Io 11111111111 I1I1I11III'III'IIIII'I. II1I1I1I " .IIIII-1IIII'III‘II1'I " I1IIIIII'I I111 III1 111111rf'fl7'? ~ _‘_’¢-—’.$k-j> a I 1'. 11. 1 .11I1Ii'1 I 11 II' ‘ . .‘ 111 .‘ 1.III 11III1I1 111,111. I11‘II 1 .1 111I11|1 I IIII1I1111 1" I I . ‘ II, . 1 I l“: , 1 . _ ' - ‘I‘ .. 1. - 1 I. In ' I II“ ""I"II'"II'? .II‘I'I I."1II.I‘1 1IIIIII III I I H '1 IIIIIII I IIIIIII I; I‘II 11.1%.“ 111311111311 “II. I!“ .111 111 . ‘I 111IIIII1III1I11 11I1111II~1 II 11.11111 :1 11 ”111.11% IU111‘fqéhtl‘w flixfi 1.11" . . m . 1“; “,m‘r 111.1,. - 11.1.1I11111111 ‘ I 1. I" I 11I 1 IH1‘1‘11I11111'1III1 V "\ ‘I1I-,II1I‘II‘ “111111.21 II; I I III IhIII I‘ I I11 {inI 11'm1 ‘ ' 1‘ . ‘ I ”III '_ 'I 1 . ' ’..|1.11. I . ' I1I11IIIIHI 1'1 1’. ‘1'11‘1'1‘1y . ‘ W11 11.1.1111 "1I1I11I‘1I1I 11113JII111111111111111 '1 111III1'1I'1II.III.'.'1I'I. .111- 'I1 111I1IIII1II1.1;, 'IIII I“. I I I""-. ’1 NIH“ I ‘ ‘2 I ‘ I' “mm ".I'I' .1' I . ”‘-"'I.‘.!‘I‘."' . I ‘I‘. —‘ 11'III'1 I ' , . IIII.‘ . . w . y . 1 . ' . I ..I11~11..I I‘; r. 1 III" " .- II'I‘II II'I'II 11.1111..I 1111113.. III ‘II‘ ‘I I III. I «I ‘. .I » . '..“'~‘ 1 '1 . I . ' ‘ . "'I'.‘. I 1 I I 1 I ' .1111 ' ‘ ‘I ' n . III 1, II. . 1. 111'11I11-1'11 11111111“ 'I' II1I1111 IIIIIIII INIIIII I 'II’ IIIIIII II'IICII I 11II11111 1 . 1,.1. 111.1 1 1. I10 'qII1111IlI1I1‘1I11.1.1III I I1; MI I1If‘s'II.HI1.I11I'I . '1 II III" ‘I '1I'1I..I IV 1111111I111111III.111111.I111I1'1'1II‘1II1111111111I1I11111I1I 1.1'I1III11‘1I‘IIIIIIII I,“ “III I“ IIII1111I III; II ”I“ ‘ I I 11.1.11111111 .14.. 1'1'" 1¢1II . .1111'1- 11‘I11I1111I1 I1II111‘111II111I111111IIII1.1.111111111 III 1111? III III 1 I1 I . .1111 11 . 1 ”1111111 .1 I IIIII I11! . -I'.11v1.1I1 I11 1l111I111'11 II111I1II1111II1I‘II1-I111.1111111‘1I1111111111 1 1 1 .I1 .I .1 I. "I II III II IIIIIIIII II I 111 ‘1III'I. . . ' III‘III'IIIII 111111111111I11I11 I 11.11. I I 1 1.1-111.1(11'1111I11 1I1. 1IIIII1IIIII111III‘ 1 1II11I1 III“ “L‘IIII II-1‘11I1111 1 1 III 1111‘1111111111111II‘1111111‘111111111111111111111111I11111111 .III111I11111I1I1~ 111'1I11 I11I I1I.1IIII111111111I111'1.111MIIfi1111\" 1\ I31“ 'I’II. 111 1 1. 1111‘ 111111 '1. 1'1 11,11111111111I1111111I11-111 111 ‘ . o III‘lI-I “I‘III‘ .11II I ‘I‘III 1111II:111I11I.I1I: I‘H" IIUW {I‘m WE'JIPIIVE: [- z 1111, I 1 111II I In“ )I 11. II1‘1I1II11111111.1..1.11_.1.11,11II1 I111II III‘ II..IIII11111I'1.111111'1'I1 III II IIIIIIIIIIII I‘II" 'l111I111I1II1I'II I '1.:-'1I.1.1“1I'11\:l| 11I1I‘1I11'1111 I 1"111111'1111 IIIIIIIII I-‘IIIm 1 .- IIIIIIIL I I!!! l! 00 ”will”!!! L, 8 III I”!!! N I! H! W! L! 3 1293 will! TH €816 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "While on Routine Patrol ...": A Study of Police Use of Uncommitted Patrol Time presented by Gary W. Cordner has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master, of Science degree in Criminal Justice I . , . ' ’Lr ' Major professor Date December 15, 1978 0-7639 LIBRARY Michigan State Univ“ :7 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. "WHILE ON ROUTINE PATROL . . .": A STUDY OF POLICE USE OF UNCOMMITTED PATROL TIME By Gary w. Cordner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1978 ABSTRACT "WHILE ON ROUTINE PATROL . . .": A STUDY OF POLICE USE OF UNCOMMITTED PATROL TIME By Gary w. Cordner The primary purpose of the study was to determine how police officers use their free patrol time. Numerous studies have examined the call-for-service aspect of patrol workload, but few have focused -on the utilization of uncommitted time. The use of free patrol time was studied using both observa- tions and a survey in one medium-sized city, Lansing, Michigan. ~Data from the observations and survey were used to investigate free patrol time allocation and task emphasis within the framework of six research questions. The observations revealed that 39% of free patrol time in Lansing was devoted to patrolling, 39% to taking breaks, and 22% to handling self-initiated tasks and meeting other officers. Patrol time use and task emphasis varied considerably by time of day. Of the independent variables tested, squad assignment and years of police experience accounted for the most variance in reported patrol time use. Dedicated to my Mother, Evelyn w. Cordner and to the memory of my Father, Charles H. Cordner ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For permission to ride-along and survey in the Lansing Police Department, I gratefully thank Chief Richard Gleason, without whose support and cooperation this study would not have been possible. Sergeant William Skinner was also of considerable assistance in scheduling the various components of the study, and his efforts were greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank the patrol com- manders and supervisors for their patience, and the patrol officers of the Lansing Police Department for their participation in the research. The members of my thesis committee deserve special thanks for serving under trying circumstances. Ken Christian hounded me into finally writing it all down, and provided sound guidance throughout the effort. Jack Greene agreed to serve on very short notice, and offered many cogent comments nevertheless. John Hudzik helped keep me on track at all stages of the study with his incite- ful criticisms and suggestions. All three committee members were very supportive and willingly gave of their time, and their help and direction got me through. Two former faculty members of the School of Criminal Justice were members of my thesis committee before their departures, and contributed substantially to this study. Larry Hoover helped formu- late the idea behind the research, sponsored me with the Lansing iii Police Department, and generally encouraged and guided my efforts. Terry Dungworth made me think about my methodology, and taught me much about research and analysis. For advice and encouragement I would also like to thank Tim Bynum and Steve Edwards, two trusted colleagues. For his formative and continuing influence, I am especially indebted to Robert Sheehan. And finally, I wish to acknowledge the patience, loyalty, and support of family and friends over the years. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . Introduction Purpose . . Research Questions General Foundation Overview II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE General Patrol . . The Nature of Police Work. Patrol Effectiveness Research Emergent Patrol Strategies Use of Free Patrol Time Summary . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction . Research Questions Observation Component Sample . Measures Analysis Survey Component . Sample . Measures Analysis Summary . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . General Use of Free Patrol Time . Free Patrol and Time of Day . . Free Patrol and Organizational Sub- Unit Page vii Page Free Patrol and Years of Schooling. . . . 95 Free Patrol and Major Field of College Study . 98 Free Patrol and Years of Police Experience . . l02 Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . l04 The Nature of Police Patrol Work . . . . . 112 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll6 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . lZl Smmmy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . l2l Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . l2l Method . . . . . . . . . . . . l22 Results . . . . . . . l24 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . 125 Conclusions . . . . . . 126 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 vi Table 2. l .10 .ll .12 .13 LIST OF TABLES Classification and Disposition of Calls to the Complaint Desk of a Metropolitan Police Department During 82 Selected Hours in June and July 1961 Citizen Complaints Radioed to Patrol Vehicles, Syracuse Police Department, June 3-9, 1966 . Breakdown of Types of Runs Responded to by the Dispatch of a Patrol in Two Cities . Classification of Calls to the Newport, Kentucky Police Department . . . . . . . . Analysis of Patrol Tasks and Time Consumption . Analysis of Patrol Activity Reports from l8 California Cities . . . Distribution of Duty Hours for Patrol Officers of the Hampshire Constabulary . . . . Duty Summary by Main Task for Patrol Officers of the Bristol Constabulary . . Most Frequent Complaints Received by Police Officers in Small Towns . . . . . Police Officers' Expenditures of Uncommitted Time in Kansas City . . . Locations Police Watch Most Carefully in Small Towns. Types or Groups of People Police Watch Most Carefully in Small Towns . . . Reasons for Patrolling Certain Areas of Community Most Carefully in Small Towns . . . Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Disaggregated Summary of Observed Use of Patrol Time. vii Page 20 22 24 25 27 29 31 32 33 41 42 43 43 64 7O Table 4.2 4.3 .10 .11 ##5## L0 4.15 4.16 Summary of Observed Use of Free Patrol Time Calls Radioed to Patrol Vehicles: A Comparison with Wilson's 1966 Syracuse Study . . . . Calls Responded to by Patrol: A Comparison with Bercal's 1970 Study of Detroit and St. Louis Patrol Tasks: A Comparison with Webster's 1970 Study . . . . . . . . . . Patrol Activity Time: A Comparison with the O'Neill and Bloom 1972 California Study Police Use of Free Patrol Time: A Comparison with the 1974 Kansas City Study . . . . . Observed Approximate Speed of Patrolling Observed Locations in Which Officers Chose to Patrol. Observed Use of Free Patrol Time by Time of Day Observed Use of Free Patrol Time by Time of Day, Using the Kansas City Categories . . Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks During Different Shifts . Observed Approximate Speed of Patrolling by Time of Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observed Locations in Which Officers Chose to Patrol, by Time of Day Observed Use of Free Patrol Time by Squads . Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Organizational Sub-Unit . . Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Organizational Sub-Unit . . . . Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Years of Schooling Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officers' Years of Schooling viii Page 71 74 75 77 77 80 82 83 85 87 88 9O 91 92 94 95 97 99 Table 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Major Fields of College Study Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officers' Major Fields of College Study Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Years of Police Experience Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officers' Years of Police Experience Multiple Regression Analysis for Reported Emphasis Given to Different Patrol Tasks . . Multiple Regression Analysis for Reported Use of Free Patrol Time . . . . . . Observed Nature of Police Patrol Work in Lansing ix Page 101 102 104 105 106 110 114 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction This research is focused on the behavior of police officers. More specifically, the manner in which police patrol officers use their uncommitted time is examined. Uncommitted patrol time (also referred to as free patrol time) is that portion of a police patrol officer's time that is not accounted for by specific duties assigned by the police command and control staff or requested directly by the public. Free patrol time does not include time spent "handling" calls for service, adminis- trative details, or logistical necessities (such as refueling the police car). What is included within the realm of uncommitted patrol time is that time during which officers are essentially free to choose what to do. There are, of course, constraints upon the use of free patrol time. Patrol officers are ordinarily assigned to a patrol area, or beat, within which they must remain, unless directed else- where. What they may do within the beat is restricted by rules and regulations that prohibit behaviors such as sleeping, drinking alcoholic beverages, or turning off the police radio. Free patrol behavior is also constrained by the law, which limits the means available to the police for intruding or intervening in people's lives. Finally, the amount and duration of free patrol time is dependent on the extent of the specific duties that arise and must be "handled," as free patrol time basically fills the gaps between these calls-for-service from the public and administratively assigned details. Despite the constraints upon the use of uncommitted patrol time noted above, patrol officers are left with a great deal of freedom in deciding what to do while not answering calls, performing administrative details, or disposing of logistical necessities. The guidance provided patrol officers with regard to the use of uncom- mitted patrol time is primarily negative; officers are told of boundaries they cannot cross, of time periods during which they are not free to choose their behaviors, and of behaviors they may not exhibit.‘ Little if any positive guidance, however, is provided to inform officers what to do during their free patrol time. In the phraseology of police work, how officers use their free patrol time is "up to their own discretion." The magnitude of uncommitted patrol time underscores its importance. The amount of patrol time that is uncommitted or free certainly varies by jurisdiction, but seems to average to about one-half.2 That is, police patrol officers spend about 50% of their time on free patrol. Given that the patrol function accounts for the majority of police personnel in most jurisdictions,3 free patrol time clearly represents an important and costly expenditure for police agencies and local governments. Until recently, the practice of granting officers vast free- dom and providing them little positive guidance concerning the use of uncommitted patrol time was not seriously questioned. The 1967 report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admin- istration of Justice, however, did begin to raise the issue. Preventive patrol--the continued scrutiny of the community by visible and mobile policemen--is univer- sally thought of as the best method of controlling crime that is available to the police. However, the most effective way of deploying and employing a department's patrol force is a subject about which deplorably little is known. Preventive patrol (also called random patrol or routine patrol) is the activity most often identified as what officers do during their free patrol time. Though nowhere precisely defined or described, conventional wisdom has assumed that preventive police patrol prevents crimes by giving the impression of police omni- presence, and leads to the interception of crimes in progress. A 1971 Rand report argued, however, that Between one-third and one-half of all patrol time is devoted to preventive patrol and the police cannot spec- ify with confidence what effect it has on crime and criminal apprehensions. In such a situation, police administrators cannot know if resources are being allo- cated effectively. Analytical and experimental studies are needed and could result in very substantial changes and improvement in the use of police manpower. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment was just such a study.6 Reported in 1974, this experiment compared three groups of five patrol beats each--one with no preventive patrol, one with normal levels of preventive patrol, and one with additional pre- ventive patrol. The results of the experiment indicated that in terms of crime rates, response times to calls, citizen satisfaction and feelings of security, and other indicators, the amount of pre- ventive patrol made no difference. As a result of the Kansas City experiment, some police departments are considering either eliminating or dramatically altering preventive patrol. One suggested technique is the replace- ment of traditional preventive patrol (and thus free patrol time) with some sort of directed, planned activity.7 Another approach is the upgrading of traditional patrol with the provision of crime and community information to patrol officers for their use as they deem appropriate.8 In general, the trend is toward regarding free patrol time as a valuable resource that can be put to better use than through traditional preventive patrol.9 Departments still using traditional patrol are increasingly being asked to justify the activity, and these agencies are finding it difficult to do so. In the recent rush of research, exposition, and new pro- grams, however, an important factor in traditional preventive patrol has been neglected. As noted earlier, preventive patrol is not a clearly defined activity, and patrol officers are afforded great latitude in the use of their free or uncommitted time. Within the context of traditional preventive patrol, what do officers do during their free patrol time? How do they spend that one—half of their time that is uncommitted? The answers are not well known. Such information is needed, though, for evaluating the effectiveness of traditional patrol and competing strategies. Purpose The primary purpose of this study is to determine how police officers use their uncommitted, or free, patrol time. Follow- ing from this basic descriptive task, the relationship of such vari- ables as organizational assignment, education, and length of police experience to the manner in which different officers patrol is examined. Finally, the characterization of routine patrol developed from this study is considered within the context of other analyses of the nature of police work. Very little detailed research has been conducted concerning what police officers actually do while patrolling. A recent report has noted that "although police publications and patrol handbooks have extolled the virtue of visible patrol in preventing crime and deterring and apprehending criminals, scant attention has been paid to the specific tactics an officer might use while patrolling."10 This thesis attempts to satisfy some of the need for information about how police officers actually patrol. Research Questions Because this study is exploratory in nature, with little previous research on which to rely, general research questions are utilized, rather than detailed hypotheses. The research questions guiding the study are listed below, along with a brief discussion of the rationale underlying each question. 1. How do police patrol officers spend their uncommitted, or free, patrol time? This question identifies the basic descriptive purpose of the study. About one-half of patrol time is free, and very little research has examined how police officers use that time. For this study, information will be collected concerning police allocation of free patrol time, including activities undertaken, activity dur- ation, and speed, roadway, and location of patrolling. Information will also be collected concerning the reported emphasis given to various tasks during free patrol time. 2. Does the use of free patrol time vary by time of day? Police patrol work is a 24-hour-a-day operation, and the use of free patrol time may not be the same at different times of the day. Patrol work is performed in the community, and patterns of activity in the community certainly vary by time of day. For example, the use of the streets and other public areas at 5 a.m. is not the same as at 5 p.m. Differences such as this in the behavior of the public would likely be reflected in differences in police use of free patrol time. An obvious illustration is that police officers might spend some portion of their free patrol time at 5 a.m. checking the doors and windows of business establishments, since at that time they are closed and susceptible to burglary. At 5 p.m., however, when the businesses are open, the same sort of security checks would not be performed by police officers during their free patrol time. General variation between shifts in police activity and police use of patrol time has been noted by Rubinstein}1 He found in Philadelphia that the daytime shift was characterized by report-taking and administrative details, the evening shift by dis- putes and crimes in progress, and the night shift by considerable free time, much of which was spent on nonpolice-related activities. 