A response to “what happened to patrol operations in Kansas City?”

Larson's review raises several points concerning the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. The authors of the evaluation of that experiment respond to each of Larson's criticisms. With reference to Larson's two major points, this response demonstrates that (1) neither Larson's models nor his data are adequate to make statements about “typical patrol intensities” in major American cities and (2) patrol visibility in the reactive areas was markedly decreased over the one-year period of the experiment.The authors agree with Larson and have consistently urged that great caution should be used in generalizing the results of the experiment. The Technical Report itself presents results cautiously and conservatively. Also, large amounts of data comparing Kansas City with other cities are presented in the Report to enable readers to place the kansas City experience in perspective.The authors also agree with Larson that the results of the experiment indicate that police administrators can be more flexible in the allocation of officers than they have been previously. That Larson reaches this conclusion indicates that, despite his minor criticisms of the study which are responded to herein, he basically accepts the results of the experiment.