Transcript WHY THE DROP IN CRIME?

Executive Issues Seminar Series
1998
Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas
Texas Regional Community Policing Institute
Sam Houston State University
INVESTIGATIVE
RESEARCH
Dr. Larry Hoover
Police Research Center
Sam Houston State University
We Have Examined
Neighborhood
Centered
Targeted Enforcement
Youth & Gang
Programs
Problem-Oriented
Strategies
We Will Examine National
Research:
• RAND Corporation Criminal Investigation Study
(1975)
• Three Approaches to Criminal Apprehension in
Kansas City (1976)
• Stanford Research Institute Felony Investigation
Decision Model (1978)
• Eck’s Study of the Investigation of Burglary and
Robbery (1983)
• Washington D.C. & Phoenix Repeat Offender
Projects (1985 &1991)
And
• Repeat Offender Units in Austin,
Dallas, Houston and San Antonio
RAND Criminal Investigation
Study
• Survey response from 153 of 300
jurisdictions employing more than 150
employees
• Site visits to 25 agencies
• Sought to determine if differences in training,
staffing, workload, or procedures have an
effect on arrest or clearance rates
• Classic “meta” analysis.
RAND Results
•
•
•
•
•
•
No element has an effect
65% of investigations receive only
superficial attention
Clearance depends almost solely on
information from victim
In cases that are solved, more time spent on post
arrest processing than on identifying the offender
• Of cases ultimately cleared with an unnamed
offender, almost all are solved as a result of routine
procedures, e.g., photo line-up
• “Detectives are not the embodiment of Sherlock
Holmes, but glorified clerks for the district attorney.”
Three Approaches to Criminal
Apprehension in Kansas City
• Regular patrol with crime information
center data provision on locations and
perpetrators
• Surveillance of high probability
locations
• Surveillance of known active
offenders.
Results
• LOP produced the best results
(fewer hours per target
arrest/charge/conviction)
• However, officers frequently
broke cover to make petty
apprehensions
• Low morale
• CIC information to patrol did
improve apprehensions, while
maintaining patrol availability
SRI Felony Investigation
Decision Model
• Examined clearance data from Oakland, CA
• Tested follow-up decision models for
robbery, burglary, assault with a deadly
weapon, rape, and auto theft
• Constructed reliable models for burglary and
robbery
• Accuracy ranges between 57% and 92% in
other Alameda County agencies
Weighting Scheme for Burglary
• Time of occurrence: less than 1 hour = 5, 1
to 12 hours = 1, 12 to 24 hours = .3, more
than 24 hours = 0
• Witness report of offense = 7
• On-view report of offense = 1
• Usable fingerprints = 7
• Suspect information developed = 9
• Vehicle description = .1
Total Score Must = 10
Eck’s Study of Robbery and
Burglary
• Examined investigations in St. Petersburg,
Dekalb County, Georgia, and Wichita,
Kansas
• Review of 320 robbery investigations and
3,360 for burglary
• Constructed a non-quantitative model for
efficacy of follow-up investigation - the
triage typology
Triage Typology
• Those cases that cannot be solved with
a reasonable amount of effort
• Those cases that have already been
solved by circumstance, and require
only the suspect to be apprehended
• Those cases that, with a reasonable
amount of effort may be solved, but
certainly will not be solved without
such effort.
Repeat Offender Program in
Washington, D.C.
• 212 targeted offenders matched against 212
controls
• 72% of ROP arrests were for outstanding
warrants, only 28% for new offenses
• ROP experimental arrested by unit = 106 of
212 (50%), by other units 17 of 212 (8%)
• Controls arrested = 13 of 212 (6%)
• ROP, however, evolved to a warrant
apprehension unit.
Repeat Offender Unit in
Phoenix, Arizona
• Evaluated by RAND Corporation, compared
randomly assigned experimentals and controls
• Chance of arrest for exp. = 93%, for controls =
88%
• Chance of prison sentence for exp. = 79%, for
controls = 68%
• Average length of sentence for exp. = 91
months, for controls = 73 months.
Texas ROP Programs
•
•
•
•
•
Austin
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
First analysis in 1992, follow-up site
visits by Dr. Bruce Gay, Univ of
Houston, in December 1997.