3. Does the use of free patrol time vary among organizational sub-units (patrol squads)? Patrol officers are ordinarily assigned to squads, and the squads remain intact as they rotate shifts. The use of free patrol time might differ, then, between squads, because of characteristics of the officers comprising them, because of a squad socialization process, because of the influence of squad supervisors and com- manders, or because of a combination of these factors. A study of one police department found that opinions about a new directed patrol strategy differed substantially between squads, even after such personal characteristics as age, education, and experience were statistically controlled.12 In a recent article, Guyot has suggested that many police studies have been compromised by their failure to address intra-organizational differences between units, and she argues that a police department is not a "sack of potatoes."13 Squad assignment seems likely to be an important factor in police use of free patrol time. 4. What is the relationship between years of schooling and police use of free patrol time? In 1967 the President's Crime Commission recommended that 14 police officers be increasingly college-educated, and in the following decade the average educational attainment of police offi- 15 The consequences of this change in the cers rose considerably. composition of police departments have not been clear, and the desirability of college education for police officers is still loudly disputed. In general, however, it seems important to con- sider educational attainment as a variable possibly influencing police behavior and patrol time utilization. A large number of studies have been conducted using police officer educational attain- ment as a variable, with mixed and inconclusive results. For a review of these studies and a report of research that found behav- ioral differences between college-educated and non-college police officers, see Christian (1976).16 5. -What is the relationship between field of college study and police use of free patrol time? In addition to considering the duration of the educational experience, this study also includes information concerning police Officers' major fields of college study. Several authors have emphasized the complexity of the educational variable, and the need to include more than simply years of schooling in any analysis of 17 The nature of the subject the effect of education on policing. matter studied in college is one such additional dimension of the educational variable. 6. What is the relationship between yeras of police experience and police use of free patrol time? The importance of years of police experience was demon- strated in 1967 by Niederhoffer in his study of police cynicism.]8 Among his findings was one that police officer cynicism increased until officers had about eight years of experience, after which cynicism decreased slightly and then leveled off. In his study of police patrol work, Rubinstein found that officers learn to patrol on the job, and that older officers have more knowledge of their beats and clientele than do younger officers.19 In another study, years of police experience was found to have a strong relationship with opinions about the effectiveness of a directed patrol strategy (more experienced officers credited the strategy with less appre- hension and crime prevention effectiveness).20 Although these studies pertain more to police attitudes and knowledge than to actual behavior, they suggest that years of experience may be an important variable with respect to police use of free patrol time. General Foundation This study is based upon three primary assumptions, which can be stated as follows: 1. Police officers, in the general performance of their duties, exercise broad discretion. 2. A substantial segment of police patrol time is uncommitted. 3. Police officers are granted considerable freedom in determining how to use uncommitted patrol time. The general proposition that police work is discretion-laden is now widely accepted. The President's Commission reported in 1967 that . law enforcement policy is made by the policeman. For policemen cannot and do not arrest all the offenders they encounter. It is doubtful that they arrest most of 10 them. A criminal code, in practice, is not a set of specific instructions to policemen but a more or less rough map of the territory in which policemen work. How an individual policeman moves around that territory depends largely on his personal discretion. Similarly, a report on policing issued in 1972 by the American Bar Association stated that "the nature of the responsibilities cur- rently placed upon the police requires that the police exercise a 22 great deal of discretion." And the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals concluded in 1973 that "the police in the United States exercise considerable discretion."23 These reports were based upon or have been supported by a large body of literature that agrees with the conclusion that the police in America exercise broad discretion?4 The fact that the police exercise discretion essentially means that they are granted the authority to make choices, and that options are available from which to choose. Much of the discussion concerning police discretion has centered on the decision to arrest, but police decisions concerning manpower allocation and distribu- tion, strategies and tactics, methods of suspect processing, and many other matters are also discretionary. How to use free patrol time is one such discretionary choice presented to police officers. As noted earlier, approximately 50% of patrol time is uncommitted. Also, organizational direction pro- vided patrol officers is more in the form of prohibitions than posi- tive guidance. Other than being warned against contravening a long list of rules and regulations, officers are left on their own to figure out how to patrol. One recent survey found that "in the 11 typical department, officers are given total discretion with regard to how they use preventive patrol time."25 The general foundation for this study, then, is that police patrol work is a highly individualized and discretionary activity that provides its practitioners with the opportunity for consider- able self-direction. The choices made by officers, as reflected by how they Choose to spend their free patrol time, are the subject of the study. Overview In the next chapter a review of the literature is presented. Because little research has been directed at the specific issue under consideration in this thesis (police use of free patrol time), the literature review ranges across several closely related topics pertinent to the study. These include the general police patrol literature, analyses of the nature of police work, recent police patrol research, and emergent police patrol strategies. The design of the study is elaborated in Chapter III. In addition to the description of the methodology used, a number of research issues relating to the study are discussed. In Chapter IV the analysis of the results of the study is presented. And in Chapter V, conclusions, recommendations, and proposals for future research are offered. FOOTNOTES-—CHAPTER I 1American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal xJustice, The Urban Police Function (New York: American Bar Associa- tion, 1972), p. 159; Michael Banton, The Policeman inithe Community (New York: Basic Books, 1964), p. 143; Egon Bittner, The Functions of the Police in Modern Society (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 61; John H. McNamara, "Uncertainties in Police Work: The Relevance of Police Recruits' Backgrounds and Training," in The Police: Six Sociological Essays, ed. David J. Bordua (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), pp. 178-186. 2J. F. Elliott, Interception Patrol (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1973), p. 6; George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman, and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas CityiPreventive Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report (Washington, D.C.: Police Founda- tion, 1974), p. 500. 3William G. Gay, Theodore H. Schell, and Stephen Schack, Improvinngatrol Productivity: Routine Patrol (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977), p. l; 6. Douglas Gourley, Patrol Administration, 2nd ed. (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1974), p. viii; Theodore H. Schell, Don H. Overly, Stephen Schack, and Linda L. Stabile, Traditional Preventive Patrol (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 1. 4President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra- tion of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (New York: Avon Books, 1968), p. 295. 5James S. Kakalik and Sorrel Wildhorn, Aids to Decision- making in Police Patrol (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1971), p. 73. 6Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experi- ment: A Technical Report. 7Gary W. Cordner and Dennis W. Lund, Patrol Emphasis Pro- ject: Final Evaluation Report (Pontiac, MI: Pontiac Police Depart- ment, 1978); Gay et al., Improving Patrol Productivity: Routine Patrol; Paul F. Guidone and John Gervasio, "Directed Deterrent Patrol: The Small Department's Approach," The Police Chief (February 1978): 35-37. 12 13 8John E. Boydstun and Michael E. Sherry, San Diego Com- munity Profile: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, T975); Tony Pate, Robert A. Bowers, and Ron Parks, Three Approaches to Criminal Apprehension in Kansas City: An Evaluation Report (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1976). 9Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program: Program Imple- mentation Guide (Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1978). 10Gay et al., Improving Patrol Productivity: Routine Patrol, p. 11. nJonathan Rubinstein, City Police (New York: Ballantine, 1973), pp. 63-68. 12Cordner and Lund, Patrol Emphasis Project: Final Evalu- ation Report, p. 48. 13Dorothy Guyot, "Police Departments Under Social Science Scrutiny," Journal of Criminal Justice 5, 2 (Summer 1977): 105-118. 14 Society. 15Larry T. Hoover, Police Educational Characteristics and Curricula (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975). 16Kenneth E. Christian, "A Comparison of the Behavioral Styles of College-Educated and Non-College Police Officers," Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. 17Larry T. Hoover, "Evaluating the Impact of Education Upon Police Performance," paper presented to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 1976; John K. Hudzik, "College Education for Police: Problems in Measuring Component and Extraneous Vari- ables," Journal of Criminal Justice 6, 1 (Spring 1978): 69-81; and Charles R. Swanson, "An Uneasy Look at College Education and the Police Organization," Journal of Criminal Justice 5, 4 (Winter 1977): 311-320. President's Commission, The Challenge of Crime in a Free 18Arthur Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society (New York: Anchor, 1967), p. 239. 19Rubinstein, City Police. 20Cordner and Lund, Patrol Emphasis Project: Final Evalu- ation Report, p. 48. 14 21President's Commission, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, p. 75. 22American Bar Association, The Urban Police Function, p. 116. 23National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 22. 24Banton, The Policeman in the Community; Bittner, The Functions of the Police in Modern Society; Kenneth Culp Davis, Police Discretion (St. Paul, MN: West, 1975); Herman Goldstein, "Police Discretion: The Ideal Versus the Real," Public Adminis- tration Review 23 (September 1963); Joseph Goldstein, "Police Dis- cretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Process: Low-Visibility Deci- sions in the Administration of Justice," Yale Law Journal 69 (1960); Wayne R. LaFave, Arrest: The Decision to Take a Spgpect into Custody (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965); Peter K. Manning, Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1977); William Ker Muir, Jr., Police: Streetcorner Politicians (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977); Jerome SkoTnick, Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966); James Q. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1968); and others. 25Gay et al., Improving Patrol Productivity: Routine Patrol, p. 5. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter the literature pertaining to five closely related topics is reviewed. The topics are general patrol, the nature of police work, patrol effectiveness research, emergent patrol strategies, and police use of free patrol time. The paucity of material relating to the final topic necessitates inclusion of the previous four. General Patrol Webster's Dictionary defines patrol as "the action of traversing a district or beat or of going the rounds along a chain of guards for the purpose of observation or of the maintenance of 26 security." This definition comfortably includes the activity referred to as preventive, routine, or random patrol in this study.27 In the general police literature, however, patrol is often meant to include all of the workload of patrol officers. In this sense patrol means preventive patrol, performing administrative details, and handling calls for service. This section of the literature review is limited to material concerning preventive, routine, random patrol. The basic purposes of traditional patrol are described in the following two statements. 15 16 'To patrol an assigned beat, observing people, structures, lots, fields, and vehicles, meanwhile appre- hending any wrongdoers sighted and assuring that the public peace is preserved.28 The purpose of patrol is to distribute the police in sufficient numbers and geographical spread to eliminate or reduce the opportunity for crime and to increase the likeli- hood that the police can apprehend and arrest an offender when a crime does take place.29 Essentially, patrol is designed to deter crime by giving the impression of police omnipresence, or at least by raising the possi- bility that a police officer could be just around every corner. Also, patrol is expected to lead to the interception of crimes in progress, and to the discovery of other indications of public dis- order. In order to pursue these purposes, patrol officers are expected to move about their assigned areas (beats, districts, patrol areas) while watching for suspicious or unusual circumstances. Chapman has stated that effective patrol . . will require that uniformed personnel aggressively patrol every cranny of their jurisdiction seeking the unusual, the out-of—place, the peculiar. Patrol work requires that a man develop a high index of healthy skepticism and yet be able to identify and comprehend *plausible explanations readily. This is a difficult job.30 Some patrol literature of a training nature does contain suggestions concerning how to seek the unusual, give the impression of omnipresence, and develop healthy skepticism. Adams recommends getting out of the car frequently, driving along all streets in the 31 heat, making frequent turns, and generally driving slowly. Gilston and Podell stress getting to know the beat, including activity 17 32 variations by location and time of day. Shanahan, along with most other authors, cautions against developing predictable habits and patterns, and recommends a combination of conspicuous and incon- spicuous patrol.33 The most detailed set of instructions available for patrol officers was presented by Richard L. Holcomb some 30 years ago.34 Among his suggestions for effective patrolling were the following. do not follow an obvious schedule back-track step into doorways know the patrol area (including protective devices in use, location of valuable stock, etc.) get acquainted with the public pay close attention to motor vehicles look up, observe above the first floor look closely at doors and windows observe individuals look for people paying too much attention to you, and for people avoiding you note persons who are loitering With the exception of the Holcomb book, most patrol texts are devoted much more extensively to the handling of calls and self- initiated activities than to actual patrolling. This is due, probably, to the common sense nature of police patrol. Instructions about how to patrol are largely guides to walking, driving, and observing, and anyone old enough to be a police officer presumably already has considerable experience at such activities. The shortage of literature concerning how to patrol is reflected in police training. While police recruits may receive substantial instruction in the law, defensive tactics, human relations, social science, or what have you, patrol is largely learned on the job. James Q. Wilson, among others, has noted that 18 35 and graduates police work in general is learned via apprenticeship, of police training academies are frequently told by their more experienced colleagues to "forget all that stuff you learned in 36 school." Jonathan Rubinstein found in Philadelphia that Each policeman must teach himself to see what he is looking at, just as he must teach himself to patrol. Older men help him out occasionally with hints and tips, but the skills he acquires are discovered by accident, by example, and by making mistakes. It is not a painless learning process, either for the policeman or for the people he encounters.37 Rubinstein further points out that patrol car driving, beat geography, and other basic matters are learned on the job, and are largely self- taught. Patrol, then, involves police officers moving about assigned areas, in both conspicuous and inconspicuous fashion, looking for problems needing their attention. The activity also presumably deters crime, and prepares officers to respond to citizen requests. It is learned primarily on the job, rather than through an academy training process. Chapman optimistically stated the rationale for police patrol in 1964: Patrol has always been patrol. It will always be patrol. The concept and objectives of patrol will remain fundamentally static because there is no more effective machinery for achieving the goals and objectives of law 38 enforcement than through the medium of uniformed patrol. The Nature of Police Work The primary purpose of this study is to determine how police officers spend their free patrol time. One use to which that deter- mination will be put is a more accurate and complete characterization 19 of the nature of police patrol work. A number of studies have pre- viously analyzed the work done by police departments, and primarily by patrol, in order to make statements about the crime—related, or law enforcement-related, nature of policing. A study reported in 1965 by Cumming, Cumming, and Edell examined the day-to-day activities of policemen as they related to social integration and social control.39 Incoming calls to the headquarters of a metropolitan police agency were categorized, as well as the police response to the calls. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2.1. It should be noted that calls for sup- port were the focus of the study, so that calls about things (traffic violations, losses or thefts, fallen power lines, etc.) were largely ignored. Also, and this is a recurring characteristic of these studies, the basis of the analysis was calls coming into the police complaint desk, rather than the complete workload of patrol officers. It should be recognized from the outset that police-initiated activities and routine patrol were not examined. The authors reached the following conclusions from their study: More than one-half of the calls coming routinely to the police complaint desk, and perhaps to detectives, appear to involve calls for help and some form of support for personal or interpersonal problems. To about three- quarters of these appeals, a car is sent. When the police- man reaches the scene, the data suggest that he either guides the complainant to someone who can solve his problem or tries to solve it himself. To do this, he must often provide support, either by friendly sympathy, by feeding authoritative information into the troubled situation, or by helping consensual resolution to take place.40 20 TABLE 2.1.