Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/17/1980 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 1980, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. ASSESSMENT CENTER PROPOSAL-HELEN TERRY/CHIEF OF POLICE 2. COLDWELL BANKERS-ROBERT MUSE-RE: AVAILABLE PROPERTY DOWNTOWN TIGARD/PLANNING DIRECTOR i 3. REQUEST HERB MORISSETTE BUILDING-DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS i 00 4. EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT POLICY-CHIEF OF POLICE 0 5. MC DONALD & 92ND AVENUE SEWER LID'S-PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTS-DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 6. CH2M-HILL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY STATUS REPORT & REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WORK-DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 7. CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION PROPOSALS-PLANNING DIRECTOR 8. DISCUSSION-POLICY REGARDING MLP'S & z STREET IMPROVE`ENTS -Aiii LvDIM ENTS TO Ti3C 18.56 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS -AMENDMENTS TO TMC 18.32. & 18.40 CP & C-4 ZONES -AMENDMENTS TO TMC 18.24 MULTIFA14ILY ZONE 9. OTHER 10. ADJOURNMENT T 1G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C T T STUDY SESSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 179 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President of Council, John Cook; Councilmen Tom Brian, Kenneth Scheckla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe Bailey; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; Planning Director, Aldie Howard (left at 9:35 P.M.) ; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2. ASSESSMENT CENTER PROPOSAL (a) Chief of Police introduced Helen Terry, civil service examiner for the City of Vancouver, Washington. (b) Council discussed the proposal with Ms Terry noting areas of sensitivity, dis- cussing testing procedures and selection of the assessors. (c) Councilwoman Stimler moved to commission Ms. Helen Terry to conduct the assess- ment center and directed costs to not exceed $1,500. Councilman Brian seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 3. COLDWELL BANKERS - RE: Available property downtown Tigard. (a) Robert Muse and Carl Anderson representing Coldwell Bankers, discussed with Council the property that is available in downtown Tigard. (b) Consensus of Council was to discuss this matter in an executive session in the next few weeks. 4. REQUEST HERB MORISSETTE BUILDERS (a) Mr. Glen McBride, Herb Morissette Builders, requested Council a]low their company to wait until July 21, 1981, to complete the 1" overlay on Muttley`s Addition Subdivision. (b) Director of Public Works requested Council allow the overlay to be completed by July of 1981, only because of adverse weather conditions for this type of work, but requested that all other deficiencies in the subdivision be completed immediately. (c) Consensus of Council was to require completion of all deficiencies in Muttley's Addition Subdivision immediately except for the I" overlay which must be com- pleted by June 30, 1981. It was noted that if the deficiencies, except for the overlay, were not completed shortly, the City would consider drawing on the performance bond to insure completion. 5. CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION PROPOSALS (a) Planning Director discussed several annexations which would create islands and noted what petitions had been received requesting annexation. Among those areas discussed was Cascade Avenue, I-5/Haines Road, Durham Road, Little Bu?i Mountain Area and Gaarde to 135th Avenue. (b) Mrs Del Ball. requested that Council be aware of her area and special concerns regarding her property. Her property is adjacent to Landmark Ford Just off I-5. (c) Consensus of Council, excepting Councilman Scheckla, to annex the island of 8-10 lots created by the annexation of I-5 at the same time Iry L.arsen's pro- posed annexation occurs. (d) After lengthy discussion, Councilman Scheckla expressed his desire to wait un- til January 1, 1981, to consider this matter further. Consensus of Council, excepting Councilman Scheckla, was to see annexation resolutions at the 11-24-80 meeting for those areas that have signed petitions for annexation. (e) Councilman Brian requested that staff prepare information regarding the annexation of the islands in the Little Bull Mountain area and bring to the next study session. 6. POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING MLP'S AND HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS (a) Planning Director discussed the problems faced by the Planning Department regard- ing half street improvement when minor land partitions are granted. There are times when economic and topography considerations don't allow full half street improvements. (b) After lengthy discussion by Council and staff, consensus of Council was to up- hold the current policy of requiring half street improvements to be placed on the ground, acknowledging there are some exceptions for topography and economic hardships. 7. DISCUSSION - AMENDMENTS TO TMC 18.56 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - AMENDMENTS TO TMC 18.32 and 18.40 CP & C-4 ZONES - AMENDMENTS TO TMC 18.24 MULTIFAMILY ZONE (a) Planning Director discussed amendments to be heard at the regular meeting of November 24, 1980. Planning Director left - 9:35 P.M. 8. EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT POLICY (a) Chief of Police requested Council consider a change in wordage of the personnel policy and procedures manual in section 9.1(e) . The current verbage is "Police service employees are elibible for education and training incentive increments to be applied to their salary (please see T.P.O.A. contract) ." The Chief of Police felt that it was improper to pay an employee's educational costs and then to also pay them educational increments after receiving the degree. (b) After discussion with staff and Legal Counsel, consensus of Council was to have staff prepare the necessary papers to change section 9.1(e) of the personnel policy and procedures manual for employees to receive educational incentive increments or be paid for tuition and book costs. PAGE 2 - STTTDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1980 9. McDONALD, 92ND AVENUE AND FAIRHAVEN STREET LID'S (a) Director of Public Works requested Council adopt resolutions on 11-24-80 to set the public hearings for the above noted LID requests since the prelimin- ary engineering is completed. After discussion on each proposal, consensus of Council was to consider a resolution for each at the 11-24-80 meeting. Councilwoman Stimler is to circulate a petition in the • airhaven Street area again before Monday evening. 10. KNOLL DRIVE LID (a) Director of Public Works advised Council that Washington. County has reported that there are at least four septic system failures in the Knoll Drive- area. He recommended staff pursue the LID process in that area by circulating petitions. (b) Consensus of Council was to direct staff to circulate petitions. 11. CH2M-HILL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY STATUS REPORT & REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WORK (a) Director of Public Works presented a memo from Roger Sutherlin of CH2M-HILL which requested Council authorize additional information on the new Scholls Ferry Road Bridge in the report, due to the impact it will have on Fanno Creek flow and peak periods. (b) After discussion, Council consensus was to authorize CH2M-HILL to gather and insert information on the new bridge at an additional cost not to exceed $1,600. n;rartnr of Public Works noted that the final report should be available on December 19, 1980. 12. OTHER (a) Councilman Scheckla requested staff put the Park Board minutes of October 23, 1980, on an agenda for Council discussion. (b) Councilman Scheckla requested that the City hold any money for political signs that are not removed within 10 days after the election. Staff is to report back to Council regarding this matter. (c) Councilwoman Stimler mentioned that the signal lights on Pacific Highway are still not functioning correctly. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:23 P.M. City Recorder - ATTEST: ! Mavo r PAGE 3 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1.7, 1980 Mrl"RANDUM ;L September 9, 1980 TO: City Administrator FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: General Commentary on the Report RE: An Assessment of the Management and Operations of the Tigard Police Department: By Dr. Charles A. Tracy, May, 1980 Sir: The following comments are provided for your review and consideration, to assist in the decision making process relative to the study in general, and specific recommendations included therein. To fully understand the implications of the study conducted by Dr. Tracy, requires a clinical investigation of the quality and quantity of the recom- mendations from a practitioner's point of view, rather than an academican point of view. A. General Commentary on the Report i. To the casual reader of the report, it tends to lead one to believe that the Tigard Police Department is ineffective and inefficient. However, 1' wish to bring your attention to Appendix #1 - Oregon Law Enforcement Council (O.L.E.C. ) Report by Crime Analyst Jim Carter. It should also be noted that the comparative cities used by Dr. Tracy are all rural cities, with the exception of Oregon City. The (OLEC) study used 11 urban cities in the Portland metropolitan area, Tigard ranked third out of the 11; and of the average of 10 cities. Tigard ranked number one in this statistical performance comparison, with the exception of one category, property recovered. 2. Dr. Tracy stated: "Effectiveness and efficiency can be improved at no additional cost.." Yet, recommendations 29, 13, 31, 2, 22, and 15 all require substantial cost. Recommendations 29, 13, 31 will require a crime a„.alyst with a computer system background. 3. No onsite investigation was conducted as indicated on page 9 of the report, as part of .the scope of the study; perhaps if that work had been done, recommendations 14, 18, 19, 23, 12, 38, 36, 37, 26, 27, 28, 15, 17, and 16 would not have been included in the final recommendations, all of which are on-line and in effect prior to the study. 4. A list of names with phone numbers were given to Dr. Tracy; he assured me that they would all be contacted by phone or in person. Out of approximately one hundred and fifty, three were contacted, who were included in the list of eight who he interviewed at length. Tracy Report Paae 2 September 9, 1980 . -Another major and glaring problem with the study is the fact that the scope of the study was expanded. The statement of justification. wast "Because I felt it was important to help improve their police service." (pp. 8 and 9 of the study) I find no evidence in the study relative to what or how much improve- ment in police service would or might be expected to occue if the recommendations were adopted. I wish to bring your attention to Appendix #2 - pp. 136, 137, 138, and 139 from the text by Thomas Lynch, Public Budgeting In America 1979: Commentary on Analysis and Presentations of Results. Also, a comment from this same text, page 280, "The complexity of recommendations can mean less productivity.,, In other words, the added work that may be generated by the adoption of specific recommend- ations may in fact have a dysfunctional impact on prodiuctivit.y. 6. With regard to four (4) specific recommendations in theproject, it IS my opinion that Dr. Tracy's study is inadequate with regard to: 1) consistency and logic of recommendations; 2) substantiation anu documentation of findings; and 3) interpretation of data. Refer to Recommendations 32, 33, 34; and 35. My analysis has led to the identification of the following seven (7) central problems with Dr. Tracy's report: a. The main theme of Dr. Tracy's study is the need to establish policies, goals and objectives to guide operational and management decisions. Yet, Dr. Tracy recommends both operational and manage- ment changes which should be dependent-upon those policies, goals, and objectives. (Applies to Recommendations 32 and 33). b. Dr. Tracy relies heavily on the use of the American Bar Association (ABA) and National Advisory Commission (NAC) standards to support his recommendations. However, the ABA and the NAC both indicate that their standards cannot be universally applied, and the ABA even stated that their standards were intended as "educational„ for lawyers, and not as a model for police agencies. (See Appendix #3 - ABA Commentary). Dr. Tracy failed to make reference to this in his study. In addition, Dr. Tracy failed to analyze how each standard, if they were used as guidelines, should be modified to fit the variables present in the City. of Tigard. (See Appendix #4 - pp. 10-11 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies). c. Utilization of a personnel opinion survey to guage management decisions is a ;totally inappropriate data gathering device. (Refer to personnel survey, P. 174 of study, Question 8, relative to performance and assignment to the Detective Division) . Tracy Report Page 3 September 9, 1980 d. Certain recommendations are contradictory when compared to each other and the standards on which they were based. (Example: Finding 31 re: functional specialization; and Recommendation 34 versus Recommendations 35, 36, and 37, - pp. 137, 143, 145 Tracy Study) . e. Dr. Tracy failed to conduct (or even identify the components of) a cost/benefit -jai relating to his recommendations. In one specific area where I identified these components, the recommendation seemed far less attractive than as presented by Dr. Tracy. (Refer to Recommendation 32 and 33, pp. 139-141 vs. Recommendation 14, pp. 91-92) . f. I cannot agree with those recommendations which suggest change for change°s sake. The lack of documentation for and contradictory nature of some of the recommendations seemed to indicate that that was the case. g. Some of the recommendations require major shifts in work load within the organization. Dr. Tracy failed to provide impact statements which analyzed the implication of those shifts. B. Implementation Plan NOTE: References to the recommendations will be consistent with the revised matrix_of July 31, 1980, which is organized in- specific categories; subsequently, the recommendations will not be referred to in numerical order. 1. Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures a. Rec. #1 (a) . Agree with recommendation; requires City Council to develop broad police service policies; under Council consideration at this time, and is a high priority. Rec. #1 (b) . Agree with recommendation; development of departmental goals, objectives and priorities is dependent upon 1 (a) above. However, the department long range goals and objectives are clearly stated, and do not lend themselves to frequent change. What is needed now, dependent upon City Council's stated police policy, is the development of shorter term police goals and objectives, consistent with priorities and allocation of resources. This is a high priority. b. Rec. #5. Compare service demand to objectives. Agree with recommend- ation; dependent upon 1 (a) above. High priority. c. Rec. #8. Compare patrol activity to stated objective. Agree with recommendation; dependent upon 1 (a) above. High priority. Tracy Report Page 4 September 9, 1980 d. Rec. #29. Develop management information system (MIS) (Data •= Processing) to identify trends. Agree with recommendation; requires crime analyst with computer background, substantial cost and 1-3 year estimate of time to implement. Medium priority. e. • Rec. #3. Develop performance measures for police services to assess annually. Agree with recommendation; requires goals and objectives of 1(b) above, analyst, and the cost would be minimal as it relates back to Rec. #29 above. High priority. f. Rec. #13. Apply measures to crime prevention activities. Agree with recommendation; however, as Dr. Tracy applies the measurement theory to this recommendation, there is substantial cost involved, as it would require an analyst. It is my opinion that we should be concerned with the number and types of crime prevention programs, and number of people provided this service, and a comparison of increases or decreases in the crime rate as a measurement. The crime prevention activity is not a funded program as such at this time; it would require personnel to provide this service on a full time basis. Medium/lo7-r priority. 2. Organizational Structures and Management Responsibilities a. Rec. #14. Review responsibilities of each position classification plan. Agree with recommendation; however, this recommendation tends to con—c-; ¢ *w 33, and i� :.