hauoe .oz mm: ..N2O Amngv mmomflm .u: yum .muzv .oz acmENmm wHoNcm> vmcfiouno mm: Nova: mm: macaw: .auaum 600mm wvcmm anon anon umm «Ewe no no Ham» Ham» Huuoa unmaam wousom umoo .uoacuucoonu.m ounce 132 Table 6 is a more concise inventory which demon- strates the number of helicopters in use by police agencies according to manufacturer and model. Coupled with the data in Table 5, the information should be of interest in evalu- ation of the program since it lends itself readily to capability comparisons. Erequency of the Use of Helicopters in Patrol Table 7 illustrates the amount of flying time the various kinds of police agencies are logging in the use of helic0pters. Any attempt at evaluation of this patrol pro- cedure must necessarily consider such data when trying to measure impact on crime. This information will also relate to a later sec- tion of this chapter which discusses certain problems in helicopter programs which reflect directly on an agency's ability to keep helicOpters in the air and weighs on the effectiveness of these vehicles as patrol tools in deter- rence or prevention of crime. Table 8 demonstrates the division of flying time between daytime and nighttime hours in state, county, and local agencies. These data illustrate that a majority of flight time in helicopter programs is carried on during daylight hours. This tendency is very heavy in state 133 Table 6.--Inventory of Helic0pters Used by State, County, and Local Police Agencies by Manufacturer and Model.* Manufacturer and Model Total Number in Use Bell 47 Series 166 206 Series 60 THl3 Series 26 H and OH Series 6 Hiller OH Series 14 UH Series 14 Sikorsky HH34J 2 H34 3 558 l Aerospatiale Gazell 1 Enstrom F28A 4 Fairchild-Hiller FHllOO 8 Hughes 269 Series 54 300 Series 41 500 Series 4 TH 55 2 *As of December 1975, information from respondents' .replies to questionnaires in Chester Survey and this author's study. 134 Table 7.--Distribution of Flying Time in Sample Agencies by Average Hours Per Month.* Hours Agen01es 0_ 76- 151- 225- 301- Over 75** 150** 225 300 500*** 500*** State 8 6 4 3 3 0 County 8 9 9 3 2 l 3 Local 3 21 10 10 2 4 a Total 19 36 23 16 7 5 ’ ' *As of December 1975, respondents' replies in data + from Chester Survey and author study. **Note that 51 percent of all sampled police agencies i‘ using helic0pters are recording flight times of less than 150 hours per month. *** All police agencies recording over 300 hours per month flight time are included in the sampling. Table 8.--Tempora1 Distribution of Flying Time in Sample Agencies by Average Hours Per Month.* Total Daytime Flight Nighttime Flight Agency Hrs Per Mo Hours % of Total Hours % of Total State 2100 1852 88 248 12 County 3400 2120 62 1280 38 Local 5000 2594 52 2406 48 All Agencies 10,500 6566 62.5 3934 37.5 *As of December 1975, data from respondents' replies in Chester Survey and author study. 135 agencies, heavy in the counties, and in the clear majority in local police agencies. Since crime statistics in urban areas show that crimes like rape, assault, robbery, and . burglary occur more frequently during night hours, this portion of the data may bear directly on the effectiveness of helicopter patrol in crime deterrence and prevention.7 Another area of exploration for evaluation and testing lies in the information concerning the size and ; population of the area where a process such as helic0pter W-f .n patrol is being used. The assumed direct relationship between visibility and mobility and crime deterrence and prevention has been detailed throughout this study. The size and population density in any area patrolled by heli- c0pters should prove to be important to use in research. The area size and density data of sample respondents in those places patrolled by helicopter is shown in Table 9. 7Cf. Detroit Police Department Annual Report, 1974, p. 39. 136 Table 9.--Counties and Localities Using Helic0pters in Law Enforcement Activities by Population, Area Size, and Density. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Below 100,000 Counties Alabama 1. Escambia County Sheriff 962 36 California 2. Calaveras County Sheriff 1024 62 3. Imperial County Sheriff 4241 18 Florida 4. Collier County Sheriff 2006 19 5. Marion County Sheriff 1600 43 6. Pasco County Sheriff's Department 742 102 7. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office 584 87 Hawaii 8. Maui County Police Department 1173 39 Indiana 9. Decatur County Sheriff 370 61 10. Howard County Sheriff 293 284 11. Porter County Sheriff 425 205 Kansas 12. Rush County Sheriff 724 13. Stanton County Sheriff 676 Louisiana 14. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff Department 514 100 15. St. Charles Parish Sheriff 294 101 16. St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Department 887 72 17. Terrebonne Sheriff Department 1368 56 Missouri 18. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department 551 169 137 Table 9.--Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Montana 19. Flathead County Sheriff 5137 8 North Carolina 20. Dare County Sheriff 391 18 Ohio 21. Wayne County Sheriff 561 155 South Carolina 22. Darlington County Sheriff 543 98 South Dakota 23. Minnehaha County Sheriff 813 117 Texas 24. Ector County Sheriff 907 101 flashington 25. Chelan County Sheriff 2918 14 Wisconsin 26. Sauk County Sheriff's Department 841 46 Localities Alabama 1. Tuscaloosa Police Department 27.4 2400 California 2. Costa Mesa Police Department 15-2 4730 3. NeWport Beach Police Department 12.0 4119 4. Pomona Police Department 22.6 3867 Colorado 5. Aurora 27.2 2756 Mississippi 6. Natchez Police Department . . . . Missouri 7. Sikeston Police Department . . . . 99.1.9 8. Kettering Police Department 18.3 3927 \fi 1 138 Table 9.--Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Pennsylvania 9. Horsham Township Police . . . . 10. Newtown Township Police . . . . Tennessee 11. Lewisburg Police Department . . . . Texas 12. Harlingen Police Department 22.5 1489 13. Pasadena Police Department 35.4 2522 Virginia 14. Danville Police Department 16.7 2778 100,000 to 200,000 Counties Colorado 1. Adams County Sheriff 1237 150 2. Pueblo County Sheriff 2405 49 Florida 3. Lee County Sheriff 785 134 4. Leon County Sheriff 670 154 Mississippi 5. Harrison County Sheriff 585 23 Nebraska 6. Lancaster County Sheriff's Department 845 199 New York 7. Chautauqua County Sheriff's Department 1081 136 Ohio 8. Allen County Sheriff 410 271 Texas ' 9. McLennan County Sheriff's Department 1000 148 139 Table 9.--Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Localities California 1. Anaheim Police Department 33.3 5006 2. Glendale Police Department 29.4 4515 3. Huntington Beach Police Depart- ment 29.6 4359 4. Pasadena Police Department 22.7 4992 5. Riverside Police Department 71.5 1952 Georgia 6. Columbus Police Department 69.5 2218 Indiana 7. Gary Police Department 42.0 4177 Iowa 8. Cedar Rapids Police Department 50.7 2182 Kansas 9. Kansas City Police Department 56.8 2961 10. TOpeka Police Helicopter Unit 47.5 2632 Michigan 11. Flint Police Department 32.8 5894 12. Lansing Police Department 33.4 3939 13. Warren Police Department 34.2 5242 Mississippi 14. Jackson Police Department 50.2 3076 Nebraska 15. Lincoln Police Department 49.3 3033 Nevada 16. Las Vegas Police Department 51.6 2438 Tennessee 17. Knoxville Police Department 77.0 2267 may. 18. Salt Lake Citv Police Department 59.3 2966 ‘Mmm‘h—MV 140 Table 9.--Continued. ---. -‘T‘ Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Virginia 1 19. Portsmouth Police Department 29.0 3826 20. Virginia Beach Police Department 220.0 782 200,000 to 500,000 County California 1. County of Kern Sheriff's Department 8152 40 2. Sonoma County Sheriff 1604 128 3. Ventura County Sheriff 1863 203 Colorado 4. Jefferson County Sheriff 783 301 Florida ' 5. Brevard County Sheriff 1011 228 6. Hillsborough County Sheriff 1038 472 7. Orange County Sheriff Department 910 378 8. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department 2027 173 Georgia 9. De Kalb County Police Department 264 1544 Indiana 10. Allen County Sheriff 671 418 Louisiana 11. Jefferson Parish Sheriff Department 369 917 Michigan 12. Genesse County Sheriff 642 694 New York . l3. Onondaga County Sheriff's Department 694 596 14. Rockland County Sheriff 176 1306 141 Table 9.-—Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Washington 3 15. Snohomish County Sheriff 2098 126 Localities Arizona 1. Tucson Police Department 80.0 3287 California 2. Lakewood Community Safety Department 9.5 8739 3. Long Beach Police Department 48.7 7364 4. Oakland Police Department 53.4 6771 Florida 5. Tampa Police Department 84.5 3287 Georgia 6. Atlanta Police Department 131.5 3779 Hawaii 7. Honolulu Police Department 83.9 3872 Kansas 8. Wichita Police Department 86.5 3197 North Carolina 9. Charlotte Police Department 76.0 3173 Oklahoma 10. Oklahoma City Police Department 635.7 576 Tennessee 11. Nashville Police Department 508.0 882 Texas 12. Ft. Worth Police Department 205.0 1919 Virginia 13. Norfolk Police Department 53.6 5745 14. Richmond Police HeliCOpter Patrol 60.3 4140 _ . A NOW I n.“ :' 142 Table 9.--Continued. Area POpulation Sq. Mi. Density* 500,000 to 1,000,000 County Alabama 1. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department 1115 578 California 2. San Bernardino County Sheriff 20,117 34 3. San Mateo Sheriff's Office 447 1245 Florida 4. Broward County Sheriff 1219 509 5. Pinellas County Sheriff 265 1971 Indiana 6. Marion County Sheriff's Department 392 2025 Kentucky 7. Jefferson County Police 375 1853 Michigan 8. Oakland County Sheriff's Department 867 1047 Missouri 9. St. Louis County Police Department 499 1907 Texas 10. Bexar County Sheriff 1246 667 Localities Arizona 1. Phoenix Police Department 247.9 2346 Colorado 2. Denver Police Department 95.4 5395 District of Columbia 3. MetrOpolitan Washington Police Department 61.2 12,361 F. 143 Table 9.--Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Florida 4. Jacksonville Sheriff's Department 765.7 691 Indiana 5. Indianapolis Police Department 383.9 1940 Maryland 6. Baltimore City Police Department 78.3 11,568 Missouri 7. Kansas City Police Department 316.3 1604 Ohio 8. Columbus Police Department 134.6 4009 Tennessee 9. Memphis Police Department 217.4 2868 Texas 10. Dallas Police Department 265.6 3179 11. San Antonio Police Department 184.0 3555 Washington 12. Seattle Police Department 83.6 6350 Over 1,000,000 County California 1. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 4069 1730 2. San Diego Sheriff's Aero Squadron 4261 319 Florida 3. Dade County Public Safety Department 2042 621 Michigan 4. Wayne County Sheriff's Department 605 4414 New York 5. Nassau County Police 289 4944 6. Suffolk County Police Department 929 1213 _ .fip iFE'A‘Q-I l—n- - 144 Table 9.--Continued. Area Population Sq. Mi. Density* Texas 7. Harris County Sheriff 1723 1011 Localities California 1. Los Angeles Police Department 463.7 6069 Illinois 2. Chicago Police Department 222.6 15,126 Michigan 3. Detroit Police Department 138.0 10,953 New York 4. Metro Transit . . . . 5. New York City Police Department New York City 299.7 26,343 Bronx 41.2 35,721 Brooklyn 70.3 37,013 Manhattan 22.7 67,808 Queens 108.0 18,393 Richmond 57.5 5,138 Texas 6. Houston Police Department 433.9 2,841 *Population per square mile. 145 The Problems in Using Helicopters for Patrol' Sample agencies in the Chester survey were asked to list the major operating problems connected with their helic0pter program. Although the survey asked that the problems be listed in order of priority it was discovered that many agencies tended to repeat the same problem in different priority locations such as: Maintenance Staff problems Failure to obtain arts Shortage of crews. QWNH o It was decided, therefore, that the priority posi- tions were largely being ignored and the users were listing complaints about the problems in general. Each complaint was categorized by general function, i.e., in the above example, "failure to obtain parts" was categorized as main- tenance, while "not enough crews" was grouped under staff problems. The complaints are listed in order of frequency. There were other complaints which were lightly scattered throughout the complaint sections of the survey which touched vaguely on failure of federal support, limited sc0pe evaluations, and general disappointment in everyone's lack of understanding of the importance of the program. These were considered too general to categorize. It is 8Chester, Preliminary Survey of Agencies Utilizing Airborne Vehicles, Vol. II, p. 20. 146 also notable that those who complain of too few vehicles were mostly representative of one helic0pter agencies and claimed that one vehicle would not sustain a helic0pter proqram. There are twenty-three agencies with only one helic0pter, two at the state level, ten county, and eleven local. These complaint categories are detailed in Table 10. 1‘ .536” ‘0 6-”; 147 Table 10.--Operationa1 Problems Reported by Sample Agencies Listed by Frequency. Problem Complaint Frequency Maintenance Problems 80 Cost of Operation 46 Cost of Parts 31 Radio Problems 21 Weather 15 Need More Helicopters 14 Staff problems 12 Low Speed 9 Public Support Lacking 9 Political Support Lacking 8 Police Officer Support Lacking 3 Noise Complaints 8 Low Load Capacity 4 Air Regulations 4 Airport Location 4 Account Method for Cost-Effectiveness 3 Need Special Police Helicopters 2 Equipment 2 Not Enough Use 1 '.TV. 148 In the present study, the sample agencies were asked to reply to four questions which asked for very general evaluations based on Opinions and perceptions: 22. Does your department believe that the use of the helic0pter in anti-crime has reduced street crime? 23. Does your department believe that helicopter use has reduced any particular category of crime? Yes [:I No [:1 Category 27. Has your program revealed instances in which heli- copter patrol seems to shift the crime to areas outside the patrol perimeter? 31. Will you please state briefly the general view of your department toward the use of helicopters in police service? The purpose in these questions was to probe the perceptions of the users of helic0pters as to the value of the programs in relation to crime and seek methods of documentation for evaluation. Generally there was no docu- mentation of claims that helic0pters reduced crime. Those instances of documentation are detailed in a later section of this chapter. Interestingly, some of the agencies answered in the negative, that they did not believe heli- c0pter patrol had reduced street crime. Another purpose of the questions is to establish whether or not a trend in perceptions and beliefs exists among the users of helicoPters in police patrol. Such a trend would be important to researchers in matters of validity. No specific agency identification is made in connection with any perceptions or Opinions. 