Research conducted using the content analysis method shows that reports prepared by the committees vary to a large degree and that it is hard to use them for reconstructing actual actions taken by committees and for assessing their coordination capacities. The district governors rarely enlarge the composition of committees. However, their meetings are quite often attended by other entities responsible for safety. Therefore, the committees have - as regards the subjective scope - some coordination potential that is nevertheless seldom used. Moreover, the committees rarely use other measures promoting coordination, e.g. they rarely cooperate with other entities responsible for safety or with the experts. The committees very rarely take any actions connected with prevention programmes or urgent needs or send requests relating to safety and order to other entities. As a matter of fact, no extra activity shall be expected, as it follows from the reports that even with respect to statutory obligations the committees are engaged to a very small degree. It seems that statutory tasks are fulfilled to a very small degree. In general, the committees shall be referred to as passive rather than consultative bodies, as their activity with respect to consultation is mostly reduced to expressing opinions on the district budget. These conclusions drawn during the first stage of research were then verified at subsequent stages of empirical analysis (a questionnaire sent by mail and indepth interviews). Taking account of the culture of a particular committee, the following types of committees may be distinguished: (1) sham committees, (2) crisis committees, (3) the "necessary minimum" committees, (4) passive and consultative committees, (5) coordinating committees. Types (1), (2) and (3) occur most often in practice, whereas coordinating committees are a rarity. While it is true that respondents generally expressed positive opinions on provisions governing the committees, it must be assumed that this does not necessarily mean that they are enthusiastic about the committees themselves. Those respondents who made some demands on the legislator requested that the committee's functions connected with exercising authority be expanded and that the term of the committee be equal to that of the district council. However, completely different suggestions were also made. Four basic options with respect to assessing the coordination capacities of the committees arise out of the research: (a) the committees do not have any competences relating to exercising authority, thus they do not have any coordination capacities, therefore their role is marginal or they do not play any role at all, (b) the committees do not have any competences relating to exercising authority, thus they do not have any coordination capacities, yet they are important advisory bodies to the district governor and they turn out to be great as such bodies, (c) the committees do not have huge decision-making powers, yet they promote coordination by ensuring information flows, integrating actions and planning, (d) the committees not only promote coordination, but may also influence the implementation of assumed obligations, provided that their position will be high. Respondents were very rarely able to specify what they understand as coordination. While it is true that 40% of those surveyed recognise that committees have positive impact on the functioning of entities responsible for public safety and order, more than 30% of them are of the opinion that actions taken by committees did not change anything in this respect. Moreover, nearly 1/3 of respondents agree with the opinion that the committees are "yet another administrative creations that no one wants and that everyone ignores", adding that they are useless, that they unnecessarily do the same tasks as other entities and that they do not have any considerable influence on what is going on in the district. In general it may be assumed, on the basis of results obtained through surveys and field research, that the hypothesis about insignificant role of the committees with respect to coordinating local activities aiming at ensuring safety (the hypothesis was proposed after the reports prepared by the committees had been analysed) has been confirmed. Committees that are more active and that actually take some coordinating measures are very rare. It is worrying that many respondents underline the key role of the so-called "human factor" with respect to the quality of actions aiming at ensuring safety. Despite the fact that the research suggests that the committees are viewed very differently, it is to be noted that many respondents noticed positive effects connected with these institutions (in particular with respect to improving information flows and cooperation quality). It also appears that committees, despite their often limited activity, are sometimes quite deeply rooted in the structure of local entities in charge of safety; therefore suggestions that they should be abolished, which are offered by some respondents, seem incorrect. With a view to the future law, it is to be considered whether the committees should not be appointed optionally. This would save the local governments coordinating actions in other way the trouble of pretending that the committees are actually active.