NBSIR 73-211 Published as U.S. Department of

Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

National Institute of Law Enforcement and

Criminal Justice report LESP-RPT-0002.00j May 197^4

NBSIR 73-211

LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972

Volume II: Communications Equipment

and Supplies

S. Mumford, P. Klaus, E. Bunten, R. Cunitz

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

Final July 1971 - July 1973

Prepared for National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ)

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530
REPORTS FROM THE LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY :

The present report is one in a series of reports produced from

data gathered by the LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972. Listed

below are the seven reports of that survey.

National Bureau of Standards Report 73-211 (The present

report). LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972,

Volume II: Communications Equipment and Supplies.

National Bureau of Standards Report 73-210. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume I: The

Need for Standards — Priorities for Police

Equipment.

National Bureau of Standards Report 73-212. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume III:

Sirens and Emergency Warning Lights.

National Bureau of Standards Report 73-213. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume IV:

Alarm Displays, Security Equipment, and

Surveillance Equipment.

National Bureau of Standards Report 7 3-214. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume V:

Handguns and Handgun Ammunition.

National Bureau of Standards Report 7 3-215. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume VI:

Body Armor and Confiscated Weapons.

National Bureau of Standards Report 73-216. LEAA

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Volume VII:

Patrolcars. *
NBSIR 73-211

LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972

VOLUME: COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

AND SUPPLIES

S. Mumford, P. Klaus, E. Bunten, R. Cunitz

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

Prepared for National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ)

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent. Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director
f
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the 428 police departments throughout the United

States who contributed their time and knowledge to make this report possible.

Special thanks go to the police departments whose officers and administrators

helped the survey team during the developmental and testing phases of the

work. In addition, we thank Marshall J. Treado of the Law Enforcement

Standards Laboratory, for providing invaluable information. The support

and assistance of Lester Shiabin, NILECJ, project monitor and consultant,

is also gratefully acknowledged.

Although there are only four authors for this report, the work could

not have been accomplished without the capable and conscientious efforts

of the many meiribers of the Technical Analysis Division who provided support

for the whole survey effort:

William L. O'Neal for his help in computerizing the sample selection

and for helping design and programming interactive record-keeping

system; Jenny L. Eldreth and P. Clare Peiser for maintaining the

computerized record-keeping system; June P. Cornog, for

her advice, support and help with initial interviews; Diane R. Beall

for the many typings of the various versions of the questionnaires;

Suellen Halpin, Mary L. Friend, and Susan E. Bergsman, for making

follow-up telephone calls; Lorraine S. Freeman for her administrative

support; Karen Jackson, a summer employee, for her help v;ith questionnaire coding and record-keeping; Cassandra Streeter and Janice Davis, summer employees, for their help with record-keeping; and Mary Hawkins

for typing the report.

Michael R. Vogt receives special thanks for his help in carrying out

the computerized edit and tabulation of the data. Special thanks

also go to Dwight F. Doxey for coding this questionnaire and contributing to the preliminary data analysis.

iii
'

f.S'-i..' , W^u. ., , , ^ . :

'

.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EEPORTS FROM THE LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY

ACICNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

EXECUTIVES' SUMMARY xiii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Background 1

1.2 Sample Design 2 1.3 Questionnaire Administration . , 6

1.4 Development and Design of the Communications DQ . . 10

1.5 Characteristics of Subsample Groups 11

2.0 QUESTION BY QUESTION DISCUSSION 15

2.1 Advice to the Reader .......... 15

2.2 Discussion 20

2.2.1 Characteristics of Respondents 20

2.2.2 Number of Officers and Characteristics

of Jurisdiction 22

2.2.3 Mobile Radios 26

2.2.3.1 Number of Mobile Radios 26

2.2.3.2 Spectrum Utilization: Mobile

Radios 28

2.2.3.3 Characteristics of Mobile Radios . 37

2.2.4 Portable Radios 43

2.2.4.1 Number of Portable Radios .... 44

2.2.4.2 Spectrum Utilization: Portable

Radios 46

2.2.4.3 Characteristics of Portable

Radios 49

2.2.5 Special Systems 61

2.2.5.1 Mobile Repeaters 61

2.2.5.2 Fixed Repeaters 64

2.2.5.3 Portamobile Radios with Voting

Systems 69

2.2.5.4 Scrambler Systems 72

2.2.5.5 Communications Helmet 78

V
Page

2.2.5 General Information 81

2.2.6.1 Needs for Standards and Expected

Gains from Standards 81

V .'2.2.6.2 Communications Needs 85

' • •

, *. 2.2,6.3 Problems With and Failures Of

- < Comriiunications Equipment 87

2.2.7 Comments 89

APPENDIX A. Communications Questionnaire

APPENDIX B. Raw Data Tables

vi
LIST OF TABLES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Table Number Page

i Rank of Primary Respondent 20

ii Years of Experience of Primary Respondent

in Law Enforcement. 21

iii Number of Officers and Characteristics of

Jurisdiction , 22

1.2-1 Stratification Categories 3

1.2-2 Number of Police Departments ......... 5

1.2- 3 Number in Sample of Departments Selected

to Receive the Communications Questionnaires

by Region and Department Type 7

1.3- 1 Number of Departments Returning Acceptable

Communications Questionnaires 9

1.5-1 Percent of Sample Departments Having

Each Activity 12

1.5-2 Descriptive Data by Department Type (Means) . . 14

1.5-3 Descriptive Data by LEAA Region (Means) .... 14

2,0 QUESTION BY QUESTION DISCUSSION

This list has been ordered by table number, and this ordering

follows the sequence of the questions in the Communications

Questionnaire (Appendix A). For quick reference, find the

question of interest in the questionnaire, note the question

number, and find that question number in the List of Tables,

(e.g., Tables lC-1., lC-2., lC-3 . , etc., are all tables referring to Question IC.)

Table Number , Page

lA-1 Distribution of Transmitting Frequencies

Within Bands 30

vii
Table Number Page

lA-2 Percent Use of More Than One Frequency

Band for Transmitting 31

lA-3 Mean Number of Transmitting Frequencies

per Department, by Department Type and Band . . 32

lB-1 Departments Whose Trasmitting and Receiving

Frequencies Were Not All the Same 34

lC-1 Frequency Count of Reported Output Power. ... 37

lC-2 Of Departments Citing Output Powers of

90-110 Watts. 38

lC-3 Average Output Power by Department Type .... 39

ID&E Comparison of Channels Authorized with

Channels in Use for Mobile Radios 35

ID&E & 5B Comparison of Average Number of Channels

In Use, Authorized and In Area for Mobile

Radios 36

2A-1 Number of Car Radios 26

2A-2 Estimated Total U.S. Population of Police

Car Radios 28

2B-1 Car Radios in Use in Departments Made

by Various Manufacturers . 42

2B-2 Proportions of Different Manufacturers

Represented Within One Department •• • 43

3 Period of Time Within Which Departments

- Bought Most of Their Car Radios 40

4 Cost of the Car Radios Most Frequently

Used in a Department 41

5A-1 Average Size of Communications Jurisdiction . . 23

5A-2 Comparison Between Average Number of Officers

in Department and Average Size of

Jurisdiction 23

6 General Character of Jurisdiction ,25

viii
Table Number Page

7A-1 Use of Fixed Repeaters by Department

Type, as Compared to Average Size of

Jurisdiction 55

7A-2 Use of Fixed Repeaters and Character of

Jurisdiction, by LEAA Region 65

"76-1 Total Repeaters in USe, and Mean

Number per Department 67

7B-2 Average Number of Fixed Repeaters, by LEAA

Region, Compared to Percentage of Departments

in Region which Use Fixed Repeaters 68

8A Preference for FlFl or F1F2 Repeaters 59

9 Use of Portable Radios . , 43

lOA-1 Comparison of Total Transmitting Frequencies,

by Band, for Mobile and Portable Radios .... 46

lOA-2 Mobile and Portable Frequencies, By Band,

for County and 50 Largest City Departments. . . 47

lOA-3 Mean Numbers of Portable and Mobile Radio

Transmitting Frequencies 47

lOB Portable Radio Frequencies Used for

Both Transmitting and Receiving 48

IOC Mean Output Power in Watts for Portable

Radios 50

lOD & E-1 Comparison of Channels Authorized and In

Use for Portable Radios 49

lOD & E-2 Comparison of Channels Authorized and In

Use for Portable and Mobile Radios 49

llA-1 Number of Portable Radios 44

llA-2 Mean Number of Officers per Department Type, Mean Number of Car Radios

and Mean Niomber of Portable Radios 45

ix
Table Number Page

llA-3 Estimated Numbers of Police Portable

Radios and Car Radios in the United

45 States

IIB Portable Radios in Use in Department

Made by Various Manufacturers 60

12 Of the Departments Using Portable Radios,

Percent Listing Each of Two "Most Used"

Models 61

12 & 13-1 Weight of Portable Radios 56

12 & 13-2 Comparison Between Weight of Most Used

Portable Radios and Respondents' Feeling

About That Weight 57

12A When Departments Bought Most of Their "Most

> Often Used" Brands of Portable Radios 57

12B Costs of "Most Commonly Used" Portable

Radios 59

13-1 Departments Which Need Repeaters Within

Their Mobile System 61.

13-2 If "Yes", Why Do You Need Mobile Repeaters . . 62

13- 3 - If "No", Why Don't You Need Mobile Repeaters . 63

14- 1 Of the Departments with Portable Radios,

Percentages of Responses About Voting

Systems 70

14-2 Reasons Given for Favoring a Portamobile

Radio with a Voting System . 71

14- 3 Reasons Given for Not Favoring a Portamobile

Radio with a Voting System 72

15- 1 Need for Standards for Communications

Equipment . 82

15- 2 ^ Items Said to Need Standards by 40% OR MORE

of the Departments Within a Department Type . . 83

16- 1 . Expected Gains from Standardization of

Communications Equipment 84

X
Table Niomber • Page

16- 2 Expected Gains from Standardization of

Communications Equipment 85

17- 1 Availability of Scramblers 73

17-2 Perceived Need of Scrambler System by

Departments Which Currently Do Not Have

the System 73

18 Purposes for Which Scramblers Were

(Or Would Be) Used 75

19 Use of Scramblers with Car Radios, Portable

Radios, and Special Vehicles 76

20 Amounts tne Departments Would be Willing to

Pay for a Reliable Scrambler Syjitem 78

21-1 Need for Built-in Communications in Helmets . . 79

21-2 Reasons for Needing Built-in Helmet

Communications 79

21-3 Reasons for Not Needing Built-in Helmet

Communications 80

22 Priorities Assigned to Standards for Power

Supplies for Portable Radios 51

23 & 24 Comparison Between Batteries Now In Use and

Batteries Preferred, by the Departments Using

Portable Radios 52

25 Use of Batteries Which Must Be Recharged by

Departments Which Used Portable Radios .... 53

25A, B, C Length of Time to Partially and Completely

& D Recharge Batteries 55

26-1 Most Critical Communications Needs 86

26-2 Most Critical Communications Needs Indicated

by 40% OR MORE of the Departments Within Each

Department Type 87

xi
Table Number Page

27 Most Serious Problems with Communications

Equipment 88

, 28' Most Common Equipment Failures 89

29 Additional Comments/Observations About

Communications Equipment 90

\

xii
EXECUTIVES' SUMMARY:

I. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

A. Bac-Vgrcund (pp. 1-2)

• Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL) was established

in 1970 and became part of the NILECJ Lquipment Systems

Improvement Program (ESIP)

• NILECJ asked the Behavioral Sciences Group of the National

Bureau of Standards to develop and carry out a procedure to

get information from the users of law enforcement equipment.

• "User" information would aid NILECJ in setting priorities

for LESL programs and would provide some detailed information so that research to develop standards could begin.

• In addition, gathering information from the users would

help to make police agencies aware of LESL and ESIP.

• A nationwide mail Sample survey was selected as the best

procedure to collect user information.

• An Equipment Priorities Questionnaire (EPQ) and 5 Detailed

Questionnaires (DQs) were developed and administered. A

separate report was prepared for each of these seven questionnaires .

B. Design of Questionnaires ( p. 10)

• Questionnaires were developed in conjunction with NILECJ,

LESL, and cooperating police departments. Questionnaires

were pretested at various times with approximately 45

police departments

• The EPQ was designed to provide information about priority

needs for standards for various types of equipment.

• In addition, the EPQ asked for data about numbers of fulland part-time officers, activities performed in the department, budget, size of jurisdiction, etc.

• The SIX DQs (Alarm.s, Security and Surveillarice Equipment;

ComTiuni cations Equipment and Supplies; Handguns and Handgun

Ajnir;unition; Sirens and Eiaergency Warning Lights; Body Armior

and Confiscated Weapons; and Patrolcars) were each developed

separately

Xiii
• The DQs asked about kinds and quantities of equipment in

use, problems with existing equipment, suggestions for

improving equipment, needs for standards related to the

equipment, etc. Although entitled Detailed Questionnaires,

these questionnaires were designed to give an overview of

the use of specific items of equipment.

Sample (pp. 2-5)

• The population sampled was made up of all police departments

listed in a computerized file and maintained by the LEAA

Statistical Service.

• Courts, correctional institutions, forensic labs, special

police agencies, etc., were excluded.

• The sample was stratified by LEAA Georgraphic Region (10

Regions) and by Department Type (7 Department Types: State

Police; County Police and Sheriffs; City Departments with

1-9 officers; City Departments with 10-49 officers; City

Departments with 50 or more officers, excluding the Fifty

Largest Cities; the Fifty Largest U.S. Cities by population;

and Township Departments).

• Overall, approximately 10% of the 12,836 departments in the

population were selected as respondents (See Table 1.2-2).

• The Equipment Priorities Questionnaire was sent to every

sample department (1366) . Each Detailed Questionnaire was

sent to all States, to all of the Fifty Largest Cities, and

to a randomly selected subsample of the main sample (about

5 30 departments received each DQ)

• Thus, States and the Fifty Largest Cities were asked

to fill in all seven questionnaires. Each of the remaining

1186 departments were asked to fill in the EPQ and two of the

DQs.

• The sample for the Communications DQ consisted of 528 departments (See Table 1.2-3).

Questionnaire Administration (pp. 5-9)

• Stringent control of administration was required.

• Introductory letters were sent to heads of departments asking

cooperation

xiv
• On June 1, 1972, questionnaire packages mailed.

o In July 1972, follow-up by self -return post card was begun.

• In August 1972, follow-up by telephone was begun. Departments which had not returned questionnaires were called.

Also, calls were made to clear up ambiguities in the re- turned questionnaires. About 1300 calls were made. About

70% of the sample departments were called at least once.

• Each questionnaire was edited and coded by a specialized

team to ensure consistency; they were then keypunched and

tabulated

• Completed questionnaires were accepted for tabulation

through January 7, 1973.

Rates of Return (pp. 8-9)

• 83% of the 1386 departments returned usable EPQs

• 81% of the 528 departments returned usable Communications DQs

• 81 - 85% of the other DQ subsamples returned usable questionnaires .

• Highest rates of return (over 90%) were from States, the

Fifty Largest Cities, and Cities with 50 or more officers.

• Lowest rates of return were from Counties and Townships

( less than 75% )

Characteristics of Responding Departments (pp. 11-15)

• The activities most commonly carried out by the respondents

(to the EPQ) were Serving Traffic and Criminal Warrants (88%)

Traffic Safety and Traffic Control (87%) , and Intra-departmental

Communications (87%) .

• All of the responding Fifty Largest Cities said they provided

In-House Training and Criminal Investigations. This compared

to 68% and 86%, respectively, of all responding departments.

• Only 13% of all respondents had Crime Laboratories. 73%

of the Fifty Largest Cities and 55% of the States had Crime

Laboratories

XV
• About three-fifths of the departments in all Department

Types were providing Emergency Aid and Rescue: Ranging

from 60% of the Cities with 50 or More Officers to 67%

of the Counties

• Overall, the reported Equipment Budgets represented some- what over 10% of the Total Budgets reported.

• Among Department Types , there was a wide range of total

equipment expenditures: From a mean of about $10,000 for

Cities with 1-9 Officers to a mean of almost $2.6 million

for the Fifty Largest Cities.

• One of the Fifty Largest Cities reported an Equipment

Budget of $40 million.

• Overall, the Fifty Largest Cities reported a mean of 2491

Full-Time Sworn Officers. However, one of the Fifty Largest

Cities had 27% of all the Full-Time Officers reported by

that Department Type and another had about 12%

Presentation of Data

• Data in this report are presented in two forms : Text tables

and full tables (Appendix B) . Text tables do not always

present a complete break out of the data.

• All tables (text and full) present the data in unweighted . form, (i.e., numbers and percentages of the responding departments from the sample for this questionnaire, not figures that

have been weighted to expand the data to the total population

of police departments in the U.S.)

• The sample selected for this questionnaire was not proportional

to the total population of police departments. If decisions

are to be made which require estimates of population figures,

the appropriate extrapolation must be performed. (See Appendix

B, page B-1.

xvi
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ^

A. Car Radios (pp. 26-43)

• A total of 67,807 car radios were reported by the 428

respondents

• About nine-tenths of the car radios reported were in

State and Fifty Largest City departments.

• About two-thirds of the car radios were bought within the

last 5 years.

• Three-fourths of the car radios reported cost less than

$1001.

• Almost 6 out of every 10 car radios were made by one manufacturer

B. Portable Radios (pp. 43-61)

• A total of 22,660 portable radios were reported by the 347

respondents which were using portable radios.

• Almost three-fourths of the portable radios reported were

in the Fifty Largest Cities.

• More than four-fifths of these radios were bought within

the last 5 years.

• Slightly more than three-fourths of the portable radios

cost less than $901.

• About 7 out of every 10 were made by one manufacturer.

• About seven-tenths of them weighed between 1-1/4 and 2-1/2

pounds

• Nickel-Cadmium batteries were used in about seven-tenths of

them.

• Ninety percent of the departments used rechargeable batteries

in their portables.

C. Channels and Frequencies (pp. 29-37, 46-49)

• An average of 3.5 channels per department were authorized to

responding departments

xvii
• An average of 3.2 channels per department were currently

in use.

• About one-half of the reported channels were being used

by the Fifty Largest Cities and State police.

Fixed Repeaters (pp. 54-69)

• About one-third of the departments used fixed repeaters.

• Almost nine-tenths of departments with fixed repeaters were

State or Fifty Largest City departments.

Scramblers (pp. 72-78)

• Scramblers were currently being used by only 9% (n=40) of

the respondents.

• Of departments which did not have a scrambler system, almost

60% felt they needed that system.

• Departments most commonly used (or would use) scramblers

for undercover investigations and long-term stake outs.

• More than four-fifths of departments which had or said they

needed scramblers, said they would be willing to pay no more than $500 for a reliable scrambler.

Need for Other Communications Equipment (pp. 78-80)

• About one-third of departments expressed a need for helmets

with built-in communications. This need was most often ex- pressed by State police and departments in the Fifty Largest

Cities.

• Slightly more than two-fifths of the respondents indicated

a need for mobile repeaters.

• Twenty-eight percent of departments favored the voting

system; over half of departments were unfamiliar with this

system.

Need for Standards for Communications Equipment (pp. 81-84)

• The three items most commonly chosen as needing standards

were mobile radios, portable radios, and batteries.

xviii
• state police and larger City departments chose more items

as needing standards than did other Department Types

• Gains expected from standardization were more often expected

to come from interchangeability of equipment than from

either savings in training costs or savings in equipment

costs

Most Critical Communications Needs (pp. 85-87)

• The four most critical communications needs of the respondents were for new equipment, more frequencies, personal

transceivers for each officer, and standardization of all

equipment.

• Personal transceivers for all officers was the most critical

need of larger City departments.

• New equipment was the greatest need of small City departments and Counties.

• More channels was the greatest need of State police.

xix
XX
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Project Background

During the past several years, law enforcement agencies in

the United States have become more aware of the importance of

equipment in the performance of their duties. Much of their

equipment had originally been designed for other uses and had to

be modified. Other equipment items had to be used as given. No

standards existed against which equipment performance could be

measured nor were any standard test methods or procedures available. It has been difficult for agencies to compare the performance of equipment items. Recognizing this problem, in 1970,

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the Department of Justice began a concentrated program toward the improvement of law enforcement equipment.

As the first step in its Equipment Systems Improvement Program (ESIP), LEAA, in cooperation with the Department of Commerce

established a Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL) at the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . The broad goal of LESL is

to establish voluntary performance standards which can be used

as guidelines for the selection of equipment by law enforcement

agencies. Additionally, LESL is developing standard test methods

and procedures, so that the relative performance of similar items

may be evaluated by departments themselves.

In order to provide equipment user information for the ESIP

program,, in 1971 the National Institute of Law Enforcement and

1
Criminal Justice (NILECJ) of LEAA asked the Behavioral Sciences

Group of the Technical Analysis Division at NBS to gather information from the users of law enforcement equipment about their

specialized equipment needs and problems. Although face-toface interviews with a large sample of representatives from

law enforcement agencies would have been desirable, time and

manpower constraints led to the development of a nationwide,

mail sample survey having two general objectives: (1) To assist

NILECJ in the establishment of priorities for LESL's standards

development activities; and (2) to obtain detailed information

about certain broad equipment categories so that research to

develop standards in these areas could begin.

This report fulfills part of the second general objective

and the associated survey questionnaire (See Appendix A) will be

referred to as the Communications Detailed Questionnaire (DQ).

The remainder of the second objective is accomplished in the

reports of the other five DQs : Alarms, Security, and Surveillance

Systems; Handguns and Handgun Ammunition; Sirens and Emergency

Warning Lights; Body Armor and Confiscated Weapons; and Patrolcars. The first general objective (above) is accomplished in

the report on the Equipment Priorities Questionnaire (EPQ)*. A

Complete listing of these seven reports may be found on the

inside front cover of this report.

* LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 19727= Volume 1~: The Need

for Standards -- Priorities for Police Equipment.

2
1 . 2 Sample Design

Although the objective of ESIP is to serve all types of

law enforcement agencies, this particular study was purposefully limited to police departments as the largest single

group of law enforcement agencies with identifiable equipment needs. No attempt was made to survey correctional

institutions, courts, forensic laboratories, or special police

agencies such as park police, harbor patrols or university

police. The computerized directory of approximately 14,000

police agencies, compiled and maintained by LEAA ' s Statistics

Division, provided the population from which the sample was

drawn. Care was taken to exclude the double listings that

existed for some agencies. (Details of the selection process are given in Appendix B of the Equipment Priorities

Questionnaire.

The final list of 12,842 departments was c r o s

s - s t r a t i f i e

by LEAA geographic region and department type by the mutual

agreement of NBS and NILECJ. The assignment of states to

regions and the seven department types chosen for study are

shown in Table 1.2-1.

3
Table 1.2-1. Stratification Categories

DEPARTMENT TYPES: LEAA GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

State Police 1 = Conn

, Maine, Mass., N.H.,

County Police & Sheriffs R. I . , V41.

City with 1-9 Officers 2 = N . J . , N . Y

City with 10-49 Officers 3 = Del . , Md .

, Penn .

, Va .

City with 50 or more Officers* W . Va . , D . C . The 50 Largest U.S. Cities** 4 = Ala. , Fla. , Ga. , Ky .

, Miss

Township Departments N. C . , S . C .

, Tenn

5 111., Ind .

, Mich .

, Ohio

Wis., Minn

6 Ark . , La. , N .M. , Okla. , Tex

7 Iowa

Kan . , Mo . , Neb

8 Colo, Mont. , N. D. , S . D.

Utah, Wyo

9 Ariz . , Calif., Nev. , Hawaii

10 Alas . , Idaho, Ore., Wash.

* Does not include the 50 Largest Cities.

** By Population, U.S. 1970 Census.

The breakdown of the population of police departments by crossstrata is exhibited in Table 1,2-2. As can be seen from the

table, there were no Townships in Regions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Almost 53% of the departments were City police, 43% having 1-9

full-time officers. County departments comprised about 24% of

the population. By Region, the smallest (Region 10) contained

only 3.4% of the police departments, while Region 5, the largest

had 22.5%. The variation in the number of departments in a cell

(Region/Department Type combination) was even greater than that

across the strata, i.e. the number of departments in each cell

ranged from 0 to 1470.

The considerations discussed in the previous paragraph led

to the sampling plan discussed briefly below. All of the State

departments and the Fifty Largest City departments were included
* J 0 in 0

rt. LT) CD CD in in ro H I—

T 0> m in CO o lTi rH rH

rsrH

O 0 r~ C^ CN 1 iH CN r—

r- rH

rHn in CD CO 1 in 0 n >X) 00 0

rH in

CO CDn rH i-H 1 cz

CO CD rH VX) (N CN ^ n iH rs n n 1 iXi r—

rH a^

rH rHrH

in

m CO 1 CC Q ro in (N rH

in 0 CD 0 m m 0 rH rH CC in in rH (N CO rH (N

CO ^ CO 1 cc cc

r- rH

CN

m in

m VO in CN in rH m

CM p» rH ro in

rH

CN CN CO "ST CD

cc CD CN 0

rH

rH [ 0 rH 0^ VD CN i£> CN CN

^Xi CD

(0

CO OJ0 CO H 0) QJ Uh >H r| uh 0 4J UH 0 2 tH

Ch Cj Q »H0 in 4J 0^ 1 05 1 0 0 0) QJ 0* rH rH in u XT' rl

>i ^ -H iH r* |i w 4h IT3 U3 fi +J >i >1 k3 C

(4 nj -P 4J 4-> 0 ^

El +J 0 •H •H •iH 0 n CO u U U u in Eh Eh

m -P

4-1 0) C tn n o

OJ rH D C

4-)

4J

X)

a)u

(1)u c

Sh

QJ x:

4-1

Q) rH O (T3 C >H •H 4J

QJ

m o

4-1c c G O U O

(0

u

(U rO0

0) 4J o>c

rH

QJ X3•H

)Ho

cn

CJ 'Cm

(0w

0) •Huc

QJCP

03

ix;

Q)

q;

OJ QJ 5

4J (4H n3 QJ 4J >H \n

4J

«X) 3

in oA O 4J P -H

g S O

4J

M

C

m

QJ 0)

IQ -HU

>i

C

iH Q) rH XT

4-1 QJ U U m -iH

<4hoo

QJ

QJ

4-1 a

QJuu

it:

QJU

-H QJ (0 4-1 C n C -H O rH •H

-p x:

03

O

QJ -rl 3 x: ^

03O

iH •Hmcco

•H • 4J CN

03 I QJ m 3o a 5
in the sample and were ci..f^ed to complete all six DQs , i.e. , they

were sent the entire package of seven questionnaires. For the

remaining cells the variation in cell size presented a problem:

If the same fraction of the entire population was to be selected

from the members of each cell, a constant sampling fraction large

enough to make the total sample manageable would yield too few

sample units in small cells. To solve this problem, a fixed

sample of 30 police departments/cell was chosen, wherever possible, resulting in a different sampling fraction for each cell.

A fixed sample size of 30 departments/cell was chosen to facilitate the equitable distribution of the six DQs. This plan

resiilted in sending the Communications DQ to 534 departments.

The departments were selected randomly within each cell,

from the total cell population, each department (other than the

States and Fifty Largest Cities) receiving two DQs. Thus, in

cells having 30 sample units, the Communication DQ was mailed

to 10 departments; cells having fewer sample units were allocated

proportionally fewer Communications DQs. Table 1.2-3 presents

the total sample for the Communications, DQ by Region and Department Type . Once the sample was selected, each sample unit was assigned

a unique seven-digit identification number, coding region, type,

and questionnaire assignment.