��,. reC.:VLnlllendation � dysfunctional. Recommend- ation 14 suggests that something should be done to enhance the role of the patrolman because of limited promotional opportunity; recommendation 33 says, "Abolish the lieutenant and corporal ranks." The position classification plan has been completed, the new police manual clearly establishes responsibilities; essentially this recommendation is on line at this time; the new longevity plan in the TPOA contract`'will go far to enhance the role of the patrolman. This is medium priority at this time, as the majority of the work is done. b. Rec. #33. Abolish Operations Division Commander Lieutenant and Corporal ranks. I disagree with this recommendation; similar to Y'Pr QT11mpnd3tl On 22, this reCCM=ndation proposes reorganization without delineated goals and objectives. To reorganize without having first established the intended direction and purpose of the organization is to violate the concept of establishing policy guide- lines and goals and objectives. In addition, an assessment of the impacts (work load or otherwise) resulting from the recommendations to eliminate the positions of lieutenant and corporal were not included in the study. Those impacts are likely to be significantly negative, both inside and outside of the department, if the recommend- ation is implemented without first having some idea of which organi- zational units will "pick up the slack." Tracy Report Page 5 September 9, 1980 x It is important to note that the conclusions reached by Dr. Tracy are not documented. That is, there is no explanation of how this reorganization will make the Tigard Police Department more effective or efficient, or why it is assumed to be ineffective or inefficient. Nor is there support documentation that proves conclusively that Tigard Police Department is now ineffective or inefficient or, at least, the estimated amount of improvement expected as a result of this recommendation. This recommendation gives no consideration of the city's responsi- bility to provide seven (7) days -a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day patrol division supervision and to supervise investigations. The need for adequate, on scene supervision to minimize potential danger to officers and citizens in emergency situations. Additionally the lack of readily available supervisors for patrol and investigative activities significantly increases the risk of civil liablity of the city from resultant poor operational decisions. The following are example cases in which proper supervision was an important element of government liability: -- Gardner vs. Village of Chicago Ridge, 262 N.E. 2d 829 (Ill. APP• 1970) -- Thomps6n vs. Johnson, 295 F. Supp. 1025 (D.D.C. 1968) -- Norton vs. McKeon, 444 F. Supp. 384 (E.D. Pa., 1977) -- Wenthrich vs. Delia, 341 A. Supp. 365 (N.J. Supor., 1975) -- Rodriquez vs. Ritchey, 539, F 2d 394 (5th Circ. 1976) -- Stewart vs. Federal Protection Agency, U.S. , Dist. Ct. (D.D.C. , 1976)`. _ (This recommendation also is counter to recommendation 14, as mentioned above, in that it significantly impacts the recommendation to enhance the role of the patrolman, by eliminating two possible promotional steps within the organization. If this recommendation should be adopted, the trained and experienced personnel we now have will be taking jobs in other agencies that can offer greater Promotional opportunity). . I must take issue with the statement in Dr. Tracy's study which says: "The advantages of this (reduced) rank/cormnand structure far outweighs.the personal distress associated with demotion." Apart from the quoted statement, there is no indication of the cost incurred as a result of this decision, and only a marginal reflection of the benefits. Tracy Report Page 6 September 9, 1980 Stated Benefits: Elimination of multi-layered rank structure which inhibits effective direction, -control, and coordination. Identifiable costs not addressed in this recommendation: C -- Impac` on morale -- Organizational disruption -- Loss of upper mobility -- Loss of routine field supervision (increased liability exposure) -- Work load overload - including decreased quality of performance by sergeants as division managers/commanders -- Loss of management flexibility to provide supervisory control on special missions (i.e., drug or vice investigations) In the absence of any examples of ineffective direction, control, and coordination caused by the way the organization is currently structured, I must conclude that there are no such identifiable problems. If such problems do exist in the Tigard Police Department, but could not be documented as being caused by organizational structure, then to change the organizational structure is the wrong solution. The major theme of recommendation 33 and 32 is decentralization. I will address this issue at this time rather than repeat it in the following discussion •of recommendation 32. As in recommendation 32, Dr. Tracy proposed reor-anization of .the department and a reduction of supervisory personnel with having a clearly established definition of purpose as reflected in city policies and department goals and objectives. N.A.C. Standard 5.1 The essence of the following statement is included on page 105-106 of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals for Police (January, 1973) : "Personnel at all levels of command must be equally in touch with the needs and desires of the public. When police commanders are remote from the public, they do not appreciate the needs of the people and not only decrease this, they provide weaker leadership for line personnel." It is true that commentary on NAC Standards for Police makes the following statement: "The organizational structure should be designed to facilitate direct assistance and service by line units, and retain command close to the people.?? The report goes on to say: Tracy Report Page 7 September 9, 1980 " 'Large' (quotes added) police agencies cannot be sensitive to public needs when the agency operates through a centralized organi- zational structure. On the other hand, if agencies are decentralized, they encounter greatly increased (underscore added) problems of control, coordination, communications and logistics." This is followed up with the following staterment: "To attempt to set universal standards for decentralization would be difficult for line or staff elements. The determinates are too variable: number of personnel; jurisdictional geography; homogeneity of population, and land use are some examples. Each agency consid- ering decentralization must weigh all facts and should decentralize its line units only after comprehensive research and planning have established that the advantages of placing the command closer to the people, for example, would outweigh the disadvantages. Even then, the agencies should decentralize only to the extent necessary to gain specific advantages." In my analysis of Dr. Tracy's study, it is not clear whether the command personnel in the Tigard Police Department currently have contact with the public, regardless of the way the organization is structured. If Dr. Tracy had conducted the on-site investigation, he would have observed a cortiruous intzractior. between the -;*i men Y.r rw.0 v. and command personnel. In addition, one should note carefully that the NAC Standard, while attempting to improve communication between the public and police, should, as mentioned earlier, be context in terms of the proper role of the police department to obtain feedback in the community versus the City Council responsibility to assess needs for servicz•. Public input from the comm-unity received by police managers may be useful for putting a budget or new program proposal together for consideration by the City Council. But, in no way should this type of input supplant Council provided policy guidelines on service level for the community. In review of NAC Standard 5.1, I can find no suggestion that supervisory or command positions be eliminated, only that the organization should be designed to place co=.and personnel close to the people; and further, this recommendation or standard relates to "lame" agencies as most of the standards and studies referred to in br. Tracy's study. However, those references are completely absent in the text of his work. Dr. Tracy's reorganization proposal is certainly not an alternative that clearly spells out the positive versus the negative impacts on the department or community prior- to implementation. This appears to violate the spirit of NAC Standard 5.1.3., as reflected in the above quoted commentary statements. 1 Tracy Report Page 8 September 9, 1980 r f .._. If direction, control and coordination are problems in the police department, then a much more in depth analysis than what was included on pages 140 and 141 of Dr. Tracy's study would be needed to be conducted to insure that the causes of the effects are indeed related to organizational structure. A decentralization effort, without fully understanding these impacts might, in fact, cause greater prooelms than now exist, if any do really now exist. For example, NAC Standard 5.1 works ".. . ..for large police depart- ments, increased decentralization could increase problems of control, coordination, communication and logistics." While Tigard Police Department might not be considered "large", it is also not small. Therefore, the principle could still apply and is, in fact, contrary to the statements made on page 140 by Dr. Tracy, which says that the multi-layered rank structure inhibits effective direction control and coordination. I must conclude, therefore, that before such reorganization should be accomplished, a full analysis of both the cost and benefits, as identified above, should be completed so that Council can make a rational resource allocation judgement as it pertains to delivery of police services. I find that there is apparent difference between organization charts as identified-on Figure 28 p. 140 of Dr. Tracy's study pertaining to functional operation versus the lines of comffunication within the department'. In real-ity, the functional operation and management of the department is organized as follows: CHIEF OF POLICE -' LIEUTEN_9NT .y (Acting Chief) - RECORDS WATCH DETECTIVE DIV. COM. SUPERVISOR COMMAND SERGEANT (Sergeants) This is contrasted with formal lines of communications within the police environment, and which are called the chain of command. The chain of command is universally accepted within law enforcement agencies as the proper way in which information should flow through the organization. Managerially, while the lieutenant has rank and ultimate -authority, below that of the chief of police, to make operational and management decisions in the Chief's absence,. in effect, each of the sergeants and the records supervisor have direct management communication with the Chief himself. Tracy Report Page 9 September 9, 1980 Dr. Tracy's study ignores the fact that it takes 5.2 sworn supervisors to operate the patrol function twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, plus the supervisory requirement of the investigative division; he ignores the liability of the City to Provide supervision. To reiterate the points stated above, in the absence of any examples of lack of direction, control or coordination included in the study itself, I must conclude that there is none. If there are no such problems, then there is no need at this point to address non- existing problems by a restructuring of the organization. This appears to be a clear case of change for change's sake. c. Rec. #34. Limit specialized positions. I agree that specialization should be limited. The issue of consistency and logic surface with this recommendation; which suggests eliminating the Investigative Division, yet, recommendation #35 suggests that an Investigative Specialist be created. Recommendation #36 suggests creating Recommendation #37 suggests that a traffic spec alist b le specialist. The irony of all this is that we have had aninvestigativebiverejuve f and traffic specialist for years; that c -_ i Juvenile needs. On pages 46 and 47 of Dr. Tracy's report itUaddresses�theto i distribution of the Police budget allocation by division, the investigation Division's allocation is 15% and that the resource distribution is "reasonably consistent with the Practices of simil sized police departments." Nowar , this suggests that all other police departments are wrong in allocating 15% of the police resources to investigations; or that Dr. Tracy's assumptions are wrong. I will pursue this discussion in recommendation YJ35 in more detail, as this one and #35 overlap and focus on the same issue. d. Rec.recommendation.Create°Investig recommenative Specialist. I disagree with the - One of the fundamental problems with the statist' cal as conducted by Dr. Tracy regarding this recommendation,aslthat,there is no differentation made between the types of crime handled by the investigators and those handled by the patrol officers. By their nature, certain crimes require a significantly greater investment of time than others. The essential problem that this presents is that 56% of the cases that are being investigated by the investigative unit are those that are most time consuming and he _ of leads to pursue, or are those types of crimes whichtare he leexpedienber (political or otherwise) to pursue whether or not any leads actually exist. A transfer of 4,.265 hours to the patrol function could have a significant impact on the service level provided by that unit. This, pariticularly, would be the case if what is intended is to spread the work load among the twelve (12) general patrol officers. This represents an average work load increase of approximately 17% Tracy Report Page 10 September 9, 1980 I Ii or 355 hours per year, per officer. On the Other hand, if the intention 1s to assign all of this work load to one or two positions Within the patrol unit, then this would effectively reduce patrol operations by an equivalent number of positions, and will have accomplished nothing but transferred specialization from one operating unit to another. It is important to note that the current method of operation, which combines preliminary investigation of the patrol officer With follow- up investigation, including case preparation for the district attorney's office, by the investigative unit, results in a 3.3% greater major crime clearance rate than the average of ten (10) other cities in the Portland metropolitan area (excluding Portland) . Refer to Appendix #1. Tigard is, in fact, the third highest among those ten cities. There- fore, it must be concluded that, while there is always room for improvement, there, again, does not seem to be aproblem that needs to be addressed by organizational restructuring. In fact, it appears that the issue is contrived and may result in adverse effects on performance not only in the investigative area, but probably frost importantly, in patrol response time capabilities. Dr. Tracy refers to the Rand study p. 144; however, he fails to point out that this study focused on cities with a population of a hundred thousand or more, and police agencies with 150 or more members. See Appendix #5 Police Productivity by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, p, 9. It should be noted as well that the effectiveness of the patrol officer conducting investigations are subject to the economic law of diminishing returns. That is, if they are assigned more cases to investigate and they maintain the same existing work load responsibilities (i.e., general patrol and response to emergency and non-emergency`mcalls for service) , their effectiveness, in terms of clearing crimes, will drop significantly. Therefore, whatever efficiencies (in this case, possible budget savings) would be gained as a result of demotions and work load transfers, would be lost by a major decline in investigative capability and performance (if defined in terms of clearing major crimes) . Tigard°s leader- ship in clearing Part I crimes may drop significantly from the third place position it now holds in the Portland metropolitan area to some level significantly lower than that. Without established performance objectives, Dr. Tracy assumes that clearing crimes is the primary objective of the investigative unit. His entire analysis and subsequent recommendations are based on which unit (patrol or investigations) can clear more crimes per work hour invested. The question that this raises is how can one base a r major reorganization and work load redistribution effort on an "assumed" performance objective of that organization. I feel that this is Tracy Report Page 11 September 9, 1980 reflective of a major problem in logic that affects several of the recommendations in the study. That is, suggesting in the first place, the need for established service level and management guide- lines, but proceeding to propose major changes prior to the formal establishment of those guidelines. This type o -approach to an operations analysis study, once again, seems to indicate that the author recommended change for change's sake. I find that, according to a statement in Dr. Tracy's study (page 144) sworn personnel, responding to an anonymous questionnaire, indicated they were not satisfied with a general performance of the investiga- give divis on, nor the Fray personnel were assigned to it. A review -of the support documentation revealed that these conclusions were erroneous. Based on the two questions listed on page 174 of the study that deals with this issue, I find the following: There are twenty-two (22) respondents, and only twenty-one (21) sworn personnel in the department, which includes the Chief and Lieutenant, Uino did not participate in this phase of the study. This means, based on the types of questions that were asked, the validity of the three or more non-sworn employees' responses could be debated. In the first question, six (6) of the twenty-two (22) , or twenty- seven per cent (27%) indicated that they were dissatisfied with the performance of the investigative unit; six (6) of twenty-.tiro (22) or another twenty-seven percent (27%) indicated that they were neutral, or had no opinion on the subject; and ten (10) of twenty- two (22) , or forty-five percent (45%) indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the performance of the investigative unit. In the second question, ten (10) of twenty-two (22) or forty-five percent (451/6) indlbated they were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the way personnel are assigned to the investiga- give unit; three (3) of twenty-two (22) or fourteen percent (14°A) indicated that they were neutral or had no opinion; and nine (9) of twenty-two (22) or forty-one per cent (41%) indicated that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the way personnel were assigned to the investigative unit. Even if both questions are combined, the results are as