Performance Profiles of Foot Versus Motor Officers

Dennis M. Payne
Robert Trojanowicz

National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal opportunity institution.

This publication was made possible by a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. The information contained herein represents the views and conclusions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Mott Foundation, its trustees, or officers.

Copyright © 1985
The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center 

Sir Robert Peale, the nineteenth-century British reformer, recognized the need for a standardized method of evaluating police performance.⁽¹⁾ During the twentieth century, there have been many attempts to delineate quantitative measures of performance. The development of the Uniform Crime Reports is the most familiar of all such efforts. Today, however, the problem still persists.

The complexity of police interaction with the communities served makes precise quantification of activity difficult. As Spencer Parrat observed in 1937, "Police administration is a composite of many variables, behaviors, states of mind or attitudes and external conditioning factors."⁽²⁾ The same is true today; communities, and neighborhoods within communities, possess divergent resources, needs, expectations and priorities.

Police performance literature generally discusses evaluation of the innate character of individual officers. Traits such as intelligence, analytical ability, sensitivity and moral character are often used in the evaluation process. Administrators using these criteria frequently ascribe poor police performance to the "...failure to recruit the right types of people, failure of society to instill appropriate values in young people of today, along with the failure of the educational system to develop appropriate skills.⁽³⁾"

Some police administrators, those with a more quantitative and less ecological perspective, tend to evaluate performance by reference to activities easily objectified and counted--traffic tickets, arrests, convictions, security checks, and so on. The limits of such a quantitative orientation are obvious: the most easily counted tasks are not always of the greatest benefit to the community. On the whole, efforts to reify police performance through standardized measures lead only to confusion and alienation. Communities and neighborhoods differ immensely; they are not always amenable to larity of patrol cars, and the attendant emphasis on police response time have depersonalized police-citizen interactions. The anomaly is that, as service calls have exploded quantitatively, the quality of policing has devalued and the exchange of useful information has constricted.

Information is the lifeblood of police work. Acquiring, processing and interpreting information are critical elements of any effort to deal with crime and other community concerns. Without complete and accurate information on an aggregate level, the policing effort is difficult. Linkages between officers and citizens becomes a critical dimension of law enforcement which may serve to establish a conduit through which community needs and values are translated into police activity. The interaction emphasized by community policing programs can be seen as a nexus which transforms officers into proactive agents of social control.

To determine the effectiveness, efficiency or cost benefits of community policing without a detailed analysis of the activities of both community police officers and motor patrol officers is impossible. Having a comparative perspective should make it possible to generate alternative measures of police performance and service. The present research will analyze and compare the activities of foot and motor patrol officers in the city of Flint in order to initiate construction of valid performance criteria.
 

Community Policing: The Flint Experiment
The Flint Police Department operated solely with motorized or preventive patrols until January, 1979, at which point the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation provided funding for the implementation of experimental community-based foot patrol.⁽⁴⁾

Flint's Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program is unique in a variety of ways. It emerged from an initiative which integrated citizens into the planning and implementation process through citywide neighborhood meetings in 1977 and 1978. It attempts to ameliorate three distinct problems: (1) the absence of comprehensive neighborhood organizations and services; (2) the lack of citizen involvement in crime prevention; and (3) the depersonalization of interactions between officers and residents. The program began in 1979 with 22 foot patrol officers assigned to 14 experimental areas which included about 20 percent of the city's population. The activity and efforts of the foot officers addressed seven basic goals.:

1. To decrease the amount of actual or perceived criminal activity.
2. To increase the citizen's perception of personal safety.
3. To deliver to Flint residents a type of law enforcement service consistent with the community needs and the ideas of modern police practice.
4. To create a community awareness of crime problems and methods of increasing law enforcement's ability to deal with actual or potential criminal activity effectively.
5. To develop citizen volunteer action in support of, and under the direction of, the police department, aimed at various target crimes.
6. To eliminate citizen apathy about reporting crime to police.
7. To increase protection for women, children, and the aged.

