In an effort to combat crime and disorder, and maintain public safety, law enforcement

agencies utilize and implement a wide variety of crime prevention strategies and/or methods.
These methods range from increased surveillance, such as neighbourhood watch and closed
circuit television (CCTV), to public education on how to protect oneself and/or their property, and
environmental design of public spaces (Lab, 2012, p. 28). While crime prevention strategies have
greatly evolved over the past several centuries, the active, visible engagement of police officers
patrolling in the community has long been a fundamental aspect of law enforcement and is one
of the earliest approaches to crime prevention that remains in place today (Smith & Scott, 2013,
p. 61).
Police patrol is a central aspect of policing. It accounts for the largest amount of police
work carried out by a law enforcement agency (Greene, 2007, p. 898) and, thus, is considered to
be the “backbone of policing” (“Patrol”, 2008, p. 188; Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown, 1974, p.
1). Police patrol is argued not only to deter crime, but also to instill feelings of public safety among
citizens and neighbourhoods. There are two main methods of patrol: motorized patrol and foot
patrol.
Motor patrol is the main method of police patrol among law enforcement agencies. While
some police agencies utilize other methods of patrol as well, the majority of agencies rely only on
motorized patrol (Adams, 1971, p. 22-24; Green, 2007, p. 898). This is due to its increased
efficiency in police patrol for covering a large geographical area, as a motorized patrol car can
patrol an area ten times the size of what a foot patrol officer can cover on foot (Day, 1955, p. 699;
Green, 2007, p. 898). Police patrol via the patrol car also allows officers to be more efficient while
carrying out the primary duties of a patrol officer, which include: responding to calls-for-service,
and looking for “traffic violations, suspicious behaviour, disorder and unsafe conditions” (Greene,
2007, p. 898). While motorized patrol is deemed as being most efficient, this method of police
patrol is largely reactive in nature, as its main focus is responding to calls-for-service. As such,
police have very limited informal interaction with the community outside carrying out their
immediate patrol duties.
On the other hand, foot patrol is considered to be the original method of police patrol
(Adams, 1971, p. 22). It involves officers patrolling via foot in a particular geographical area, often
referred to as “the Beat” (“Beat”, 2008, p. 13). This idea of policing has its roots and can be traced
back to British politician Sir Robert Peel and the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act in the early
1800s, which resulted in the creation the first police agency in contemporary times. Here, it was
believed by Sir Robert Peel that the visual presence of officers patrolling by foot would effectively
prevent crime and/or disorder (Smith & Scott, 2013, p. 61). Since the time of its inception, foot
patrol policing has been used in areas where there is a high volume of foot traffic, such as in
business and shopping districts, high crime areas, or residential neighbourhoods, for example
(Adams, 1971, p. 23). Unlike motorized patrol, this method of policing is a more proactive,
preventative, and problem-solving approach to policing. It involves the police and the community
working together as a means of identifying and solving crime and disorder, and it promotes the
enhancement of police-community relations (Kelling, 1988, p. 4-5). Because police officers are
patrolling by foot, they in turn have greater informal interaction among the community (Esbensen
& Taylor, 1094, p. 184).
Policing methods have evolved greatly over the past several decades. Historically, policing
was conducted by way of foot patrol, where officers walked a beat for a certain amount of time
each day as a means of maintaining order and making arrests (Dunham and Alpert, 1989, p. 21).
Here, police engaged in proactive policing strategies and were closely linked with the community
they served. However, the emergence of technological changes in the 1930s resulted in a shift
from foot patrol to motorized patrol, as well as a change in policing strategies, which became
more reactive in nature. While this change in police patrol appears to be beneficial and efficient,
as it allowed for a greater geographical area to be patrolled as well as a faster response to calls-
for-service, it did result in some negative consequences (Dunham & Alpert, 1989, p. 26).
Specifically, the shift to motorized patrol removed officers from the street and away from citizens.
Police became isolated from the community and in turn, police community relations weakened
(Esbensen, 1987, p. 45).
Despite this, the method of policing by way of motor patrol remained the dominant style
for much of the 20th century. At this time, there was a commonly held idea that motor patrol was
thought to produce a deterrent effect, where it was argued that the high visibility of police members
resulted in a “general risk of apprehension and blocked criminal opportunities via their presence”
(Riccio, 1974, p. 208). As such, it was believed that preventative patrol via the patrol car was the
answer to combat the increasing crime rates in cities. Thus, there was a push to “get more officers
on the street” by both citizens and public figures (Kelling et al., 1974, p. 2). The effectiveness of
police patrol was not put into dispute until the Kansas Preventative Patrol Experiment was
conducted in the 1970s, which examined the impact of routine preventative patrol (Kelling et al.,
1974, p. 7).
In this study conducted by Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, and Brown (1974), police patrol was
varied in 15 police beats within Kansas City. Each of these 15 beats was classified into one of the
following three types of beats: “reactive” beats (where officers only entered to respond to calls),
“proactive” beats (where patrol was intensified two to three times that of normal patrol), and
“control” beats (where normal routine patrol occurred) (Kelling et al., 1974, p. 3). Findings from
the study concluded that varying the level of routine preventative patrol among different police
beats had no effect on “crime, service delivery and citizen feelings of security” (Kelling et al., 1974,
p. 3). These disappointing findings from the Kansas Preventative Patrol Experiment were further
coupled with other issues arising at this time concerning motorized patrol policing, such as:
citizens’ dissatisfaction with police services and the continued use of police strategies that kept
officers away from the community, as well as patrol officers’ own frustration with their role in
policing (Kelling, 1988, p. 4).
