Flint, Mich., is a good example of this practice. Fourteen high-crime areas served as a 3-year test of the usefulness of footpatrols. Crime declined at an adjusted rate of nearly 19 percent. The incidence of nonemergency service calls fell by 50 percent. Foot beat residents rated the service much higher than car-bound patrols. When private funding ran out, the citizens voted to raise property taxes to expand the foot patrol program citywide. A major reason for the success of foot patrols is their ability to foster community cooperation in crime prevention. Problems include conflicts between foot and motor patrol officers. In addition, several police unions resist the idea of food patrols. However, other cities such as Miami; Santa Ana, Calif; and Boston are emulating Flint's program. Current debate centers around the program's cost-effectiveness. Personnel expenses may increase, although major cities with ambitious programs have not experienced rising expenditures for foot patrols. Cost-effectiveness is hard to evaluate when such intangibles as crime prevention and community good will result from foot patrol programs.