Studies indicate that the number of patrol officers assigned to an area is probably less important than what those officers do while on patrol. Proactive patroling is more likely to reduce crime in an area than the mere presence of patrol cars. The field interview, a contact initiated by a patrol officer in stopping and questioning persons the officer has reason to believe have committed or may be about to commit a crime, has been shown to reduce robbery, assault, burglary, and car theft. While police response time (time between receiving a call and arrival at the crime scene) per se is not related to crime reduction or crime clearance, selective efforts to reduce response time for certain types of calls can be fruitful. Patrol resources can be maximized by the use of community service officers and police reserves, who can free experienced officers to perform skilled patrol functions. Patrol costs may be reduced without sacrificing effectiveness through the use of smaller vehicles, the use of alternative fuels, the use of combination automobile and foot patrol, through efficient patrol beat design, and by the use of one-officer instead of two-officer patrol units. Some approaches to patrol include the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program, which demonstrates the importance of crime analysis and practical planning techniques in the allocation and deployment of police patrol forces; community-oriented policing, which brings police operations closer to the mainstream of community affairs; a split-force patrol, which designates some officers to conduct preventive patrol while others answer calls for service; and the home fleet plan, which others answer calls for service; and the home fleet plan, which increases police visibility by permitting officers to take patrol vehicles to and from work. Nineteen footnotes are listed.