follows: Sixteen (16) of forty-four (44) or thirty six percent (36%) are very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the function of the investi- gative unit or assignment thereto; nine (9) of forty-four (44) or twenty per cent (20%) indicated that they are neutral or had no opinion on this subject; and nineteen (19) of forty-four (44) or forty three percent (43%) indicated that they are satisfied or very satisfied with both the general performance of the investigative unit and the way personnel are assigned to it. Tracy Report Page 12 September 9, 1980 I can only conclude from this that there was a total misrepresentation of the data on page 144 of the study. This type of analytical problem cast doubts on the validity of the findings and conclusions of the entire study because it may indicate preconceived bias. While it is true that less than-fifty percent of the department indicated their satisfaction of these two areas pertaining to the investigative u--iit, clearly more respond:nts indicated some degree of satisfaction as compared to those who said they were dissatisfied. Also, the validity of asking the question as to whether the personnel within the department are satisfied with the way they are assigned to a particular operational unit might have some relevance if the intended purpose is to try to assess the degree of morale within the organization. However, if this type of question is designed to obtain management information regarding the functional operations of a unit within the department, it is totally inappropriate. It appears from the way the statement is worded on page 144 of Dr. Tracy's study that the intent of the question was to provide insight regarding whether the employees of the department were "satisfied" with the way the Chief of Police had assigned personnel or the extent to which perform- ance effectiveness was being accomplished in that area. Personnel management (re: morale) and operational management, while related, are completely separate issues. As a result, the statement on page 144 of the study so blurs the distinction and misrepresents the data there is no alternative but to reject its implications or relevance to the study. It should also be noted that management decisions should be based on the good of the organization and that takes into account that some personnel within the organization may not be particularly pleased as a result. If looking toward a model for proper management control and operation of an investigative unit is appropriate, then attention should be paid to NAC standard 9.7.1, which states "every police agency should recognize that patrol officers are preliminary investigators and that they should conduct thorough preliminary investigations." In addition, NAC standard 9.7.2 stated that "every police agency should establish only as many. specialized criminal investigative units as needed, staffed only with the number of personnel necessary to conduct timely investigations that leads to organizational objectives." In 9.7.2, the key operative words are "needed" and "organizational objectives." It appears that recommendation IA3-5-viuiate7s both standards 9.7.1. and 9.7.2. by requiring that both preliminary and follow up investigative responsibilities be assigned to the patrol function and by making a change without knowledge of organizational objectives. Also provided -for your review is Appendix #6 - An Evaluation of The Rand Corporation's Analysis of the Criminal Investigation Process by Chief Daryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department and Dr. Lyle �,: Knowles, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California. Tracy Report Page 13 September 9, 1980 e. Rec. #32. Eliminate Operations Division, move all administrative staff functions to the Chief's Office, and decentralizing the crime investigation function. I cannot agree with this recommendation, on the same basis as 33 and 35 above. I do agree with NAC Standard 5.1.3. and to reassess organizational structure based on the department's role in the community. I mast agree with the statement on page 139 of the study; "Command personnel must be in touch with the needs and desires of.the public", and I will suggest that command personnel are in touch with the community. It is also understood that police command personnel should not infer public policy (in this case, service level) by virtue of their c.,atact with the citizenry, but rather use feedback obtained in such contact to assess satisfaction with police performance. To do otherwise would result in command personnel incorrectly usurping the proper role and repsonsibility of the City Council which is to articulate service level policy. According to NAC Standard 5.1.3. , a police chief executive should establish an organizational structure that will best insure an effective and efficient performance of police functions necessary to fulfill the agency's role in the community. NAC Standard 2.1 quoted on page 15-of Dr. Tracy's study states:. Every police agency should develop short and long range goals and objectives to g<jidPncy fur=ctions." Finding number one (1) on page 16 of Dr. Tracy's study indicates that no such written goals exist, either- on a city%ide level or at a departmental level. It is basically impossible to determine whether an organization is ineffective or inefficient unless it has some standard of performance to which it can be compared. This is one of the primary purposes for establishing-goals, objectives and performance measures. Without such standards of, performance, a judgement one way or the other is not managerially wise. However, Dr. Tracy's study contradicts this fundamental principle by: (1) Assuming the Tigard Police Department is now both inefficient and ineffective as currently organized without documenting performance deviation from some standard level; (2) Recommending a revised organizational structure without first having goals and objectives available as a guide to identify the best organizational structure which will help the police to fulfill the agency's role within the community. (3) Not considering a comparative analysis of work load statistics for medium size cities in the Portland metropolitan area. (Refer to Appendix #1). (4) Not providing impact statements which analyzed the implications �i Tracy Report Page 14 September 9, 1980 ' =L of organizational changes and shifts of work load responsibilities. f. . Rec. #9. Analyze the Investigative Division. I agree with the recommendation; is a high priority; requires a reporting system change. g. Rec. #30. Establish inspection system. I agree with this recommendation; the inspection system is informal at this time; it needs to be formalized by written policy. h. Rec. #31. Establish formal planning process. I agree with this recommendation, needs to be formalized with new goals and objectives, This may require a staff person, and sub- stantial costs. Also, this is a high priority. i. Recs. #4 and 21. Prepare police governing ordinance. I agree with this recommendation; the ordinance has been adopted by City Council. WaS a high priority. J. Recs. 418 and 19. Review and update written policies into general orders. I agree with recommendation; this work was completed in January, 1980. High priority. k. Rec. #20. Verify legality of general orders. I agree with thiz`lrecommendation; legal review conducted by-City Attorney and Portland Police Bureau legal advisor. High priority. 1. Recs. #10 and 11. Include policy on investigation priorities. I agree with this recommendation; policy needs to be formalized based on division goals and objectives. m. Rec. #23. Include policy on role of police officer. I agree with this recommendation; policy is contained in new manual finished in January, 1980. n. Rec. 412. Vezi=y enforcement and citation conviction. I agree with this recommendation; program is valid and has been on +., line for several years. If Dr. Tracy had conducted the on site Tracy Report Page 15 September 9, 1980 investigation this process would have been explained to him, rather than the improper assumptions stated in the study.. o. , Rec. #38. Distribute patrol personnel based on work load. I agree with this recommendation; this activity has been on line for several years. Deployment is developed from annual Law Enforcement Data System Uniform Crime Report. High priority. p. Rec. 422. Prepare grant application at least one per year. I agree with this recommendation in part; depends on department needs and availability of funds. Priority dependent upon needs of depart- ment. q. Rec. #36. Create juvenile specialist. I agree with recommendation; Juvenile Specialist has been on line since 1974. High priority. r. Rec. #37. Create traffic specialist. I agree with recommendation; traffic specialist has been on line since 1978. High priority. 3. Public Education and Community Relations a. Rec. #24. Create community advisory council to advise on police service needs. I agree with this recommendation; is in planning stages. Medium priority. b. Rec. #2. Conduct citizen survey on police service needs.' I agree with this recommendation; there is substantial cost; requires City Council endorsement and funding resources. Is a high priority. c. Rec. #25. Determine information needs, monthly and annual report. I agree with this recommendation; reporting process is on line, needs review. Is a high priority. d. Rec. #26. Establish community education programs. I agree with the recommendation; program is on line non-funded. It is also a high priority. C' e. Rei:. #27. Establish media relations policy. Tracy Report Page 16 September 9, 1980 I agree with this recommendation; policy is on line and complete. Is a high priority. f. Rec. #28. Encourage/require police officers to become involved in community affairs. I agreewiththis recommendation in part; members are active in community affairs at this time. However, to require and evaluate personal performance could not be enforced as a job related requirement. 4. Training a. Rec. #6 a. and b. Require additional training for Chief of Police. I agree with this recommendation; in progress at this time. High priority. b. Rec. #7. Obtain BPST Management and Executive certificate. I agree with this recommendation; in progress at this time. High priority. c. Rec. #39. Read all books referenced by study. I agree with recommendation; in progress and cont High priority. inuing activity, d. Rec. #15. In-service training - sworn personnel. I agree with this recommendation; on line, on going program, substan- tial cost. Is a high priority. e• Rec. #17. In service training - dispatchers. I agree with this recommendation; on-line, on-going program, minimal - cost. Is a high priority. f. Rec. #16. Training -for position assignments. I agree with recommendation; on line and on going program. Is a high priority. NOTE: Refer to Matrix for Implementation Schedule. SM-24ARY STATEMENT The control problems with this study as stated above are inadequate with regard to: 1) consistency and logic of recommendations; 2) substantiation and docu- mentation of findings; and 3) interpretation of data. Tracy Report Page 17 September 9, 1980 �L There is a consistent use of portions of standards and reference material to support a position statement rather than using the total commentary, which in a majority of cases, supported another point of view. The Rand Study and many of the NAC Standards focus on very large police agencies; however, this was not stated by Dr. Tracy in his documentation; specifically, the decentralization *,issue, and the ABA Commentary are typical examples. There is no documentation to support what and how much productivity might be expected (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness) . There-is no reference to the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (refer to Appendix #4) 9 which states in part, on page 11 of text: "No attempt should be made to borrow wholesale the language of past standards efforts, but rather that they should be looked upon as a wealth of basic research and thought." This supports the position that existing standards cannot be univerisal�y adopted. If the focal point of the study had addressed itself to the establishment and design of meaningful goals and objectives; specifically short term goals, the city, police department and citizens would have received considerable benefit from the investment. .please be assured that I will .diligently pursue those recommendations adopted -by you and City Council. It is my intent to provide the citizens of Tigard the best possible police service with the resources allocated to the police department. Respectfully, b� �A �G - Chief of Police RBA:ac t H • h Val N 14 W R aJ ' H O .a G 4ca1 q q .-a 4 at~p - 1 1 'o t7•V...a .� a a L m •� y (/73 O .Ga O G .=1 G ? G 1 1 CO En H m cc ~ Q) O 1+ H >a 60 T N q W a a W L 14...4 �• �/ y T >. 1 4J —4 H U -.a .-1 1 V ! S .tea H U H N U•.a M 3 3 1 U 04 to. ai 00 bD bo 60 b ob b b 1 1 x x m x � x 0 cis V: +�' .q a a a 1-+ 10 a Q W ..N.1 i+w y >r u T u m n ami m �j P ¢v 3 41 ° apw w mv co am� . P. y ai b 41 m v a a a s a s bo a4 o o a b X sa CO 4.J Vw b..7O'.� O O+ Q a `1+ ' o ' uy> > > >.> 7-ai O T 10 '1+ O is O wt! ^Js a -� m m U aGa G O .a 0) C, C3 cc 0 H O W L A x ..] ai L•a G' U }1 H q F 03 L H •Q3 w w w w 44 w w W w 14 1-4 70"O U 4 U U U U U U U UHj c.7 U v U U al U U u a a T T•.a .,•� •.a •.a - u H -a O u .4 .4 .--1 W V U W w w W W W w O a w $4 ,m cWn 0 Go a d 0.' m 4J 0 m 1 . a a eo ' WC 'iii a' a ..>a z o r+ F. W 'rj -4Ia 4c. teca 14 0 : [ c 4 0 v W . CO M a 14 oo •.a 0-4 0 Cl caca 6 v 6D O .7 t� .0 O m > .Z W.0 •P. U m o R H rTt $4w G C m w ! m AO q G h Al N a.-4 u - a m c7j r1q !'' cNly O-p�j -� N 0. rj C, Q a .tea U F3 G C: 0 c '> co •'ui n W P. 'n a L.. M u m x O --a y W Wp O q 1� _0 1+7 m a u y [/.1 .a•.a O U a VI H a ..a u4 . ca•-4 $4 m m aa /wa •On-.4 " -r, 4 ' ••• H F a.. m 0 M O 6 Q F m m 0 O fa a C G a .i . O > v - WH O pq �a W N' O .7 .4 P. ru� d q -m .d P' O •3 60 m P.a +,v p,a+ mq H tr E. m N ' ✓7 .�o. .-+ - U z OoU P. 11 " yFmco Gf a-, 0. 0. R L Ou � PV O .n y � -4-0 co cn m . - > >r+ s > ucWn >a yma.oP.b. n0a a 0 12 .o •a7ai •ea1 rt 10 .O tof m N Cl. .�.p 1`�9 C-1 H N , ..11111101 MIA O N• Cl cd cts W 0 JJ I ! •-+ H .0.1 aHO 1 1 14 O rJ M-u•� m 1 i 6 6 u 6 H b R b•+D w 1 ! -R •Q ? G C F G G G N•a 0-4 O z 14 $. 1.1cis i+ q a q 60 r. m pa pa9:1.0 A o 17 W pF..�. Fgp1• 43 41 41 •.a ►+N H 3 U j j 3 3 H H H H N H H aG•.! a .420 Clio ! 1 g a � m cc� 3 co N 41 u 1 o S7asq J.ouA9w 6i C •. •• +J b 3 ca ,3 o p f3 JJ + o N C y 3 b a00 w u > •a •n w •a •a 5 a) aJ d 0 O 0) N ❑ R O C0) m Or W () t7 .1 N• H 3 •.•1 � 0) al a) $+!.-1 •H J-1 L A S. L L a JJ W d 31 ••+ N 14 -u a) •.-1.O 0) a) L a) 0) H H o w arj eo co W 14 ao w m 3 0 !+ r4 r+ -4 r+ bo Ci 0 O q 0 O C. 0 -0 0) P. P. a P. P. >r p m u m H R.q 31 0)b b b B Q u 6 R-r A m 0 -0 CIO u m 0 o o d o• 0 0 OU A >. A 6 31 U 6 �-. N 10 '-.� U U .Z U U 60 H d V , z 0 H H NVd W w w w N,--1 w N w w w Q7 NQa) 0) 0) C-A 0) w d 0) 0 y •.� '.r1 -4 M r1 )a U •r1 3. •14 -rl d O G .G O X F•f.' V U �1 U U U O U L U U pp>� ppGG m m 0) 0) u d U 0) d U 0) N LL' 6 -ui , •.u-1 N -4 T T •.u-1 T -u1 -.0 u i •.1 e4 N .r1 N .-i JJ L ri J-) e-4 r1 r4 P. PI w a a p u Al o w w N a a -4r ccnn c (. .-T-1 a rnR. n r- O o _ w Cl) ci •O ~ 00 N44 v •.O� _Q W ~. O W v m U 0) m• O J? 0) C v0) W - u 0) G U 0 m 3J .O UR •r+w� b O -.1 O 4 Ij 0 0' -.m•1 y •10 ; OB) o. O A..-1 .•-1 CLOW co N u H •'1- .1 aJ m O 1 q •.1 w •.1 N 0) JJ > A m p N! 0) S. aJ O U x m q m Co r1 0)P. b . W 3-i U 03 a! m O R q N 34 C9 C 1 O q > ss c -.4 o re m 3 6 eo A Cl lJ a •.i o o JJ •.-1 a > M w co JJ--T A H JJ -.a •.1 q aJ O a)v O C C G ao. .?. N N to .Y 1.1 00 u r! ba L O O W ao to q •.a v q 10 T O0 r•7 H M N Ia JJ 136 19 0) -a to JJ T P• T 01 00 6 H JJ - •.4 m m m H U v 0. N •..1 U U u ry O 1•-1 03 Q 0. Ol C O •.a O 7 0) +-4 -.•1 -rl N N U O .a 0) ca p > •.1 w .-1.-) •o q .-•1 r+ 0 H H > OD O O .0 M .0 O m O WI F' E W ir' 3. 0) H .G .0 P. 1 0 O 0) P. m p.✓. F O H .1 m•,1 O 1 m co .-1 M N 0)•d N CO a) .4 0) L C) rJ aJ . H O JOJ o • H 9T .0 N W 7 31 a W W .4 co q w Q • 1 -4 O r4 •.e •. > •'N m ; H u 0 •.u>-1 3J C OGp7 H a O) N (3 6 N m m H p. O) 0 0) C W G Om U W y 0 R7 N P.v W C7 7 H M h1 •b as ail an N O .-a •.-4 CO O. O O r1 M N M M CT M M N .-1-4 N .--1 ri N r•1 q .A _ 1 U m . 1 A a accU Ho .-a G � y. F a ¢ F + .-a U N F.. J.1410 Cdcc CIS _ N 6 A m A m � � m W � 14 &4 F FO 1 m . a a v3-0 O F F t; F F A F F d F 00 I/30 z z 2 Z� U3i ' 81 u co r al ca zWm �.�.. ££y W O b-1..Fa C G F F a F 0) N Cq N'tet V C C •La .OI W 1 U U O O 3 3 N H 3 O Ee a 0.:0 -A F.,a as m m A b H mb �a-0•a~w wx 5 mmaai 's aC R F m o x x x pC PC x ; ao 3 C m •"F'1•p c s y ) 6 52 44 41 0 Aj :r 00 10 aJ M H .d =�. -�. pap :3o s4 2.. ,co w m y`J m3Fa CaBJ MOdm' as . •d ya b •u aP.�P. 00 a m 14 OG q? 00 C7-4 1 ms 'F _•au uum 0H y if L L 41 a a H af U m u a mm ..a F F m a a ca .1 u of O A AH .aa m m w m 4 pp ya y �O H O � H O f3 O uU f •. A. x b U O O C1 U C � f b m � U b zw w w w w � "a '� � • C m m a a a oo -.Fa c�i cwi W a. W 6 U L ,.�• H12) a a w o 0 0 0 c :. a ' A w a a w a v if rC, ti a O m.59 a r` 1.1 m co y a \/ co O m ro co .a co O L ul +1 C 41 w Fa C; yOf•-a W C• .••a �pp-]7l m boCS v • 0 rma e-1 00 K. •V•-� m '. m :3-4 .••i .••1 F .-moi: ., m CY41 W y F OO-.mi GNU N v O N Ow w u Fa W 0 m a.i m .--1 S] m >1 F b -r1 •A Co lriy --4 m V -4 vi•i A aj a 4 a 11 '-1-:. d. P. -A a U q., -00-O is ..01 O T .•� C3.-.-1 ' q .•-C 4 a C m a 7 a.i y0.y 4.f a F O m m m Z >.C m 6 PG C H 4) g 11 ca 4J N w m b¢� ov . R • • m H 7 10 H --4 -.Fa C uB tai F \•A O o0 OD ..41 600.� C-1 O a u -.A•1 e�-1 Iaa v 6*3 U to tj t- U a.•ai p0 L te u ch •4 (m N .0 � u . ia m u . .O O 0dm coAnmAyOj.Oat 3 ;-•�-e M /a U H O O W U w v.. a ai w w rFa Cn • N 1� aD H N O.vf U eA �••� C* r-1 r^1 14 gm co .,1 H .- 4 .4 — . 1d any i ami co N cis cC - N•'O O-•� ra :3 ? .o C � wCTr.Fi N via cn cn z 4 10 co zi] 41.4.,4 . �a-.moi G G � ro .