The executive summary contains brief descriptions of the test objectives, the 8-month planning and 10-month implementation phases, the evaluation methodology and results, and major conclusions. It also highlights issues of particular interest to persons interested in starting a DPR system or improving an existing system. The tests were conducted in three sites, beginning in 1980, to demonstrate the DPR approach's applicability to different environments: Toledo, Ohio; Garden Grove, Calif.; and Greensboro, N.C. Prior to the tests, all three used the traditional '10' code call classification system. Together, they designed a general classification model that included call event categories and call descriptors and then tailored it to meet individual needs. Next, they developed classification codes which summarized the types of calls, descriptive elements, and selected responses. Finally, the sites developed training programs and support materials for operators. The four alternative responses were establishing (1) a telephone report unit, (2) procedures for a delayed mobile response unit, (3) procedures for referring calls to other agencies, and (4) a scheduled appointment, walk-in, or mail-in. All sites experienced sizable reductions in nonemergency calls handled by the immediate dispatch of mobile units. Consequently, all gained increased time that patrol units could devote to crime prevention, directed patrol, and other activities. Surveys revealed a high level of citizen satisfaction with the alternative response. The evaluators concluded that this DPR model can be adapted successfully to meet police department needs in a wide range of environments.
Evaluation of the Differential Police Response Field Test, Executive Summary
NCJ Number
97860
Date Published
1984
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This document summarizes the National Institute of Justice's evaluation of the Differential Police Response (DPR) Field Test, in which police departments in three diverse cities developed and implemented systems that screened calls and provided response alternatives (other than dispatching a mobile unit) to nonemergency calls.
Abstract
Date Published: January 1, 1984