Conducted By:

Executive Summary..........................................................................................3

Part I: Law Enforcement Agencies...................................................................5

Part II: Home Capabilities of Law Enforcement Officers ..............................81
Part III: Home Capabilities of FL DC Employees .......................................100
Attachment A: Reported Web Sites of Agencies .........................................118

The results of this survey are based on the responses of about half of Florida’s law enforcement agencies. The great majority (68%) of responding agencies do not have a computer lab; most have no plans to add one. Of those with any computers connected to the Internet, over half access the Internet at 56K or less.

On the other hand, larger agencies are more than likely to have computer labs, previously done computer-based training, and have a MIS staff. This bodes well for community policing training in distance learning modes such as CD-ROM or Internet.

In smaller agencies computer-based or Internet training remains problematic. The option of allowing officers to access training materials over the Internet from home has potential, but over 70% of agencies said they would not approve of it or offer comp time for home training. Attitudes would need to change before home training could become a widespread practice.

In September, Tony Pate and Cecil Greek met with FDLE officials to discuss the current Criminal Justice Information System as a possible Internet network for statewide training. This was in relation to a particular project involving training for Live Scan, a new high speed fingerprint identification system. A number of issues were discussed related to Internet-based training. FDLE officials expressed concerns about overwhelming their server, 56K lines at law enforcement agencies, the priority of the current network which must be given to background checks over training, and security concerns over letting officers train from home. FDLE has no immediate plans to set up a high speed access server dedicated to training. We recommend that the St. Pete Community Policing Training Center consider setting up a Web server for access by law enforcement agencies.

Given the above findings, our suggestion is that efforts to prepare training materials for computer-based instruction be done in hybrid CD-ROM/HTML format. This will permit agencies with CD-ROM drives to use the materials immediately. As more agencies connect their lab computers to the Internet, the HTML version will become more widely used. We also suggest that agencies be encouraged to permit officers to access training materials using their home computers. This would involve permitting CD-ROMs to be taken home.

The advantages of Web-based training continue to be evident. Officers can participate in live chat sessions with fellow officers as well as asynchronous discussions using conferencing software. Web-based videoconferencing is emerging from its early stages and has become a more useful tool. The overall cost savings of decreased officer travel to training sites and the scalability of Internet-based training will lead agencies to invest in the hardware and software necessary.

A second survey was distributed to 10 law enforcement agencies and given to officers at roll call. Officers were asked to describe their home computers, Internet access, and whether they desired home training opportunities.

Two major important findings resulted: (1.) Law enforcement officers have home computers capable of use in training; (2.) officers would welcome the opportunity to train at home. As compared to the current national overall 40% to 50% family ownership of home computers, nearly 70% of our responders had home computers. The great majority of these were equipped with sufficient processor, RAM, and CD-ROM speed to facilitate distance learning.

A same home user survey was distributed to probation and parole officers in a Florida district. Officers were asked to describe their home computers, Internet access, and whether they desired home training opportunities.

The two findings of Part II were again supported, but not as strongly. (1.) Probation and parole officers have home computers capable of use in training and (2.) officers would welcome the opportunity to train at home. The Department of Corrections responders compared favorably to the current national overall 40% to 50% family ownership of home computers. The great majority of these were equipped with sufficient processor, RAM, and CD-ROM speed to facilitate distance learning.

The distance learning capability study was mailed to the following law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida: (1) 310 municipal police departments; (2) 67 county sheriff departments; and (3) 10 university police departments. Excluded from this sample of 387 law enforcement agencies were junior or community colleges as well as private universities in the state.

To date we have received completed surveys from 183 of these agencies (a 47% response rate). Our overall response rates are 70% for university police agencies, 58% for county sheriff departments, and 44% for municipal police. The following table illustrates the percentage of each type of agency for the 183 respondents.

Additionally, there was a small percentage (2.2%) of other agencies that responded to our survey. These other types of agencies were as follows: one airport police department, one public safety department, one public school district, and one tribal police department. Chart 1-1 illustrates the overall breakdown of the responding agencies.

Although knowing the breakdown of the types of agencies responding to this survey can be quite informative, it is also important to know the relative size of the agencies responding. In order to accomplish this, we examined the data on these agencies in four distinct manners. First we looked at how many employees worked for the agencies and we separated those into three categories (e.g., small, medium, and large). Table/Chart 1-2 illustrates this categorization and the response rate of the 183 responding agencies in each size category.

The second manner in which we examined the data was to look at the number of sworn officers from each responding agency. This allows us to ascertain the size of the agency in terms of individuals who might be participating in community policing internet training. As Table/Chart 1-3 illustrate, we utilized groups of one-hundred officers when examining this data and most agencies fell within the one to one-hundred sworn officer category (72%).

The third manner in which we examined the data was to look at the number of computer MIS (Management Information Staff) from each responding agency. This allows us to ascertain the size of the agency in terms of individuals assigned or hired for computer or Internet training purposes. As Table/Chart 1-4 illustrate, we broke this category into several groups to facilitate examination of the data. Most agencies fell within the one to five employee category (76%).

The final manner in which we examined the data to interpret the relative size of the responding agencies was to look at the population of the area served by the agency. Table/Chart 1-5 illustrate the breakdown of responses for this category. The majority of the respondents served an area with a population of less than 15,000. Although the table shows one missing respondent, the data is actually not missing since that agency was an airport police department.

Overall, the populations of the areas served by the 183 responding agencies tended to be small in size (less than 15,000 or 15,000 to 50,000). This accounted for 71% of the surveys returned, which in turn effected the other demographic statistics examined. Agencies tasked with serving smaller populations will likely have smaller number of total employees, sworn officers, and probably MIS employees. The above data revealed that this was what occurred since 78% of the respondents had between 1 and 250 employees, 73% of the respondents had between 1 and 100 sworn officers, and 85% of the respondents had either no computer or MIS employees or between one and five.

One of the most important questions for this survey asked agencies whether or not they had an existing computer lab for conducting computer-based training. This question provides us with information regarding the current capabilities of each agency and allows a variety of comparisons to be made with other data obtained in the survey. This section will examine this data with regard to this question.

The first question on the distance learning capability survey asked the question: "Do you have an existing computer lab for doing computer-based training?" An overwhelming number of respondents (68%) answered negatively to this question, indicating that they currently do not have a computer lab. Table 2-1 illustrates the responses to this question.

Since we found out that many of the responding agencies did not have existing labs for conducting computer based training, we thought it would be interesting to see how many of those agencies that did not have a computer lab were planning to set up one in the future. Table/Chart 2-2 illustrates several things. First, almost all of the 124 agencies responding to the question about an existing computer lab responded to the question regarding plans for a lab (121 of 124 agencies). Secondly, of these 121 agencies, 73% responded that they did not have plans to set up a computer lab for computer-based training in the future.

Additionally, we thought it would be interesting to examine whether the agencies without a computer lab had a web page. This is important because having a web page could indicate that an agency realizes the importance of the Internet and computers to their overall mission. Table/Chart 2-3 indicates several things. First, recall that originally 124 agencies responded negatively to the lab status question. Slightly less responded here for the purposes of this question (n=110). Secondly, of the 110 agencies responding, almost half (46%) responded that they have a web page. Additionally, an overwhelming number of agencies with a computer lab also had an existing web page (72%).

It also becomes important to examine this variable along with the demographic information. For instance, it would be important to know which type of agency had already established computer labs for conducting computer-based training. Therefore, the next few comparisons will be made using the demographic variables provided in Section 1 of this report.