-. rW7 w I�••c-L —4 -.4 x p Y 93 �� ami u - H VVj}t,'3U 3 3 3 U U U U W � m•o 3 P�ax�107 . 0 -14-0 s dV2 a w w . 4,1 a °° in Ca C al al ba w HN; 60 0� �P bo G JIC M MN °w; P w v w ao 000 60 0 1-7 H 6 6 d O O O _ H t U z o H •HC N w 44 W w w W W �i 0a H U Cxl V U U U u Pl U V LU U U 44 •ei •'1 rl •11 M •ci A4 a w w w 0 a 0 0 . w co + 0% eo • W v U4Jal H U L q W N co C) 00 00 to 0O •.i zCl e o' R .--1 H N�D ca! H OD rn •.4 - q 00 OJD C) CI v +J 93 a) w caO A 00 Q LL ~ `� ...1 w 0 f D U 4J N P. v x y R v W N H N O cn O m O U r•1 H y d W pq c� a 1-4 14 N � p W Hcl tOa a H L C: •� cc 93 a o "a ami ami �+ U w o ci CY. w' N C! a rn APPENDIX 1 i -,r UO H .2.0. aE a,-_ alea` ac aE ae ab i Clk '�'� ♦'e2 a•4� 2� .T2 - O Ca.. Z t- O O! M b N b O d' O l0 ;V I tC7' r � I. OAC JF-O cep U 4 C F0-_� N N N V N M d' N M M {{ I -� 9Cy{-cc IM 4,N M O Q Wt a$ xY as a2 a@ a-2 wt aE 2C 'i y W N O O P as') N N en r N .tn eV M M 'U U F-"�Q tt7 Ql t0 d' O P P w O M �N tl7 O 0 L J cc Cr.--.W r r r N N r .- M N M N N r N W Q ca J U C9 C C U t..) E' C, . O d 3 W CT ah CO P N t0 O O P b O rY b b d• CT h b N tP) O �i C W[X Lk- --J W Lt r �\ C UC O f . E tC QJ In d• P d• c+7 CT C7! to C7! LC-, h 1 Cli C36 r Pu7 N m CT O 67f OCA b b fJ v O N N N M M N M N N M N C7 r N y W _ CX O b CT M N IJ7 P d' Co ay- O �• C7! Q LL. - ~ O N b N M e- ;h b N cm M Cly � b . Itn� P to r b t7! P d- C>D II7 P. -! P N C7! CC O C 'O - tO tO M d• to r P cD co O! tt7 P 11 1 0.'cn NN 0. C[3 W to b tt7 d• M OD In . C.7 N>U� O d' co CLQ!L P d' LOP co d' C7! C!' en O d' r- . O W Is- It'7 r r O d' �' rt M I.L O %A-o cn o Ci m to b to to N rn m P 4t co cn co t� W cc r N cc C% N O N N M b, sr .M I( Co r O r WNCL 6:1 ui aZ iai q- .... wn n• � �i .s. .� •.... I�♦M (ry U U to r i0 b O M M O! co aCaCL t.[) a0 10 O O! Cl a1 w r ^ tO C r, - O to CC? V' CIS N 4: d' to Ln P to -n d• d• LU M cn T P J to to cr n co co -M _ W PCO CC7 O N ^.t 'co Qn d• cm a-� ct• r N to In co d' N cn P to C: C N C87 r d' C. to P M d- m i co- to P P - C C co ^ to P O t t' �'• n ci- 0 a w F Ca 0.C2 to N M t0 LO co to P 0% N d•1 r- d• M- :ic M r N N r N r N d• N I N N N t r 4� W 7 U. b C— CT to O O to co -zr cn HO to to O N O P b catoO n N Gr to T -.0 L ip to CO O CiC7! C7! t0 O Ll! P Co Co " P L O W C1 CL to GD C7! to P d' O tO N CS) i�7 CT M O P N O O P co CJ! M b y d- N N an N QJ m r d' •t4 CO C7! y N y N O! r co P r„! ac7 W F- •-- r r d• d- J Ol }O Cl A U to Co O O O O O C� O O O O F-a P CO N O co to O O t(7 O ,tp t[7 O to -I-- J jCTLU N b d' r_: b C W .. t0 L' CO N ' O f1' M r-' r N -z r r d' Co P � O P Gl C W N r N N d N O y r r 0. b U M'. aC0.-t H i 14 `" CL .O Z IC'3_ y N Z .. APPENDIX # 2 i I F l V ea O .., •� H o v :� e7 .c p A y .N" w p U CCS •� R .0 p •C 3 U C C .E Aye G `~ a3i b w tr c u m o .moo u « _ .N s $ < •v N -ra r3 a.. © �o y cs Z . � �'•. y '.. .� � ?� 3 .0 7 � C p h _ BA CIS � 00 ai C °c ^ _• -:n w o x G •, H C 'O c p ON h ea 't3 — j `.Y' ca U -a O `' u .O h .:�: '� >' 'O cc u h C C.. e0 V" 7 .p CS y ... " u .0 O .� d O "V •�.. g N Q u u s « ecs 43 m 40 c as >' S. g —cyc yA. c m ti m 's cid O C v e m. v O t jd{y.y u V 6_ 'C7 -- T9 •p 'O C y 3 a. �' _p ,D rUi� i O Li C- - .R.. �O U.. W .J GO��•� 'U '{'y �� tD V v U U U ^ .� • y . R C c C -6 .0 ^ U C U � � 61 � � y y C t..7 N.C •U p � 7 N � a. $ c u•a, 3 u� 3 0 .a E �_ 'O i� - e� .°O ca O a� `s x -, a o .., n eAa A u'v t1, a'S L" ca > v, t v � a� y c y .� c � c .. a o_r y - � op: g c• a P.' 'v c o �o] a .a .. 3 �., yCU •o y a 3 Cr �.. H .�.. u .C.. 4. U ." f,. •O •r• N O '® •N ' co O E C3 rCj A N •C ^A+ U 'J �O O S z m m a _ c c .e, o a ay a 3 6" 4D R y oa 0 .0 8 a R - a1 u .O 'O = t0 a .0 H aU.. '_... U O C'a p ca y y u n. -y >' « u C p .C ` .G cppt C y► r3 qt p d Uy �.. A O U at E `p u 4� x .. .. N of a e0 O �.. R O G Z 'L'7 `.:. .0 C _� .Nii a0. G U .G c�0 c:� �"" e3 '_ '_� O A s to U b 3 � •. . r C d U 'p p — v u e_ U v a.. _.. B o c _ m e d .�'c d a as H o u w-- aKi _.- y d •p O C > O p .X JD ca 'O U Q C RC U p y p v $ L^ 3 w s yr y pC a� n•c u u .G .0 C r_.q..:..: N d F.r H u 4 `c3 E C sm. � .0 ca � y � � � •v C s� o � p « :. O O a� p � � n� a`3 •� . ` o ., a c v . N ci. E-. v a a w v o 4 . s ca u N a 4 °1 w o �,�. u c c . x LOD .n o - a A r ami ri m ao a� o = `�' y �' a c�c3 y ``� ac-i a` spi, . e0 is a� •p t v w ami 3 ' C o 3 w c m c d a' o W.�d Q. ca as � v •v u � � c $ � � o � 3 .O.Cq e" .0.. C ..A E Oy, y v a.a U .D m - CJ to ,o3 �°°,ca du auw 'Ev c N v a m IS es cm to u 03 a. 43 c' cc3.. $ >.ca - fid u O - G C r�t C v y 'L3 W _ N C'O O n+ ca - .f] •C - - . 'p0 u y Q C `� a ra v cOa u y y d Ry .0 y rC ya�� �+ '� a c w •• oo y 3 u ,,,. •o -°�a c — 936 R a G 3 0 ,'�' a to w12v t'' u o o+ o u g - S !. Go ' u �' o w v a Q c na d Rn. CC O h R u tab v u �•• .0 a y . 8 .o 'p . .�.' a. °p o.-^ u ai o". O. V 's . d Ch S � o C c o a0:,.s `c 4��� E c = o -a u '� c' o �yrcNo ac�i aW a� O. e2 C � a i '�•T•C�., a u.c e � R v O� O � � �f''fl G O ..C' G u. N y ..'" wW y U v u v 4 'C .0 O •: u .n� -• .n N ai �-, ga e C cui "4• v u y v C o '� E C .'' •gin a� u�i O .O `a yN e,,s e3 ri R R u `' ►. 00 e• v e E w ccs �. .. •d A tq" as 75 3 • _o .., v >'c v CC, IQ=O 'cE o Cp4y« a. -+�. o• °' � 3 J-4 �'_� v •.n=1s ' y oo v '� T u N y ' u S v c•c •.' '�"° 7 a -i �a G .Q ..y. C�- O ^R 3 C 4.. u - O cv o oo m vci . Cp O y u u E O R•-'.a 'A e V v®,.:y ti y V .`� >° C c eq a c c o CA c w•= >,0 3 c �'. e° °u oo. .A E T a c v d A C W ao ea u '� >'. C adocz Lu C6.C, O v« cQs u > "''. oo" Cx E 6 v c o .N.. 4 ^ u 4...�u.� `v..T .L N N D. .p-;e c i� •a C o a•- 3 a cc 0 0 •C = a� � .0 O 4: � y' Q C d�A'-+ d Z O � � v N � •'O v'Y.. ��C 9 y .�y - � V 4. 'rJ • � '� w 'o � �x `cI' A--=�p � 3xn U� A o - � 3'.>-',. �ka`,� �.. cd• '�- �-. G o y C13 O C G •C ""' N cti 'FT 10 •C C C1. .— 0 U'.-. - - __ p O U 0 M 'b ois - eD v ayi ea C "� C d E! O •ej •p 7 C C d C -p cs cs v' ryi. 4 a co .. v o ,,, b . .., v ei e`3 0 - o o u a) �? c -`n- �+ -ca M •c c $ • c c so a> o , •., -d c c 3 E o = -fl .a cO 0 co 0 •� c a d E o 0 0 c o Cl. o o v o . 4,) PA as U a c A-. _ �-' 3 v^ " Q e'L'i cs �" a. ei y w q.>-- a h' oa u o e3 o c e L ' •O c >+ s ,Oc `�° Y: ^ ayi Dr is 'wO"Oa�_C`u�"� .TRcy. •CweTa Qw•.Op. •impS vTe 3� tO J.�w.acDi ou:Ci, 'pl7 dtyC>��i C ►�O:. C� 'C x�u CC0 �Ov 'd.r7 d�bL oOCu -CE_ 0a� •cn O • cyNu 'o>L.., •EwO Ca> tO. w ca c n0 0Yh > N cUS. nN a -0 E O U CQ 0 !a jce) d tH — C U • cs Nov pxO v U p ["" •n w w v T Q e 3 e a es . 'L u v o h d o a: t6 c E u d co a67 R G d) CA U •3 'fl d R O U .0 U •r C c G h cy� O ff.. R R O cn a.. N b cz C V N eY Ce. .. •• s� O C 'Ci'`. �' ;? b ~-' u 7 O w ~••' t.. CA c U_ d ..'�. cc 4 cu.> es 0 Scz •R _ a: c� C c " p '� u � C'o Ej 'O ti) � v � u � °' � � is � 'c3 a• u G y o. = c R 3 c o. b aan u $ o o obo 1 p c -o 2 E� .!2 w aci o g> > 3 . iu u a -S m x c ' u v •� ' h a Cr. -t3 3 `" °° oq p c = y a �, d ?C a. C " pp O °'-° C .r> > O C y � t, .= C O +.: c1 7 •in e> 5 p T C y G 4` O = CO �> y d O C O C o ca y R y, U .L7 T ? c eJ o> O �" $ E m ;' ea c> co •�, .c m E w � -c„ ''a o a•.0 cO ew E v b -a T c u es CIO. c •o �° w t> > V o n•°: .-, c w .fl >t U .� C D U O c 3R zi o •�C wr m R7 V v 0. is t 'O cs E d O tX.> d v C :a e0 " V] vi c v G d E m 'a =a = d 7 c V E s .� r�3 0 >' a t R > r.3 c" c c> o c @� H 2 " w $ x wcs c � 04 H �" ' o. a =' c o a-o w W o .�, Co ca U GS .O = O G y yy ::s CR CwJ V r.r O u ac> `�� °> o • e> ca3 cR ° .xO. tT u'c y `� v� a -o d y q o a> c a c> n a p U o :P. h O O �3 " u s.. C5.. '7 " C b 6N.. C a) 3 " JJ '� 7 u b R t oCi �> yO m icsp c H C oo aa c � c E o p C y q �0. U c g ��' sai •o ¢ c $ W-. ca>a o U a-o"> a ^w v o ,p L. i " fl = °� o 0 y C •" y C— R U 6.. C 4 U XJ' " .D U y" a Q➢ ?7 7 t ea J O T X •,.. C v i� •uo 3 $ a 'cv> W °�> cCS c y �v C o W •o 'S v aS � 0 0 A £> 3 ❑ � � w q d rn 'Ly w .G j b c_J' .� _cs 4: •CS O as - ccs >, E a.� ec> c °' C ^ ' �., c ai a> 5 : o c ,T v w o = tz 2 " `e3 d = N co ea `R G _ -:� Q O h T - O cf N C h » t d c a 7 _w O p•Ca 0 'd ..-`22 !7w N •r• 'L7 C ►C.. y " 'C R D 0. ca C N U a2 U Cr y _ a> c . c - o 0 . d y c S> M H 0 ml L a c E -"• .to i -= d> O 'i3 u d = = �` H O 7 y v = O eT> U .0 h O a t .t �, ."n 93 o 0 0 y o N -ca � R e.., ' _ a'� .E � � " -fl -o s E.• o s = -a c = a " ci, :C.• ..2 0. C u O T' ."' v> N O '> 0. � " b = O � " G sp e> T �. v e>10 j, d O O q a O Xw3 ."' O U " es 0 7 w w C ca T u a> o C cz Ss C "_ "0 o 0. u y y = p`, C. c c� 3 > E cs p 0 C o c c ,o " �, R es " o oo•o P, L E p « $ o o v rs v R u a oO 0 e? .13 . '= r E o o .. .o T c w. u c H = �• C O' p y " O N Ca >• O Ca V .0 R 'O w R. �y C " V s:. O C -4 F ►' C O C u O C� C3' 0 O cr g 'r ci 'O C C '� " -> C" = O ..'. O �.. _ O O C u O � QE > d � E v a U � r>a c `" � eq' � �' � " -oma � 0 y E E C u M E .'> O 'Q - -a �3 qu v C vi _ `" c > ``' s - c`d ate. `� `Z3 0 •� d ei $ Z O cxa ti >,•.� Q tn ,o h b a) $ `a" 3- ; Ll v cya O •- c p o °O 0 o 4; 0 x a o cs a m - R d O cs o ^ o .- •0 ,,, a E i> s x W 3 w " R Cl. 0 o a; a T fl, o .o T O �' c d R c o o '' G v E E 5 .� 3 0 ? c as ecl O O u G R - •O ".. N o-w.r u C h • C)- - O O w u c O H c d H •o v = Oy u - v = - " " 3 •�"f r! j ca D u o Q• ti u. er-i u o E �. E " c Q 0. C; y t,: ` 0.'Q 'C> "a c •" a V as C L U I- a> O C e> � v T e> = V 0 w Nu-. K :p C O `� O - u G '� a> n E E c T ea a, w a, p CO Ad es 0 c E R H o e a e c 0 h q Y " _ E $ a o E o a "> u - E v ea `o. •. u aD 0_� 0 0 > 0 0 a 0 .3 c_> .. 3 o.� q ,n _a• r.O a c R a> c u o c c 0 > E p o C c o a .' C v' cs �+ 6 '� R ? 3 O "- >, vOi e) >c.. N e) .O •` u a q RO •" U -.:. O - 3 -54 R n v e ar..c a. ea u .. a a fl 3 o > >+ R 3 O y .� p yV C .O p O C H •p r O R p E 0. h 0 O O u U e3 R -d > O G � 0 .0 := n.. 0 U + 0 .X C " H � S N u� v a:. ea 7 ..C) " a•.c• yV " 'i vyj O C = E U Oy a � O O a'D H .c C r [>. O .v mo E c> E • 1 R v o _ 'a' C 0 c E c p p c`a 0 ,0 r o !» •T t w T V E v, 'L3 b G c L 93 E" C C E e H = e". 0 O y c u to a eO cR> o = • o v c u o c " H •o -o t� E �«. Wi t: *• c q y ? o E a O R p X ov-. .= O +, 'O C a06 O.� p = Ep N ". O U = .a "O S o p •Y w ca c's �.+ O .� y •p U y.y O C s V w O C •� C -fl Cc* h•O V ,Uc -+ 0 " O.u 4` 6E> °^ O H c M CS v y ..cc GO v a >> " �''•c* � `- Ei~ >. 'L r3 � = Q .9 =, RX Q yt� ICY, e> � Lt a � w •C• a. T a :: ocn 0 y> c - o w - c o a F a .0 >' " mOy 0 tn =' o c e, w Q c e� 0 u •o epi o '" Ana. 0 �- c's 0 o a 0 C9 Sc�." G A r O -5 1 v L' � p O O C O �r S.� h R 0. O 9:4 On r U R " CS• 0 0. G �. b 0.:+ R " . .. .: _ _ _ __ __ _ _, .... �. _.. . "; � '� _�; .; - '_�_;_ ,. ��.?::_ �= - t{ �: ;�_, _'�' '%1= x'% )�..!.. _r, t _ ."'1- r _ �_ �-'� --- i, s y �i �';F+. '�K>-� �, l� L. _ /': f u1 � '�� .-f � � '_'r'µ� 7 � .a7 t l- T v � V - � _� r 1 f L. '. q d• ._ . . _ .. ._ ..,� ..aZ .�� ._�`.. . s:t'" � ... v.w .-r�-. .k,T.. ->i' n ... .. .... ._ ti:x x_.il: >+ _ ... ... -. APPENDIX #3 Tke / �� ' �u v►N` a' vim. �tz ` however, it pendent, in dernocratic Commentary on Approved Draft ' Oy which to alleviating ,' iNTRCDUCTION ly deprived; f The tentative draft of Standards Relating to The Urban police �vv rile justice' Function was issued during March 1972 and was widely distributed 've ways of _ to interested groups in order to obtain comment and criticism before problems, reevaluation and submission to the ABA House of Delegates for ap- nce to Citi- proval. A few charges were made as a result of this process, most of s~ •.� tally ill, the them incorporating o b recommendations made in December 1972 by a fig C Special Advisory Committee of the International Association of `i'¢ Chiefs of Polices ! __ ' For$�t111 t1nde4we�d:r... S•1... _ p-"2 understanding' va �+V+c�V=��u1lldCrlytil fl'rhP. SPf Am rr�vn�m_ tions of the ABA Advisory Committee on the Police Function, one is F referred to the extensive commentary set forth in the report of March 1972. It would appear useful, however, to repeat here a few points of 'general applicability discussed in the introduction to that report. ^g First, the.standards have been offered `in the belief that greater_ a understanding of the function of the police_in a democratic.societ}y� J..• S3 c necessary if there is tig be needed improvement in the quality of police service. Since, in addition to the police profession, such understanding; is required of tae legal profession;which bears a special responsibility, - as well as of the general public, it is appropriate for lawyers to attempt; a Yo articulate and achieve a cozasensus as to the complex role which the:l =E' �'�-�r= police play.!-Second.. the_standards are in fact "standards" in the loosest sense of the term. Partly because of the educational purpose - of the standards and partly because of the underdeveloped character r : •The committee was appointed by IACP President Don Derning and consisted of Commissioner Francis Looney(retired) of Nassau Conn_ _ Ci 'Y.New York.Assistant Cora_ missioner,New Yor � ty Police Dcpartmeni and inCP Vice-President;Chief Edward Davis of Los Angeles,IACP Vice-President; Commissioner Don Pomerleau of Balti- more; and IACP Assistant Director Glen Murphy. - 6 21 r `'- _ - .ur..i::•• ..^ ter_ -.�..- �..-=�.._ _: ^�. '`z -tis -�...�2�- - -.?- •4 i 77 i' kz -. ac �-fir' } -•r •srr.,:;-..� SSS The Ur-an Police Function - 1 !!1 of the police field; ve:y feu �f.the standards constitute model pro-' b ceduies which=can be implemented imrnediateIy an a national basis. fic standards for organizing, staffing, and training Third, very speci ' . ' police agencies have been left for development within the police field. f j To the extent they address the same areas, the standards here are limited to reflecting the effect that some of the broader issues dealtr with will have upon prevailing practices. Fourth, the title—The Urban Police Function—is intended to reflect both the fact that the stan- dards are addressed primarily to municipal policing and not, for example, to statewide and federal law enforcement agencies, and the fact that some of the specific solutions proposed are directed to the -=���• critical problems of the urban police. The emphasis on urban problems does not mean that-the basic principles are not applicable to all police. ( . Finally, although the focus on the police function in this Project _ emanated from concern with the operation of the-criminal justice = ' system, it became clear that the effectiveness of police within that -� sy.—Aem kcquira-d exploration of Their responsibilities and duties outside 3 •I' � St. It should be notdd that the standards, as amended, were not only.- - unanimously approved by the ABA House of Delegates in Fe'uruary; `i 1973,but also unanimously endorsed by the Executive Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in December 1972. .' There follows a detailed discussion of the major changes which were made in two sections of the tentative draft. An historical note ,, -' indicating all'of the changes made in the tentative draft_ is contained - - in the appendix to this supplement. Section 5.5 � ^± q ' As amended, the standard makes two principal recommendations: (a) that governmental immunity.be eliminated and provision be �+" • --•_ - i made for governmental liability for the actions of police acting within the scope of their employment. This is a clarification of the proposal T ` it made in the original draft- (b) that there be a limitation upon the liability of the individual ""T L I police officer who is acting in accordance with departmental policy. 2E `1 APPENDIX # 4 tta'�19 t ' Ii. (10) !, I .� Standards should stimulate the improvement of services. � Sy Discussion: The standards as a whole should promote the development of procedures that will have impact upon the quality and quantity of services to or on behalf of the public. Requirements that are only cosmetic or that lead only to superficial change should have no plane among the standards. * The standards as a whole should concentrate on basic operational programs and activities rather than activities which are infrequently encountered or which represent minor expenditures of police resources. Standards should take the cost of compliance into account. Discussion: Our interpretation of the phase "daily operation of a law enforcement agency" is that it means our efforts should be practical , and should be concentrated upon the cost commonly encountered operational functions, and in particular those which have the greatest impact upon the achievement of basic law enforcement agency objectives, such as the prevention of crime .and criminality, the maintenance of public order, and so on. Also, the question of practicality bears directly on cost. Each standard should therefore be considered as to its cost effectiveness. The standards as a body-must take into account the whole range of law enforcement activities, from administration to operations. s The standards as a body should reflect the range of activities in approximate proportion to the amount of time and attention devoted to each in the daily operations of the agency. Discussion: This isnot meant to imply that a strict relationship will exist between specific law enforcement agency functions and the number of standards developed to deal with each of them. Instead, the standards should, proportionally, emphasize areas where the ' greatest improvement can be effected - areas of greatest agency expenditures. Standards should be uniform and consistent within a given agency size range and in all parts of the country. . ® Standards should be supported either by research, by a . comprehensive literature search; by examples of the standards in operation in actual day-to-day police operations, by controlled tests; by the opinion of experts having knowledge of the standard, or by any combination of these justifications. o Standards should reflect the considered thinking of police i professional literature, the project staffs, consultants, public I interest groups, and academics. - I f ;i (11 ) (I ``Discussion: Many efforts have been made over the past few decades to improve law enforcement agency practices. Unfortunately, not all these efforts have been fruitful . Researchanrt the test of time have demonstrated the exemplary nature of some practices and exposed the i ineffectiveness of others. Also at issue here is not how old or widespread a practice is but, rather, how effective it is. It should be acknowledged that standards may be developed which have very little current application, but because of compelling evidence -- such as the � e research and testing mentioned above -- there may be valid reasons for their adoption. o Standards should be researched against all past standards development efforts, especially those contained in the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967), the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1273), and the American Bar Association and IACD Standards on the Urban Police Function (1973). Standards should address contemporary law enforcement problems and issues. Discussion: Past standards development efforts have not been numerous but they have been undertaken several times, and series of standards have been developed. None, however, was developed with accreditation in mind_ Therefore, they tenrl to be more nanaral And utmm�+l Wren +o +erpretat n Ihwn •-+ar...t-.....i.. hi h ��_ � r vv ii��.c� I+� a.vu�. :Sb41�a1Q1 U� which Ililljt ,Judge compliance. This does not mean that past standard§ development efforts are not without great value. It means that no attempt should be made to borrow wholesale the language of past standards efforts but rather Y that they should be looked upon as a wealth of basic research and thought. In additionoto the broad studies listed in the criteria, other sources of stan-dards should be investigated, such as those promulgated by such groups as the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, The National Association of State Directors of Law Enforcement Training, the various state law enforcement planning agencies, -and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in Britain. Although previous efforts should be used as a basis for the development of standards, current issues must be addressed explicitly. Standards should also be as farsighted in.design as possible to-"avoid their being quickly outdated. f' Iq i APPENDIX # 5 Elmsf Ap Ii I _ t _ . t 17. . Insights From a Police Investigation Study: A Potential - Adversary Role for the. Police. Santa Monica, California, Rand Corporation, 1976. 