ing utilized (e.g., civilians and clerical personnel in place of officers where possible).

Proper work routines and quality standards are established.

Basically, the workload measurement technique involves quantification of work to determine how much is performed in a given amount of time. Specific activities to be performed involve identification and measurement of work units (e.g., handling calls for service, providing information, services, security and regulatory inspections). The next step is to calculate the average servicing times and then to estimate the number of work units that can be expected to occur. The two figures are multiplied to produce the total amount of work required in a given period of time.

The method is fraught with uncertainties, but is frankly the best method available at the present time. The chief difficulty with this method is that one always winds up with an unallocated portion of time which is arbitrarily labeled preventive patrol. Unfortunately, there are no objective standards for preventive patrol as well as considerable doubt that "preventive" patrol actually "prevents" anything.

There are, however, certain inescapable facts to be considered when establishing a police operation. These facts are as follows:

To man one patrol officer position on one eight-hour shift, 365 days per year will require 1.68 man-years to account for days off, vacations, and sick time.

To man one patrol officer position on two eight-hour shifts, 365 days per year will require 3.36 man years to account for days off, vacation, and sick time.

To man one patrol officer position on three eight-hour shifts, 365 days per year will require 5.04 man-years to account for days off, vacations and sick time.

In addition, as Roy McLaren, a noted authority on police resource allocations and distribution, states:

Previous experience has shown that about one-third of an of-
ficers time on shift should be allocated to protect against
the tendency for cases to occur in groups rather than to be
spaced equitably throughout the tour of duty. An additional
one third of an officers time should be available for repres-
sive patrol activity, and the remaining one-third should be

available to handle calls-for-service.

These, then, are the basic considerations that must be addressed

in reviewing and evaluating police manpower requirements.

Within the context of police manpower requirements, it is also necessary to review the state of the art as to standards of performance.

In the preceding section, the historical methods of establishing police manpower requirements were reviewed. However, even if such manpower needs could be established in an objective fashion, they are meaningless unless the manner in which such individuals perform their duties conforms to some standards of organizational and functional performance. In short, both manpower requirements and performance standards are inextricably related to each other. For example, the time requirements to perform a particular task are basically a function of what it is the officer does. What the officer does and how he does it can only be judged in terms of what activities are judged to be an acceptable level of performance. In turn, the number of officers available exerts a significant impact on the amount of time an officer has available to perform his duties.

There are no "objective" ways of establishing particular standards of police performance other than in relating such tasks to statutory requirements and on the basis of informed professional judgment.

In this regard, PRC/PMS has reviewed all available standards of police performance set by prestigious national groups as well as material developed by outstanding law enforcement agencies. The basic reference documents with respect to the police performance issue are as follows:

and Goals, The Police (Chairman Chief Edward M. Davis),
Washington, D.C., January 1973.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Police Task Force Report, Washington, D.C. 1967.

The American Bar Association project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Urban Police Function, Institute of Judicial Administration, June, 1973.

O.W. Wilson and R. McLaren, Police Administration (3rd edition)
McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1972.

The Urban Institute, Part III: Measuring "Police Crime Control Productivity," in The Challenge of Productivity Diversity: Improving Local Government Productivity Measurement and Evaluation, Washington, D.C. 1972.

The International City Management Association, Municipal Police
Administration (6th Edition) Washington, D.C. 1969.

National Park Service, "Proposed Activity Standards for Law Enforcement," Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1974.

While there are other documents touching on police standards, those listed above are the most widely regarded and cited. Basically, all of these reports address two levels of the performance issue: 1) organizational and 2) functional. It is extremely important to note that all such standards are based on professional judgment supplemented by research evidence when available.

Rather than attempt to discuss the literally hundreds of individual standards, we will attempt to synthesize the primary areas of standards, particularly those we deem applicable to the provision of law enforcement/ visitor protection services by the Corps of Engineers. These standards, as follows, begin with the phase "a police agency should:"

Fully acknowledge that the limits of police authority are prescribed by law and that there can be no situation which justifies extralegal practices.

Fully acknowledge that there are times when force must be used in the performance of police tasks, but that there can be no situation which justifies the use of unreasonable force.

Fully acknowledge that in their exercise of authority the police must be accountable to the public by providing formal procedures for receiving both commendations and complaints from the public regarding individual officer performance.

Fully acknowledge the existance of the broad range of administrative and operational discretion that is exercised by all police officers. That acknowledgement should take the form of comprehensive policy statements that publicly establish the limits of discretion, that provides guidelines for its exercise within those limits, and that eliminate discriminatory enforcement of the law.

Fully acknowledge in written police statements the important role of the news media and the need for the police agency to be open in its relations with the media. The agency should promote an aggressive policy of presenting public information rather than merely responding to local inquiries.

Immediately develop short and long range goals and objectives to guide agency functions.

Establish a formal inspection system to provide the police chief executive with the information he needs to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations.

Adopt geographic policing programs which insure stability of assignment for individual officers who are geographically deployed.

Make maximum effective use of state statutes permitting police agencies to issue written summonses and citations in lieu of physical arrest.

Provide for access to police service and response to police emergency situations 24 hours a day.

Not enforce local ordinances for the sole or primary purpose of raising revenue, and no income arising from enforcement should be earmarked specifically for any single enforcement agency.

Have plans for the effective command and control of police resources during mass or civil disorders.

Establish formal training programs in handling unusual occurrence control, administration strategy and tactics.

sort to any specialization before all other possibilities are considered.

Immediately direct patrol officers to conduct thorough preliminary investigations and establish in writing priorities to insure that investigative efforts are spent in a manner that will best achieve organizational goals.

Assign civilian personnel to positions that do not require the exercise of police authority.

Consider employment of police reserve officers to supplement the regular force of sworn officers.

Administer its own recruiting program directed exclusively at attracting the best qualified people with specific attention to the recruitment of college educated applicants.

Employ a formal process for selection of qualified police recruits to include a written test of mental ability, oral interview, physical exam, psychological exam, and in-depth background investigation.

Establish immediately a broad classification plan based upon the principle of merit.

Require, as a condition of employment, a minimum of one year of college; by 1975, 2 years; by 1978, 3 years; by 1982, 4 years of college.

Develop minimum curriculum requirements for mandatory training for police.

Require certification as a police officer by the municipal police training commission in the state.

All recruits (by 1975) complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic police training and a minimum of 4 months of field training with a sworn police employee who has been certified as a training coash.

Provide a minimum of 40 hours of formal in-service training per year.

Periodically evaluate the performance of all police employees.

Assure that only the best qualified persons are promoted to higher positions.