The first demographic variable used was the type of law enforcement agency. We thought it would interesting to know which agency type, of the responding agencies, had a greater affirmative response to the question concerning an existing computer lab. Table/Chart 2-4 illustrates this comparison and indicates a relatively even percentage rate among responding agencies for this question. The exception to this is for the other category, where only 1 or 4 respondents (25%) provided an affirmative response to the question.

Next we thought it would be interesting to see if the agency size had anything to do with the existence of a computer lab. Recall that earlier in the demographics section of this report, we had broken the agencies into three groups based on the number of total employees; small (1-250 employees), medium (251-1000 employees), and large (more than 1000 employees). Using this as our basis for further examination of the data, we discovered that as the size of the agency rose, so did the percentages of affirmative answers to our computer lab question. Table/Chart 2-5 illustrates our findings that reveal that 27% of small agencies responded that they have an existing computer lab while 64% of large agencies reported the same.

Additionally, we felt that it would also be valuable to examine the number of officers and the existence of a computer lab. This could potentially tell us something that agency size does not. For example, small agencies at the cusp of the designated number of employees (e.g., 200 total employees) could have more sworn officers than an agency just over (e.g., 255 total employees) the designation cutoff for small/medium size agencies. If this is the case, then simply looking at agency size would not indicate whether agencies with more officers are more likely to have an established computer lab.

Table 2-6: Comparison - Number of Sworn Officers and Existing Lab Status

Table/Chart 2-6 reveals that 75% of agencies with 600 or more sworn officers do have an existing computer lab, while only 28% of the agencies with 1 to100 sworn officers do. For many of the groups in-between these two, their sample sizes are too small to indicate any significance.

The final manner in which we examined the question of existing lab status was to compare that data with the information regarding computer or management information staff (MIS). It would only seem logical to assume that agencies with more MIS personnel would be more likely to have an existing computer lab. Table/Chart 2-7 indicates the following: (1) more agencies reported having either no or between 1 and 5 MIS personnel than all other categories combined; (2) with the exception of those agencies reporting "21 or more" MIS personnel, the percentages rise steadily from agencies with no MIS employees (6%) to agencies with 11-20 MIS staff (88%); and (3) the agencies who reported employing more than 20 MIS personnel were more likely to report that they did not have an existing computer lab for computer-based training (60% "no" to 40% "yes").

As can be seen from the data in this section, most (68%) of the 183 agencies reported they do not currently have a computer lab for conducting computer-based training. Moreover, an overwhelming number (73%) of the agencies reporting no lab also reported that they didn’t have plans to establish a computer lab. Not only does this indicate a relative lack of preparedness on the part of these agencies as we head toward the turn of the century, it also indicates a lack of awareness as well. However, it is somewhat relieving to know that many of these agencies are not completely "in the dark" when it comes to the benefits and uses of technology. When asking those agencies who reported having no lab if their agency currently had a web page, 46% responded "yes". While this is certainly not where we would expect these agencies to be at this time, it is somewhat better than the other percentages.

While it is of great importance to know who has a computer lab for conducting computer-based training, it is also extremely valuable to know what their capabilities are if they have a lab.

The types of information that the survey attempted to gather was focused mainly upon numbers; such as the number of computers in the lab, the number of computers with CD-ROM drives, the number of computers connected to the Internet, and so forth. This information is valuable because it informs us of the current capabilities of those agencies that do have computer labs. In a sense, an outdated computer lab with no Internet connection and no computers with CD-ROM drives is as useful as no computer lab when considering computer-based or on-line training.

Before conducting any comparisons, it is necessary to provide the distributions of responses to each of the questions. The first question asked "How many computers in the lab?" As Chart 3-1 illustrates, the responses ranged from 1 to 50, with 1 being the most common response and the average being 6.26. Keep in mind however, that the average number of computers in the agencies labs can be a bit deceiving since only 5 agencies responded to 14 through 50 on the chart below.

The next question asked "How many have CD-ROM drives or access to networked CD-ROM drives?" As Chart 3-2 illustrates, the responses ranged from 0 to 50, with 1 being the most common response and the average being 5.71. Keep in mind however, that the average number of computers with CD-ROM drives could also be skewed by the fact that only 6 agencies responded to 14 through 50 on the chart below.

Following the order of the survey distributed to the law enforcement agencies, the next set of data we examined asked "How many lab computers are connected to the Internet?" As indicated by Chart 3-3, the answers ranged from 0 to 50, with 1 being the most frequent response. Additionally, the average response was 3.31 computers with Internet connection in the lab. However it is important to again note that few responded to the higher categories of 10, 11, 12, 15, 25, and 50. This has the tendency to raise the overall average response.

The next variable examined also dealt with Internet connection, however this question wanted to know "How many other agency computers are linked to the Internet?"

As indicated by Chart 3-4, the responses ranged from 0 to 400, with the most common response being 0. The overall average response was 19.17, however there were two responses (e.g., 200 and 400) that were far outside the normal response pattern, which will obviously raise the overall average.

This data, compared with the above information regarding Chart 3-3, could indicate a familiarity with the uses and importance of the Internet while indicating a lack of familiarity with its value for training purposes. However, with 21 of the 76 (28%) responding agencies indicated that no computers had Internet access, that would lead one to believe that more education, information, and exposure to the Internet in these workplaces is required.

Chart 3-4: Distribution of Agency Computers with Internet Connection

The final piece of information regarding the existing lab specifications is concerned with the type of Internet connection speed of the agency’s lab. Three choices were provided, namely: (1) 56K or less modem access; (2) Cable modem connection; or (3) T1 or higher. The first connection type is inadequate for most on-line training purposes. Therefore, if most of the labs were to indicate an answer of (2) or (3) for this question, then we would be certain of their labs having the best possible connection to the Internet.

As Table/Chart 3-5 illustrates, only 64 agencies responded to this question, with the majority of them (66%) indicating that their connection was 56K or less.

Using this data we considered what comparisons might be useful to the overall purpose of this study. With the data on the lab specifications, the only demographic variable that it makes sense to compare with is that of agency types. It would be interesting to know, out of the overall sample, which type of law enforcement agency had the best types of labs (e.g., more computers overall, more with CD-ROM, more with a higher connection speed such as T1, etc.).

With that in mind, the first comparison was made after separating the labs into three categories or sizes: (1) small (1-5 computers); (2) medium (6-10 computers); and large (11 or more computers). Comparing number of lab computers with agency type, the data revealed (as indicated in Table/Chart 3-6) that 54% of all the County Sheriff agencies who replied had medium-sized labs while 76% of all Municipal Police Agencies who replied had small-sized labs. When examining the large-sized labs, the County Sheriff had a much higher percentage (31%) than the Municipal Police (9%). Overall, College Police and the Other category did not have a high enough response rate to make valid comparisons.

The next comparison was made using CD-ROM and agency type. This variable was separated into four categories, namely: (1) none; (2) small (1-5); (3) medium (6-10); and (4) large (11 or more). Essentially, the only difference here is the category of none, which was added because many agencies reported having no CD-ROM capabilities in their labs. Table/Chart 3-7 illustrates that again the County Sheriff labs appear to be more up-to-date as 75% of their labs fell into the medium and large categories.

For the Municipal Police agencies, they had the most lab computers with no CD-ROM capabilities (14%) and the majority of their labs fell within the lowest category (61%).

The third comparison made dealt with lab computers connected to the Internet. Like the previous category, this variable was divided into four groups as well. These groups were identical to the previous variable.