14 p. • - (NCJ 43449) Pub. No. P-5722 The study, which was presented at the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, examinesthe amount of effort de- voted by police to investigate reported crimes, how this effort is organized, and what is accomplished. A national survey of all de- partments exceeding 150 employees or serving populations over 100,000 was conducted to determine patterns of- resource use, investigative procedures, personnel policies, and special projects. Uniform Crime Report data on offenses, arrests, and clearances were obtained and combined with the survey responses to provide gross performance com- parisons among departments. More than 25 departments which were identified ars being . progressive in their approach to investigative management were visited by the research staff for observations and ( interviews of investigation personnel. It was demonstrated that in-- vestigation efforts have only a marginal effect on the rate at which 9 Y:?rF_ _. ,_. _ _ � ... -.,moi �. `1; i %I ::r = 1�: - � - - ? _ _' .,-�. .,z. ;.` _ Y.y�... �ti_h ''y'` r ,,.`e .' 7� )^4. �.: l `, _ S: � � �.4rrEef,r . 5 X �.�.• �,�y. .y,_ 4, - r '' i �/ _ ..s-�.. =.. - - 1, .y: _ Twp 4-"�'"` Y'- :d'. w�, S } - _ -_ .. C y ir4 ULC the rainsiiiLwAN EVALUATION Enforcement and Criminal Justice s of the Law Enforcement Assistance Ad- _ .+l ministration, United States Depart- 3 `- ment of Justice,awarded the Rand Cor- poration of Santa Monica,California,a Z �,T�c contract to study police criminal in- A �I:� C �0RAT10 vestigation practices. In October, 1975, the Rand Corporation published fin- AN ` "C� iM dings and proposed reforms fl three $ volumes. When a potentially influential piece of research such as this has been nipublished,C IMMEN L INVESTIGATIDN is mportator thospenand organizations that could be affected to _ PRO CESS review the work with care and con- sideration. If there are questions regard- _ ing the validity of the study and the - - utility of its findings and rccommen- dations,then it would seem appropriate *t . to share these views. It is within this • ' general framework that this analysis is DARYL Cr. GATES and LYLE KNOWLES oriented. ' xThere is no question that Rand's research project has developed some useful data. Unfortunately there - Y appears to have been an irrepressible need to produce a document with meaningful findings and provocative recommendations.Had the findings and proposed solutions been supported by and consistent with the data gathered, the current evaluation would not have- ._�_ .i = . been necessary; and, more importantly, the Rand Report on the Criminal "investigation Process would have made ' a valuable contribution to law enforce- _ - - ment. Herman Kahn of the Hudson DARYL F. GATES is Director of Police enrolled in graduate studies at that un- Institute paraphrases an overused com- operations, Los Angeles Police Depart- iversity. puler metaphor that docs not precisely ment, Box 30158. Los Angeles. Califor-101111111111 fit here, but :comes embarrassingly nla 90030. A career police officer, he close. "garbage in, gospel out... -'.'. entered the LAPD in 1949 and was LYLE KNOWLES, Ph.D., Is Professor of It is hard to determine at this point promoted through the ranks to his Public Administration and Urban what impact this research effort will currently held rank of Assistant Chief. Studies and Associate Dean for have on the police investigative func- His experience includes that of com- Graduate Studies in Public Administra- tion. To date, there appears to be no • �manding officer of the Intelligence Divi- tion,, Pepperdine University, Los measurable barm done. however, as ,'slon and Administrative Services Angeles, California 90044. He has par- time passes and as police budgets are Bureau,and director of the Office of Ad- ticipated for seven years as a faculty reviewed, this report unchallenged ministrative Services. He also served on member of the University of.Southern could have serious and perhaps .--consecutive occasions as adjutant and California Delinquency Control Institute. detatiim act on the whole in- vasn . executive officer to the fate Police Chief His areas of specialization Include g p William H. Parker.He is immediate past statistics and research methodology, vestigative process. president of the Peace Offlcers Associa- computer sciences, and administrative The present evaluation was not un- tion of Los Angeles County and a leadership and behavior. -He consults dertaken to support the investigative member of the Executive Committee of with many law enforcement agencies the California Peace Officers' Associa- and other criminal justice groups on status quo. There is indeed a definite tion. Assistant Chief Gates is also a research procedures and data analysis need for improvement in the in- member of the Board of Councilors, and frequently conducts- research vestigative process, but there is also institute of Safety and Systems Manage- seminars with such groups. .He has substantial cause for concern that police ment. University of Southern California; testified in a number of court cases as an administrators may take at face value Advisory Council,Pepperdine University expert witness in statistics, research Rand's claimed research findings and School of Business;and the President's • methods,- and obscenity. and por- implement changes which will prove Advisory Council, Los. Angeles City'- nography. He holds a bachelor's degree harmful both to the police and the com- College. He was an advisor to the in psychologyand mathematics from the munities they serve. It is therefore im- National Advisory Commission on Civil University of Arizona/Tucson, a M.S. In erative that we alert police ad- Disorder and authored the Model Plan educational psychology, and Ph.D. In p for Riot Control.He holds a B.S.degree educational psychology and special ministrators to exercise great caution in>: In public administration from the Univer- education from the Upiversity of considering the Rand study's purported sity of Southern California and Is Southerr_ California. findings and suggested reforms_ 20 THE POLICE CHIEF/JULY 1976 .. .. _ _ _ - -. .. _- - - -as-=--•: _ - An examination of the study's three any findings. department with'a penchant for com- volumes by the authors of this evalua- It is important to recognize that puterization that draws swarms of tion has resulted in questions regarding much of the information used in the researchers eager for easy data access; the methods, data bases, and con- Rand study was quantitative (with the however, this does not mean that Kan- elusions of the Rand researchers, par- exception -of a few subjective data sas City can stand for the nation. To ticularly from the perspective of the sources).The entire dimension of quali- draw a majority of information'from police administrator. This article dis- ty was all but overlooked. The quality this one city distorts the entire data base .susses these questions -in relation to of investigative training; the quality of and leads to conclusions that are, at •Rand's major findings and proposed investigative personnel, the quality of best, valid only for Kansas City. reforms, and particularly in relation to their experience, the quality of ERRORS IN DRAWING the Rand conclusion that: procedures,and the quality of the entire CONCLUSIONS our study findings suggest that the organization all play a role in the effectiveness of criminal investigation would overall quality of the police function. Although Rand has used procedures not be.unduly lessened if approximately half Almost all law enforcement ad- with questionable reliability and data of the investigative effort were eliminated or ministrators have come to learn that not representative of the nation, it has shifted to more productive uses."' quality can be as important as quantity. gone on to draw conclusions that are Evidently,-the Rand researchers have not.consistent with the data.For exam- GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL not come to realize. this. ple,one of the"findings"that is used to PROBLEMS support the Rand conclusion that in- Upon considering the research INSUFFICIENT DATA BASES vestigative efforts could be lessened procedures of the Rand study,it should Rand queried 300 major police states that "Our data consistently be noted that it is traditional and departments in the nation through a reveal that a regular investigator's time ethically sound to present statistical mail survey. One hundred and fifty- is preponderantly consumed .. . on' evidence along-with research findings. three responded.These replies provided cases that experience shows will not be A violation of this research rocedure general information about each de art- solved:" However, the data behind the occurred in a number of places in the ment from which Rand selected "more i`f esti g t claims that a percent at an Rand report. The reader must accept than 25 police agencies" for individual cases'and is time is spent investigating the word of the authors that such data on-site rsearch Volume III of the cases' and approximately 40 percent of do exist, but for some reason were not Rand report specifically names seven that time is spent on cases that are not included. Phrases-such' as "detailed departments from which special solved. This means that a total of 24 ' analysis of case samples" and "in an statistics and data samples were percent of an investigator's time is spent - analysis of a largesample of-crime collected.-' The specific identity of the on cases that are not solved. Does this types"2 are used to indicate the source remaining"more than" 18 agencies and support the conclusion that an in-. of various major findings. These are of the nature of the"more detailed"study vestigator's time is prepoaderantiy little help in assisting the reader to con- that was performed is not clear in any of spent on unsolved cases? nect a specific finding with the data.No the report's three volumes. Even if we were to assume that 24 conscientious police administrator As limited as this source of informa- percent is a large amount of time to would find such eplanations acceptable tion is, the majority of.Rand's con- spend on cases that are eventually un- E as proof for conclusions with such elusions were based on even less infor- solved, Rand has not considered in its widespread impact as the Rand study mation. The major conclusion at issue conclusion the additional reasons far in- proposes. here, the reduction of investigative ef- vestigation that a pollex agency must Prior to conducting any piece of fort, is shown by a Rand footnote as consider. For example, both the research,every effort is usually made to being "based on our analysis of how deterrent effect on criminals and the ensure that the basic data are valid and cases are solved and of investigator's obligation of the police to investigate all reliable. In the Rand report, various daily routines.."6 Given this generalized cases are important benefits of in- references are made to problems in- explanation, it is an alert reader who vestigation that can not be measured by hereat in the data,in the measurement can infer that the phrase"how cases are the percent of cases solved. of certain variables, and in the ' solved" refers to Chapter 6 of Volume AN OPINION OF THE - -- ' operational definitions of variables. As III entitled "Analysis of How Crimes one example,in the section titled"How Are Solved," and that the phrase TOTAL WORTH OF Reliable Are Our Findings," the Rand "investigator's daily routines" refers to THE RAND STUDY researchers admit that "It may be con- Chapter 5 of Volume III entitled "The The Rand Corporation received tended that the data we Daily Routine."-However,an examina- $500,000 to prepare a report that (1) collected . . . do not reflect sufficiently tion reveals that Rand's entire analysis, contains proce4ural errors that erase controlled experiments"' Because of in Chapter 6, of how crimes are solved almost all hope of accuracy, (2) has a problems of Iack of control, accuracy, was obtained from six police agencies fatally limited data base, and (3) and consistency, most researchers and that by far the majority of the In for- presents conclusions that do not follow would not have used these data. The mation was obtained from one agency, from the data presented and which ig- Rand researchers have recognized these the Kansas City Police Department. nore a host of important related in problems (as indicated by their The daily routine chapter does away fluences. references)but have not hesitated to use with the other five departments and While every good police ad- the data associated with them. Com- names only Kansas City as its source. ministrator welcomes advice that will paring data collected from different Rand is attempting to support a finding increase the efficiency -0 his depart- agencies must be regarded as a serious of purportedly nationwide significance ment, it would seem the Rand Cor- shortcoming. The number of uncon- with limited and potentially inadequate poration's conclusion that half of the in- trolled and even unknown variables data drawn primarily from a single vestigative effort could be eliminated operating in such situations serves to agency. Granted that the Kansas City without lessening the effectiveness of seriously compromise the validity of Police Department is a modern police criminal investigation can not be -JULY 1976/THE POLICE CHIEF 21 seriously considered as anything other i!: fiat,go ahead and call it flat anyway be expected to influence clearance than the unsubstantiated opinions of because that is the way it appears and, rates.2'This assertion,by merely calling researchers who lack the insight and un- one suspects, is the way they want it to competent investigative police work derstanding of the police investigation be. °'routine" on the basis of an arbitrary function necessary to draw such aeon- (MAJOR FINDING 2 single-agency study, reflects con- clusion, siderable naivete and is of little or no THE METHOD BY WHICH POLICE value to law enforcement agencies. MAJOR FINDING 1 INVESTIGATORS ARE ORGANIZED(i.e., TEAM POLICING,SPECIALISTS V GEN- Condusion ON INVESTIGATIVE EFFECTIVENESS.