Description This study uses data from 60 respondents, there are no missing variables.

Data was collected on the amount of crime recorded before and after the adoption of the patrol strategy. The survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of police patrol strategy. Thus, there are 60 observations for before the strategy was implemented and 60 for observations after the implementation of the strategy. The research question is designed to capture the level of crime before and after the adoption of the beat strategy. Descriptive statistics point out the distribution and frequency of crime reported. On average, crime before the patrol strategy was about 38 cases (SD =2.01), while reported cases after implementation of the strategy was about 40 cases (SD=1.20). This shows that, contrary to expectations, crime actually increased after implementation of the patrol strategy. Pre-crime data is positively skewed (skewness =0.30), while post-crime data is negatively skewed (Skewness = -.23). Thus, the left tail of the distribution for pre-crime data is slightly longer that the right tail, while that of the post-crime data is shorter than the right tail. The data is approximately normal, given that skewness is within -0.5 and 0.5 ranges; a normal distribution has skewness of exactly 0. In addition, pre-crime data has a negative kurtosis of -.25 while post crime data is positively skewed (kurtosis = .59); this is less than 3. Both distributions have thinner tails as compared to a normal distribution (See table1 in the appendix). Methods

Paired-Sample T-Test

This research utilises Paired-Sample T-Test to analyse paired scores, in particular, the study intends to investigate if there is there a difference in the amount of crime before

implementation compared to after implementation. The new patrol strategy is intended to reduce crime in the police precinct. The beats were recorded before and after the implementation of the program to see if the strategy was effective in reducing the amount of crime. Paired sample t-test is applied where beats are tested prior and after the implementation of the new strategy. By comparing the amount of crime before and after treatment, the test is effectively using each beat as its own control. In this study, the hypotheses were stated as follows: H0: The patrol strategy was effective, i.e., there is difference between the amount of crime measured before and after the program. Ha: The patrol strategy is not effective and the crime recorded after exceeds the crime recorded after implantation of the patrol program. The results will be implemented based on 5% level of significance. The test is designed in a manner that the correct rejection of the null hypothesis (The patrol strategy was effective, i.e., there is difference between the amount of crime measured before and after the program) can become much more likely, with increasing statistical power because the bias between beat variation is eliminated. Results The results show that T = -7.28 with 59 degrees of freedom, p - value = Sig.(2 - tailed) = 0.000. Thus, at 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis is utterly rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted; the patrol strategy is not effective and the crime recorded after is more than the crime recorded before implantation of the patrol program.

Appendix
Table-1: Descriptive Statistics N Statistic pre.crime post.crime Valid N (listwise) 60 60 60 Minimum Statistic 33.80 35.10 Maximum Statistic 43.12 43.97 Mean Statistic 37.8528 40.1348 Std. Deviation Statistic 2.00656 1.80808 Skewness Statistic .300 -.233 Std. Error .309 .309 Kurtosis Statistic -.246 .593 Std. Error .608 .608

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of Std. Mean Pair 1 pre.crime post.crime -2.28199 Deviation 2.42664 Std. Error Mean .31328 the Difference Lower -2.90885 Upper -1.65512 t -7.284 df 59 Sig. (2tailed) .000