Supervisory personnel within the Flint Police Department adapt their methods according to the form of patrol for which they are responsible. Motor patrol supervisors continue to measure success primarily in terms of the number of calls made and response time. They adhere to the semimilitary model of authority, with some supervisors infrequently interacting with officers, either individually or collectively. Roll call remains an impersonal exercise which averages 12 minutes and involves all officers and sergeants on a given shift. Sergeants do not necessarily assume responsibility for a stable pool of officers because shift rotations and sector assignments change frequently. Sergeants review officers monthly. They are compelled to interact with individual officers directly only when performance seems to be deficient.

Sergeants responsible for foot patrol officers encourage a participatory mode of supervision. Supervisors meet daily with the eight officers assigned to a specific sector. The briefings which average 31 minutes, are used to exchange information and to develop community-based strategies. The sergeants are familiar with the individual officers and know their accomplishments well. When necessary, sergeants assist and supplement individual efforts, but do not interfere with the autonomy each officer enjoys in defining community problems and programs. The decision-making freedom which sergeants permit foot patrol officers is reflected in the availability of flexible or "flex" time. Although scheduled for either morning or afternoon shifts, foot patrol officers can elect to work an evening or two instead. The only constraint on such flexibility is that the officer's alternate schedule has to be responsive to the community's needs.

The supervisory and management role in foot patrol is less directed and uniform. Supervisory and command personnel serve as resources and conduits for foot patrol officers and their communities. They become the repository for citywide information, which facilitates community involvement in the crime prevention and solving process. Under ideal circumstances, supervisors coordinate and prioritize community activities according to available resources and community needs. They do not impose cumbersome bureaucratic procedures on either foot patrol officers or on community residents.

Some of the results of the Flint experiment have been reported elsewhere. Briefly, the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program reduced crime rates by 8.7 percent. More dramatic were the reductions in calls for service, which decreased by 42 percent over the period 1979-1982. Citizens began handling minor problems themselves, or the foot officer acted as mediator on an informal basis, negating the need for a formal complaint.

Although the impact on calls for service alone was significant, additional evidence indicated that citizens felt safer, were satisfied with the program, felt that it had impacted the crime rates, and that it had improved police-community relations. There was much closer interaction between the foot officers and citizens. Over 33 percent of neighborhood residents knew their foot patrol officers by name, and 50 percent of the rest could provide accurate descriptions of foot officers. Citizens also felt that foot officers were more effective than motor officers in encouraging crime reporting, in involving citizens in neighborhood crime prevention efforts, in working with juveniles, in encouraging citizen self-protection, and in following up on complaints. The foot patrol officers themselves felt well integrated into the communities they served, minimizing their sense of isolation, alienation, and fear. The foot patrol experiment was so successful that the citizens of Flint passed a tax millage increase in August, 1982 which extended the program to the entire city. A three-year tax renewal was passed in June, 1985. The margin of approval, 68 percent, was even greater than in 1982. Currently there are 64 foot beats.
 

Research Design and Methods
Flint divides both foot and motor patrol into four sectors of roughly equal size in terms of population. The foot patrol program services 64 beats covering the entire city. The present research, using a random stratified sample, compares 16 foot officers--four from each sector--with a like number of motor patrol officers drawn from each of the sectors. Since foot officers do not work the third shift, the sample reflects only first and second shift officers so that comparability may be sustained. Because foot patrol beats are permanent assignments, the 16 foot officers selected remained stable throughout the study; a total of 25 motor patrol officers had to be drawn due to shift rotations. The characteristics of the sample groups can be found in Table 1.

In an effort to compare the two forms of patrol, the researchers categorized and tabulated the activities of the officers as reflected in their daily report forms. The dailies were checked against monthly activity reports in order to verify data and to establish a quality control mechanism.

The daily reports present some unique challenges in that they are constructed differently for foot and motor patrol (Appendix). Designed to give command officers the means to supervise and direct the policing effort, the upper portion of the daily records specific types of work--felony and misdemeanor arrests, hazardous tags, and so on. The lower portion of the dailies includes information about the people with whom the officers interacted--names of those arrested, for example--and miscellaneous information not included in the upper portion. Foot patrol officers register their work on the lower portion of the dailies in terms of the nearest 5 minute period; motor officers to the nearest minute.

