Using officers’ perspectives to guide the implementation of hot spots foot patrols

ABSTRACT

Police personnel’s view on hot spots policing can provide insight into the practice of hot spots policing and potentially ensure hot spots policing programmes are more realistic prior to implementation. This study interviewed 20 officers about their perspectives on hot spots policing and foot patrol prior to the implementation of the Dayton Foot Patrol Program. Themes that emerged from the data suggested officers were generally supportive of hot spots foot patrols in short, intermittent bursts. The officers believed foot patrols could improve police-community relations, facilitate intelligence gathering, reduce crime via deterrence and stealthy arrests, and provide exercise. The officers critiqued foot patrol for being resource intensive, potentially decreasing officer safety, being physically demanding, and limiting access to vital equipment. The officers critiqued hot spots policing more generally for potentially resulting in boredom or spatial displacement. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for hot spots foot patrols generally as well as how they helped guide the development and implementation of the Dayton Foot Patrol Program.

KEYWORDS:

• Hot spots policing
• foot patrol
• officer interviews
• evidence-based policing

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the dedicated officers from the Dayton Police Department who were responsible for carrying out The Dayton Foot Patrol Program. The authors also thank Samantha Henderson for her assistance with transcription. This project was part of the Ohio Consortium of Crime Science at the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. The Ohio Consortium of Crime Science was supported by Award No. 2013-DB-BX-0044, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, or the City of Dayton.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Two officers, patrol partners, asked to be interviewed together for the sake of time. Both officers provided data that was analysed as a single transcript. All patrol officers (N = 25) who would be assigned to the foot patrol programme were eligible for the interviews. Four officers were not interviewed due to scheduling conflicts.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Bureau of Justice Assistance [grant number 2013-DB-BX-0044].