Table/Chart 3-8 indicates that the Municipal Police agencies have the lowest number of labs connected to the Internet. Our sample included 46 of these types of agencies responding to our survey, with 50% responding that they had no lab computers with Internet connection, while another 41% fell within the small (1-5 computers) category. It wasn't too much better when we looked at the 13 County Sheriff agencies that reported, as 23% of those reported no Internet lab computer connections and another 39% fell into the small category (1-5 computers). However, some (31%) of the County Sheriffs who responded to our survey indicated that they had between 6 and 10 computers in their lab with Internet connections.

The next logical stage in our analyses was to examine overall agency Internet connection capability. Then, we would be able to compare which agencies provided Internet connection for computers in and out of the lab. Before we were able to do this, we had to once again divide our responses into logical groupings. We decided upon the following categories: 0 (no computers); 1 (1-10 computers); 2 (11-50 computers); and 3 (51 or more computers). The reason this variable has slightly different categories than the previous variable is because agencies typically have many more computers overall than in the computer labs.

As Table/Chart 3-9 illustrates, the results of our data analyses reveal some interesting things. For one, when examining the 15 County Sheriffs who reported in this category, an equal amount (33%) replied that they had no computers connected as did those reporting to having 51 or more (large category). When considering Municipal Police agencies, the majority of the 59 respondents (59%) indicated that they had between 1 and 10 computers Internet connected while another 27% of these agencies responded that they had no connections.

What strikes us as interesting about Tables 3-8 and 3-9 is the amount of agencies reporting no lab computers with Internet connections (42% of the 62 respondents) and the amount reporting no agency computers with Internet connections (28% of the 76 respondents). This indicates that many of those agencies that responded are quite a bit behind the times in terms of technology. To make matters worse, when you look at the data displayed in Table/Chart 3-7 we find out that there are agencies using computers today (e.g., no CD-ROM capabilities) that may only be useful for report writing (12% of the 62 respondents). The lack of a CD-ROM drive would indicate that the computer was quite outdated, which would also indicate a slow processor and inadequate RAM. CD-ROM drives have been standardized on computers for a long time.

The final examination we made with the set of data was to compare the speed of the lab's Internet connection with the type of agency. Data from Table/Chart 3-10 reveals that the majority of the County Sheriffs who reported (62%) indicated a connection speed of T1 or higher, while the majority of Municipal Police agencies (73%) responded that they had 56K or less.

The uses of a web page as an educational and informational tool are seemingly endless. As we advance toward the turn of the century, more and more businesses, agencies, and individuals are establishing themselves on the World Wide Web (commonly referred to simply as the Web).

In order to conduct computer-based training, it doesn't simply require that an agency have a computer with a CD-ROM drive and a nice Internet connection speed. As much as teaching styles differ, so do the many ways in which computer-based training can be conducted. One manner in which this can be accomplished is through Web-based instruction. Therefore, this section of the report will focus upon what the survey revealed in terms of agencies’ web pages and their uses of this tool.

The first step required simply asking whether an agency had a web page. Table/Chart 4-1 illustrates the responses we received. A total of 165 agencies responded, with a little over half of those responding (55%) indicating that they had a web page.

In many instances, the agency provided us with the web page address as we requested. These have been compiled, listed, and can be viewed on Attachment A.

Knowing that the agency had a web page only told us so much. Our next question inquired as to the use(s) of that page. Before providing a detailed breakdown of the responses from the agencies, it is important to note here that since there are multiple uses for a web page, we allowed agencies to respond multiple times to this question. This resulted in more total responses than there are agencies who responded overall, but that was to be expected.

Table 4-2 illustrates our findings, which show that the most common use of a web page by these agencies is to provide basic agency information (64%). The next common use for a web site by these agencies is for community policing (34%), followed closely by providing information on the agency head (33%). The least common use for a web site was for training purposes, with only 8% of the agencies responding here.

Indeed it is important to have this information, but without knowing the ways in which agencies utilize web pages, we are left with only half of the question answered. Therefore, the next stage in our analyses was to compare agencies and web page uses, which Table 4-3 through Table 4-7 illustrate.

To briefly summarize the results, Table 4-3 indicates that College Police agencies had the highest percentage (80%) reporting that they used their web page to provide basic agency information. However, because this sample is so small, we also looked at the next closest which was County Sheriffs (74%). It is also important to note that all agencies reported higher web page usage for this purpose than any of the other four categories. Table 4-4 indicates that for the category "using the web page for community policing", County Sheriffs reported the highest (33%), followed by Municipal Police (31%). Table 4-5 indicates that for the category "using the web page for providing forms to the public", College Police again had the highest percentage (40%) followed by the County Sheriffs (28%). For the category in Table 4-6, namely "using a web page for providing information on the agency head", College Police again reported highest (60%) followed by County Sheriffs (49%). Finally, for the category "using the web page for training" seen on Table 4-7, all percentages were low. In fact, this was the lowest of the five categories of web page uses, with County Sheriffs (8%) slightly higher than Municipal Police (7%). No other agency types (e.g., College or Other) reported using their web pages for training.

The survey not only inquired as to the hardware components of these agency's labs, but questions were also designed to gather information on types of software installed on their networks. Essentially, there were questions regarding three types of software: (1) web browsers used; (2) e-mail software used; and (3) other software (e.g., chat, forum discussion, etc.) used. Distributions were run to see the more common software types utilized overall. No comparisons were made, as it didn't seem valuable to know which type of agency used which type of software.

Table 5-1 illustrates the distribution regarding web browser software. Again, keep in mind that multiple answers were allowed in case an agency had the old and new versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape installed on their network. From the 183 agencies that reported, Internet Explorer Version 4.0 is the most used (38%), with Netscape Version 4.0 second (27%) followed closely by Internet Explorer Version 3.0 (23%). Very few agencies use other types of browsers (3%) than those specified.

Table 5-2 illustrates the distribution regarding e-mail software utilized on the reporting agency's computer networks. Once again, multiple responses were allowed in case different types of software were used by one agency. Additionally, for this category we asked those who replied "other" to specify the type of software used. Results indicate that Pegasus (26%), Outlook Express (25%), Other (22%), Telnet (21%), and Netscape (19%) software are used the most, while Eudora and CCMail were used the least.

As part of the survey, we asked those agencies using other forms of e-mail to specify the types. The other e-mail software programs currently used by reporting agencies:

AOL (3)

Cyberstreet

Davinci (2)

Digital EXP

E-mail Connect

Exchange (5)

FIRN

GroupWise (7)

Internet Mail (2)

Juno.com

Lotus Notes (2)

Microsoft (2)

MS Exchange

MS Mail

MS Net Mail

NCT Address

Network

Novell

Outlook (3)

Parkave.net

Prodigy

WP Office

Parentheses surrounding a number indicate the number of different times agencies specified that type of e-mail software. So for instance, seven agencies marked "other" and then specified that they used Group Wise software.

Our final question inquired about the other types of communications software used on agency networks, such as chat software, video conferencing software, forum discussion software, and GIS. Table 5-3 displays the responses, and indicates that very few agencies reported utilizing chat (7%) or GIS (3%) software on their networks. Even less reported using the other types of software.

We now have a solid understanding of the extensiveness of the existing computer labs, different types of software, and various uses of the agency web pages. This information provides essential knowledge regarding the potential challenges in establishing a distance learning program within specific agency types. As we have indicated throughout this report, each section has analyzed information collected which can now be used to enact modifications in training consistent with current technology. However, in order to obtain a clearer and more complete understanding regarding the feasibility of such projects, it was imperative that we obtained additional information regarding an agency's attitude and previous experience toward conducting computer-based training. This section will provide detailed analyses of that data.