Reviewing the dailies, both the upper and lower portions, made it possible to develop a profile of each form of patrol, a composite portrait of a foot and motor patrol officer, and sector profiles. Through the use of composite profiles it became possible to compare the relative expenditure of time on specific activities for foot and motor patrol. The dimension of time expended required a very careful and detailed review of the narrative--lower--portion of the daily activity reports in consultation with command staff in order to assure that the time and activities recorded were consistent with each other.

Foot and Motor Patrol Composites.
The top portions of the daily reports reveal nine categories of activity common to both foot and motor patrol. These identical activities are:

1. Felony Arrest -- This category includes a tabulation of the number of arrests made on a particular day for felony class crimes. Such arrests may derive from warrants issued subsequent to an investigation or arrests based on probable cause. This category also includes arrests of fugitives wanted by another agency. Arrests may be made by the patrol officer alone or in concert with other officers or other agencies.
2. Misdemeanor Arrest -- This category is a tabulation of the number or arrests made for a crime classified as a misdemeanor. Such arrests may be made with a warrant or for misdemeanors committed in an officer's presence.
3. Investigation Initiated -- This category includes only those investigations initiated by the officer through personal observation or as a consequence of citizen reports. It can be contrasted to investigations assigned by supervisors or radio dispatchers. The category is somewhat ambiguous because it is not limited to complaint investigations in the strict sense of the term. It may include a complaint investigation, but it may also include suspicious circumstances which do not culminate with a complaint. It includes criminal or noncriminal activity, family disputes, noise ordinance issues, environmental concerns, or preventive activities not otherwise classified.
4. Value of Recovered Property -- This category refers to the daily notation of the current market value of property recovered usually as a result of an investigation. It includes stolen and lost property.
5. Investigations Assigned -- This category depicts complaints which are either criminal or noncriminal and which are assigned to an officer by either the radio dispatcher or a field supervisor. The latter is usually done at daily roll call. While investigations are generally referred to as complaints, the category is not limited to complaints, and the term investigation is broadly construed.
6. Premises Found Open -- This category is used for notations on the officer's daily each time a premise is found unsecured. It may include family dwellings, businesses, and professional or commercial structures; officers use it primarily to describe business, school and industrial structures as opposed to residential units.
7. Suspicious Person -- A notation is made on the daily report of motor of foot patrol officers when a person is stopped due to suspicion of some irregularity which may result in antisocial activity. If not resolved, the circumstances of the encounter would normally lead to either an investigation or an arrest, or both.
8. Parking Violation -- This category is used to tally activity related to violations of the city's parking ordinances. It also may include certain hazardous situations involving motor vehicles.
9. Public Service Rendered -- This is a general category of activity reflecting the performance of service. It includes such things as assisting people in need of directions, assisting motorists, assisting those locked out of cars or homes, providing transportation and facilities for stranded citizens, and referrals to other agencies for some service.

1. Meetings Attended -- This category is noted each time an officer attends a meeting in relation to foot patrol duties. It includes block club formation meetings, Police Athletic League meetings, police cadet meetings, meetings with school administrators, summer camp program attendance, and tours of the police station with neighborhood youths or adults. Meetings held by various civic organizations are also included in this category.
2. Speaking Engagements -- This category involves speeches and other presentations addressing various community-crime related subjects. Examples of activity in this category are speeches at civic clubs, crime prevention presentations before block clubs, safety talks at schools, and other community-oriented talks.
3. Business Visit -- This category is recorded by an officer stopping into a business establishment for the purpose of maintaining police-citizen contact and to check for irregularities which may constitute a threat to a person or firm. Stated purposes of this activity include building community rapport, crime prevention, and developing citizen awareness and support.
4. Home Visit -- This category includes stopping at residences to open and to sustain community dialogue with the citizens on the beat. The primary purpose of this activity is to develop strong police-community relations and to make the citizens aware of available police services.
5. Juvenile Activity -- This category includes attendance at youth activities such as hot dog roasts, hayrides, ballgames and trips to the Mott Farm. It may also include counseling juveniles as a followup to an initial complaint in order to deter future criminal behavior.
6. Business Security Check -- This category involves consulting with business proprietors, conducting security surveys, and making recommendations for hardening the site to reduce the opportunity for victimization. It includes counsel on lighting, locks, practices, and other security measures designed to reduce the opportunity for crime.
7. Home Security Check -- Consulting with an individual resident at their place of residence to evaluate the general security of the home and to make recommendations to upgrade the security of the dwelling.