1.3 Questionnaire Administrati on

From the beginning of the project, it was evident that

stringent control would be required in administering the questionnaires to ensure a high rate or response. Compu t e

r - s to r ed
0) • iH 0) •H

(0 >^

-pQ c

OJ 0) ^; E p -Pu

0) fO > a. •H Q

0) T3

as

C

03 0

fi0

•H

(1) +j 0) u

iH >i

Xi

cnw 1

+J « c G

0) 0 e •H

4J +J

J-l fO

(0

u

0^

0) c p 3SS 0 0u

0)

a;u

•H

(0 c c

•H c0

•H

0) 4-1 050) Ol

M ' w

OSuH

a-<owu<<w I

cd

H 1 03 O o o o o 00 : +J in o o 00 LO 0 iH ^ i &^o o o o lD (N 1 r-t O o o O CO 1 <N 1 <H rH rH Ln ,

00

O o o rH 1 m

tH

H

_

O o O 1 in

rH

LD o o O o 00 1 —

iH rH rH in

in

O o o o o o H H rH rH rH rH \

COO o O o 00 1 "1

iH .-1 rH

H in

m inO o O

O in

© o H fH rH H rH O o o O o

r-H rH rH rH in Q Q rH o i£) iH rH rH in

(0p

0) VI u p <D

0) •H 0) •H u u 4J H •p P

4-1 o ip

u

IP * o o *

cn i 1 + 0) ft 1 O O .p « >i iH rH in p x:

0) 4J 03

H

p >i >1 >i 1-1 c 03

03 •P P 4-1 P

4J 0 H •H •H o 0 0 W u u u u in Eh El

X

4J rl 03 rH U) 4J 03 U) P QJ •P X C cu •H 0) W U 4-1

QJC UH P 0 0

0) e

Xi 0 u

03

p 0)

01 03 e P 0 0

4-1

p

0)U 0) c u

•p

g (1) tn (U 4-1 p ft • tn 0) 0) in

4-i UH

OO T}

OJ P 03

C e 03 p +J P 3 03 *•

03 0 3 n a ^

cn

*•

(U CN p

(1) •p

4-1 « 03 rH

03 <1)d

4-1 -H c cn 02 U 0 c: •p 0

0)

p •H

in

w CP

03 0) 0) 0 Dh

4-1 0) cr' u c: 4J -P *4H •p C H 0

<D 0 >i H

0) c

>< 0 cn 0 H S

rH 4J 0) 4J

03

C (0

d Tl 0 •p

4-> (1) U 4^ >1 QJ

03 Cfl rH • P c cn 0 4-1 P c

<u s u p E

•p 0) -P

to ^ > P

<D 3 03 P 3 ft •P U5 0 0)

03 4-1 n: t3 C C C 0) cn ft 0 g • Q) •P H 4J >, -p ^

•P P u

u cn cn 03 c c G

0) 0. 0) 0) 3 3 0) 0

03 03

•K* 7
daily status records were input via a teletypewriter for each

sample department. In general, the following procedure was

used : •

(a) Each department in the sample was mailed a letter,

signed by the director of NILECJ, addressed to the

. survey and requested cooperation.

(b) About one week later, the questionnaire packages were

mailed.

(c) Departments not returning the questionnaires within a month were identified by the computer and were sent a self return postcard requesting information as to the

status of the questionnaires. Departments not receiving

the questionnaire package were sent another; those not

returning the postcard were placed on a list for

telephone follow-up.

(d) About a month and a half later, departments with which

no contact had been made were called by telephone.

(e) Returned questionnaires were reviewed for completeness

and either coded for keypunching or filed for telephone

call-back to supply missing data or to resulve ambiguities.

8
Considerable effort was expended to ensure a high rate of

response, and this effort was rewarded with an 80% response for

the Communications DQ , and between 80% and 85% for each of the

other questionnaires. In the course of the survey more than 70%

of the sample departments were contacted at least once by telephone. More than 1300 phone calls were made by the survey team.

The distribution of respondents (departments which returned

usable Communications DQs) is exhibited in Table 1.3-1. The

highest percentages of response were from the States and larger

Cities (89-94%) , while Counties and Townships had the poorest

response rates (under 70%). These data would seem to be partly

explained by the fact that the larger departments use more equipment than do smaller departments and, therefore, have a greater

1 . 4 D evelopment and Design of the Communications D Q

The survey plan and questionnaire design (of all seven questionnaires) evolved over a 12-month period. During this time, the

survey team consulted at length with NILECJ equipment experts.

9

I

(0 Eh

<u - - 1—

NT \j • 00

t~- 00 00 in 0 (0 ' ' — .. ..

(3^ 00

+) 00

•0

0) H

•Hm

+j

0) Q

0) 3

rH

O

x>

H

(0 o

<uu

u o H <

04<!OO

u3 o

+J

/It oi <

v> 0} +) C0

(U •H g 4J

n}

M o

(d •H

<u 3 Q gg

«w 0 0 u

<u

04a

u

w •H

nJa 0 a0 M •H

(1) +J XI (0 S 0) 3 3 2 o • o in cn

P4

>^

E-t

EHSMS

E-t <

PL4 aQ

OA o (Ti cr> 00

00

in

in o m

CO r*- 00 r~

in v£>O 00 (Ti 00

00 <ri o <T>

CO (Ti v£)

O

in in CO (T^ o ^

(N r- CO <y> <r>

in

00

in r~ 00 r-t 00 *

(Ua

+j

-pa3Ou

COu

Q)U

•rH UH

U-l O

(T>I

H-> •HU

(0uu

—I

U-l o

(TiI o

-pu

)^

0)u

•H

IW

M-l O+o

in

>i

l-i •HU

(0

(1) •HP

•Hu

4J

(A

OJCPUo

in

in *

o^

00

4-> to

CO

W

CO

•H (U ^ W U -P 0 C U-l u o o O U

Q)

U nJ

Q) Oj P o

-p COT) H c: 0)

to OJ -P

5H D4

W OJ 0)O

0)

0) o g

+J -p

•H

M 3 n3

(dO ^

04 ^

(1)

OJ Q)

C

+J •H

C

U3UO

tH

v£) 0) -P in tj> w

td 0)3 o p •H M-t C H O

Q)

O

W 04 -P

>.O

W

iH +J <U 3 O

-P (1) O 4J >

0) r-i u

(U ,c 5 o

•H

to ^

0) S

>H •Hco u>o

CO . a; o u c fl

(U Oj 0) (U 3 <u CP cr^ OI'XJ <o

CO

c:

(Dg P Sh

CO (C5

inC

CM

COCOH

CP

(UC

•Hco

4J

CO •HX

0)

CO +Ja

0)g

+ju

fd04

(U t3

Oi -H

COo

EH ** u

(dcco

•Hp

CO

CU3

tr

0) x:

-p

M-lo

(!) P

rH3

CO

<U

0)

4-1

CPc

•HP

!ho

<DU

'O • C :

(d jji

CP ' C

C

•H

O

>i -H

fC P

.HU

a cu CO CO •H

T! - CC C rH

•H

0) TI CP- 0) (d CO3 Co

T5

0) -P

cnco

•Hc

CD CD

Eh td Vo

9-«
LESL program managers, and equipment manufacturers. In addition,

the officers and administrators of about 40 police departments

served as consultants and/or as respondents for pretests of various

versions of the questionnaires.

The Communications DQ , in its final form, is reproduced in

Appendix A. This DQ asked respondents to provide data about car

radios and portable radios in use in their departments^ to answer

questions about the power supplies used in portable radios, to

provide information about other kinds of communications equipment

such as scramblers, helmets with built-in communications and

portable/mobile radios; to indicate the need for standards for

various kinds of communications equipment and to discuss problems

with communications equipment. The questionnaire was limited to

general topics because (1) it was not possible, considering the

scope of the present survey, to explore in a detailed manner all

of the many facets of the various communications systems in use

in police departments throughout the United States, and (2) it

was felt that the general data gathered in the present effort •

would provide important direction for research in the development

of standards, the main objective of the survey.

10
1 . 5 Characteristics of Subsample Groups

The EPQ of the LEAA Police Equipment Survey* requested data

from each department about population served, physical size of

jurisdiction served, type of jurisdiction, number of full- and

part-time officers, approximate total, equipment, and personnel

budgets during 1971, and activities handled by the department.

Table 1.5-1 presents a partial tabulation, by department

type, of the responses to a check list of 30 typical police activities by the respondents to the EPQ. (The EPQ respondents include, but are not limited to, the respondents to the Communications DQ. See Section 1.2.) The activities most frequently

checked by all departments were (1) Serve Traffic and Criminal

Warrants (88%), (2) Traffic Safety and Traffic Control (87%),

and (3) Communications for Own Department (87%). The activity

with the most consistent level across ail d. oar tment types was that

of Emergency Aid and Rescue; ranging from 60% (Cities with 50+

Officers) to 67% (Counties).

Higher percentages of State and Fifty Largest City departments were handling certain of these activities. For example:

all of the 45 Fifty Largest City departments responding, and 98%

of the State departments, said that their departments provided

Police Training for Own Department. These compare to 68% for

the total sample of departments. All of the responding Fifty

Largest Cities said that they handled Criminal Investigation in

* LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972, Vol. I, op. cit.

11
+JO

Eh

1 •H

•p f' •H m

>i > C Q -H

+J o

a) o Eh o< «< >i

Eh XI •P O (0 P (0 (1) o (Ji (AO

nJ •P C

U -H

(tJ >

04 m >i +

4-1 o

Q •H LD

CO U

(d

Eh e >i

-P 1 -H o

0 (0 u H

Q (U Ph Q

H 4J 1 A" S iH H H

Eh nJ u

1 +J W 0 >i S Eh +J O

•M dP Eh 0 O

cn o

< -P w c Q) P

U <a Eh U +j < 0) CO

>i

0) iH •» C Clj nJ >i

33 Eh

CO -P

Eh •p e H

•H -P >

> U H

•H (TJ Eh P CL| U

U 0) <

< Q

O

•

1 o

in H

&H H 04

<u H

« H o

XI to

nj ua

00 CO in m CO O

i cr

1 CN CN

1

1 01 1 H ri ro 00

CO CO CO CO LD 0^ 0" 00 (N CN rH H H rH rH 1 H

on o m (N CO CN CO

<y\ r- CO

r~ CO o o o O 1 1 1 1 1 CN CN O 1 00 OJ 1 c,

00 en o o 00 CTi U3 CO 00 <J\ VX3 in

iH •

CN n O CO O CN 1 CO 1X5 1 1 1 1 1 CTi CTi CO CO iXl IT) V£> 00

vO LO LD ro CN fO o LD vX) rH >X) o

00 CTi CTi <D VD IT) iX> 00

'3' CO iH CN n CO CO CO

CO (Ti "^r un IX) U3 U-) n

VD LT) r- O 1 1 00 cx> 00 >X) 00 1 CO CN

00 LD CO CO LT) r~ n n LO 00

O 1^ CO 1 CN 1 1 1 1X5 rH 1 IX) 1

.

in CN in LO 00 1 1 1 cri CO vX) CTi in U3 n IX) in in 00 00

ts p Sh c 0 -P c >i Id (d a 0) CO >i cu

V) P <D e Q CO CO u

U C H -p cn o G u rH

(0 0 -P !h rH C ^4 c cu (d CO 0 U iH ns •H OJ Cn •H X3

Q^ G •d cn < CO 0 c iH u 0) c 0 rH 0 < >i o td

(d •H 0 Q 0 x; -H iH rH rH rH CU x;

fi Mh Q -P (1) •H o >i. u (U (d <: CO p

•H H-l J3 P -p pq (1) <u -G 0 G G

e (d C c CO O U m cu x: -P p «< CU cu -H 0 o CO <U u <U IS -p O O u Sh Eh O •H 0) -P CJ o >1 0 ri O u

t3

-P u +J « O cn -rl rH CO iH >i Sh rH

•a

Sh <d 0 1 CO U 0 H 1 iH CO 0 1 u G O PQ 1 C 0 tji m c Q) CU Q o c 0 0) UH C cu 0 -P CO G c nJ MH H 0 Eh C 0 MH u o > •H >i (d u !h o (0

to

+J •H nS Cr> 0 rl 0 cn •H 0 4J U U O cu •H o

>i CO p iH C •H rH rH MH 4J CO iH C -P u u O O 14H > +J

4-» c 0) H c O H P 0 0 o c c H G 0) rH 0) -P XI rH •H C •H 0) 0 > OJ x: -d U 5H QJ o C d) ff: td Q4 nJ cd O CO CU >« UH •H -n=) +J o < C +J -P CD •P H rH H 4J cn CO Sh iH •H a 4J

nj -p H (TJ (U u H c (CJ CJ (U -p (d OJ in 0 G O P CO cu

(0 C/5 (CJ Sh Q rH fa o Ph c Q td > iH Q cu M XI CO (d >i i-! Q

O Eh H

O 1—1 Eh \

>i <

1 oC m u m \ u -r| Eh \. cn rtS U rH 0 \ Q) >1 c >< r) U >i fd H (d 0) 1-5 •H (d u 14-1 >i

0)

•iH c Q) T) cu O rH rcJ o T3 CD Q rH P G CD xs UH rH U O -p Cn H (CJ -p O U o iH CTi o CU 0 O <: !h G (/ 0 > >W g g H 4J ^ c«

(-« cr rH -p <U X2 >1 6 o X! CU O 4- 4J

(0 e <-{ (/) Q 0) U H cn H CO e !h H CO T) e rH x; H iH in Xi x: iH C cn

0) u 0 o e 3 (U G rt rC o 0) O G o 0 (U Sh fd rd td P O C' CO Eh u u U PQ w CM CO < u u C/^ u D PQ 04 > U 1-3 ol u E U

12
their own departments. This compares to 86% of the total sample

of departments. Altho-ioh only 13% of the departments overall had Crime Laboratories, 73% of the Fifty Largest Cities and

55% of the States had them.

Counties appeared to be the only Department Type with significant responsibilities for custody and detention for more

than 1 week. Seventy- eight percent of those departments had

Cus tody/De tention-Up to 1 Year, as compared with 22% of all

responding departments.

Tables 1.5-2 and 1.5-3 present summaries of descriptive

data by Department Type and LEAA Region, respectively. As can

be seen from the column for Annual Equipment Budget (Table 1.5-2),

there was a wide range of expenditures among different Department

Types: From a mean of about 10 thousand dollars for Cities (1-9)

to almost 2.6 million dollars for the Fifty Largest Cities.

Overall, equipment budgets represented somewhat over 10% of the

Annual Total Budgets.

The mean Number of Part-time Officers was based on those

respondents having part-time officers in their departments. Of

the 45 responding from the Fifty Largest Cities, only six had

part-time officers, including one city which had nearly 6000.

Thus, the mean value of 1115 for this department type is somewhat

misleading. It should be noted that the category Part-time Officers included officers described as auxiliary, volunteer, reserve, school-crossing guard, dispatcher, summer, special agent.

13
00 CM p~- 1!, . [in 1

1-H a; i-O >x> 00 in cn .H iH MO o

0)

4-' OJ o M3 iH o

(C c 0) 1-1 CM in o O 0 Cn [-~ o CO CN iH g CO r5 u CN rH < 3 CQ n iH

(i< <r>- </> </> </> </> CO- ~' O CTi CTi cn CM p n ro in M3 c -P n in O n CO

fd <ug

w 0^ ^ CO o CTi c a X} vD o in CN CM "H U3 n rH <

r-l P

rr\ P4 CN CN

w c/> </> </> o c/> </> </>

in 00 CTi o iH

J 1 in iH in CO

r\\J CO

n CTim CTi \o ro

Eh 4-' CB CTi

n r- in CN

r~i Oi UD CO 00 in r-- CO

rH(D r7-( CN o r~ CN iH m iH iH iH

</> coO </> </> coO E J-l "H vf in CB in cn 00 in

V) £^O rH

H CN CN 1 •H iH

+J 4-1 r-)

4-1

H to

O

d) U)

— o

•H <u rH CTi o CM CN 00

u Eh

u CTi CO CN rH tH CO iH

f—{ 4-1 CN

i-H 4-1 oco

•H o CO CO 1 1 ^ ,—

in ^ CN cn CN fO CO CN" o

rH iH MO o ro in PO in in n CO iH CD CTi r-i (J P4^ cn

0) iH

nj •H r- o 00 .H CO cn

Q) CO 00 iHn (H CN

U iH in in < • CN ,—

«J3

w

(1) &

CTi

4-» c cn + 1 cu O O

a 1 B

tji in 1—

•H iH

U >i x:

(0 (U P ,cn

1-^ +J c >i c >,

:3

p 4-> P o p o •H •H o -H

Q in cn

uuU

U o

-H

0) Piw

43

nj -P

(0 Q

d)>

-H

-POJ

-HUu

cncu QI in

EH

T ! 1 rH vD n iX> 00 (N 11 rH rH ,H cn to a^ o

0) CTi U-) fN C^J 00 01 VD VD iX> rH c

(d c <U CTi in CTi 00 CO CO iH 3 o Cn r-- M3 M3 o CO CO CM H

cn n3 CTl CN CO CO cn in in

O c 3 < CD PQ in CN rH 00 rH .H

co- co- CO- co- </> co- CO- CO- co- CO-

+J o CN OT o 00 00 iH r-H rH 03

H

C •P in o VD o COO

fCj cu 0) iH rH iH 00 o o CO rH s s CP in CO in CO rH o rH CO CM •H n n oo CN r- cc

CQ rH rH rH <-{

W </> C/> co- co- co- co- </> co- co- corH

..^ - . ,

(0 in in CN 00 in 00

-p in rH MS CO o CM 00 in cn 0 cH n in n <X) 00 00 in in CO

£h -P

QJ o 00 CN CO vD 00 o CO 00 00 iH CJi 'a* .H rH rH CD CN CN in

03

m 1—

00 CTi rH CN CN

G

m rH r- OJ CN rH in rH

C< CO- co- co- CO- co- co- C/> co- </> CO4-1 cn o

-H cu CO r~ rH co CD vD cn

u Ehu rH CTi rH rH

umbe

art-' Offi

04

4-1 cu cn

— 0 e 5-1 -H CD 1^ in 1^ rH 00 o rH cn u u CTi M3 rH in CO V£) CO in CO

umbe

ullOffi

ro CN rH CN rH CM

on -H CN rH

m <D KD

4J rH CO

n CO cn CN CTi (0 rH r-- CTi rH 00 o O O CO rH 00 o in o CO iH CM 00 ON d in ^ sf r~ rH CO r-- o &

rH CN 00 CN rH 00 rH

04

cn

cu rH

(0 •H o CO vo rH CN CO CTi M3 CO o

0) 2 in <^ CTi <Ti in 00 r- .H CO o IX) M? 00 00 CN in • cr cn

rH oo CN in CM MO 00

C

—— -- - 0

•H

tr

(U

LEAA R rH CN 00 in 00 cn o

rH

14
traffic supervisor, posse, and cadet. All of these classifications were counted in the Part-time Officer category since it has

different meanings for different departments.

Variations in these descriptive averages by LEAA region

(Table 1.5-3) were considerably smaller than variations by department type. Regions 1 and 8 had smaller budgets than the

others, primarily because each had only one of the Fifty Largest

Cities

2.0 QUESTION BY QUESTION DISCUSSION -

2 . 1 Advice to the Reader

In reading Section 2, certain points should be kept in mind:

(a) THIS REPORT IS NOT AN EVALUATION OF ANY OF THE

EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED OR DISCUSSED WITHIN IT. IT

IS A PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINIONS OF

A STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS

GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC SET OF QUESTIONS.

IT DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, REFLECT OBJECTIVE TESTING OF ANY EQUIPMENT BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF

STANDARDS.

(b) The report reflects only what police departments

were willing and able to say in response to a specific set of questions. In most cases, no

attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the

information given or the level of sophistication

of the respondent.

15
(c) Each discussion begins with the presentation of

the question that appeared in the questionnaire,

and in most cases the choices supplied, if any,

set off in a box. However, the reader is cautioned to become familiar with the questionnaire

sent to sample departments (See Appendix A) and

to evaluate the data in terms of the exact ques-

* tions asked.

(d) The text tables that appear in Section 2 are almost neve

the complete tables that were tabulated for that question. Data categories for text

tables may have been collapsed from the full table,

or certain categories of interest may have been

singled out for fuller discussion. Appendix B

contains the complete tables from which the text

tables were extracted. Text tables have been

numbered after the question number (e.g., the

-

' text tables for question 6A. would be numbered

6A-1, 6A-2, etc.). The tables in Appendix B

are also numbered the same as question number,

in the same manner. In some cases, tables that

, appear in the Appendix B will not have been discussed at all in the text.

(e) Data in the text of this report are usually presented by nearest whole percent of the froup under

16
consideration. In Appendix B, the data are usually

presented by number of respondents and percent. Because of statistical limitations imposed by the sample

sizes used in this study, the reader is cautioned

to be wary of assigning importance to percentage

differences of less than 5% when percentages are

based on the total number of respondents, to

percentage differences of less than 10% when percentages are based on one of the subsample groups,

(e.g. , a particular Department Type or Region) . No

tests of statistical significance are reported.

(f) Data were always tabulated by each of the choices

supplied, if any, in the questionnaire. Any "other"

choices written in by the respondents were also tabulated and/or recorded verbatim. In most cases,

the numbers of respondents giving a specific "other"

response do not reflect the numbers of respondents

who might have marked that choice if it had been

one of those provided. Therefore, in most cases,

this report lists or gives examples of "other" responses, but does not present numbers or percents of

departments giving that response. For those questions for which choices were not provided in the

questionnaire, coding categories were developed after approximately one-fourth of the questionnaires

had been returned.

17
The subsample groups (Department Types and Regions

are capitalized when they are discussed in the

text. In addition, the four Department Types

which are composed of City departments are at

times discussed as a group. In those cases, the

word "city" is also capitalized. The following

convention has been adopted in the report to

designate the four City Department Types:

- .. City with 1-9 Officers = City (1-9)

City with 10-49 Officers = City (10-49)

. . City with 50 or more Officers = City (50+)

The Fifty Largest Cities = Fifty Largest

In table headings this same convention has been

used except that the parentheses have been removed, and the Fifty Largest Cities are designated

"50 Largest".

The reader should keep in mind that when

these subsample groups are discussed, (e.g.,

"Counties said..." or "Cities (1-9) said...")

the reference is to that particular subsample

group as selected in the sample.

Questions which asked departments to identify

manufacturers of their equipment were asked in

this manner only to make the question clearer;

NOT TO EVALUATE A MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT.

18
In an attempt to make this report more

readable, the main topics of the questionnaire have been reordered in the report;

the discussion of the findings does not

follow the order of the questions. To find

the discussion of a particular question

quickly, consult the Table of Contents or

the List of Tables.

When the subsample groups are discussed

(e.g., "Counties said..." or "Cities (1-9) said

...") the reference is to the responding departments from one of the sample strata. It is

particularly important to note that when the text

or tables refer to "All Departments" or "All

Responding Departments," the reference is to

all responding departments from the sample

described in Section 1.2. This sample was not

proportional to the total population of police

departments, and although it is possible to do

so, t he data in th is rep or t have not be en

weighted t o all ow direct extrapolation to the

total populatio n. (See page B-1, Appendix B.)

19
2 . 2

2.2.

Discussion

1 Characteristics of Respondents

jTitle of Respondents

All of the questionnaires in the LEAA Police Equipment Survey were mailed to the Chief (or highest official) of the department with a request that the questionnaires be directed to

the person or persons within the department who were felt to be

best qualified to answer the questions.

The Communications Questionnaire was usually filled in by

the Chief/Unit Head in smaller City departments and Townships

and by a Communications Specialist in States and the Fifty Largest Cities

Table i. Rank of Primary Respondent for Communications Questionnaire, by Department Type*.

RANK/TITLE

Chief

Asst. Chief

Comm. Spec.

Excluding Counties

DEPARTMENT TYPE

"6 "6 Q,"O

Q,

'O

Q,» City City City 50 Town1-9 10-49 50 + Largest State ship

73 42 14 4 0 52

3 9 6 0 0 0

0 2 28 67 77 4

In Cities (50+) about one-fourth (28%) of the primary respondents were Communications Specialists and one-fifth (20%) were

either Chiefs or Assistant Chiefs. Questionnaires from Counties

were most often filled in by the Sheriff.

20
jNumber of Years of Law Enforcement Experience of Respondent

! In general, the questionnaire was filled in by experienced

officers. About three- four ths of the respondents had more than 5 years of experience. Although a majority of the respondents had

more than 10 years of experience in law enforcement, there were

variations among Department Types. More than 70% of the respondents in the Fifty Largest Cities and States had this much experience, while less than half of the respondents in Counties, Cities

(1-9), and Townships had more than 10 years in law enforcement

work

Table ii. Years of Experience in Law Enforcement of Primary

Re sponden t

DEPARTMENT TYPE

50 Largest

State

City (10-49)

City (50+)

City (1-9)

County

Township

NUMBER OF YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE:

More than

5 Years

More than

10 Years

More than

20 Years

More than

25 Years

% Dept. Type % Dept. Type % Dept. Type % Dept. Type

88

81

84

77

62

58

57

77

72

57

61

43

36

48

24

17

13

22

21

17

9

13

4

5

14

13

13

9

21
2.2.2 Number of Officers and Characteristics of Jurisdiction

The communications needs and requirements of police departments are usually based on two prime considerations: (a) number

of officers in the department and (b) size of jurisdiction.

Data about the average number of officers per Department

Type are reproduced in Table iii.

Table iii. Average Number of Full-Time Officers, by Department

Type . DEPARTMENT TYPE: MEAN NO. FULL-TIME OFFICERS:

50 Largest 2491

State 890

City (50+) 125

County 113

City (10-49) 23

Township -

' 16 . City ( 1-9 ) - 9

The largest mean number of officers per department was in

the Fifty Largest Cities. States averaged slightly less than

one-third as many officers as the Fifty Largest Cities. Counties

averaged about five times as many officers as did Cities (10-49).

5A. What is the total area within your jurisdiction which must

be covered by a communications system? (IN SQUARE MILES)

Square Miles

22
Table 5A-1. Average Size of Communications Jurisdiction,

by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

State

County

50 Largest

City (10-49)

City (1-9)

City (50+)

Township

Overall Mean

Square Miles

62,704

2,551

237

68

67

34

32

SIZE

Mi nimum

Square Miles

1,497

14

24

1

1

25

Maximum

Square Miles

263,449

64 ,000

841

2 , 000

1,200

310

67

The average sizes of communication jurisdictions which State

and County police had to cover were larger than those of all types

of City departments and Townships. The larger Cities, in terms of

number of officers, were not necessarily larger in geographical

size. Cities (1-9) and (10-49) had geographically larger jurisdictions than Cities (50+). The relationships between number of

officers and geographical size can be seen more clearly in Table

5A-2.

Table 5A-2. Comparison Between Average Number of Officers in

Department and Average Size of Jurisdiction.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

50 Largest

State

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

Township

City (1-9)

NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND SIZE OF JURISDICTION

Mean No. FullTime Officers

2491

890

125

113

23

16

9

Mean Size of Jurisdiction (Sq. Mi.)

237

62,704

34

2,551

68

32

67

23
;6 . Which of the following best describes the general character of

your jurisdiction? (MARK X BY MORE THAN ONE, IF NECESSARY)

Skyscrapers, many tall buildings

Some tall buildings

Almost no tall buildings

Primarily mountainous or very hilly

;

" Valley area surrounded by mountains

..I ' Generally flat with some hills

- Flat area, no hills

The departments which characterized their jurisdictions as being Mountainous or in a Valley Surrounded by Mountains were

most often located in LEAA Regions 1 (New England) , 8 (Mountain

States), 9 (Far West/Hawaii), and 10 (Northwest/Alaska). Respondents who reported Flat, with Some or No Hills, were most often

in LEAA Regions 6 (South/Southwest) and 7 (Midwest). There were

few differences among LEAA Regions in the percentages of departments which said they had Almost No Tall Buildings. Departments

in Region 5 (Great Lakes) gave the greatest percentage of responses for Skyscrapers, Many Tall Buildings or Some Tall

Buildings; this response was given least often by departments

in Region 1 (New England) . .

24
Table 6 . General Character of Jurisdiction ^ by LEAA Region.

LEAA REGION;

New England

New York/New Jersey

Middle Atlantic

South

Great Lakes

South/Southwest

Midwest

Mountain

Far West/Hawaii

Northwest/Alaska

CHARACTER:

Valley Surrounded By Almost

Flat/Some Mountains/or Moun- No Tall

or no Hills tainous, Very Hilly Bldgs

Region % Region

31

63

33

79

73

91

86

45

46

35

81

43

67

36

22

18

11

81

80

70

% Region

32

33

20

28

27

28

28

27

35

26

Skyscrapers

or Some Tall

Buildings

% Region

12

31

35

30

53

33

28

24

31

18

25
2.2.3 Mobile Radios

2.2.3.1 Number of Mobile Radios

2A. How many car radios are there in your department?

Number

State departments accounted for slightly more than half (51%)

of all the car radios reported by the 428 responding departments.

The Fifty Largest Cities accounted for an additional 40% of all

radios reported. Thus, less than 10% of all radios reported were

found in the other five Department Types.