149 The compilation of the answers to questions 22, 23, 27, and 31 is on, respectively, Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14. 2’4." 150 Table 11.--Answers to Question 22* by Sample Agencies According to Frequency.** 33'!" Answer Frequency % of Total Yes 44 59 No 5 7 Unknown 10 13 No Answer 16 21 ‘mffiTwins- . n' *Does your department believe that the use of the helic0pter in anti-crime patrol has reduced street crime? **Data from 75 respondent answers to author survey. 151 Table 12.--Answers to Question 23* by Sample Agencies According to Frequency.** Answer Frequency % of Total Yes 56 75 No 8 10 Unknown 2 3 No Answer 9 12 Category, If Yes*** Burglary 28 Robbery 7 Auto Theft 4 Traffic Offenses 2 Malicious Destruction 2 Farm Larceny 1 Marine Larceny 1 Mugging l Purse Snatching 1 Marijuana Growth 1 *Does your department believe that helic0pter use has reduced any particular category of crime? **Data from 75 respondent answers to author survey. ***Some agencies answered yes but did not categorize which renders the categorization inadditive. 133' ‘F- 2.3mm ‘ mass L5 ‘ -. 152 Table 13.--Answers to Question 27* by Sample Agencies According to Frequency.** Answer Frequency % of Total Yes 29 39 No 26 35 Unknown 8 10 No Answer 12 16 *Has your program revealed instances in which helicopter patrol seems to shift the crime to areas outside the patrol perimeter? **Data from 75 respondent answers to author survey. ’”"Cfifl' ..I_'OA 153 Question 31 was totally an Opinion, or perception question and brought forth a variety of answers. In those instances where an agency provided an Opinion or perception of more than one characteristic of helicopter use, all were included so that this total is not additive. It is notable that the answers contain only ten negative replies and only four negative categories. 1W v 154 Table l4.--Answers to Question 31* by Sample Agencies According to Frequency.** Answer Frequency A Valuable Tool for Police 17 Generally Favorable View Good for Traffic Patrol Liked by Officers Prevents Crime 1... H Quick Response Time Good Search Tool Intend to Expand Program Good Ambulance Vehicle Good Observation Platform Increases Officer Security Increases Public Safety Good for Air Photo Evidence Cost-Effectiveness High. Good for Transport of Personnel Liked by Public Unmatched Capabilities Chase of Suspects and Cars Increases Omnipresence of Police Rescue Wide Patrol Range Very Expensive Program Slow Speed of Vehicles Vehicles are Noisy HHNO‘I—‘HHNNNNNNNNNNwfibmmfl Require Excessive Maintenance *Will you please state briefly the general view of your department toward the use of helicOpters in police service? **Data from 75 respondent answers to author survey. i‘a‘ T I 155 The Chester Survey of Mission Evaluation The Chester survey sought mission priority defini- it tion from agencies using helic0pters in law enforcement by using a standard list of missions which respondents were permitted to expand. Each agency was asked to rate mission priority from high at 1 to low at 5. Respondents could 1r assign any rating to any mission, which meant that there could be several missions in each agency with similar priority ratings. The agencies were also asked to rate the effectiveness of helicopters for each mission on the basis of H for high, M for medium, and L for low. Where no modal rating is given, it was assumed the mission was irrelevant. The priority numbers for all responding agencies for a given priority mission within each population group were averaged. Summary heliCOpter effectiveness ratings were obtained by taking the modal rating for a relevant group of 156 respondents or a given mission. Where two different ratings were assigned by an equal number of respondents, both modal ratings were given, as, for example, HM. Where all three ratings were indicated by an equal number of respondents the designation was M for modal rating. If 75 or more percent of the responding agencies .JI' rated a mission with a scalar number, this was considered a priority mission. Double X designations indicate that all, or nearly all, of the respondents in the pOpulation 9 1?: Emu-Linn: .i~\_ group rated the mission with a scalar number. This method of evaluation leans on the opinions and perceptions of the users of helicopters as a basis for assigning value to missions. Although it shows no statis- tical relationship to crime, the perceived importance of police missions are a factor that may be considered by researchers and teachers alike because of the fact that a good deal of evaluation of police missions arises from this source.10 The Chester mission scales for counties are in Table 15 and those for local groups are in Table 16. 9Chester, Preliminary Survey of Agencies Utilizing Airborne Vehicles, Vol. 1, p. 8. 10See Table 1 supra p. 107. 157 3221232142132 2331322333: 5‘11398 manna: Q\z 3:324 Q\: N )3: 23:23:32 N X H é 33:33:23.1: NH XX IEPOW KQTIOIJJ absxanv suorssrw quxorjd Burden IPPOW Karzorzd abezanv suorssrw KQIJOIJd :1: 33220-122 A\: 211312332: 5'11””! :zmmzq IEPOW 3:124:22: 221322333: xx xx xx x 3: Z a: m n: A M X KQTIOIJd v m m H N ebexanv suotssrw KQIIOIJd burqsu IPPOW KQIIOIJd abexanv xx xx xx xx xx xx suorsstw Aqrzorxd (x O H 5 0d 0N ma 000.000.H 000.000.H uo>o ou 000.00m 000.com 000.00N Ou Cu 000.00N 000.00H 2:132:12 :\2 3:33:33: :1: :1: \ 2' Emma :1: .4 :2: 1990” 53110113 abslanv xx xx suorssrw Aqrxorld 0m 000.00H BoHom mcomuwm umoq MON cosmom chchse ELOMuONm ouonm >o>usm Oauumua Houucoo uoam coNuooumO moNuoouoz xpoumsu cw Hocc0muom Noncomuwm HmwoNumo omumu auwuoaum Nocomuoem uuommcmue Nouucoo owmumua monomom hocomuoEm “.ouo .msoueme> Huaoommv auwusoom Houuma msauunmaz amaowno> mo>wufimsb wwwufi>fluo< nounom wocmaaao>usw uuw>oo oocmHHHo>usm assocoo mowua>wuu< Houumm pcdouo ou sumo ammououcu upw>oum mango emmam coax umom pcoEEoo 11 conmNz use: coupon noumom mmwocovt no sonfisz msouo cowuoasmom onu cw mmfiocovd uo umnEsz mafiucsou mo :oNuuNsmom .m030u0 coflucasmom an mesocoo< Nucsou sou ceammaz an assumm mmmcm>euoowum noudooNHox Hmpoz use .xufluoHum coflmmaz ammum>< .mconmaz uoflszun.ma manna Z I: I pl 2 2: 158 I I :2 I :2 I: I \\ I I 5111393 = :1: :z :: xoaom ceauooacsEEou hocmouOEm mcoNumHow> usouman mxoonu Noocom snowmoum CM mascoNQh EhOuumHm ouozm aconuom umoq uOu noumom moflocom< umcuo cu mucouuwum< mcowuoaom owansm Houucoo uoam coNuoouoo uoNuooumz I I pl 2: I 14 A\Z xpouusu cN Noncomuom Noncomuom Hoaofiuuo Cosmo xuNuONum A\z x A\: A I I :2 I ~3.2 :n I: I I I: 3: A .4 3: I hocmmqum Z J uuommcmua Nouucou awwunue monummm xocmmumfim A.ouo .uuouwme> Newcommv xuwusoom N x Houuaa usauunmaz N x moHoNno> mo>wufiosm MMNV >< x >< x I :n 3: I: Z I H x I: 22 Z :2 NJ I N X I :2 ,4 X :3 I :2 I: I :2 moaua>auo< :uuoom x mucmHHflw>Hsm uum>ou x oocoaaeo>usm Houocmu xx mowuN>NuU¢ Nouuum xx pcsouo Ou oumo umooumucH upa>oum mango nmmam sue: xx xx xx xx NNHN x I: I I I NHNN x NNN? N X X I I I :I I I: X N :4 0a m x I :2 3: I: I :2 Uwom ”CMEEOU conmaz IQPOW Aarzorxd abelanv suorsstw KQIJOIJd butaea IPPOW AQIJOTJd astaAv suotssrw KQIJOIJd 501393 m {990w KQIJOTJd abezonv suotssrw KQIJOIJd buxusu IEPOW Katxorzd abezaAv suorssrw 53110115 buTQPszmzmz IPPOW quxorzd abezanv suorssrw qujorld one: poucom tandem moHocoo¢ no sonssz QOOuU coflunasmom N NH ma AN ON on» cw uoflocom< uo honEsz \D N H H .4 (D H *0 OO0.000.H OO0.000.H OO0.0om OO0.00N OO0.00H so>o Ou ou on zoaom moNufiamooq uo :oNuoHsQom OO0.00m OO0.00N OO0.00N .mQOONU coflumasdom Nb wwwocomd Hmooq sou coawmaz xn museums mmoco>au06uum swudooaaoz Munoz pan .Nuwuoeum coemmwz omouo>4 .mcoammaz sonozIn.oa manna 159 Examples of Evaluation Formulae In the author's questionnaire, those police agencies contacted were also asked to provide documentation for any claims of effectiveness in helicopter patrol insofar as crime deterrence and prevention were concerned. A small number included test and/or evaluation data. This data provides an interesting view of police efforts on testing and evaluation which may be affected by the pressure of the necessity for justification of the program. Nevertheless, it is considered that this data, although it suffers in each instance from some form of lack of validity, will provide useful information to future researchers in that it includes some formulae which might be useful in future research. These reports are presented in no particular order except as received. In fact, except for alpha order or size and pOpulation groupings, no order was evident and it was considered unimportant to this study to use any of these forms of categorization since the import lies in a descrip- tion of the methodology or experience of each respondent. 160 Tucson, Arizona The Tucson, Arizona police (1973) provide a report which cites that Tucson is undermanned with 1.9 police employees per 1000 pOpulation as compared to the national average of 3.3 police employees per 1000 population for comparable size cities. The report further notes that from .: . rifiiw , J 1962 through 1971 the population increased 23.5 percent, n'h ‘ the area size enlarged by 17 percent, and crime rose 75 per- cent. The report cites these figures as pointing to a need J . for innovation in crime prevention. In initiating the helic0pter project, Tucson's goals were listed as: Improve police response time . Demonstrate successful daytime surveillance methods Initiate effective nighttime surveillance Increase patrol observation Increase officers' security Reduce crime in the project area NH O 0‘th O 11 These goals, which may be standard for police departments which are initiating helic0pter programs, are exactly the same as those of Project Sky Knight (PSK) which began in June of 1966 in California.12 The Tucson report continues by reiterating the theory of visibility and speed in mobility as a deterrent to crime, citing the potential criminal's fear of V 11Tucson Police Evaluation Report: Tucson Air Mobility Program, May-September, 1972. 12See Whisenand, Use of HeliCOpters, supra p. 65 at Note 68. 161 apprehension. Because of this combination of speed and fear the report continues, crime will be reduced.13 The report further cites that a helicopter is £23 times more visible than a ground unit and will provide for greater visibility since helic0pter units spent 74 percent of flight time on patrol as compared to a meager 20 percent for a ground unit.14 No mention is made of how this figure is determined or of whether it compares one helicopter to one ground unit. Tucson has 250 plus cars which would seem to provide considerably more patrol, even at a ratio of 20 to 74, than a few helicopters. Incidentally, later in the report, it states that the heliCOpter has 35 times the observation capability of a ground unit but fails to say why this is 30.15 Tucson reports that scout car response averages 16 minutes for all calls compared to 1 1/2 minutes, whilg' airborne, for the heliCOpter as an example of meeting objective number one.16 This report observes that major crimes decreased 9.7 percent in the heliCOpter test area and increased in the total city by 11.2 percent during the test period of May-September 1972. The test area was comprised of 20 13Tucson Report, p. 21. 14Ibid. (emphasis mine). lsIbid., p. 19. 16Ibid., p. 37 (emphasis mine). ‘y’.v ' 162 square miles of the total Tucson area of 91.5 miles. The report cites, in particular, decreases in the incidence of rape, robbery, burglary, and auto theft.17 By way of evaluation of cost-effectiveness, an alphabetical value A, B, C, or D was assigned to both ground and air units in accordance to how they performed A? functions. The basis of decision to rate was given a numeric value A-8, B-6, C-4, or D-2 depending on credi- t bility of source, such as hard data, personal knowledge, or intuitive judgement. Added to this was the importance t‘ attached to police functions, which were given a numerical value of 20 for most important, 10 for very important, 8 for average importance, and 5 for minor importance. These final function gradings were subject to one further evalu- ation which consisted of an intuitive judgement of the reasonableness of the result. As the costs were computed, the conclusion was reached that the helicopter program would cost $203,000 per year, which was the cost of three patrol units per year.18 Finally, this report notes improvement in perceived security by citizens and police alike as the result of the helic0pter program according to questionnaire results. l71bid., pp. 25-26. 131bid., pp. 61-62. 163 Another benefit, of course, was suppression of crime in the test area as shown by the crime statistics.19 The Tucson project evaluation is subject to con- siderable question because it seems to suffer defects in both internal and external validity. A view of the cost benefit findings on the table seem geared to make the heli— g c0pter look good in relation to the patrol car. For 3 instance, to place an A rating on providing officer safety for the heliCOpter, as Opposed to a D rating for a surface unit is virtually indefensible, even as an "intuitive" 1'?- source rating. Further, in regard to response time, it is not correct to average the times of surface unit response to calls for service and include non-priority service while comparing these to helic0pter response times when airborne 20 on patrol. There are other problems in this report which have to do with the failure to make contiguous area crime com- parisons before and after the test, failure to adequately prepare comparison statistics plus the provision of biased statistics apparently geared to provide justification for the helicopter program. But it is one of the evaluation efforts connected with a heliCOpter program which does more than present 19Ibid., p. 81. 2°1bid.. pp. 77-78. 164 incomplete crime statistics and glowing press releases. This report does try to establish a system of identifying some use and performance values which are aimed at relating the theories of visibility and mobility to crime deterrence and prevention. The Tucson data are in Tables 17 and 18. ‘ WWW—n a.m.—Inna:— my. ' . ‘ .g 1 ____~._- 165 Table 17.--Tucson Police Evaluation Factors.