1. Hazardous Tags -- This category is recorded when an officer on motor patrol issues a notice for code violations considered hazardous. It generally includes moving violations.
2. Nonhazardous Tags -- This category includes all violation notices, other than parking violations. Improper lighting, license law and registration violations are included in this category.
3. Injury Accidents -- This category includes accidents on a trafficway in which someone is visibly injured or complains of injury.
4. Property Accidents -- This category is comprised of accidents on a trafficway in which there are no reported or observed injuries.

1. Training -- Motor patrol training includes time spent on the monthly firearms program. Foot patrol training refers to firearms training, scheduled in-services, and training in community service subjects generally exclusive to foot patrol officers.
2. Roll Call -- Motor patrol spends time at the beginning of each shift at mandatory roll call at headquarters, disseminating necessary patrol information determined by command. Foot patrol roll call is held in each of the foot patrol sectors by the supervisor. It occurs at the beginning of each shift in the field at a predesignated location for information exchange among the foot patrol officers of the sector. Assignments, crime updates, and general sharing of problems within the sector are part of the roll. It is an expanded version of motor patrol roll call.
3. Patrol -- This category includes the time motor patrol devotes to uncommitted patrolling--traversing beats--from which operational activities arise. Foot patrol is the time devoted to walking, or riding a bicycle or moped, on the assigned beat for the purpose of interacting with the citizens. This time component involves the production of home and business visits, security checks and other commitments not otherwise predetermined. This component involves broad discretionary use of time producing several of the operational outputs for both motor and foot patrol. It can be conceptualized as what is referred to as visible patrol.
4. Complaints -- This component refers to the time expended obtaining complaint information from the citizen and the time spent working exclusively on such complaints or follow-up investigations. For motor patrol, the time spent on this component is only that time when a complaint is made out. Response to complaints which turn out to be invalid are included in activity components such as investigations assigned or initiated. The time processing the actual complaint and away from other activities is included in this time component.

1. Senior Citizen -- Time on this component includes visiting senior citizens' complexes, escorting senior citizens to banks and the market, speaking and meeting with senior citizens, and conducting senior citizen prevention work shops. This component is used for activity exclusively directed to assisting or informing senior citizens.
2. Speaking at Schools -- Time on this component is restricted to speaking to children on subjects such as bicycle safety, the dangers of strangers, and other anticrime issues. It includes speaking to all grades, but is usually directed at the primary grades.
3. Office Work -- Time on this component is devoted to checking mail and phone calls and to typing complaint reports at the field office of the foot patrol officer. The monthly newsletter for citizens is also prepared during this time. Foot patrol allowances provide for one hour per dayon this activity, and it is recommended that this be divided between the beginning and ending of the daily shift.
4. Administration -- This includes time spent at the police station for equipment repair and pickup, acquisition of special vehicles for transport, and solicitation of support such as records or quartermaster services.
5. Juvenile Activity -- Time spent counseling juveniles, conducting trips to ball games with police cadets, participating in the police athletic league and other such activities are included in this time component.
6. Meetings -- This component is devoted to the allocation of time spent by foot patrol officers when a ttending meetings of the block clubs, crime watch groups, and meetings with school officials on special problems. The monthly scheduled foot patrol division staff meeting time is also included within this component.

1. Alarms -- This component includes the time spent by motor patrol officers in response to alarms. Time is reported on the chronological portion of the daily from the receipt of the call to handling and clearing the call, at which point the officer is available for other assignment.
2. Traffic Stops -- Motor patrol officers log the time that it takes to stop, complete the activity and release a traffic violator. While this activity appears to stem from general patrol, it is not included in the tally of patrol time because officers document the incident from start to finish.
3. Desk/Court -- This component includes work performed at the police station relieving the desk officer, and the time spent attending court or conferences with the prosecutor.