Table 2A-1. Number of Car Radios, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

No . of

Re sponden t s

TotalNo . Radios

Q,Total

Radios

Mean

No . Per

Dept

Max

i n any

Dep t

Min

in a Dept

State 47 34365 51 731 3510 97

50 Largest 46 27221 40 592 4275 101

County 69 2653 4 38 900 1

City (50+) 79 2597 4 33 177 7 City (10-49) 86 631 1 7 21 1

City (1-9) 78 239 * 3 28 1

Township 23 101 * 4 26 1

All Departments 428 67807 100 158 4275 1

* Less than 1%.

Within the seven Department Type s, there were wide ranges of

minimum and maximum numbers of mobile radios reported. For example, some County departments had as few as one car radio, while

26
one County had 900.

Total numbers of car radios were compared with the numbers

of patrolcars reported in response to the Patrolcars Questionnaire.*

A total of 67,807 car radios were reported by the respondents to

the Communications Questionnaire. A total of 46,452 patrolcars

were reported by the respondents to the Patrolcars Questionnaire.

Therefore, about 46% more car radios than patrolcars were reported by these subsample groups.

Calls were made to a few departments to determine possible

reasons for the large observed difference between the number of

cars and the number of car radios. Several reasons were given

for this apparent discrepancy: (1) Many departments said that

they kept extra mobile radios available; some said that they

kept a 10-20% backup inventory. (2) Many departments were using

communications channels on two different frequency bands, and

needed two radios in each patrolcar in order to operate on both

bands. In some departments, one band was used for emergencies

(and was sometimes part of an area or statewide communications

system) and the other was used to handle local jurisdiction

communications. (3) In a smaller number of departments, it

appeared that errors in reporting the numbers of mobile radios

may have occurred. For instance, some of the County departments

contacted said that they had included other mobile radios in their

jurisdictions which, although they were not used by the County

* These two questionnaires were sent to different but equivalent

subsamples, except for States and the Fifty Largest Cities which

always filled in both.

27
police, were tied into the central dispatch system operated by

the County. It was also possible that a small number of departments may have included portable radios in their statistics on

car radios, even though information about portable radios was

specifically requested in Question llA.

in ounmary, while it appears that departments did, in fact,

have considerably more mobile radios in their departments than

they had patrolcars; there is reason to believe that the total of

67,807 car radios reported in the survey may have been somewhat

high. Nevertheless, the estimate of the total number of police

mobile radios in the country, shown in Table 2A-2, is not likely

to have been seriously affected.

Table 2A-2

DEPARTMENT

TYPE :

County

State

50 Largest

City (50+)

City (1-9)

City (10-49)

Township

Estimated Total Population of Police Car Radios in

U.S. , by Department Type.

Mean Number

Car Radios

Per Dept.

38

731

592

33

3

74

No. Depts. That

Type: Total

Population

3137

50

50

554

5486

1985

1574

Es timated

No. Car

Radi o s

119 ,206

36,550

29,600

18,282

16,45 8

• 13,895

6,296

Total: 240,287

2.2.3.2 Spectrum Utilization: Mobile Radios

In this section, mobile communications are considered in

terms of police department spectrum utilization. The frequency

bands used for transmitting and receivi-ng and the number of

28
channels authorized and in use by the responding departments are

reported

|l . Give the following information about your car radios:

I|lA. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in kHz, MHz, etc.) .

The reported frequencies were compiled in four categories:

VHF low band (30-50 MHz), VHF high band (150-174 MHz), UHF band

(4^50-470 MHz) and an "other" category which included such answers

as call letters, which could not be categorized by band.

VHF high band and UHF frequencies can usually be received in

buildings. VHF high band has better penetration, while UHF frequencies are more likely to pass through windows and other nonmetallic openings. One of the main attractions of the UHF band

is the availability of unused frequencies compared to VHF low and

high bands, which are relatively saturated.

Of all the transmitting frequencies reported by responding

departments, almost half (49%) were in the VHF high band (150-

174 MHz). The VHF low band (30-50 MHz) accounted for 29% of the

reported frequencies and only 19% were in the UHF band.

Since VHF low band frequencies provide the greatest range and

are least affected by terrain and foliage, they are more suitable

for those departments with the largest jurisdictions, such as

States and Counties. In both of these Department Types, over

half of the reported transmitting frequencies were in the VHF

low band.

29
Ul 1 U* ( j •H rg Q r; EH m

o\o

CO o

+-' CO

U)d) <U CO CO CN ro > \J ' H LO 5^

1-1

J

M * 1—

u)

(-•

i-i rrt tu rft

(JJ

m i>1 "T

(V) ft-)

>-i 1 1 M in CN •H U" r \

(—

Ah1 1 •H r7-< i5

<-i U * Uj CO

d)w >-H

CJ" •H (U >i CU 00 r—

CO

U

M 1 1 1 M CN w •H 0 fi-i CU CO

r-« P 1 \ >l CP Eh

Q) <L) M E Eh * m M• 1 CO

CP to S CN CN

S-q tH •H 1—

«W, i~H •H <U /V •P

-P •H

W

c;

O (-1 CO * r* CO

»o 1 \ Cr M 1) Q) 1—

Ui 0 P LO

>i 0

Eh

U 0

•PG I 0 • •H cn -P •P <u

|3 Vl •p <u CTi lD 0

rQ fO fd lD •H C1| P

0) •P Q

CO •H >i

_—

— - -.

QA • 10 • IJ'

'a CO 0) -p (Ti CTi 1—

rH ^4 CN iH

iH (U r—

»<

Q

Q) H -

<u Eh

N

N

N

u3 •• 0 W Q D S 0 iH in 1 1 CU w m 1 0 0 A 0 LO in P

Pm

n 0

CO

CO

LOH

II

0^o

00

CM

COnn

iH

II C

30
The three largest City Department Types and Townships reported

the greatest proportions of VHF high band transmitting frequencies.

VHF high band, being more line-of -sight , does not provide as much

range as low band does, but does transmit farther than UHF for

the same transmitter output power. VHF frequencies have been

available for law enforcement use longer than the UHF frequencies.

As shown by the data, UHF frequencies were not generally being

used, with the exception of the two largest City Department Types

(50+ and Fifty Largest)

Of the responding departments, 79% said all their transmitting frequencies were in a single band. The remaining 21%

used one of the combinations shown in Table lA-2. Only five departments reported using transmitting frequencies in all three

bands.

Table lA-2. Percent Use of More Than One Frequency Band for

Transmitting by the 55 Departments Reporting Concurrent Usage.

BAND COMBINATION: % All Departments Which Were Using

The means shown in Table lA-3 were calculated by counting

the total number of transmitting frequencies reported within a particular band by departments within a particular Department

Type and dividing this total by the number of departments within

that Department Type who reported at least one transmitting freMore Than One Band: (n=65)

30-50 and 150-174 MHz

30-50 and 450-470 MHz

150-174 and 450-470 MHz

60

10

30

31
quency within the band in question. Thus, for example, if 20

departments of a particular type reported using a total of 30

transmitting frequencies in the VHF low band, the statistic entered in the table would be "1.5".

Table lA- 3 . Mean Number of Transmitting Frequencies per Department, by Department Type and Band.

FREQUENCY BAND DEPARTMENT TYPE:

All ' City City City 50 TownDepts . 'State County 1-9 10-49 50+ Largest ship

2 . 3 4.2 2 . 1 1 . 4 1. 5 1. 8 1. 7 1. 4

2 . 7 ! 5.7 2 . 8 1.4 1 . 6 2 , 1 5.6 1. 6

4 . 4 5 . 7 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 2 2 . 6 6 . 8 3 . 0

3 . 3 6 . 2 2 . 6 1. 6 1.8 2. 3 8. 7 1. 7

30-50 MHz

150-174 MHz

450-470 MHz

All Bands -

: Historically, the VHF low band has been available for police

department use longer than the other two bands. Increasing pressure for channel assignments and technological improvements have

permitted the opening of the VHF high band and, most recently,

the UHF band for law enforcement communications. With the exception of Counties, all Department Types, if they had made the

switch to UHF at all, were using more channels per department in

the UHF . Band than in the lower two bands. This trend was particularly noticeable in the 50 Largest Cities which reported 5.6 and

6.8 frequencies per department in the VHF high and UHF bands,

respectively, v_s. only 1.7 frequencies per department in the VHF

32
low band. Increased spectrum space and the lack of co-channel

interference at the UHF frequencies should result in an increase

in the proportion of frequency assignments "(now 19%, see Table

lA-1) in this band.

IB. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question lA.

About two-thirds of the Fifty Largest City departments indicated that they were using at least one receiving frequency

which was different from their transmitting frequencies. Their

responses imply the use of some type of duplex system*. The

majority of departments in other Department Types appeared to be

operating in the simplex mode. Since the Fifty Largest Cities

were the primary users of different receiving frequencies, as well as being the primary users of the UHF Band, they heavily

influenced this picture.

* Note, that if one wishes, it is possible to determine the

number of departments using simplex and duplex systems by

calculating the number of different transmitting and receiving frequencies (from Q, lA and Q. IB) and the number

of channels (Q. ID)

.

3 3
Table lB-1. Percent Departments Whose Transmitting and Receiving Frequencies Were Not All The Same (n=130)

DEPARTMENT TYPE: Different Transmitting and

Receiving Frequencies

% Dept. Type

Township 14

City (10-49) 20

City (1-9 )

• 24

County -• 25

State 36

City (50+) 40

50Largest. 67

! 1. Give the following information about your car radios: |

t

i ID. Number of Channels Authorized ' j

i IE. Number of Channels In Use !

Although the data for this question- (and for Q. 5B. to.

follow) are reported, the reader is cautioned to interpret them

carefully. Discussions with departments and the FCC after the

survey was conducted, revealed that the term "chann.el" was defined differently by different people. The major area of confusion was concerned with the meaning of simplex and duplex channel

as s i g nmen t s

In terms of all responding departments, 1452 authorized

channels were reported and 13 32 channels were reported in use . At the time of this survey, of the channels authorized but not

in use (120 channels). State departments and the Fifty Largest

Cities accounted for just over half (68).

• , 3 4
Table ID. & E. Comparison of Channels Authorized with Channels

In Use for Mobile Radios, by Department Type.

(Department Types Listed from Largest to Smallest

Based on Mean Number of Full-Time Officers.)

DEPARTMENT TYPE

No. Channels

Au thor i zed

No. Channels

In Use

% of Authorized

In Use

50 Largest 411 378 92

State 309 274 89

County 195 186 95

City (50+) 184 174 95

City (10-49) 169 158 94

City (1-9) 144 124 86

Township 40 38 95

All Departments 1452 1332 92

In general, the more officers in the department, the greater was the number of channels authorized for its comiti un i c a t i o n s and departments were using almost all (92%) of the channels

authorized to them. The overall average number of authorized

channels per department was 3.5 and the average number in use

was 3.2.

[5B. If possible, please tell us how many different law enforcement channels serve this area. This figure would include

not only those channels used by your department, but also

those used by other law enforcement agencies operating in

the same geographical area (e.g. , state and local police) . Channe 1

Don ' t Know

Responding departments reported an average of 11.6 law enforcement communications channels in use in their areas. This is

slightly over three times the average number reported for their

35
own use. However, of the 428 departments which returned Communications Questionnaires, 132 departments (31%) did not answer or

did not know the number of different law enforcement channels

serving their areas.

Table ID. & E. & 5B. Comparison of Average Number of Channels

Author i zed

Radios , by

In Use, and In Area

Department Type.*

for Mobil

DEPARTMENT TYPE: CHANNELS:

Author i zed In Use In Area

(n=417) (n=418) (n=296)

50 Largest 9 . 1 8. 3 2.6

State 6 . 6 5.8 71.7

County 2 . 9 2 . 8 5 . 7

City (50+) 2 . 4 2.5 6. 2

City (10-49) 2 . 0 1.8 4 . 9

City (1-9) 2 . 0 1.7 4.0

Township 1. 7 1.6 5 . 1

* "No Answers" were excluded from the calculation 'of averages.

Although State departments who answered this question (18

departments) reported the greatest number of channels in their

areas, they also had by far the largest areas. The Fifty Largest Cities had slightly less than half as many authorized

channels in their areas as S tate department s , but these channels

were concentrated in much smaller jurisdictions.

5C. Do you have one common frequency for routine and emergency

traffic?

Yes

No (If "No") Do you think you need a common

frequency?

Yes

No

36
This question was originally intended to obtain information

on in ter departmental sharing of frequencies. That is: did the

different departments in one district or region have a common

frequency for communicating with each other on both a routine and

emergency basis? It was subsequently discovered that it had sometimes been interpreted to refer to in tra -depar tmental capability.

Consequently, the data received in answer to this question are

not presented here.

2.2.3.3 Characteristics of Mobile Radios

1. Give the following information about your car radios:

IC. Output power (in watts) .

This was a difficult question for some departments to answer

and 39 of the respondents did not answer it. Four departments gave output powers under 10 watts (they were using repeaters)

and 36 departments gave output powers above 110 watts (probably

their base station output power since the maximum power available

from commercial mobile radios is 110 watts ."^

Table lC-1. Frequency Count of Reported Output Power, for All

Responding Departments.

OUTPUT POWER IN WATTS: ALL DEPARTMENT TYPES:

No. %

Less than 10 4 1

10 - 29 28 7

30 - 49 73 17

50 - 69 65 15

70 - 89 24 6

60 - 110 159 37

More than 110 36 8

No Answer 39 9

Total 428 100

37
The frequency count shows that the most frequently cited output

power was in the 90-110 watt range. State departments, as expected

by the size of their jurisdictions, showed the greatest use (81%)

of high (90-110 watts) output power. Only in the Fifty Largest

Cities did the highest proportion of departments cite one of the

lower ranges of output power, (i.e. , 33% of the Fifty Largest

reported output in the 30-49 watt range while 25% reported output

powers of 90-110 watts).

Table lC-2. Percentages of Each Department Type Which Cited

Output Power of 90-110 Watts.

DEPARTMENT TYPE: % Department Type

Citing 90-110 Watts

State

County

Township

- : . City (50 + ) 50 Largest

City (10-49

City (1-9)

The overall average (mean) output power reported by police

departments in this survey was 70.9 watts, the median was 75 watts,

and the most often cited (mode) output power was 100 watts. The

average output power per Department Type arranged according to

average size of jurisdiction is shown in Table lC-3. County and

State departments had the highest average output power and also

were larger in physical size than other Department Types.

81

52

35

34

26

24

22

38
Table lC-3. Average Output Power, by Department Type, Arranged

by Average Size of Jurisdiction.

DEPARTMENT TYPE: Output Power

Mean No. Watts

(largest)

Townsh ip 74

City (50+) 68

City (1-9) 64

City (10-49) 64

50 Largest 56

County 84

State 91

3. How recently were most of the car radios bought by your

department? (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE)

Within the last calendar year

1-3 years ago

4-5 years ago

More than 5 years ago

Almost half (47%) of the responding departments (evenly

across Department Types) had purchased the bulk of their car

radios within the last three years and about two-thirds of the

departments (65%) had bought most of their car radios within the

last five years. The other one-third (34%) bought them more than

5 years ago .

Of the 65% which had bought most of their radios within the

last five years, about half had bought them 1-3 years ago, about

one-fourth had bought them 4-5 years ago and the remaining onefourth had bought them within the last year.

* Data about purchase of equipment was provided as of Summer, 1972

The term "most" in the question was used to solicit responses

concerning the most recent major purchase (s) of mobile radios.

39
Table 3. Cumulative Percentages for Period of Time Within Which

428 Departments Bought Most of Their Car Radios, by

Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

City (50+)

Township

City (10-49)

County

City (1-9)

50 Largest

State

All Departments

Within the

Last Year

% Dept. Type

2 5

22

13

10

7e

15

TIME PERIOD:

3 Years Ago

or Less

% Dept. Type

42

44

56

40

48

48

46

47

5 Years Ago

or Less

% Dept. Type

62

79

65

63

61

68

67

65

There were no major differences among Department Types, although Townships were slightly more likely than the others to have

bought their car radios within the last 5 years.

4. About how much did each of the car radios cost that are most ; frequently used in your department (including base plate, ! control head, microphone, and speaker)? For example, if most I of the radios now in use are Motorolas , please give us the | cost of one set. (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW)

j

i

' Less than $700 I $701-$800 j $801-$900

; $901- $10 00

^

[

: $1001-$1500

Over $1500

More than half (56%) of the responding departments paid $900

or less for their most frequently used car radios. Very few departments (4% overall) paid more than $1500 per unit. State departments paid significantly less per unit, and Counties and

40
Townships paid significantly more per unit. It might have been

expected that States and Counties would pay more per unit because

of a need for higher output power and increased channel capacity

to serve their larger jurisdictions. However, this hypothesis

held true only for the Counties, suggesting perhaps, that a further examination of the purchasing practices of these two Department Types would be needed to explain the survey results.

Table 4

COST :

Cumulative Percentages for Cost of the Car Radios

Most Frequently Used in a Department (Including Base

Plate, Control Head, Microphone and Speaker) , by

Department

* * * CUMULATIVE

Type.

DEPARTMENT

PERCENTAGES

TYPE:

OF DEPTS

^

* * *

g. t All

Q."5 City

9, 50

Q, City

'0 City

Dep ts . State 1-9 Largest 10-49 County 50 + Township

$700 or less 22 51 29 24 15 14 13 9

$800 or less 40 64 52 44 38 23 33 22

$900 or less 56 83 70 57 54 32 53 31

$1000 or less 73 87 79 51 81 54 75 57

$1500 or less 96 98 97 91 98 93 94 87

I|2B. (How many car radios are there in your department?)

j Of those car radios, about how many were made by each of the

following manufacturers?

Number Manufacturer

Motorola

RCA

GE

Other

Ninety-nine percent of all the car radios reported were manufactured by only three companies, and over half (57%) were pro41
duced by just one manufacturer. The three largest City Department

Types seemed to favor Manufacturer C for roughly two-thirds of

their car radio purchases. State departments distributed their

buying equally between Manufacturers B and C. Manufacturer A

captured only 8% of the reported market. Other manufacturers combined represented 1% of the respondents' police mobile radio purchases.

Table 2B-1. Percentages of Car Radios in Use in Department Made

by Various Manufacturers, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE: MANUFACTURER:

, A B C Other

% Radios of % Radios of % Radios of % Radios of

Dept. Type Dept. Type Dept. Type Dept. Type

50 Largest 5

City (10-49) 6

City (50+) , 14

County " 3

City (1-9) 5

Tov/nship 3

State 1

1

All Departments 8

Thirty-nine percent of the responding departments h^id a mixture

of brands of mobile radios within their departments. Radios produced

by different manufacturers are not always compatible, that is,

control heads, microphone jacks, etc. may not ms'te, and interchangeability of equipment is difficult. This problem was mentioned

by many departments (see Section 2.2.6) . On the other hand, these

data may only be a reflection of the fact that many departments

(see Section 2.2.3.2) operated communications equipment

on more than one band and consequently may have purchased the

42

2 3 71 0

23 69 2 22 63 0

38 59 0

3 7 5 2 5

44 52 1

44 45 1

34 57 1
radios for use on one band from one manufacturer and those for

use on the other band from another manufacturer (see Section

2.2.3-1.).

Table 2B-2. Proportions of Different Manufacturers Represented

Within One Department.

RADIOS MADE BY: % ALL DEPARTMENTS:

ONE Manufacturer 50

TWO Manufacturers 30

THREE Manufacturers 8

FOUR Manufacturers 1

No Answer 1

2.2.4 Portable Radios

19. Do you now use portable (hand-held) radios in your department?

! Yes

! No

Most of the responding departments (81%) used portable radios,

with the greatest proportions of users in the larger depairtments

All of the responding State and Fifty Largest City departments

reported using them.

Table 9 . Use of Portable Radios, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE: Departments Using

Portable Radios

% Dept. Type

50 Largest 100

State 100

City (50+) 99

City (10-49) 90

Township 70

County 62

City (1-9) 53

43
2.2.4.1 Number of Portable Radios

llA. How many portable radios do you now have in your department?

Number

Almost three- fourths (72%) of the portable radios reported

were used in the Fifty Largest Cities. Although departments in

the Fifty Largest Cities averaged about 356 portable radios per

department, use of these radios varied greatly among particular

cities. For example, the numbers of portable radios available

in any single police department, within the Fifty Largest Cities

group, ranged from a maximum of 4500 radios in one of these departments to a minimum of only 15 radios xn another.

Table llA-1. Number of Portable Radios by Depa rtment Type.

DEPARTMENT

TYPE : No . of Total No. % Total Mean No . Max. in Min . in

Respond- Portable Portable Per Any De- Any Deents Radios Radi OS Dep t

partment partment

50 Largest 46 16,363 72 355 . 7 4500 15

State 47 3,621 16 77 . 0 419 5

City (50+) 78 1,682 7 21. 6 108 2

County 42 464 2 11. 1 125 1

City (10-49) 77 366 2 4. 8 21 1

City (1-9) 41 109 * 2 . 7 11 1

Township 16 55 * 3 . 4 17 1

All Depts. 347 2 2,660 100 65 . 3 4500 1

*Less than 1%

As the mean number of officers per Department Type increased,

che mean number of portable radios per Department Type increased.

As was discussed in Section 2.2.3.1, (and is repeated in Table

44
llA-2. below) , State Departments averaged many more mobi le radios

per department than did the Fifty Largest Cities, even though they

averaged fewer officers per department. This anomaly did not

occur with respect to portable radios.

Table llA-2, Comparison Between Mean Number of Officers per

Department Type, Mean Number of Car Radios and

Mean Number of Portable Radios.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

50 Largest

State

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

Township

City (1-9)

Mean No.

Of f icers

2491

890

125

113

23

16

9

Mean No.

Car Radios

591. 8

731.2

32

38

7

4

3

Mean No.

Portable Radios

355 .7

77.0

32.6

11 . 1

4 . 8

3 . 4

2 . 7

Table llA-3 Comparison of Estimated Number of Police Portable

Radios and Car Radios in the United States, by

Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE:

50 Largest

State

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

Townsh ip

City (1-9)

Total

Estimated No.

Portable Radios

17,785

3,850

11,966

34,820

9,528

5,352

14 ,812

98,113

Estimated No

Car Radios

29,600

36 , 550

18 , 282

119 , 206

13 ,895

6 ,296

16,458

240,287

45
2.2. 4.2 Spectrum Utilization; Portable Radios

jlO. Give the following information about your portable radios.

I >

1

i

! A. List all transmitting frequencies (in k.Hz , MHz, etc.) j

Three percent of the 348 departments using portable radios

did not report their transmitting frequencies. Of the remaining

329 departments, the most used transmitting band for portable

radios was the VHF high band (150-174 MHz), with approximately

the same proportion of total frequencies as was found for mobile

radios . .

Table lOA-1. Comparison of Percentages of Total Transmitting

Frequencies, by Band, for Mobile and Portable

Radios for All Departments.

RADIO : ; %Freq. in %Freq. in %Freq. in

VHF Low Band V HF High Band UHF Band

Mobile 29 49 19

Portable , ,, . 2 2 51 24

Within Department Types, in all but two cases (Counties and

Fifty Largest Cities) , the band in which the highest percentage

of total mobi le transmitting frequencies were used was also the

band in which the highest percentage of por tab le transmitting

frequencies existed. In contrast, over half of the portable radio

transmitting frequencies reported by Counties were in the VHF

high band, while the majority of their mobile transmitting frequencies were VHF low band. The Fifty Largest Cities, which

tended to use a greater proportion of UHF frequencies for their

46
mobile radios, tended to use a greater proportion of VHF high

band frequencies for their portable radios.

Table lOA-2

FREQUENCY

BAND :

30-50 MHz

150-174 MHz

450-470 MHz

Percentages of Total Mobile and Portable

Frequencies, by Band, for County and 50 Largest

City Departments.

DEPARTMENT TYPE

County

Mobi le

51

42

5

50 Largest

Portable

36

59

1

Mobi le

3 33

42

Portable

3

50

44

Within the seven Department Types, the numbers of transmitting frequencies per department for mobile and portable radios

were very similar, except for State departments. It is probable

that the higher mean number of mobile radio transmitting frequencies reported by States was a reflection of their relative

emphasis on highway patrol

Table lOA-3 Mean* Numbers of Portable and Mobile Radio Transmitting Frequencies, by Department Type. (Department Types Ordered from Largest to Smallest by Number

of Full-time Officers.)

DEPARTMENT TYPE

50 Largest

State

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

Township

City (1-9)

PORTABLE RADIOS

Mean No. Frequencies

MOBILE RADIOS

Mean No

Frequencies

* Means calculated only for those departments reporting any mobile

transmitting frequencies or any portable transmitting frequencies

47
:10B. List ALL receiving frequencies, if different from lOA.

I . —

Most departments were using the same set of frequencies for

receiving as for transmitting to their portable radios. Only 62

departments reported receiving frequencies that were different

from their transmitting frequencies, and the majority of these

were departments in the Fifty Largest Cities.

Table lOB. Percentages of Total Portable Radio Frequencies Used

for Both Transmitting and Receiving, by Department

Type . DEPARTMENT TYPE: % Same

City (1-9) 97

City (10-49) 93

State 91

Township 87

County 82

City (50+) 77

50 Largest 43

10. Give the following information about your portable radios.

D. Number of Channels Authorized

E. Number of Channels in Use

The three largest Department Types (by average number of

officers) accounted for 71% of all the author i zed portable radio

channels reported by responding departments anct '2i% of those actually in use . These Department Types also accounted for almost

two-thirds (64%) of the authorized but not yet used channels. A

total of 162 channels (14% of all authorized channels) were reported to be author i zed but not used.

48
Table 10 D & E-1 Comparison of Channels Authorized and In Use

for Portable Radios, by Department Type

DEPARTMENT TYPE CHANNELS

Author i zed

No . % In Use

No

5 0 Larges t

State

City_( 5_0+_) _

City (10-49)

Co un ty

City (1-9)

Township

431 37

2 2 8 19

17_1 15_

'l 2 6 11

96 8

95 8

27 2

374

205

1^8

"ill"

84

65

25

37

20

15_

"ll

8

6

2

All Departments 1174 100 1012 100

The number of channels used for mobile communications exceeded

that for portable radios.

Table 10 D & E-2

USE

CATEGORY

Author i z e d

In Use

Comparison of Channels Authorized and In Use

For Portable and Mobile Radios, by All Department Types .

Portable

Tot. # Average

1174 3.4

1012 2.9

(n=247)

CHANNELS

Mobi 1

Tot. # Average

1452 3.5

1332 3.2

(n=417

2.2.4.3 Characteristics of Portable Radios

10. Give the following information about your portable

radios :

IOC. Output Power in Watts .

As was expected, due to the nature of the power supplies

employed, the average output power for portable radios was far

49
lower than the output power for mobile radios. The mean output

power, for all departments, for portable radios was 3.9 watts,

while the mean output power for mobile radios was 70.9 watts.

(Most portable radios currently on the market transmit with an

RF output of 5 watts or less.)

In general, the larger the average size of Department Type

jurisdiction, the greater the mean reported output power for

portable radios. There was only one exception to this general

trend: The Fifty Largest Cities, which had the third largest

mean size of jurisdiction, reported the lowest mean output power

for their portable radios.

Table IOC. Mean Output Power in Watts for Portable Radios, by

Department Type — Arranged from Smallest to Largest

Mean Size of Jurisdiction.

Mean Output Power

DEPARTMENT TYPE :

•'• in Watts

Township 3.4

City ( 50+ ) 3.4

City (1-9) 3.6

City (10-49) 4.2

50Largest 2.8

County

S tate

4.6^

5.1

A few departments reported very high portable radio output

powers, but the problem was not as great, either in frequency or

degree, as for mobile radios. Follow-up telephone calls to some

of these departments revealed that they had estimated the output

power of their portable equipment rather than actually checking

the specifications.

50
22. Should standards for power supplies such as charging

equipment, and batteries for portable radios be given - - High Priority

- Medium Priority

- Low Priority

- Standards are not needed for these items

About three- fourths of departments which used portable radios

felt that either High or Medium Priority should be assigned to

developing standards for power supplies for portable radios.

These departments were evenly divided between those which assigned

High versus Medium Priorities. About 25% of all departments using

portables either said that no standards for power supplies were

needed or that such standards should have Low Priority. The Fifty

Largest Cities, which were the biggest users of portable radios,

were most likely to assign High Priority to standards for power

supplies for portable radios.

Table 22

DEPARTMENT

TYPE :

Priorities Assigned to Standards for Power Supplies for

Portable Radios by 348 Departments which Used Portable

Radios as Compared to Average Number of Portables

Available, by Department Type

High

Priority

% Dept.

Type

Medium

Priori ty

% Dept

Type

Low

Pr ior i ty

% Dept.