One of the greatest advantages of distance learning or computer-based training is the flexibility is allows those engaged in such a program. Traditionally, an officer may have been required to complete hours of on-the-job training which could only be done at set times, allowing for little choice in terms of scheduling. In comparison, computer-based training could be conducted at times more convenient to an officer or even at home. Therefore, one of our survey questions asked the following: "Does your agency plan to permit officers to do Internet computer-based training at home on their own computers?" One-hundred thirty-one agencies responded to this question, with 70% indicating that they would not allow such training to be conducted at an officer's home.

Additional comparisons regarding agency types were performed, with the results illustrated on Table/Chart 6-1. Here we see that more County Sheriffs were willing to permit this training from home (33%) than Municipal Police (29%). Oddly enough, only 20% of College Police indicated that they would allow such training.

The second question we asked the agencies dealt with their willingness to count home computer-based training as either an on-duty activity or to offer comp time to officers who do train from their homes. A total of 117 agencies responded to this question, with only 10% indicating that they would be willing to count home computer-based training as one of those two things. Table/Chart 6-2 illustrates the results of the comparison between responses and agency types. The table below indicates that again, like the question analyzed previously on Table 6-1, County Sheriffs were more willing (14% responded "yes") than any other agency type to either permit home computer-based training as an on-duty activity or offer comp time to officers who participate in training from their homes.

Two additional questions remain for this section of the report, both were concerned with various types of computer-based training activities. For instance, the first question asked the agency to describe the types of computer-based training they had participated in previously. Again keep in mind for these questions, multiple answers were permitted. Table 6-3 displays a frequency distribution detailing which types of training listed were responded to more often. As you can see, few agencies responded that they had previously participated in community policing (4%) or GIS Software (7%) computer-based training. However, the numbers begin to increase as more agencies had participated in basic training (33%), database use training (26%), and other types of computer-based training in the past.

Once again, with regard to the other category, we provided a space for agencies to specify the other types of computer-based training they had been involved with in the past. They are as follows:

Applications (MS Office)

CD-ROM based police law

Composite sketch software

Computer software

Criminal law

CTO

FCIC 2000

FCIC II & CJ Net

Fingerprinting - by FDLE

Florida law refreshers

General training

Legal

Legal software

Legal update training (3)

Mainframe word process

Mandatory retraining

Microsoft Office (2)

PC

PLI Training (2)

Police Law Institute (8)

Police Legal-LETN System (2)

Policy training

Powerpoint

Record management

Software application

Windows95 CDPD Training

Word and Excel Basics

Word Processing

Indeed it is important to have this information. It is also important to know which agencies have previously participated in computer-based training activities. Therefore, the next stage in our analysis was to compare agencies and types of computer-based training they had participated in previously. Table 6-4 through Table 6-9 illustrate the results of these analyses.

To briefly summarize the results, Table 6-4 indicates that College Police agencies had the highest percentage (60%) reporting that they previously participated in basic training computer-based training. However, keep in mind that this is a relatively small sample. The next closest were County Sheriffs (41%). It is also important to note that all agencies, with the exception of College Police, reported basic training as the form of computer-based training they had participated in previously more than any other form of provided. Table 6-5 indicates that regardless of agency type, community policing is not a form of computer based training in which agencies had participated in previously. Municipal Police responded highest at 5%, followed by County Sheriffs at 3%. Table 6-6 indicates a pattern similar to Table 6-4, with College Police (60%) reporting highest followed by County Sheriffs (39%). For the category in Table 6-7, namely "GIS Software", few agencies responded that they had participated in this form of training previously, with County Sheriffs (13%) being the highest and Municipal Police (6%) being the only other agency type responding. The next category of computer-based training, "Internet Software" seen on Table 6-8, again showed College Police reporting highest (40%), followed by Municipal Police (16%) and County Sheriffs (13%). Finally, the last category of computer-based training was "other", seen on Table 6-9. Here we see that College Police reported highest (60%), followed by County Sheriffs (23%) barely ahead of Municipal Police (19%).

What can be gathered from this information is that in most cases, less than half of the agencies that reported had participated in these forms of computer-based training in the past. However, this information doesn't encapsulate their overall position regarding computer-based training. In fact, even if an agency hadn't participated in these types of training in the past, but were making plans to conduct these forms of computer-based training, then this would indicate that a relative change in their understanding of its benefits and their behavior toward this type of training may be occurring. Therefore, we next examined the data regarding these same categories of computer-based training, shifting the emphasis form the past to the future.

Table 6-10 displays a simple frequency distribution detailing which types of training listed on the survey were responded to more often. As you can see, few agencies responded that they intend to participate in GIS Software (8%) computer-based training. However, the numbers begin to increase for the other categories such as internet software (15%), community policing (18%), database usage training (20%), and basic training (25%). What is really interesting is that although few agencies reported having participated in community policing as a form of computer-based training in the past (4%), a much greater number of agencies responded that they were planning this type of training for the future (18%).

Table 6-10: Computer-Based Training Agencies Are Planning

Once again, with regard to the other category, we provided a space for agencies to specify the other types of computer-based training that they were planning to conduct. They are as follows:

CAD/records

CJ Net offered by FDLE

Crime mapping

FCIC/NCIC

In house directive training

In service training

Legal updates

Long distance education

MDT Training (2)

Microsoft office

Municipal LAN

Not specified

Police Law Institute (2)

Police reports

Record entry/HTE

Similar to the previous question regarding these forms of training conducted in the past, we thought it would be interesting to find out which agency types were planning these forms of training for the future. Therefore, the next stage in our analysis was to compare agency types and forms of computer-based training they were planning to conduct. Table 6-11 through Table 6-16 illustrate the results of these analyses.

To briefly summarize the results, Table 6-11 indicates that County Sheriffs had the highest percentage (26%) reporting that they were planning to participated in basic training computer-based training. The next closest would be Municipal Police (24%). Since the other categories have relatively small samples, we didn't take their high percentages at face value. It is also important to note that all agencies had higher percentage rates reporting that they were planning basic training as the form of computer-based training than any other types provided on the survey. Table 6-12 indicates that 18% of both Municipal Police and County Sheriffs report that they intend to participate in community policing as a form of computer-based training. For the category on Table 6-13, namely database use training, more County Sheriffs reported (26%) plans to participate in this than any other agency type. Municipal Police (19%) were the only other agency type that responded to this category. As can be seen on Table 6-14, few agencies responded that they planned to participate in GIS software training. Both County Sheriffs and Municipal Police responded at 8%. The category of computer-based training, "Internet Software" seen on Table 6-15, again showed County Sheriff reporting highest (18%), followed by Municipal Police (15%). Finally, the last category of computer-based training was "other", seen on Table 6-16. Here we see that County Sheriffs reported highest (13%) again followed by the Municipal Police (11%).

Earlier we commented that one of the most important questions for this survey asked agencies whether or not they had an existing computer lab for conducting computer-based training. That question provides us with information regarding the current capabilities of each agency and allows a variety of comparisons to be made with other data obtained in the survey. This section will examine another of the more important questions from this survey, namely where do they plan to be in 12 months regarding the establishment of a computer lab for conducting computer-based training.

If you will recall, the first question on the distance learning capability survey asked the question: "Do you have an existing computer lab for doing computer-based training?". An overwhelming number of respondents (68%) answered negatively to this question, indicating that they currently do not have a computer lab. Please refer to Table 2-1 for an illustration of the responses to this question.

Since we found out that many of the responding agencies did not have existing labs for conducting computer based training, we thought it would be interesting to see how many of those agencies that did not have a computer lab were planning to set up one in the future. Again, please refer to Table/Chart 2-2 for an illustration of several things. First, almost all of the 124 agencies responding to question about an existing computer lab also responded to the question regarding future plans for a lab (121 of 124 agencies). Secondly, of these 121 agencies, 73% responded that they did not have plans to set up a computer lab for computer-based training in the future.