--Classification and Disposition of Calls to the Complaint Desk of a Metropolitan Police Department During 82 Selected Hours in June and July 1961. Number Percent Percent Type of Call of of Car Calls Total Sent TOTAL 801 100.0 Calls included in analysis 652 81.4 1. Calls about "things" 255 31.8 2. Calls for support 397 49.6 76.8 Persistent personal problems 230 28.7 79.1 a. Health services 81 10.1 86.4 b. Children's problems 83 10.4 85.5 c. Incapacitated people 33 4.1 75.8 d. Nuisances 33 4.1 48.5 Periodic personal problems 167 20.9 73.7 a. Disputes 63 7.9 50.8 b. Violence 43 5.4 95.3 c. Protection 29 3.6 79.3 d. Missing persons 11 1.4 81.8 e. Youth's behavior 21 2.6 85.7 Calls excluded from analysis 149 18.6 Information only 33 4.1 Not police business 28 3.5 Feedback calls 88 11.0 Adapted from Elaine Cumming, Ian Cumming, and Laura Edell, "Policeman as PhilOSOpher, Guide and Friend," Social Problems 12 1965 . 21 James Q. Wilson used different categories in his analysis of police activity in Syracuse, New York.41 Wilson based his study on citizen complaints radioed to patrol vehicles, which is comparable to the "percent car sent" aspect of the study by Cumming, Cumming, and Edell. The complaints were grouped into the categories of information gathering, service, order maintenance, and law enforce- ment. The information gathering category included calls for which the police function was primarily clerical, such as reports of crimes with no suspects. Calls for miscellaneous services that could be and often are provided by other agencies were included in the service category. The order maintenance category consisted of calls involving disputes of various kinds, and calls that potentially afforded opportunities for interrupting crimes in progress or investigating suspicious circumstances were classified as law enforcement. The results of the analysis, including examples of the kinds of calls encountered, are shown in Table 2.2. Wilson concluded from his analysis that the police role was defined by order maintenance, and that "handling situations“ rather than “enforcing the law" best describes policing.42 He noted that order maintenance calls are strictly speaking crime- and enforcement-related, and that patrol officers frequently make arrests as a result of such calls, but argued that the principal frame of reference brought to order maintenance calls by patrol officers is one of situation-handling and dispute-resolution. It should be noted that numbers of calls from citizens, rather than time expended, 22 TABLE 2.2.--Citizen Complaints Radioed to Patrol Vehicles, Syracuse Police Department, June 3-9, 1966 (based on a one-fifth sample of a week's calls). Calls Number Percent Information Gathering 69 22.1 Book and check 2 Get a report 67 Service 117 37.5 Accidents, illnesses, ambulance calls 42 Animals 8 Assist a person 1 Drunk person 8 Escort vehicle 3 Fire, power line, or tree down 26 Lost or found person or property 23 Property damage 6 Order Maintenance 94 30.1 Gang disturbance 50 Family trouble 23 Assault, fight 9 Investigation 8 Neighbor trouble 4 Law Enforcement 32 10.3 Burglary in progress 9 Check a car 5 Open door, window 8 Prowler 6 Make an arrest 4 TOTALS ‘12 100 0 Adapted from James Q. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Cbmmunities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1968), p. 18. 23 were used as the basis of the analysis, and that aspects of patrol workload other than calls were not examined. Another study of citizen calls to the police was reported by Bercal in 1970.43 He reported, first of all, that in Detroit, New York, and St. Louis the portions of calls handled without dis- patching a patrol unit were 36%, 40%, and 21%, respectively. Bercal then defined "crime" to include all Part I and Part II offenses, and found that in Detroit only 16% of all citizen calls to the police were crime-related. He concluded that "as these data indicate, to study the police in the context of a para-military organization primarily concerned with the control and prevention of crime focuses k."44 Bercal's con- attention on but a small portion of police wor clusion seriously misrepresents his data, however. A proper statement would have been that crime-related matters comprise a relatively small portion of citizen calls to the police. But citizen calls to the police do not translate directly into police workload, as Bercal's own data clearly indicate. Between one-fifth and two-fifths of citizen calls do not result in the dispatching of a patrol unit, and thus do not become part of patrol workload. These calls represent some work for the police communications unit, but not for any other elements of the agency. In Bercal's article, other reported data vividly demonstrate the danger of characterizing police work solely on the basis of citizen calls. The nature of calls for which patrol units were dispatched in Detroit and St. Louis was analyzed, and the results are presented in Table 2.3. The figures for runs responded to by 24 TABLE 2.3.--Breakdown of Types of Runs Responded to by the Dispatch of a Patrol in Two Cities. Percent of Calls Dispatched Category Detroit St. Louis Predatory and Illegal Service Crimes 38.7 51.0 Crime, prowler, alarms, recovery of property Public Disorder 34.8 27.2 Family trouble, parking, missing person Crimes of Negligence 12.0 9.6 Accidents - vehicles Service 14.5 12.2 Health, safety Adapted from Thomas Bercal, "Calls for Police Assistance," American Behavioral Scientist 13 (1970). patrol units are certainly more representative of patrol workload than figures for all calls for citizens and, as can be seen, the crime-related portion of the workload is much greater than sug- gested by the earlier 16% figure. Bercal does not define his categories in any greater detail than indicated in Table 2.3, and he inexplicably interprets the table as evidence that the majority of runs are noncrime-related. He also fails to address the issues of time allocation and patrol workload other than responding to citizen calls. 25 A 1971 study reported a finding almost identical to Bercal's analysis of citizen calls to the police in Detroit. Based on calls to the Chicago Police Department over a 28-day period, Reiss reported that 83% of the workload was noncriminal in nature.45 The most recent study of calls to a police department from citizens reported findings largely consistent with its predecessors, although the law enforcement-related portion of the workload was somewhat higher than previously found.46 Lilly analyzed a four- month sample of calls to the Newport, Kentucky Police Department (18,012 calls were included). His categorization of the calls is summarized in Table 2.4. TABLE 2.4.--C1assification of Calls to the Newport, Kentucky Police Department. Category Percent Information requests 60.0 Traffic matters 12.9 Juvenile problems 5.4 Protection and assistance 3.9 Nuisance calls 3.7 Violence 2.8 Family trouble 2.8 Health services 2.4 Prowlers 2.3 Thefts 1.9 Unclassifiable 1.0 Missing persons 0.9 Vice 0.1 Adapted from J. Robert Lilly, "What Are the Police Now Doing?" Journal of Police Science and Administration 6, 1 (March 1978), p. 56. 26 Lilly further reported that police units were dispatched in response to 32% of the calls; he classified all of these as law enforcement-related. That is, the dispatching of a patrol unit in response to a citizen call was used by Lilly as the definition of law enforcement-relatedness. This is an example of the kinds of definitional problems involved in characterizing various police tasks. Wilson, in his Syracuse study, dealt only with calls in response to which a police unit was dispatched, and used a law enforcement category in his classification. Whereas Lilly classified 100% of dispatches as law enforcement-related, however, Wilson cate- gorized only 10.3% of dispatches as pertaining to law enforcement. The Cumming, Wilson, Bercal, and Lilly studies all shared two fundamental weaknesses in addition to definitional ambiguities. Each study was based on numbers of calls, rather than time allocated to the calls, which serves in general to over-emphasize minor matters at the expense of serious ones. In this kind of frequency analysis, a barking dog call and a murder call each count equally, despite the fact that the latter would consume considerably more patrol time than the former. Also, the four studies dealt only with patrol workload originating from citizen calls to the police, and thus did not incorporate tasks initiated by police officers, administrative details, general patrolling, and other elements of patrol work in their analyses. In essence, the studies sought to analyze the nature of patrol work without examining approximately one-half of patrol time. The two basic shortcomings of these studies should be 27 kept in mind when interpreting the findings and drawing conclusions from them about the nature of patrol work. The first analysis of police workload to incorporate both police-initiated activities and time spent performing different tasks was published by Webster in 1970.47 This study utilized the dispatch records (which included police—initiated activity) of an unidentified city of 400,000 population. A11 recorded tasks for a 54-week period were included in the analysis. In all, almost 600,000 "assignments" were included, consuming slightly more than 300,000 hours of patrol officer time. Webster's findings are summarized in Table 2.5. TABLE 2.5.--Analysis of Patrol Tasks and Time Consumption. Consumed Frequency % Time % Crimes against Persons 2.82 2.96 Crimes against Property 13.76 14.82 Traffic 7.16 9.20 On-View (Police-Initiated) 19.68 9.10 Social Service 17.27 13.70 Administration 39.28 50.19 Adapted from John A. Webster, "Police Task and Time Study," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 61 (T970), p. 95. 28 The feature of Table 2.5 that distinguishes it from the previous analyses is the category of administration, which accounts for 50% of the consumed patrol time. Within this category Webster included such activities as "coffee breaks, meals, community rela- tions, taking reports, running errands, attending court, serving warrants, and performing as police technicians."48 Although one could certainly quarrel with some of the tasks included within the category, it should be recognized that much of this aspect of police patrol workload was ignored by the previously cited studies. Webster reaches an apparently incorrect conclusion based on his data. From the figures shown in Table 2.5, he states that patrol officers spend 50% of their time on administrative tasks. In fact, the correct conclusion would be that, of patrol time con- sumed by recorded assignments, patrol officers spend 50% on administrative tasks. The distinction to be made is that Webster's data did not include free patrol time during which officers were not engaged in specific recorded tasks. From manpower figures presented in the article, it is possible to estimate the portion of patrol time not accounted for by the study.49 A very conservative estimate (almost certainly an under-estimate) is that 28% of total patrol time was ignored. This figure was computed using a "time-off factor" of 2.0 to account for days off, sick leave, vacation time, training time, and other kinds of time away from the job. As the average time-off factor is probably closer to about 1.7, the computation provides a cautious estimate. WCOM Unwo MUEBO UUHDmU KUDZH QQMI 30 H > 020...." HD>0 UM‘Bm llllllllllllll WWW») fi "00532 HHDU OZ .MMMWIF .%W6Hfld4 1: “mass: 1114411 29 Patrol time was accounted for, though only minimally described, in a 1972 article by O'Neill and Bloom.50 In this study 'data was collected on police workload via a detailed activity report form that a sample of patrol officers completed during their tours of duty. All of the officers sampled worked for police departments in California serving cities in the 25,000 - 100,000 population range. A 1968 study included 17 such cities, while a 1970 study was limited to one city. A summary of the findings of the two studies is presented in Table 2.6. TABLE 2.6.-- Analysis of Patrol Activity Reports from 18 California Cities. 1968 Study 1970 Study Percent Percent Administrative Duties 18.0 14.8 Non-Duty Activities 10.6 11.7 Traffic 12.8 11.2 Part I and Part II Crimes 4.7 4.9 Secondary Police Activities 13.2 21.5 Patrol Activities 37.3 33.7 General Services to the Public 3.4 2.8 Adapted from Michael E. O'Neill and Carlton J. Bloom, "The Field Officer: Is He Really Fighting Crime?" The Police Chief 39 (February 1972), p. 32. 30 The activity categories that were used in the O'Neill and Bloom study were not defined in the article, but sub-categories were listed that illustrate the classification system. The administrative duties category included report writing, squad meetings and roll calls, equipment checking and service, and miscellaneous tasks per- formed in headquarters by field officers. Activities such as coffee breaks, meals, and personal relief were included in the non-duty category. Traffic-related activities were those involving citations. accidents, intersection control, and drunk driving. The Part I and Part II crimes category included those offenses as defined in the Uniform Crime Reports, with the exception of intoxication and dis- turbance of the peace. These latter two offenses, along with activities relating to field interrogations and juvenile problems, were included in the secondary police activities category. The patrol activities category consisted of inspectional and roving sub- categories. Finally, such matters as lost persons, transportation problems, messenger and escort services, and other assistance to individuals were classified as general services to the public. As can be seen in Table 2.6, patrol activities accounted for 37.3% and 33.7% of patrol time in the 1968 and 1970 studies, respectively. This is the general element of patrol time over- looked by Webster, as well as others. O'Neill and Bloom reported that, for the 1968 study, 71.7% of the patrol activities time was spent "roving, with the remainder being applied to "inspectional" tasks. For the 1970 study, 93.8% of patrol activities time was reportedly spent roving. 31 A study similar in design to that of O'Neill and Bloom, based on analysis of daily records maintained by patrol officers, was recently conducted within the Hampshire Constabulary in England.51 Primarily an exploratory study aimed at developing useful categories of police tasks, this effort focused on the activities of nine patrol officers for a four-week period. The categories and findings of the analysis are presented in Table 2.7. TABLE 2.7.--Distribution of Duty Hours for Patrol Officers of the Hampshire Constabulary. Activity Survey Percentages Station Duties 35 Outside Duties 4 Task Work 25 Response to the public Crime Road traffic accidents Road traffic offenses Miscellaneous enquiries «hamm mooum Preventive Patrol 36 Addapted from B. Miller and A. Weeks, "Police Programme Account," Police Research Bulletin 20 (Autumn, 1972), p. 30. Using a patrol activity report form largely based on the Hampshire Constabulary study, an expanded workload analysis was con- 52 ducted in the Bristol Constabulary, also in England. All police personnel assigned to the organization completed the activity sheets. 32 The findings from the analysis of patrol officer time for a 280-day period are presented in Table 2.8. The figures are generally com- parable to those from the Hampshire Constabulary, with the exception of the percentages for Station/Inside Duties. This difference could easily be attributable to a definitional change or to the small sample size of the Hampshire study. The findings are also roughly comparable to those of O'Neill and Bloom. These studies indicate that preventive patrol time accounts for a substantial portion of the workload, directly crime-related tasks do not, and miscellaneous activities such as administration, abstractions, and non-duty pursuits consume considerable time. TABLE 2.8.--Duty Summary by Main Task for Patrol Officers of the Bristol Constabulary. Task Hours Percent Preventive Patrol 3,916.3 43.3 Task Work 2,397.8 26.5 Other Outside Duties 735.9 8.1 Inside Duties 821.4 9.1 Abstractions 1,167.7 12.9 Adapted from P. J. Arkell and R. W. Knight, "The Analysis of a Territorial Division," Police Research Bulletin 25 (Summer 1975), p. 15. 33 Finally, a study conducted among 74 small police departments in Missouri used yet another method for determining police workload.53 Whereas previous studies had utilized citizen calls to police head- quarters, dispatch records, activity records, or special activity reporting forms, for this analysis police officers (serving com- munities of up to 50,000 population) were asked to list the most frequent complaints received by their departments (multiple responses were permitted). The responses are summarized in Table 2.9. The figures reflect numbers of incidents, rather than time expended, and do not include patrol time or officer-initiated activities. TABLE 2.9.--Most Frequent Complaints Received by Police Officers in Small Towns. Complaint Number Percent Traffic 209 25 Public Disturbance 161 19 Family Disturbance 151 18 Stray Dogs 90 11 Juveniles 57 7 Prowlers 57 7 Neighborhood Problems 33 4 Complaints about Officers 7 1 Other 12 _8 TOTALS 837 100 Adapted from John F. Galliher, L. Patrick Donovan, and David L. Adams, "Small-Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and Publics," Journal of Police Science and Administration 3, 1 (March 1975), p. 34 Despite the wide variety of jurisdictions studied and research methods used, some generalizations can be drawn from the anslyses presented in this section. Several of the studies indicated that a considerable portion of citizen calls to the police are resolved without dispatching a patrol unit (Cumming, about 30%; Bercal, 36%, 40%, and 21%; and Lilly, 68%). The studies also suggest that only a relatively small portion of citizen calls to the police are clearly crime-related, while a larger portion pertain to dis- putes, public disorder, and similar problems. The handling of dis- patched calls consumes an important segment of patrol officer time (about 25%-33% in the studies cited above), but leaves an even larger portion of patrol time uncommitted. This uncommitted, or free, patrol time is in turn consumed by administrative, non-duty, officer-initiated, and routine patrol activities. It is important to be cautious, however, in drawing conclu- sions beyond those stated above. Many authors in recent years, upon reviewing studies such as the ones discussed in this section, have leaped to conclusions such as, "police work is 85% service related," or "police officers spend 90% of their time dealing with noncriminal matters," or "law enforcement accounts for only 5% of policing." Conclusions such as these do pg: logically follow from the studies discussed. First, it must be recognized that most of the studies dealt only with calls from citizens, ignoring much other police activity. Second, most of the studies merely counted reported incidents, rather than time consumed per incident. Third, those studies that did use time consumed, and included all specific and 35 recorded patrol activities, failed to adequately determine what police officers actually did with their free patrol time. Fourth, a host of definitional problems beset any effort to classify police activity. Disorderly conduct is both public disorder and a crime. A family disturbance may be simply a shouting match, but it may also be a crime when the police arrive, or it may become one at a later time. A fatal hit-and-run accident is both a traffic matter and a serious crime. Much of police activity is ambiguous in this fashion, so that studies of police workload are intimately bound to the definitions used, many of which are not clearly stated in the research reports. Finally, a fifth caveat is that these studies focused almost entirely on patrol, so that conclusions from them about the nature of all of policing are not well-grounded.54 Detective work, for example, may be quite different from patrol work, in terms of the nature of tasks undertaken and time allocated to them. Patrol Effectiveness Research For years, a major assumption underlying police work was that preventive patrol was effective in deterring crime, detecting crimes in progress, and achieving other police objectives. The assumption went untested while police agencies allocated the bulk of their resources to patrol. Only in the recent past has evaluative research been conducted to attempt to measure the effectiveness of traditional patrol.55 36 The primary study of note is the Kansas City Preventive 56 In this project experimental areas with no Patrol Experiment. patrol, normal patrol, and increased patrol were established for one year. Detailed analysis of a variety of measures indicated no dif- ferences in crime rate, response time, or citizen satisfaction among the three areas during the experimental year. As reported by the authors of the study, The essential finding of the preventive patrol experiment is that decreasing or increasing routine preventive patrol within the range tested in this experiment had no effect on crime, citizen fear of crime, community attitudes toward the police on the delivery of police service, police response time, or traffic accidents. Given the large amount of data collected and the extremely giverse sources used, the evidence is overwhelming. 