Categories of Activity
Tables 2 and 3 list the composite activities of foot and motor officers, providing comparative data. Table 2 represents the nine activities common to both forms of patrol. With the exception of investigations initiated and services rendered, motor patrol accounts for a greater number of the common activites. It produces six times the number of felony arrests and five times the number of misdemeanor arrests; it is also assigned three times as many investigations by departmental dispatchers or supervisors. Foot patrol officers, on the other hand, initiated almost twice as many investigations and seven and one half times more service to the public. Self-initiated investgations are a function of the frequent and intimate interaction between foot officers and citizens. The same may be said of services rendered to the public.

The issue, of course, is not the quantity of police-community interactions, but the quality. Table 2 shows that when the three categories of activity which do not involve citizen contact--parking violations, premises open and recovered property--are excluded, motor patrol has a higher number of contacts. The number of motor patrol contacts is 8,768, compared to 6,718 for foot patrol. Within the context of exclusive activities as depicted in Table 3, foot patrol engaged in 2,000 contacts; motor patrol, 407. Combined, foot patrol had 8,718 contacts and motor patrol 9,175, assuming one contact for each activity. Of course, the assumption may not be realistic because of the mass nature of the meetings and speaking engagements which characterize foot patrol. The number of citizens involved in a contact is not tabulated on the officers' daily report; if it were, it could skew the numbers in favor of foot patrol. The point, however, is not the number of contacts, but the nature of the contacts.

In order to view activities in terms of their nature, not numbers, one can view them as either adversarial or nonadversarial, depending upon the situation. In adversarial contacts, the officer views the citizen as a potential threat, an arrestee or a suspect; the officer normally takes some form of enforcement action. In nonadversarial situations, the interaction has no criminal focus. The conditions of nonadversarial contacts include either public service or other amiable exchanges. Looking closely at the adversarial or nonadversarial content of contacts, can provide a sense of the differences between foot and motor patrol (Table 4).

Certain activities must be excluded from an analysis of adversarial and nonadversarial contacts. Since investigations initiated and assigned can include either type of contact, they were excluded for both groups. Specific information is not available on the activity reports. Premises open was also excluded. All the foot patrol activities included in Table 3 are nonadversarial. All traffic tags recorded by motor patrol are adversarial, but accidents are viewed as nonadversarial. In Table 2, services rendered is nonadversarial, but felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, suspicious persons and parking violations are all adversarial.

Table 4 demonstrates that foot patrol officers encounter the public far more frequently in a nonadversarial than an adversarial manner. The reverse is true for the motor patrol.

Foot patrol possesses six activities exclusively; motor patrol, three. Table 6 shows that the time spent on both common (comparable) and exclusive (noncomparable) activities differs widely between the two forms of patrol. These figures show that foot patrol expends 65.19 percent of its day on common activities; motor patrol, 93.71 percent. Foot patrol officers spend better than one third of the day (34.81 percent) performing exclusive or noncomparable activities. Motor patrol consumes 6.29 percent of its day on exclusive activities. Unaccounted time from both tables has been collapsed into the noncomparable categories.

Table 7 depicts differences in the time spent by each form of patrol in the performance of comparable or common time components. These figures demonstrate that there are differences in how foot and motor officers spend time on activities which are common. One major difference is that foot patrol only consumes 3.48 percent of its work day on complaints. Motor patrol expends 41.5 percent of its work day on complaint work. Foot patrol is involved in training activity for 4.93 percent of the day, where motor patrol uses only .59 percent of its work day on training. Roll call consumes 6.51 percent of foot patrol's average work day and 2.62 percent of motor patrol's.

Patrol time varies only 1.27 percent between the two forms of patrol. Patrol time is that portion of the shift not committed to some other activity. While on patrol, both foot and motor officers are readily available for assignment. Previous studies have shown that most police departments average between 40 percent and 60 percent of the work day on "free patrol." This is an expensive expenditure. Foot patrol officers during the study period averaged 4.02 hours (50.27 percent) of each work day actually on foot patrol. Motor officers averaged 3.92 hours (49 percent) of each work day on patrol. Both types of policing, however, include activities during this "free patrol" time.