With this new evidence of ineffectiveness coupled with the negative perceptions felt
toward motor patrol, this resulted in the impetus for change in policing methods. As such, new
policing strategies were sought for policing communities. As a result and since the 1970s, there
has been an emphasis to seek alternative policing strategies to ensure public safety and police
effectiveness, and a demand for the return to foot patrol policing methods (Bond & Gow, 1996, p.
154; Greene, 1987, p. 3).
Foot patrol, as mentioned, is the oldest form of police work. Despite this, it is a policing
method or strategy that is still utilized today in North America and internationally as well (Public
Safety Strategies Group, 2007, p. 8). Foot patrol can be implemented on its own as a policing
initiative, or it can be part of a larger policing strategy. It is also implemented in different settings
and for different lengths of time. Likewise, foot patrol can also be carried out by sworn-members
of law enforcement, civilian members, and/or volunteer members. For example, some cities have
foot patrol programs that are carried out by trained community volunteers as part of larger
community policing initiatives in neighbourhoods within a city. Other municipal police departments
have a dedicated team of foot patrol constables who are responsible for patrolling and
enforcement in a particular boundary or geographical area.
Unlike motor patrol, where the primary function is to respond to calls-for-service, foot patrol
officers carry out many activities, apart from maintaining an active, visible presence in the
community (Koller, 1990, p. 16). In addition to responding to calls-forservice in the beat area, foot
patrol officers also carry out traditional and non-traditional policing activities, such as attending
community meetings, meeting and establishing contacts with businesses in the area, identifying
and solving community problems, and conducting and filing street information reports (SIRs) in
order to find out who is in the area they patrol (Bond & Gow, 1996, p. 154; Koller, 1990, p. 9;
Public Safety Strategies Group, 2007, p. 12). The visible presence and engagement of police
officers by foot in the community also enables the officers to have face-to-face contact with the
community. This in turn not only allows community members to more readily pass on valuable
information to the police, but also have more direct contact with officers which allows community
members and residents to be more willing to work together with police to identify problem areas
and offenders (Koller, 1990, p. 16). There are many benefits or goals to the policing method of
foot patrol, as a result of the activities carried out by officers on foot. The key benefits of foot
patrol, as purported by advocates of this policing strategy or method, is a reduction in crime and/or
disorder, a positive change in the perception of fear of crime, an increase in police-community
relations, as well as an increase in citizen satisfaction with police (Kelling, 1988, p. 5).
Policing method of foot patrol has on the impact on crime because foot patrol officers,
through their policing duties, are able to change the physical environment (Gill, Weisburd, & Vitter,
2013, p. 106). By implementing foot patrol policing in a certain geographical area, it brings officers
back into the community. It enables officers not only to spend time carrying out ‘order maintenance
activity’ and address neighbourhood disorder, but it also allows the officers to get to know the
people, problem areas, and community standards. Thus, foot patrol officers are able to maintain
order, as well as enforce and uphold the informal social controls set out by the community. By
doing this, foot patrol officers have the ability to change certain neighbourhood characteristics in
their physical environment that have the propensity to contribute to the commission of serious
offences. Through their policing duties, foot patrol officers take control of the streets and keep the
Lower Lonsdale neighbourhood in check (Pratt, Gau, & Franklin, 2011, p.107). They are able to
control crime by acting proactively and intervening with disorder in the area they patrol. In turn,
the activities of foot patrol officers send a message to would-be offenders that the area is
controlled and that disorder will not be tolerated (Pratt et al., 2011, p. 108).
In the context of the Lower Lonsdale foot patrol initiative, the mere presence of foot patrol
officers act as capable guardians in the geographical area. Even though suitable targets and
motivated offenders may be present, the presence and close proximity of foot patrol officers
increase guardianship within the area they are patrolling. Thus, the existence of as a capable
guardian inhibits the convergence of the necessary elements required for a crime to occur in time
and space. Simply put, an increase in police presence results in a reduced opportunity for
motivated offenders to commit crimes because there is an increased likelihood that the capable
guardian will see the offender. In turn, the opportunity for a crime to occur is reduced and/or
prevented.(Melenka, 2011).
The mere visible presence of foot patrol officers in an area alters choice structuring
properties and as a result, impacts an offender’s decision to commit crime. As well, the increased
visibility of officers results in the costs of committing an offence to outweigh the benefits and
immediate gratification that could be achieved if the offence was committed. More importantly,
offenders will also choose not to commit an offence here because the visibility of foot patrol
officers increases his or her risk of apprehension and detection. Simply put, the crime becomes
too risky and the costs of getting caught outweigh the perceived benefits that could be obtained
by committing an offence (Melenka, 2011).
According to the studies of Groff et. al (2013), there were noticeable differences in the
activities conducted by foot and car patrol. Foot patrol officers spent most of their time initiating
pedestrian stops and addressing disorder incidents while car patrol officers handled the vast
majority of reported crime incidents. Car patrol activity declined in both treatment and control
areas during the intervention but there was no statistically significant difference between the
treatment and the control areas.