7 The experimental areas of the Kansas City study that received extra patrol did so at a level of two to three times their normal patrol strength. As noted, crime, citizen satisfaction, and other indicators did not change as a result of the extra patrol. Common sense would seem to indicate, however, that some level of saturation patrol would begin to have some effect. Several studies have supported this suggestion. A doubling of foot patrols in a New York precinct in 1954 resulted in substantial decreases in 53 This serious crime, especially those committed "on the street." increase in manpower had permitted the assignment of officers to previously unpatrolled beats, and also allowed the shortening of beat length. In England, a series of small experiments that varied foot patrol strength led to the conclusion that increasing the number of patrol officers assigned to a beat from zero to one 37 resulted in decreased crime.59 Increasing manpower per beat from one to two officers had no effect on crime, while tentative but weak evidence suggested that increases beyond two officers again resulted in some crime decrease. Another study of a New York precinct, con- ducted in 1966, concluded that a 40% increase in police manpower resulted in 30%-50% decreases in several street crimes.60 This study also examined two nearby precincts for comparison purposes, and found that the crime reductions in the experimental precinct were not attributable solely to general crime decreases. A study that analyzed New York subway robberies in relation to increased patrols 6‘ In this over an eight-year period also found an effect on crime. instance the deployment of substantially more subway patrol officers in the evening hours resulted in a drop and continued low level of subway robbery incidence during the hours of the patrols. After a brief decrease, however, daytime subway robberies increased steadily. Two recent analyses of saturation patrol in Nashville, Tennessee, using multiple-baseline time-series methods, complete this review of patrol effectiveness research. In 1974, three patrol areas experiencing high burglary incidence during daylight hours 62 The level were given increased patrols between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. of saturation raised the number of cars per area from one to between four and eight. During the five weeks of the study, the number of burglary arrests increased, but no changes in the rate of burglary incidence were found. In 1975, four areas with generally high incidence of serious crime were given increased patrol, two during 63 daytime hours and two during evening hours. Patrol in all areas 38 during the saturation times was increased from one to five cars. The results indicated no effect on crime of daytime saturation, but a decrease in crime due to the evening saturation patrols. Upon termination of the evening saturation patrol, crime in the affected areas increased. Apparently, at least under some conditions, saturation patrolling can have an effect on the incidence of crime. Clearly, though, no agency can afford to double the level of patrol throughout its entire jurisdiction, much less increase it four- or five-fold. This situation, together with the findings of the Kansas City study, has resulted in the current feeling that patrol resources should be managed--that police agencies can find better ways to utilize patrol officers than simply assigning them individually to beats for the purpose of routinely patrolling. Several emergent patrol strategies based on this thinking are discussed in the next section. Emergent Patrol Strategies Saturation patrol itself, of course, is one example of a patrol strategy deviating from traditional routine patrol. It involves the deployment of additional patrol units to an area, and ordinarily is based on an analysis of crime patterns in the com- 64 munity. The tactics employed by the patrol units can be tradi- tional random patrolling within the area, or specialized measures such as surveillance and decoy operations.65 A more dramatic departure from routine preventive patrol is 66 split force patrol. Under this strategy, one portion of the patrol 39 force is assigned exclusively to handling calls for service, while another exclusively patrols. The patrolling segment of the force is usually deployed on the basis of crime analysis, and its freedom from the call for service workload provides the time for performing the chosen tactics. An added benefit is that this patrolling force is always "free" and thus available to respond to true emergencies, including serious crimes in progress. Another developing strategy, and one that does not create specialization in the patrol force, is directed patrol. During their free patrol time, officers are assigned duties to perform within their beats, usually in response to crime analysis findings and predictions. The directed duties are usually less than an hour in duration, and involve checking an area in such a way that crimes currently problematic may hopefully be detected or deterred. In contrast to these types of patrol strategies, more community-oriented approaches to free patrol time usage have also emerged. These strategies call for police officers to use their free patrol time to learn more about their patrol areas and clientele. Officers may be provided with crime and demographic information by the department to aid in the process of learning, but ordinarily the actual use of patrol time for community contact remains officer- initiated, even if agency-encouraged. All of these emerging strategies are based on the belief that free patrol time can be put to better use than through traditional preventive patrol. Notably absent from the analyses and research upon which these strategies are based, however, has been any detailed 40 description of how patrol officers actually use their free patrol time. The next section summarizes the little that is presently documented about the activity as performed by police officers on the street. Use of Free Patrol Time As part of the massive evaluation of the Kansas City Pre- ventive Patrol Experiment, data was collected concerning police use of uncommitted patrol time. The data was collected by observers who accompanied a sample of patrol officers in each of the experimental areas. The observers found that 60% of patrol time was uncommitted, and classified police use of the time in terms of the following categories.67 1. Stationary Police-Related - report-writing, waiting for tows, filling out encounter surveys, sur- veillances, traffic ordinance enforcement. 2. Stationary Nonpolice-Related - eating, resting, reading nonpolice materials, talking to observer, relief- calls, girl-watching, phone calls, visiting with friends, sleeping, watching movies or sports events. 3. Mobile Police-Realted - looking for suspicious cars, people, stolen autos and traffic violations; watch- ing residences and buildings, training new patrol officers. 4. Mobile Nonpolice-Related - driving nonchalantly to relieve boredom, girl-watching; going to eat, to the bank, to the cleaners, or on other personal errands; pleasure riding. 5. Contacting Personnel in Field, Police-Related - talking about crime suspects, calls, policies, procedures, getting or giving information on policies or procedures, exchanging mug shots, getting reports approved, discussing on—going innovations, evidence, courts, complaints. 6. Contacting Personnel in Field, Nonpolice-Related - general talk, hunting, cars, sports, sex, vacations, joke- telling, family life, leisure-time activities. 7. Residual - traveling to and from the station to the district, time in and traveling from court, garage, headquarters, radio repair, to district. 41 In the report of the experiment, the findings concerning police use of free patrol time are collapsed into four categories by combining several of those noted above. The results are presented in Table 2.10. As can be seen, patrol officers divided their free time vary evenly between the cateogires of mobile police-related, nonpolice- related, stationary and contacting personnel police-related, and residual. The authors of the study concluded that: Police officers spent approximately as much time on activities not directly related to police work as they did on police-related mobile patrol. The myth that police officers are continually engaged in I'battling" crime, as perpetuated by the media and perhaps even by the police themselves, was not substantiated in the reality of the situation as recorded by the observers.53 TABLE 2.10.-~Police Officers' Expenditure of Uncommitted Time in Kansas City. Percent of Percent of Uncommitted Time Total Time Mobile Police-Related 23.54 14.20 Nonpolice-Related 25.47 15.36 Stationary and Contact Personnel, 26.01 15.69 Police-Related Residual 24.98 15.06 Adapted from George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman, and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas CityAPreventive Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report (Washington, D. C.: Police Foundation, 1974). 42 No other studies were located that analyzed police expendi- ture of free patrol time. In their study of small town policing in Missouri, however, Galliher, Donovan, and Adams collected survey data on three issues closely related to the use of free patrol time.69 The authors asked police officers to list the locations and types or groups of peOple they watch most carefully while on patrol, and also the reasons for patrolling certain areas more carefully. Presented in Tables 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13 are the responses elicited by their survey on these points. Probably the clearest message presented by the responses is the emphasis upon commercial burglaries given by the patrol officers, which accounts for a large portion of where and who they watch, and why. TABLE 2.1l.--Locations Police Watch Most Carefully in Small Towns. Locations Number Percent Business and Industrial Areas 247 67 Taverns 27 8 Black Neighborhoods 25 7 Schools 24 7 Residential Areas 8 2 Other 25 7 Adapted from John F. Galliher, L. Patrick Donovan, and David L. Adams, "Small-Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and Publics," Journal of Police Science and Administration 3, 1 (March 1975), p. . 43 TABLE 2.12.--Types or Groups of People Police Watch Most Carefully in Small Towns. Types of People Number Percent Known Criminals 82 34 Young People 76 32 Strangers and Suspicious People 29 12 Blacks 18 8 Bar Crowds 15 6 Radicals 13 5 Poor People 6 3 John F. Galliher, L. Patrick Donovan, and David L. Adams, "Small- Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and Publics," Journal of Police Science and Administration 3, 1 (March 1975), p. 24. TABLE 2.13.--Reasons for Patrolling Certain Areas of Community Most Carefully in Small Towns. Reasons Number Percent More Burglary 215 62 Greatest Activity 38 11 Peace Disturbance 22 6 Drug and Drinking Problems 12 4 General High Crime Area 12 4 Vandalism 10 3 Other 35 10 Adapted from John F. Galliher, L. Patrick Donovan, and David L. Adams, "Small-Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and Publics," Journal of Police Science and Administration 3, 1 (March 1975), p. 25. 44 Beyond these two studies, there remains a general lack of information concerning how patrol officers spend their uncommitted patrol time. Several investigators have realized this problem, as noted in Chapter 1. One recent evaluation of patrol effectiveness reached the conclusion that "to make clearer statements about police patrols it would be necessary to have a more detailed description of 70 what the police officers actually did in the patrols." That is precisely the purpose of this thesis. Summary The general literature of police patrol gives considerably more attention to the handling of calls than to preventive patrol. This is reflected in police training, as little instruction in how-to-patrol is provided. Consequently, police officers learn to patrol primarily on the job, and even there the activity is largely self-taught. Analyses of the nature of police work, most of which have concentrated on patrol, are fraught with a number of shortcomings. Among these have been a reliance on only calls from the public, a failure to account for time consumption by different tasks, and severe definitional ambiguities. In general, the studies have also stopped short of analyzing police use of free patrol time. Patrol research has cast doubt upon the effectiveness of routine preventive patrol, while affirming that under certain condi- tions certain levels of patrol apparently have some effect on the incidence of crime. These studies are responsible for a growing 45 acceptance of the view that patrol resources need not necessarily be committed to traditional patrol. Several police strategies have emerged, including directed, split force, and community-oriented patrol, that seek to apply patrol resources in innovative ways. The general thrust of the strategies is to provide direction and planning for police use of free patrol time. Very little research has been conducted, however, to deter- mine how police officers actually spend their uncommitted patrol time. Given the absence of such descriptive information, it may be premature to consign routine preventive patrol to its grave. In the next chapter the design of this study is discussed. Then, in Chapter IV, the analysis of the data concerning police use of free patrol time is presented. FOOTNOTES—-CHAPTER II 26Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionany (Springfield, MA: G. B C. Merriam, 1967), p. 618. 27The terms preventive patrol, routine patrol, and random patrol are used interchangeably in this study to refer to the prac- tice of giving each officer wide latitude in determining how to use free patrol time. 28A. F. Brandstatter and Allen A. Hyman, Fundamentals of Law Enforcement (Beverly Hills, CA: Glencoe, 1971), p. 197. 29Alan J. Butler, The Law Enforcement Process (Port Washington, NY: Alfred, 1976), p. 154. 30Samuel G. Chapman, Police Patrol Readings (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1964), p. x. 3‘Thomas F. Adams, Police Patrol: Tactics and Techniques (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971)Z 32David H. Gilston and Lawrence Podell, The Practical Patrolman (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1959). 33Donald T. Shanahan, Patrol Administration: Management by Objectives (Boston: Holbrook, 1975). 34Richard L. Holcomb, Police Patrol (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1948). 35James 0. Wilson, "Dilemmas of Police Administration," Public Administration Review (September/October 1968): 414. 36Gilston and Podell, The Practical Patrolman, p. vii. 37Rubenstein, City Police, p. 219. 38Chapman, Police Patrol Readings, p. ix. 39Elaine Cumming, Ian Cumming, and Laura Edell, "Policeman as Philosopher, Guide and Friend,“ Social Problems 12 (1965). 46 47 4o 41 42 43Thomas Bercal, "Calls for Police Assistance," American Behavioral Scientist 13 (1970). 44 Ibid., p. 285. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior, p. 18. Ibid., pp. 30-34. Ibid., p. 682. 45A1bert J. Reiss, Jr., The Police and the Public (New Haven: Yale University, 1971), p. 75. 46a. Robert Lilly, "What Are the Police Now Doing?," Journal of Police Science and Administration 6, 1 (March 1978): 51-60. 47John A. Webster, "Police Task and Time Study," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 61 (1970); also see John A. Webster, The Realities of Police Work (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1973). 48 Webster, "Police Task and Time Study," p. 100. 49From Webster's article one learns that he used data for 387 patrol officers for a 54-week period. Using a very conserva- tive time-off factor of 2.0, he should have accounted for 417,960 patrol hours, but only reported 301,127 hours. The difference, 116,833 hours, apparently represents uncommitted time. 50Michael E. O'Neill and Carlton J. Bloom, "The Field Officer: Is He Really Fighting Crime?," The Police Chief 39 (February 1972): 30-32. 51B. Miller and A. Weeks, "Police Programme Accounts," Police Research Bulletin 20 (Autumn 1972): 28-31. 52F. J. Arkell and R. W. Knight, "The Analysis of a Terri- torial Division," Police Research Bulletin 25 (Summer 1975): 14-26. 53John F. Galliher, L. Patrick Donovan, and David L. Adams, "Small-Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and Publics," Journal of Police Science and Administration 3, 1 (March 1975): 19-28. 54The writer is indebted to Dr. Larry Hoover for originally pointing out many of these weaknesses of previous analyses. See also Herman Goldstein, Policing A Free Society (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977), pp. 21144; and Clifford D. Shearing and Jeffrey S. Leon, "Reconsidering the Police Role: A Challenge to a Challenge of a Popular Conception," Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections 19 (October 1977). 48 55For two excellent reviews of recent police research, see George L. Kelling, “Police Field Services and Crime: The Presumed Effects of a Capacity," Crime and Delinquency (April 1978); and James Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime (New York: Basic Books, 1975), pp. 81-97. 56George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman, and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summapy Report (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1974); and Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report. 57Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experi- ment: A Summary Report, p. 16. 58 Wilson, Thinking About Crime, pp. 82-83. 59J. A. Bright, Beat Patrol Experiment (London: Home Office, 1969). 6OS. J. Press, Some Effects of an Increase in Police Man- power in the 20th Precinct of New York City—(New York: Rand Institute, 1971). 61Jan M. Chaiken, Michael W. Lawless, and Keith A. Stevenson, The Impact of Police Activity_on Crime: Robberies in the New York City Subwey System (New York: Rand Institute, 1974). 62John F. Schnelle, Robert E. Kirchner, M. Patrick McNees, and Jerry M. Lawler, "Social Evaluation Research: The Evaluation of Two Police Patrolling Strategies," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 8 (Winter 1975). 63John F. Schnelle, Robert E. Kirchner, Jr., Joe 0. Casey, Paul H. Uselton, Jr., and M. Patrick McNees," Patrol Evaluation Research: A Multiple-Baseline Analysis of Saturation Police Patrolling During Day and Night Hours," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10 (Spring 1977). 64G. Hobart Reinier, Mark R. Greenlee, Mark H. Gibbens, and Stephen P. Marshall, Crime Analysis in Support of Patrol (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977). 65Stephen Schack, Theodore H. Schell, and William G. Gay, Improving Patrol Productivity: Specialized Patrol (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977); and Kenneth W. Webb, Barbara J. Sowder, Arthur J. Andrews, Marvin R. Burt, and Edward F. Davis, Specialized Patrol Projects (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977). 