* 1.0 Most Important 1.1 Crime Deterrence 1.2 Apprehension 1.3 Officers' Safety (Actual) 'm_i? 2.0 Very Important 2.1 Response Time ~ 2.2 Community Safety from Operations ‘ W‘- 3.0 Important 3.1 Officers' Safety (Perceived) 3.2 Provision of Public Services 4.0 Average Importance 4.1 Community's Perception of Security 4.2 Ecological Concern 5.0 Minor Importance 5.1 Person-to-Person Contact *As seen by Mayor, Council, City Manager, and Police Chief, see Tucson Report, p. 63. 166 vmm 0mm defies O Om O O ON O uOmuOoO Oomummnouucomumm .a.m Amucwom m0 mucouuomEH Hose: .m m B O Nm O O OH O euaoaoO HmoaOOHoom .N.e O> Nm 0 o> v0 < Nuflusomm mo coaumoouom huflsdasou .H.e Amucflom 00 oocmuuomEH ommso>¢ .v we was oq om m on 00 m moos>uom mo conN>oum .N.N O ov O O OO O Apo>amoumec Nummmm .mamoauuo .N.N Amucwom 0H0 ucmuHomEH .m ONH OON mcoaumsmmo Eoum O OO O O> ONH a autumn NuacsssoO .N.N O Om O O> ONH a asas mmcocmmm .N.N Amucaom mac uOmuuoOsH Num> .N OON oov O Oe O O Owe a Aaasuoac Nummmm .mumoammo .N.N Os ONN O OO OO O mcoamcwsmumpa .N.N U om U U> 00H d wonmuuoumo OOO.NHU .H.H Amucaom ONO ucmuuomsH umoz .H Ho>wq osHm> opmuu Hw>oq msam> mouse mo 0 c m s own CU sauna mocopwmsou msflumm muouomm cofiumaao>m mumo Houumm HODQOONHom .mmcapcaa mamsamc< pamwemmuumoO moaaom compasuu.ma menus 167 Detroit, Michigan The Detroit police, 1974, provide a cost comparison which equates the cost of patrol units with arrests. This report indicates that the cost is based on number and cost of patrol hours. The surface units patrol 1 million hours _um .13" . 7 per year at a cost of $22.00 per hour, while the helicopter patrols 1,930 hours at a cost of $50.00 per hour. There were 494 felony arrest assists for the heliCOpter at 3.90 hours per arrest, and 50,791 for the surface unit at 19.1 L; hours per arrest. This results in a cost per felony arrest of $195.00 for the heliCOpter and $420.00 per arrest for the surface unit.21 Additionally, the Detroit report provides statistics 'which show that the crimes of robbery, breaking and enter- ing, larceny, and unlawfully driving away automobile were repressed substantially in the heliCOpter test area. There are, however, no supporting statistics with this report and no validation of the cost figures.22 Detroit data are in Tables 19, 20, and 21. 21Detroit Police, Aviation Operations Section Twelve Month Report, furnished by Sgt. D. Campbell, p. 10. 22Ibid., p. 7. 168 Table l9.--Detroit Police Evaluation of the Effect of Helicopter Patrol on Crime.* City of Detroit Crime Decrease 1971 vs 1972 Test Control Other Down % Down % Down % Robbery 22.6 15.2 15.1 Breaking & Entering 24.6 9.6 16.6 Larceny 28.8 19.9 23.8 Unlawfully Driving Away Automobile 21.8 3.5 5.8 *Data from Detroit Police, Aviation Operations Section Twelve Month Report, 1973. p.76. Table 20.--Detroit Police HeliCOpter Program Cost- Effectiveness Evaluation.* 1973 Operation Cost Comparison HeliCOpter Scout Car Patrol Hours‘ 1,930 1,000,000 Felony Arrest Assists ' 494 50,791 Hours Per Arrest 3.9 19.1 Cost Per Hour 2 Man Crew $20.00 $20.00 Cost Per Hour Equipment $30.00 $ 2.00 Total Cost Per Hour $50.00 $22.00 Cost Per Felony Arrest $195.00 $420.00 Cost Difference . $225.00 *Data from Detroit Police, Aviation Operations Section Twelve Month Report, 1973, p. 10. “as? 169 Table 21.--Detroit Police Statement of Accomplishments of HeliCOpter Program.* 1973 1972 Crime Patrol Response Time 1 Min. 30 Sec. 1 Min. 15 Sec. In Progress Runs 3,858 2,881 Felony Arrest Assists 494 428 Traffic Patrol Traffic Cars Cancelled 214 195 Traffic Tieups (A11 Causes) 677 582 *Data from Detroit Police, Aviation Operations Section Twelve Month Report, 1973, p.*10. ‘fi‘ 170 Columbus, Ohio Simonsen (1974) reports on Project Phase (Police Helic0pters For Area Selective Enforcement) in Columbus, Ohio, for the year 1973 by revealing the six stated goals of the project: . Improve response time Demonstrate successful daytime surveillance methods Initiate effective nighttime surveillance Increase patrol observation Increase officer security Reduce crime through area selective enforcement by use of heliCOpter patrols23 C‘U‘hw NH 0 o o 0 Again, it is notable that the stated goals of the program are carbons of earlier programs in other cities. It might be useful to determine whether these are provided as standards by some central authority after testing and proof, or are becoming accepted as standards for new police helicopter programs by being repeated over and over and passed from one organization to another.24 23Clifford E. Simonsen, An Evaluation of Helic0pter Patrol Activities ip_Columbus (Columbus, Ohio: Program for Study of Crime and Delinquency, 1974), p. 18. 24See Tucson Report supra at p. 160 and Whisenand, "The Use of Helicopters," supra at p. 64. 171 Simonsen's formula for a productivity ratio (PR) is derived from this formula: Total Number of Demands for Police Service Total Police Patrol Vehicle Hours Available By using this formula, Simonsen shows that Columbus, Ohio helicopters have a higher PR than surface units, with helicopters at PR 2.94 and cruisers at 1.02. He also demonstrates, in cost effectiveness evaluation, that because of this higher PR the productivity/effectiveness cost of a heliCOpter is $10.13 per contact versus $11.45 per contact for a surface patrol cruiser.25 25Simonsen, Patrol Activities in Columbus, pp. 21-32. It is notable that in this section of the report, Simonsen cites that use of PR as a comparative statistic provides more importance and validity than the use of arrest rates, offense rates, or similar narrow criteria since the helicopter bureau runs are made to all cruiser districts and are primarily back-up runs. One wonders what effect this has on the PR formula, i.e.: Total Number of Demands for Police Service 1. Primary Total Police Patrol Vehicle Hours Available 2. Back-up 172 Simonsen used a questionnaire to probe for business men, community, and officer acceptance of the program and for feelings of security. He reports an.overwhe1ming acceptance by all concerned, along with a belief that there is a greater security with helicopter patrol.26 This report further observes a lessening of reported crime in eight of the fifteen cruiser districts in the zone patrolled by heliCOpter and an overall decrease of 2.5per- cent in the entire zone despite an increase of demands for service of 7.8 percent. Simonsen notes that while this does not firmly establish cause and effect, there is little evidence of any other factor contributing to this unusual pattern.27 Simonsen feels that his report supports the theory that helicopter patrol suppresses crime but footnotes the possibility that some of the zone II crime may have "Spilled over" into Zone I. He suggests that more intensive patrol of Zone I may have prevented this "spill over" but does not suggest, as is possible, that it might have "spilled over" to some other area.28 Simonsen's formula for measuring the "productivity ratio" may lack validity when used to compare cars and heliCOpters because of the bias in differential selection 261bid., pp. 33-49. 27Ibid., p. 52. 281bid., p. 58. 173 of respondents for comparison. Other researchers have repeated this same error, which assumes a sameness of availability for service which is simply nonexistent between cruisers and helicopters. Again, it is important to notice that this is a scientific attempt to study the problem. It does not rely on short statistics and press releases but tries to relate patrol practices to crime deterrence and prevention and serves as a guide to further efforts to seek such rela- tionships. Simonsen data are in Tables 22, 23, 24, and 25. Table 22.--Columbus, Ohio Police Comparison of Cost Effectiveness of HeliCOpters to Cruisers.* Helicopter Cruiser Patrol Patrol A. Total Cost $402,412.95 $2,888,301.25 B. Patrol Hours 4,589 254,040 (29x24x365) Cost per hour ($1) $87.69 $11.37 C. Contacts 13,503 274,554 Cost per contact (at) $29.80 $11.68 D. Productivity Ratio (PR) 2.94 1.02 Productivity/Effectiveness Cost (PER) (%) $10.13 $11.45 *Data from Simonsen, Patrol Activities in Columbus, p. 32. 174 Table 23.--Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Change in Crimes Reported After Use of HeliCOpter Patrols in Zone 1.* Offenses Precinct Cruiser 1972 1973 Change 1 10 549 571 + 4 % 11 943 1022 + 8 % 12 986 979 - 0.9% 13 601 612 + 1.8% 4 40 1496 1468 - 1.8% 41 2032 2002 - 1.4% 42 733 782 + 6.6% 43 1343 1252 - 6.7% 5 50 1573 1522 - 3.2% 51 1440 1486 + 3.1% 6 60 464 475 + 2.3% 61 369 388 + 5.1% 62 440 523 +18.8% 63 326 341 + 4.6% 64 231 259 +12.l% 65 474 520 + 9.7% Total 14,000 14,202 + 1.4% p. 50. *Data from Simonsen, Patrol Activities in Columbus, 175 Table 24.--Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Change in Crimes Reported After Use of HeliCOpter Patrols in Zone 2.* Offenses Precinct Cruiser . 1972 1973 Change 8 80 741 815 + 9.9% 81 1015 855 -15.7% 82 399 400 . . . 11 110 1026 891 -13.1% 111 470 588 + 8 % 112 714 764 + 7 % 113 630 628 . . . 114 499 540 + 8.2% 12 120 1666 1549 - 7 % 121 804 847 + 5.3% 122 423 436 + 3 % 123 1020 901 -11.6% 124 361 382 + 5.8% 13 130 1055 1031 - 2.2% 131 629 629 - 3 % Total 11,471 11,176 - 2.5% p. 50. *Data from Simonsen, Patrol Activities in Columbus, ~ -m. Mimi-Ataxia: m‘*» ,y 176 Table 25.--Columbus, Ohio Comparison of Changes in Serious Crime After Use of Helicopter Patrols in Zones 1 and 2.* Percentage 1972 1973 Change Zone 2 9,005 8,413 -6.5% o Zone 1 11,202 11,410 +1.8% E i Total Part I Crime Columbus 32,734 33,225 +1.4% 1 ' m1 fini‘ *Data from Simonsen, Patrol Activities in Columbus, p. 52. Lansing, Michiggn Cochran (1975) reports that the Lansing Police had four goals in initiating helicopter patrol from January 1, 1974, through April 15, 1975: 1. Demonstrate increased effectiveness of heliCOpter and ground unit teams over ground unit teams alone in the apprehension of persons committing Part I (major) crimes. To include faster response times, more arrests, and more convictions. 2. Increase citizens' feelings of security, and personal safety both at home and on streets. 3. Demonstrate improved patrol observation abilities day and night. 4. Reduce the number of Part I (major) crimes by 5 percent from past levels through the use of the deterrent capabilities of helicoPter patrol.29 29William.Cochran, "Police Helicopter Unit,» Subgrant Evaluation Report to Office of Criminal Justice Programs, 1975, p. 2. 177 Cochran specifies that stratified random samples of pre-test car response data was obtained for comparison to test responses. This comparison demonstrated an increase in response time and arrest rates for the helic0pter ground 30 teams with the conviction rate remaining the same. The security goal was tested by pre-helicopter 1." -l’ patrol and post-heliCOpter patrol question surveys made flg‘: 'L'tny. .98 through random phone interviewing. The questions asked ’- I». k“ a! were: we Pre-test--"Do you think the Lansing Police Helicopter patrols will make you feel more secure and protected?" Post-test--"Do you think the Lansing Police Helic0pter patrols make you feel more secure and protected?" Pre-test Results: % N Yes 46.7 164 No 21.1 74 Uncertain 32.2 113 Post-test Results: % N Yes 62.3 226 No 20.1 73 Uncertain 17.6 64 Cochran believes that the increase in believers was occasioned by publicity, speeches and other public rela- tions efforts31 and a pre-test, post-test of citizen aware- ness of the program using the same interview methods. 30Ibid., p. 3. 311bid., pp. 9-10. 178 Cochran reports that heliCOpters on patrol generally observe more significant events than cars.32 However, the methods used to demonstrate this claim are subject to charges of lack of validity caused by bias in comparing car service to heliCOpter service. Cochran notes that the goal of reducing Part I crime by 5 percent was not attained but notes that the local rate of +1.6 percent was lower than the national average of +17 percent. He feels that the upward trend of crime has demonstrably been broken by the addition of helicopters to the Lansing crime fighting team.33 Cochran's report addresses the important facet of community acceptance which has been touched on in some earlier reports. It seems to be a first step in starting such a program to sell it to government administrators as well as to the public. This fact may account for much of the chase and catch press releases in some programs. Lansing data are in Table 26. 321bid., pp. 15-24. 331bid., p. 25. 179 Table 26.--Lansing, Michigan Police Five Year History of Part I Crimes for Third, Fourth, and First Quarters.* 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 3rd Quarter 2,273 2,364 1,659 1.915 2.098 4th Quarter 3,477 3,666 3,281 2,931 3.098 lst Quarter 3,266 3,078 2,341 2,442 2,210 Total 9,016 9,108 7,281 7,288 7,406 Change . . . +92 -1,827 +7 +118 % Change . . . +1.0% -20% +0.1% +1.6% *Data from Cochran, "Police Helicopter Unit," p. 28. This comparison arises because of an evaluation period covering parts of two different years. (yin—1 -m-y-u—W—Nmsug 1 J "‘ l 180 Los Angeles, California The Los Angeles Police department (1974 summary) reports that the department was expanding helicopter patrol in March of 1975 to 75 percent of the city. The report notes that in 1974 the department deviated from previously -xV proven patrol methodology, in order to compensate for the planned 1975 patrol vehicles to respond to calls for service A A- It Sluts-n!" 3.}; outside of their assigned area. The expanded coverage reduced available patrol time, with less attention being v: .. given to identified crime problems in assigned areas. As a result of this, the report states, repressible crime in helicopter areas was not reduced for the first time in six 34 years. The report goes on to state that responses to officer requests, and radio and station calls in the new areas increased 103 percent and arrest participation in those areas increased by 147 percent while total arrest 34Los Angeles Police—-Air Support Division, 1974 Summary, p. 14. 181 participation in regular helicopter areas was reduced slightly. And, the report adds, helicopter effectiveness was demonstrated, in spite of expansion problems, by helicopter crews being involved in one arrest for every 6.3 radio calls answered. The report predicts that 1975 results will show an improvement over 1974 as the newly 13$” trained expansion personnel gain in effectiveness and i Fj. .1" ground personnel continue to develop their ability to utilize the patrol air team, and the year 1976 will, more than ever before, demonstrate the true value of airborne £- police patrol.35 The report from Los Angeles also details that the helicopters contributed about the same percentage of regular patrol to the flight program in 1974 as in 1973. Total activity increased over 1973 by a slight margin but it is noted that radio calls were down by about 15 percent but total activity was statistically increased by the addition of 3799 officer calls, a category which came into use in 1973. It would be interesting to discover why this category sprang into being and increased so rapidly.36 This report also details the arrest and recovered missing vehicle statistics which reveal the loss, explained earlier, due to expansion. Los Angeles defines repressible crimes as burglary, robbery, auto theft, and BTFMV (Burglary 35Ibid., p. 14. 