Type

Don ' t

Need

Standards

% Dept

Type

Average No

o f Portable

Radios

50 Largest 61 26

City (50+) 37 33

State 36 36

County 37 35

City (10-49) 30 44

Township 25 50

City (1-9) 24 37

7 7 355.7

19 9 21.6

11 17 77.0

7 19 11.1

17 8 4.8

12 12 3.4

22 17 2.7

51
23. What types of batteries do you now use for your

portable radios? (Mark X by each item that applies)

24. What types of batteries do you prefer to use for

your portable radios? (Mark X by one of the following)

Alkaline -Mangane s e Carbon- Zinc

Mercury

NiCad (Nickel-Cadmium)

Si 1 ver Oxide

i-..:--:: other

More than 80% of the 348 departments which were using portable

radios said that they were using Nickel-Cadmium batteries for

those radios. A similar percentage also said that Nickel-Cadmium

was the battery they would prefer to use with their portable radios

Although 25% of the portable radio users said they were currently

using at least some Alka 1 i ne -Mangane s e or some Mercury batteries,

less than half of those who used these two types of batteries said

that they would prefer to use them.

Table 23 & 24. Comparison Between Batteries Now in Use and

Batteries Preferred, by the 348 Departments

, Using Portable Radios

BATTERY TYPE: ALL DEPARTMENTS USING PORTABLE RADIOS

Alkaline-Manganese

Carbon-Zinc

Mercury

N i eke 1 - Cadmi um

Silver Oxide

O the r

No Answer

(Q. 23)

% All Depts

Now Using*

11

6

14

82

0

3

(Q. 24)

% All Depts. Would

Prefer to Use

6

1

6

83

0

1

Percentages add to more than 100% since departments could give

more than one answer to Question 23.

52
25. Do you use batteries for your portable radios which

must be recharged?

Yes No

Nine out of every 10 departments which had portable radios

used batteries which had to be recharged. There were no major

differences among Department Types, although percentages of departments using batteries which must be recharged were slightly smaller

for State, County and small City (1-9) departments than for larger

City types. These differences may not be statistically significant

Table 25. Use of Batteries Which Must Be Recharged, by 348

Departments Which Used Portable Radios . DEPARTMENT TYPE : Batteries Must

Be Recharged

O Dept. Typ e

50 Larges t

City (50+)

City (10-49)

Towns hip

County

S tate

City (1-9)

98

94

94

94

84

83

80

All Depts. 90

53
( Do you use batteries for your portable radio which

must be recharged?) YES

25 A. How Innrr r';^n von 1 J tjq p +- Vi1. J. p^ ' battery before it must be

recharged?

Hours

z b B . How long does it usual ly take to recharge the battery

to a point where it can be used again?

Hours

2 5 C . How long does it usual ly take to fully recharge the

battery?

Hours

25D. How long can you usually use these batteries before

they must be replaced?

Months

Responses from the departments using rechargeable batteries

showed tnat they averaged 8 hours of battery use before recharging

was required. This was also the most commonly reported figure by

all Department Types (modal response).

On the average, departments reported that a portable, radio

could be recharged enough to be usable in a little more

than half the time it took for a full charge: Mean time,

to fully recharge = 9.2 hours; mean time to recharge to usable

point = 5.6 hours. There was, however, considerable variability

to their answers. Some departments said that it took a minimum

of 24 hours to recharge portable radio batteries to a usable point

while others said it required only one hour. Similarly, for full

recharging, some departments said one hour was sufficient, several

said 24 hours were required, and at least one County department

said full recharging took 48 hours. This wide range of responses

54
probably was a reflection of the use of " qui ck - ch ar ge " and "slowcharge" systems, the ages of the charging systems in use, and the

design parameters of many different portable radio/battery systems

in use.

Table 25. Length of Time to Partially and Completely Recharge

A.&B.&C.& Batteries: Length of Time Batteries Can Be Used

D. Before Needing Recharging, and Needing Replacement,

by Departments which Use Rechargeable Batteries in

Their Portable Radios

QUESTION: DEPARTMENTS RECHARGING BATTERIES:

Mean Maximum Minimum

No. Hours No. Hours No. Hours

A. No. of hours battery can be used

before needing recharging (261

responses) 8.0 50 1

B. No. of hours required to recharge

battery to point where it can be

used again (260 responses) 5.6 24 1

C. No. of hours required to fully

recharge battery (259 responses) 9.2 48 1

D. No. of months battery can be used Months Months Months

before being replaced (206 responses) 16.7 60 3

No. of Depts. never needing to

replace batteries: 26 (8%)

Departments replaced their rechargeable batteries, on the

average, every 15.7 months. Excluding those departments (8%) who

had never needed to replace their batteries (no data is available

on how long these batteries had been in use) , battery life ranged

from as little as three months to as long as five years.

The larger departments (States, 50 Largest, Cities (50+) , and Cities (10-49) reported average battery lives between 1 1/2

55
and 2 years. On the other hand, Counties and Cities (1-9) were

only able to use their batteries for six or seven months before

replacement. Follow-up phone calls revealed that few departments

kept actual battery use and life records; these data, therefore,

are probably based, in large measure, on estimates.

12. About how much does one of these "most used" portable

radios weigh?

Less than 20 oz. 33 oz . to 38 oz.

20 oz. to 26 oz. More than 38 oz.

27 oz. to 32 oz.

13. How do you feel about the weight of the "most used"

portable radios?

The weight is about right

The unit is somewhat heavy

The unit is entirely too heavy

Table 12 & 13-1

WEIGHT

Weight of Portable Radios, by 348 Departments

Using Portable Radios.

% Depts . Using Portables

Less than 20 o z . 5

2 0 o z . to 26 o z . 26

2 7 o z . to 32 o z . 25

3 3 o z . to 38 o z . 20

More than 38 o z . 21

No Answer 2

About 7 out of every 10 departments reported that their

portable radios weighed between 20 and 38 oz. (.567 to 1.077 Kg)

About one-fifth of the departments had radios weighing more than

1 . 077 Kg

56
Table 12 13-2. Comparison Between Weight of Most Used

Portable Radios and Respondents' Feeling

About That Weight

HOW RESPONDENTS

FEEL ABOUT WEIGHT; REPORTED WEIGHT OF PORTABLE RADIOS

% Less

Than

20 oz. 20 oz. 25 oz

% 27 oz.

- 32 oz.

% 33 oz.

- 38 oz.

% More

Than % No

38 oz. Answer

Weight is right

Somewhat heavy

Entirely too heavy

38

17

6

29

28

17

36

18

9

23

60

Departments with units weighing over 1.077 Kg. (38oz.) more

frequently reported that the radios were "entirely too heavy"

than those which had lighter weight sets.

12A. When did you buy most of these "most used" portable

radios?

Within the last calendar year

1-3 years ago

4-5 years ago

More than 5 years ago

Table 12

When Departments Bought Most of Their "Most Often

Used" Brands of Portable Radios

WHEN PURCHASED: % Depts . Using Portables

(n = 348)

V7ithin last year 17

3 years ago or less 67

5 years ago or les s 90

No Answer 1

Half of the departments in the sample had bought the portable

radios most commonly used in their department, one to three years

ago.* About one-fourth had bought them four to five years ago.

*Data about purchase of equipment was provided as of Summer, 1972.

57
Seventeen percent had purchased their radios within the previous

year and the remaining 10% had radios which were more than five

years old. All seven Department Types reflected roughly these

same proportions.

It appears that departments had made major purchases of

portable radios more recently than they had made major purchases

of mobile radios (90% of the departments had purchased portables,

and 65% had purchased mobile radios in quantity within the last

5 years) . This finding may have resulted in part because of

improved portable radio technology, the recent availability of

Federal Purchase funds and/or the relatively shorter life of

portableradios.

12B . About how much did you pay for one of these "most

used" portable radios (including antenna, carrying

case, and spare batteries)?

Less than $500

$501-$700

$701-$900

$901-31100

$1101-$1500

Over $1500

Fourty-four percent of the departments paid between $700 and

$900 apiece for thier portable radios and 77% of them paid $900

or less. About one-fourth of Cities (1-9) bad bought their portables for less than $500, these small cities along with the 50

Largest Cities, paid a wide range of prices. Two percent

f Cities (1-9) paid more than $1101 as did 13% of the

58
50 Largest Cities. Counties, in general, paid higher prices for

their portable radios and states paid lower prices.

Table 12B. Cumulative Percentages for Costs of "Most Commonly

Used" Portable Radios in 348 Departments.

DEPARTMENT TYPE:

COST: *** CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES *** City Town- City 50 City

(1-9) ship County (10-49) State Largest (50+)

Less Than $500 24 12 9 6 2 2 0

$700 or Less 41 24 15 35 54 24 22

$900 or Less 78 74 66 89 89 52 69

$1100 or Less 98 93 78 98 99 85 96

No Answer 0 6 5 0 0 2 0

IIB. (How many portable radios do you now have in your

department?) Of those portable radios, about how

many were made by the following manufacturers?

Number Manufacturer

Manufacturer A made roughly 7 out of every 10 portable

radios used by the respondents. There were no major differences

among Department Types, except that a smaller percentage of portables in States and Cities (1-9) were made by this company than

in the larger City Department Types. Manufacturer B made slightly

more than 1 out of every 10 portable radios and Manufacturers C

and D each made only 1 out of every 20 radios reported. Only in

59
Cities (1-9) did a manufacturer other than Manufacturer A capture

a significant proportion of the reported market (35% - Manufacturer

B) . - .

Table IIB. Percentage of Portable Radios In Use in Departments

Made by Various Manufacturers, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT MANUFACTURER:

TYPE:

A B C D Other

.% of % of % of % of % of

Radios Radios Radios Radios Radios

50 Largest 76 10 3 6 5

City (10-49) 76 14 4 0 6

Township 7 5 2 7 0 16

City (50+) 17 6 4 0

County 6 7 11 0 0 22

City (1-9) 54 35 0 0 11

State 48 14 13 2 23

12 . What model of portable radio do you have more of in

your department than any other?

Manufacturer

Model or Model No.

/ . Although only 1% of the portable radio users failed to

answer this question at all, 14% gave a manufacturer but not

model, and 6% gave insufficient information to identify a particular model. A total of 26 different portable radio models were

mentioned by the respondents, but half of those 348 respondents

listed one of two models: 27% for one model and 23% for another.

Both of these models are produced by the same manufacturer.

60
Tab le 12 . Of the 348 Departments Using Portable Radios,

Percent Listing Each of Two "Most Used" Models,

by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT

TYPE : MODEL

State

50 Larges t

City (10-49)

City (50+)

County

City (1-9)

Townsh ip

Model X

% Dept. Typ e

36

36

31

27

23

17

12

Model Y

% Dept.

4

33

26

29

14

20

31

ype

::o Answer,

Manufacturer Only,

Model Uncertain

% Dept. Type

15

6

20

18

33

29

37

2,2.5 Special Systems

2.2.5.1 Mobile Repeaters

13. A portable radio can be used with a rep ea te r by a patrolman v/hen he is out of his car The p ortable

radio transmits to the car radio wh i ch then re lays

the signals to the base radio. Do you need cl n --- — like this in your coirLiriUni c a ti on sys tern?

Yes :\0 /rhy?

Table 13-1. Percent Departments Which ITeed ?. epeaters

Mobile Systems, by Departmen-c ly r. g- e d A c c o r d i

tc Average Size of Jurisdiction.

DEPARTMENT TYPE: KEE

%Yes

Township 31

City (50+) 35

City (1-9) 44

City (10-49) 40

50 Largest 26

County 58

State 68

^1
Almost half of the respondents (43%) indicated a need for

a mobile repeater system, (i.e. a system in which a mobile car

radio is used to relay transmissions from a low powered portable

radio to a base station location). Generally, the larger the

average size of the Department Type jurisdiction, the higher

the percentage of departments saying they needed mobile repeater

systems. In exception to this pattern, only 26% of the Fifty

Largest Cities indicated a need for mobile repeater systems.

Table 13-2. If "Yes", Why Do You N eed Mobile Repeaters?

All Dep ts

REASONS: Saying Yes*

(n=150)

1. To overcome distance (range) problems 23

2. To improve or strengthen portables 21

3. Constant communication necessary 18

4. To overcome terrain caused problems 16

5. Mobility of officers improved 11

6. Good for special assignments 9

Other 7

No Answer 11 • •

*Percentages add to more than 100% because the respondents

could give more than one reason.

Since there is a relationship between jurisdiction size and

frequency of need for mobile repeaters (except for the Fifty

Largest Cities) , it was not surprising that the most frequently

given reason for needing this system was to Overcome Distance

vRange) Problems. The other four most commonly given reasons

for choosing this system were all somewhat related to the problems of covering large areas of territory (to Strengthen the

62
Portable System, To Remain in Constant Communication, To Overcome

Terrain-Caused Problems and To Increase Officer Mobility).

Table 13-3. If "No", Why Don't You Need Mobile Repeaters?

All Depts

REASONS : Saying No*

(n=194)

1. Not needed - current equipment adequate 21

2. Use or prefer other system 19

3. Not needed - area not large enough to

warrant use 18

4. Have no hand and/or car radios 2 Other 9

No Answer 38

*Percentages add to more than 100% because respondents could

give more than one reason.

Departments usually indicated that they did not need a mobile

repeater system when their Current Equipment was Adequate, when

their Area was Not Large Enough to Warrant Use, or when theyUsed

or Preferred Other Systems for handling problems of distance,

such as fixed repeaters and/or voting systems.

Half of the 32 departments in the Fifty Largest Cities

which did not need mobile repeater systems said that they Use

or Prefer Other Systems. This probably accounted for the atypical

response of the Fifty Largest Cities which often indicated that

they did not need a mobile repeater system even though they had

larger average jurisdictions to cover than Townships and other

City Department Types.

63
2.2.5.2 Fixed Repeater s

7A. Do you use fixed repeaters in your area (to cove r dead spots in communication which otherwise would

exist

Yes No

Fixed repeaters can be used to overcome obstacles, either

natural or man-made which would otherwise create dead spots in

communications and to increase the range of system coverage. . They are also used to cut mobile transmitter costs because, in

general, less powerful car transmitters are needed when repeater

systems are employed.

About one-third of the 428 responding departments used

repeaters. State police and police in the Fifty Largest Cities

were the two most frequent users of this equipment.

It might be hypothesized that there could be a relationship

between the size of the jurisdiction to be covered and the use

of fixed repeaters. It can be seen that State police departments,

which were the most frequent users of fixed repeaters did have

the largest jurisdictions to cover. However, less than onethird of County police, who had the second largest average size

of jurisdiction, used repeaters. Within City Department Types,

i the frequency of use of repeaters increased with the size of the

Department Type in terms of number of officers, rather than in

terms of average size of jurisdiction.

64
Table 7A-1. Use of Fixed Repeaters by Department Type,

Compared to Average Size of Jurisdiction.

as

DEPARTMENT

TYPE :

State

50 Largest

City (50+)

County

City (10-49

City (1-9)

Township

USE OF REPEATERS AND JURISDICTION SIZE:

% Use

Repeaters

77

65

37

30

20

13

9

Mean Size of

Jurisdiction in Sq. Miles

62,704

237

3 3 2,551

68

67

31

7B . (IF "YES" TO QUESTION 7 A .

)

How many fixed repeaters

does your department have?

Fixed Repeaters

Most of the fixed repeaters were found in State police

departments or in the Fifty Largest Cities. About 3 out of

every 5 repeaters cited were used by State police departments.

A little more than one-fourth of all repeaters were operated by

the Fifty Largest Cities. Thus, almost 90% of fixed repeaters

were employed by these 2 groups. Of the departments reporting

fixed repeater operations. State police departments each operated

21 repeater units and the Fifty Largest Cities each operated 11

repeater units (means) . Between 20% and 37% of other larger

City Department Types (at least 10 officers or more) and County

65
police, reported using fixed repeaters (Q.

ment Types generally had an average (mean)

repeaters in each department.

7A . ) but these

of on ly one or

Departtwo

Table 7B-1. Percentage of Total Repeaters in Use, and Mean

Number Per Department of Those Using Repeaters,

by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT

TYPE : State

50 Largest

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

City (1-9)

Township

All Depts .

% Total Reported

Repeaters (n=1197)

62

27

5

4

21

*

100

Mean No. Repeaters Per

Dept. of Those Using

Any Repeaters

20.6

10 . 9

2.1

1-9

1.1

* *

* *

* Less Than 1%

**Mean probably not valid; number of respondents too small.

The largest mean numbers of repeaters were found in departments along the East Coast (in the Middle Atlantic and New York/

New Jersey areas) and along the West Coast (in the Region which

includes California, Nevada, Arizona and also Hav/aii). Although

more than two-thirds of departments in Region 10 (which includes

the Northwestern states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska)

reported using fixed repeaters, this Region had the smallest

average number of repeaters per department.

66
Table 7B- 2. Average Number of Fixed Repeaters, by LEAA Region,

Compared to Percentage of Departments in Region

which Use Fixed Repeaters.

LEAA REGION: NUMBER AND USE OF REPEATERS:

Mean No. Repeaters % Departments Which

in Region Use Fixed Repeaters

9 (Far West/Hawaii) 15.7 48

3 (Middle Atlantic) 15 . 6 17

2 (New York/New Jersey) 13.6 17

7 ( Mi dwe s t9 . 4 19

5 (Great Lakes6 . 8 39

4 (South

6 . 4 38

6 ( South/ Southwest

6 . 2 26

8 (Mountain6 . 1 45

1 (New England) 5 . 1 27

10 (Northwest/Alaska) 4.0 68

8 . If you use, or will be using fixed repeaters, which

of the following types do you prefer?

Will not use fixed repeaters

FlFl repeater (same frequency in and out)

F1F2 repeater (two different frequencies)

No preference

The FlFl system, in which communications are transmitted

and received on the same frequency is not generally being marketed

because it has not yet been perfected. Thus, State departments

and large City departments (Fifty Largest and 50+) preferred the

FlF2 system (in which communications are transmitted and received

on different frequencies). Smaller Department Types also selected

this system if they indicated a preference at all.

6 7
Table 8A. Preference for FlFl or F1F2 Repeaters, by Department

Type . DEPARTMENT

TYPE :

State

50 Larges t

City (50+)

County

City (10-49)

Township

City (1-9)

All Depts .

% Favor- % Favor- % Having % Indicating

ing F1F2 ing FlFl No Will Not Use

Repeaters Repeaters Pre f erence or No Answer

79

76

54

21

19

17

10

37

6

76

11

9

4

5

6

4

11

23

22

22

33

19

13

28

44

50

56

5 2

37

2.2.5.3 Portamobile Radios with Voting Systems

14 . Some law enforcement agencies use portamobile radios

with several receivers and a voting system. Do you

favor such a system?

Yes

No If "Yes" or "No", why?

Unfamiliar with voting system

More than half of the respondents who used portable radios

(N=348) were unfamiliar with voting systems, an arrangement which

provides more reliable communications by employing one or more

satellite receivers for each channel. These receivers are situated at scattered locations throughout the coverage area. The

audio output signals of the satellite receivers are transmitted

to a selector or comparator at the base station by radio or land

lines. The comparator performs the voting process by selecting

the strongest of the several possible signals received from the

portable or mobile radio via the satellite receivers. State

68
police and police in the Fifty Largest Cities were the only

Department Types in which most respondents had knowledge of

voting systems. About th re e - f o ur th s (74%) of the respondents

in the Fifty Largest Cities and about half (53%) in the State

departments favored the system.

Data from this question further explained why, in Question

13, only 25% of the Fifty Largest Cities said they needed mobile

repeaters and most often gave as a reason their preference for

other systems. About three - four ths of the Fifty Largest Cities

favored the voting system. Twenty-eight of the 45 respondents

(65%) familiar with the concept favored the use of such a system.

Table 14-1. Of the 348 Departments With Portable Radios,

Percentages of Responses About Voting Systems,

by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT

TYPE: DO YOU FAVOR A VOTING SYSTEM?

% Unfamiliar

% Yes % No With System

Township 0 0 100

City (10-49) 10 12 78

County 16 X2 72

City (1-9) 5 24 71

City (50+) 28 17 55

State 53 32 15

50 Largest 74 13 13

All Depts. 28 17 55

The three reasons most often given for favoring the voting

system (by all respondents, and also by the Fifty Largest Cities)

were that the system Improves Tr ans mi t t i ng/ Re ce i vi ng Coverage

69
and extends range, that the department Already Uses the System

and likes it and that the system Increases the Flexibility and

Usefulness of the portable radios.

Table 14-2. Reasons Given for Favoring A Portamobile Radio

V\7ith A Voting System, by 98 Departments Which

Favored This System.

REASONS : % Depts . Favoring

\_ Voting System*

, '

' (n=98)

1. Improves t r ansmi t t ing/ r e ce i vi ng coverage

and extends range 31

2. Already use and/or think it's a good system 23

3. Increases portable usefulness and flexibility 20

4. Voter relays best signal 10

5. For extra back-up 4

5, Miscellaneous 11

No Answe r . , ^

. 11

*Percentages add to more than 100% since departments allowed

multiple answers.

Departments which did not favor the voting system most

commonly gave as reasons that they had No Need or Practical Use

for the system or that they Considered the Voting System Inadequate. ,

:

70
Table 14-3. Reasons Given for Not Favoring A Portamobile

Radio With A Voting System, by 58 Departments

Which Do Not Favor This System.

REASONS: % Depts. Not Favoring

Voting System*

(n=58)

1 . No need or practical use 21

2 . Consider voting system inadequate 17

3 . Current system adequate 10

4 . Area too small to warrant use 10

5 . Too expensive 7 6 . Important calls voted out** 3 7 . Miscellaneous 10

No Answer 31

* Percentages add to more than 100% since departments allowed

multiple answers.

**This answer cannot really be considered a valid reason for

not favoring a voting system. It is probably better interpreted as an indication of lack of knowledge about this system.

2 .2.5.4 Scrambler Systems

17. In some areas, police use voice privacy systems which

scramble messages so that they cannot be received by

people other than police. Do you HAVE a system of

this type?

Yes

No

(IF "NO.") Do you NEED a scrambler system of this type?

Yes

No (IF "NO", SKIP TO QUESTION 21)

Scramblers were in use in less than 10% of the 428 responding

departments. Cities (50+), States, and the Fifty Largest Cities

tended to have greater percentages of departments using scramblers.

Counties and the two smallest City Department Types tended to have

lower percentages of users.
Table 17-1. Availability of Scramblers, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE : Have Scramblers

% Dept. Type

City (50+)

State

50 Larges t

Township

City (10-49

City (1-9)

County

18

13

11

9

8

5

3

Almos t three-fifths of departments which did not have

scramblers felt that they needed this system. Medium-sized

Cities (10-49) were much more likely than State police to

perceive a need for these systems. There were no major differences between the Fifty Largest Cities and smaller departments

such as Townships, Counties and Cities (1-9) in their responses

to this question. These data represent the departments' assessments of their need for scramblers and did not distinguish

between various degrees of need such as "essential to the functioning of the department" and "desirable but not essential".

Table 17-2. Perceived Need for Scrambler System by 3§8 Departments

Which Currently Do Not Have the System, by Department Type . DEPARTMENT TYPE: Need Scr amber

Sy s tem No Answer

"6 Dep t . Type % Dep t . Type

City (10-49)

City (50+)

Coun ty

Township

50 Largest

City (1-9)

State

71

65

61

57

54

46

44

4

5

3

0

10

3

5

7 2
X1 OB . it Yes (m Q. 17) For which of the following

purposes do you need, or would you like, a scrambler

system? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES.)

General Communications

louring roDueries

Long-term stake out

Demonstrations or protests

Undercover investigations

Other (Specify)

Departments which had scramblers (n=40, 9%) and departments

which said they needec scramblers (n-225, 53%) were adked to

answer this question. For three of the choices (Undercover

Investigations, Robberies, and Long-Term Stake Out) the percentages of votes from the "have" and the "need" groups were fairly

comparable. However, departments which did not currently have

scramblers were much more likely to say they would use them for

General Communications (49%) than were those departments which

already had them (15%) . In contrast, those departments which

were already using scramblers were more likely to say they would

use them during Demonstrations oi Protests (60%) than were those

departments which said they needed but did not yet have scramblers ( 45 % ) .
Table 18. Purposes for Which Scramblers Were (Or Would Be)

Used, By All Departments Currently Using Scramblers

and All Departments Saying Scramblers Were Needed.

USE FOR SCRAMBLER: % Depts

Using Scramblers*

(n=40

% Dep ts . Needing Scramblers*

(n=225)

Undercover Investigations

Demons trations

Robbe r i e

Long-Term Stake Out

General Communications

82

60

52

50

15

78

45

42

63

49

Othe r 37 16

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

allowed

Nineteen percent of departments which had, or needed,

scramblers indicated Other uses for scramblers. Some of the

more commonly mentioned Other uses were: For fires and accidents,

for administrative operations, for crimes in progress (in addition to robberies) , and for use in command units (communications

vans ) - , _

,i

19. (IF "YES" TO Q. 17) How do you (would you) use your

scramblers? (MARK X BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.)

ViJith car radios

With portable radios

With both car radios and portable radios

Only in special vehicles (Specify)

The perceptions of the 225 departments which did not have,

but said they needed scramblers were very different from the

answers of the 40 departments which were currently using scramblers. More than half (58%) of the users of scramblers said

7 4
they were using them With Car Radios only . An additional 35%

of the current users said they were using their scramblers with

Both Car Radios and Portable Radios,

In contrast, three-quarters (76%) of the departments which

said they needed scramblers said they would use them with Both

Car Radios and Portable Radios. Only 15% said they would use

them with Car Radios only.

Table 19. Use of Scramblers with Car Radios, Portable Radios,

and Special Vehicles, By All Departments Currently

Using Scramblers and All Departments Saying Scramblers

Were Nee ded .

USE WITH: % Depts. Using % Depts. Needing

Scramblers Scramblers

(Q. 17 . ) * (Q. 17 . ) * {n=40) (n=225)

Car Radios Only 58 15

Portable Radios Only 2 3 Both Car & Portable Radios 35 76

Soecial Vehicles 18 8

*The categories were meant to be mutually exclusive. However,

a number of departments marked more than one of the available

choices. The first three categories were made mutually exclusive in the tabulations. Double responses using the Special

Vehicles category were permitted and therefore, the total percentages add to more than 100%.

20 . (IF "YES" TO Q. 17.) How much do you think your

department would pay for a good, reliable scrambler

system? (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW.)

Less than $250 per unit

$251 - $500 per unit

$501 - $750 per unit

$751 - $1000 per unit

More than $1000 per unit

75
These data were useful as an indication of the accuracy of

the respondents' perceptions of the costs of voice privacy

systems. The simplest scramblers now on the market are inverters.

They cost between $200 and $400 each, provide good intelligibility

but offer only a low degree of privacy (an electronic hobbyist

can easily build a low cost un s c r amb 1 e r ) . Eighty-three percent of

the respondents which had (or needed) scramblers said that they

were willing to pay $500 or less for a "good, reliable scrambler

system." These departments would only be able to buy a "low

privacy" inverter system.

Scramblers, using cryptographic techniques, provide many

different key settings, a substantial degree of privacy, and cost

$800-$2000. Only 2% of the respondents with an interest in

scramblers said they would be willing to pay more than $750 —

enough to buy a cryptographic type system. More of the Fifty

Largest Cities (30%) than any other Department Type said they

would be willing to pay more than $500 for a reliable .scrambler

s y s t e m I -•

76
Table 20. Amounts the 265 Departments Which Used or Said They

Needed Scramblers Would be Willing to Pay for A

Reliable Scrambler System, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT

TYPE : AMOUNT :

% Less % More

Than % $ 2 5 1 % $ 5 0 1 Than N o

^>25u - $ 5 0 0 - $750 $750 Answer

City (50+) -^5 2 43 2 0 4

City (10-49) 52 30 8 0 10

City (1-9) 50 42 0 3 5

County 49 30 2 2 16

State 42 37 8 4 8

50 Largest 30 37 30 0 4

Township 21 43 14 7 14

2.2.5.5 Communications Helmet

21 . Helmets with built-in communications have been

developed and are now on the market. Is there a need for such helmets in your department?

Yes

No

Why? or Why Not?

Although only about one-third of all 428 respondents to the

Communications Questionnaire said they needed helmets with builtin communications, almost three-quarters of the State and Fifty

Largest City departments said they needed them.