49 66James M. Tien, James W. Simon, and Richard C. Larson, An Alternative Approach in Police Patrol: The Wilmington Split-Force Experiment (Cambridge, MA: Public Systems Evaluation, 1977). 67Kelling et al., The Kansas CityiPreventive Patrol Experi- ment: A Technical Report, p. 506. 68Ihid. , p. 510. 69 Publics." Galliher et al., "Small-Town Police: Troubles, Tasks, and 70Schnelle et al., "Social Evaluation Research: The Evalu- ation of Two Police Patrolling Strategies," p. 365. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The review of the literature on the subject of police time allocation uncovered considerable material on the general activity of police patrol, but very little either prescriptive or analytical material concerning the narrower issue of free patrol time utiliza— tion. This study is designed as an exploratory investigation of the free patrol time question. Most of the studies of patrol workload and time utilization conducted to date have based their analyses on some form of dis- patch records. These records provide a considerable amount of data concerning police handling of citizen calls and assigned details, but not about free patrol time use. Whatever police officers do during their free patrol time is done between calls and assignments, and dispatch records reveal only that the officers are available for calls, not what they are actually doing during the uncommitted time. Another method commonly used to collect information about patrol officer time utilization is the activity sheet. These sheets are forms filled out by patrol officers during their tours of duty, listing activities undertaken by times of occurrence. Ordinarily, only discrete work-related tasks are reported on the activity sheets, with the assumption being that time not accounted for on 50 51 the sheets was allocated to "general patrol." This general patrol represents the free time of interest in this study. Because this study has as its focus police use of free patrol time, neither the dispatch record nor activity sheet methods of accumulating information are appropriate. As usually compiled, neither source contains detailed information about the issue under investigation. Also, both dispatch records and activity sheets are commonly used by police departments to evaluate individual perform- ance. Because the information is largely self-reported by individual police officers, and then used to evaluate them, its accuracy must be questioned. One study that used activity reports for data con- cerning police self-initiated tasks was severely hampered by this 7] Despite repeated assurances that the activity sheets problem. were being used only for research purposes, the police officers involved feared that they would be evaluated based on the sheets, and as a result considerable dishonesty was evidenced. A third general means of gathering information about police use of free patrol time is via a survey or questionnaire. This method has the advantage of anonymity, which mitigates against dis- honesty among respondents. There are disadvantages associated with the use of a survey to collect information about free patrol time utilization, however. Officers must generalize about their use of uncommitted patrol time; in order for the generalizations to be valid, the officers must accurately recall how they have used their time and average across their experience. Inaccuracies can be introduced both by imperfect recall and by faulty averaging. Also, 52 the generalization process carried out by the survey respondents deprives the researcher of information about the variability within subjects in the use of free patrol time. In addition, survey ques- tions are frequently not absolutely clear, making respondent inter- pretation necessary and introducing the possibility that the ques- tions may mean different things to different respondents. A final means of collecting data about police use of uncom- mitted patrol time is through observation. This is by far the most costly method of gathering information, but also potentially the A most fruitful. Other than the cost consideration, the most serious problem associated with this method is observer contamination. With observation studies, the possibility always exists that the subjects being observed will act differently because they are being watched. When this atypical behavior is recorded by the observer, it is falsely assumed to be ordinary and usual, and the resulting analysis 72 A second possibility is observer and interpretation are damaged. co-optation, in which the observer becomes so sympathetic to the research subject that any semblance of objectivity is lost. In this exploratory study of police use of free patrol time the observation and survey methods of data collection are used. The site of the study is Lansing, Michigan, a city with a population of approximately 130,000. Lansing is the state capitol of Michigan; it has a considerable industrial and manufacturing base, numerous state government offices, and a 13% minority population (mainly Black, with some Spanish-speaking). 53 The Lansing Police Department employs 275 sworn officers and takes about 8,000 Part I crime reports annually. It is organ- ized traditionally, with three equal-sized patrol squads that rotate shifts every month. The conduct of patrol is also tradi- tional, with officers responsible for handling their calls and details but otherwise free, within their patrol areas, to use their uncommitted time as they see fit. No team policing or directed patrol strategies are in use. Research Questions As discussed in Chapter 1, general research questions are used in this study rather than detailed hypotheses. The research is decidedly exploratory, and in large measure merely descriptive. The primary purpose of the study is to find out how police officers use their free patrol time; rather than having hypotheses to test, this research is more designed to provide the basic information upon which the construction of informed hypotheses can be based. The six research questions are listed below. 1. How do police patrol officers spend their uncommitted, or free, patrol time? 2. Does the use of free patrol time vary by time of day? 3. Does the use of free patrol time vary among organizational sub-units (patrol squads)? 4. What is the relationship between years of schooling and police use of free patrol time? 5. What is the relationship between field of college study and police use of free patrol time? 6. What is the relationship between years of police experience and police use of free patrol time? 54 The observation component of this study in Lansing addresses the first three research questions, while the survey component pro- vides information pertaining to all six questions. The last three research questions are not addressed by the observation data pri- marily because of the restricted sample size used for that phase of the study. Observation Component One of the methods used to collect information about police use of free patrol time in Lansing was direct observation of patrol officers at work. The direct observations were accomplished through the ride-along method, in which the researcher accompanied police officers on patrol. All of the patrols were mobile, and the researcher's vantage point in each instance was the front passenger seat of the marked patrol car. The researcher recorded observations as they were made with pen and paper. Officers being observed were informed by the researcher that police use of patrol time was the object of the study. The researcher strongly emphasized that the study was being conducted to develop reliable information about the practice of police patrol, and that no information concerning individual officers would be pre- sented either to the Department or in the report of the research. Officers were advised that a general summary of the research find- ings would be given to the Lansing Police Department, but that it would be impossible for anyone to connect reported findings or 4 observations to any individual officer. Officers being observed 55 were also advised that the research was in no way frivolous, but rather that the findings were potentially of considerable importance to the study and practice of policing. Finally, the researcher specifically asked officers being observed to behave typically, so that the observations would be representative of their normal patrol behavior. In addition to the formal assurances and requests noted above, the researcher in all cases casually let it be known that he had formerly served as a police officer in another jurisdiction. Mention of this situation always led to considerable conversation about comparative practices, experiences, and the like, and seemed to dissolve observable uneasiness and suspicion. Because of this fraternal bond, and the formal assurances, it is believed that offi- cers observed for this study exhibited reasonably typical behavior. Previous observation studies of other aspects of policing have con- sistently found that observers quickly become unobtrusive, with officers evidencing little concern or inhibition due to the presence of the observers.73 This seemed to be the case in Lansing; officers being observed broke no criminal laws, but frequently and openly violated a variety of Departmental regulations, for which they could have been harshly sanctioned. The willingness of officers to so conduct themselves in the presence of the observer was taken as evidence that behavior was not being seriously constrained due to the research method used. 56 Sample The researcher did not have the opportunity to randomly select officers to be observed on patrol. Instead, the observer first chose ten occasions to ride-along, and the patrol supervisors in command at those times chose the officers to be observed. The only constraints on the supervisors' choices were that the units observed be one-man cars, and that they be regular patrol units assigned to beats. The first condition was used to avoid the prob- lem of characterizing the time utilization of two-man units, in which the two officers could be engaged in the same activities at some times and different activities at other times. The regular patrol condition was used to avoid observer assignment to command, traffic, or plain clothes units, whose duties are fundamentally different from those of regular patrol units. It is not known what effect the method of choosing the first ten officers to be observed had on the data collected. As noted earlier, the officers observed exhibited a wide range of question- able behavior, suggesting that they may not have been chosen as model patrol officers in all cases. On the other hand, it is quite likely that patrol supervisors did not select their worst personnel to be observed. Another consideration is that some officers are known by their supervisors to dislike observers and/or partners, and these officers effectively had the right to refuse to be accompanied by the observer. Based on these factors, it seems likely that the officers observed were fairly representative of the population and willing to be watched. 57 After the first ten ride-alongs, the researcher selected three of the observed officers for an additional total of ten ride- alongs. The primary selection criteria were assignment to dif- ferent squads, and willingness to accommodate the researcher for additional observations. Also, the three officers were at dif- ferent stages of their careers and in different age groups. On one occasion during the second ten observations an officer to be accompanied on patrol was given a special assignment for the entire shift, and the researcher rode-along with an officer not previously observed instead. Altogether, then, eleven different officers were observed, eight of which were accompanied once, one three times, one four times, and one five times. All twenty obser- vations were for entire eight-hour tours of duty, so that the total observation sample consisted of 160 hours of patrol time. Four of the observed tours were during the day shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.), eight during the afternoon shift (3 p.m. to 11 p.m.), and eight during the night shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The observed tours also included both weekdays and weekends. The observations were made during July and August 1977. Since the observations were evenly divided between the two different months, squads changed shifts during the middle of the study, and observations by shift (time of day) are not identical to observa- tions by squad (organizational sub-unit). The three patrol squads (designated A, B, and C) were observed eight, five, and seven times, respectively. 58 Because of the small number of officers observed, the obser- vation data is not used to investigate the three research questions concerning personal characteristics as they relate to the use of free patrol time. The small sample size and the means of selecting the sample make it impossible to use the observation data for either hypothesis testing or definitive analysis. Within the context of this exploratory study, though, the observation data can be used to investigate the basic question concerning police use of free patrol time, and to suggest how such use varies by time of day and squad. The observation data can also be compared to the findings of previous studies and to the survey data from this study, in order to assess its validity. In general, however, the observation data cannot be relied upon with great confidence. Measures The observation data were collected in the form of a running log of the patrol Officers' activities. All time from the start to the conclusion of the shifts, or 480 minutes per tour of duty, was accounted for. Whenever officers were involved in discrete activi- ties, such as handling calls, making traffic stops, or taking breaks, information was recorded concerning the nature of the activity. When officers were engaged in the more general activity of patrol- ling, information was recorded concerning the type of roadway, the approximate speed, and the type of location of the activity. The observer was required to interpret the Officers' behav- iors in some instances. This was primarily the case with respect 59 to patrolling; when officers were riding around, not going to a call or a meal, their behavior was generally recorded as patrolling, despite the fact that on some occasions the act of riding around may have constituted a break in the minds of the officers involved. The researcher felt that questioning officers about their intentions on such occasions would have caused the officers to become self- conscious about their behavior, which might then have caused them to change that behavior due to observer contamination. Rather than risk such an effect, whenever the observer was not able to clarify an activity through casual conversation it was interpreted based on the available information. In reality, this interpretation process was not needed very often, and to the extent that interpretation was necessary the observer's familiarity with police practice, culture, and language may have served to minimize the introduction of error into the data. The basic measures used with the observation data pertained to time allocated to different activities. The time allocation for each observation was summed along several dimensions, some including only free patrol time and some including all eight hours of each tour of duty. The dimensions used included those from earlier pub- lished studies (the Wilson, Bercal, Webster, O'Neill and Bloom, and Kansas City studies discussed in Chapter II) and ones developed specifically for this study. The primary new categories used to classify patrol time use in this study are defined below. 60 Roll Call & Early In - time spent in headquarters being briefed and checked at the start of the shift, before going out to the patrol area; and time between going to headquarters near the end of the shift, and the official end-of-shift time. Driving To and From Beat - time spent at the start of the shift, driving to the assigned patrol area; and time spent at the end of the shift, driving from the patrol area to headquarters. Assigned Details - miscellaneous duties, not arising from a citizen request, that are assigned to patrol officers by head- quarters or supervisors; examples are picking up supplies for the Department, rearranging patrol cars in the garage, and getting the patrol car washed. Paperwork - time spent completing incident reports, activity reports, traffic tickets, etc.; includes only time spent directly on filling out the forms, not investigative time spent obtaining the information being reported. Handling Calls Assigned by HQ - time spent on calls that originated as citizen requests for police assistance and were assigned to individual patrol units by headquarters; does not include tasks initiated_by officers themselves, or time spent purely on subsequent paperwork; includes travel time to the scene of the call, and travel time back to the patrol area, where applicable. Meeting Other Officers - time spent meeting with officers in other patrol cars, for whatever purposes. Handling Self-Initiated Tasks - time spent handling specific identifiable tasks not assigned by headquarters; includes only work- related tasks; does not include time spent on general patrol; pri- marily traffic stops, arrests, inquiring into suspicious circum- stances, and investigating open premises. Taking Breaks - time spent on matters clearly not work- related; includes meals, coffee breaks, talking to personal friends, pleasure reading, personal shopping, etc. Alley Patrolling - time spent driving along or stationary in one-lane non-through streets, not involved with calls or self- initiated tasks, during which the Officers' purposes were to observe or be observed. Off-Street Patrolling - time spent driving along or stationary in non-roadway locations, while not involved with calls or self- initiated tasks, during which the Officers' purposes were to observe or be observed; primarily shopping center parking lots and off- street sections of parks. 61 Side Street Patrolling - time spent driving along or sta- tionary in streets governed by frequent traffic lights and/or stop signs and speed limits in the 15-30 mile per hour range, while not involved with calls or self-initiated tasks, during which the Officers' purposes were to observed or be observed. Main Street Patrolling - time spent driving along or sta- tionary in streets governed by few traffic lights and/or stop signs and speed limits in the 30-45 mile per hour range, while not involved with calls or self-initiated tasks, during which the Officers' purposes were to observe or be observed. Highway Patrolling - time spent driving along or stationary in roadways with speed limits in excess of 45 miles per hour, while not involved with calls or self-initiated tasks, during which the officers' purposes were to observe or be observed. Analysis The analysis performed with the observation data was limited to summing and averaging. Averate time spent on different activi— ties by all officers, by shifts, and by squads was computed, as well as the portions of patrol time accounted for by the activities. The averages and portions are compared to similar figures arrived at in earlier studies, as well as to similar measures from the survey por— tion of this study. Given the restricted sample size and sampling method for the observation data, more sophisticated analysis would not be appropriate. Survey Component After the completion of the observation phase of the study, a questionnaire was administered to patrol officers in Lansing, asking them about their use of free patrol time. The questionnaires were passed out at roll call line-ups prior to the beginning of shifts, and collected eight hours later at the conclusion of the 62 shifts. Each shift was approached twice by the researcher, so that patrol officers with days off on one occasion might be present on the second. When the questionnaires were distributed at the line-ups, the researcher mentioned the previous observation phase of the study, the seriousness of the research, and the Department's support of the effort. The researcher asked the patrol officers to give each ques- tion careful consideration, and to respond honestly and as accur- ately as possible. Finally, the researcher promised to prepare a summary of the survey responses, a copy of which would be given to all patrol officers in the Department. This last item was designed to emphasize the researcher's commitment to the study, which was important inasmuch as the Department was a popular research site and the officers had become somewhat jaded by their survey exper- iences. The extent to which patrol officer commitment was obtained is not known, but several officers responded, either verbally or on their questionnaires, to the effect that this survey was one of the better ones that they had encountered. Sample At the time of the survey there were 120 patrol officers assigned to the patrol division of the Lansing Police Department. Questionnaires were distributed to 95 of these officers, or 79% of the patrol force. The number of questionnaires returned to the researcher was 79, which represents an 83% return rate and 66% of the patrol force. 