THIS CRITIQUE HAD SUGGESTED THAT TYPICAL PATROL INTENSITIES IN KANSAS CITY WERE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS THE RANGE OF PATROL INTENSITIES EXPERIENCED IN OTHER CITIES AND THAT PATROL VISIBILITY IN THE DEPLETED AREAS DUE TO RESPONDING CALLS FOR SERVICE WAS RELATIVELY QUITE LARGE, PERHAPS EVEN EQUALLING THE PRE-EXPERIMENTAL LEVELS DURING HIGH WORKLOAD PERIODS. THE AUTHORS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIMENT RESPOND TO THESE TWO POINTS, ARGUING THAT NEITHER THE PROBABILISTIC MODELS USED IN THE CRITIQUE (NCJ-34036) NOR THE DATA IS ADEQUATE TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT 'TYPICAL PATROL INTENSITIES' IN MAJOR AMERICAN CITIES AND THAT PATROL VISIBILITY IN THE DEPLETED AREAS WAS MARKEDLY DECREASED OVER THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF THE EXPERIMENT. THEY AGREE WITH THE CRITIQUE ON THE NEED FOR CAUTION IN GENERALIZING THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT AND WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT POLICE ADMINISTRATORS CAN BE MORE FLEXIBLE IN THE ALLOCATION OF OFFICERS THAN THEY HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY. SEE NCJ-34036.