77
Table 21-1. Need for Built-in Communications in Helmets, by

Department Type. (All Respondents, n = 428)

DEPARTMENT TYPE:

50 Larges t

State

City (50+)

Co un ty

City (10-49)

City (1-9)

Township

Need Built-in

Communi cations

% Dept. Type

72

72

34

22

19

15

9

Half of the 139 departments which expressed need for helmet

communications gave as their reason the usefulness of this system

in Crowd Control or Riots. About one-third of those departments

said it would be useful for Motorcycle Duty. These two reasons,

were also most often chosen by the States and Fifty Largest

Cities. For State police. Motorcycle Duty was most often chosen

while Crowd Control was second; the reverse was true of departments in the Fifty Largest Cities.

Table 21-2. Reasons for Needing Built-in Helmet Communications,

by 139 Departments Which Said They Needed This

,- . ;

• • Sy s tern

REASONS

For crowd con t r o 1 / r i o t

For motorcycle duty

Frees hands

Improves operations/more efficient

Useful when away from base or mobile unit

Counteracts noise (other than crowds)

No Answer

% All Dep ts

Needing Helmets

With Built-in

Communi cations .

(n=139

50

30

9

4

4

3

16

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

a. 1 lowe d , 78
The majority of respondents (67%, n=285) said that their

departments did not need built-in helmet communications. Many

of the reasons for saying "no" to Question 21 were simply that

the respondents saw no need for that type of communications

system in their departments : Use Not Warranted Based on Department or Area (22%), Impractical/Don't Need (16%), No Helmets

Used by Department (13%). The reason giv^n with greatest frequency (Expense Not Warranted, 66%) might also be said to be in

the general "no need" category. Only 4% of those saying builtin helmet communications were not needed mentioned a perceived

negative aspect of this system as their reason.

Table 21-3. Reasons for Not Needing Built-in Helmet Communications, by 286 Departments which Said They Did Not

Need This System.

REASONS: % Depts. Not

Needing Helmet

Commun i cations*

(n=286)

Expense not warranted 66

Use not warranted based on dept. or area 22

Impractical/don't need 16

No helmets used by dept. 13

Have or prefer other equipment for same job 6

Too cumbersome/dangerous 3

Low priority 2

Not enough power 1

Other 2

No Answer 32

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

allowed

79
2.2.6 General Information

2.2.6.1 Need for Standards and Expected Gains from Standards

15. Many policemen have indicated the need for standardization of communications equipment Which of the

following equipment and components would you like to

see standardized? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

I Portable radios

Mobile radios

Batteries for portable radios

Control heads

Microphones

Switches on control heads

Mounting brackets

. ' Cable between microphone and control head

Other (specify)

About two-thirds of the respondents said standards were

needed for Mobile Radios (70%) and Portable Radios (66%). More

than half of the departments said Batteries for Portable Radios

needed standards (56%). No item listed was selected by less

than one-third of the respondents. This interest in standards

for communications equipment further supports the findings of

the Equipment Priorities Questionnaire of this survey in which

communications equipment was either the first or second most

important category of equipment for every Department Type in

terms of need for standards.

80
Table 15-1. Need for Standards for

by All Respondents.

Communi cations Equipment

EQUIPMENT ITEM: % Depts . Indicating

Standards are Needed

Mobile Radios

Portable Radios

Batteries

Control Heads

Mounting Brackets

Mi or opho ne s Switches on Control Heads

Cable Between Microphone

70

66

56

42

37

36

36

and Control Head

Other

33

12

No Answer 2

States and Fifty Largest Cities tended to say that more of

the items in the list needed standards than did the other Department Types. In five of the Department Types (Cities 1-9, Cities

10-49, Cities 50+, Counties, and Townships) Portable Radios,

Mobile Radios, and Batteries for Portable Radios always received

one of the three highest percentages of votes. States chose

Mobile Radios and Batteries for Portable Radios among the top

three, but not Portable Radios. The Fifty Largest Cities chose

Portable Radios and Batteries for Portable Radios among the top

three, but not Mobile Radios.

81
Table 15-2

EQUIPMENT ITEM;

Items Said to Need Standards by 40% OR MORE of

the Departments Within a Department Type. Ordered

from Highest to Lowest Frequency of Response by All

428 Departments.

DEPARTMENT TYPE:

• % % 50 % Cities %Cities % % % Cities

state Largest 50 + 10-49 County Township 1-9

Mobile Radios 64 59 57 76 72 83 79

Portable Radios 49 70 68 67 68 70 68

Batteries for Portables 66 78 67 55 49 61

Control Heads 68 63 42 43

Mounting Brackets 49 41

Microphones 57 46

Switches on Con Head 49 43 41

Cable btw Mike & Con Head 51 46

Items not listed in the questionnaire which were some times

mentioned as needing standards included: Chargers, antennas,

crystals, connectors, other controls, and other cables.

16, What will your department gain by the standardization

discussed above? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

10% lower cost of equipment

25% lower cost of equipment

50% lower cost of equipment

Interchangeability of radios

Interchangeability of components

Savings in training of technicians

Savings in training of patrolmen

Interchangeability with other communications systems

Other(specify)

According to all 428 respondents as a group, and according

to each Department Type, the biggest gain that would be realized

by police departments if standards were set for communications

equipment would be an improvement in the Interchangeability of

equipment; about half or more of all respondents chose each

Interchangeability item. About a quarter of the respondents

chose each of the Savings in Training items.

82
Table 16-1. Expected Gains from Standardization of Communications Equipment, by All Respondents.

EXPECTED GAIN: All Pep ts . * (n=428)

I n t e r ch ang e abi 1 i ty . . . of Radios

of Components

with Other Comm. Systems

62

52

4 7 Savings in Training...

of Technicians

of Patrolmen

28

23

Lower Cost of Equipment...

10% Lower Cost

25% Lower Cost

50% Lower Cost

16

13

3

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

allowed. The reader should be particularly careful in

interpretations of Tables 16-1. and 16-2. because of the multiple

responses. It is much more likely, for example, that a responent

would have selected only one of the three Lower Cost of Equipment

choices than it is that he would have selected only one of the two

or three choices in the other two general categories.

Among the seven Department Typ©s , the same general proportions of responses were found. The States and the Fifty Largest

Cities tended to have higher percentages of departments expecting

to see better I n te r ch ange ab i 1 i ty of Radios and Components result

from standardization. These two Department Types also had higher

percentages of departments expecting Savings in Training of

Technicians. States and Townships had higher percentages expecting Savings in Training of Patrolmen. Cities (1-9) appeared to

feel they had the least to gain overall from the standardization

of communications equipment.

In terms of expected cost benefits from standardization,

departments most often said they expected to see costs lowered

83
by 25% or less. Only about one-third of the respondents said

that they expected any cost benefit from standardization of

communications equipment. .

Table 16-2. Expected Gains from Standardization of

Communications Equipment, by Department Type.*

EXPECTED GAIN: . DEPARTMENT TYPE:

' % 50 % % City % City % % City %

Largest State 50+ 10-49 County 1-9 Township

Interchangeability. .

of Radios 78 74 67 63 55 50 43

of Components 70 72 59 53 42 28 48

with Other Systems 52 30 46 55 54 37 57

Savings in Training...

of Patrolmen 30 40 32 26 25 17 43

of Technicians 57 43 20 12 16 8 35

Lower Cost of Equipment...

10% Lower Cost 22 19 18 15 17 14 0

25% Lower Cost 15 19 13 13 13 6 13

50% Lower Cost 4 0 3 2 3 4 4

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were allowed.

2,2.6.2 Communications Needs

26 . What are your most critical communications needs?

(MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

More frequencies and channels • New equipment

More reliable equipment

- Personal transceivers for each officer

Portamobile voting system

Scramblers

Standardization of all equipment

. ;

: other (specify)

84
Five of the eight choices in the questionnaire were cited

as "critical communications needs" by one-third or more of the

respondents. Ilearly half of the departments said I^ew Equipment,

More Frequencie s /Ch anne Is , and Personal Transceivers for Each

Officer were Gritical communications needs.

Table 26-1, Most Critical Communications bleeds, by All P.espondents

New Equipment 45

More Frequencies/Channels 44

Personal Transceivers 43

Standardize all Equipment 33

Scramblers 34

More Reliable Equipment 21

Portamobile Voting System 8

Other .

- 11

^Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers

were allov/ed.

Personal Transceivers for Each Officer see-ed -c be the

most critical communications need for all City Eeparrmenr rypes

with more than 10 officers and Tovrnships. Cities Cl-9) and

Counties most often said they needed New E quip ~ en-. Almost

three-quarters of the States said that More Frequencies and Channels was a critical communications need. The fact that 45% of

The Cities (10-49) said the same thing is not surprising in view

of their answers to Question 17: 71% of the Cities (10-49) which

did not currently have scramblers said that this equipment was

needed in their departments.

85
Table 26-2. Most Critical Communications Needs Indicated by

40% OR MORE of the Departments Within Each

Department Type . *

COMMUNICATIONS

NEED: DEPARTMENT TYPE:

. > % % 50 % City % City % City % %

i' State Largest 50+ 10-49 1-9 County Township

New Equipment 45 43 43 41 51 49

More Frequencies/Channels 57 48 46 44 41

Personal Transceivers - 74 47 48 52

Standardize All Equipment 51 43 42

Scramblers 45

More Reliable Equipment

Portamobile Voting System

Other "

* Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were allowed.

2.2.5.3 Problems with and Failures of Communications Equipment

27. What are your most serious problems with communications

equipment?

Question 27 was "open-ended" allowing respondents to write

in their problems with communications equipme n t • arid categories for

these narrative responses were developed after the questionnaires

were returned. Many of the responses to this question were

related to the "critical communications needs" discussed in the

previous question. Some of the most commonly indicated problems

were: Overcrowding and Congestion of channels, problems with Old

Equipment, and problems having to do with Repairs, Maintenance

and Lack of Reliability of equipment. Since there were many

\ 86
different answers to this question, none of the categories of

problems in Table 2 7. was mentioned by as many as one-quarter of

the respondents. Perhaps the most important aspect of this

question is the fact that more than 75% of the departments

listed some communications problem that they considered to be

serious. (100% - 11% No Answer - 13% "No Problems".)

Table 27. Most Serious Problems with Communications Equipment,

by All Respondents. ^

PROBLEM: % All Pep ts .

(n=428)

Overcrowding/congestion 19

Old equipment/need new or more 16

Malfunctions, breakdowns, failures 14

Repair, maintenance, service 11

Inadequacy of equipment (range, power) 10

Electrical/Mechanical interference (skip) 8

Reliability/lack of Quality Control 6

Character of area/terrain causing dead spots 5

Unauthorized monitoring 4

Standardization, i nte r change ab i 1 i ty needs 3

Expense/high cost 2

Other 6

No problems 13

No Answer 11

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

a 1 lowed

28. What are your most common equipment failures, whether

entire units or specific components?

As in Question 27., response categories were developed from

the narrative answers supplied to this question. Eighty-two

percent of the respondents listed at least one common equipment

87
failure (16% No Answer and 12% "No Problems"). Three failure

categories stood out: Tubes, Transistors, Capacitors (25%);

Specific Components, Normal Wear and Tear (18%); and Mike Cables,

Connections, Wiring (15%) .

Table 28. Most Common Equipment Failures, by All Respondents.

FAILURE CATEGORY: % All Depts .

*Percentages add to more than 100% since multiple answers were

al lowe d

2.2.7 Comme n ts

29. Do you have any other general comments or observations

about communications equipment that might be helpful

to the people who will be studying and testing this

equipment for police use?

No attempt was made to actually code the comments received

to this question. They have been retained verbatim, and can be

made available for research purposes (without identification of

specific respondents).

(n=428)

Tubes, transistors, capacitors

Specific components, normal wear and tear

Mike cables, connections wiring

Antennas, relays, cables

Switches/Fuses (circuit breakers)

Crystals, trimmers frequency problems

Transmitter problems/failures

Po r t ab 1 e /Mob i 1 e radios and accessories

Power supplies, vibrators, inverters, reeds

Other

25

18

15

9

9

9

76

4

7

No f ai lures

No answer

12

16

88
When a "comments" section is provided at the end of a

lengthy questionnaire such as this one, the response rate is

usually expected to be low. However, in the case of the Communications Questionnaire, over one-fourth of the 428 respondents

provided an additional comment or statement.

Table 29. Additional Commen ts /Obs er va t i ons About Communications

Equipment, by Department Type.

DEPARTMENT TYPE : % All Respondents

State 45

City (10-49) 38

50 Largest 36

Township 33

City (50+) 26

County 18

City (1-9) 17

All Respondents 29

The comments appeared to be well thought out and expressed

the high degree of concern the respondents felt about their

communications equipment. Several areas of particular concern

were identified: High expense of communications equipment,

maintenance for the equipment, the need for scramblers, overcrowding of frequency bands, and need for improvement in portable

radios and power sources. Examples of the expression of these

concerns follow:

The High Expense of Communications Equipment:

"Communications equipment and systems are expensive.

It appears each manufacturer adds new features one at

a time so obsolescence comes at shorter intervals.

An advanced technology by one manufactorer may not be

89
available by another causing a problem in developing

an open specification. Or the technology may be similar yet different enough to create not only bidding

difficulties but maintenance differences requiring

different techniques and test equipment,"

"Cost of equipment - many P.D.s operate on small

limited budgets; therefore, cannot afford to purchase

proper amount of equipment for proper security."

"Require LEAA expenditures be made only for equipment

that meets the same performance standards of best

make tested. Money spent for inferior equipment is

money wasted."

"Some replacement components are priced too high.

More standard components are needed."

"Would like to see standardized equipment at

cost so departments with limited budgets can

equipment .

"Small departments are unable to purchase much needed

equipment because of budgets & city leaders who think

in the pas t

.

"Keep the price down."

The Need for Scramblers:

"The biggest problem that my department has is the

monitoring of the frequency that we are assigned.

A call can be transmitted and the person we are

looking for can be gone upon the arrival of officers,

since he or she has heard our transmissions. This

will occur daily. Or someone will call by public

service wanting to know why their name or their

neighbor's name was mentioned or why we are looking

for them. To insure or secure efficient police

work we must cut down on outside monitors."

lower

get more

90
"In our department what is

which can be used with the

and handheld radios, which

the average department."

needed is a scrambler system

base station, mobile radios,

is priced within reach of

"A well built and high quality scramble device at a moderate price range is one of the greatest needs

of law enforcement today. Studying and testing

scramble devices should have a high priority."

"For purposes of security, we would like to see an

absolutely foolproof scrambler system."

"We also need good scramblers at a reasonable cost."

The Problem of Maintenance : "There should be a survey on maintenance, new methods

of servicing electronic equipment, standards for electronic technicians and some means of providing good

in-service training regarding all electronic equipment

the men service."

"Manufacturers, due to feedback from users, are

informed of common equipment failure but they do not

pass information on to local repair shops."

"Any study of Police communications should also

consider estimated life of hardware, general maintenance, installation and other long term requirements

for reliability and performance. There should be no

"down time" on Police Communication facilities, which

are often used 15 years or more. Especially true of

Base facilities."

"Current Communications Maintenance programs are

inadequate. Equipment receives no attention until

it fails. Often no "backup" hardware is available,

pressuring technicians into "hurry-up" jobs and

inadequate service."

91
The Problem o f . O ve r c r owde d Frequency Bands;

"The use of power allocations and frequency allocations

should be checked more closely. Crowded conditions and

non-essential chatter is causing a great deal of problems in emergency situations."

"We are on a frequency with at least 15 other towns.

We are constantly drowned out by others who must be

overmodulated .

"Frequency coordination has always been a problem. At

the present time, we have cities operating on our channel which are less than 40 miles away."

"We would like to see, in this area, a frequency with

a channel of our own with no outsiders."

The Need for Improvements in Portable Radios and Power Sources;

"Our portables are useless. They almost never work

right .

"This department purchased two hand portable units.

We've had them about 18 months and they have been

returned to factories several times for repairs."

"Portable radios with capacity for long distance

receiving and transmitting."

"Consideration should be given to designing a radio

for a police officer that would be durable and waterproof under the most extreme condition a police officer

may be called upon to perform service."

"Handheld radio

lighter in weight but retain and improve the present

power output levels."

"One of the biggest problems is the weight and size of

the portable radios. The output power is low, but the

weight of the unit makes it cumbersome."

92
"I believe there is a great need for reasonably priced

integrated-circuit designed radios to be carried or

worn by all officers for constant communication availability. Might eventually eliminate need for radios

in cars . "

"Battery size and weight reduction should receive high

priority . "

"We feel that batteries used in portable and handcarried equipment are too large and too heavy — that

the power source development have not been kept with

circuitry sophistication. We would like to see a 5-

watt hand-carried portable transceiver with very small

di mens ions .

"One suggestion is that manufacturers of power source

batteries be given the necessary incentive to "catch

up" with the communications industry by making compatible batteries that are smaller in size, weigh less,

have a longer life and increase the power output."

93
r

I

94
APPENDIX A

NBS-885

May 1972

0MB 41-F72030

Approval Expires June 30, 1973

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE: COMMUNICATIONS

POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY

Sponsored By:

National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

U. S. Department of Justice

Directed and Conducted By:

Behavioral Sciences Group

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Phone: 301-921-3558

A-1
INTEODUCTION

Maintaining good communications under very poor conditions

is important to good police action. Many departments have lost

communication when they needed it most. System parts often cannot be

interchanged, batteries are imreliable and some eqirLpment is too ex- pensive for many departments to buy. In order to make it easier for

law enforcement departments to be able to buy communications equipment

that meets their needs , the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory will be

writing performance standards for this equipment. These standards will

be available to any department that wishes to use them.

PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE; The piarpose of this "detailed" questionnaire is to get answers from YOU, the user, about the commvini cations

equipment you are now using, and the problems you find in using it.

Your answers will be used to determine what kinds of testing need to

be done, and what sorts of problems must be solved. We must find out

what YOUR needs are.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS;

1. Fill in the questionnaire completely. Even if you do not have all

the information you need "at your fingertips" , please make your

best effort to supply every answer AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE.

2. Answer all questions FOR YOUR OWN DEPARTMENT. Do not attempt to

supply information that might exist in some other department.

3. The results of this questionnaire will be compiled by computer. It

is very important that you follow directions and answer every

question in the boxes and spaces provided.

4. No individual department will be identified in the report of this

survey; the results will be p'jblished only in table form.

5. Additional instructions for filling in your answers appear after

some questions. Follow the directions given.

6. Please PRINT all answers and comments CLEARLY .

7. When this questionnaire has been completely filled in; place it,

with the other questionnaires sent to your department, in the

stamped, addressed envelope supplied. Return all of them to:

Technology Building, A-110

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

8. If you have any questions, write to the above address or call collect:

E. Bunten, or P. Klaus

Phone: 301-921-3558

9. Remember that it is only by getting YOUR DEPARTMENT'S answers to

these questions that it will be possible to begin really working on problems that police have with communications equipment and supplies.

A- 2
PART I: CAR RADIOS

1. Give the following information about your car radios:

l.A. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in KHz, MHz, etc.)

(Attach an additional sheet if necessary.)

(10-17)***

(18-25)

l.B. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question l.A.

(26-28) I.e. Output power (in watts)

(29-30) l.D. Nvunber of Channels Authorized__

(31-32) I.E. Number of Channels in Use

2. A. How many car radios are there in your department?

(33-36) Number

2.B. Of those car radios, about how many were made by each of the

following manufacturers?

NUMBER MANUFACTURER

(37-40) Motorola

(41-44) RCA

(45-48) GE

(49-52) Other (Specify)

3. How recently were most of the car radios bought by your department?

(Mark X by your best estimate)

(53-56) Within the last calendar year

1 - 3 years ago

4

- 5 years ago

More than 5 years ago

'Numbers in parentheses are for computer use only.

A-3
4. About how much did each of the car radios cost that are most

frequently used in your department (including base plate,

control head, microphone, and speaker)? For example, if most

of the radios now in use are Motorolas, please give us the

cost of one set. (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW)

Less than $700

$701-$800

$801-$900

$901-$1000

$1001-$1500

Over $1500

5, A. What is the total area within your jurisdiction which must be

covered by a commmication system? (IN SQUARE MILES)

. .^ Square Miles

5.B. If possible, please tell us how many different law enforcement

channels serve this area. This figure would include not only

those channels used by your department, but also those used by

other law enforcement agencies operating in the same geographical

area (e.g., state and local police).

Channels

Don ' t Know

5.C. Do you have one common frequency for routine and emergency

traffic?

Yes

No (IF "NO") Do you think you need a common frequency?

Yes

No

A-U
6. Which of the following best describes the general character of your

jurisdiction? (MARK X BY MORE THAN ONE, IF NECESSARY)

(74-80) Skyscrapers, many tall buildings

Some tall buildings

Almost no tall buildings

Primarily mountainous or very hilly

Valley area surrounded by mountaing

Generally flat with some hills

' Flat area, no hills

7. A. Do you use fixed repeaters in your area (to cover dead spots in

communication which otherwise would exist)

(10) Yes

No

7.B. (IF "YES" TO QUESTION 7. A.) How many fixed repeaters does your

department have?

(11-12) Fixed Repeaters

8. If you use, or will be using fixed repeaters, which of the

following types do you prefer?

(13-16) Will not use fixed repeaters

FlFl repeater (same frequency in and out)

F1F2 repeater (two different frequencies)

No preference

A-5
PART II: PORTABLE (HAND-HELD) RADIOS

9. Do you now use portable (hand-held) radios in your department?

(17) Yes

' No (IF "NOV SKIP TO PART III, QUESTION 15)

(18-25)

(26-33)

( IF "YES" TO QUESTION 9, ANSWER QUESTIONS 10-14 )

10. Give the following information about your portable radios:

10. A. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in KHz, MHz, etc.)

(Attach an additional sheet if necessary.)

10. B. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question l.A.

(34-35) 10. C. Output power (in watts)

(35-37) 10. D. Number of Channels Authorized

(38-39) 10. E. Number of Channels in Use

11. A. How many portable radios do you now have in your department?

(40-44) Number

11. B. Of those portable radios, about how many were made by the

following manufacturers?

NUMBER MANUFACTURER

(45-49) Motorola

(50-54) RCA

(55-59) General Electric

(60-64) Halicrafters

(65-69) Other (Specify)_

Other (Specify)

A-6
What model of portable radio do you have more of in your department

than any other?

MANUFACTURER

MODEL OR MODEL NUMBER

12. A. When did you buy most of these "most used" portable radios?

Within the last calendar year

1-3 years ago

4-5 years ago

More than 5 years ago

12. B. About how much did you pay for one of these "most used"

portable radios (including antenna, carrying case, and

spare batteries)?

Less than $500

$501-$700

$701-$900

$901-$ 1100

$1101-$1500

Over $1500

12. C. About how much does one of these "most used" portable

radios weigh?

Less than 20 oz.

20 oz. to 26 oz.

27 oz. to 32 oz.

33 oz. to 38 oz.

More than 38 oz.

12. D. How do you feel about the weight of the "most used" portable

radios?

The weight is about right _____ The unit is somewhat heavy

The xanit is entirely too heavy

A-7
13. A portable radio can be used with a repeater by a patrolman when he

is out of, his car. The portable radio transmits to the car radio

which then relays the signals to the base radio. Do you need

repeaters like this in your communications system?

(28) Yes

No

Why?

14. Some law enforcement agencies use portamobile radios with several

receivers and a voting system. Do you favor such a system?

(29) Unfamiliar with "voting system"

Yes

No

(IF "YES" OR "NO", WHY?

APART III: NEED FOR STANDARDS

15. Many policemen have indicated the need for standardization of

commiani cations equipment. Which of the following equipment and

components would you like to see standardized? (MARK X BY EACH

ITEM THAT APPLIES)

(30-38) Portable radios

Mobile radios

Batteries for portable radios

Control heads

Microphones

Switches on control heads

Mounting brackets

Cable between microphone and control head

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

16. What will your department gain by the standardization discussed

above? (X EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

(39-47) 10% lower cost of equipment

25% lower cost of equipment

50% lower cost of equipment

Interchangeability of radios

Interchangeability of components

Savings in training of technicians

Savings in training of patrolmen

Interchangeability with other communications systems

Other (Specify)

A-9
PART IV: SCRAMBLERS

17. In some areas, police use "voice privacy" systems which scramble

messages so that they cannot be received by people other than police.

Do you HAVE a scrambler system of this type?

(48) .' Yes

No (IF "NO" ) Do you NEED a scrambler system of this type?

(49) . Yes

No (IF "NO" SKIP TO QUESTION 21)

18. For which of the following purposes do you need, or would you use,

a scrambler system? CMARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

(50-55) General communications

During robberies

Long-term stake out

Demonstrations or protests

Undercover investigations

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

19. How do you (would you) use your scramblers? (MARK X BY ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING)

(5^"^5) With car radios

With portable radios

With both car radios and portable radios

Only in special vehicles (Specify)

20. How much do you think your department would pay for a good, reliable

scrambler system? (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW.) _____ Less than $250 per unit $751-$1000 per unit

: $251-$500 per unit More than $1000 per

unit

$501-$750 per unit

A-10
PART V: HELMET COMMUNICATIONS

(65)

21. Helmets with built-in conmi\jni cations have been developed and are now on the market. Is there a need for such helmets in your

department?

Yes

No

Why? or Why not?

PART VI: POWER SUPPLIES

22. Should standards for power supplies such as charging equipment, and

batteries for portable radios be given? (CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)

(66-69) High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Standards are not needed for these items

23. What types of batteries do you now use for your portable radios?

(MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES)

(70-75) Alkaline-Manganese

Carbon-Zinc

Mercury

NiCad (Nickel-cadmium)

Silver Oxide

Other (Specify)

A -11
24. What type of batteries do you prefer to use for your portable radios?

(MARK X BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)

(10-15) Alkaline-Manganese

Carbon-Zinc

Mercury

NiCad (Nickel-cadmium)

Silver Oxide

Other (Specify)

25. Do you use batteries for your portable radios which must be recharged?

(16) Yes

No (IF "NO" SKIP TO QUESTION 26, PART VII)

^ 25. A. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long can you use the battery

before it must be recharged?

(17-19) Hours

25. B. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long does it usually take to

recharge the batteiy to a point where it can be used again?

(20-21) Hours

25. C. (IF " YES" TO Q. 25) How long does it usually take to

fully recharge the battery?

(22-23) Hours

25. D. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long can you usually use these

batteries before they must be replaced?

(24-25) Months

A 12
PART VII; GENERAL COMMENTS

26. What are your mo^t critical coinmiinications needs? (MARK X BY EACH

ITEM THAT APPLIES)

(26-31) ____ More frequencies and channels

New equipment

More reliable equipment

Personal transceivers for each officer

Portamobile voting system

Scramblers

Standardization of all equipment

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

27. What are your most serious problems with communications equipment?

(32-33)

28. What are your most common equipment failures, whether entire units or specific components?

(34-35)

A- 13
Do you have any other general comments or observations about

commimi cations equipment that might be helpful to the people who

will be studying and testing this equipment for police use?
IDENTIFYING INFORJIATION : (All identifying information will be kept

confidential)

Name of Department:

Address :

Name of person who answered this questionnaire:

Name

Title: Rank

No. of years experience in law enforcement:

Telephone Nimiber:

Others who helped: 1.

Name

Title: Rank:

No. of years experience in law enforcement:

Telephone Niomber:

2.

Name

Title: Rank:

No. of years experience in law enforcement:

Telephone Number:

A- 15

APPENDIX B

DATA TABLES

B. 1 Advice to the Reader

(a) The data presented in the following tables resulted from the

responses of a stratified random sample (see Section 1.2) of

police departments in response to a specific set of questions

(see Appendix A). These data do not, in any way, reflect

objective testing of any of the equipment by the National

Bureau of Standards. The reader is cautioned to become

familiar with the questionnaire and to evaluate the data in

terms of the exact questions asked.

(b) Tables have been numbered after the question number (e.g., the

tables for Question 6A. would be numbered 6A-1, 6A-2 , etc.).

The data are ususlly presented by number of respondents and

nearest whole percentage. Because of the statistical limitations imposed by the sample sizes used in this study, the

reader is cautioned to be wary of assigning importance to

percentage differences of less than 5% when percentages are based on all respondents, and to percentage differences of

less than 10% when percentages are based on one of the subsample groups, (e.g., a particular Department Type or Region).

No statistical tests of significance are reported.

(c) These tables are based on the responding departments from the

specific sample selected for this questionnaire. This sample

was not proportional to the total population of police departments, and although it is possible to do so, the data in these

tables have not been weighted to allow direct extrapolation to

the total population.