• ERALIST.PATROL bIEI�INi ES;/GATORS) DIFFERENCES IN INVESTIGATIVE CANNOT BE RELATED TO VARI- As was the case with Major Finding TRAINING. STAFFING. WORKLOAD, ATIONS IN CRIME. ARR:'ST. AND I,no attempt to establish a relationship AND PROCEDURES APPEAR TO HAVE CLEARANCE RATES" between Crime rates and investigative NO APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON CRIME. practices can be found anywhere in the ARREST;ORCLEARANCERATES1° Source of the Finding report's three volumes.In sum then,the Limited and Arbitrary Rand report provides little or no factual Source of the Finding The authors claim that this finding basis for Major Finding 2. Cannot Be Determined resulted from a detailed analysis of case This finding is plagued by a variety of samples combined with FBI-UCR and MAjOR FINDING difficulties, including contradictory Rand survey data."However,the Rand ON THE USE OF INVESTIGATOR'S statements by the reporgs authors con- survey data used to support this finding TGifE. SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN cerning which data actually produced it. is virtually identical to that supporting HALF OF ALL SERIOUS REPORTED In the finding's supporting paragraph in Major Finding I and is just as in- CRIMES RECEIVE NO MORE THAN Volume I,it is unequivocally stated that adequate for support of this finding as it SUPERFICIAL A TTENTION FR.om IN- it resulted from an analysis of the is for Major Finding L"The manner in VESTIGATORS=' ' study's survey questionnaire:" In con- which FBI-UCR data supports Major tract,Volume III indicates that the part Finding 2 is not shown. As for the Single Agency Data of the finding relating to clearance rates detailed analysis of case samples men- resulted from entirely different data — tioned, this concerns clearancerates According to the report's authors, from a study of six departments.12 only and involved an extremely limited this finding is based on . ., an analysis '- The report provides equally con- data base comprised of two samples." of a computer-readable case assignment tradictory statements as to whether or The first of these samples was com- file maintained by the Kansas City, i not the data actually produced Major posed of 172 cleared cases("with rough Missouri, Police Department and ` Finding 1. Thus, the report's authors estimates"made from another 92 cases) observations during site visits. . .."2' state in Volume II that, although they drawn from five cities, including 109 Despite this claim,only the Kansas City failed to find any differences in the cases (63 percent of the sample) from data is discussed in the report;the data effectiveness of various investigative Long Beach, Califcrnia.l' The authors obtained from the unspecified obser- practices, this does not mean such assert that their analysis of this vations and the nature of its differences do not exist,but rather that miniscule sample shows that, in more relationship to the finding is not given. clearance and arrest rate statistics for than half of cleared cases,suspect iden- departments as a whole may be in- tification is available- at the time of Non-Crimes and Minor Crimes ' adequate to reveal whatever differences reporting, and thus helps prove that the Included in the Data -do exist." In this connection, the organization of investigative units can The authors,in discussing the Kansas authors note that arrest and clearance have little effect on clearance rates 20 City data, state that only homicide, are widely understood to be inadequate This assertion is essentially meaningless rape, and suicide are invariably worked =measures of investigative effec- to the law enforcement administrator, on, and that "A few other types of tiveness." The authors are, in effect, especially in1ight of the tiny, localized crimes universally regarded as serio,is saying that arrest and clearance rates sample used to produce it. are worked on in over 60 percent of the are inadequate tools with which to The second sample used in this con- cases, but many types more likely than produce any valid finding. nection consisted of 92 cleared cases not receive less than a half-hour's atten- Incredibly, there is little or no em- drawn from the Kansas City,Missouri, tion (thereby counting as not 'worked `pirically substantiated attempt shown Police Department_21 The authors on')."The authors conclude that"Since j anywhere in the report to determine the classified the method of.solution of the bulk of crimes fall into these latter relationship between crime rates and these cases as being either"routine" or categories; well under half of all differences in investigative training, "special action" ("requiring-more than reported crimes receive any serious staffing, workload, and proce- procedural investigative skill")" by attention• by the investigator."" This dures—even though this is the essence means of a totally arbitrary and assertion, which paraphrases Major of Major Finding 1! specious classification system. By Finding 3, may be true for all reported Conclusion means of this scheme, in which all in- crimes (including trespassing, van- vestigative actions were classified as dalism, and other minor crimes), but The authors have little or no factual `,`routine" unless they happened to the report's data certainly does not sup- basis for Major Finding 1; it reflects -strike the nonpolice researchers as un- port it in relation to the "serious only their failure to find a correlation usual or flamboyant,the conclusion was reported crimes"specified in the major between the involved variables. By reached that 97 percent of all crimes finding. - stating-a finding where none exists, the that now get cleared could be solved This data,presented in Table 5-3,in- authors call to mind geographers who, using only "obvious and routine eludes two non-crimes, "dead body" having admitted that their instruments tasks."2' This, say the authors, proves and "lost property," and two Part It are inadequate to determine if the earth that investigative organization cannot offenses — "common assault" and 22 THE POLICE CHIEF/JULY 1976 � � - "vandalism."21 Even with suicide the period from which the data was MAJOR FINIDING 5 (another non-crime) removed from the drawn {May-November 1973), Rand ON Now CASES ARE SOLYt:q: THE i list,the data shows that 10(77 percent) lists 28.6 percent of all detective of the 13 "serious reported crimes". working time as "unaccounted for."'s SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DETER- MINANT OF WHETHER OR NOTA CASE listed are investigated 59 percent of the WILL BE SOLVED IS THE INFORMA- time with only three(23 percent) being Lirgely _ 24 Percent. TION THE VICTIM SUPPLIES Td THE worked on less than 50 percent of the Undaunted by these deficiencies, the IMMEDIATELY RESPONDING PATROL time. The data also-reveals that the authors used the data to compute OFFICER. IF INFORMATION THAT U- worked on' average for all of the � expenditures of "detective casework N/QUELY IDENTIFIES THE PEP.PETRA- serious crimes listed is 49.9 percent, a time," which the researchers estimated TOR IS NOT PRESENTED AT THE TIME far different figure than the authors' to constitute 60 percent of all detective THE CRIMEISREPORTED. THEPERPE- 32.4 percent average, and hardly the working time.36 Their computations TRA TOR.B Y AND LARGE. WILL NOT BE s well under half' claimed by Major produced the finding that uncleared IDENTIFIED" i Finding 3. cases account for 40.2 percent of alI Conclusion detective casework time." Based on Source of Finding Not Given Rand's total casework estimate of 60 t The authors have used limited datapercent, Kansas City detectives spend In the paragraph supporting this fin- from a single agency in their attempt to- 24 percent of their time on "unsolved" ding, the authors claim that it is based ( support this finding. And while it is ob- cases —_a percentage that in no way on . . .an analysis of a large sample of vious that Kansas City is not the nation, "largely consumes" the detectives' combined crime types . .. ."'2 Since no :- 1 even the data given does not support the time, additional clues as to the nature of the finding.7 he finding is not supported by finding's supporting data are offered, fact and therefore-has little validity. Non-Crimes and Minor Crimps the "large sample" must be tracked I down,a process necessary in relation to Before considering the second s asser- several of the major findings.Perusal of t MAJOR FINDING 4 tion contained in Major Finding 4,that t g Volume I reveals the following foot- _ OUR DATA CONSISTENTLY REVEAL for solved cases an investigator spends noted finding (nota "major" finding) THAT AN INVESTIGATOR'S TIME IS more time in post-clearance processing ..In more than half of the cleared cases, LARGELY CONSUMED IN REVIEW/NG than he does it. identifying the the identification of the offender was REPORTS.DOCUMENTINGFILES.AND perpetrator, we must first turn to available at the time of the initial f ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE AND Volume I which states: "The scope of report.. .:"' This is not precisely the INTERVIEW VICTIMS ON CASES THAT the Rand study was limited to police in- same as the first sentence of Major Fin- EXPERIENCE SHOWS WILL NOT BE vestigation of serious reported crime: ding 4, but is close enough to show the SOLVED. FOR CASES THAT ARE homicide, rape, assault, robbery, relationship. The footnote appended to SOLVED(i.e..SUSPECT IS IDENTIFIED), burglary, and theft. Our work did not 4 addisdemeanor offenses or v.c- this finding provides the following in- AN INVESTIGATOR SPENDS MORE vi c- IN POST-CLEARANCE PROCESS- tiress misdemeanor or organized crimes whose in- formation: Initially, d analyzed 63 robbery cases, divided among four f ING THAN HE DOES IN IDENTIFYING vestigation is substantially different police departments (Berkeley, Los { !: THEPERPETRAT•OR- from the felony offenses that were our i; primary concern.""` Angeles, Miami, and Washington, This statement notwithstanding, the D.C.). We. then expanded the analysis Single Agency Data data base for the report's casework time to include 109 cleared cases for crimes ' or fin The same•madin stated in percentages contains such offenses as r 3 g' other than robbery'from Long Beach, California. The sample was again Volume III, substitutes then word "trespassing," "protective custody," expanded to include an additional 92 preponderantly for "largely."" The and "disorderly conduct, among cases from the Kansas City, Missouri, findings supporting paragraph states others: The average preclearance time ;olice Department, selected according. that it resulted from . ..an analysis of expenditure for these offenses is sub- to a different sampling design" In dis a variety of crime types...,"" but stantiaily_ less than for actual serious Volume III of the report informs us crimes," but as the authors failed to cussing the 92 Kansas City casess case all of t p that all quantitative data on the use of provide complete casework data,the ex- which were drawn from that city investigators'-time resulted from the tent to which the inclusion of these assignment .file, the authors note that { Kansas City Case Assignment File." minor offenses lov,cred the preclearance The sample design in Kansas City also The Kansas City, Missouri, Police time expenditure percentage could not permits us to obtain rough estimates of Department's computer-readable case be determined. the fraction of cleared cases that were solved by initial identification in Kansas assignment file must therefore con- Cit}," stitute the unspecified "experience" to Conclusion ' which the finding refers,unless it can be I Inadequate Data assumed that the report's authors can These procedural shortcomings, to �- discern without investigative effort which the authors appear peculiarly Are 172 cases, 109 of which are from which cases are unsolvable. susceptible, pale in importance beside one city, and "rough estimates" based the fact that they are attempting to sup- on 92 cases from another city really a Limited Reliability of the Data port a finding of purportedly "large sample"for a nationwide study? nationwide significance with incomplete Such a miniscule sample would at most Concerning the case assignment file, and potentially inaccurate data drawn have limited relevance for the sampled the authors offer the caution: "We do from a single agency. Major Finding 4 jurisdictions. not know whether the officers are con- does not have adequate factual support An Obscure Relationship scien.tous about reporting accurately to have more than possible validity for how they spend their time... :"'This the Kansas City, Missouri, Police The source of the second half of warning appears well founded- during Department. Major Finding 4—that if a perpetrator JULY 1976/THE POLICE CHIEF 23 not be identified — cannot be deter- are solved results in a finding that is percent in the sample of cases trom mined from the information provided in meaningless. Jurisdiction "A", while 26 percent of the report, although the authors imply Conclusion the questions were covered in the cases ' 'i that it is based on the same six-cities from Jurisdiction "B' t data that supports the first half of the The finding is the result of arbitrary, finding."The six-cities data cited by the subjective classification and has no From Molehills to Mountains authors in this connection includes only validity. Concerning these results, the report preciously clear-d cases arid does not in stales: "On their face, the statistical any way address case solution MAJOR ,FINDING 9 results on the comparison of robbery in- , probabilities.."s-However, there is no vestigation seem to support the =� data in the report that is even ON INVESTIGATIVE THOROUGHNESS- prosecutor's view that his needs for in- other -4... > remotc,.y related to case-solution IN RELATIVELY FEW DEPARTMENTS formation are not fully and consistently . probabilities. This fact, coupled with DO INVESTIGATORS CONSISTENTLY 1 the authors' implication, makes it AND THOROUGHLY DOCUMENT THE 'The authors have lea reasonably safe to assume that the se- KEY EVIDENTIARY FACTS THA TR EA- from the "= `* cond half of Major Finding 4 is based SONABLY ASSURE THAT THE PgOSE- molehill of their limited two-agency , x' on the same insignificant six-cities data CUTOR CAN OBTAIN A CONVICTION data to the mountains of national =fit: as is the first half of the finding. Given ON THE MOST SERIOUS APPLICABLE significance. But what did the authors - � prove, if anything, concerning even the the nature of the data,the finding could CHARGES" only have been arrived at through some two jurisdictions studied? - process of indirect inference, which no Tiro-Jurisdiction Study Y== doubt accounts for.the use of the vague Rand claims that "This finding Conclusion rr. term "by and large" in the finding. derives from a combination of obser- Upon examining this portion of the { Conclusion vations of police departments made y+ P P Rand stud it seems that the authors ! .:< throughout the country and some of the o p operated under the remise that the The authors derived this finding from results obtained in the study of post- prosecutor's filing policy was the only very limited data drawn from six cities arrest investigation practices.'1As the variable influencing investigative ' and, possibly, from inferences. made location, nature, and substantive con- thoroughness in the two different police ! r from these data. Major Finding 5 does tent of these observations is not departments.This is ex licitl ` not have adequate factual support P p y indicated r — q pport to supplied in the.report, the contribution by the authors' conclusion that "strict have more than possible localized of the observations to the finding can- filing standards apparently resulted in validity. not be determined. However, more thorough investigation.""Totally : - statements elsewhere in the report unaccounted for are the effects of the MAJOR FINDING 6 suggest that the finding is in all differences between the departments in i probability based entirely on Rand's l ON HOW CASES ARE SOLVED: OF P y �' recruitment, training, case.oad, . _ study of post-arrest investigation prac- management, and myriad other y THOSE CASES THA TA R E U L TIMA TEL Y tices involving but two jurisdictions." CLEARED BUT IN WHICH THE PERPE- y variables, as an police administrator e. .:. This study involved two anonymous knows. Additionally, as noted in TRA TOR IS NOTID£NTIFIABLE AT THE , TIME OF THE INITIAL POLICE California prosecutors office:: (both Volume III,the authors gave no idea of F LvCIDENT REPORT,A LMOSTA LL ARE branch offices of the same district) and the true relevance of its questionnaire to g= CLEARED AS A RESULT OFROUTINE their companion police departments. the actual requirements of successful POLICE PROCEDURES" The authors allege, without supporting prosecutions. The questionnaire was data,that prosecutor's office"A"tends based on the opinion of "one = to be extremely strict in screening cases "experienced" prosecutor. Finally, 43 An Arbitrary Classification for filing; it files only those charges it robbery cases cn hardly be considered This finding resulted from the believes can be proven to a jury- an adequate sample, ,even for two ti authors' arbitrary classification of 92 Prosecutor's office "B" is alleged to jurisdictions. --. - cleared cases (from the Kansas City, give "routine police procedures" White there may be'a continuing need Missouri,Police Department)as having greater accommodation,". . .accepting to upgrade investigative thoroughness, been solved by either "routine" their practice of presenting minimal in- methods or"special action.""It should formation to substantiate the filing of a Rand has not adequately documented be added here that in classifying some case.'"" this need. Major Finding 9 does not types of cases, the authors followed the To assess the "completeness of in- have adequate factual support to have guideline that ".. .investigator action vestigation" of cases submitted by the tapestire hatian onsstof thble etwoinvolved is characterized as `routine, even police departments to their respective though the actions may be routine only prosecutors' offices, the authors Jurisdictions. _ :V,�, to an investigator. In response to this developed a list of 39 questions a: guideline,one may well ask:Can the in- . ,that an ex enenced prosecutor MAJOR FINDING 10 P vestigative methods of an expert in- believed should be addressed by a police OV INVESTIGATIVE THOROUGHNESS: vestigator, developed as a result of investigation to facilitate prosecution of POLICE FAILURE TO DOCUMENT A = years of experience and training, be the case.'"' Twenty-one robbery cases CASE INVESTIGATION THOROUGHLY classified as "routine" merely because from Jurisdiction "A" and 22 robbery MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A the investigator's expertise makes them cases from Jurisdiction "B" comprised HIGHERCASEDISMISSALRATEANDA appear so to an uninitiated observer? the study sample. The authors then j�EAKEN/,VG OF THE PROSECUTORS Uninformed classification of competent examined the case documents P PLEA „ LEA BARGAININGPOSITION