361bid., p. 8. 182 Theft From Motor Vehicle) and reveals statistics which indicate a higher number of those crimes in helicopter areas than in non-heliCOpter areas. Finally, the report details total cost of the heliCOpter program at $2,746,391, which is an increase of 59 percent over 1974, caused by including employee benefits in the cost of 1974 program as well as facing increased salaries, more personnel, and higher maintenance costs.37 A11 in all, the Los Angeles report for 1974 predicts a bright future for the heliCOpter in law enforcement in the Los Angeles area including an increased ability to deter and prevent crime. Los Angeles data are in Tables 27 and 28. 37Ibid., pp. 9-15. V 183 Table 27.--Los Angeles Police Comparison of Repressible Crime in HeliCOpter and Non-HeliCOpter Patrol Areas Between 1973 and 1974.* Auto ** Area Burglary Robbery Theft BTFMV Southwest +5.3% + 1.6% + 8.4% +15.8% Newton -2.9% - 1.9% - 1.0% - 8.2% Northeast -l.4% +16.0% - .2% + 3.2% Hollenbeck +4.9% +18.8% + 4.9% + 7.3% West Valley -8.8% - 7.5% +12.6% + 2.1% Astro Patrolled Areas - .4% + 2.0% + 5.3% + 4.6% Non-Astro Patrolled Areas -2.5% - 1.3% + 1.3% + 4.6% All 17 Patrol Areas Including the Astro Areas -2.0% - .3% + 2.5% + 4.6% Note: The percentage of change in reported crimes between 1973 and 1974, in those areas patrolled by helic0p- ter, is shown in this table. This percentage is listed by crime type for each area patrolled. It is also listed by the total of all helicopter patrolled areas combined for comparison with non-patrolled areas and the City as a whole. *Data from Los Angeles Police--Air Support Division, 1974 Summary, p. 12. **Burglary Theft From Motor Vehicle. 184 Table 28.--Los Angeles Police Report of Special Helicopter Investigative Flights as to Productivity.* Arrests Value ASTRO 227 Vehicles Recovered ($1,095/Car FBI "Uniform Crime Report," 1973) $ 248,565 321 Administrative Narcotics Division Narcotics Confiscated: Marijuana--551,l71 gms. $ 794,798 Cocaine-~4,645 gms. 1,123,587 Heroin--17,335 gms. 11,302,425 Angel Dust (PCP)—-83 lbs. 3,600,000 LSD--6,036 units 10,000 Amphetamines--2,497,100 units 450,000 Barbituates—-80,000 units 40,000 Cash 2,163 $17,323,883 149 Burglary-Auto Theft Division Property Recovered 11,800 19 Robbery-Homicide Division 23,325 9 Special Investigation Section 0 1 Administrative Vice Division 0 11 Hollenbeck Investigative Division 200 2 Wilshire Area-Vice 700 6 $17,608,473 197 Note: This information was obtained directly from the various investigative units using the helicopter. As with all statistics which relate to the effectiveness of helicopters in law enforcement, it is the team effort between air and ground units that is being evaluated. Included with the investigative recapitulation are totals of ASTRO recovered vehicles. *Data from Los Angeles Police--Air Support Division, Summary, p. 13. 1974 185 Warren, Michigan The Warren, Michigan police (Mooneyham, 1975) report that the helicopter unit was flown city wide but experi- enced a loss of flying time due to mechanical problems and an accident. The report goes on to state that, as flying time was increased the crimes of breaking and entering, as well as robbery, decreased. During the period of increase 38 in flying time the incidence of arrests also increased. However, because of the unevenness of application causing 38Dan Mooneyham, Warren, Michigan Police Helicopter Use Report, 1975, p. 2. Additionally, it might be here noted that Warren, Michigan adjoins part of Detroit and is among a group of suburbs in that area which suffer from the "crime shift" problem. Cities in this category every- where will find it difficult to stabilize some of the police processes because of a lack of coordination in communications and record keeping, along with a multitude of police problems which need, and under the present multi-city segmentation, cannot get, a thorough research for standardization of process and centralization of certain facilities. {LA-In...“ I‘m“ “1.: ‘7“: ~ .3 y 186 an imbalance in statistics, the Warren report statistics can only hint at the effect of helicopter patrol. Mooneyham makes the interesting observation that helicopter use as a police tool has unlimited potential for those areas of 36 square miles or more and a pOpulation in excess of 100,000. Mooneyham does not say why these 5% parameters of use are selected. He further reports that a successful heliCOpter program requires that ground units be trained how to use helicopters and that the civilian popula- tion be educated as to the helicopter services available to them.39 San Bernardino County San Bernardino County (Jagerson, 1975) reports that the heliCOpter patrol program provides coverage to nine communities within the county as well as to the county area. Cost is predicated on the size of the community and the Part I crimes in the community. Jagerson reports that a public survey indicates 95.2 percent of all area citizens want the helicopter patrol and 97 percent of the police officers of all participating cities want the patrol continued. Jagerson reports that the patrol has logged over 44,000 activities.and 1048 arrests and costs each citizen 39Ibid., p. 6. 187 58¢ per year. Jagerson makes no claim in this report that helicopter patrol prevents crime. 40 Pasadena, California The Pasadena, California police (1975) provide in their report some interesting definitions of terms: 1. Team: 2. Patrol: 3. Watch: 4. Down Time: 5. Radio Call: 6. Valid Detail: 7. Non-Valid Detail: 8. Observations: 40 F, Police pilot, observer, and heli- 2 COpter assigned to patrol Opera- g tions during any regular ‘ helicopter watch. Flight hours by the "team" during . patrol functions. (5 hour L optimum average per 8-hour watch.) 8 duty hours = 5 patrol hours. Team patrol time lost due to mechanical, radio, weather, or insufficient personnel factors. Those calls for service, broad- cast to ground units, to which the helicopter responds. Those radio calls and/or obser- vations to which the helic0pter responds where, in fact, a crime has been committed and a suspect is either outstanding or taken into custody at the scene. An unfounded incident, false alarm, reclass to non-criminal incident, etc., can be originated as a radio call or observation. An activity for ground units initiated by the helicopter team based solely upon observation of Terry D. Jagerson, San Bernardino County HeliCOp- ter PrOgram, January 9, 1976, Letter to author. 188 ground activity which appears suspicious. This need not result in an arrest. The act of requesting a ground unit to investigate and directing it to the location is an "observation" activity. 9. Arrests: Credit for an arrest can be claimed: *7 a. When the activity is observed and the arrest initiated by the heliCOpter team (obser- vation arrests). b. When the heliCOpter arrives at the scene prior to ground units and either contains the suspect(s) or maintains sur- veillance of the suspect(s) and directs ground units to him. 11V... - | NOTE: Merely being in the area does not qualify. Contact with the ground units and an active part in the handling of the activity are necessary to claim participation in an arrest. Beyond these definitions, the Pasadena police present statistics of activities which are largely founded on these definitions. The report makes no claim to deter- ring or preventing crime through the use of helicopter patrol other than noting it is a useful and active patrol tool.41 Maryland The Maryland State police (1976) report that the helicopter is highly valued in traffic patrol. The use of 41Pasadena Police Department, HeliCOpter Section Monthly Reports, July 1974 through November 1975. 189 helic0pters for criminal work is in providing support when- ever it is needed to pursue escaping prisoners or persons escaping from a crime scene. Area searches for stolen prOperty or other contraband as well as surveillance of suspected persons or vehicles are other uses for which the Maryland State police heliCOpter may be summoned. The report further mentions that the vehicle is useful as an aerial photo platform, but makes no statement that the use . '. ‘b’ul‘LAL Illa-I'm]? of helicopters has deterred or prevented crime in the area. 42 Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. (1973) reports a reduction in crime in areas patrolled by heliCOpters as compared to projected predictions of the amount of crime to be expected. In other words, the crime reduction is computed by compari- son with the expected amount of crime without the heli- copter. The prediction formula resulted in some cases where the prevented crime was higher than the expected crime, which is puzzling, to say the least. Additionally, the report shows that total Operating cost of a heliCOpter for one year is $132,460 and for a scout car $90,7774 for one year. Thus the cost for 42Gary E. Moore, letter to author and report of Maryland State Police Aviation Unit, January 7, 1976. 190 Operating three helicopters is the same as for 4.7 scout cars. This is justification arithmetic. Since this study embraces only segments of months, or fragmented time periods, and that only from September 1971 through March 1972, the report will not be dealt with any further in this study.43 The Young Evaluations of Four Helicopter Proqrams The Arthur Young Co. (1974) reported evaluation of four California heliCOpter projects for the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) of the Law Enforcement 44 Administration. The four projects were funded by O.C.J.P. The evaluation concerned the following projects: Title Agency ASTREA San Diego County Sheriff (Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies) Ventura County Helic0pter Ventura County Sheriff Program Helicopter San Bernardino County Project Co-Op (Crime Oriented-Optimum Patrol) Kern County Eleven major objectives were identified: 1. Increase the effectiveness of search and rescue Operations in remote areas 43MetrOpolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., Crime Reduction Through Aerial Patrol (Washington, D.C.: National Technieal InfOrmatiOn Service, 1973). 44Arthur Young and Co., Final Report: Evaluation of OCJP Funded Helicopter Patrol Projects (Sacramento, Cali- fornia: OCJP, 1974). 191 2. Reduce or slow the rate of growth in the crime rate 3. Enhance officer safety 4. Improve response time to crimes in progress calls 5. Increase apprehension of criminal suspects 6. Provide medical aid and evacuation services 7. Assist other law enforcement agencies 8. Reduce seriousness of civil disorders 9. Increase surveillance effectiveness in specified areas for specific offenses. 10. Provide aid during natural disasters VP?» -m‘m__n “a...” 11. Provide the public with a greater sense of security The evaluation of enhanced officer safety and increased public sense of security were done by means of questionnaire. This method is at least slightly suspect because of the type of question asked. For instance, Do you, as a field officer, feel more secure while performing certain hazardous field functions if the heliCOpter is present?45 It seems reasonable to suppose that the respondent to such a question meant he felt more secure while other officers were present and if they were present in any vehicle or without one, the officer would more than likely be visited by feelings of increased security. Generally, it is observed that the question, in this study, of community security follows questions per- taining to awareness of the program and personal observation 45Ibid., Exhibits I, A-IV, BII, CII-EII. 192 of the program. Then the respondent is asked if he or she feels more secure as a result and does he or she favor continuing the program. It would be interesting, if the first two questions dealt with the cost of the program, to measure the public feeling of security in question number three. The Young report suggests a method of measuring cost-effectiveness based on how well the heliCOpter "operating in its regular mode" accomplished program objec- tives compared to how well these would be accomplished by adding patrol units. By the term "operating in its regular mode" means with a patrol unit, or surface car. Activity importance ratings (Al) were based on three factors: 1. Activities questionnaire to certain personnel in each department including the sheriff, department planning bureau, patrol bureau chief, project director, and helicopter pilots 2. Original project goals 3. Qualitative judgement of the consultant From a list of activities formed around the eleven major objectives, eight were selected as most important by questionnaire rating. A total of forty points was distri- buted over the activities with weights determined by: l. Scored rankings in survey 2. Project objectives 3. Qualitative judgement 193 Costs were based on both fixed and variable costs to arrive at both monthly and annual Operation cost levels for both helicopter and patrol car use. The final numeric index was the weighted relative (heliCOpter with patrol car vs added patrol units) effec- tiveness rating. For each activity, the heliCOpter with car vs the additional patrol cars received a relative i effectiveness rating: 1. Very effective (4 points) 2. Effective (3 points) 3. Moderately effective (2 points) 4. Slightly effective (1 point) 5. Not effective (0 points) The determination of the effectiveness was built around the activities weights formula shown above and as le ' WHN' Thus, the cost-effectiveness formulas where: Al-AN Activity importance rating, i.e., crime inci- dence, reSponse time, community attitudes, etc. W - W = Weighted relative effectiveness of helicopter patrol activities (A1 - AN) then the final formula was: Helicopter A .W + A .W . . . W = Operating 1 H1 2 H2 AN HN Effectiveness46 But the most telling part of the Young report is in the evaluation of the effect of helic0pter patrol on crime. 46Ibid., p. 22. 