From here, two types of questions naturally arise: first, what size were the agencies that were and were not planning to establish a computer lab within the next 12 months; and second, what types of agencies were they? This section intends to answer these questions as well as compare the answers to other demographic variables from the survey.

The first comparison that was made looked at agency types. Similar to before, when we were concerned with the agency types and existing lab status, we made our comparisons. Table/Chart 7-1 illustrates the results of these comparisons. A total of 157 agencies responded to this question, with 35% of these responding that they did plan to set up a computer lab in the next 12 months. Of these, County Sheriffs were the highest respondents (43%) followed by Municipal Police agencies (33%). Bear in mind that 124 agencies (68% of our total sample) responded that they did not currently have a lab. When you consider that an additional 55 agencies responded that they planned to establish a lab in the next 12 months, that overall rate decreases to just 38%.

Table 7-1: Comparison of Agency Type and Future Lab Status

If you recall, earlier in the report we detailed how we utilized the number of total employees to break the agencies into three groups; small (1-250 employees), medium (251-1000 employees), and large (more than 1000 employees). We used this as our basis for further examination of the data. Table/Chart 7-2 illustrate our findings, which indicate that more medium-sized agencies planned to establish a lab within the next 12 months (56%) than any of the other agency types. However, what struck us as extremely interesting was the fact that 100% of the large agencies and 93% of the medium-sized agencies that responded having no existing computer lab (see Table 2-5) indicated that they planned to establish one in the next 12 months. When looking at similar data for the small-sized agencies, we get less impressive numbers (35%).

As can be seen from the data in this section, some (32%) of the 183 agencies reported they currently have a computer lab for conducting computer-based training. Moreover, an additional number of the agencies reported plans to establish a computer lab in the next 12 months, which would lower the overall percentage of our sample without a lab to just 38%. When we looked at additional information, such as agency size, we were able to discover a pattern where almost all of the large and medium-sized agencies planned to create a computer lab. However, the smaller agencies didn't respond as well. One could speculate as to the reasons for this, such as lack of funding or lower priority due to less staff. Regardless, this is something that needs to be addressed.

Once again, like earlier in our survey, not only is it of great importance to know who plans to establish a computer lab for conducting computer-based training, but it is also extremely valuable to know what their capabilities will be when they do create a lab.

When discussing the capabilities of a future computer lab, the types of information that the survey attempted to gather was focused mainly upon numbers. For example, the number of computers in the lab, the number of computers with CD-ROM drives, the number of computers connected to the Internet, and so forth. This information is valuable because it informs us of the current capabilities of those agencies that do have computer labs. In a sense, an outdated computer lab with no Internet connection and no computers with CD-ROM drives is as useful as no computer lab when considering computer-based training.

However, before conducting any comparisons, it is necessary to provide the distributions of responses to each of the questions. The first question asked "How many computers in the lab?" As Chart 8-1 illustrates, a total of 59 agencies responded. The responses ranged from 0 to 50, with the mode being 2 and the average being 6.29. Keep in mind however, that the average number of computers in the agencies' labs can be a bit deceiving since 2 agencies responded 25 and 50 on the chart below.

The next question asked "How many have CD-ROM drives or access to networked CD-ROM drives?" As Chart 8-2 illustrates, the responses ranged from 0 to 99, with the mode being 2 and the average being 7.79. Keep in mind however, that the average number of computers with CD-ROM could also be skewed by the fact that 3 agencies responded 25, 50, and 99 on the chart below.

Following the order of the survey distributed to the law enforcement agencies, the next set of data we examined asked "How many lab computers are connected to the Internet?" As indicated by Chart 8-3, the answers ranged from 0 to 50, with the mode being 1. Additionally, the average response was 4.94 computers with Internet connection in the lab. However it is important to again note that few responded to the higher categories of 12, 13, 15, 16, and 50. This has the tendency to raise the overall average.

Chart 8-3: Distribution of Future Lab Computers with Internet Connection

The next variable examined also dealt with Internet connection, however this question wanted to know "How many other agency computers are linked to the Internet?"

As indicated by Chart 8-4, the responses ranged from 0 to 200, with the most common response being 3. The overall average response was 19.80, however there were a few high responses and one extreme response (e.g., 200), which will raise the overall average.

This data, compared with the above information regarding Chart 8-3, could indicate a familiarity with the uses and importance of the Internet. Suppose an agency responded that they intended to build a computer lab within the next 12 months and they indicated that relatively few computers in the overall agency were connected to the Internet. If the numbers are higher for the agencies’ lab connected computers, then it might indicate a possible familiarity with the Internet's value for training purposes.

However, we found that 36 of the 54 responding agencies (67%) indicated that for these labs, five or less computers would have Internet connection compared with 23 of the same 54 agencies (43%) indicating that five or less agency computers would have Internet access. This leads us to believe that the agencies realize the importance of providing Internet connection for the overall agency, but more education, information, and exposure to the Internet regarding training purposes is needed.

Chart 8-4: Distribution of Future Agency Computers with Internet Connection

The final piece of information regarding the future lab specifications is concerned with the type of Internet connection speed of the agency’s lab. Three choices were provided, namely: (1) 56K or less modem access; (2) Cable modem connection; or (3) T1 or higher. The first connection type is inferior to the other choices. Therefore, if most of the labs were to indicate an answer of (2) or (3) for this question, then we would be certain of their labs having the best possible connection to the Internet.

As Table/Chart 8-5 illustrates, 61 agencies responded to this question, with the majority of them (53%) indicating that their connection will be 56K or less.

That completes our examinations of the distributions of each specific piece of information. We will now make comparisons utilizing the data on the future lab specifications with the only demographic variable that it makes sense to do, namely agency types. It would be interesting to know, out of the overall sample, which type of law enforcement agency was planning to create the best labs (e.g., more computers overall, more with CD-ROM, more with a higher connection speed such as T1, etc.) in the next 12 months.

With that in mind, the first comparison was made after separating the labs into three categories or sizes: (1) small (1-5 computers); (2) medium (6-10 computers); and large (11 or more computers). Comparing the number of future lab computers with the agency type, our data revealed (as indicated in Table/Chart 8-6) that 73% of all the County Sheriff agencies who replied planned to establish medium-sized labs. This was consistent with the lab size for the majority of these agencies (54%) who already had existing labs (see Table 3-6). Additionally, 67% of all Municipal Police Agencies who replied were planning small-sized labs. Again, this data is consistent with the earlier data regarding the existing lab sizes for Municipal Police, as 76% reported small-sized labs. Finally, when examining the large-sized labs, the Municipal Police were only 1 percent higher than the County Sheriffs who responded, which was different than our earlier data regarding existing large labs. Overall, College Police and the Other category did not have a high enough response rate to make valid comparisons.

The next comparison was made using CD-ROM and agency type. This variable was separated into four categories, namely: none; small (1-5 computers); medium (6-10 computers); and large (11 or more computers). Essentially, the only difference in the way in which we categorized these labs was the addition of the "none" category. This was done because some agencies reported that they would have no CD-ROM capabilities in their future labs. Table/Chart 8-7 illustrates that the County Sheriffs appear to be planning a greater percentage of medium and large-sized computer labs with CD-ROM capabilities (67%) than any other agency types. However, the only agency type to report that their computer labs in the next 12 months would be without CD-ROM computers are the County Sheriffs (13%). As for the Municipal Police agencies, 71% reported that they were planning to construct small-sized computer labs with CD-ROM capabilities.