investigative police•work as "routine" to the prosecutor by the police. The r action and the use of this ciassification report states that each of the 39 Continued on page 74 �ss THE POLICE CHIEF/JULY 9976 _ ^. "-- - rationale is consistent with our fin- EVALUATION OF THE dings," and while the authors say that RAND CORPORATION'S ANALYSIS they do not expect a police department to adopt the reforms uncritically—the Continued From Page 24 department should act in relation to its individual situation and then only on an A Pouting Finding really had not found anything by using experimental basis70 — the dubious This finding resulted from a Rand the hedge word "may" in the finding validity of the "findings" evaluated in analysis of the judicial processing and statement. This generosity would be this critique should give pause to the disposition of the same 43 robbery cases misplaced, as demonstrated by the most eager of innovators. Special used in attempting to support the paragraph used to support the major wariness is warranted in view of the fact previous major finding!O It is perhaps finding in Volume is "in relating case that some of the proposed reforms the most ajar ng of the Rand major disposition to investigative appear to be directly inimical to the in- the m s in that statements R the report thoroughness, our analysis showed terests of police agencies and the com- f i in- repeatedly contradict it. significant differences between the two- munities they serve.It thus becomes in- P Y study jurisdictions that displayed cumbent that we examine those reforms Obstacles Confronting the Study differences in investigative which possess a negative potential in In discussing the analysis that thoroughness and prosecutorial order to determine their factual basis screening practices. For example, none and to then consider their merits from produced the finding, the authors seem genuinely aware of the obstacles con- of the sampled cases were dismissed in that perspective. fronting attempts to convert case div- the jurisdiction with more stringent case screening and investigative PROPOSED REFORM 1 positions into measures of investigative thoroughness; furthermore, 60 percent .quality. They note that numerous of the defendants pled guilty to the REDUCE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION variables, including the social ON ALL CASES EXCEPT THOSE charges as filed. By comparison, in the characteristics and criminal record of INVOLVING THE MOST SERIOUS second jurisdiction, about. one quarter . differences defense counsel, of the sampled cases were dismissed OFFENSES' peten;y of prosecutors, and judges, all figure importantly even in after filing, and only one third of the Is Time Spent on Cases case dispositions." A warning defendants pled guilty to the charges as WWill Not be Solved? provided: "...it must be remembered filed:166 (Emphasis added.) his proposed reform is supported by that extraneous variables,which cannot Conclusion the following "rationale': be estimated, have possibly intervened "Our data consistently reveal that a and confounded the results."6: It appears that Rand could not resist regular investigator's time is preponderant- straying from the path of scholarly rec- ly consumed in reviewing reports,documen- Results Inconclusive titude to create a"finding" where none ting files, and attempting to locate and in- s being the case, the "results" of exists. As averred in Volume III, "We terview victims and witnesses on cases that This study could at best be considered do not know of any previous study that experience shows will not be solved. Our such s inconclusive. And, t Volume id the has succeeded in converting informa- data show, moreover, that most cases that authors appear to accept this limitation. tion about case disposition into a valid are solved are solved by means of informa- .. measure of the quality of investigative tion spontar+: ::sly provided by a source . In noting that several cases in the B work."6'There still is none.The finding other than those developed by the in- sample were dismissed, while none in vestigator. It follows that a significant is not supported by fact. the 'A" sample were dismissed, the reduction in follow-up investigative efforts authors concede: "It is not clear that would be appropriate for all but the most any of these dismissals could have been CONCLUDING REMARKS serious offenses in which public confidence avoided by better police investigation Old THE MAJOR FINDINGS demands some type of response"7= and reporting in'B'."63 In discussing the It will be noted that Major Finding 7, what the authors are saying,then,is totally inconclusive case disposition 8, 11, and 12 have not been considered that because-investigators spend most results, the authors conclude: "Because in the current evaluation. These of their time working on unsolvable of the inconsistent results, no definitive omissions were made in the interest of cases and because most cases are solved inferences can be drawn, regardless of brevity and do not imply that the by information from other than in- the fact that in the category where the omitted major findings are entirely free vestigative sources, it follows that the largest percentage of cases appear, the from the methodological.problems that follow-up investigation of most crimes data show less plea bargaining. and beset the other major findings. All suf- should be substantially reduced. The more severe sentencing in Jurisdiction fer from excessively small data bases. data which the authors view as revealing 'A'."" A further conclusion is addedFor example, Major Finding 11, which that investigators waste most of their concerning sentencing- "It thus-appears states in part that "Crime victims in time working on unsolvable cases is the that the outcomes in Table 8-7 reflect to general strongly desire to be notified of- same data from the Kansas City Police a greater extent the`non-comparability' ficially as to whether or not the police Department used by the authors in of. our samples than the effects of have `solved' their case .. . ,"6t is attempting to support Major Finding 4. differences in the quality of police in- derived from a telephone survey of 36 It will be recalled that our examination vestigation."63 crime victims residing in one California of that finding revealed that Kansas city.69 City detectives spend 24.1 percent of The Authors Reverse Themselves their time on unsolved cases, a percen- Given these acknowledged obstacles, SOME PROPOSED REFORMS tage that contradicts the authors'asser- t this"does not really seem to be the stuff AND ACONCLUSION- tion that an investigator's time is that a "major finding" is made of. But preponderantly expended on cases then- a generous reader might suppose The Rand report '.offers nine experience shows will not be solved.The that.;he authors were saying that they "proposed reforms".- whose data does not even support the assertion 74 'THE POLICE CHIEF/JULY 1976 for Kansas City, let alone the nation. authors' minds as they cast about for leaves unsettled (and unconsidered by Although we have dealt with the likely functions where investigation the Rand authors) the effect*on the authors' claimed basis, in terms of the could be reduced. crime rate if a sizable percentage of a use of investigators'time,for suggesting It thus becomes important to look at city's serious crimes was no longer in- a significant reduction in follow-up in- the total investigative time-expenditure vestigated and the population-was told vestigations. it may be contended that data from the perspective of the of this unhappy situation through the we have responded too narrowly to the authors' guideline. This data is sum- . authors' suggested victim notification data embracing investigative time marized as follows: program. expenditures. For this reason additional Per- Per- elements of these data will be examined. Cent cent How Much Manpower Work on clearCase work ear_ed crcri _........... 60.0 Is Devoted to Solving Cases? Incorrect Finding That mes before clearance 7.4 It will be recalled that the second half Crimes Are Not Worked On Work on cleared crimes of the authors' basis for Proposed Referring to the Kansas City (all all after clearance 28.4 Reform I was how cases are solved — Work or uncleared crimes 24.1 of the investigators' tirre-use data is Administrative duties ............ 13.8 specifically: ". . , most cases that are from Kansas City),the authors present. Surveillance.crime pro- solved are solved by means of informa- the following information: vention,and warrants1 "The figures show that only homicide and Unaccounted for ....:........... 25.3 other than those developed by the in- rape (and suicide, because it is potentially The question now becomes, which of vestigator."'= Given the preceding- homicide),are invariably worked on.A few these -work cafe oriel could be evaluation,just what this has to do with other types of crimes that are universally g substantially reducing follow-up in- regarded as serious are worked on in over 60 eliminated? Work on cleared crimes vestigation is difficult to comprehend. percent of cases,but many types more likely before clearance. This is largely work Even granting for the moment that the than not receive_ less than a half-hour's on those very serious crimes which the authors' claim for the importance that e attention from `an investigator (thereby authors think should nearly always be counting as not'worked on').Since the bulk investigated 76 Work.on cleared crimes non-investigatory case solutions is cor- of crimes fall into these latter categories, after clearance? According to the rect, their data purports to show that well underhaljojal.reported crimes receive authors, detectives do not do nearly well under half of all serious crimes in any serious attention by an investigator." Kansas City are presently investigated (Emphasis added.) enough post-arrest investigation as it is and that Iess than one-fourth of in- now." Work on unsolved cases? The The incorrectness of this assertion in authors say ,hat Ka:,sas City vestigative time is expended on un- re.atior, to the Kansas City data is •• . . well under half��of all re orted solved cases. So, how does this support - proved in the evaluation of Mayor Fin- crimes receive any serious attention by vestigation?significant- reductions in follow-upin- ding3(their error is in the computing of an investigator, so this does not seem the percentages). The point is that the a likely area for cuts. Besides, the Conclusion authors believe it, in spite of the data authors have said they would be careful p They collected. If we turn to Rand's The Pro osed Reform I is based on Table 5-3 (under Major Finding 3), we not to judge these efforts as unproduc- exceedingly limited data, not suppor- see that the serious crimes that get In-we tive. Surveillance, crime prevention, ting the premise, but rather contradic- vestigated 60 percent or more of the and warrants. A tiny but highly impor- ting it.This conclusion could only exert time are very serious crimes on which, tant category that would not contribute a pernicious effect on the authors Yep! us in Volume I, follow- much to the authors' real! big cut. police agencies y g and their client communities. up investigation ought .not to be Unaccounted for activities? How can reduced 74 you cut something when you do not PROPOSED REFORM.2 We should in all fairness look at the know what it ha The authors say the have ati idea thay ASSIGN THE GENERALIS7•INVESTIGA- total investigative time expenditure t this category is com- prised of duties like homicide and TORS (WHO WOULD HANDLE THE data, from the authors' own perspec- robbery unit stand-by time,travelling to OBVIOUS LEADS IN ROUTINE CASES)TO tive,to determine if there ready is some interview victims and witnesses,r ing to THE LOCAL OPERATIONS-COArMAN- possibility, somewhere, of reducing DERRY follow-up investigation and eliminating ding to citizen requests for information, _ investigators. etc., all of which seem like important No Initiative Required activities which should not be. done In their "rationale" for this reform What Follow-Up Investigations away with." But, the authors do not the authors explain: "Under the in- Cap be Reduced? know what is in this category, so they vestigation policy suggested above, the In Volume III, the authors set forth cannot iogically-make any cuts here. main duty of the generalist investigator _ This being the case, where did this is to respond to information developed their guideline for measuring to conclusion come from? vestigative productivity: by the patrol units at the crime scene or "Finally, we have been careful not to What About Deterrence? volunteered by the public,rather than to judge any activities as unproductive when in Throughout their discussions of develop new leads on his own in- fact they are primarily directed at objectives reducing follow-up investigations, the itiative."" Incredibly, this means that we were unable to measure. For example, investigators would not be allowed to time spent by investigators on crimes that authors avoid any reference to the are never solved is by definition not produc- deterrent value of follow-up investiga- develop new leadsl tive when clearances are used as a measure tion. In Volume III, we do find the No Expertise Required of performance,but there may well be some authors questioning whether the mere This reform is symptomatic of' the such investiga deterrent ons rent value that justifies process of investigation has some authors' conceptualization of the in- deterrent value; the authors readily ad- vestigative pros,which holds:".. .if Police administrators would heartily mit that they omitted from their study investigators performed only the ob- support this guideline which, of course, any measurement of the deterrence vious and routine tasks needed to clear would have been uppermost in the value of investigative activities." This Continued on page 76 JULY 1976fTHE POLICE CHIEF 7s Continued From Page 75 tise, the development of which depends that the use of information processing the "easy" cases, they would solve the on substantial training and experience. systems should be increased to assist in- the majority se percent)t)of crimes that The researcher's proposal to assign this vestigators or that this increased use now get cleared." Thus, the authors class of investigators general duties only should be undertaken to replace them, continue in their rationale with the and rotate them with patrol officers Be that as it may, information statement: "Our research suggests that would not permit the development and processing systems are tools which can this type of investigative duty does not maintenance of this vital investigative provide valuable assistance to in- ex expertise. vestigators. Information processing entail a requirement for specialized p systems have been of major benefit to skills or centralized coordination. The PROPOSED REFORM 4 law enforcement agencies. However, officers performing it could readily shift ASSIGN SERIOUS OFFENSE IMVESTI- these systems are not a substitute for in- between patrol and investigative CATION TO CLOSELY SUPERVISED vestigators.To assume otherwise would duties."" Of course, here the authors TEAMS. RATHER THAN TO IND/VI- run counter to the experience of most are talking about the"vadt majority"of DUAL INVESTIGATORS" major police departments. crimes — the investigation of which usually begins with."leads"or informa- -ne Prescription Exceeds the Symptoms Conclusion tion developed by•patrol units or The rationale explaining this raform Irrespective of the meaning of this received from citizens. stresses the improper'supervision of proposed reform, it is without an . Although the authors do not say just personnel and blames this for the im- adequate research basis. The authors which t�itrea it is that sts pears that t is he proper performance of investigations." have possibly demonstrated that Kan- same Kansas City research use3.to Could i t be that rather than sas City detectives spend an unknown produce the"finding"that research percent of reorganizing investigators,a solution to but substantial amount of time all cases can be solved by obvious, the problem of improper supervision processing information while realizing saltine tasks, i.e., v Kansas Cit would be the improvement of super- but limited success in their endeavors.It tat most 2i. percent of cleared vision? Reorganization would not is possible, depending upon the nature crimes are solved by special action."s" necessarily affect the level of proper and cur,epi level of systematization of in the Kansas This percentage and the specious case visory teams nhothe Athan major,cosition of omr- City Police Department,- information that the detec- solution classification scheme used to plex cases may be such an inefficient use tives of that department could be arrive at it have been previously dis- cussed, of manpower that the investigative materially assisted in achieving their but further commentary is with .i.;e process would be affected quite adverse- goals- by additional information warranted in connection with systems.4iven the data that ly processir•,g sys....,.�. �....,.. proposed reform. the authors have provided, nothing The authors' conclusion that the in- Conclusion more can be concluded from this vestigation of the vast majority of Even if it is assumed that Rand is cor- proposed reform. crimes requires only simple tasks for rent in its assumption that supervision is solution is obviously the basis for their a problem in some investigations, the PROPOSED REFORM 8 assertion that the. solution- of these - crimes requires no investigative exper- prothe problem.reformosed does not address itself PLACE POST-ARREST(i e-.SUSPECT IN tise.And yet this reasoning rests upon a CUSTODY) IVESTIGATIONS UNDER - - totally arbitrary classification scheme PROPOSED REFORM 6 THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROSECU- that categorizes all case solutions as TOR" .being .