194 The report states simply that there exists no statistical base for comparison. A general lack of current, as well as historical, data for patrol areas precludes any evaluation of the use of helicopters in those four projects as a means of deterring or preventing crime. Here, again, is an example of a search for data base which finally resorts to the use of judgemental factors to reach summations. While the formula here points the way to eventual evaluation, the mixing of components portends an incorrect or inconclusive result. if —a Three final notations of city programs are entered here because they indicate the continuing problem of the lack of evaluation of heliCOpter use to prove it as a means of deterring or preventing crime in relation to its cost to the community. Fairfax Counpy, Virginia Fairfax County, Virginia (1976), provides an interesting view of one area's heliCOpter experience. An evaluation of the program by the Chief of Police in December of 1974 showed that the heliCOpter in use, an Enstrom F28A, had no carrying capacity beyond its two member crew and thus was not capable of conducting rescue or mercy missions. In addition, this vehicle was stated in _. 47Ibid., pp. 5 and 34. 195 the report to be unsuited for regular patrol and only useful on short term surveillance or vehicle chases. The report continued to detail repair and mainten- ance problems from the free receipt of the heliCOpter in May of 1972 until the time of evaluation. The report further notes that other police agencies which use heli- c0pters were surveyed and the literature was reviewed. Several points became apparent: None of the departments contacted was operating with one heliCOpter and one crew. All had at least two helicopters and three crews to assure the availability of the support the air units may give to ground units. 1 Most had more. All departments using heliCOpters devoted substantial mission time to commuter traffic watches, a task per- formed by private or other public agencies in MetrOpolitan Washington. No department said it had been able to reduce the number, or limit the expansion of ground units on patrol, as a result of heliCOpter patrol. None could provide hard data analysis to demonstrate the impact of helicopter patrol on the incidence of crime or the agency's ability to apprehend law breakers. Several cited specific cases. But no pattern could be established. This report went on to note that the helicopter program had not been given a fair test as an element of patrol due to lack of availability. Additionally, it was given that this craft cost $48 per hour to use. The report recommends retaining the helicopter for special uses but advised against expanding the program.48 48William L. Durrer, in letter to County Executive Robert W. Wilson, December 10, 1974. 196 The report became moot because the heliCOpter crashed before the report reached the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal restraints caused rejection of replacement, although the Director of Planning and Research for the county still considers the heliCOpter as effective in crime deterrence.49 Richmond, California The Richmond report (1975) notifies the study that the helicopter program, which was funded by L.E.A.A. and ‘T‘T‘_‘_- used two Hughes 300-C heliCOpters for anti-crime patrol, was discontinued after the grant was terminated. One heli- COpter has been sold and the other is for sale. The report goes on to state that the prOgram was ineffective as to prevention of crime and too costly to maintain.50 San Francisco, California The San Francisco police department received LEAA grant #71A06R021 in the amount of $18,934 on June 29, 1971, for a heliCOpter program to run from July 1, 1971, through June 30, 1972. This grant was for the purpose of reinfor- cing the San Francisco's law enforcement program by 49Letter from Jared D. Stout, Director of Planning and Research, Fairfax County to author, January 7, 1976. 50Richmond Report, Letter from John Neely, Acting Captain, Patrol Bureau to author, December 22, 1975. 197 replacement of one of two heliCOpters. The vehicle being replaced had crashed. In response to the questionnaire from the author of this study in December 1975, the Chief of Police of San Francisco reported that the San Francisco police department does not Operate helicopters.51 The author learned, in a subsequent interview with a San Francisco officer who is an aide to Chief George Gain, as well as a former member of the helicopter unit, that the San Francisco police own two heliCOpters but do not use them. The heliCOpters have been adjudged as being too expensive to Operate and maintain in relation to results . . . . 52 obtained in crime deterrence and prevention. Summary Chapter IV has presented a description of the data obtained in this study from the four sources: . Review of the literature Mitre Corporation survey Author survey Departmental evaluations bWNH O The literature has served to describe the philosophy of the theory of visibility and mobility in patrol as well to trace the history of the theory to the present day. 51Letter from Charles R. Gain, Chief of Police, San Francisco, California, to author, February 11, 1976. 52Telephone interview of Patrolman Louis Sylvestri, by author, March 31, 1976. 198 The Mitre Corporation data, also known as the Chester survey, has furnished data concerning the use and capabilities of airborne vehicles as well as providing cost data about acquisition and maintenance. The author's survey data has been combined in some instances with the Chester survey data to provide a com- plete inventory of all helic0pters in use in police agencies in the United States. These data also inventory cost comparison material which should prove extremely useful to future researchers. Additionally, Chapter IV includes area and popula- tion information that can be valuable to tests and evalua- tions on any police heliCOpter patrol program. Finally, Chapter IV provides a look at some methods of program evaluation as devised and perceived by the users of heliCOpters in police patrol. Some of the cities included in the author's survey reSponded with reports which try to evaluate the program of using helicopters in police patrol. While none of these evaluation conclusions are generalizable, because in the author's view they lack validity, they do present a view of formulated efforts to test and evaluate such programs. Chapter V will summarize the study, discuss the findings and their implications for the future, and try to devise usable hypotheses generated by the study with recommendations for the future planning of police programs in training and education. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In the opening chapter the purpose and scope of the study were defined. It was aimed at providing a descrip— tion of those methods and theories that rely on the belief that visibility and mobility have a direct effect on crime by deterring or preventing criminal actions. The intention was to furnish some useful data for researchers who may wish to test and evaluate these methods and theories. The study also prOposed to provide some information as to the influence of these methods and theories on those who manage police agencies as well as those who train and educate policemen. Since the theory of visibility and mobility as a deterrent to and prevention of, crime is related to speed of movement it was noted that the study would focus on the fastest of all police patrol vehicles, the helicopter. The study was motivated by consideration of two underlying assumptions: 1. That certain methods and theories of crime deterrence and prevention which are in use throughout the 199 200 field of Criminal Justice, and which form a basis for a good deal of the training and education in that field, are founded on tradition and "common sense" value judgements and are as yet untested. 2. That it is vitally important, especially in view of the nation's rising crime totals, that research be directed toward these certain methods and theories in order that police administrators, trainers, and educators may have the benefit of proven practices to use in their pro- fessions. Following these assumptions the author set out to answer the following questions: 1. Considering the historical basis of the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deterrence and prevention, what is the present status of the theory? The historical background of the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deter- rence and prevention and its beginning is important. Any consideration of the theory in its present state relates to the origin of the theory and the philosophy connnected with it. 2. Is this theory based on untested assumptions, has it received credibility through traditional use while being carried on by the medium of training and educational programs in Criminal Justice? 201 The literature of the profession of policing pro- vides a source which will indicate whether or not this theory has ever been subjected to scientific testing and evaluation or whether it has been granted "common sense" value acceptance and passed on traditionally. 3. In police prOgrams which use and promote the theory of visibility and mobility in crime deterrence and prevention, does a data base exist which can provide a starting point for future research aimed at testing and evaluation of this theory? It will be useful to provide a thorough examination of some of the data, views, and methods of test and evalua- tion in use by police departments to determine if there exists a data base which might be used in future scientific test and evaluation of police prOgrams relating to crime deterrence and prevention. It was also considered vitally important that all questions be studied and answered because the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol to crime deterrence and prevention is an important part of the curriculum of police training and education programs. The theory must be placed in proper perspective.so that, if it is continued in use, it will be as a theory which has been scientifically tested and evaluated in use. The study questions lead to the answers to problems posed at the outset of the study. 202 Chapter I looks at the setting of the study and discusses the phiIOSOphy of police patrol as a means of deterring and preventing crime. This chapter has provided the basis in history for police methods and theories in regard to the belief that visibility and mobility can, and do, deter and prevent crime. This included a discussion of the beginning of the traditional passage of police beliefs from one generation of administrator, trainer, and educator to another. Because of the continually occurring passage of these beliefs, they grew larger in credibility without evaluation or testing. Chapter II offers a review of the literature which traces the solidifying of the credibility of those police methods and theories. The literature review demonstrates that the belief in visibility and mobility became more acceptable with the advent of mechanical contrivances such as bicycles and then automobiles to increase the speed quotient of the police. The chapter details instances were pioneer police administrators, trainers, and educators virtually became ecstatic at the prospect of completely eradicating crime from society with the newly discovered speed capability. Well known, even revered, police trainers and educators like August Vollmer and William Rutledge spread the gospel of visibility and mobility to all areas of the police world in America. 0. W. Wilson, a famous police administrator as Superintendent of the Chicago Police 203 Department and an educator at the University of California, as well as the author of several volumes concerning police training and education, was one of the foremost disciples of the theory. Some of the pioneer administrators, trainers, and educators even supposed that fewer policemen would be needed because of innovations like cars and radios which increased visibility and mobility. Chapter III displays the sources and methods used to gain data for description. The chapter notes that these data were gathered primarily from a review of pertinent literature and from the material in two extensive question- naire surveys. One of these surveys was conducted by a national evaluation organization, the Mitre Corporation, and the author was granted permission to use the unpublished data. This is called the Chester Survey. The other survey was conducted by the author. These questionnaire surveys are the prime source of data for this study, since there is scant published information concerning the use of heli- copters in police crime prevention patrol. This chapter notes that the literature of the profession would reveal the philOSOphy of the theory of visibility and mobility in police patrol as well as furnish information as to its growth and develOpment. The widely read books about police systems, including the most popular text books on police training and education were examined, described, and excerpted. 204 Chapter IV describes how the Chester survey and the author survey have been used in some instances to provide a combined inventory of police helicopters which include both operational capability specification and cost data. This is a unique inventory which details data not found in one place in any other publication. This chapter is involved in a description of the data obtained from all sources. Additionally, this chapter also provides compilations and categorization of data by the author for more facile access by future researchers and other students. This chapter provides the kind of data that are so necessary to a description of the patrol process of crime deterrence and prevention which makes use of helicopters. Chapter IV also looks at the attempts made by several police organizations to evaluate the results of using helicopters in crime preventive patrol. These evaluation efforts bear directly on the problem studied here and will provide a source of evaluation methodology for researchers. Some of the methodology will be discussed in the conclusions at the end of this study. The questions which were posed at the beginning of the study have been answered throughout the study. Question one asked: 1. Considering the historical basis of the theory that relates visibility and mobility in police patrol 205 to crime deterrence and prevention, what is the present status of the theory? This historical basis was demonstrated in Chapter I with a recounting of the earliest known history of police patrol in England. From the "Watch and Ward" system of Edward I (1272-1307), through the Bow Street Runners or "Thief Takers" of Henry Fielding in 1748 through the fore- runner of modern policing, the Bobbies of Sir Robert Peel's Metropolitan police in 1829, the theory of visibility and mobility became an accepted fact in police departments. Those same methods and theories were brought to this country and carried on in the same fashion as in the mother country, including the virtually useless "Watch and Ward" system which relied heavily on the belief that if the "presence" of a watcher was made evident enough by some form of noise, criminals would not ply their trade. The review of the literature in Chapter II also amply illuminates the basis in history in this country when it is noted that leading police administrators, trainers, and educators such as Orlando W. Wilson, August Vollmer and William P. Rutledge carry on this theory in the early part of the twentieth century.1 Leading writers in the police field also carry on the transfer of the theory to the present day. It is 1See Wilson, supra p. 32; Vollmer, supra p. 31; and Rutledge, supra p. 30. 