Texas Law Enforcement
Agencies Having Career
Criminal Units in 1992
• Arlington
• Houston
• Austin
• Lubbock
• El Paso
• Montgomery Co.
S.O.
• Ft. Worth
• Harris Co. S.O.
• San Angelo
Program Orientation of Repeat
Offender Programs
In 1992
Career Criminals
Locations & Offenses
Dallas ROP
San Antonio ROP
Felony Task Force
Houston TOP
Austin ROP
Narcotics
Original SAPD ROP Operational
Squad Objectives
• Identify & target active repeat offenders.
• Proactively perform covert mobile & fixed surveillance of active
repeat offenders categorized either as surveillance or warrant
targets.
• Apprehend violators of the law & provide general assistance to
other departmental units as well as outside agencies.
• Serve arrest warrants.
• Execute search warrants to recover stolen property and/or
contraband.
• Gather info on criminal activity & suspects through the use of
field interviews & Polaroid photos to keep the dept. current of
criminals, criminal associates, & modes of transportation.
Austin ROP Targeting Criteria
• Three (3) previous convictions for any
Part I UCR offense or felony drug
offense, or both.
• Any juvenile convictions as adults for
any aggravated felony or felony drug
offense after adjudication.
• At least one (1) state prison
incarceration for any felony.
Dallas ROP Targeting Criteria
• Any individual who has served time in the TDCJ or in any
other state or federal correctional facility or
• Any individual who has two or more felony convictions or
• Any individual who has 4 or more felony arrests in the past
5 years or
• Any offender who is currently on parole or felony
probation and has 2 felony arrests in the past 2 years or
• Information from 2 or more reliable sources that the
offender is active in Part I, UCR Offenses or
• Information from one reliable source that the offender is
active in a targeted offense and the offender has a prior
arrest record for that specific offense or
• The offender has a history of drug related arrests.
Dallas’ ROP Task Flow Chart
Target Phase
Apprehension Phase
Stings
Informants
W arrants
Survelliance
Patrol
Division
Other
Divisions
Official Records
Tracking Phase
Patrol
Liaison
Officer
Target
Selection
Committe
e
Approve
or Reject
Targets
Prosecution
Targets
Career Criminal
Prosecution
Enforcement
Tx. Dept. of
Corrections
TOP Cases
Filed
Parole
Active
Targets
Investigation
Begins
Inactive
Targets
Enforcement
Targets
Augmented
Prosecution
Automatic
Recommended
Researched Sources
Wanted Persons
Crime Analysis
Failure to
Appear
Fugitive
File
Parole
Violation
Computer
Searches
Other Police Agencies
Confidential Informants
Target Analysis Section
Rejected
Screen candidates for entry into TOP
based on defined candidate criteria.
Target Analysis Sergeant
Apprehension Phase
Coordinate efforts with all
Criminal Justice System
Components
Candidate meets criteria and
criminal activity is confirmed.
Rejected
Post-Arrest Activity
--Provide related cases
--Case enhancement
--Assist D.A.
--Maximum sentences
Lieutenant
D.A.
Pre-Arrest Targeting
--Surveillance operations --Execute warrants
--Reverse sting operations
--Use of confidential informants
Figure 18
Houston Police Department's TOP Flow Chart
Judicial
Prosecution
Track case through
judicial system
Houston’s TOP Flow Chart
Current Status of Texas ROP
Units
• AUSTIN - Discontinued after grant expired
• DALLAS - Discontinued, replaced by an
emphasis on public integrity cases
• HOUSTON - Continues, but recently
underwent complete restaffing
• SAN ANTONIO - Still does occasional
ROP targeting, but now a generalist fugitive
and offense investigative task force.
Reasons for the Failure of
ROP Units
• Screening criteria to identify target offenders are
problematic.
• Per arrest cost is extremely high.
• Offenders identified by ROP ought to already be
known to relevant specialized unit (burglary, auto
theft, robbery, narcotics). It may be more cost
effective to make an existing open case.
• Diversion of resources is almost inevitable, to
major case investigation, warrants, or narcotics.
A Final Note, Again
• In 25 years we have
learned a great deal
• However, we still
know relatively little
about what works in
policing.