The third comparison made dealt with lab computers connected to the Internet. Like the previous category, this variable was divided into four groups as well. These groups were identical to the previous variable.

Table/Chart 8-8 indicates that the Municipal Police agencies will be constructing the worst labs in terms of computers connected to the Internet. Our sample included 38 of these types of agencies responding to our survey, with 11% responding that they would have no lab computers with Internet connection, while another 68% fell within the small (1-5 computers) category. This was similar to what we found regarding the existing Municipal Police agencies' labs. The majority of those likewise did not have lab computers with Internet connections. However, when examining the results for the County Sheriff agencies, we found much different results for those planning to construct a lab in the next 12 months compared to those who already had existing labs. The data below reveals that 50% fall into the medium category, while another 14% fall into the large category. This is completely different than the data seen on Table 3-8, where of the 13 County Sheriff agencies that responded, 23% of those reported no Internet lab computer connections and another 39% fell into the small category (1-5 computers).

The next logical stage in our analysis was to examine overall agency Internet connection capability. Then, we would be able to compare which agencies provided Internet connection for computers in and out of the lab. Before we were able to do this, we had to once again divide our responses into logical groupings. We decided upon the following categories: 0 (no computers); 1 (1-10 computers); 2 (11-50 computers); and 3 (51 or more computers). The reason this variable has slightly different categories than the previous variable is because agencies typically have many more computers overall than in the computer labs.

As Table/Chart 8-9 illustrates, the results of our data analyses reveal some interesting things. For one, when examining the 14 County Sheriffs who reported in this category, an equal amount (29%) replied that they would have 1-10 (small), 11-50 (medium), and 51 or more (large) agency computers connected to the Internet in the next 12 months. When considering Municipal Police agencies, the majority of the 38 respondents (66%) indicated that they would have between 1 and 10 computers Internet connected. Overall, there were few agencies (14% County and 11% Municipal) that responded there would be no agency computers with Internet connection.

What strikes us as interesting about Tables 8-8 and 8-9 is the amount of agencies reporting that their future labs will have no computers with Internet connections (4% of the 54 respondents) and the amount reporting no agency computers will have Internet connections (11% of the 54 respondents). It isn't that we feel these are high percentages, because indeed they are not. We thought that it was interesting because looking back at the data on Tables 3-8 and 3-9, the agencies who responded that they had computer labs exhibited much higher percentages; for lab computers with no Internet connections it was 42% of the 62 respondents and for agency computers with no Internet connections it was 28% of the 76 respondents. This could indicate a change in attitude toward the Internet, one which might have occurred after the creation of the existing labs and before the creation of new computer labs.

Likewise, the data regarding CD-ROM capabilities is also fairly positive. Recall that the data displayed on Table/Chart 3-7 showed that there are agencies using computers today (e.g., no CD-ROM capabilities), thus rendering them virtually useless except for report writing (12% of the 62 respondents). The lack of a CD-ROM drive would indicate that the computer was quite outdated. The data revealed on Table 8-7 however, showed much different results. Only 3% of the 58 respondents indicated that their lab computers would not have CD-ROM capabilites. Of course, this is a vast improvement from the 12%, and one which could be a result of the standardization discussed earlier.

The final examination we made with the set of data was to compare the speed of the lab's Internet connection with the type of agency. Data from Table/Chart 8-10 reveals that the majority of the County Sheriffs who reported (65%) indicated that their future labs will have a connection speed of T1 or higher, while the majority of Municipal Police agencies (62%) responded that they will have 56K or less.

As we stated earlier in Section 4, the many uses of a web page as an educational and informational tool are seemingly endless. As we advance toward the turn of the century, more and more businesses, agencies, and individuals are establishing themselves on the World Wide Web. This section intends to find out if the law enforcement agencies in our sample are taking similar steps.

The first step required simply asking whether an agency had plans to develop a web page in the next 12 months. Table/Chart 9-1 illustrates the responses we received. A total of 106 agencies responded, with well over half of those respondents (66%) indicating that they did have plans to develop a web page in the next 12 months.

Once again, knowing that an agency was planning to develop a web page only told us so much. Our next question inquired as to the intended use(s) of that page. Before providing a detailed breakdown of the responses from the agencies, it is important to note here that since there are multiple uses for a web page, we allowed agencies to respond multiple times to this question. This resulted in more total responses than there are agencies who responded overall, but that was to be expected.

Table 9-2 illustrates our findings, which show that the most common use of these future web pages by these agencies is to provide basic agency information (70%). The next common use for a web site by these agencies will be community policing (53%), followed next by providing information on the agency head (40%). The least common use for these future web sites will be training purposes, with 24% of the agencies responding here. Oddly enough, although the percentages and number of agencies responding were different, the same order remained for web page uses regardless of the current or future existence of such a page.

Indeed it is important to have this information, but without knowing the ways in which agencies will utilize web pages, we are left with only half of the question answered. Therefore, the next stage in our analyses was to compare agency type and future web page uses, which Table 9-3 through Table 9-7 illustrates.

To briefly summarize the results, Table 9-3 indicates that Municipal Police agencies had the highest percentage (42%), followed closely by County Sheriffs (41%) reporting that they intended to use their future web page to provide basic agency information. Table 9-4 indicates that for the category "using the web page for community policing", Municipal Police agencies reported the highest (33%). Table 9-5 indicates that for the category "using the web page for providing forms to the public", College Police reported the highest (40%) intended usage followed by the County Sheriffs (21%). For the category in Table 9-6, namely "using a web page for providing information on the agency head", Municipal Police agencies reported the highest (24%), followed closely by County Sheriffs (23%) and College Police (20%). Finally, for the category "using the web page for training" seen on Table 9-7, College Police agencies reported the highest (40%), followed quite a bit behind by Municipal Police (15%).

The survey not only inquired as to the hardware components of these agency's existing labs, but questions were also designed to gather information on types of software they planned to install on their future networks. Essentially, there were questions regarding three types of software: (1) web browsers used; (2) e-mail software used; and (3) other software (e.g., chat, forum discussion, etc.) used. Distributions were run to see the more common software types utilized overall. No comparisons were made, as it didn't seem valuable to know which type of agency used which type of software.

Table 10-1 illustrates the distribution regarding web browser software. Again, keep in mind that multiple answers were allowed in case an agency had the old and new versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape installed on their network. From the 55 agencies who responded that they had plans to establish a computer lab within the next 12 months, the majority responded that they planned to install Internet Explorer 4.0 on their networks (67%). The next highest response rate was for Netscape 4.0 (45%). Only 1 agency responded that they intended to utilize another web browser on their future network.

Table 10-2 illustrates the distribution regarding the e-mail software agencies intend to utilize on the future computer networks. Once again, multiple responses were allowed in case different types of software were used by one agency. Additionally, for this category were asked those who replied "other" to specify the type of software used. Results indicate that from the 55 responding agencies, an overwhelming majority intend to use Outlook Express (45%), Netscape (31%), or some other (18%) type of e-mail software for their network. In fact, all other responses were 4% or less for the other categories provided.

As part of the survey, we asked those agencies who intended to use other forms of e-mail to specify the types. The other e-mail software programs reported by the agencies were as follows:

AOL

Exchange (2)

GroupWise (3)

Internet Mail

Lotus Notes

MS Exchange

Parkave.net

It is important to note here that parentheses surrounding a number indicate the number of different times agencies specified that type of e-mail software. So for instance, three agencies marked "other" and then specified that they intended to use Group Wise software on their future networks.