206 notable that authors like Vern Folley, Samuel G. Chapman, Raymond Clift, and Harry Caldwell, writing in the 1960s and 19705, are still espousing the theory of visibility and mobility as effective in deterring and preventing crime.2 Question two asked: 2. Is this theory (of visibility and mobility in patrol as deterring or preventing crime) based on untested assumptions and has it received credibility through traditional use while being carried on by the medium of training and educational prOgrams in D Criminal Justice? This question was answered in both Chapters I and II. A recounting of police history reveals no testing procedures that were ever devised or attempted. A review of the literature illustrates many instances of police administrators, trainers, and educators promoting these theories repeatedly, and often using the exact language of another in the profession. The literature reveals this passing of the theory from hand to hand and area to area. Both Chapters I and II provide information which indicates that there is no known test of these theories. Many leading research sources state repeatedly that testing and evaluation of these theories is non-existent. The 2See Chapman, supra p. 36; Folley, supra p. 40; Clift, supra p. 39; and Caldwell, supra p. 41. 207 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Adminis- tration of Criminal Justice decries the total lack of scientific research for test and evaluation of police methods and theories.3 While the literature is relatively silent on the subject of higher education in regard to the theory of visibility and mobility, it is important to note that many of the pioneer police administrators, in this country, like Vollmer and O. W. Wilson, were also educators and authors of police text books. Tenney, in remarking on the curriculum of higher education programs in Criminal Justice, reports that text— books which promote this theory constitute a large segment of the literature of those programs.4 3. .Does a data base exist in police programs which promote the theory of visibility and mobility as effective in deterring or preventing crime, which can provide a starting point for future research in evaluation and testing of the theory? Chapter IV provides a unique and complete inventory of helicopters in use in police patrol including performance Specifications and cost data. 3President's Commission, supra p. 46; see also James Q. Wilson, supra p. 42; American Bar Association, supra p. 45; Larson, supra p. 45; National Institute, supra p. 46. 4See Tenney, supra p. 75. 208 The chapter also furnishes data concerning the areas where helicopters are in use such as size and popula- tion density. Information of this nature is valuable to any future test and evaluation efforts. Additionally, Chapter IV provides some data received from users which indicates their perceptions in regard to problem areas and also in regard to perceived evaluations. Chapter IV also includes some test and evaluation data which was provided by certain of the respondents in answer to a request of the researcher. Thus Chapter IV does provide an answer to question number three. The description of the data leads to a con- clusion that information is available which will provide a foothold for future researchers, when it is considered that all of the data described in Chapter IV is available plus all of the information in every police department's regular crime and performance reports to use in any future scientific test and evaluation. Findings An overall view of this study reveals the emergence of the following series of findings: 1. Some police departments tend to lean toward pro- duction statistics which are generally unrelated to proof of effectiveness in deterring and preventing crime. 209 One of the most common objectives cited in some of these justification type evaluations involves officers' security. It must be alarming to citizens when a police department, citing the major objectives of a very expensive anti-crime program, declares that the first objective is officer security. In addition to this evaluation dilemma, the evalu- ators create another by using a questionnaire approach to prove officer security which asks, in a typical example: do you, as a field officer, feel more secure while performing certain hazardous field functions if the helic0pter is present? and As a supervisor/administrator, have you observed that field officers display an increased sense of security if the heliCOpter is present in certain field functions?5 The percentage of affirmative answers to this kind of question is highly predictable but the questions leave a plethora of related unanswered questions which might ask if the officer also felt more secure if a scout car were present. Or how does a supervisor detect an increased sense of security in a subordinate? Evaluations which sample citizen feelings of increased security because of helicopter patrol or that ask citizen opinion of whether the program should be 5Both reports appear in all four evaluations in the Young Report, supra p. 191. See also Simonsen, "An Evaluation of Columbus, Ohio Helicopter Patrol," supra p. 172. 210 continued are of suspect value in defining the impact of the program in deterring or preventing crime. 2. Some police departments resist change vigorously and continue to rely on "common sense" values in programs to deter and prevent crime. One effort to test and evaluate police patrol in regard to its effect on crime, the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, met with this resistance. This test was conducted in a scientific manner and is indicative of what can be done by the police community to test and evaluate the theory of visibility and mobility in police patrol. Kansas City used fifteen police beats in the experiment. In five of these beats there was double, and even triple police patrol and "presence," in five there was no patrol, only request response, and in the third group of five beats there was normal patrol and service. Among the findings in the Kansas City study, one most pertinent here was that, at the end of a one year experiment, the crime incidence in all three sectors of five beats each remained virtually the same as before. While this test is neither final nor generalizable and was subject to almost immediate critical reaction, it does point the way to scientific testing of police methods and theories.6 6Kelling, supra p. 52. See also the criticism in Davis, supra p. 54. 211 3. Some police evaluators have a tendency to grossly exaggerate the benefits of new police programs. The introduction of the helicopter provides an example. The ability of a helicopter in such categories as recovery of stolen property and location of contraband seems to be fre- quently overstated. The Los Angeles report credits enormous capability in these categories to their helicopter patrol.7 4. A perusal of the evaluation system used in some police departments reveals that this justification effort leads to unusual cost comparisons between helicopters and scout cars. The final tabulation often indicates that it costs more per arrest by scout cars than those by heli- copter. Detroit equated the cost of patrol units with arrests and arrived at a formula which put the cost of arrest at $195.00 each for the heliCOpter as against $420.00 each for a scout car. This amazing figure was arrived at by showing that surface units patrol one million hours at $22.00 per hour while a heliCOpter patrols only 1930 hours at $50.00 per hour.8 Nowhere does Detroit explain that a helic0pter crew cannot make an arrest with- out the aid of a scout car. This report is probably typical of evaluation reports which are made with a view of justifi- cation of a program and not proof of its value. 7See Los Angeles, supra p. 184. 8See Detroit, supra p. 167. 212 5. Statistics which border on the incredible are brought to light, such as those which use a complicated amortization scale to show that the total purchase and operating cost of a heliCOpter is very close to that of a scout car. It usually goes unmentioned that the long use of helicopters is caused by the high cost of purchase and main- tenance. The Washington, D.C. police report is typical of the report which attempts to show that heliCOpters and scout cars are almost equal in total cost. The statistics used are invalid because they are incomplete and cover only segments of time periods.9 6. Some of the helicopter program evaluations revert to the theory that, because of its speed, the heli- c0pter can do as much as two, three, four, five, or more scout cars. This recalls the days when pioneer police administrators predicted that a car with two men and a radio could do the same amount of police work as five men on foot. A continuation of the use of this formula should have reduced the ratio of police personnel to population, but it has not. The Santa Monica program failed to fulfill the promise of added patrol capability.10 9See Washington, D.C., supra p. 189. 10See Earl Reinhold, "HeliCOpter Patrol," supra p. 67. 213 7. And finally, it is notable that in some evalua- tions of police heliCOpter programs there is a tendency to devise complicated effectiveness and evaluation programs. These programs use such invalid components as judgemental factors or opinions of division personnel, to arrive at their conclusions. In addition, some of these evaluations make direct comparisons between scout car and helicopter delivery of service when it should be evident that the mixing of incomparable respondents gives almost total invalidity to the comparison. The Young evaluations, which cover four separate heliCOpter patrol prOgrams present an interesting picture in regard to the measurement of effectiveness against crime. These evaluations use a combination of factors which range from real (crime statistics) to imaginary (activity impor- tance ratings which depend on "qualitative" judgement). In the final summation, however, the Young evaluations say that there is insufficient data provided to the evaluators to detect any effect on crime by helicopter patrol.11 The Tucson police also evaluated the cost effec- tiveness of the program by using four evaluation factors of which three were "Opinions" or "judgements" of persons connected with the program.12 11See Young, supra p. 190 12See Tucson report, supra p. 160. 214 Additional Findings In Chapters II and IV there are continual documen- tations of instances wherein police departments seem to lean toward justification of unique patrol systems like the helicopter. These justification efforts carry over into the reports and tell of outcomes that have no bearing on the use of patrol heliCOpters in deterring or preventing crime. For instance, while it is undoubtedly important to measure miles flown and reports turned in, these cannot be the sole measurement when the purpose for the process was cited as crime deterrence and prevention, especially since statistics show a continual rise in crime. This method of measurement has been compared by the author to the system of determining the amounts of brick and mortar used to measure the final comfort and utility of a house. Another of the faults regularly associated with police evaluations of helic0pter patrols is the tendency to conduct one-shot tests that fail to take into account the conditions surrounding the test area before and after. Frequently, the evaluators finish reports by admitting the possibility that the helicopter program has merely shifted the crime problem to another area, as in the Columbus, Ohio test of the helicopter patrol in that city.13 HeliCOpter evaluation reports also tend to make invalid comparison of response time by comparing the 13See Simonsen, supra p. 172. 215 response time of a scout car to that of a heliCOpter while airborne as in the Tucson report. Flight preparation takes 14 a considerable length of time. Conclusions These findings lead to two inescapable conclusions: 1. That police departments must begin to scrutinize the entire spectrum of law enforcement in relation to the police mission of deterring and preventing crime. 2. That police departments must discontinue the practice of "justification" evaluation of programs by testing and evaluating them scientifically. Those programs which are retained because of invalid testing and evaluation procedure actually constitute a disservice to the citizens of the community. This does not mean that programs are not worth retaining because of certain cosmetic value. An example is the mounted division, or horse bureau, of many police departments. These divisions have long ago ceased claiming any real police function, even crowd control, but are retained because the citizenry appreciate the cosmetic value of the bureau as a civic asset and are willing to pay for it. The previously cited Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment is highly indicative of the ability of police l4See Tucson, supra p. 161. 