After all activities are organized into specific time blocks, the data indicate that foot patrol officers, during this "free patrol" time, make business and home visits and security checks; they also locate open premises, check suspicious persons, and perform public services ranging from giving directions to citizens to assisting finding overnight accommodations. Foot officers log 3,495 such activities during 2,432.25 hours of foot patrol. The log is equivalent to one activity every 41 minutes on foot patrol (.69 hours). Applying a cost factor of $1.90 per 1 percent of a day's work, the expenditure for each foot patrol activity is $16.23. Motorized officers logged 1,805 activities during 2,448 hours of "free patrol" time which is equal to one activity each 81 minutes (1.35 hours). Applying the motor patrol factor of $1.99 per 1 percent of a day's work, the cost of each motor patrol activity is $33.58. (The difference in cost between foot and motor patrols is attributable primarily to the increased cost of patrol cars and slightly higher administrative costs due to a lower supervisor-supervisee ratio. An analysis using direct and indirect cost revealed that the foot patrol cost was $1.90 for each 1 percent of day's work and that motor patrol cost was $1.99 for each 1 percent of day's work.)
 

Summary and Conclusions
This analysis developed profiles of foot and motor patrol officers. The data indicate that foot patrol officers are involved with the public on a much more proactive basis than motor patrol officers. Although foot officers do traditional kinds of police activities, they are more involved in information exchanges and nonadversarial situations. They are also involved in more activities on their "free patrol" time. Caution is necessary, however: simply because foot patrol is cheaper--$1.90 per 1 percent of time--and foot officers are involved in more activities on their free patrol time, does not mean that foot patrol is more valuable to the community than motor patrol.

Foot patrol will always be a support service for motor patrol. It will never replace motor patrol for obvious reasons--the speed of motorized response in serious situations as well as the automobile's ability to cover more area are indispensable to contemporary policing.

Extraction of both motor and foot patrol activities from the daily reports makes it apparent that, even though there are similar kinds of work, foot patrol officers have a much different and more varied work schedule than motor patrol officers. The delineation of patrol activities gives community residents a basis for making decisions about how they would like to see their officers spend time. For example, if residents determine that the officers should spend 10 percent of their time in developing block clubs and presenting crime prevention seminars, then a cost factor can be attached to that activity. However, officers cannot be all things to all people, and it becomes necessary to determine what percent of an officer's time, both motor and foot, should be spent on various activities in order to produce the desired results. It is possible that motorized officers could use some of their free patrol time more effectively by parking the car and becoming more involved in proactive, nonadversarial kinds of contacts. These contacts not only increase positive interaction between the citizens and the police, they also bring delivery of services closer to the public. As a result of intimate contact the public should more readily provide information to the police through a natural communication process.

The net result of enhanced intimacy is that foot officers are better able to diagnose their neighborhoods and to define community needs and values. The officers can, then, respond to the community more appropriately. Relevant information gained as a result of such intimacy translates into a proactive approach to the causes of turbulance in the community. Developing and implementing linkages between the police and the public encourages cooperation and facilitates problem solving.

By reviewing the composite profiles drawn in this research, the community not only has an idea of what motor and foot officers are doing, but it can develop a better sense of its priorities. Realistic priorities should improve the delivery of services to the community and the accountability of police departments as well as facilitate problem identification and resolution.

Having this kind of community input may be a threat to some politicians and administrators, however. Officers acting as diagnosticians, linkages, and community organizers are threatening to established structures because they are perceived as developing their own constituencies and increasing their political influence. The risk is inherent in adopting a proactive model of policing. The proactive model must be measured against the potential benefits to the community.

Some police administrators may not be alone in their resistance to community policing programs. In some cases special interest groups from the upper-middle and wealthy classes (or businesses) may either misuse a foot patrol program or react negatively to its implementation. Foot patrol is egalitarian, affording police protection to all citizens. If there are limited police resources in a community, spreading them out more evenly will reduce the chances of special interest groups receiving "special treatment."