63 Some aspects of the demographic composition of the patrol officer respondents are presented in Table 3.1. Data on the race and sex of respondents was not collected for two reasons, both tied to the small numbers of officers not in the white male category. On the one hand, the reporting of this data might have made the guarantee of anonymity less believable to the respondents, and it would have made it easy to link surveys to individuals. 0n the other hand, race and sex data would not have been particularly use- ful for analysis purposes, because of the small number of officers other than white male. As each squad was approached twice with the questionnaire, on different days of the week, and given the relatively high sampling and response rates, it would seem that each patrol officer assigned to the patrol division had an equally likely chance of being included in the survey sample. Therefore, the sample may be considered repre- sentative of the population from which it was drawn. Measures Two types of measures of patrol time use were used in the survey. One was based on the seven time categories utilized in the Kansas City study. Those seven categories and their complete example-definitions were presented in the survey, and respondents were asked to estimate their average allocation of free patrol time between the categories. In instances where officers reported allo- cating more than 100% of their free patrol time, the portions for all categories were reduced by the percent of over-reporting. Such 64 TABLE 3.1.--Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents. Characteristics N % Rank Patrol Officer 79 100.0 Squad A 29 36.7 B 25 31.6 C 25 31.6 Years of School 12-13 10 12.7 14 24 30.4 15 11 13.9 16-20 34 43.0 Major Field of College Study Law Enforcement/Police 21 26.6 Criminal Justice 32 40.5 Other 21 26.6 None 5 6.3 Years of Police Experience 1- 4 25 31.6 5- 7 25 31.6 8-10 21 26.6 11-27 8 10.2 instances were not frequent. The seven Kansas City categories are listed below, along with their example-definitions. Stationary Police—Related - report-writing, waiting for tows, filling out encounter surveys, surveillances, traffic ordi- nance enforcement. Stationary Nonpolice-Related — eating, resting, reading non- police materials, talking to observer, relief-calls, girl-watching, phone calls, visiting with friends, sleeping, watching movies or sports events. «Ch (1- 65 Mobile Police-Related - looking for suspicious cars, people, stolen autos and traffic violations; watching residences and build- ings, training new patrol officers. Mobile Nonpolice-Related — driving nonchalantly to relieve boredom, girl-watching; going to eat, to the bank, to the cleaners, or on other personal errands; pleasure riding. Contacting Personnel in Field, Police-Related - talking about crime suspects, calls, policies, procedures, getting or giving information on policies or procedures, exchanging mug shots, getting reports approved, discussing on-going innovations, evidence, courts, complaints. Contacting Personnel in Field, Nonpolice-Related - general talk, hunting, cars, sports, sex, vacations, joke-telling, family life, leisure-time activities. Residual - traveling to and from the station to the dis- trict, time in and traveling from court, garage, headquarters, radio repair, to district. The second type of patrol time use measure used in the survey was a set of task emphasis items. Patrol officers were asked to report the emphasis they gave to each of seven tasks during their free patrol time for each of the three shifts (day, afternoon, night). The tasks used for each of the three sets of items are listed below. Checking Suspicious People Just Driving Around Checking Business Establishments Checking Residential Areas Checking and Enforcing Traffic Talking to the General Public Talking to Other Officers Respondents were asked to indicate the emphasis given to each task on each shift on a O-lOO scale, with the 0 end labeled "No Emphasis" and the 100 end labeled "Strong Emphasis." The 0-100 scale was used for the task emphasis measures because it made possible both absolute and relative comparisons. 66 That is, responses to the items could be compared in terms of the raw scores, as an absolute measure of reported emphasis, but they could also be adjusted for each shift to reflect a relative emphasis, taking into account the emphasis reportedly given to other tasks. This flexibility in the measure made it possible to perform analyses of both absolute and relative reported task emphasis. Analysis Because of the larger sample size and more satisfactory sampling procedure used with the survey, as compared to the obser- vation phase of the study, more complete analysis of the data is possible. The reported time allocation estimates among the seven Kansas City categories were combined to the four categories reported in the earlier study (mobile police-related; nonpolice-related; stationary and contact personnel, police-related; and residual) to facilitate comparison. Bivariate relationships between these four variables and the independent variables (squad assignment, years of school, major field of college study, and years of police experience) were investigated, using two-way tables and the eta statistic. The relationships between the four Kansas City measures and the combined independent variables were also examined, using multiple regression analysis. Similar bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using the reported task emphasis measures as dependent variables. For the bivariate tables, the task emphasis measures were used in 67 their relative form, in order to facilitate comparisons between and within groups. For the eta statistic and the multiple regression analysis the task emphasis measures were used in their absolute form. Summary This is an exploratory study aimed at describing how police officers use their free patrol time, and how variables such as time of day, organizational sub-unit, years of schooling, major field of college study, and years of police experience are related to patrol time use. Both observations and a survey are used to collect data on police use of free patrol time; this kind of multi-method 74 The observa- approach has been recommended by other researchers. tion data in this study is to some extent compromised due to the small sample size and an irregular sampling method, and thus must be interpreted carefully. The sample size and method used for the survey are more satisfactory, and a number of bivariate and multi- variate analyses of the survey data were conducted. The data and analyses were not used to test hypotheses in this exploratory study, but rather to develop descriptive statements about the use of free patrol time and to suggest the relative salience of selected organ- izational and personal variables. The analysis of the observation and survey data collected in Lansing is presented in the next chapter. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER III 71Joseph M. Glisson, "The Relationship of Autonomous Patrol Performance and the Educational Level of Given Patrol Officers," unpublished paper, 1977. 72For a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvan- tages of data collection methods with respect to analyses of police workload, see J. P. Martin, "The Scope of Police Manpower Studies," in Crime, Criminology, and Public Policy, ed. Roger Hood (London: Heinemann, 1974), pp. 197-211. 73Peter Manning, "The Researcher: An Alien in the Police World," in The Ambivalent Force, 2nd ed., eds. Arthur Niederhoffer and Abraham S. Blumberg (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1976), pp. 103- 121; Albert J. Reiss, Jr., "Stuff and Nonsense About Social Surveys and Observation," in Institutions and the Person, eds. Howard S. Becker, et a1. (Chicago: Aldine, 1968), pp. 351-367; and John Van Maanen, "Epilogue on Watching the Watchers," in Policing: A View From the Street, eds. Peter Manning and John Van Maanen (Santa Monita, CA: Goodyear, 1978), pp. 309-349. 74Reiss, "Stuff and Nonsense About Social Surveys and Observation." 68 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In this chapter an analysis of data obtained by observing and surveying police patrol officers is presented. The data collected relate to police use of uncommitted, or free, patrol time. The presentation and analysis of the data is made within the framework of the research questions introduced in the first chapter. General Use of Free Patrol Time The primary purpose of this study is to determine how police officers use their uncommitted, or free, patrol time. As one means of measuring the activity, police officers were accompanied on twenty duty tours (8 hours each), with detailed records kept of the Officers' time utilization. The observation data were then grouped in several different ways to summarize police use of patrol time. The least aggregated summary of the observations is presented in Table 4.1. It should be noted that the categories and figures in this table account for all patrol time, and not simply free patrol time. The categories of time use pertaining only to free patrol time in Table 4.1 are isolated and summarized in Table 4.2. From Table 4.1, it can be seen that the single activity category accounting for the largest portion of patrol Officers' time 69 70 TABLE 4.l.--Disaggregated Summary of Observed Use of Patrol Time (N = twenty 8-hour tours). . . Average Minutes Percent of ACt'V'ty Per Tour Tota1 Time Roll Call and Early In 36.4 7.6 Driving To and From Beat 2.0 0.4 Assigned Details 23.7 4.9 Paperwork 33.2 6.9 Handling Calls Assigned by HQ 122.3 25.5 Meeting Other Officers 10.1 2.1 Handling Self-Initiated Tasks 47.1 9.8 Taking Breaks 101.5 21.2 Alley Patrolling 8.5 1.8 Off-Street Patrolling 5.0 1.0 Side Street Patrolling 22.6 4.7 Main Street Patrolling 66.2 13.8 Highway Patrolling 0.2 0.0 TOTALS 478.8a 99 7%b aAn average of 1.2 minutes per tour was "lost" due to illegible or incomplete field notes. bFor this and succeeding tables, total time not equal to 100% is due to rounding error. was handling assigned calls. Slightly more than one quarter of patrol officer time was spent performing these tasks, which originated as citizen requests for police assistance and were assigned to individual patrol units by headquarters. By comparison, about 10% of patrol time was consumed by officers handling self-initiated tasks. These were police operational activities undertaken by the officers themselves, without assignment from headquarters. Also, these were specific identifiable tasks, as opposed to general activities such as routinely patrolling. Self-initiated tasks 71 TABLE 4.2.--Summary of Observed Use of Free Patrol Time (N = twenty B-hour tours). . . Average Minutes Percent of Act1v1ty Per Tour Free Patrol Time Meeting Other Officers 10.1 3.9 Handling Self-Initiated Tasks 47.1 18.0 Taking Breaks 101.5 38.9 Alley Patrolling 8.5 3.3 Off-Street Patrolling 5.0 1.9 Side Street Patrolling 22.6 8.7 Main Street Patrolling 66.2 25.3 Highway Patrolling 0.2 0.1 TOTALS 261.2 100.1% included making traffic stops, making arrests, investigating open premises, inquiring of suspicious people, and similar activities for which initiation was not pursuant to headquarters assignment. The category accounting for the second largest segment of patrol officer time was taking breaks. This category included those activities of patrol officers that clearly had nothing to do with the performance of police work, such as meals, talking to personal friends, coffee breaks, pleasure reading, and personal shopping. The taking breaks category accounted for slightly more than 21% of patrol officer time. The remainder of the time not falling within the domain of free patrol is reflected in the four categories of roll call and early in, driving to and from beat, assigned details, and paperwork. The assigned details category refers to miscellaneous duties, not 72 arising from a citizen request, that are assigned to patrol officers by headquarters or supervisors. Examples of these are picking up processed film for the department, getting the patrol car repaired or washed, and rearranging police cars in the garage. The other three categories seem self-explanatory. Together, these four categories account for 19.8% of patrol officer time. Summing the four activity categories discussed just above and the category of handling assigned calls reveals that 45.3% of patrol officer time is consumed by more or less mandated tasks. The remaining time is that which is of primary interest in this study, namely, uncommitted or free patrol time. Data concerning the observed use of free patrol time is presented in Table 4.2. The activities of handling self-initiated tasks and taking breaks were briefly discussed above. They are included within free patrol time because officers themselves initiate the activities and determine how much time to allocate to them. Admittedly, some threshold level of break time is inevitable, and thus might not truly be part of discretionary free patrol time. But identifying this level would be difficult, if not impossible, given individual variability in both real and perceived needs. Consequently, it seems more useful to include taking breaks within free patrol time, while keeping in mind that some portion of break time really is not uncommitted. The remaining categories within free patrol time are meeting other officers, and several varieties of patrolling. The patrolling categories consist of time spent, both stationary and mobile, during 73 which the Officers' purposes apparently were to observe or be observed. Driving to and from assigned calls or other tasks was not included within patrolling, but rather within the task categories themselves. Similarly, driving or sitting purely for personal or pleasure purposes was not included within patrolling. The five patrolling categories are differentiated by types of roadways. As can be seen, the majority of patrolling was done on main streets, which were defined as through routes (no stop signs) with speed limits in the 30-45 mile per hour range. Side streets were the next most frequent avenue for patrolling, followed by alleys, off-street locations, and highways. It should be noted that opportunities for off-street and highway patrolling were extremely limited in some of the beats in which observations were made. The total time spent patrolling (the sum of the five patrol- ling categories) is almost exactly equal to the amount of time spent taking breaks. Patrolling and taking breaks each account for 39% of free patrol time, with meeting other officers and handling self- initiated tasks accounting for the remaining 22% of uncommitted time. In Table 4.3 a comparison is made between the observations in this study and the 1966 Syracuse study of calls radioed to patrol vehicles (described in Chapter II). It should be recognized that for the Syracuse study the data base consisted of all calls radioed to patrol vehicles during a sample time period, whereas in this study the data base consists of calls radioed to vehicles in which the observer was riding. As indicated in the table, the portions of 74 TABLE 4.3.--Calls Radioed to Patrol Vehicles: A Comparison with Wilson's 1966 Syracuse Study. Percent of Calls Calls Syracuse Lansing Information Gathering 22.1 11.8 Service 37.5 37.3 Order Maintenance 30.1 27.1 Law Enforcement .QUléi _23;Z TOTALS 100.0% 99.9% Number of Calls 312 127 calls in the two studies accounted for by the service and order maintenance categories are very comparable. Calls for information gathering in Lansing were only about half as frequent as in Syracuse, however, and law enforcement calls were about twice as frequent in Lansing. One possible explanation, other than simple situational differences, for the greater frequency of law enforcement calls in the Lansing study might be increased public use of alarms in the years between the studies. Proliferation of alarms might be asso- ciated with an increase of alarm calls received by the police, which are treated as indicating burglaries or robberies in progress and thus fit into Wilson's law enforcement category. A comparison between this study's observations and Bercal's 1970 study of calls responded to by patrol in Detroit and St. Louis 75 TABLE 4.4.--Calls Responded to by Patrol: A Comparison with Bercal's 1970 Study of Detroit and St. Louis. Percent of Calls Calls Detroit St. Louis Lansing Predatory and Illegal 38.7 51.0 43.0 Service Crimes Public Disorder 34.8 27.2 36.8 Crimes of Negligence 12.0 9.6 11.4 Service __1__4_._5_ _1__2_._2_ _i8_ TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Number of Calls 16,531 200,496 127 is shown in Table 4.4. Once again, the data bases for the two studies are considerably different, with the Lansing study using calls handled by units accompanied by the observer, while the Detroit/ St. Louis study used extensive departmental records of all calls handled by patrol units during a sample time period. Nevertheless, the portions of calls accounted for by the four categories are fairly similar across the studies. A comparison between the service cate- gories of Tables 4.3 and 4.4 points out the salience of category definitions in describing police activity. Wilson includes traffic- related matters, lost and/or found property, and drunkenness com— plaints within his service category for the Syracuse study. In Bercal's study, however, traffic matters are classified as crimes of negligence, recovered property (unqualified) falls into the predatory 76 and illegal service crime category, and drunkenness complaints are classifed as public disorder. The result is a much smaller service category in Table 4.4, as compared with Table 4.3. The observations made in this study are compared with Webster's 1970 study of patrol tasks in Table 4.5. Webster used dispatch records of patrol time consumption, and so only captured tasks performed by patrol officers that they reported to head- quarters. By contrast, this Lansing study used direct observations, thus capturing all tasks performed by patrol officers. The direct observation method could be expected to result in more identified tasks, especially in the categories of traffice, on-view, and administration. Officers in Lansing were observed making traffic stops, checking out suspicious people, doing paperwork, and taking breaks without having notified the dispatcher, and it seems unlikely that this phenomenon would be limited to the research site. Given this consequence of the two data collection methods reflected in Tabld 4.5, the portions of tasks falling in the various categories are quite comparable. Of course, this table and the two that pre- ceded it reflect numbers of calls and tasks, rather than time con- sumed. This is remedied in Table 4.6. This study's observations are compared with the O'Neill and Bloom 1972 study in Table 4.6. That study used patrol officer self- reports to investigate the use of patrol time in 18 California cities, whereas for this study direct observations of patrol time use were made. It is interesting to note the variations between the two studies for the patrol activities and non-duty activities categories. 