216 departments to conduct scientific research. Certainly the ongoing life in a city provides the police departments and educational institutions of America with a laboratory situation. Those incidents which happen in a police- citizen-crime setting are part of the life of the area. The resources are present as part of all of the situation. It is no longer acceptable to guess at what results might be or to attribute the results to certain causes just because it seems right to do so. Police experts can no longer sell the untested system to a community by using high sounding, traditional police jargon about depriving criminals of Opportunity through police "presence." The most obvious values to be credited to heliCOpter performance are their abilities to respond to a location rapidly and their use as an observation platform. Both of these values are also limited by the fact that the heli- copter cannot usually do more than observe a condition of crime, even after rapid arrival at a location, and report to surface units who are able to take action. Nevertheless, these values are important and can be the real reasons for providing heliCOpter service. The use of helicOpters as an ambulance vehicle more prOperly belongs to organizations using helic0pters built for such service and not police vehicles. 217 Finally, the author has concluded, as a result of this study that James Q. Wilson was correct when he stated that a lack of proven methodology for testing law enforce- ment prOposals was putting the nation in danger of turning a practical problem into an ideological one. Wilson noted that, in responding to the emotions aroused by crime, we dangerously oversell our ability to lower the crime rate. In order to get Congress to supply funds that may help produce a 5 percent reduction in auto thefts, we may have to promise a 20 percent reduction in murders.15 Certainly it is at least discouraging to police administrators when an urbanologist as highly respected as Jane Jacobs says: The first thing to understand is that the public peace--the sidewalk and street peace-~of cities is not kept primarily by the police, necessary as police are. It is kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the peOple themselves and enforced by the people themselves. . . . No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal, casual enforcement of it has broken down. In some city areas--older public housing projects and streets with very high population turnover are often conspicuous examples-~the keeping of public sidewalk law is left almost entirely to the police and special guards. Such places are jungles.1 15James Wilson, Crime and Law Enforcement, supra at p. 45. 16Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961), pp.31-32. 218 Implications for Trainers and Educators It does not necessarily follow that because a particular method or theory of crime deterrence or preven- tion fails to achieve positive results that no method or theory of crime deterrence will work. Nor does it follow that because a particular method or theory is untested that it should be abandoned. But it is logical to suppose that such a method or theory should be researched for evaluation and testing. Without research, without evaluation and testing the police administrators, trainers, and educators are using and teaching the theory that visibility and mobility are deterring or preventing crime while this theory is based only on tradition and "common sense" values and may or may not be the crux of police patrol. Yet, as Jacob reminds, police are necessary. Cer- tainly as an alternative to chaos and anarchy but also in deterring and preventing crime. How great an impact police have on crime will be determined by the willigness of police administrators to join hands with institutions of higher education and begin to research, test, and evaluate programs which claim to deter or prevent crime. Emerging.from the research in this investigation, three implications appear which may have merit in the educa- tional process of criminal justice. These are: 219 1. These programs must be tested by the use of principles subject to all of the rules of scientific experiment and testing. Generalization must spring from validity and not from tradition or "common sense." 2. Police administrators, trainers, and educators must realize that change is inevitable and can be a healthy experience of experiment and test. These administrators, trainers, and educators will have to articulate this belief to the communities of citizens and students that they serve. 3. Further, institutions of higher education must become an integral part of the search for police programs which truly deter and prevent crime. These institutions ought to establish and maintain an on-going umbilical cord relationship with police agencies to provide a continuous program of education and re-education of police personnel, administrators, trainers, and educators and also to provide research facilities and resources as part of the relation- ship. Recommendations for Further Study A11 police agencies should be involved with some form of self-examination with objective outside aid. This procedure should become a regular part of the police regimen.) Statistics such as those generated in this study should be put to use in further study as part of the neces- sary cycle of test and evaluation. 220 This study has generated the following hypotheses: 1. Areas where police have enlarged their visi- bility and increased their speed in mobility to create an impression of omnipresence will have proportionately less incidence of crime than areas where police patrols have remained static. 2. Persons of criminal inclination in areas where police have enlarged their visibility and increased their speed in mobility to create an impression of omnipresence will tend to abandon their criminal plans more often than criminally inclined persons in areas with less police visibility and mobility. 3. Crime problems which are subjected to continu- ous COOperative research between police and academicians have more likelihood of solution than those which are left to police alone to solve. Police practitioners must now seek the help of the academic research community to combine the resources of both in providing programs to test and evaluate police methods and theories. The educators of the Criminal Justice programs can no longer afford to provide a curriculum which is based on untested theory. The test and evaluation programs must take precedents over traditional "nuts and bolts" curriculum until a proven body of material is ready for presentation to future practitioners. 221 This will involve some changes in the traditional stance of educators and policemen alike and cause them to approach the administrators and citizens of their communi- ties with a unified determination which will assure that the police, who need the help, will ask for and accept it, and that the educators, who have the help to give, will proceed to give it. APPENDICES APPENDIX A AUTHOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX A AUTHOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT Questionnaire Helicopter Use Report for the: Department Street '71p Code City State Phone: Area Code: County:___ Township: The governmental unit providing salaries for your department is: [:I 1 . Village E] 2. City [:1 3. Township What is the "general description" of your [:I 4. County U 5. State [:1 6. Other (please specify) Name the two most prominent features: Residential . . . . . . . . Agricultural. . . . . . . . Educational . . . Military. . . . . Governmental. . . Industrial. . . . . . . . . Natural Resources (mining, forestry, etc.) Recreation-Tourism. . . . . 222 jurisdiction? ‘I' —F. . .- “'AAM‘LI-l 223 What is the official population estimate of your jurisdiction? What is the total number of miles of public roads and streets (paved and unpaved) and the square miles of land in your entire jurisdiction? Miles of public roads Square miles of land _r_ What is the TOTAL budget for your department for the latest fiscaI year? Total budget for the latest year is $ What is the TOTAL budget of your entire city, village, township, or county for the latest fiscal year? Total budget for the latest year is $ What is the actual number of all officers and civilians in your agency today? Tofficers) (Eivilians) How many items of the following mobile patrol equipment does your department own? Cars Cycles Scooters Planes HeliCOpters Were any of these mobile items purchased by L.E.A.A. grants? Yes No (number) —— Cars [:1 Cycles [:1 Scooters E] Planes [:[ Helicopters [:1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 224 If any heliCOpters were purchased through L.E.A.A. grants, did or will your department continue the prOgram after expiration of the grant? Yes I: No I: If your department has begun and discontinued a helicopter program under L.E.A.A. grant, was it because the program was: [:I a. ineffective? [j b. too costly for results gained? D c. both a and b? [:Id. other reasons? What type and capacity heliCOpters are in use in your . department? 0 1. 5. 2. _ 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. How are your department's helicopters utilized? (Please state amount of use in hours per month per unit in average 730 hour month.) I I Patrol, general, including searches E:::::ITraffic, regular [:::::ITraffic, emergency [:3 Medical, mercy, transport, rescue I I Personnel transport I I Other (please describe briefly) How are your helicopter pilots chosen for duty? E:]Selected from department, then trained. E:]Se1ected pre-trained from department. [:3 Selected pre—trained from outside department. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 225 What are the rank and salaries of your heliCOpter pilots? Np. Rank Salary What is the total cost of housing your helicopters per year? In which of the following reporting programs does your department participate? 152. [:1 F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report Program National Safety Council Annual Traffic [:1 Inventory L.E.I.N. (Law Enforcement Intelligence [:1 Network) Dang Has your department prepared a separate report of helicopter activity? Monthly Annually Yes Np. Yes Np Does your department use heliCOpters on general patrol during all time shifts? Yes I: No CI Do you provide heliCOpter assistance to other police agencies or other units of government? (Total hours per month per unit.) No. Other Police Other Government Units (HOurs) Yhoursi 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 226 When using a helicopter in anti-crime patrol, do you use additional surface units to assist, or respond to, the helicopter? Number of additional surface units per helicopter Does your department believe that the use of the helicopter in anti-crime patrol has reduced street crime? Yes [:1 No C] Does your department believe that heliCOpter use has reduced any particular category of crime? Yes D No [:1 Category If your department believes either 22 or 23 above, is there documentation to demonstrate? Yes [:1 No [:1 Does your department consider the helic0pter mggp valuable for: [:1 Patrol, including search [:1 Traffic [:1 Medical, mercy, treatment, rescue [:1 Personnel transport [:IOther (specify briefly) Has your heliCOpter program been specifically evaluated as to its relationship to crime? Yes I: No I: Has your program revealed instances in which heliCOpter patrol seems to shift the crime to areas outside the patrol perimeter? YesEj. NOE] Has your helic0pter program been evaluated as to cost per mission? Yes [:l No [:1 29. 30. 31. 227 Has your scout car program been evaluated as to cost per mission? Yes I: No [:1 Will you please forward the information sought in questions 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29, as well as this questionnaire (when completed) to the researcher in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope? Will you please state briefly the general view of your department toward the use of heliCOpters in police service? APPENDIX B CHESTER SURVEY INSTRUMENT a LEE-TIE gin—m W'KTI APPENDIX B CHESTER SURVEY INSTRUMENT Law Enforcement Assistance Administration L.E. AirborneWehfcIe Survey ggneral Instructions for Completing This Form 1. Please respond to each question. 2. Where data are not available, enter NA. 3. Annual budget figures for your agency's airborne operations may be approximate. 4. Where your fiscal year is different from the Federal Government's fiscal year, simply provide your current airborne Operations budget--the one you are working under in August 1975. ency/Interviewer a—e I en ificaEIOn 1. 2. Agency Name: f' 1.1."- h ., EIA'. Address: Person Responsible for Response: Position: Date of Response: (If data obtained via telephone) name of MITRE inter- viewer: Date of call: , 1975. Call Back Necessary? Yes No If Yes, Explain 228 229 5. Callback Results: __ 6. Date of Callback: different from 4): , 1975. Interviewer (if Airborne Vehicle Inventory 7. Aircraft in Use by Agency: HeliCOpters Year Year Manufacturer Model Mf'd Acquired H H Fixed Wing l l Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) Other (Specify) Type Mfr. Model Usage Characteristics 8. Average Flying Hours: Helicopters Fixed Wing STOL Other Quantity Year Acquired Hours Military i Surplus? Quantity per month 10. 230 Percentage of Flight Time: Day Night Helic0pters Fixed Wing STOL Other I III Aircraft Availability Ratio By Type: Indicate the percent of time, on the average, that the type is available (e.g., ready to fly the mission) when scheduled or when required. Availability in percent I HeliCOpters Fixed Wing é STOL ; Other Mission Priority and Effectiveness by Type of'Airborne vehicle 11. Rate each applicable aircraft type on (1) its mission priority and (2) its mission effectiveness in Table A-1 on the following page. Rate mission priority for each relevant aircraft type on the basis of "1" for highest priority, "2" for the next highest, and so on. Two or more missions may be given equal priority ratings. List only top 5 priorities. Indicate "H" (for High), "M" (for Medium), or ”L" (for Low) effectiveness. Absence of an effectiveness rating will be interpreted to mean that the vehicle is not used for the mission. Please add other missions, as applicable, in the space provided. (See illustra- tive example in Table A-l). Mission rating table on following page. 231 Table A-1.--Ratings of Mission Priority and Helicopter Effectiveness, Question 11.