Working class and lower socioeconomic segments of the community are usually much more receptive to foot patrol than either the upper-middle class or the wealthy who may be accustomed to having their interests served ahead of others. In may communities, if not most, the impetus for foot patrol comes from the lower socioeconomic or middle class areas in the community. These groups view foot patrol as a more personal response to community needs and as a way of increasing police service. The policy implications are obvious: innovative police programs need the support of community decision makers. If the decision makers are influenced by those groups which resist foot patrol, the chances of implementing and successfully operating a program are minimal. 

APPENDIX

                                   NEIGHBORHOOD FOOT PATROL
                                           Community Service Bureau
                                                 Daily Activity Sheet

                                                         FLINT POLICE DEPARTMENT

Name: ___________________________________________ Badge No.: _______________ Date: ______________

Assignment: _______________________________________Shift: _______________ Partner: _________________

ACTIVITES	Da  Mo Yr			ACTIVITIES	Da   Mo  Yr			ACTIVITIES	Da   Mo   Yr
Hours Worked				Meetings/Speaking Eng.				Juvenile Activities
Hours Leave				Business Sec. Checks				Juvenile Arrest Follow-up
Invest. Assigned				Business Site visits				Premises Found Open
Activities Initiated				Home Security Checks				Val. Rec'd. Property
Felong Arrest				Home Site Visits				Block Clubs Organized
Misdeameanor Arrest				Moving Traffic Violations				Public Serv. Rendered
Radio Calls Rec'd.				Parking Traffic Viol.				Susp. Pers. Checked

FLINT POLICE DEPARTMENT               DATE:___________________________                NAME:____________________________
                                                                                                                                                                                      LAST                     FIRST                  M.I.
PATROL BUREAU                                SHIFT:________  ASSIGN:______________        DAYS OFF:_________________________

POLICE OFFICERS DAILY REPORT         BADGE NO._________  CAR#____________       PARTNER: _________________________

ACTIVITES

Da  Mo Yr

ACTIVITIES

Da   Mo  Yr

ACTIVITIES

Da   Mo   Yr

ACTIVITIES

Da   Mo   Yr

Arrests-Felonies

Value Rcvd. Prop.

Hrs. Worked

P.D. Acc. Inv.

Arrests-Trfc.

Invest. Assgnd.

Ann. Time Taken

P.I. Acc. Inv.

Arrests-Trfc.

Invest. Init.

Sick time Taken

Def. Equip. Rptd.

App. Tickets

Haz. Tags

Misc. Time Lost

Pub. Haz. Rptd.

Susp. Pers. Chd.

Non-Haz. Tags

Pub. Serv. Rndrd.

Prem. Fnd. Open

Parking Tags

1. Lee Melville, A History of Police in England (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1971), pp. 227-230. (Dennis W. Banas provided editorial assistance for this piece.)
2. Spencer D. Parrat, "A Critique of the Bellman Police Service Rating Scale," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 37 (March-April 1937), pp. 895-905.
3. Kenneth E. Christian, "Supervisory Promotional Practices" in Robert C. Trojanowicz, The Environment of the First Line Police Supervisor (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1980), p. 147.
4. Robert C. Trojanowicz, et al., An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan (East Lansing, Michigan: The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, 1982), passim.

Publications

Books
An Evalutation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan

A Manual for the Establishment and Operation of a Foot Patrol Program

Articles
Perceptions of Safety: A Comparison of Foot Patrol Versus Motor Patrol Officers

Job Satisfaction: A Comparison of Foot Patrol Versus Motor Patrol Officers

The Status of Contemporary Community Policing Programs

The Impact of Foot Patrol on Black and White Perceptions of Policing

Uniform Crime Reporting and Community Policing: An Historical Perspective

Performance Profiles of Foot Versus Motor Officers

The Foot Patrol Officer, the Communtiy, and the School: A Coalition Against Crime

Community Policing: Defining the Officer's Role

Foot Patrol: Some Problem Areas

An Evaluation of a Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program  

National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
560 Baker Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1118
800-892-9051 or (517) 355-9648