Our final question inquired about the other types of software agencies planned to use on their networks, such as chat software, video conferencing software, forum discussion software, and GIS. Table 10-3 displays the responses, and indicates that very few agencies reported that they intended to utilize GIS (15%) or chat (13%) software on their future networks. Even less reported any intention of using the other types of software.

This section of the distance learning capability survey focuses on the individual officers and their interest and ability to participate in distance learning. For the presentation of our data, we will separate the responses of police, sheriffs and university officers from probation and parole officers. Our decision to do so is based upon the dichotomy of their mission. While police generally respond to individuals before the prosecutorial and incarceration phase, probation and parole agents on the other hand, generally interact with those who have been sentenced. In addition, since a CD-ROM aimed specifically at probation and parole was developed this year it will be helpful to know the home distance learning capacity of officers.

The following section covers the responses received from the police officers surveyed in this study.

We randomly chose 10 agencies from the 387 law enforcement agencies in Florida. All selected agencies were contacted to request permission to survey their officers. In cases where we were unable to make contact with the agency representative responsible for making such decisions, we replaced that agency with the another one from our sample. Our response rate was 100 percent in that from our initial sampling frame of 354 agencies, all 10 of the randomly chosen agencies returned at least 10 surveys.

Our two main demographic variables are age and rank. Age was reported as being 18-30; 31-40; 41-50; and 51-65. According to our data, the majority of our respondents (47.2%) were 31-40 years of age. Table 1-1 and Chart 1-1 contains the results.

Additionally, we gathered data on the rank of the respondents. A majority of our officers were line officers (82%). This is illustrated in Table 1-2 and Chart 1-2.

Section 2: Computer Specifications and Peripherals

In order for us to make an informed decision about the feasibility of distance learning for police officers, we needed to gather baseline data regarding the current computers that officers own and use at home. Table 2-1 and Chart 2-1 shows that most officers have a home personal computer (70.8%).

Being that much of the current software requires a powerful processor, we also needed to determine what percentage of our respondents had a Pentium processor, the industry standard for personal computers. Accordingly, we determined that 68% of our respondents who reported that they had a home computer also had an acceptable processor (Pentium) for today’s software (see Table 2-2).

Another crucial factor that affects the quality and quantity of Internet-based training is the speed of the modem. It is promising that many users have fast dial-up Internet connection speeds. While 28.8K and 33.6K are adequate dial-up speeds, 56K users will experience much faster transmission rates. Accordingly, 88% of the respondents who replied that they had a home computer also are accessing the Internet at rates of 28.8K and higher (see Table 2-3).

In addition to modem speed, RAM also influences the rate at which information is processed. Table 2-4 shows us that most users (51.9%) who replied that they had a home computer also have at least 32 MB of RAM, meeting the requirements of today’s software packages.

Access to a CD-ROM drive allows users to install and run powerful programs and applications. Additionally, most popular software today is developed to be installed and in some cases run via CD-ROM drive. Table 2-6 notes that 89.8% of respondents who replied that they had a home computer also have a CD-ROM drive.

Also pertinent to CD-ROM usage is the speed of the drive. Most users who replied that they had a home computer also reported having a 12X CD-ROM or better, with the mode being 24X (see Table 2-7). A 12X CD-ROM or greater is sufficient for efficient viewing of current multi-media CD-ROM’s.

In order to gain the full functionality of interactive programs, soundcards and speakers are required. Table 2-8 reveals that 86.3% of users who replied that they had a home computer also have soundcards and speakers.

Although most applications do not utilize a microphone, there are numerous ways in which audio input devices can enhance interactive programs. A majority (52.2%) of our respondents who replied that they had a home computer also indicated that they have a microphone (see Table 2-9).

The ability to access the Internet tremendously increases the amount of resources available to computer users. Our findings show that 74.1% of our respondents who replied that they had a home computer also had Internet access (see Table 2-10 and Chart 2-2).

In addition to showing us which browser users prefer, the next table also tells us that our respondents are utilizing the most up-to-date versions of web-browsers (see Table 2-11).

Table 2-12 shows that most respondents (65.1%) regularly use computers as part of their job assignment (see Table 2-13).

Table 2-12

Perhaps the single most important question of our study follows. Of the respondents who replied that they had a home computer, 61.5% of those responded that they would like to receive training at home (see Table 3-1).

Although not everyone may have a home computer or access to the Internet, there are on-line computers available to the public. Primarily these computers are located at libraries, university campuses, copy stores, bookstores and cybercafes. Slightly less than half of the respondents (49%) reported that they are willingly to travel to a facility to engage in Internet-based training (see Table 3-2).

Table 3-3 through 3-7 show which of the places the respondents have attended to use the Internet. Interestingly, officers reported that they have utilized the library the most, followed by university campuses. Officers reported that they rarely frequented bookstores, cybercafes and copy stores. A plausible explanation for these findings are that the two most commonly used facilities (libraries and universities) are free of charge to citizens, while the three least visited are generally on a pay-per-use basis.

The next table reveals that when we look at those who would like to receive training at home or are willing to travel to a facility for training, we find that 69.7% of our respondents would chose to engage in some form of distance learning (see Table 3-8).

Next, we looked the relationship between rank and willingness to travel to a facility for Internet-based training. We found that line officers were least likely to be willing to travel to such a facility (see Table 3-9).

When comparing age group and willingness to travel to a facility for Internet-based training, we found that respondents 31-40 were most likely to be willing to travel to such a facility (see Table 3-10).

Almost half of those who do not have current Internet access report that they would travel to such a facility for Internet-based training (see Table 3-11).

Approximately 2/3 of officers and supervisors reported that they would like to be able to participate in home training (see Table 3-12).

When comparing age groups and their willingness to participate in distance learning, we learn that for the age groups of 18-50, more than half would engage in such training. Only when we look at the age group of 51-65 do we find a group where less than half would prefer to conduct multi-media training (see Table 3-13).

According to Table 3-14, when those who have a computer at home are compared with their willingness to receive home-based training, we find that a majority of respondents with home computers would opt for home-based computer training.

And when we compare those with Internet access at home to their willingness to engage in home-based computer training, we find that a majority would prefer to conduct the computer training at home (see Table 3-15).

Table 3-16 shows us that only 16% of the respondents do not use computers at home and do not prefer to train at home.

The following section covers the responses received from the Florida Department of Corrections probation and parole officers surveyed in this study.

The survey was given to one Florida Department of Corrections district official and was forwarded to individual officers via agency channels. This method resulted in 448 surveys being returned to our office for analysis.

Our two main demographic variables are age and rank. Age was reported as being 18-30; 31-40; 41-50; and 51-65. According to our data, the majority of our respondents (31.7%) were 31-40 years of age. Table 1-1 and Chart 1-1 contains the results.

Additionally, we gathered data on the rank of the respondents. A majority of our officers were line officers (83.5%). This is illustrated in Table 1-2 and Chart 1-2.

Section 2: Computer Specifications and Peripherals

In order for us to make an informed decision about the feasibility of distance learning for probation and parole officers, we needed to gather baseline data regarding the current computers officers own and use at home. Table 2-1 and Chart 2-1 shows that most officers have a home personal computer (49.6%).

Being that much of the current software requires a powerful processor, we also needed to determine what percentage of our respondents had a Pentium processor, considered the industry standard for personal computers. Accordingly, we determined that 65% of our respondents who reported that they had a home computer also had an acceptable processor (Pentium) for today’s software (see Table 2-2).