*** Helicopter Helicopter Mission Effective- Effective- Priority ness Priority ness Rating Rating Rating Rating Command Post High Speed Chase M Provide Intercept Data to Ground 1* H Patrol Activities H General Surveillance 1* H Covert Surveillance L Search Activities Fugitives 2 Vehicles 3 Nighttime Patrol M Security (Special Visitors, etc.) Emergency Rescues 4* Traffic Control Transport Emergency 4* H Priority Cargo 5 H Official Personnel H Personnel in Custody M Narcotics Detection ** Pollution Control ** Riot Control H Fish/Game Law Control ** Other (Describe) EXAMPLE *Missions of Equal Priority **Missions for Which Vehicle Not Used ***Only HeliCOpter Section Is Included Here. 232 Major Operating Problems 12. List, in order of priority (most-severe first), 3 or 4 most significant problems encountered in your experi- ence with airborne vehicles. (To include problems such as excessive down time, unavailability of spares, high cost, etc., in addition to purely mission—Operation problems.) Helic0pters a. , + b . f I ‘ d. Fixed Wing a. b. 233 Major Operating Problems (cont'd.) Other 13. Please provide any further problem information or comments you feel would be helpful to the survey: Costs 14. Provide the procurement means, the costs, source of funds for each aircraft: Helicopters Cost of basic vehicle* (per year if leased, Acquired total cost if bought) Make Lease and or Date Model Buy Wing "'1 P: x ' (D D.- STOL l and the Percent of funds from 'iTEAA Other *Not including special L.E. gear such as special communica- tion equipment, searchlights, P.A. systems. '1 If" Costs Other Make and Model (cont'd) Lease or Date Buy Cost of basic vehicle* (per year if leased, Acquired total cost if bought) 234 Percent of funds from LEAA 15. Provide the costs of special L.E. gear such as communications equipment, searchlights, P.A. systems. Hglicopters Make and Model Fixed Wing STOL Other 16. Check the items How Performed In-house Contracted Cost Other l Percent of funds from LEAA— Other that indicate the manner in which your agency performs its aircraft maintenance: Routine Maintenance Engine Overhaul 1’ 235 17. Operating and maintenance costs* per f1 HeliCOpter Operating Cost Make and Model Per Hour Fixed Wing STOL Other *If your agency does not separate operating maintenance costs, please note the composit operating cost column and write NA in maint column. 18. Check the cost elements comprising your Operating and maintenance costs: Cost elements included in Operating cost/flying hour figures Costs ying hour: Maintenance Cost Per Hour costs from e figure in enance cost agency's Maintenance Costs Gasoline and oil. . . . . . Salaries (air crew, ground crew mechanics . . . . . . . Insurance . . . . . . . . Amortization of Purchase Price . Amortization of Lease Cost . . Pro-rata cost of operational & maintenance facilities . . Construction/mod. of Opera- tional & maintenance facilities Rent of facilities . . . . . Utilities 0 O O O O C O O 236 18. (cont'd.) Cost elements included in Operating Maintenance cost/flying hour figures __Costs Costs Aircraft Replacement Reserve. . Engine Overhaul Reserve . . . . . . . . Spare Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . Other (List) 19. Your agency's approximate annual budget for the air- borne unit for Fiscal Year 1976, by source of funds: Total Budget Percentage Source of Funds LEAA Other Not including salaries or HeliCOpters. .. .—r BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, Thomas F. pgw Enforcement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I966. E . Tpaining Officers Handbook. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1964. Blum, Richard H. Police Selection. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1964) m7“? Bordua, David, ed. The Police: Six Sociological Essays. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Bromberg, Walter. Crime and the Mind. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968. Caldwell, Harry. Basic Law Enforcement. Pacific Palisades, Cal.: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1972. Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Chapman, Samuel G., ed. Police Patrol Practices. Spring- field, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, I972. . Police Patrol Readings. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, I964. . The Police Heritage in England and America. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1962. Clark, Donald E., and Samuel G. Chapman. A Forward Step: Educational Backgrounds for Policemen. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1966. Clift, Raymond E. 'ApGuide to Modern Police Thinking: A Panoramic View of Poliéing. Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Co., 1965. 237 238 Cramer, James. The World's Police. London: Cassell, 1964. Critchley, T. A. A History of Police in En land and Wales. London: Constable and'Co., Lth}—l9 7. Cushman, Frank. Training Procedures. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1940. Devlin, J. Daniel. Police Procedure, Administration and Organization. London: Butterworth and Co., l966. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1963 reprint. Folley, Vern L. American Law Enforcement. Boston: Holbrook Press, 1973. Fosdick, Raymond B. American Police Systems. New York: The Century Co., 1920) . European Police Systems. New York: The Century Co., 1915. Frost, Thomas M. A_Forward Look in Police Education. Springfield, IlI}: Charles C. Thomas, 1959. Gammage, Allen 2. Pglice Training in the United States. Springfield, Ill.: Chafles C.IThomas, 1963. Germann, A. C.; Frank D. Day; and Robert R. J. Gallati. Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Springfield, Ill}: Charles’C} Thomas, I969. Glaser, Robert. Training, Research and Education. New York: John Wiley and'Sons,_I965. Gordon, Kermit, ed. Agenda for the Nation. Washing- ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1968. Graper, Elmer D. American Police Administration. Mont- Clair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1969. Hart, J. M. The British Police. London: Allen and Unwin, 1951. Jenkins, David H., and Charles A. Blackman. Antecegents and Effects of Administrative Behavior. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1956. Klotter, John C. Techniques for Polipe Instructors. Springfield, III.: Charles C. Thomas, I963. 239 Kooken, Don L. Ephics in Police Service. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1959. ’ Larson, Richard C. Upban Police Patrol Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, I972. Leonard, V. A. Police Crime Prevention. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1972.I . Police Opganization and Management. Brooklyn: FoundatiOn Press, Inc., 1951. Niederhoffer, Arthur, and Abraham S. Blumberg, eds. The Ambivalent Force: Perspectives on the Police. Waltham, Mass.: Xerox College Publishing, 1970. Quinney, Richard, ed. Qgime and Justice in Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,‘1969. Reith, Charles. A_New Study of Police History. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956} . The Blind Eye of Histopy. New York: Appleton and Boyd, 1956. Richardson, James F. Urban Police in the United States. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1974. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., and Dixon R. Fox, eds. .A History of American Life, Vol. 12. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931. Smith, Bruce. Police Systems in the United States. Rev. Ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1969} Solmes, Alwyn. The English Policeman, 1871-1935. London: Allen and Unwin, 1935. Trojanowicz, Robert C.: John M. Trojanowicz; and Forrest M. Moss. Community Based Crime Prevention. Pacific PalisadesTICa1.: Goodyear PubliShing Co., 1975. Turner, William. The Police Establishment. New York: Putnam, 1968. Upson, Lent D. Practice of Municipal Administration. New York: The Century Co.7 1926. Vollmer, August. The Police and Modern Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1936. Whitaker, Ben. The Police. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1964. I lull {III-'5! 240 Williams, E. W. Modern Law Enforcement and Police Science. springfieId, III.: Charles C} Thomas, 1967. Wilson, James Q. Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wilson, 0. W. Police Administration. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963. Publications oi_and for the Government, Learned Societies and Other ' Organizations Aerospace Industries Association. Directory of Heiicopter Operators in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. WashingtoniIDLC.: Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., 1974. American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice. Standards Relating_to the Urban Police Function. Tentative Drdft. New York: The American Bar Association, March 1972. Chester, J. M. et al. A Preliminary Survey of State, Counpy_and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Utilizing AirBOrne Vehicles, V01. 1 and 2. McLean, Va.: The Mitre Corp., 1975. Devine, James T. HeliCOpter Procurement. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Guideline--G7370.2, to LEAA Professional Personnel and State Planning Agencies, July 30, 1973. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Proceedin s 1929 Annual Convention. New York: Arno Press,'I93 International City Manager's Association. Municipal Police Administration. Chicago: InternationaI'City Manager's Association, 1954. Kelley, Clarence. Crime in the United States. Washing- ton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Kelling, George F. et al. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, A SummaryfReport. Washington, D. C.: Police Foundation, 1974. Murphy, Michael J. "Establishing a Police University Program." Police Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1963. 241 National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. The Police, Report No. 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Police Training and_Performance Study. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.SfiGovernmentinintihg Office, September 1970. . The Utilization of Helic0pters for Police Air Mobility. Washington, D.CT: U.S. Government Pfinting Office, 1971. Olson, Bruce T. Patterns of Law Enforcement, Research by Questionnaire. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1968. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrihEing Office, 1967. . Report of the Task Force on the Police. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Prinfing Office, 1967. . Report of the Task Force on Science and Tech- nology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Royal Commission on the Police. Final Report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1962. Schmidt, Willard E. Occupational Training for Law Enforce- mgnt in the CaIiforfiia Coileges. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1950. Simonsen, Clifford E. An Evaluation of Helicopter Patrol Activities in Coiumbus. Columbus, Ohio: Program for Study of'Crime and Delinquency, 1974. Tenney, Charles W., Jr. Higher Education Programs in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Periodicals Aaron, Thomas J. "Education and Professionalization in American Law Enforcement." Police (November- December 1965):37-41. I’ll-[{(Illlll‘ ‘. Vl‘ .‘III. I ‘l' I 242 Ayoob, Massad F. "Small Helicopter Wings Are Effective for Law Enforcement." Law and Order (November 1974), pp. 74-80. Brandstatter, Arthur F. "Field Training in MSU's Program." Police Chief 29 (May l962):22. . ”The School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 18 (January-February“1958):564. Brown, William P. "The Police and the Academic World." Police Chief 32 (May 1965):8-12. Davis, Edward M. "Astro: Los Angeles Police Department Helic0pter Program.“ Police Chief 38 (November 197l):lO, 66-67. " Davis, Edward M, and Lyle Knowles. "A Critique of the Report: An Evaluation of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment." Police Chief 42 (June 1975): 22-29. Felkenes, George T. "Some Legal Aspects of the Use of (February 1969):28-30. Aircraft in Law Enforcement." Police Chief 36 . "The Right of Privacy: Police Surveillance by Aircraft." Journal of Police Science and Adminis- tration 1 (Sepfémber'1973)?315-4HT Gourley, G. Douglas. "Police Discipline." Journal of Hirsch, Holzer, Criminal Law, Criminology: and Police Science 41 (May-June21950):85-1UO. Gary E., and Lucius J. Riccio. "Measuring and Improving the Productivity of Police Patrol." Journal of Police Science and Administration 2 (June 1971)?i€9:842 Marc. "Police Productivity: A Conceptual Framework for Measurement and Improvement." Journal of Police Science and Administration 1 (December 1973): 159-67. Kelling, George L., and Tony Pate. "Response to the Davis- Knowles Critique." Police Chief 42 (June 1975): 32-38. Kinser, John G. "Crime Displacement." Police Chief 41 (August 1974):66-67. 243 Knowles, Lyle, and Joseph C. De Laduranty. "Performance Evaluation." Journal of Police Science and Adminis- tration 2 (March 1974):28;331 Krumrei, David P. "Up, Up and Away." Michigan Police Officer, Winter 1974, pp. 26-65. La Teef, A. Bari. "Helicopter Patrol in Law Enforcement-- An Evaluation." Journal of Police Science and Administration 2 (March 1874):62-65. Maltz, Michael D. "Evaluation of Air Mobility Programs." Police Chief 38 (April l97l):34-39. Misner, Gordon E. "Enforcement: Illusion of Security." The Nation 208 (April l969):488-90. Morgan, J. M., Jr., and R. Scott’Fosler. "Police Produc- tivity." Police Chief 41 (July 1974):28-30. Murphy, Patrick V. "A Commentary, The Davis-Knowles Observations." Police Chief 42 (June 1975):30. Rhead, Clifton et al. "The Psychological Assessment of Police Candidates." American Journal of Psychiatry 124 (May l968):1575-80. Smith, Alexander et a1. "Authoritarianism in College and Non-College Oriented Police." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 58 (March 1967): 128-32. Smith, Alexander et a1. "Authoritarianism in Police College Students and Non-Police College Students." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminologyand Police Science 58 (September21968)?440-43: Webster, John. "Police Task and Time Study." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 61 (January 1970)?94¥IOOi Whisenand, Paul M. "The Use of Helicopter by Police." Police Chief 36 (February l968):32. Wilson, James Q. "What Makes A Better Policeman." Atlantic Monthly 223 (March 1969):129-35. Newspaper Articles Frazier, Dick. "Eye in Sky COpter Here to Stay." Lansing State Journal, Sunday, July 7, 1974, Section B, p. 4. .A i‘lllllll‘ll-lllll'i in]! 244 Unpublished Materials Isaac, Albert Gerald. "A Study of the Motivational Forces Leading to a Police Career and their Relationship to Job Performance." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1972. Trojanowicz, Robert Chester. "A Comparison of the Behavioral Styles of Policemen and Social Workers." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Social Science, Michigan State University, 1969. :14l “{‘ nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|11|WW1|”WIWINWWIWIWHIIHWIHI 31293100471055 -_-_-_-_-_-_‘| __1._-_-_-_-_fl_