77 TABLE 4.5.--Patrol Tasks: A Comparison with Webster's 1970 Study. Percent of Tasks Task Category Webster Lansing Crimes Against Persons 2.82 3.07 Crimes Against Property 13.76 11.96 Traffic 7.16 10.43 On—View (Police-Initiated) 19.68 19.02 Social Service 17.27 12.88 Administration 39.28 42.64 TOTALS 99.97% 100.00% Number of Tasks 600,000 417 TABLE 4.6.--Patrol Activity Time: A Comparison with the O'Neill and Bloom 1972 California Study. Percent of Patrol Time Task Category California California 17 Cities 1 City La"5'"9 Administrative Duties 18.0 14.8 22.4 Non-Duty Activities 10.6 11.7 22.3 Traffic 12.8 11.2 11.0 Part I & Part 11 Crimes 4.7 4.9 12.4 Secondary Police Activities 13.2 21.5 6.4 Patrol Activities 37.3 33.7 21.7 General Services to the Public _3_fi_ A _3_.§ TOTALS 100.0% 100.6% 100.0% Number of Patrol Hours 1,224 1,424 160 78 The differences may reflect situational variability in the use of patrol time, but a second explanation may also have merit. If the non-duty and patrol activities categories are combined within the studies, they account, respectively, for 47.9%, 45.4%, and 44.0% of patrol time. These figures are very consistent across the studies. As opposed to differences in patrol time use (patrol activities category), this suggests differences due to the methodologies used. That is, all non-duty activities (breaks) performed by patrol officers in the Lansing study were recorded as such by the observer, but the self-reports used for the California study may not have been quite so accurate and/or honest. This methodological explanation would account for the differences between the studies in these two categories and, if correct, could have important implications for future studies of police patrol time use. The Lansing study also differs substantially from the Cali- fornia studies in the crimes and secondary police activities cate- gories. Whether these variations are the result of real situational differences in the use of patrol time or the result of the differing methodologies used is again an open question. To some extent these two categories are contiguous, simply applying to different degrees of criminal violations, and the sums of the categories are somewhat more consistent across studies than are the individual categories themselves. The two methodologies used would not seem to account for the differences in this instance, however, as officers could be expected to fully report the kinds of activities involved with these categories. 79 A look at the Lansing figures in Table 4.6 provides an interesting picture of police patrol work (this issue of the general nature of patrol work will be taken up again at the end of this chapter). Combining the traffic, crimes, and secondary police activities categories reveals that about 30% of patrol work is, loosely speaking, law enforcement- or crime-related. An additional 22% of patrol time is spent patrolling, or driving and sitting so as to see and be seen. Taken together, these two elements of patrol time account for about half of patrol work. The two categories of administrative duties and non-duty activities, both of which are down-time in the sense of not being time spent in the field patrol- ling or handling calls, eegp_account for about 22% of patrol time. The remaining 4% of patrol time is spent on general services to the public; this is the only portion of patrol time that is both not crime-related and clearly service-related.75 In Table 4.7 the Lansing study and the 1974 Kansas City study are compared in terms of police use of free patrol time. For the Lansing study, both direct observations of patrol time use and the responses from a survey of the patrol force are reported. With respect to the survey, officers were asked to estimate their average allocation of free patrol time among the seven categories used in the Kansas City study. These categories were stationary police- related; stationary nonpolice-related; mobile police-related; mobile nonpolice-related; contacting personnel in field, police-related; contacting personnel in field, nonpolice-related; and residual (for category definitions, see Chapter II). The categories were then 80 TABLE 4.7.--Police Use of Free Patrol Time: A Comparison with the 1974 Kansas City Study. Percent of Free Patrol Time Time Category Kansas Lansing Lansing City Observations Survey Mobile Police-Related 23.54 32.04 33.32 Nonpolice-Related 25.47 34.40 20.80 Stationary and Contact 26.01 13.50 39.82 Personnel, Police-Related Residual _gg;g§. _2Q;Q§_ 6.56 TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.50% Number of hours 1,230 160 Number of respondents 79 consolidated to correspond to the reported findings from the Kansas City study. In terms of data collection method, the Lansing Observations and Kansas City columns of Table 4.7 are the most comparable. The Kansas City figures, like the observations for this study, are based on direct observations made by observers riding in patrol cars. Comparing the two columns reveals some rather substantial variations. The portion of free patrol time spent in Lansing on police-related stationary and personnel-contacting duties was only about half that spent on the same activities in Kansas City. This time was accounted for in Lansing by spending about a third more 81 time on nonpolice-related and mobile police-related tasks than was the case in Kansas City. As the data collection methods for the two observation studies were the same, and as the category defini- tions seem very clear, it seems likely that the variations in the use of free patrol time between Kansas City and Lansing are real. The small sample size for the Lansing study, and the fact that all the observations were made during the summer, could also account for some of the difference. The variations between the Lansing observation and survey figures in Table 4.7 are very substantial in all but the mobile police-related category. If the accuracy of the observation data can be assumed, the error in the survey data might reflect misunder- standing of the category definitions, inaccurate estimation of average free patrol time allocation, or deliberate dishonesty. A plausible explanation of the error might be that officers over- estimated the time they spend writing reports, under-estimated their residual time (especially the aggregation of numerous short travel times), and both under-estimated and under-reported their nonpolice- related time. Together with a measure of misunderstanding of the time categories, the explanation could account for the difference between the observation and survey figures. Regardless of the explanation, this comparison, together with that made between the Lansing and California studies, strongly suggests that direct observation of patrol time use is far superior, in terms of accuracy of data collected, to self-reporting of patrol time use. 82 The observations of patrol time use included data collection on the approximate speed at which officers did their patrolling; the findings are summarized in Table 4.8. Referring back to Table 4.2, it is obvious that speed of patrolling is closely related to the type of roadway on which the patrolling is done. The figures for medium speed and main street patrolling are very similar, and the slow speed figures reflect those for alley, off-street, and side street patrolling. Probably, with the exception of those times of day when other traffic is not a consideration, patrolling speed closely matches that of other traffic on the streets. In Table 4.9, data is presented concerning the types of locations in which officers chose to patrol in Lansing during the observation study. It should be noted that Officers' choices of locations in which to patrol are restricted by the characteristics TABLE 4.8.--Observed Approximate Speed of Patrolling (N = twenty 8-hour tours). Average Minutes Percent of Free Speed Per Tour Time Patrolling Stationary (0 mph) 3.5 3.4 Slow (1-25 mph) 35.2 34.3 Medium (26-40 mph) 63.5 61.8 Fast (41+ mph) 0.5 0.5 TOTALS 102.7 100.0% 83 TABLE 4.9.--0bserved Locations in Which Officers Chose to Patrol (N = twenty B-hour tours). Locations Average Minutes Percent of Free Per Tour Time Patrolling Manufacturing 4.6 4.6 Business 54.9 54.7 Residential 36.2 36.1 Country/Park ___4._6_ _fl TOTALS 100.3 100.0% of their patrol areas. In Lansing, some patrol areas have little or no manufacturing and/or country/park sections, so that officers working these areas could not choose to patrol such sections. However, all beats observed had sections that could be classified as residential and business. As can be seen in the table, the majority of patrolling time was spent in business areas, with a con- siderable portion of time also spent in residential areas. The relationship between location of patrolling and speed and roadway should be evident. Medium speed main street patrolling primarily takes place in business areas, whereas slow speed side street patrolling is more characteristic of residential areas. Free Patrol and Time of Day The relationship between the use of free patrol time and time of day (shift) can be investigated using both the observation 84 and survey data. In Table 4.10, the observed use of free patrol time by shift is presented in terms of the eight categories of Table 4.2. As shown, the average total minutes of free patrol time available did not vary much by shift. The distinguishing feature of the daytime (7 a.m. - 3 p.m.) shift was a greater time devotion to main street patrolling; of the afternoon (3 p.m. - 11 p.m.) shift, it was that more time was spent handling self-initiated tasks; and of the night (11 p.m. - 7 a.m.) shift, more time was spent taking breaks. These characteristics are not simply those of organizational subunits (patrol squads), because the squads rotated shifts during the observation study, so that the shift figures in Table 4.10 reflect across squad sampling. As a measure of the reasonableness -of the figures, the distinguishing features noted seem consistent with common sense impressions of the three shifts. During the night shift there is relatively less to do, with less people about, thus making more break time both possible and seemingly less wasteful. During the afternoon shift people frequent bars and other entertain- ment centers and are generally out on the streets, giving patrol officers greater opportunities for self-initiated activity. And during the day shift, the public is generally to be found on the main streets, though their daytime demeanor may present the officer with fewer opportuniites for undertaking self-initiated tasks. During the daytime and afternoon shifts an officer has little trouble finding "legitimate" pursuits or at least distractions, but during the night shift such is not always the case. 85 TABLE 4.lO.-—Observed Use of Free Patrol Time by Time of Day (Total N = twenty 8-hour tours). Percent of Free Patrol Time Act1v1ty 7 a m - 3 p.m.- ll p.m.- 3 p m 11 p.m 7 a.m. Meeting Other Officers 5.2 2.5 4.6 Handling Self-Initiated Tasks 12.8 25.6 12.8 Taking Breaks 34.6 35.1 44.6 Alley Patrolling 2.0 1.4 6.0 Off-Street Patrolling 1.4 1.9 2.1 Side Street Patrolling 10.5 11.0 5.5 Main Street Patrolling 33.5 22.3 24.5 Highway Patrolling 0.0 0.2 0.0 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% Average Tota1 Minutes of Free Patrol Time 250.5 263.9 264.3 Number of Hours Observed 32 64 64 The observed use of free patrol time for different kinds of patrolling also coincided with general impressions. More time was spent on alley and off-street patrolling during the night shift, but less on side street patrolling, than during the other two shifts. This reflects the concern during the night shift with commercial burglaries (off-street patrolling included shopping center parking lots), and the relative lack of concern with residential burglaries during those hours. During the night shift most busineses are 86 closed and susceptible to burglary, whereas most residences are occupied and thus less likely to be burglarized. Table 4.11 is also based on the observation data from Lansing, with the categories used for free patrol time classifica- tion being those from the Kansas City study. The portion of free patrol time devoted to mobile police-related duties is consistent across the shifts, but there are considerable differences across the other categories. The night shift used much less time for residual duties, which is probably attributable to the fact that courts and police administrative units are closed during this time period, and thus do not make demands on patrol officer time. The extra time this made available to the night shift was primarily allocated to nonpolice-related activities. The afternoon shift used about a third more free patrol time for nonpolice-related activities than did the daytime shift, while the night shift spent about two-thirds more time than the daytime shift on nonpolice-related activities. A smaller portion of afternoon shift time was given to the stationary and contact personnel, police-related category than for the other two shifts. In Table 4.12 the survey responses of the patrol force to questions about the emphasis given to different tasks on different shifts are summarized. The responses generally correspond closely to the observations made and to overall impressions. The emphasis given to checking suspicious people is lowest for the daytime shift and highest for the night shift, which reflects the fact that during the day many people are out in public places doing all kinds of 87 TABLE 4. ll. --Observed Use of Free Patrol Time by Time of Day, Using the Kansas City Categories (Tota1 N= twenty 8- hour tours Percent of Free Patrol Time Time Category 53133 11 H 115.112 Mobile Police-Related 31.3 32.6 30.7 Nonpolice-Related 24.9 32.7 40.4 Stationary and Contact 14.2 8.6 17.0 Personnel, Police-Related Residual _22;§_ _ggtn; _jj;§[ TOTALS 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% Number of Hours Observed 32 64 64 lawful things, whereas during the night fewer people are out and some of them are likely to be intent on theft. Just driving around is given most emphasis on the daytime shift, which might simply be due to the daylight making it possible for the officer to enjoy the scenery. Checking business establishments gets increasing emphasis as the day wears on, and becomes the most emphasized activity during the night shift, certainly because most businesses are then closed and susceptible to burglary. The emphasis given to checking resi- dential areas is quite consistent across shifts, and generally of fairly high priority. Checking and enforcing traffic follows the same pattern as just driving around, which is to say that it is given the most emphasis during the daytime and the least during the 88 TABLE 4.12.--Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks During Different Shifts (adjusted scores, N = 79 survey respondents). Emphasis Given Patrol Tasks 7 a.m.- 3 p.m.- ll p.m.- 3 p.m. 11 p.m. 7 a.m. Checking Suspicious People 12.5 19.5 23.3 Just Driving Around 12.8 8.1 6.0 Checking Business Establishments 11.1 15.9 24.1 Checking Residential Areas 16.8 14.8 16.5 Checking and Enforcing Traffic 20.9 19.6 13.2 Talking to the General Public 15.7 12.7 7.0 Talking to Other Officers __l_(_)_._2_ __9_.4_ _9_.8_ TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% Note: Respondents marked their scores for each task for each shift on a 0-100 scale. The average scores for each task per shift were then adjusted to correspond to portions of the total shiftwemphasis. night shift. The low emphasis given to checking and enforcing traffic during the night shift probably reflects both the paucity of traffic at that time and the higher priorities given to checking businesses and suspicious people. The emphasis given to talking to the general public also follows the pattern of decreasing from day- time to night shifts. A major factor influencing this pattern is undoubtedly the differential availability of citizens with whom to talk at various times of the day. Finally, the emphasis given to talking to other officers is consistent and of low priority through- out the day. 89 Examining the columns of Table 4.12, rather than the rows, contributes to describing the salient tasks of the shifts. During the daytime shift, the most emphasized task is checking and enforcing traffic, followed by checking residential areas and talking to the general public. Thus, the public contact content of the daytime shift is fairly high. The first priorities of the afternoon shift are checking and enforcing traffic and suspicious people, followed by checking businesses and residential areas. Public contact during this shift remains frequent, but the contacts are more likely to be with suspicious and/or intoxicated people. During the night shift the activities of checking businesses and suspicious people pre- dominate, with checking residential areas a distant third priority. Public contact during the night shift is thus much less frequent and very likely to incorporate suspicion. The emphases of the day, afternoon, and night shifts might be summarized as police-community relations, enforcement, and security, respectively. The relationship between time of day and speed of patrolling, based upon the Lansing observations, is presented in Table 4.13. The variations between the shifts are not tremendous, but in general it is clear that speed of patrolling decreases as the day wears on. This is probably partially attributable to the relative presence of other vehicles using the streets, partially due to general visibility considerations, and partially designed to facilitate the observation of suspicious behavior, expecially around businesses, during the later hours. 90 TABLE 4.13.-~Observed Approximate Speed of Patrolling by Time of Day (Total N = twenty 8-hour tours). Percent of Free Time Patrolling Speed 7 a.m.- 3 p.m.- 11 p.m.- 3 p.m. ll p.m. 7 a.m Stationary (0 mph) 1.1 1.8 6.4 Slow (1-25 mph) 28.2 36.6 35.7 Medium (26-40 mph) 70.7 61.1 57.2 Fast (41+ mph) __M __(Lg ___0_._7_ TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Number of Hours Observed 32 64 64 In Table 4.14 the relationship between time of day and location of patrolling is presented. Once again it should be noted that the availability of manufacturing and country/park sections was very limited in some of the observed patrol areas. As is evident from the table, business and manufacturing sections are the bene- ficiaries of more patrolling as the day progresses, while the opposite is true for residential and country/park sections. These observed patterns are consonant with the survey emphasis responses reported in Table 4.12. For example, the observed pattern of country/park patrolling parallels the reported emphasis given to just driving around, and it was the observer's impression that most country/park patrolling was at least partially motivated by a desire to temporarily escape the city streets for the enjoyment of natural 91 TABLE 4.14.--Observed Locations in Which Officers Chose to Patrol, by Time of Day (Total N = twenty 8-hour tours). Percent of Free Time Patrolling Locations 7 a.m.- 3 p.m.— ll p.m.— 3 p.m. 11 p.m. 7 a.m. Manufacturing 1.7 2.7 7.8 Business 36.4 60.3 61.1 Residential 53.3 31.0 29.9 Country/Park __314; __649_ __ngL TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% Number of Hours Observed 32 64 64 scenery. Late at night, however, the city streets are no longer crowded, while the scenery of the country/park sections is shrouded in darkness. Free Patrol and Organizational Sub-Unit The relationship between the use of free patrol time and organizational sub-unit membership can be investigated using both the observation and survey data collected in Lansing. The sub-units involved in this study are the three patrol squads. The patrol squads in Lansing rotate the hours of their duty tours each month. As the observations for this study were made over a two month period, the observation data for squads is distinct from the findings for time of day reported above. 