Another crucial factor that affects the quality and quantity of Internet-based training is the speed of the modem. It is promising that many users have fast dial-up Internet connection speeds. While 28.8K and 33.6K are adequate dial-up speeds, 56K users will experience much faster transmission rates. Accordingly, 88.9% of the respondents who replied that they had a home computer also are accessing the Internet at rates of 28.8K and higher (see Table 2-3).

In addition to modem speed, RAM also influences the rate at which information is processed. Table 2-4 shows us that most users (51.9%) who replied that they had a home computer also have at least 32 MB of RAM, meeting the requirements of most of today’s software packages.

Access to a CD-ROM drive allows users to install and run powerful programs and applications. Additionally, most popular software today is developed to be installed and possibly be delivered via CD-ROM drive. Table 2-6 notes that 90.4% of respondents who replied that they had a home computer also have a CD-ROM drive.

Also pertinent is the speed of the CD-ROM drive. Most users who replied that they had a home computer also reported having a 10X or better CD-ROM drive with the mode being 16X (see Table 2-7). A 12X CD-ROM or greater is sufficient for efficient viewing of current multimedia CD-ROM’s.

In order to gain the full functionality of interactive programs, soundcards and speakers are required. Table 2-8 reveals that 88.6% of users who replied that they had a home computer also have soundcards and speakers.

Although most applications do not utilize a microphone, there are numerous ways in which audio input devices can enhance interactive programs. A majority (53.3%) of our respondents who replied that they had a home computer also indicated that they have a microphone (see Table 2-9).

The ability to access the Internet tremendously increases the amount of resources available to computer users. Our findings show that 71.6% of our respondents who replied that they had a home computer also had Internet access (see Table 2-10 and Chart 2-2).

In addition to showing us which browser users prefer, the next table also tells us that our respondents are utilizing the most up-to-date versions of web-browsers (see Table 2-11).

Table 2-12 shows that most respondents (91.1%) regularly use computers as part of their job assignment (see Table 2-13).

Table 2-12

Perhaps the single most important question of our study follows. Of the respondents who replied that they had a home computer, 79% of those responded that they would like to receive training at home (see Table 3-1).

Although not everyone may have a home computer or access to the Internet, there are on-line computers available to the public. Primarily these computers are located at libraries, university campuses, copy stores, bookstores and cybercafes. Slightly more than 70% of the respondents reported that they are willingly to travel to a facility to engage in Internet-based training (see Table 3-2).

Tables 3-3 through 3-7 show where respondents have used the Internet outside the home and office. Interestingly, officers reported that they have utilized the library the most, followed by university campuses. Officers reported that they rarely frequented bookstores, cybercafes and copy stores. A plausible explanation for these findings are that the two most commonly used facilities (libraries and universities) are free of charge to citizens, while the three least visited are generally on a pay-per-use basis.

The next table reveals that when we look at those who would like to receive training at home or are willing to travel to a facility for training, we find that 88.5% of our respondents would chose to engage in some form of distance learning (see Table 3-8).

Table 3-8:

Next, we looked the relationship between rank and willingness to travel to a facility for Internet-based training. We found that line officers were most likely to be willing to travel to such a facility (see Table 3-9).

When comparing age group and willingness to travel to a facility for Internet-based training, we found that respondents 31-40 were most likely to be willing to travel to such a facility (see Table 3-10).

Just over 70% of those who do not have current Internet access report that they would travel to such a facility for Internet-based training (see Table 3-11).

Over 2/3 of officers and supervisors reported that they would like to be able to participate in home training (see Table 3-12).

When comparing age groups and their willingness to participate in distance learning, we learn that for the age groups of 18-50, more than half would engage in such training. Only when we look at the age group of 51-65 do we find a group where less than 2/3 would prefer to conduct multimedia training (see Table 3-13).

According to Table 3-14, when those who have a computer at home are compared with their willingness to receive home-based training, we find that a majority of respondents with home computers would opt for home-based computer training.

And when we compare those with Internet access at home to their willingness to engage in home-based computer training, we find that a majority would prefer to conduct the computer training at home (see Table 3-15).

Table 3-16 shows us that only 2% of the respondents do not use computers at home and do not prefer to train at home.

http:// ci.tampa.fl.us

http:// www.apopka.net

http:// www.largo.com

http://150.243.21sheriff/hillsborough/

http://bcso.org

http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/police/index.html

http://ci.homestead.fl.us

http://ci.oviedo.fl.us

http://cl.sarasota.fl.us

http://co.manatee.fl.us

http://crimprev.gate.net

http://fwb.org/html/fwbpd01.htm

http://gate.net/~dio1/index.htm

http://greencovesprings.com

http://gretpolice@aol.com

http://hcso.hernando.fl.us

http://home1.gte.net/hcpd/index.html

http://lakemaryfl.com

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/alachua

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/belleairbeach

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/ftmyers/ftmyers.html

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/hollywood/index.html

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/junobch/junobch.html

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/melbourne

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/monticello/

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/neptune

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/palmbch/

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/pinellaspark

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/ptorange/general.html

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/sewallspt

http://legal.firn.edu/muni/wiltonmanors/

http://legal.firn.edu/other/pbschool/index.html

http://legal.firn.edu/sheriff/stlucie/

http://legal.firn.edu:80/muni/palmbay/palmbaypolicedepartment

http://lighthousepoint.com

http://members.aol.com/indianshrs/webpage/is.html

http://members.aol.com/marilynn77/tllhp.htm

http://members.aol.com/stuartpd

http://members.xoom.com/midway_pd

http://ns2.co.alachua.fl.us/~acso/

http://pascocounty.com/sheriff

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu.~ucfpd

http://police@ci.punta-gorda.fl.us

http://ppd@gbso.net

http://seminolesheriff.org

http://sheriff.polk.net

http://sheriffleefl.org

http://srso.home.ml.org

http://users.leading.net/~oppd

http://vbpd.org

http://www.altamonte.org

http://www.bwd.net/lcso/

http://www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us

http://www.ci.clearwater.fl.us/police

http://www.ci.coral-springs/fl.us/po/police.html

http://www.ci.daytona-beach.fl.us/police/

http://www.ci.greenacres.fl.us

http://www.ci.leesburg.fl.us/police/index.html

http://www.ci.maitland.fl.us

http://www.ci.north-port.fl.us

http://www.ci.orlando.fl.us/departments/opd/index.html

http://www.cityofpsl.com/ps1cops.htm

http://www.claysheriff.com

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/lcso/leon.html

http://www.co.pinellas.fl.us/sheriff/pcso.htm

http://www.co.pinellas.us/sheriff/pcso.htm

http://www.crystal-river.com/main.htm

http://www.ct.net/~sheriff

http://www.cwgn.com

http://www.deland.org

http://www.fau.edu/student/police/p0lice.htm

http://www.fsu.edu/nfsu.pd

http://www.ftpiercepolice.com

http://www.hardeeso.com

http://www.jupiter.fl.us

http://www.laker.net/margatefl/lmpdhome.html

http://www.lcso.com

http://www.legal.firn.edu/muni/pembroke/

http://www.martin.fl.us/govt/co/sher

http://www.mdpd.metro-dade.com

http://www.naplesnet.com/sheriff

http://www.nbvpolice@aol.com

http://www.net-magic/fernandina/city.htm

http://www.nmbpolicedept.com

http://www.oldcity.com/sapd/

http://www.pbso.org

http://www.sebastianpd.org

http://www.sheriff.co.marion.fl.us/

http://www.sheriff.org

http://www.state.fl.us/mcso.htm

http://www.stcloud.org

http://www.strato.net/~appd

http://www.tauares.org

http://www.templeterrace.com

http://www.town.surfside.fl.us

http://www.westmelbourne.org/police/wmpd/

http://www.wpbpolice.org