(d) In order to extrapolate to the total population from the

respondent data presented in this report, use the fullowing

procedure: For each Department Type, multiply the percentage of

respondents of a particular Department Type giving the answer of

interest (See B.2 Data Type, Appendix B) by the total number of

departments of that Department Type in the poDulation (See Table

1.2-2, Section 1.2); add those seven subtotals; and divide the

total by the total number of police departments in the population (Table 1.2-2). The quotient of this division will be an estimate of the percentage of all U.S. police departments

that would choose the answer of interest.

B.2 Data Tables
in ^ w 0- N (\i 3- iT rr

^ :^ ^ -* -o

J -\l c; c; o ivj c 3 — 3- c- J >v -T ^

cr -< "^1 tr o o A.I c cr U < (J O

>- I/; uj

(- 111

Li -,0 >-

•-• cr >-• u. < u

-I

f\' — r >•

CK— :^<^o^oJ3o^noc^-c:oo^3^•-Cc^=co

C I/; .» -< " CM

I- i: ^ o

O Ll

J1 o

>- ui

I- r (.J 4. O >-

l.i ll. D IJL 1,1 O

« »H <\| « O o o "1 -o o ri o „n

J- i

>- J Ijj >- I 'J o •-• -1 u. — u.

o r> c "y cr o (\i -< o -< ~ c: .T c A, -< > 3 111 — I IJ

>-• o • ^ -t o

'J <\i M

o 3 o (M n if J

J — LLo

7> 0 t .') -1

ll2

i

o^ocooccvd-csoocvoca-ca-ch-o cr otnoooo-^f»tooo-^oocvo<Njo^Do

I/-

ft

-J UJ

_J t- a

CI >-

'>i o

tLUJ

( >

f>jao>-in\C(\j(~--.oo*iDoor-to*vCfo cp

1!

u.,^ U. iO « ll. Z

fr U- T « u. O

uJ UJ U » LlI u. ^ •- liJ _!>-•>- o TK ^ Tcr ui si-a:«i3r

i-H 1_>Z <_I I/IO JI-<>-<uJUIjJ < --t oj »-u.nr*s'i-T-<< • ^0 jj •> •- i.j -t t- >- o 11. 4 <i J </) J)

u. < — ^ If. rr I- -3 « I- 111 •-• w o tr T D ? iiit-so-^-toDa-SDO. ri/iiotriuuJStf -<a> _j'-y)-iiijar-«;iJi j?'frt-Tor T«ioouy)<'-«'5 rairro ij>»t-?oo

7 a

>-ti:" c

V.

<

u.»-

cj»- IJ f

c

H; UI

_i_/ _f UI

_i h- a

a c .T >- < 1- -> o a. i UJ s o

o

ji

ftu>a

u.

a

ut

arUI

a.XJ

u.D 1/1

lT -) a: a

.1 n

Ul iij >- T

c0^C\ic:Cd-c;t^'O

>r ^ CO (V — ^

^ 1^ <M —

.

*i 0J.O3X3<M£ .\J

.fi r 0 tt <r r- ,-t «-

e cu (M vD i»" cc r- a

t\ t^- a r- n. i\) —

l/l ui 71 1/1 lo rr r r

/)t/1n:<<<ta3rrr

Jl3r<U):iJUJ.jOuj

ll < ill >->->->- > 1

_l ul »- /I > r c Jl o rr

"• O J1 -H I I I I ^^JfO^-<-^^M^l•^."•
<\) rt c

>- l/l UJ

I- LJ

u. ": Iu. < u

•^^ rO PJ -O o

in 3-

f\ :t w

r-i O iT ^ O

;z —i—i'\io

—1 CM CM -I

C3^ >- =r liJ aJ I— I (_)

cc CO —

CM .0

J- r) o -I (M

CT^ —

>- LJ

-H ^ CM ^ —

>- UJ

1- I J

f~- o CM CM cr ^ 3- -I

-T) O * AJ -I

d- J- -1 -1

2 W -H .

^ -< -< J -I-IM-I -4

w cr J cr

< T

cr ^

ro CM r- o o o «

7-

? ^ w J

H- l/l O

cc o

UJ o o

< cj :

•.D CM '-I ^ CM 0 ' vi: \£ CM rO vO CM

uJ l/l _j y ii.' _l h- Q.

<! Q- V

< IQ.

liJ D

CM CV J CV

I/) o a: o J

u. -I<

uJ _l

t-

>- .UJ a: Q o

o

.J Q.U1

«I UJ U Nlr

ISJ T

a: V M y s- cr u.

kJ T UJ o

y J- ? UJ r~ i/) J) O D o d- cr ^ _l UJ a C3 in t 1 UJ < < CD

i/i UJ 1 o o X

iij cr O iD in 1- o o y u. * O 2 Z

2:o

a.

in

a:

iro

10

UJ

t-u HZ M

X

NJ M

I X

Nj y "SJ y y u X X

71 y .3- O y J- o

UJ i/i o _i LJ o ^ X o in 1 1 UJ •a o in 1 1 UJ

UJ 1 c O X f- 1 o o

a O Jl in h- o o n in t—

u. * o rO o
C iT

OC J*' o

Cl o * S S S * * X o o o o o cy o o 1 • • • • • «-H O O .—1 ^ o

j^ J- 3 ^ ^ pO ^ «-« "M o

>- 1/) LJ If) ^ Ui ~; Cr ^ O

Ll I— c r*- CM -V - •'T cM

»-H [i: * rj CM

X rv.1 r\J Ll <I tj o LL _j

bJ Ul

iX

O fO ^ rO <-t ^ (V

O l/l •-H lO oj o ^ LlJ 5" q: 5" Q:' ^ pf,

_ ^

>- lJ "ri

n r^L—rr H- CC O ^ ^ f-- OJ (\J X k— T t*» tM JT" " CM

l-(

O t—

uO fO S\

•H •H r\J ^ O iL IIIQ 1 iD O n o

c\j f\i (T^ c o •-t «-l »H

CM

—

o * ^ ^ 1^ _j *

>- 3" LU ^ ^ Ul f\J

O

O

IjJ 1 <_> ^ O lO

O f\J ll-' »>— 1 o O ^ Ll o 7^ S iT

Ll

O

O Z

UJ

fO o o ro

_

3' J) *

lO o o

>. tJv LiJ >- CJN IjJ rO f\j

OO to 1 O 3 -H O -* •o 1— 1 (__> "O "5 -H * O Ll v_) U. * 0^ If) rO o ^ ^ ro UJ

oj o o 5"

u~' \C c c;

CL' ro

w c: IP

tr, * ^ *

<]- o

ly, > O O

O LO ifl

OO

—

\C (\j t — LJ

ui to —f o o C\' 0' sO ^0 c

C\J J) o o r- rO ct o

iT CI <\J f\J I/) . 1 1 Ia

y

~D < O O

fO

O ^ o w *H «H CM

<\l lO ^ _^

U t LlJ L/1 UJ t/l CM CM o CC > o —J I?" UJ O CT" C (J\ CD l/l -J D. 0^ :f (\J CM _J K 0, Q:: <M ^ <M

*^ ^ J—

C!

_

O 2 li Ui

(-^ ? II 1 - Lki O LJ Q

_J o o

_| o lO O _1 UJ (X UJ

ll. —I I— U1 < < UJ < u rsj fsj or U ISJ NJ

N fSJ

X

HXXXX

rX

>-

NTy q: Ul >- Niy

y NJT :r UJ u X UJ o UJ u X X

>iJ -1 5" * 3 J) 5- # O

T J- o

;^ uj z lU I/) o o or ^ UJ o O <H ;t (T UJ o «H * ar

a. o m 1 1 laJ < < Q. o in 1 1 UJ < O in 1 1 UJ

J) UJ 1 o o z t/1 IJ 1 o e X 1 s e T • UJ © in H 9 9 UJ fr Q if) ;n o © /I in

p4 s © s s u. * © * ©
I- 1/1 >- LT. UJ

(- LlI •-• U l-

>-i a: 1-H U. "I <_)

O t/1 5" or

>- jj

I- cr o

« O

V 3- UJ

>- I o

-I O HH • O -H Ll O

h-2

UJ 1/1 _i r UJ

_i 1- a

<: a >-

<. ^- o

0.UJo

ST — (-

v/1 a: o < Q llJ

a: o

<o rr — uJm

o

7.

UJ l/l S <3 < Ui

i/> a:u. I

t- •

>-i u

E UJ

oc

l/l v- Q

Z Z

UI <

t— •

ir i/> < z

0. <

UJ nc Q t-
in o •

(M -I

•r ^ ro 1^ IT. c-, O

I- Ifl V UJ

t- UJ

in o •

H- 1/1 >- 1/1 UJ

t- UJ 1-

Ll o >-

tr i-i U. < <_)

c: r\j r»*) ^\

O l/l c: — o cn

,\J ^ X J

>- d- ui LU I- I O

>- o —I u.

<\J -I

a:

>- 3- Ul

<- I o

t-H O I-" • O Ll. O

UJ

5" iino^CT'vOovjcrai ^ tH cm —4

O --4 -I .-• O -1 -1 —|J^nJ^Jlf~-OJ^ n

UJ l/< _l 5 UJ

_I I- Q. < Ct >- < tQ.UJ

^f^r--in\cr^cro^

JCCPOvO^OJCT CO CSjt^vCOJvCr*^. f**r CM ^ 3-

S Q. « 3

UJ

I"

UJ

egy

&

UJ

UJ«

I" MM UJ WW f

«t9<9>a^9^w<UJ

1/1 I I I I I UJ < ujsasssss
0)

rO rO

Q.

a UJ

CD ^ in

X o cr

X <

i.n

a • • -T Jf\J UJ o "S > X o o <

*-

--t <—

St t\J CM h- l/l Ui

>- I/) Ui >- l/l UI fO

O 1— UJ • 1- Ui t-i d

Ll

O f— LP UJ

u t— 'T • •

t—* or • »-H t-H UJ CO :J- J- u. ^ o u. < o > X. _J —1 d <I

5"

UJ UI

or

—

a: —1

O (/)

O I/) UI >

>- Ui >- UJ < .\J h— CSr U ^

*— rc (.J • • \D \0

»-* o •-• • ^ o »-* UI OJ (\1 o u. o *H < J U- > o u. O LL < <

L/^O in o

CVJ v\l Z •H •-I

L/J UJ0

>- ^ UJ >- ^ UI <r

O (X) UI 1 o -0 UJ 1 o a: • •

»-« o * CO CO 0^

w o *-H UI

O Li_ •-4 ^ (_>

—1 u. ^ z — u_ <; < o o

H- z

UJ UJ

S"

O CT^ h- z

1^ L/l Uf

CL >- CT* UI Q_ >- 0^ UJ <. uJ K— 1 ^- 1 o CC • •

1—» >—• jj

—

'_>'- u. o •H -H o — u. '>

X

U- z LL <t o o

i-H «-! UJ

>- •H CC < u \C Z • • 3 * 0^ cC vC 3 bJ C o ^ *-t O > <

*•

t/l o <\l (\J ^ if <\J <\i UI o UJ UJ

>—m CO • • o o • o UJ

Vt o

<r z **

OrO c o

Ul */l *"* ^ li 1 5^ UJ 1 f— 1 ^ n < Q >- •

-» !vn ^ c >

LlJ tx z u. ? H-« UJ UJ o UJ

»—

O l/l >— T O < ~

0' < t—

o

u. l/l l/l -J _J

•-I Ui UJ

l/j l/l H- HJ' O Z Z —o X X UJ •li uJ UJ M Q o NJ o Z z o K UJ

-1 o o o ^ a. Q. o t/» o trt o X 3 i/i 1/* X 3 X 3

LLa or UJ UJ h- >-

UJ IjJ q:

a 3 Z 3 Z

UJ -0

D

H < < i-i <I i-i

x 1 u. u. UJ i/) I/) O o UJ I/) I/) ^ l/l ? -z LO J J -J -1 rH 2 UJ UJ UJ UJ UI LlJ > O z z UJ UJ 5 z z UJ Z • • 0 Q. Z Z CQ 03 Q. z z z z O UJ H J\ y y t/) < <t X) UJ X X 3 UJ X X < X X

(C o u z Z tr

uu IX

O (J
t- 1/) >- l/l UJ

t- UJ —i

U. IS tnr U. ct <_) SI

o in y rr

3^ a:

a o i3 -.-<.-.

-1

z

UJ LO

_J u

03

o

z

o

a.inu

or
Co r~, ^ ^ o

rO to -H O ^ sC f\J O o

LP cr Oj —

CC iT' "

ro 3- (\J -H

JD

:3 .C -< —

a: —

o l/l O ro IT) CM lO 1^ sO 1 .n

0. -• c: IO nD K~, (\J o

D CC vC -> o

lO lO ^ V 3- UJ

>- I c_) •-. O •-

fy 1^ 3- o

l/l #

>- uj

1- I J

_J — U. 3

f\) x) r~ IP

t) -t

3- CO tn Al

a ro cc o o LP £X) (\1 fO C3^ IT to a>

to cc O (\1 —

in vc c —

ir c

to cc — to -J

CO o a- cc o

o CO a

to c w

IP to IP

0~ o r- 3- c

to (\i t^i

UJ uO

_i 5" UJ

_l t- Q-

«r G >•

r- cc 3- ^ o

O 3- IP CC ^

—I <\J IP

ir> r- (\j lo

33 IP lO

ro

UJ l/l _) ? UJ

_l t- Q. a o t\i vc

(\; r-- C (V

•O CM

1/1 (-

UJO

o

u < n a. « or K UJ

UJ UJ UJ ar K 96 X 3 3 3 u. UJ o

(J U U

« <J < I/) If

U, u. u. a- w

3 3 3 UJ « « s

7 z sr < <s «t >- o O 3

5: y s o 2 Z

UJ

1/1 o

SlX

U O «

tr (T K

UJ UJ UJ T T ar 3 3 3 te

t- H bJ W U U «

I/) jy

u. u- u- ar ? J

3 3 3 UJ < <t 7^7 X »- « « < O O

y I T o »-
0" f) CT" vD C' ff 3-

<\j

m "Xi sO ^- t\j

—

m (y' zr ^

>- 1/1 bJ

I- liJ "-I Ll O Icr n

U. <I

u

J- z: -o ^ o r-- CM

C\J C\j --1 »o

ro

O o Kl

<\1 <\J (\J

w

O I J 1 O I in ( o ^ 'O cc <\j

t\J <M

(— cr o

-. o >-'

O JD 1^ J^ ro r\j 5 Q.

>- UJ

>— I <_> 1 O I—

O" o

cc -

CL <

UJ _l O O

tr o o o

'.0 0^ ,r

V J- liJ t- I o

t-H

O »-t

in fo ^ o -<

to o 3-

n c- OJ w rvj -H

Q. >-

O UJ

J I- I _) n _ -I . o — U- o Q

LlJ UJ

Q. >- UJ J I- I _)

O-rOcOO^CCO-Jr\J c\J —( —t O o o 3- r- ^ T

UJ -> D Z o

U.I LT CE O

u. o

t- <

in or o

2. UJX

UJ IpO O iD O 1 >-

I- o

3-

O rvj IT) -H o

LlJ J\Zo

a.

UJ

in (\j CO * <v

i* -1 to fO c * 0^ CO ^ X m r- :j

tO

O v3

l/l 'J) <

<: < <

_i i/i

t/i i/i or uj -r cc «t X <i < ui q:

I- UJ UJ >- UJ

>- >- *

.? in l/)

>-< to in ? Z BC. <

>- \ i hi M > O » H * O S 2

UJ. Qo

a.

i/i liJ o _i n y < «

a:

X

ui

or<. cc o ou

UJI

t- f\.

ll. or 0 u- 1 < U UJ < a u l/l n ra M 3" • Q < IUl X » lD O UJ T ^ UJ s o z X o 5 Q. O O U. X CC o

3^1/1 o o B • (J < Q4 UJ • UJ T * I k-

_ly

_J I-

(\j « vc lo to lo CO .-I —I (\J

to (C (\i -H a r- r~- o -h o o o o o o in o o: 0 o o -H in UJ CO 0^ rfl 5

tfl 1^ tf* I tA i/) 1 1 I >7 .4 •H O X < O O O S lU N t) a> > o

rfi (fl i« t« o ii;
•a

Ul • >- I/) UJ K 111 >-< as

Lk If 11 Eg

w »0 • IL < U J » -t

if,

UJ

1/1 ly

t= kl " • « s >=. tL 9 U «^ ? a

UJ • a

>- UJ K ae u • 1 O w • U Ll s u. m a

N « U M @ M

UJ • *

>• * UJ «

UJ t- 1 u •

»»l

@ IM UJ « U.

>- IC UJ • <Q 4

a.

ae >• 3> UJ09

© i a t- 1 ij « • ;U ^ ^ iJ e • e u -» u. 'J u. > o 1 S f u ft » g i=t y

*=• 5 ^ 4

llj •

>- i« * c < r. M C • 5 UJ • o o > ce C I o IT l/l U

•zo UJ

U.' t- 1- et

y

u < tr »- « to C! I/; > C o vC

l/l < ITM

fM

cr

r> TK »-z UJ -1 O Ul UJ V/1 >- _l _l 7 UJ < rj < . -I t- a or Of r > < Q- >- U.I to

«* (- > o > X u Q. < in o a UJ » < c O « l/l Ui0 7

H- UJ

.J ^ 1 ^

>~

1/1 z

-4

O z u• 13H• s 4 y• o

t/1 zo

a.

I/) UJ

ac <

UJK<

ID<X

UJ

in

XX

y ST M M Z X

11 4 X X

«^ . m o

"9 • T >- 2 int- 33

in

M

UJ

UJ

O CO < < <r • UJ

l/l ><

»-2 UJ UJ l/l l!> in

_J ^ UJ 4 ifi _J H a

ti 6 >•

u 4 H & 4

UJ

fl

i/1 9 J ?

uJ S« < s T O U QV

U.

K

O UJ4

UJ t a 4 2 Z
o a?

J <v to o

OJ o a- o c O

in

a: to J1 4; to to O to CM 0-

3-

X to<M o r .

ro -• to tn to o

OJ to J- t t^

-0 r- a- o O

in to

O

X) to to to

_ •o

OJ CDn

£^ o to ^, in « to in to o

vO CO cr a- c

(V ^1 n.o n OJ to :f to a- o X) vO . •M o

t—

n

I/) zo CT CO o

—I rO

M J- .M ,0 -J ijj O J- X) <\j K a- in

.3 < O> Ul_J

U.o tr ec

a 1^C o lO CO (V d- to

a

II.' (- ro to

a CC to 3- o r- o • nj IT < o

tr

<aXo

(V to o o- CC

m o 3- to CM to in <K

Ul in ff> CO to cc o c z 3- UJ o

<EUJTH 3- to vC tc in o o

to —1 ai It

•J\ UJ

GO to in <M

a CC •D « or o

tj

toUJ

IT fvl Oj o H - to to <\j in

UJ

or <\j to to '/I CO OJ o , • «-( a- y> o

**" ' sEoJ in in t> J- vD CO o

_| <\j CM <\J (\l vO o

u. <

f— to .-\J to toD t^ .H JD

Ui o • CM o <M o OJ OJ H o 3-

b.o

1/1 _J >• o in 1/1

T _) 1/1 o 1/1 1/1 _l UJ

r _jX a;

u UJ 0. < ID z IS Z -1

Q t- _i UJ z

J\ 4 K

r Z J « a

,9

K -H 1— « I >• 3 v/l S I * J i/1 z % Q U > Q n a t« W © M o

3, t/) ^ ^ UJ =Jg > =i S S &

1/1 = 3 «=i Id 3 fr =1

¥ « s t UJ if S; a fi U « 3 >» J ©

tfl 1 S) $ m « 1= ffl ,f ^ ^ I/) «
^- tn

>- Ul LJ

»- LJ

—

II.

O

1-1 cr -'

Li. <IU

afe c\j ro Aj

f*-

T j^. ^ O If

S' Or i —I LL

O

-I 3- -1

fO ^ (VI fO ^

>- 3- UJ

>- I o 1-4 C l-< o o o

jj r- I O

-3 -1^-1

-H —I J- 3- a1/1

ai

oro

tr- UJ

.o

UJ

_l ?

fVl (V C\J C\J 3-

—

for^(\iforocor^-H

(V c c\j c

IT

j> J1

>- • _J

1-1 i/i _i i/l _1

T-S

n o _i

O _l 7" -• ? T

_l 1-1 1-1 I LTI _l O Q >- UJ 1— o 33 l/l _l > cn 1/1 2

<J5 -1 a: o _J !lJ _l Z 3 UJ Q J1 _l O

_J «-iu > Ui < 3 n » o

1- -1

J tx

1-1 _l o 3 < o 1/1 • 3 < o _l Ul o OT ffl t- l/l a: D

cr u- "Ea.

T Ul -I o o O

V < -x. u. o UJ Q. _1 Z Z Ld _l Ul Ul o < « >-i _l r rr «- - < >- <T « yi l/l a: "5 b (_) m t- UJ a: z _l Ul

Q. 1/1 ul

O 2 _J ul 1- < 3)

>- 5- s: "D _l z <

UJ ^ O _l o < Uj _l o o

<r. ;/)(/)<? > li. z 1-

Ul 1/! _l ? Ul

_i Ia in vD

-H CM

O UlO 2 >- 2
*

r-i ro in * C\J OJ ^ X

UJ

CO uJ

i2

p-.

J**—

- ^ \D

C

i—

_ "vj —

Q CM

O CT" o

"O /I s:

*5 UJ o -MOO

C\I fO ^

~*

1/1 1—

O (T <\j

O o

Q.

C CC

C ^ (V 11 '2.

UJ CO hO o > ^ CO o o w CO

rO

Ai o o * ^ o po

or

O

•H

U.I

lii CVJ

J ^ o X ro vC o

u.

in vD CO UJ o <\i I/) »- o d- oV

Of o UJ UJ4

?? wfl o =J &. < 4 t L/1 ^ • O UJ o O r 2

<\J >- (/J UJ

t— lu

Ll '"^ 1

CT

l-H tT " • 00

Ll < <J o

_J

Ut

cc lt O l/l P c

>- llJ t— CC CJ lO

t—« O H-< O LL o u.

\S) o

<\J ^ ^

—I * S Ll — u_o —

It ^ 1 rr UJ — u*o

UJQ -

i/i CfUJ

»- OJ

*^Ul

Q.UJ

Q:: * D

U)^

U.

>-< UJ i/1 _l ^ UJ ^ >- o < >—

O

X Q- r-l UJC, <

7'O ccUJ

»-

l/l <

Ul UJ 3 0. O (iJ q: o o

ui

UJ

M

U.

LL u. UJ O

J)

>- l/l t- UJ •-. u e >-

(-1 o: >-i

ij. < u U 1/1 _l 5 UJ

_j

K

a < cr >

UJB3

UJ

•J\ ?6

1/1 UlK

CEul
—t J J^

' n oj

o I/' s a3- :r >- 3- Ld

1— I o

i-i C? t-» o -< u. — u.o

O — LI. U-o

J- 3- X> i) O

cf CT^ vD O-

(\1 to CD ro AJ

< ( Q.

r~-

-1 tn

H-2

xJ a: a

o z

o

a.

UJ UJ I/) in UJ u UJ

r> US •zUJ

or K a: u. o UJ »- UJ UJ o

>- o u. s z UJ 1/1 J\ a:

LL o ar z _J u

a. _l c\j a. <i < m

ji 1- ?

aJ M ^ O O O r 3 Ll u. 2 Z I— 2

IJ 1/1 %/) (r 3 UJ

t- D « O UJ V CLUl O ,1o

• UJ

CI X

O UJ o

2 >- 2
I— 1/1 rf? c o

>- in ui

1- UJ •-• ll e -Tie 0

1-. cr -t . J

IL "I (J O

IJ

ce — o in

>- uJ

I— t O

•-1 O M

O CTO -1-1-1 o — U-o

o

c- »- >

^ K

UJ CT' 5. J- CJ

t- C Q

C ^•

«I

D.

nr o o o O

c o UJ

•>- c o

p- J- in c o

o

<

or 1- o —( (D o

:z CC —1 o Q . _j 5: Ui -1 _i 1- a CC CC CO UI < Q >- X. «i 1- o -o

Q. o u

r - n

<

ffi

oro

a

ui

i/i 3
^ fl -O m o o o

•O vO o 3 ^ — f\j ^

'\J 3- -o (\J

I- UT

>- 1/1 UJ

I- III ~^

I- l/l

UJ

- -Tf r- c -.

ry Ji J o

>- :t Ixi I- t O

•-I c •- U -I u. — u.o

in c. — -I ^

2 -1 f\j (\J

IT 1^ — —

~ I- C 111 « - o ?

iD -H O C — vC —

—< t\J «

o ^

_l U/

_l 3 O T

U. UJa

u. u. T

»- O

\0 ^ iT lO CT"

f\l i/1 (M

UJ

_l 5 bJ

_J >- d

< I > <\ <\ ^ —

>—

<t 2 T >- O >- a:o o

f- J o

a. 'J

lij < I/) 1- D < UJ «t O O T u

tn r T o >- ^yl r a: U. >- _j UJ o I UJ o UJ y J1 ? y 3- 3 Z

./) UJ 1/1 yl ar

Ill • o -) o :» ? UJ b

>- « a 3 1 1 UJ < < CE a o

uJ 1 O T UJ

11. o UJ a: o J1 t- o o uJ rr ar u. * o z z a:

X I

N/ S y

X

:^ J- =

0 J- t _l

If) I I ^ <

1 o o r >- o ^ t- O

lo -< » o IT T

Ni y S

X

5" 3- O

0 -I 3- ar in I I aJ

1 => o X o t- O -H O
f**: C w

—I —c O ID —

> O

>- u-i llJ >- u •-•

ll 1- —' 1 •-< U- o

V jj I- t u

i-i O -I

0^ or

>- * ui

I- I o -. O I— u -"^ u. — u.o

-1 t\j o m

UI -I -1

o o o o o

T -1 -I ->

0 7o

I O O O

C .r-l C C

O c o u~ c ^ • « • o <\ c c

>- UJ < tr 7 UI

cr u O ll u

to ^ ;t O O

C C C O

J*> C O O

a 1/1

Ll UI

ir O J =

c\i CO X ir -1

^ -I (\J

Lf' ^ (\j

u

^ -J

» 01

a: N N i/l ^

0 •« « or 7 J

in I I UJ « <

1 o o T >-

-4 * o 5 w

UJ

If

u.o

t?

w

o

Ol

1/1 UJX

f O

in I I UJ loot

o in in

? o

0 — * T

.n I I UI

1 O O T O ^ /I M

H * O
>- LH liJ (- Ul •-• U. O ILl 5 O

LlO I—

>-i a: 1-. u. < o on uj — i/i

HC HH O -I Ll_

t-H

O l-H ^ Ll_ — u.o

v/1 LI

l/l o o

Cl -H < t- < < zUJ l/l _l y UJ

_l »- CL < a >- < Ia.

UJ l/l _l S' UJ

_jKa

<r cr > < >- a

UJc

.. l/l o t-z

3: 'J O 5- H (-

»- or J) <

UJ Q.

:d UJ 3 Q o u. t- o

.r UJ UJ

>- -n

u.Oz

UJ l/l y o < UJ 1 X 3 UJ

or

l/l z z

UJ <

t— • rr l/l « z

Q. <

UJ £r

l/l •* o o

-I a. Q< tCt 31

UJ I-

_JD

u o

oru o • Q. O

UJQZ

a.

5C S

>"Z X
O4

_lnQc0

frcV

>-c

ni

«=. c

t-aouo

_Jr

_l UJ c ISJ

Li. cr ijj LJ O j/l T X O

>* >-l >

l/l 1/1 J J

Ul UJ

y.z z < <: T X

@

1= i g

J)Hi • • ^ • • S 9 M

a Q. UJ

cr sO

y

X

X < in iA in c l/l c J- ro 7 • <\; a ~ U' ^ . Is. O > O o < < 1- ST7 »-( —

>- 1/1 rO rO Lu

V l/l Uj >- LT UJ

O ?

li' t- Lu

— <

Li. tn -ITX U. 12 t- Li; • • c c

tr •-• • JO 1^ J- K< CE 1-1 Ul

a

X

Li. < l_) o J- tn Li. < U > X

_1 _1 < <

LiJ L)

cr

— in iT cr

— 2 O i/l o Ul > rr. V a. o a o 5" >- J >- Ld < >- a: LJ X) CO 1- or u • • ^0 3-

t-i

O I- * J- r- ll o -> Ul

u Ll o "^ o u_ > o n. O LL < If) o in o

(-I ^ —* Ul

X cc -D .0 -0 >- 3- LJ >- 3- LU <• .0 3- LJ 1- 1 O D -H •£ LlJ >- 1 O q: • • J- *

Q.