92 The observed use of free patrol time by squads is presented in Table 4.15. There are some differences between the squads across activity categories, but the variations are not great. Squad A is distinguished by having the least time of any squad devoted to handling self-initiated tasks, and the most devoted to taking breaks. Squad B easily leads the other two squads in terms of time spent handling self-initiated tasks, while also spending more patrolling time on side streets and less on main streets than the other two squads. Patrol time use by Squad C is at about the average in all the major categories, with a relatively high but still minor time allocation for meeting other officers. TABLE 4.15.--0bserved Use of Free Patrol Time by Squads (Total N = twenty 8-hour tours of duty). Percent of Free Patrol Time Activity Squad A Squad 8 Squad C Meeting Other Officers 2.6 2.9 5.9 Handling Self-Initiated Tasks 13.4 24.3 18.8 Taking Breaks 45.3 35.2 34.1 Alley Patrolling 5.0 1.3 3.0 Off-Street Patrolling 0.7 0.8 4.0 Side Street Patrolling 6.5 14.5 7.2 Main Street Patrolling 26.6 20.7 27.0 Highway Patrolling __Qy9_ __Qy§_ __jLJl TOTALS 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% Average Total Minutes 250.5 263.9 264.3 of Free Patrol Time Number of Hours Observed 64 40 56 93 In Table 4.16 data is presented concerning the relationship between squad membership and survey responses about emphasis given to various patrol tasks. The table is actually a combination of seven cross-tabular analyses, one for each of the patrol tasks. The eta statistics shown in the right hand column of Table 4.16 are those from the seven preliminary tables, and are a measure of association between the task variables and the squad variable. The values of the eta statistic can range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of one, and the larger the value the stronger the association between the two variables. The eta statistic does not assume linearity in the relationship between the two variables, and so is completely appropriate in instances such as this in which the independent variable (squad) is nominal. The relationship between patrol squad and reported emphasis given to various patrol tasks does not seem very strong. There is relatively little variation across squads on the emphasis given to the tasks, and the eta values are fairly small. One interpretation of the squared eta value is that it represents the portion of variance in the dependent variable (patrol task) explained by the independent variable; the largest eta value in Table 4.16, when squared, accounts for only 4.4% of the variance of the dependent variable (talking to the general public). Also, for all three squads the most emphasized task is checking suspicious people, and the least emphasized is just driving around. The only discernible pattern is an apparent enforcement orientation for Squad C. Of the three squads, 94 TABLE 4.16.--Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Organizational Sub-Unit (N = 79 survey respondents). Emphasis Given Patrol Tasks Squad A Squad B Squad C eta Checking Suspicious People 19.0 17.8 18.4 .18 Just Driving Around 8.8 9.5 9.2 .07 Checking Business Establish— 16.7 16.4 17.6 .08 ments Checking Residential Areas 16.0 15.8 15.9 .14 Checking and Enforcing 15.8 17.3 17.8 .10 Traffic Talking to the General Public 12.2 12.8 10.2 .21 Talking to Other Officers __lli _10_._4_ _1_1__._O .13 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% Number of Respondents 29 25 25 Note: Respondents marked their scores for each task for each shift on a O-lOO scale. The values reported above are the result of averaging and adjustment to correspond to portions of total emphasis. that sub-unit reported the highest emphasis for checking and enforcing traffic, and the lowest for talking to the general public. The relationship between the use of free patrol time, as measured by survey responses using the Kansas City categories, and squad membership is also the subject of Table 4.17. Within this table there is considerably more variability across categories than there was in the previous table, which was also based on survey responses. Within Table 4.17 Squad B seems to represent the mean 95 TABLE 4.17.--Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Organizational Sub-Unit (N = 79 survey respondents). Percent of Free Patrol Time Time Category Squad A Squad B Squad C eta Mobile Police-Related 22.8 33.1 39.6 .41 Nonpolice-Related 28.1 17.8 17.7 .34 Stationary and Contact 40.6 41.9 36.0 .12 Personnel, Police-Related Residual ..JLJI __Z;g_ __§;§_ .17 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% Number of Respondents 29 25 25 for most categories, with Squad A reporting itself low on mobile police—related and high on nonpolice-related time use, and Squad C reporting the reverse pattern. The eta values are generally larger than in Table 4.16, such that the squad variable accounts for 16.8% of the variance in the mobile police-related variable and 11.6% of the variance in the nonpolice-related variable. These squared eta values are fairly large for social science research, suggesting that squad assignment is an important factor in predicting and explaining variability in police use of free patrol time. Free Patrol and Years of Schooling The relationship between patrol officers' years of schooling and their use of free patrol time can only be investigated in this study with the survey data. The range of personal characteristics 96 encountered during the observation stage of the study was not extensive, and collection of data about these characteristics was not complete. Information concerning the relationship between reported emphasis given to various patrol tasks and patrol Officers' years of schooling is presented in Table 4.18. As in the previous analyses using the patrol task emphasis variables, the table values are averages adjusted to correspond to portions of total emphasis. When responding to the original survey questions, officers could mark their scores for each task on a O-lOO scale. Consequently, some officers reported giving high emphasis to all tasks, while other officers also reported giving low emphasis to all tasks. While in some contexts the absolute scores might be of interest, for this portion of the study the various patrol tasks were viewed as competing for shares of each officer's time and emphasis, and thus the score adjustments to portions of total emphasis. The eta statistics reported in this and other tables were computed from grouped unadjusted scores, and thus should be interpreted carefully. No strong or clear patterns in the relationship between years of schooling and emphasis given to different patrol tasks are evident in Table 4.18. The group with fourteen years of schooling is the most distinctive, giving more emphasis than any other group to checking traffic, businesses, and suspicious people, and less emphasis than any other group to talking to the general public. This would seem to reflect a crime or enforcement orientation, but 97 TABLE 4.18.-~Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Years of Schooling (N = 79 survey respondents). Years of Schooling Patrol Tasks 12-13 14 15 16+ eta Checking Suspicious Pe0ple 18.9 19.0 18.7 17.5 .23 Just Driving Around 11.6 8.2 6.6 10.0 .19 Checking Business Establishments 14.2 19.8 16.4 15.9 .32 Checking Residential Areas 17.1 15.4 18.5 15.2 .28 Checking and Enforcing Traffic 16.7 18.6 14.8 16.6 .16 Talking to the General Public 13.1 9.8 13.0 12.4 .28 Talking to Other Officers 8.4 9.2 11.9 12.4 .31 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% Number of Respondents 10 24 11 34 Note: Respondents marked their scores for each task for each shift on a 0-100 scale. The values reported above are the result of averaging and adjustment to correspond to portions of total emphasis. the differences between the groups are not substantial enough to support confident generalizations about this or any other patterns. As mentioned, the eta values in Table 4.18 were computed from original unadjusted scores. The largest eta value is for checking business establishments, 10.2% of the variance of which is accounted for by the years of schooling variable. Although not shown in the table, it is interesting to note that the gamma values 98 for the seven relationships, computed from unadjusted scores, are all positive. In other words, in terms of the original responses concerning emphasis given to the patrol tasks, officers with more schooling reported giving more emphasis to all of the tasks. The relationship between the use of free patrol time and years of schooling, in terms of survey responses to the Kansas City categories, is presented in Table 4.19. The variations across time categories are not great, as reflected in the rather small eta values. For the mobile police-related category, reported time allocation increases with years of schooling, while for the other three categories the pattern is less linear. The gamma values for the four comparisons (not shown in the table) are all also small, with that for the mobile police-related variable being positive, -while those for the other three dependent variables are negative. Again, however, the magnitude of the differences are not great, as reflected in the small summary statistics, and so confident state- ments about the relationship between years of schooling and the use of free patrol time cannot be made. Whether this absence of a strong relationship is indicative of the effects of college education on police behavior, or whether, as Hoover and Hudzik have argued, the years of schooling variable reflects but one dimension of the educa- . . . . 76 t10nal experTence, 15 an as yet unanswered question. Free Patrol and Major Field of College Study The relationship between patrol Officers' major fields of college study and their use of free patrol time was examined using 99 TABLE 4.19.--Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officars' Years of Schooling (N = 79 survey respon- dents . Years of Schooling Time Category 12-13 14 15 16+ eta Mobile Police-Related 24.6 31.8 32.0 33.0 .15 Nonpolice-Related 22.8 20.2 25.2 21.0 .16 Stationary and Contact 44.6 40.9 34.1 38.8 .18 Personnel, Police-Related Residual 8.0 7.2 8.7 7.2 .16 TOTALS 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% Number of Respondents 10 24 ll 34 the survey data. As noted in the last section, the observation phase of the Lansing study was not extensive enough to produce use- ful direct observation data concerning the relationship between personal characteristics of officers and their use of free patrol time. The survey responses for major field of college study were grouped into three categories, which were law enforcement/police studies, criminal justice, and other. The other category could not ~be usefully disaggregated for this study because of the relatively small number of respondents falling into the category (n = 16, 'which was 23.2% of those respondents listing a major field of college study). Because of the manner in which the data was grouped, the field of college study variable may either be regarded as a 100 nominal variable or as an ordinal one. As an ordinal variable, the values for field of college study move from directly police—related to nonpolice-related, with the major field of criminal justice as the middle value. In Table 4.20 the relationship between reported emphasis given to different patrol tasks and major field of college study is presented. The criminal justice group seems to represent the average time allocation for most of the categories, standing out only with respect to the task of talking to the general public, to which it devotes more time than either of the other two groups. The law enforcement/police studies group reports spending more time than either of the others on checking businesses and residential areas, and gives the least emphasis to talking to other officers. The "other“ group holds the polar position in every patrol task category: they report giving more emphasis than either other group to just driving around, checking and enforcing traffic, and talking to other officers; and they give less emphasis than the others to checking suspicious people, businesses, and residential areas, and to talking to the general public. A coherent and logical explana- tion for this pattern has not emerged, unfortunately. In general, the eta values are all small, suggesting that the major field of college study variable does not account for very much of the variance in the patrol task emphasis variables. A similar statement can be made about the relationship between major field of college study and reported allocation of 101 TABLE 4.20.--Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Major Fields of College Study (N = 74 survey respondents). Major Field of College Study Patrol Tasks Law Enggaaement (tagging; Other eta Checking Suspicious People 18.5 18.5 17.6 .12 Just Driving Around 8.0 9.4 9.9 .04 Checking Business Establishments 18.4 16.4 16.3 .20 Checking Residential Areas 16.3 15.5 15.2 .10 Checking and Enforcing Traffic 17.2 16.2 19.0 .11 Talking to the General Public 11.1 13.1 9.5 .21 Talking to Other Officers _19;4_ _1oyg' _12;§_ .04 TOTALS 99.9% 99.9% 100.1% Number of Respondents 21 32 21 Note: Respondents marked their scores for each task for each shift on a O-lOO scale. The values reported above are the result of averaging and adjustment to correspond to portions of total emphasis. free patrol time, as summarized in Table 4.21. The eta values for the four comparisons are all relatively small. The patterns across categories are linear in three of the cases, however, and deserve mention. Increasingly police-related major fields of study are associated with increased reported time spent on the two police- related activity categories, according to the table. On the other 102 TABLE 4.21.--Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officers' Major Fields of College Study (N = 74 survey respondents). Major Field of College Study T1me Category Enfbagement ($3131.? e] Other eta Police Mobile Police-Related 35.2 32.0 20.6 .12 Nonpolice-Related 16.9 22.9 24.1 .16 Stationary and Contact 40.4 38.0 37.6 .10 Personnel, Police-Related Residual _7_._e _Z_._0_ __LZ . 10 TOTALS 100.1% 99.9% 100.0% Number of Respondents 21 32 21 hand, less police-related major fields of study are associated with increased time devoted to nonpolice-related activity. These patterns are supported by the gamma values for the comparisons discussed (not included in the table), which though small are signed as suggested by the patterns observed in Table 4.21. Free Patrol and Years of Police Experience The relationship between patrol Officers' years of police experience and their use of free patrol time was examined through analysis of the suvey data. The years of police experience variable was grouped into categories of one to four years, five to seven years, and eight or more years in order to create a roughly even 103 distribution of responses, rather than on the basis of any sub- stantive rationale. The relationship between reported emphasis given to different patrol tasks and years of police experience is presented in Table 4.22. Although there are no large variations across categories, several linear patterns are evident. Increased police experience is associated with reported increased emphasis given to checking suspicious people and talking to the general public, and with decreased emphasis given to just driving around, checking business establishments and traffic, and talking to other officers. The raw emphasis scores, before adjustment, also show an interesting pattern. Increased years of police experience are associated with decreased overall emphasis as reported for every one of the seven patrol tasks. None of the eta values, however, are large enough to account for very much of the variance in the task emphasis variables. In Table 4.23 the relationshp between reported allocation of free patrol time and years of police experience is summarized. The only linear pattern is the positive relationship between years of police experience and time devoted to nonpolice-related activities. The eta value for this relationship is the largest of the four, but only accounts for 4.4% of the variance in the dependent variable. In general, the association between the two variables represented in Table 4.23 must be characterized as weak. 104 TABLE 4.22.--Survey Responses for Emphasis Given to Patrol Tasks by Patrol Officers' Years of Police Experience (N = 79 survey respondents). Years of Police Experience Patrol Tasks 1-4 5-7 8+ eta Checking Suspicious People 17.1 18.0 19.9 .03 Just Driving Around 9.6 9.2 8.6 .17 Checking Business Establishments 17.5 16.7 16.5 .24 Checking Residential Areas 15.3 16.5 16.2 .14 Checking and Enforcing Traffic 17.9 16.8 15.9 .25 Talking to the General Public 10.2 10.8 14.5 .15 Talking to Other Officers __l_2_;_5_ _l_2_._0_ ___§.:.i4_ .26 TOTALS 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% Number of Respondents 25 25 29 Note: Respondents marked their scores for each task for each shift on a 0-100 scale. The values reported above are the result of averaging and adjustment to correspond to portions of total emphasis. Multivariate Analysis As shown by the data presented in the previous sections, none of the individual personal or organizational variables are very strongly related to reported emphasis given to patrol tasks or reported patrol time allocation. All of the relationships examined in the earlier discussions were simple bivariate ones, however. In this section the strength of association between the dependent and independent variables is investigated within a multivariate context, 105 TABLE 4.23.--Survey Responses for Use of Free Patrol Time by Patrol Officers' Years of Police Experience (N = 79 survey respondents). Years of Police Experience Time Category 1-4 5-7 8+ eta Mobile Police-Related 34.5 28.6 31.1 .09 Nonpolice-Related 18.4 22.8 23.2 .21 Stationary and Contact 40.1 40.5 38.3 .10 Personnel, Police-Related Residual _LO _8_Ll_ _7_.4 .15 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Number of Respondents 25 25 29 in order to assess the overall explanatory power of the personal and organizational variables, and also to compare the relative strength of the independent variables. The results of multiple regression analyses for the reported patrol task emphasis dependent variables are presented in Table 4.24. In order to use the organizational sub-unit variable in the analysis, dummy variables were created, because of the nominal nature of the variable. Thus, the Squad A variable is an indicator of assignment to that particular squad (0 = not assigned to Squad A, 1 = assigned to Squad A), and the Squad B variable is an indicator of assignment to that squad (same coding scheme). Only two dummy variables are used, rather than three, because the information about squad __ .mpmmuiu co woman .Fm>mp mc. ecu um ucmuwmwcmwm use: umcwpcmucz muzmmmz mama Lace wee "muoz mom. FP.P mo. PN.- eo.i mo. mo. om. mcmureco smspo cu mcwxpmp .11. uw_n=a ouo. mp.m «F. _P. mp.- mm. up. Nu. _mcmcmw we“ op mcwxpee cement» mop. mo.~ pp. mm.- no.1 No.1 oF. «P. memucowcm ecu mcwxuogu awe. mm. so. m—.- mp.- No. mo. om. mmmc< papacocwmwm mcwxumgu mucm55mwpnmumm % moo. mm; 2. em.. 3.- mo. 2. 8. 32.5.5 3.5.85 emu. mm. do. om.- mo. oo.- mo. mo. ucsoc< mcw>wco umza omo. mo.~ mp. ep.- mF.- up. so. .de apnoea mzowaamzm mcwxomnu 3:8 h. ocmzam m .cmaxm some: Foo—Um m < -_c,emam apaeepez adapoa Feoeem meee> eeeem eeeem messed: apes mxmmh _ocuma .Ampcmccoammc xm>tsm as u zv mxmmp Poppa; acmcmecwo op cm>mw mwmmca5u umpcoamm cow mwm>Fec< cowmmmtmmm mpawanzii.em.e u4mmp mo. mzu um achwwwcmwm mew: cmcwpcmuca mucmwmz mama mass» on» "mgoz mam. m_.F mo. ~—.- _P.- o—.- co. mm. _mzummmm umpm_mm-muwpom .chcomgma mum. mo.~ mo. ~_.- mo.- mo.- pm. pm. pumpcou ucm acmcowpmum mco. ~¢.m oP. NF. PF. mp. Po. Pm. umumpmmumuwpoacoz mmo. nn.m m_. mF. Po. co. mp.- m¢.- umgmpmm-wuwpoa m—wnoz mucmu u mgmzcm a .cmaxm .Lowmz Poosum m < -wcwcmwm a_awp_=z muw_oa _oogum mama» naaam uaaum abempmz abom mmwgommgmu mew» .Amacmnconmmg >m>c=m cu u zv we?» Focama mmcu mo mm: umpconmm com mwmapmc< covmmmcmmm mpapupaznu.m~.e m4m