`simple" unless the nonpolice INCREASE THE USE OF INFORMA TION A Bald Supposition. authors say they are not. Only those PROCESSING SYSTEMS IN LIEU OF cases that happened to strike the INVESTIGATORS" Before beginning the evaluation of authors as being unusual were classifiedthis reform, it is first necessary to con- as "special action."" Apparently no Clerks Instead of Investigators sider the authors' rationale: thought was given to the fact that many The'authors state that.their exam ina- "Generally,then,the prosecutor relies on seemingly"routine"investigative tasks, tion of the Kansas City Detective Case police investigators to provide the evidence such as skillful crime scene investiga- Assignment File suggests that a sub- needed to prosecute and convict the suspect. tion and evidence-interpretation, tom- stantial part of an investigator's But this situation contains an inherent con- potent suspect interrogation, between the prosecutor and police. Aogation,and proper working day is taken up by the scanning police arrest is justified by probable cause search warrant preparation, actually and monitoring of huge volumes of _i.e.,an articulable reasonable belief that demand an extremely high level of in- crime and arrest information in order to a crime was committed and that the arrestee vestigative expertise. Thus the autliors' make connections between cases, was the offender. But generally.because of conclusion that the"`vast majority" of suspects, and property. They indicate the pressure of new cases and the expecta- erimes require no investigative expertise that the Kansas City detectives tion that the case will be bargained rather for solution resulted more from their experience only limited success in these than tried,the police are reluctant to expend unfamiliarity with the investigative endeavors and offer the opinion that further investigative efforts to strengthen process than from any research fin- much of the scanrin.g and mo;. Wring the evidence n the case.ye a prosecutor,on could instead be done by info.matic the other hand, may reluctant to file dings. charges that the police prefer, or to file at -processing systems which would involve all.if he believes the evidence would not suf- Conclusion clerks and routine procedures in small fice for a conviction, i.e.,proof beyond a The authors, their single-agency data. departments and electronic computers reasonable doubt.It is clear that many cases notwithstanding, have offered no tangi- in large ones" are affected by the conflicting incentives of ble evidence to support their claim that Meaning of the Reform Is Unclear police and prosecutor. as reflected in ..routine, cases require no investigative t; failures to file, lenient filings, early dis- expertise. All varieties of follow-up in- The language of the proposed reform missals, or imbalanced bargaining_"" vestiga tion require investigative exper- can be interpreted. as meaning'.either The implication here is that all these _ R 76 THE POLICE CHIEF/JULY 1976 � �' i r ` ills are brought on by having the police investigate crimes. The reader hastens than the police? be done with it. In their words it should thiport g volumes to An Exercise in Redundancy Ou h the Rand re "- - - be in operation for at least two years before a conclusive judgment find the source of these startling fin- The district attorney investigators about its merits is made."99 In con- dings, but he looks in vain. The whole have a role to play in many jurisdictions siderin the proems of aiithis rationale is a 'bald supposition on the in relation to certain categories of in- recommendation,Io one w ndeprsywhether part of the authors,.made without an vestigations, and there are instances it should be seriously entertained at all. offering of any data which might where it is expedient for the district at- Provide support. Lorne 's office t Y o deal directly with vic- CONCLUDING REMARKS A Promising Remedy?• tims and witnesses. However,almost all ON THE PROPOSED REFORMS Havingroutine investigations can be more proven he existence of the effectively and efficientlyhandled by Much of what went awry with the „t Problem, a solution is provided: "A the police investigatorThe merRand study and its subsequent repor- promising remedy for the problem political considerations of a proposal to ting can probably be traced to un- would be, to lace place realistic expectations on the part of the ' p post-arrest in- post-arrest investigations under vestigations under the authority of the the authority of the prosecutor would be Rand researchers. These expectations, t' prosecutor's office,under assignment or absurd in-most jurisdictions, largely produced no doubt b as an integral Y popular g part of his 'staff, depen- If political obstacles could be over- stereotypes, Ied the Rand people to ding on the local situation."9$ And, came, it would still be a massive exer- believe that they would discover the . where would all of the investigators cise in investigative redundancy, yyith previously undescribed essences of the required for the newly expanded district the police investigators spending half of investi alive attorney's offices come from? Depen- their time trying to show the district at- g Process: ding on the local-situation, from the toeietis investigators_ what they had 'We hoped to identify and describe those t key program factors which led to improved local police department 96 The authors already done on the cases,'The district effectivenessoie and to suggest how•other. ask the rhetorical question, "Is this too attorney's investigators. •being totally vestigativeap practirtments ces might ha achieve theciden r drastic a measure?Would it not suffice unfamiliar with crime scenes, victims, tified benefits. These hopes were not for the prosecutor to prepare an in- witnesses, informants, ieports, tapes,, realized.,," vestigation manual and help train police and evidence, would spend most of the Having failed in its endeavor, 'it investigators? We believe that the latter rest of their time going over the same appears that Rand proceeded to erect a would be a Less satisfactory solution ground the police investigators had series of straw men which it then' given the dynamic character of criminal already covered. In addition, there knocked down to provide a basis for s case law and the inherent conflicts remains the questionable assumption provocative, and seemingly significant, between twv relatively independent that the district attorney investigators - findings and proosals. This is unfor- agencies."" What basis do the authors would have sufficient time to manage tunate Several oP is proposed reforms have for this belief?Do they believe that this unpredictable situation. the police are incapable of learning case might be beneficial to police agencies. law and case preparation? And whatConclusion But, the defective methodology and ill- conceived conclusions associated with'' basis do they have for their belief that Probably the only additional Com- most of the study's findings and district attorney investigators will do•a ment this "reform"' deserves is in rola- proposals do not encourage ex better job of post-arrest investigation tion to what the authors believe should tation by the criminal justice sy tem- 'Feta' W. Greenwood and Joan'Petersilia, The "Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime 93 G/mina//rrnasGgatiort Process Volume is summaryand Reportin Handbook Ibxt•,P. 119- PONeY implications (Santa Monica, Catrtomia, The 1974)pp- 19,86. (Washington, D.C., January, ";bid. Rand Cbrporation. 1975),P.x w ''Ibid.,p- 721. $Ibid-,pp,viva Greenwood and Petersilia.p.vii. and Petersitia,p•Iz $Ibid..P.26_ "'Greenwood,Chaiken,et at..p,viii. -Greenwood-Greenw "tbld., "Greenwood and Petersitia,p.vii. "Greenwood Chaiken,et aL,-p.38. p'v'' $'Greenwood,Chaiken.et al.,p•46. "Greenwood and Pelers�7Fa•p.ix. `Pater W.Greenwood.Jan M.Chaiken,Joan Peter- $'Ibid.,p.51. Greenwood,Chaiken,et al.,pp. 126-127.' spa, and tirade Pntsoff, The Criminal invest; $slbid.,p.52. "Greenwood and Peters;rra,'p.i c Process Volume Nh.Observations and An u "'Ibid.,p.27. " bb Monica, Analysis(Sante Ibid. California,Ca[ifomiaText Rana Corporation,1975)p.4. "Ibid., 59. »Ibid. .• ?Greenwood and PetersFra,p,2T. '"Greenwood and Petersilia.p.v. 13Greenwood.Chaiken,at at..p.56. Ibid. "Greenwood.Chaiken,et al., 59. 'Greenwood and Petersil a,P.X. $Greertvvood.Chaiken,of at.,p.52. '^Ibid. p' sGreenwood.Chaiken.at al'.P.35. •Ibid..p•5g, "'Greenwood and Peters,'iFa,p.wiz. "Greenwood and Pete(srlia,P.X -Greenwood and PetersWa,p.vi. "Ibid. Ibid•.P.30-31. "Ibid. "Ibid.,p. 14. ''Greenwood,Chaiken,et al.,p.56. "$Greenwood,Chaiken,at al..p.65. 'Ibid. d°Ibid..PP.52-53. '$Jan M.Chaiken,The/nves6gative Process,Volume •sGreenwood.Chaiken, 4 e1.,P.76. "Greenwood Chaiken.et at.,p.35. /L Survey of Municipa/and County PoJ;ce Aepartmen& "Greenwood and Pek•: Ibid.•p.3S. (Santa Monica, California, The Rand Cor "Greenwood. .P•vii. e,Gr 1975)p.34. Corporation. NCharlter�,at al..PP-65-78. Ibid..P. and Petersl3a,p.27. 'Ibid.,pp, 1-2 Greenwood and Pelerwlia,p.vii. "'Ibid. P isGreenwood and Petersrlia'p.vi. '*Greenwood.iChaiken•at al.,PP.69-8L?.. *'Ibid..P. 14. "Ibid. ''Greenwood and Petersifia, "Ibid.,P.28. Chen.PR• 1-2,34. '$Ibid. P-viii. "'Greenwood,Chaiken,et al.,p•74. '*Ibid.. Chaiken,at al.,PP.76-78. $$Greenwood, Chalken• et al.. "Ibid..PP.69-74. pp•66-68. "Ibid., Greenwood and Petersilia, 21. Pp' 122-123; "Greenwood and Petersitia p-id. � Pp.82-83. Greenwood and Peterspa. '-Ibid. $'tbid•.pp.72-73. PP.20-21. n •. r $$Ibid.. 72. sslbid.,p.21. Ibid-.P.30. s, P "Greenwood.Chaiken, p, "Ibid. .� -Greenwood and Petersitis, 14. sr et at., 105. "Ibid..P.XFL . P Greenwood and Pete rsilFa,P.21. r. reenwood.Chaiken,at at.,pp.e2-83. "Greenwood,Chaiken.et at Ibid..PP.x-n-xru. "Greenwood"Ibid. and Pete wFFia p.vu '"Greenwood and Peterstria, p' 123. "Ibid..P.3t, "Ibid. p.ix. "Ibid. $'Greenwood.Chaiken.et al., Se. ,G' wO •Chaiken.et at.,PP• 915-123. $Abid. "Greenwood.Chaiken.et at.,p.56. uloid.,RP•108, 108. 981bid..p.27. . . P• ..` --. ""Ibid..P.xiiL� _ ' JULY 1976/THE POLICE CHiEF 7r 10 x O.a tp G O y 7 v C r»L O W, a) a >, , WW � '>saC -XI nC!C,c °J;� mocto ' mm rn 0 c •- rn p to -0 ro o u ` co p •—, c mi�, � c aLi o o io �� Ht m > v'� to o .0 O R p ac `�� V -� a�v c. - v to ra _'� E_ v a' `o us � '� to >a, o 3 4`J W �� Ev v vro a `° V E 0) E Jry W > dJ to 8 f.. ro x m X O O-0= �+ t6 w p C y y a y O y t �_ O Q: to O 0. rn O y r to - .!2.tn N a'tn w 4J to to O tU rp > p .`_" rn�+L > to X F- > to c v W '� r"o ° N C 7 O m y .vv. > C a c 0 to O cv 'a �.... �' x C O `. vui C .0 .V C Z: `n •� O u `. rn rn y 4J Qf� v p to v v . rn.- • t`o v W @ a� va = c Q' r C: 0.0 O s 4) C ��O x �.0 a n.� y 0. ' 3 �L 0- 1. 0 � C � u•0 y O > > N v s >.'O v�! W QJ - 0 C ° C n� d•�. to > y O H V O E jp 3 o v) 0 ar. �." ..,V H 0O tL cn O y'C w V `J •0. '" ` 4J `' to 3 r O ttl u y Cl-to to ¢ .. CL cpcCL m O oo " 0. v u to to — y C rn to v u 0 to > a> O -0 a- C— O-C C _ v Eov� o [, moo ans N p cCv V °' "' `a m 0. n v a y p trE, c > a vi c C to .0 w y . CL E'v to O O y u C y to p v n N �- t" 'vtnEvocu v > u v .`- vaCU vcvrn to Y E 4)cn y C C O Q tn > N C E C 4�J to ro Y¢ R(� C E O to E O O O . t0= N O to to tU � E 'rte° r`o �+ a) E a a� m e �- rco a, o U� a °' .. oy 0. yy o cv v� L � 0 _7 h >_ O O a y C CX p E - 7 0 'C � py 'v E v - vQ UP •L � ° .t� •o y �V v c E o 0 v w = y O C W M v Z � Y �i COD Ero rn �� rn n ° c c`4, y � x E� u y o v t �:• 0 a`j � v v O O _CL CU � 3 3 E LU UJ ro an g: v n ++ 4) tp tC0 N N vi G O y to C V 4J 4J C v r4 y C E y Y Ca'i .. w. to._ cn p c V to f.�c R 7 O '� 'to v C V p O V ti O O it 0. O C y ` O: v__ W > rd to "' 2n C p y y c0_- in lfl ¢ (U ® O m E y tp r0 ra a C W O 0. V C +, 4/ O di.,, t9.... C W '� N to p] to p (I.—to V y y tv O CCL- rZ ,.. `—� p '� E vi m C Com, 0)H O a Q C tC yi tO i� H'Cy. •E y O =� n N H t N y 0 C to w x 0..— 4J 3 y,, rL CA>, O to .- O C O �... 1-- L y r+ 4NJ 0.Y'O C C y t C`Q �.Q t6 to p C¢ p` tN0 = v :v v1Oi m3� E 3 E tua :� d c o.'v to 3roc-0� 3 v a� E 'tn Q • e C C O O C O ti to 7 3 to = a= d C.L ¢ v Y N y ro _ C S C N fU cn y ri,' C 'D aJ i i0 c O .r O p 47 p •N rn .0 y .y > v ro oto v aci `�° a;c n. - -0 - Lo - ro � -- E v c N '- c +- V >- 'u 0ajci `o O y to n >,� o r .0 E y y �: o u� v c aero C V io N V y N C 'C to u O O -C o ;-0 A V a� EoyvE0 !e 0 7 a y r0 �ro �` E y to rn v O A m `e! p to N t0 ai �, O y cn 0 a V C y y 'V ai•q =n h v G CO 7 ` R .o 3 M E v "_' CID 0 tm V rn 0) N a C ;° v y to Q3 r� a to QO III 0.Co .-cn a-V O O y O O to O m O IV •L341 t0 lO C y 0 Q C 0 .— 0 0 .— 4w to (n CL .0m " coy Emittoto (cnu-0 , O N a)..III C ✓ � w y 0. 41 y a'= ,,� C E .+. ... q. an O C CIl C C Q H 0-0 M.-• V -0 0 to Eat v —M EoEco r` y.c to In tIM C E 'tj y— CO) V�y to rn F— G C _ m o p to C M < vi �= is 4>i cn ", G y 4 ¢ V.6 E O E Oq E to to w- Q to 0 v 3 � G N� Q a o ZZtco GI o C) 60Lu Q Nr- :3> J _ LLJ y ZC1] let W ) a s a 0 N C `J N iy Ix Eco cy a s •«- m v Cd UJ 0 (a,) E o C ' N y N C d.0 t ` m Q Lu 75 aE c o o N L o �= a: � CU In v a tm o aN 3 L a m X � � 'm c � � .� (0-0 m � e `vv y ncn 1O � Ed" LU UJ 0� = csv a o E b o m A y n N ar=L p�1 7a �. m a y N mo ° v1 > � ayio = u m E a3 o ?� o 0 y 7+ dl -- R N / y y cr 9= a.� U N Q y V a U a a C 0 6d �" .w v o O v =6G'� roy yam a� °1 v; 61v`o.v 'c. o > vE Li. � o«v c cn a ¢,y o y y y O t o t y A� >. � ist ac � 0) It a m Q a F- F- m t- C « o. E- G: s� v $ 375,000 Ground Floor: 7,312 - ®Id���� Banker Upper Level: 925 12400 & 12436 S.W. Main Space.Bldg.Sizers,f. COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY Tigard, Oregon Washington A COIDWELL BANKER COMPANY - Address/City County COM l�.o� �1 �y pp���1 $ 1,613 Gross ides ■ O M EKCI®L-IMPROVED M P R VE D Rent Per Month Net/Gross Meu/2nd Rent/Month/Sq.Ft. �A ■dI �'1 to V ar No No 3 buildings totalling 8.237 sq. f *EXCLUSIVE* Will Divide hemodel Space/Bldg.Dimensions June 1980 0.29 acres and 0.46 acres FOR SALE. Date Available Lot Size&Dimensions Submitted by: _ In-line Retail Office: SitLocation ocation Previous Use Negotiable - not Commercial Phone: over 29% 1st year Not marked 364/3-B Retail Down Payment Parking Map Page Zoning 10/15/80 1187-R J. Robert Muse/Carl Anderson Portland Date Listing Number Listing Salesman Office rTERMS holds property free and clear. Will carry contract. Owner desires at least 20% payment, but may not exceed 29% in 1980, including amortization. TAX DATA 1978/1979 Taxes: $1,977.04 Assessed Value: Land: $78,400; Improvements: $44,400 IMPROVEMENTS Three buildings - all estimated over 20 years old. One building is wood frame. The other two buildings are brick and frame combination. All have gas forced air heating. One store has an air conditioning unit on the roof. Building/space dimensions: 1) 20'6" x 69' (1,421 s. ft.) ; 26' x 69' (1,794 sq. ft.) ; Irregular (4,097 sq. ft.). 2) Second Floor: Partial is 925 square feet. 3) Lot 4500 is 0.29 acres (471' x 294.6' x 466' x 286') . 4) Lot 4300 is 0.46 acres (48' x G. 284.7' x 94.1' x 166.0' x 46.1' x 48.5'). eA a cq� . s 5 ISTICS & AREA DATA Daily traffic count is 10,595 at Main Street. Located one block from 99W. Downtown usage consists of City offices and other office users. Very active retail area. These two land parcels and improvements surround Tigard City Hall on three sides. "r-i-50MiNMENCS Present rentals substantially below market rate. Two stores now on month-te-mon.th leases. One lease ends 4/30/81. Excellent upeide potential for rents. The 1,794 square foot store at 12436 S.W. Main is for rent on a month-to-month basis (until bldg. is sold) for gross rent of $750/month. This store is air conditioned. H . y J m V ..he mf=aCme contained -rain hu efther been even to us by the owner of the prop"w obtained tram sources that we deem reliable.We have no reason to doubl its accuracy but we do not Quararime d.Vacancy factors used t+.rem are an t IpLvgm 2!this imreitment is upon these estimates and assumptions made ahovs.as won ac LN rnwtfmmr mrnm.t!..r..tv— WIL s r•e, .o'er •'TJ 1320_ �.' � Sig -s •'• '. o P / eo` // 37Gpu _ e 3600 IsotIle Ac CtIz P N, 4. / 5400 A-j �� T c .�� t 3400V `\ 3300lb 1 3507 `b ol , 'p0 900Ei 9 n 2 c�4� on, o ` a�� %siQ29P� q O e� �/' `s'•,QIC 3100 v �02Ac 3900 law r-� t'' /®Qc. v� 2800 Ln ® J 00 . o F ,43 .� v � s Gy3 v\y 9,. 44�0O,j x \ y 450'0 � �•�,, �,� 5300 \4 as 1" '"''" Pp a9ec �o a° ao J aj 800 4 C 176.T R!Z.!55 E To SOUTH ../=OF jOkol J• J w9�• J\ 'J J' '+ N1C.CIa Opt 37 VoST g 9 1.014Cp0 J\ www \ al Tr+fR Y CER Oi ` v c ., _ GURMPIad TR.t� 1 T Y J 'J he \. 'i s. a'• \ 5100 a• ® 4 e` i 5200 ?3.4c � 4sSsagr. ` X09 SEE !G1 A P 2S 12 AG ` •�� INI7 ..A tAl. 4,4 HERE INMAL '.off -1 E E ►.. lIERE ® , . . :.r t5rhihit "Am +�� 7470 S.W. 761h Portland, Oregon 97223 s 246-W03 November 7, 1980 City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Gentlemen: RE: Our letter of June 20, 1980 regarding Muttley's Addition. We had planned on completing Muttley's Addition this building year. Due to the t^crribly' depressed economy in the building industry, we would like you to let us do the 1" A/C paving next year, but before the end of July 1981. As indicated in our letter of June 20th we will complete the other deficiencies before the end of this building year. Sincerely7 L--filen W. McBride Land Developek RE6WCR/SSSEUE NUIZZOERSt INC. ° Box 65—G • Garden Home. Oregon 97223 • 246-8803 June 20, 1980 Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Bob Thompson: Dear Bob: It is our intention of completing Muttley' s Addition daring the time that we build Gallo s Vinyard. We are planning on starting construction on Gallo' s this building season. If you have any other questions please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Herbert E. Morissette President 1 i I LMM