M o >-• • ry ^ r--

a o >- LiJ >- O Li. >- O Li. •> >< t— — H_ 1— — Ll. < < O o

1- t—z

Ul Ul

1- „ to

K

—

X i 'X

u

—

< tr < X rvi cr a >- 0^ LJ Q. >- 0^ tJ <

jj f- 1 O

n T> iJ 1 O • • T —< —t ^ • CT> O -3 M -1

M

O

— Ll.

O

— Ll.

X

Ll. z 0. < < O o

cc cc

LiJ >- . >- in 5" « cv c z IT IT =3 a cc Ou «-i c c C > X

<_> <I

ul Lrt _i y iij _i I- a < c >- 1 I— c

liJ o

Ol

f\J c

3- t\J o

UJ

ISI )H£ 9 H4 < I I U U

UJ 1.1 _l 5" Ul

_J I- Q.

7. LUQZo

a=

a? ?s o

UlNMX UJ 3 I/) 1 ^

l/l k/1

UJ

y ? g < « u u

,e UJ a ^ « M

1/1 tfl J =1 ? i T X u u
I- J1

>- LJ

>- UJ

I- I <j

»—t o

IT —

I

z

UJ l/l _l S liJ _I t- Q-

<r or > < I7. UJo

z

o

a.

cn

Of

lij

z
iT: r~ (\J O ^T; o

-I 3- ^ o a- o

1^ ITI IT, O vC C

(M ^ ^ O lO O

ro 0 0 0 LJ m f^J (V OU 0 c

\— t/i lt; *-H c\i <-i c w iiii >- l/1 UJ

UJ »-» r"

\jj cx, U. 0 0.1 0 0

1 ^ t i * n t—t CC t—

• LL <i 10 Lu <I 0 0

_J _J

M

OJ vlJ P** j 0 Cd —

0 OJ —1 ^ r-- 0

0 l/l \D •—t f\J 0

>- UJ

*-* ^ 1—

(-VI I— X 0 ^ fo ou •-t c; ^

•— _ « 0 * c

V i_> u.

r-1 1 *"*

. 0 u. '- in iT) 0

_

"sC ^ ^ C \0 0 vD CC 0 0^ 0

0 ^

1

A (— 1 L> lO *~h ^3 C\J ^3 *»

JL *f "C LP C CT* 0 Ui

1-4 O ^ *H ip <\j - * ^u! o 0 *— t—

_ ^ 0 LO 0 0 X. 7

ID rO "O ... 0^ ^ ;0 0 '\J 0 T O > U _j LD "*) -H "^^ *

' 1 >— u -5 (~> ^ i~* O

0 •H 0 CNJ 0 C\l 0^ A C\J \C <\t r- IT (\l *-*

A.I fV (7- y-s --I _^

fti iZt ^ ~j

rr

lUC

<I?

CO 10 <\J fO 0 0 ^ r\j OJ w J- 0 0

bJ ^ -H «-( C\J 0 d- «-i OJ ro 0

cr UJ UJ * < *H ^ sC 0 rO 0 < 0 OU ^ *-t fO 0

^ h- 0 ^ f\ 1- ^ .-t OJ 01 cr >- in 0 J- in CO kC 0

rO <

O

T w m f\i tn CO 0 K iTi cj^ ^ ^ ^ C 0

0 Z IT <\J 0

UJ i/1 _( 5 UJ _j y UJ O _J K G. \£) fo «-i -J K a (V sO J ^

tl- <::>- J- <\ ;r ^ < oc > r- c> vC C < t- ^ 0 vD 0 S) vD < 1— 0 OJ w

Q. "-H C\I <-( <M Q. Z

bJ •-t OJ UJ

oro

a

UJ

j\o

z

<) U S) Q
T

3 O

I— t/1 i* OJ X o

>- i/1 LlJ -H

I- Ul

i-« Cr .-H • :± u. < o o

_l z

O 1/1 a? -I o

3- •-

>- iij

f-i O »-< • w u'^ l_> Ll. O

3 Li. ^

J1 o

— OOOC^vCCOCOlDCCCOO o

a~ 3: -I >- J- liJ Q.>-0>-« -St t~

>- LJ U- O

o

UJ

(— ~ COO0J<\):J-OO<M<\1-hOC(\J<\I o

< a: -I a >- 0^ uj

(J — u. o

ir]f\j<\iirio.-<o(\;oc\j(nc\iooo o

—I --i c oroooojoooocmr^cxjo^

-J 5 I -J (- 1 < C ) < I QIjJ n
I- i/i >- LO li ! I- UJ 1-

ll

>-< CC '-'

>- UJ

I— n: o

l-l O l-H o u_

in o

^ c\j <\j r~

llJ r

>- ^ UJ

iij 1— I <_> a M c H-i >- cj -1 u.

>- — u.o

uJ

Q. V O IjJ

lil (— I o

(J — u.

li. o

— OJh-OCXJOCMtVJCKI^OOOCMtXJOOOOOfMOOtMfVOOt^ O

71 * .M —I CJ O

3 0-0 -H

\DiOJC\jooot/>(\jir)of\Jo<\jooo<\iocoocmoiPor^

se CM <v

U.o

UJ

ITo

v£lv0 3-Of\JO(Mir)OOO<\JO(\ICf\)O3-CroOO0JOOJ-oa- o

mr^f\io^o»-*r^ooo^O'Ho--to<\J^ooo^ooc\joj3 in ro —1 o w -1 K1 * \C -< o •H O <-< --I .-( o O W (\l CJ o

>• UJ l/l _I y IjJ o -I (- a IT) 0^ CJ -J in o <\j CJ 3- w in <M 0^ IT OJ cc o <r 0- >- < 1- a

Lc a r- CJ o Q. 2

UJa

C

a

Q

o

ir < UJ UJ

71 i/i-^f\j3-infltD0^3.Hto*r)vor^coo^o •H 1/1 30 O J !>- K1 O 71 O _ (v f\i CJ fo K) m PO :r * _l

u. < <

71 c

OJ c o O

? »-
'O CO ^0 O O

(V CU O 0 O C 0- — -H l/> ^ (J- o o

>- l/l UJ

>- UJ

U. ID I- 1

U- < o

—• cr t\j cr :d ^ lD Od o

'-fi 3 --r o vC

ui UJ

f\J T rO rO O f\' :^

f\J (\i fO w o

-< o to in .r o

(>J 3- oj o o 1 3 I in

o :t o 3

•-t ro c\j

a:UJ V UJ

I- I o « o !-• U -H U- — u.

o — u.u.o

0^ J^ :^ ^ O

3 ^ -I -4

IT ^ c

vO vC <V <V jf^cMinr^ccv' re t*"

I IT in o o o

UJ l/l 5 UJ

I- D. a- vD o \D <\)

ir. 1^ X rc

UJO UJ 2

UJ l/l c a > < >-

cr

tr<r O UJ IJ

>- >- o z

h- O O O o

l/l o o < Q. Q < «r <t _l ;/) S3

1/1 i/i tt q; ij UJ rc q: «t T T < < UJ ir ij. 3 UJ

l/l H UJ UJ >- UJ

>- >- » o

7 ^ in wO ji or 5 H rO in T -J UJ < Q. r a: «t < m • l/l 1- 1 1 UJ

:J •-• > o o rs « * o z t- z

n I o -UJ X I/) o <

s z

O i- X >-or

IT 3 «r o u

cn

ry ^

t-4 <

Z O

< o

I a3

JiA Z> UJ r>- -1 1^

3 -3 O

o o in o a: 0 o -H in UJ

(jv -I rf» ^ -<

rf> t« I rf> bT /I

1 I - _i -H -H o T < <£ 3 O O UJ I-

'0 0^ -H > O ,'3 * o z

ija

z

o

a.

i/i UJ

a:
0)

cr 0^ c o C ^ c c o a o X X »^ Lf r") w Cj ' rt; ^ O C .0 • —1 o o o

2" v.' v£j r\i (\« 3 0^ OJ o C\J f\i C\J Oj C\J 0*1 <\i o •w lA II ^11 >- UI UJ •-t 1 To

UJ

CV 'Xt t\) :

\ —*

U.O h- 0 c o P

iT ^ t 

»-i a: • f\,' •-^ J- - U_ ^

U. < <J o

-J

Ui

uK 00 o o C\J (NJ f\I — O U*l J J

or 1 1 >- UJ

W i-K (1

O

O \0 fO CD -n H- Ct

U fO CO o CO * C\J <\1 ^ w »-» o »-< •

rz. o u_ o o u. In o lO o u J f\J U U J CM lO ro o iff 'O t-H (\) .0 -0 "O

>- ^ UJ ^ lO «0 fO Ui 1— 1 o o o * 0. HH O »—

• .r^ fvj I >- tj ^ u. o

f— ^ u_o

*^ UJ

\D OJ •O CXI "H r\j —

J- K) r;

_ 1 ^ 0^ UJ r" 1 , > "O "0 ^ 3^ H* 1 O

J

r» ^ ; J » ^ pt * -t

—

-

<-J u_

U U- LI 4- U_ ~

."^ LJ 1

r\j pi r*' O' -J

u 

COO <\J o W <\.i <V fO UJ Sr iT ro ^ o >-

0" H*

"Z. ^ O C\J

J U> t\i "2" U:

r

J lii C- • !D • OT O c O o o

Lu-J

cn L?Uj

'Jt cc O (P vl' O sJD O ID CV ro CM u; r; "-i

rt |7 * <rM 3" IP l/l l/l —_o u.

5'

viJ Itfw *^ C\ Ui vv vv 7 iff

l/l

U in

X UJ wt UJ ^ 7 UJ J !^ UJ X J ^ 0. O" u) -J H" 0. in

«3 tt > * w 0 cf r*" LT- UJ >• vC •3 O

U. Q. o UJ UJ UJ o T o fLil rr o <.

—J MlX tij

_ 1" UJ

2^ u.^ • • • • • o "SJ V.I 1^1 >d >J 'X l>l "X

r o o o o o a.

r >-

T a. o o > o vO rvi CO cn UJ ^ o Ul

(\j r\j lO ro ro cr ft- UJ o fir o X K

ID :z o o o 2 a u. ^/» or U. < LU < t- t- < UJ o UJ »-< H >- UJ o

If)Tr .« < -J 3

^- • • • K- '7> 7> TC HX uJ lO iT) 6 [>sl Nt ^sJ :^ _l UJ Q I "5 tr r' UJ

0- I/)OOO UJ < <t cd ft

O UJ <t < cc

71 L/) 0^ h- 5" i/) ^ 5- K- ?

LJ Ui o -o o o O ;u UJ o z o O

D

_J ro c\j fo 5^ ^ »- z , cc ae UJ Z »-
C

C

:t <\l o

t- >-

in t/) z z

•S

O o o Q Z

<c ^s

UJ o

_l <_) u< ar

I- 3

a: o o V

Q. z

UJ

—

T

t- LI

O Ln

-1 3-

hi

O UJ

liJ o X >-

>- 3- UJ I- I (-) I O >- • o -I ll o 3 .AJ

(\l rjO

_J o O i-i c: c

t- <

<i irUJ

<c tn

<r

>- CD

-1UJ

UJ ^.

u.

—I 3 O O « M UJ

a

UJ l/l

I- IT 5 u;X Q I- UJ

13 >-

Ul -I

(T U. < z U UJT a K e I

Id *

<S

M ^ a a « S s &• UJ z

UJ l/l _) 5: UJ

_j Ia < G. V < I- Q.UJO

w

m

3- IT

3-

O 3-

IT

r

CO

Uf =» a UJ @ @ 1 >i g ^
c c a IT X O o

rv. o o > 2

1— LiJ

yi ji t- >-

»-* lyi c -o ji 1/1 1- L/l •-t Z 5? V 1/1 UJ < O 1- id 1-1 u- :; 1- c '\ ;n — tr >-i • < IL < O O c o _1 n z 3 T>

a.X

UJ

M

O a:

— 3- _1 o O Ul CM CM

5" q: -i X >- u

1-

T a: o r- in

or o O >-i • o >- CJ u. C

Cl o u_ 2 in o

Uj 1-1 T

1- l/T X cr, in

i/i

m< UJ >- 3- UJ o ^ uJ 1- 1 (_) .0 in a) o

G. 1-1

O 1-1 Jl _( ij -^ u. o — U-o

U_ LlJ z ,- Ul ',,1 <

»- UJ t— , . in ro rO

IT CM CM

-> IJ < CK

.-r a. >- O- UJ

>- 1 o .M X) .n

<_)

— u. o a J U- I z o

UJ o ~ >-

C\J o o if ro

>- 5 • IT o o

_l c « O I— c c a o

t— < <

Cl < 1 CM cv

>- OTi cy

{T: Ul UJ

Ct

X < 0^ r~

LJ «

l/l o

<:

O 2

Ul KUJ < < ? (- iC cc o

u; z if cv

T UJ ^

(- i/i _l ? UJ

_) t- Q. J' 1^ 3- <: >- cs < r- o a 2

l/l I/-, <

liJ -J

(T U,r 7< 2 U UJ

fM (M

O

O JI o t- or o 2 in

UJ UJ Ui l/l 1/1

OX IX l/l Of < _> < <l liJ Ul

cc -1 < u ."3 X <t 2 t- l/l _l 2

jl Uj l/l UJ 1/1 ?" < u

O

_1 cc ? —< lij u. a.

cc o < UJ %. tO _l

u o >/i «I f _l y 1/1 CD UJ UJ

y- o >- ui cr o Ul

O CLu a:

•r < X :eO o UlT -X. l/l o o a: s O X. >- > 1/1 O Q. 1 u. a UJ <J CL *- cc O UJ (J CC >- Q Ul o t yi rc 2 < tr _i a: — O >- UJ £ < < Si 2 uj a < 71 Ul uJ u. I > yi yi

C_) liJ o O > UJ K- l/l > 4 > (9 _) o rr 2 _i

u

Q. l/lO l/l 1/) Ul 11 1—O 2 o i-< ir Ul •t < CD • Ul l/l < 2 cj CC < o CO Q. T r u. lU UJ o >a O IJ o o O CC o o ? O O

-1 1- rr t- o O 2 ta IB s:

O 2 -
or cr o o c O

m

Q. »-* o X

<\i c o o o X • o o :? O z

»- UJ >-

h- U) U)

t- >-

>-* k/1 S\ rO CC .0

i/i l/l 1— \f\ V lH Uj <r o h- UJ

U. CD o 0 f\) t—( »-« • rO o < u. < u o

_J < "D

UJ

LJ

O cc

— LD

O o rO

O

_JO

O l/l •H tn

:r < a: >- I 

H- 3:; cj o o XI o

tt*C t o < J)

O >-

U Ll

CL o Ll z Z 1/1 O

bJ •-•

—

X

t— LT. X in

O c

AJ c^

CT^ a: < LiJ >- UJ

LJ 1 KJ o -o 4—1 CC

•—1 c ^ O t—

• *H J- uO _J ">- O Ll o t

Ll z X ,n o

Ll UJ z o t—

<:

t— LJ CO o o J- -H D Q- O -U cl —

cc CL >- Ll) J\ ^ »— 1 -J •H 3 t o O —1 w 1—

• •-H "VJ (_) Ll_ o

Ll z X 2^ O

LJO

2. >- o O o in CP o

\C c

*-4 H- • O c: c fO a. _J O ID • •H O •-' O o a o

J— cr < cc a

ijj < ui

<c o o o ro o ro

O

fife C\J Uj

UJ t—

CtX o o c rO CO J^ UJ t— • •~t < o

UJ l/i a: _J

<i <r 2! h- CO o

iD z rO

X

-J 7" bJ

_J >- Q. o <\) ID

'J U, «J Q: >- • rr c 0 T < h- o CM O »- Q. z

UJU

Ci 3 >-

<r UJ -J

CC U-J UJK UJ < 2' < O (_) >- O UJ l/l *- or «a

>- UJ < "5 o »— UJ X 1/) o X O <D

ri5X or LH z < O O ' uJ IJ — UJ

fC • "Z

X *— \ o X Z u >— o aJ LJ O _l z o J LiJ _l < Ul a.

0' o o Q. o q: uj

<r

w z UJ tQ UJ UJ D Q < UJ z or

r < >-O UJ -J LO UJ lyi < o a X UJ Q 3 a: X a: Ll a « UJ UJ K- a - z UJ o

cr y)

O 1- j\ o <r "2 < < z z Z Z z z X or z > J) ar u o o o < O UJ o O cr -J UJ z Qu or »- h- UJ < cr UJ < < • UJ er cc o UJ ar UJ o > Q »- X 1-

ro

r U- uJ UJ

n z a: < < < o < 1—

O

O

or

aO 1 < "S

X z CL o z 1— z
Q. o o

f—

X

O vO

O

O • o o

1-

t- l/lw o V LT

t- lU -•

u. t.":

O XI 1 .c KH l-H • r U. «3 (_> o

_J .

UJ

er ~ o in 00 o O If n c\j o ? !> *-* >- bJ

1— rr. ij 3 C\J fO

n - • 1-1 O >-i • 3- Ou

i_> Ll

O o u. t- in o

\n

—

>-

{/) UJ

— o cc

O <\J o z ./I *-* 1^ V 3- UJ o LU 1- 1 <-) o o CC o > a M O •-I • >- (_> -H Ll. o — Ll. a — z< UIs

1/) »- '~-

O ^ lO 3- o

T£ 01 o < tE

>- 0^ UJ

jj >- 1 ->O J>

M

O —1

m »-*

—

• Al -1

O

O

— U.

O

ui u.

Qi

_l<

q;

O <\) <£> <NJ o > J* 1^ w o

UJ > •-t tr 1- ~ ^ O — IP PO I • 3 oo 3

ITCf Q

O IT)n (NJ o

<I iff —1 in to o

<r U! •-I

UI <I o f~- in in

_i 1- * 3 o - <

t-«O 1- o in oc o

Q. in c\j

—

o

UJ l/) .-1 UJ _j r UJ

IT) _i ta o rj CO CO CO c cr >- • 0 0- IT' 3 < t- o PO a

Ul UI o •

<lJ < s

UJ

bJ >- S l/l U!sO *T

li.u

<?; T3 UJ•*± < o

-1 > •X 4 X <

UJ UJ ll s ^ * -1 O 13 2 l/l "1

I/)

OO z s -J - > 0. < <t <

J) U. i/) » o . m O J? UI o O a X ? D >- 2 I- o
t- lyi >- t/l Uj

}- bJ <—

u. <j; 1- ii (T •-• IL < O

a — o l/l 5- tr

>- 3- UJ

UJ I u

>- o w a.

a. >- UJ

LlJ I- I O

J3 -I O — Ll.

2

UJ 1/) _i 5: UJ

_1 I- Q. < IQ.UJ

CM <M

UJ o 1- t- SC _1

i' J1 oc u. "3 oJ >- Ul UJ 2" ? lT) !>) in

UJ o 3 >- u <: LJ ? lti z

-K UJ ^ r -U O X (_) UJ -1 _I O tLl. O UJ IS \ L/l l/l 2 -D a: z < to Q >- u d)

uJ ;/l \ <

t- tr t— >-< cc X <

J3 u

d.in « Ct O UJ Q lyi <i UJ < O >- s U1 a. _i UJ O >- tr ir

_J > r Ll v/1 O <

4 ^ i/l 3 O _i «i tr u. UJ U. UJ L/l iij UJ Q Ul tr o ? UJ »- >- < cc 1- O D ji ^ z « < n X -r uO o UJ o o O UJ UJ < J\ a: Ul X z UJ

>- >- rr UJ « UJ Ul < < tD < Q- O O V) ir y- or I ?

:t O u. UJ Uj r T :t uj _l y- o o 1— o o

-1 T or tr -< 2 <X «H > Ll. o z h-
(- Ul

V l/l U)

1— Ij >-

Ljl in •-

>-' (T Ll < U O

az

in

a:Ul

-J<

Ul>

UJ

>- 3- UJ

>- I u o »-> (_> —< Ll — Llo

t_»

— Ul

O

LI. Z O

_iy

_j

UJ

»- (- UJ 1 in Ul o cn <

UJ >-D »— 5 i/i Ul < o 1— a. in

Ul _1 hn Ul •a < K < l/l o (- i/i •r o >- J o 2 ui O X <-l Q > o o U (J 1— <t 1/1 »- z ? -D O 19 »— o

Ul J\ < Z y z _lr _i 0.

O

a >-i UJ UJ _1 Ul o -I U) s a: 7. a »- »- y < > < Ul < o o k/l Ul Ul a: J •> a: > Ul >- t « I/) < X O K I/) 1- X IL

Ul u. S Ul (E < z UJ

O o Ul o y l/l Q UJ D f- rs <t Q. z >- o % O D 7. UJ Q O 2 .J H «* a: 1- J) I/) ar

J1O o O o U) "-> Ul Ul

X tr Ul o TC z

>- 2 0. z I/)

aK o UJ >- < uJ <t < CO • lO < a: ar Q. o IM U UJ UJ T

11.

O :5 3 o o 5>' o ll «t o o o

-t

n ar or ^ U "-I

u u. t- l/> u. <r 3 O 7 t-
C (O ^ lT CT k£ iT; J- r- CO ^ "O (V fO c rr lO X iT. r^: N J- c

-I It IT

>- I/: uj

h- UJ i-H

li. c; >- ^ or "

ll <r t_i

I- i/i >- un UJ

»- LiJ -

U. CO )-

t-i ce i-H Ll -a <J

:JinrorOf^0^f\JOO

0^ r V 3- UJ

I O

>-i o •-• o w u.

71

>- 3- UJ

'uJ I- I <_) a w c >-H >- O -H U.

-H 0 -( f\i X) —< J*l

I/) UJ o -<Q

< < o -I

-I (\J -H Ml -(

n c

<o o

Z _) < 3

I- o

1/1 5

cr in o tL. ?

U! n

UJ o

UJ Cl

d-'X>^D>Dir3-j-in(\i CD

-< rC C\. .1 ^ ro

OCT'Oj-(\jrooOv£)o

8* -1^ ^-r^3-c*rOCJ

to n (V '-i ^ ^

1- \0 O 1^ <n C\J <\j o I t- ^^ PO CM CM ro cr o Z ^ 1^ IT d- ro to a- 1- Z in CM CM

UJ o UJ \r. to UJ c/) X _l 5" UJ > _l 5" UJ

1- Q »- a CO ^ o d- o ro o cc _1 1- CL CJ- in r- o

< 01 >- cc C J- ct cr cT 3^ C\i <i a >- ir. cv cr CM a <t < 1- o C\J <\J CM -H z « t— C\J CM

Ul a. Q. »- K UJ t UJ

7" o ID O

O UJ

c Q

UJ UJ <t > UJ < 1.0 X

X z Q

Z 5 Z z

J 3 UJ ? _l UJ -1 Q t- UJ z

(J o 1/1 < UJ >£ o « u. O kJ ^ a.

-I H l/l Ul I (J S Ul O UJ O O Q < UJ

Q. T < M < l/l s K • ar

"3 IJ UJ O re 2

> < tn 5 ^ »

UJ Sf UJ 9 ^ ^ H

J M J S UJ g

UJa ©

PR UJ 9? © a I l/l X © «{=IUJ«©WKUJ* UJ

a. <

• M

iij ©©«©w^©^»- © e M 3 »-

1/1 >yi O • X _l l/l

•-1 a u a: 5" O 5^ UJ t- UJ

<t o t- a I- U V, -v to X V O O >- >- >- ^ :t -T t- t- -I

>-< i-i Z 7 CK J _) « UJ l/ll/ll/imCBCKSH

U U U UJ UJ N

UJ UJ y « 4 • UJ ^i^lIk/ltfliS * a J J T y 3 ti f}' j» ^ UJ «4 M ee UJ ^

z

:Jn

o

0.

1/1 Ul

©

uJ

IB%i
c c ^ c r- in o a o CL IK o X X C f\J ^ xi l/l o <M ^ • CJ r\i s o o o 2 o o -4 a^ o

•-1 to o >- l/l ^ in (<) o > l/l UI •-^ >- l/l UJ 1- UJ >-i h- III •-1 U ll> 1- O iT — c U O t- 3 f\i ,n •-1 cr •-• • J- 3- i-i ar •-1 • 3

U. < (J o U < l_) o

_J _i 7 o

llJ > UI lij . H-l' . q: o f\i O in

m ->O

UJ o t/l ^ cc c O l/l to

O o r tr —

aJ >- UI >- U' a: 1- a: o O 3- iT) t- Ct IJ ro rvj o K o >- • ^ o >- • o u o o u o m o u o u

in o in o

K-oz< O CC <\J c 3- -H in

O o * o

c^ re. 0" a: >- >- 3- UI >- J Ul UJ . ,, . . u t- 1 u o --D >- 1 (J lO lO o 0- X ,- - c >-. O 1-1 • TO a H C • in nj

>- <_)

u

O >-

OU o — u. 1— — u c o < ^— I z Z

t— UI uJ £ o t- o ji in O »- tn o

in l/l 3- XI o 4 -r •i cc

i/i D. >- lu Q- >- liJ >- 1 o O 3- 3- ;J >- 1 J

M 3 a) 3

J} A.a -4 -H t—

• r- -* -H

—

« lO o 1^

ST UJ 'J ^ U o o — u.

71 CL u. Ll. Lfl >- o o J 1-

lO

-J I O lO f-- o (O -1

O

cc t- o vD lO o

>- ^ >- < Ll ttr o O f\l o Z <\

— 3

(J « vC Z) • 3 f\l vO o c c

Ui o r 1-

i_> i/i >- >- T l/-.

O K1 1^ o in 3 ^ o

-> CO o fl. 3- in o

5^ _( UJ UI Ul

lU CC »— CL 1-

sr < O ^ >- < C\J 03 • :^ t- • 3 V q: o o

l/l o r" l/l 7

I/) >-

T o < t- <> UJ u

>- > 1- c 0^ ^ O o 1- 3 CO CO

O

Q- < 2" c 7 in ro

O

a

X Ul' l/l UJ l/l •H

_l 7' UJ UI _l jr Ul

UD -J 1- 0.

OO CO (S _J (-

Q lO in CC

l_) o < Q- >- • a' cc <\J 1/1 < D >- • -H <\J 3 CC •1 >- o ro >• « t- a to o CL z in a > o UI Ul o O

.J Ul

1/1 -I • CD

UI v. UJ <.J < o •-> tr

>-< _»

u

_l o in

.-) G. 0. <

7. > <x

n

yi

T UI

<t 1- UJ

Ui z

(r n: < oJ :3 T o

UJ 1- >- r a

r> o

1/) UI or.

a cr

_i LJ Ul UI UJ

,T Ql =e i/) — o l/l o yi l/l Jj 6 _l 7. b _J a Q. < •X a. 4 <

LO I/)

u v/l J)

1^ >- UI

O UJ o o ul

O liiO o X 2 >- Z ir 7 y- 7
CD « c CT- O' c; iP oj IT f\i r- fv

lO o 3- o

c c c c c c c c c o u- C c/1

to 01

O — »^ W **1 D

a: ~

O Ul

5: Q ^ r- oj C7^ ro c;

J- in in r- fM

rO C\J J1 fO J- -1 t; CO ro ro J- -I

>. c -P O ( •H US ( O —

— 0 0- 3- CO fM iTi rsj I/- 1/1

T (o o o

m —

I/! >-

X 3N -V- >- * iLi >- I <_)

i-i o O -I Lu — u_

c\j cv; o- a to oj

Ln in D 3- —I

fO rO f\J '-^ o cc ^

ro fo ^ in

IT J1 Jl iT — c

.I

o

>-r

_jc

O — ULo

in lO s- ,0 o

Ki in c\] —

IT' cr IT' o a o

•H rH O

c c c c c o

iT lt c ir

J- rv c

inUJ

ino

Q.

or3a

3

<

a

\£) ^ in CO ^ —<

• ^ —• v£ C J' o *-t ^ ^ ^ f\J

a

o

o

M

O O o o o

ir < o

O rsi r", 3- -0 C

c r r r- c

LT J~ < tr fC 3- f^l cTN UJ tn ^ X < tk- z

ij 5 ll 5 O »- Q

11 o I/) Z

UJ UJ o

m I 7) > Q. UJ U U < z r in O i-i UJ

cr X in -1 or

'« cc 2 X lo y < UJ q; LL M q: UJ Z UJ K q: > UJ o o l^ O -H UJ t- o s

u. u ar H- in u ^ .n a: lU o UJ 1 z or 3r z -1 UJ a • m IS O UJ UJ <x < CO

i/i :7 B ? o X y

u. cc UJ o O UJ 7 t- o o

ar lO a: _i a n o z
>i 0) dl P O) H

*H ^ +>

tx <f IV If p>. IT C

If a f c

(M O O t-l

1-1 tr M

U- er o rH O LO VO

4-> O <H H lA O

vO

4-' O "H

O -c ^

i/i -c 3-

fN» a) 1^ o t/i —

IN f*l IN a-

,0 o a:

>- J U)

>- I o 1-1 O l-H u -I u. — u.

00 cs) a>

O rH ^ rM

>> 0\

+> I

1 H 1-. c\ (T q- * C

>- UJ U — li. o

"3- -O O O

00 rj- O

O CO LT)

CO rv fx c f-^ O

ISi -C (C —

rg fM ^ Cj

a a -t c

-c :t r. —

l/ IT: -C —

U1a

z o

l/l X

UJ>

u, 0>

?

liJ )/) _i y Ul

-J »- Q.

<t tr >- d »- a

iH O 00 fNJ

rH i-< -sa- M

vO OO

i/l tn _i f- o cr; -« <t 'jj n t- .3 < a (/)

l/l T o u O O 0. _J a 1-1 UJ <J I/) Q _) Q -I « cn z I u

ar K < < UJ

t- > u. K K n; o

< O < -i U Ok u « /I X.

\ii X X X u < 31 H H t- UJ K y M M >i4 Ck 9 3 ««!/) 1- 2
1/1 >-M

oraQ « o

I- e

UJX "5 U n 3 ^ T s »o

/I

r

•jj

u, o

>- tij

3J 1/1 < a:

C. >- UJ ^ i- I J 1 -1-1-1 J — u.

_l 5^ I -I I- ! < C ' < I Q.

liJ C

—

r 3- c

1^ <\j o -< <M c cr ~ O 3 3 -1 .\J

cr ^ CM oj * ro

t<-, .-1 ^ <r

t\J t-- CO DO CD

3- f- t> O C\J -H O (\J

>c r- 3 1^

f\j Od OJ

aC

—' CM o

3.

1/1 UJ

l/l »-z

uJQ o o O 3 a. in o i/i «M »^ UJ ^ 1^ or e X a a o z X U. < o in o < UJ O X n N -H r » ^ 1* * * ^ yi Ji X III -1 u ^ .4 W UJ < <

yi /> o ji

K 1- UJ (M ui r« o o o J l« !• ? 2 C

C

— o

a. 0- o X

yi o r>j

n 2 • •M 3 O O 2

»—

c: Cv,

X

CM c

>- I/" LJ

)- UJ

U. 1- CI £

a:

w • 3

u. «:

u

O

-I 2

u;

cr

— 0 3-0

O

O 1/1 ro ^ o 5 -4

>- LJu 3 CM o- i- c >- r~

'-i J. o o u. 2

in o — c cr

—

3^ or

—

>- 3- UJ • >- 1 CJ o >C

C

a i-i

O t-1 • cc

•jj >•

O -1 u. ^ !I

s: 2

IaJ s: I >—

—

m c\i o 1— 3: -1 X

ct z n. >- 3^ UJ o 1- 1 J rM CM 3- 3D —* —4 —

• -1 0 o — u. o o u. 2 o

ill < — <M c c o

>- « 1-z " IT cr o r) • IT UJ c C

Q. c_ 2 o

_J

U.'

UJQ

O CM cc o

(\. CM Z UJ UJ Z I— UJ UJ < O 3- rO CT 5 r~ —

1- LCO

u." (r 2 > < X u^Q

1/1 z tr t-

— CM' r- o o r> 2

>-• o UJ lo —1 (- >- _l ? U. < _l 1- CL xC cr u z < Ct > • to CI c\

»-i i-i « >-

O « CM 3- ~y Q 2

UJ t- Q ^ UJ o s^ O -I

UJ 2 X1 X

>- o

_i

IDCD o X u.

>-—

Q

UJ

UJ < 2 u UJ

UJ z f\ s X UJ z 71 X o K a. < < • \n 1/1 u Owe X g V 2
o c c o o c o c o c 0. in in o X

I/) -i o o o o o cy z • o o z

<\l fM

1-

>- l/l Uj K UJ -

U.

O t- <r i Ct • to

U. «a cj o - - " _l z

Ul

a:

— ^- 1^

O o D o o 3- o o >n o

a: >- UJ K n: o rO o o (M r\j o o in in r1-. O i-" • •-H a-l o u. o o u. in o

rt o *H

O o ry o * rt rt

>- * Ul • Ul 1- 1 o 1^ OJ rt o '\J o o c »-i o « ui 

>-

O -1 U- o

-s<: 1—

— u. 2

•X. o z

Ui

UJ s- I tO ^ O o 3- o o o a>

O »- J -1 rt vj o < q: 2 Q. >- (JN lj 3 IxJ — 1 o 0 M -) vj J- JM

.3

—« —* —

• S J — u. O u. z z o

UJ -a:< O >D vC o 0 O o in o>

IT (\

a

>-

t-s X rt T^ o o m c • UJ o o a o z oJ

UJo f>J o o (\i o

in rt c z >- Ul f~t ui :? 1- UJ Ui . <. rt to o 1^ o lO 3- CD y I- , • OJ Ul c

UJ (T z > < T UIa 2 or 1- rt 3- fn

w CC o tn c O 3 z * (\j o

*- o Ui 1/1 >>• _J y Ul <• 

-JK

a o •M in rt K) o <VI

u ^ < or >- • f\; yD

n MM < t- o fH z 0. z uo

».u - o ^

Ul ? r M1 z y y v»

UJ

ar 0!Ul

-I I/) o I o y H- t/i i-i o 2 N O

rtt a: rr >- ar H- UJ t/) o X K u. « > 2 uJ X li. _l t> 2 UJ H O UJ a O O >- D a: z k/) z

•1 C3 a- « o « UJ ^ UJ ^ LlJ o 0. UI Z _J < V/) ar a. ac z in

I/) ?• ^. o o < O "-« Ul Ui O >- Z IT =) l/l a l/l l/l or « r O Ui I/) o o t- o Q a X a: UJ UJ z 1- o « ar u.

_l Ul UlX o -x o >- 4 l/l 2 4 O Ul o

L/)O 1- < u.X Ul ul q: q: « T LJ /I Z z n: o _i Ul 2 O > UJ o l/l i/1 a; r UJ o o O S 3 _J >-* 1/1 O «J ar z -1 Ul

>- > a. I/) u. >-> £ 1/1 UJ DC >-i z z UJ 4 4 33 U) <r X cr UJ fH «-i ifl Ul 0. U. r> 1 I y

rt l/) u. UJ UJ o o 1/1 o _I

O or

y u.

O

T t- o O •3

(\j ^ -« a: cc U. U. 3 S UJ -J, u. 1-^ UJ o o z K z
3-

O 3- cr c o c a 3- 0^ X

'I

O (V 3- o 3- •o • CM C\j O o z

tir =:

X c X

t- 1/1 CM CM c >- L/l Ui

I- UJ U ID l- C\'

— -D

—

—

m

cr -H

U. < >-) o

UI

[X

— XI c lo a- 3-

O CM

O I/) iff

—

»-<

m o 5 3r >- Ul 1— CE u ro m Lfi 0" in CM »-4 rC CM

i-t o • —1 in in

(_> u. o o u.

in o—

•H ^ J- cc CM •H

C .-H o CT

i/i

—

M •o 3^ 0 r

V 3- Ul • Ijj >- 1 <_) -< s; c:

X in

O

M -o o K a >-t o • —

CM r- r~- >- O Li- o

1—

— u. z o

1—z

UJ

llJ I 1- cj CM :j in o o

1/1 rO -o < z >- UJ o f- 1 o -1 -< 0^ fO o CM D i- n ^ • M M D 0 % vJ — U. o o u. z z o

UJ

a.

<i CM CO CM a' in o CM CM 3- o CM pn c V »-* < Z -< 3- O « ir; 3- c •-t a n ri • m

UJ o c a o z o

_iUJ>

UIo O LP

OO CO •-I o O o XI

O

r». ro 3- z »- Ul

—

UJ z

UJ UJ < O CM

CO J- o o o

IT 5- • •-H (- l/l c

Ul a. z

•> < < D. T UJQ

UlZ CE 1^ vT \D in CM CM o C 3 * CM o

•-.

O Ul Lfl •"f Ir- >- _l S' UJ < _i t- a. 0^ o- 00 r- in rO in CM XI CM XI < a: >- • 0^

a < 1- o 0^ CM z a. z 3 l/l UJ > »- y UJ o sr (J _iu 7. I IT z

UJ o 1 X t/1 • I

»- 1> o o

-J 3 O Q.

O UJ Ul

M 1/) cr

O UJ Ul 1/1 in

U UJ

Q IT z < m oc OH UJ •n z o Z T >• U. CD llJ X u. < <x a Ul o o a Ul o O (T (XT z UJ fSI z M a >« a iT a. H- U o S Ui UJ 4 ul UJ Q Z l/l ^

LJ o z « t/) o :f o < o Ifl I/) Z z O 3 _l< a: < > 0. Ul

»- 1/1

K r> l/l -1K Ul t- 0- UJ <T > a: o LO o < < a: 1^ I X UJ Z H X X u X < X 10 X u. -1 UJ '« Ul CD UJ o o Ul o

UJ (E S oJ S IT U. »- a: o « T aj z z •3 1/1-10 o o a: z 1/1 J1 nr T o o o o z UJ a < z a UJ X _l U) z a 1/1 UJ X Ul « UJ 5 4 CD

I/) <t

O Q. > -3 0. Ul 0. tT tw 1/1 u. UJ Ul O X O < O s 1/1 Ul o o o o

IT a:K Ul Z I UJDQ _l z o z h-
T CO (V =>

>- 1/! UJ

1- UJ ^

UO f- H tr 1-1 IL «I U

>- l/l UJ

t- UJ >-• u. o »- HI rr «-! U. < u

a o o r> -n

UJ c UJ

cc

— ro (T

O -1 o tr

— o o o o o o O lO lO rO o UJ o lO o o

ni

K cr. ? a: > lJ >- Ul

I/) 1- a: o jD in

—

CO 1-

X LJ o o -t o o -A

p « o CM nj ^ r- o HO !-•

<-J u. o o u. o a o u. o o u.

<[ in o iD

O

C£ CK UJ UJ

_J

cr. o J- cc -H o cr -H 3- CVJ (M

O o < -« n 3- -4 <5 -1 a- f\i o 1- cr >- * UJ q: V 3- IjJ &• . UJ 1- 1 o J fO vD o UJ t- 1 'J •H 3- (\J (\J O cr 0- a M C l-l <\j to w f~- Q. 0 1-1 O 1—

>-

U U- §

>-

O -H Li. o

se

— u. ir 1-

— U. o o O O

vl 1— u. h» 2 z

lA 

UJ i/i iil Ul S UJ 5:

t-H t- ^ r- CO r- o o c M c\j in o

iC a: ^0 <M rO (M o i: CE J) —1 JO fM <M Id a nc Ul

1- Q. >- a> UJ t- a. >- 0< UJ

.J

— 1 u 3 Jl 3^ 3 —i V- 1- 1 o r- -t ry JO 3^ < 3 -4 f-l 3- <£ T o o u.o

in r- o~ <M (\1 <\l 3- o

lO K) o ?. to o

f>. UJ

— UJ >-

1- 5 t- p. 5 (- T a. yfl iT ro cr to K a 7 cr cr 3 IT in

Uj " 1—1

m CM 7 r> o C U.I D o c

>- e 5 C o

or Ul t- UJ < a.< o

UJ CL :? O " UJ 1-1 ID -.0 vD ^ o o a 10 o o o o o o

fr c lO to •hH o or o ~ < Ul (T < 111 O X »- D X V o <t J1 CO o r~ o u < o o o O C3 <2 3 V ^ XT: l/l o in o

1-1 <r 2- <

ITT

T

O C)

OD

Li l/l 1-1 in

1- «0 vO 3-

O o (V to

a (TC o

Ct I/) ro lO « o < in o

ul UJ i/) 3- UJ UJ in

UJ

M wJ S UJ -i S' UJ

_J _l _i 1-

a h- r- o « (O CC UJ -J _i >-

a h- >c

m in cc c: 0. 3 a >- ovj M in a- _j a c a >- c\

<t 0.

O

m Q. < h- o

tD Q. < D 0. a ul UJ »- vn UJ o c. or o

in o s a o o

?• u. D in c o

J- a:

<t o a o— <

I-

•• in o _i

t- 3O

ji

r

UJ in o

UJ

•3

UJ

>- -1

t- (r >- o •-1 o »- ? 0 X CC in

K

1-1 Q.

OQ UJ

cr cr

0. s: CC 4 Ji

r: Q. o z r •- z <

10 o * <

i-t UJ o t- o 1 s _i in 2

UJ o

in Q.a * o o u.in D Q o a: >- <o O 2 n < — K

ino

-I

O

D

1-

OX o in

UJ

cr >- o M o t- z

n:0 IT a: in ir

•-I

a o Q UJ

ft >-« !r * 1 y a: 4 ji

•5

a o r -t z <

lOn ^ «

~» UJ o o r s: _j in z
C C O vE 0"

O o rO o vC

o c e c c c\. OcC -.0

I- I/! V l/l Id

t- liJ •-• ll ii; 1-

>-i CE •-• Ll < (_)

IP (M J1 O <M o 1 c rj 3- ^ c: -

O 1/) >" n'

>- UJ

ar o

1-1 O IO CT^ O —H o

O l/l 5 !r

>. CT- UJ

'J — ll. J.o

O O -H w

iD -< to O .H -O

V J' UJ

UJ I— I U 'VJfNJvTXOO-HO Q.i-iO>-i» ^ i^iv >- (J U. O >- — U. 2 O >-2

UJ

s- ~ <\JOOK1<M<\J(\jN CO V UJ u — u. o

U. 3 O

/> :3 J- D -I -( -I o

Ul_J

CM PJ O 3- Jtro<Mc>c(Mo!r cr

T

ul

_j y

« or<

0.

tn r- 3- >r5 o o o

^ ^ CM IT

C o o \D O O 0~ 3 t\l U-l 00

rvj

_l S I _l I- I «j a : < I a

UJo

t- »- y in « r> t- m

UJ 2Ul

Ll 1/1 a o

o Ulz <

<_» 2

O

i/) < 1 a. UJ -J irt •• a 2 UJ UJ UJ

>- < (_> ^ Q !C £ 2 O •-< O 1 ll I X tr U. t— UJ UJ M 2 O Ul o

< J) 2 1 >-

1/1 r CC CC J\ l/l a:

wlJ s O -1 O 3 Q UJ CC 2 _l UJ

>- 3. < CQ <-> < > UJ < 1

• l/> CC T tUJ _J < UJ O

(M ir < o y Z ;/) O 2 t- 2

i/i r

UJ

u. *

11 <M

> 1/5 r> »-

ij :>

.iJ l/l o Q UJ < 2

O

<i 1 x

_i Ul 1/1 2 UJ UJ UJ < o ^ o 2 tr y 2 o —

1 -• X ac X U. UJ Nl 7. O Ul UJ o

2 1 >- u. <

-H CC cr •ll lO J1 ,r _l o .1 Ul fr a: _l <cao<a>uja.<i <I n

CC tt O _l T 5- -I 4 UJ O o O t>

"* U 2 m o 2 2
O 3 vC

0-

>- </> LU

I- UJ 1-1 —I c\ O ^ vO o O l/l o

*~ rt o O r) iD o • •o o u.O O ^ siJ o

/I

>- :t bJ

UJ ^- 1 O *"* O • >- u. o o

>-z o o o

L/l X) Aj o < Of

a. >-

jj 1 -) C3 rO 30 •o -JQ o

Ui

u> * o

i:4X

Ci

bJ o d- ^fj o

tr CC o

Ui

lie. <r o vfi r- ro

ro if t- O o w

z>

STIo o ro o X o

3C >-

l/l < O CT» CC O 1-

»-* o

Of o

UI

ft: Iu

UJ

or

UIO

X -~ O l/l 5 (T >-

t- a: o H c •-• ij u. = u.

if) o V 3- UI

IJ I- I u a •-• o M O LJ_ 2

UJ

•s.

a:«

li) o — u.

rc

>- (MJ

OS, - . t- o o o O ffl »- < o

Ui l/l r-* >- UJ 1/1 a: _i y UJ or J UI o o ' _j t- a O I<1 IT <s UJ _j 1- a a < £t >- 1- < a >- < 1- o n rO < tec 0. ? < 0. Ul UJ o . o n

•-t CO «-1

l/t UI

OO

v/>

O

UJ« rvi

UIao

>•<u

(9ro

I/) I/) < <

t/i »-

O 111 o o ^ >- z »-

O I •« rt 1- o UJ o UJ r l/» y c

yi 7. UJ • O l/l

y

>- 4 a. z UJ < < z D z

U. If) uJ o UI •X .O o .o

<-« <M CCry sr StQ
t- l/l >- t/) lU

(- UJ i-< iL (0 Iq: t-1 u. < o

vC 3 «

o l/l a; —

5i q:

7^ n: >- * LJ UJ I- I U

a H-. o (-I >- —1 u.

O ^ -t

-I X -I o- rr >- J- lii 1- I o >-i O l-l O H. — LlO

1.0

Q. >- C3^ UJ

iij — I \J O -4 -I -. o — u.

_l 5? liJ

5"

_l S UJ

_i t- a

•3 d V

< I- a

..i o *

>- o

X

tU • > (0

U, 1/1

^/1 i

3 3

g M M UJ « X ? Q

I* I f § p

It, m

l-l (M

y g

y J) M UJ «* «( M n

« , a

s. 2
lO iT mm

»- in

>- 1/1 UJ

1- U) I-

>- l/l Uj

(- UJ -<

u. ij: I1-. q: «

u. « u

c: t\, 3- cc

r\j cyj ^ »o .-^ «-i ry

rr ~ O I/) c:

a:O i/) y atxoroiDr^oeaa-iTifo * 3- * "I -1

lO lO "I to (O

M ^ * * CO ^ in OJ <r

—

yi yi 3-

J 'MJ 3 .o

cr o XI x> J> a: t\l >- * UJ 3- r >- * UI

UJ 1- 1 o UJ 1- 1 u OC ^ 9 a o •— a o •-• 1^ "1 eg 3- to to

>- o u. >-

O u. rj

— u.o — u.o 2

^-Z z

UJ

u

s: s:

Q

UJ

I—

l/l »- vO 0^ ^

"O ^ -H ro to

CCnj

a) o < rf o <\J 4 Q: CM < a. >- 0> UJ 00 lO a >- ff> Ul J UJ 1 vJ »- 1 u> TD 3 r) -« n M 0

fL 3 —1 ^ —3 ^ 4- -t

M

MM 0 O CV <\) vT «

c:3iriOir>cif/co(\i

f\.' to <\j C\i cv

At

Ul V/1 -J s: UJ

_i t- 0. « Q > < (-

0.UJn

p.

1/1 1^ 1/1 Cr - 3 r~ »H lO 3 •—1 o IT 3 IT fy 3

Ul Ui fy Ui 1—< 0> O <\J oc 3 <-" f\J 3

l/I l/l o TO<o

t- 3- lO CC 3 cC « 3 0- z z m 3 3 <M 3 lO to « 3

UJ l/l t\l S' -1 :r Ul s _i »- a r- <\j <0 3 t^ lO lO CO Ul >C o 3 a >- cr 0 a cr (O 3 ^C 3 »r o <i 1- o o

D. z <^

Ul

d o

UJ

n o o 4

>- _l

&. ul < 3 • • O a

cr _j Ui O •S •« X UJ

t- o UJ o UJ Ul s ? '< z

J\

D < J) Ul • b T S at

>-

Q

a H- z 1^ UJ yk

u

l/l T. 4 X 2 Z >

iij

O Ul 4 o Q o ul

-< (\l oc s.

a .z Z o l/l l/l z trUJ 1- t — > ID t— uJ Ul ? >-i Z |^ o a Ul UJ •-• uj z

>-

UJ o :> o >-

s: Jl o — H- -« z > y

a. o

Q.

t/1 tt Z -D 4 UJ 4 l/l Ul o or UJ a or UJ y U H- J 1/) ul »- « Q. 1-1 oc a: u. 4 UJ (_) t^ Ul _l OD UJ _J UJ o I l/> Z D -1 4 O -1 _j t UJ o CO z y D 4 ,n o O Ul 4 O 4 y 1 _l UJ a O fi I/) 4 • ul 4 4 • i/) UJ s -1 oc ce ac .-) T y

UJ TUJUJUJ0O,»->-0

<M ir u. z a: Q. Q. I/) i/»

O »-
o ^ o c ^ -»

—< fO o o

>- l/l ui

I- UJ «-! It o t- ^1 £r •-• u. < o

_l o J o o O

J r<l ^ > a:

Ijj >- UJ

*— ai LJ

l-t

O o f J u. o u_

i/^ o O»~« ftaJ

>- UJ

'jj 1 o

Q.

O »-i > (J «-i Ul o — u.o • z

UJ

>iJ o X o

H- UJ

»— <I

IL. < Q. >- 0^ IjJ r> o iJ t— 1 -) UJ >- tj — u. 3 (-> u. O Z o

ixl J) 3 ^ O

UJ

UJ Of O U.

>- Lj c

ClT

Ui UJ

It.

T o

tt

K

UJ

t—X

!Z >— M »—

—1

<x o O UJ UJ

tr ^ < < T ? O O

UiO

N, *-» _J 1^ < CM O 1— ^

tr 6 UJ lo »- >-i _l 5" UJ U K -J H a

<T CL >- ^ UJ

u.r 12 0. UJ n — c

UJ< ^ O UJ n ft ^ i-t t?o O UJ I« I/)

I/) o

.?UJ 4 s o

h- Ml

or z < o a y

UJ

y UJ

-1 o l/> O

UJ o

I/)X

a o t- t/» .J

a:

d- 3- o a*

UJ

!r

—

O 1/1 5 a:

>- 'jj 1- cr o M o •-•

l_>

u o u

J1 o

I/) a:UJ >- * UI

tu 1- 1 (_) <i t >-i O )-i UI >- U u. a ¥- — u. u o

a: t— UI UI

_i ST Hi »-

;n 1/1 o <I a: a >- UI

ij t- 1 o a 3

UI o —

u

UJ

u 2 o

<\j d- o c c o c

UIa

M ISJ T T

Xu

y * o « 0 ^ 3- a: _i ?

in I I UJ 4 < 1 O O I O if) if) t- o o

"1 ^ * O »- 2 2

UJ 1/1 _j :r UI

_j »- D.

<r Q:

y * (V o D LP !-NJ O

-< -1 <\l o o

3- <\' » O <M O CT O C C

Jd

(8 Eh < •

\/i 1/1

G UI ar >• UI t- UJ t/1 > O l/l t- Ul

«I >- < o >- 2 (/) 1/1 UI 2 1/1

C5r

a .-I >

UJ UJ 1- 5 1/1 a: o J

llj « 4 > t- ^ UJ *- UI UJ 1/12 < O a _i T >- -< ^ > UI f- 1/1 UI a: 23 >-• o m a O « ij) > o Ul S 2

?. > -1 a: I o < •-• Q < »- O

1/1 u. UI

m UI •-• o >

IrtO UI _l t> 4

tr

T 2 S 2 U.

«I o O

y a; Ql V 0. Q < O »- o 1/1 IJ 2 u. > Z O 2 UI UJ o r < o o <* q: 2 O D u. n
t- i/i >- I/) ui

»- Ll,' 1-1 !-:>-<

u. <a o ^ cC iT CC lO

—, >•

J UJ ^ 1 0 0 0 sD to

Q_ 0 ^

*^ u.Q

LJ

LL h- tD (O <\i CM 10 <M

<j 1^

lJ >- 0> lij 7) H- 1 0 rO .V) 0 ILU.

i/1

J? fO rvi

~*

IT) \C fp

~'

... 

- T

IT) f\i I/*) rO 0 0

ro

111

•< 3- XI 0 (M 0 n 0 IT) Jl (- (V •-* bi l/l o:

l-H <

tn r- IT 3- vO 10 IT

UI Ln ^ 5" UJ ^ _i 1- a a- c iT CO <H « (J > h- X r. (M ro 10 ** <[ f- -S a g

LJ ri d

Q 0 n u Ji < UJ

a ? UJ or 0

rK • 0 -1 I/) u.

l/t «^

m UJ < 0 • a. < ft • a » k/) < u 0 cr -n ^ ij IJ -1 <( K X 2 0 (T cr > 3 0 Ui Z I/I < UI z a 0 >• u. UJ - n > 0 3 < \f\ V -1 ^ UI a < UI UI UI

111 Irt

y UI 1/) ffl CD or •1

K Z 0 a 1/1 ft D 0 0 lO -I 5 < yi 0 « U U. at sr IJ a • K a ut -i V -» Ql a. I/I t- IjJ »- 0 U X 0 t/) in UI r 1/) I/) « 1-4 <I < UJ t at -JO J y t/l tiJ U. J T UJ UJ < UJ b •1 < 7. z u ^ < t- _l cr 0. UJ < U £ UI ul ^- < H- UI (/) IS UJ UI UJ

i/i ID d. UJ tc «: or

M UJ

Xu >• 0 * > X

111 r> 4 Q. 0 t-4 *^ 2 00 or ct 0 tor *- U 1/) ? y. « X a < 0 a a. — r>

h- ir c

ic UJ

lUX

K 3 U

•-> 1/1 <t

-» 2 ^
(- l/l

V l/l UJ

I- UJ •-

U- IE t- -t Ct "-I u. < o 3 — 3 1^ Z O o ->

l-l (- t- 1/1 < UJ O D I O ? — D

5. 'iJ 0 t-

>-

r i/i

1-1 a: S UJ

-I 01 EC s s: UJ <x -J ce ro ^ o v/)

>- 3- UJ >- I o

1-4

O

W

a: a> ui

.1 iS o

>-

r; <r UJ

UJ UJ

(.0 z o ?

cr UJ o XK W

u. •-< o o

UJ

UJ UJ z ? o n

l/l UJ « in

1/1 o u> 2 ec

(-4 Q.. O UJ

Si £ o s

!» UJ

UJ c M X Mao T T >- K l-l <

=> UJ

ae

Q <t

.J 0.

<t o u <-) Q — z r-

«i r\i 0 z 1 o

UJ l/>

III UJ o :3 T O

u yi

_J ?? UJ _J (- Q. « cr >

«< »-

Q.UJo

>-

JS

ir <

UJ q:

-i<_i s \fl

IF. < Q

(£U

U UJ

UJ Z

UJ o <

J.S. L't_i-T . OF- COMM. ], A 1 K)N OR Kl-.POK 1 NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEFT NBSIR 73-211

2. ('ov't Accession

No.

3. Kccipicnt's AcLCssion No.

TiTu; A.\i) >iini i ri.i; LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972

Volume II: Communications Equipment and Supplies

5. Publiuaticn Date ^

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AU rHOR(S)

S. Mumford, P. Klaus, E. Bunten, R. Cunitz

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PKRFORMING ORtiANlZA l lON NAMl- ANP AIJDRKSS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Projcct/Task/W'ork Unit No. 4314517

11. Contract/Grant No. LEAA-J-lAA-009-2

j 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

Department of Justice

Wsshingt-on, n r ?n^-^n

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final; 8/71-8/73

-—I ! 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. suppli:mi;ntar\ notes

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary ol most si^ilicant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

The report outlines the methodology of and summarizes a portion of the data

from the LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972, One of a series of seven

reports resulting from this nationwide mail survey of a stratified random

sample of police departments, the present report summarizes the answers

of 428 police departments concerning their communications equipment and

supplies: Use of Mobile Radios and Portable Radios; Power Supplies for

portable radios; Scramblers; Portable/mobile Radios; Helmets v/ith Built-in

Communications; Needs for standards and problems associated with communications equipment and supplies. The data are presented by all responding

departments and by seven department types.

17. KEY WORDS fsix to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

Communications, Mobile radio. Police, Police equipment. Portable radio. Standards

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20 i02, SD Cat. No. CH

E-Ordcr From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 221'il

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

177

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74