' "3'th , A METHODOLOGICAL. STUDY or THE ; EFFECTIVENESS 0F PROACTIVE SPECIALIZED POLICE UNITS IN'MIICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. 'S. _ MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY ‘ -. g. STEVEN. M'ICHAELEDWARDS * ' ' 1977. IIIIIIIII NI 3 1293\ 111“ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ABSTRACT A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROACTIVE SPECIALIZED POLICE UNITS IN MICHIGAN BY Steven Michael Edwards Purpose. Due to the increased concern by the public about crime, police agencies have committed substantial resources in an effort to measure their efficiency. As a result of this deepening concern the public has about crime, its costs and accountability, public attention has been directed toward police agencies' response to the crime problem. This concern has forced police administrators to implement organizational changes to impact upon crime problems or to better utilize existing resources. One of the impact responses that police administrators have developed and implemented for prevention, control and inves- tigation of crime is the proactive specialized police unit, whose primary emphasis is to anticipate criminal activity and crime targets. The purpose of this study was to explore ways of measuring police agency performance after the introduction of a new organizational technology - proactive specialized police units. These units were created as a new technology to attempt to achieve a measurable reduction in crime and criminal activity by improving the investigative capability of the police organizations to which they were attached. Steven Michael Edwards Method. This study is a subset of a broader evaluation project conducted by the Criminal Justice Systems Center at Michigan State University for the State of Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs. The broader evaluation project was designed to evaluate approximately twenty-three special- ized police units, ranging from regionalized detective bureaus to crime specific task forces, which sought to achieve a reduction in crime and criminal activity by improving the investigative capability of the parent organi- zation. Six of the twenty-three specialized police units were selected for intensive evaluation in the broader study; from these six research sites, two were selected for this study. When conducting evaluation research of a social inter- vention, serious contextual problems arise which make the use of the true experimental design difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Because of these conditions, as well as limita- tions concerning site selection, the research design selected to evaluate the projects was the Time-Series design. This design is not a true experimental design, but one termed a quasi-experimental design. Basically, it attempts to approximate the conditions of a true experiment for research situations, which do not provide the opportunity for experi- mental control, or for random selection of the subject, while at the same time maximizing the internal validity of the findings. Steven Michael Edwards The data which was used in the analysis came from both monthly and annual level state uniform crime reports for the years 1971-1976. Though there are criticisms of the uniform crime report data, they remain the best generally available data sources on crime and police activities throughout the state. From a general research question, three Operational hypotheses were used to examine differences in offenSe- clearance rates, offense-charged conviction rates and offense- founded conviction rates for each of the target crimes - robbery, burglary, and larceny. Two hypotheses, offense- charged conviction rates and offense-founded conviction rates were tested using a two-phased approach. The first phase used a multiple-group time-series design on the annual level data, just as conducted for the first two hypotheses. The second phase used monthly level crime statistics in a one-group time-series analysis. The objective of this sta- tistical analysis was to extract the effects of other possible causal factors from the effects of the intervention, in order to determine whether the introduction of an SPU increased, decreased or did not affect departmental productivity. . Findings. In neither phase one nor phase two of the analysis of annual or monthly level data were there any statistically significant results to indicate that the estab- lishment of the special police unit in either research jurisdiction had a positive effect on the investigative Steven Michael Edwards capabilities of the departments in which they were located. Some of the data displayed in the tables for phase one did indicate a positive effect (increasing rate). There were also equal numbers of decreases, so that no consistent pattern supporting the hypotheses could be established. Moreover, from phase two of the analysis, which allowed for greater adjustments in the data due to the mathematical sophistication of the model, no support was found for the hypothesis concerning clearance rates. There were no statis- tically significant results to indicate that SPU's improved the investigative capabilities of the departments in which they were located. A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROACTIVE SPECIALIZED POLICE UNITS IN MICHIGAN By Steven Michael Edwards A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1977 Dedicated to my wife Janis and son Gregory ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is without a doubt that a graduate program demands that a serious student have access to several types of assistance and support, with which to successfully complete the degree requirements. And in the preparation of this thesis, some demands for assistance and support become more intense. I know that I cannot thank everyone by name, there- fore I wish to thank family, friends, fellow students, faculty and university staff for their patience, assistance and support these past two and one-half years. My sincere appreciation to my thesis committee members who have played very important and yet different roles: Kenneth E. Christian my chairman, whose assistance and encouragement made this document a reality; Louis A. Radelet, whose kind words and critical perspective were always refreshing; and Ralph G. Lewis, R2, who literally drove me over and beyond many real and artificial barriers. These men are good friends and most capable critics. Without their efforts, ideas and assistance this study would have never been possible. To undertake this study, I was fortunate to be a staff member on the Michigan Model Evaluation Project, conducted by the Criminal Justice Systems Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, for the Michigan Office iii of Criminal Justice Programs. For this I would like to thank the Director, John H. McNamara, and Research Director, Ralph G. Lewis, for without this grant, data collection and com- puter analysis would have been impossible for any one individual. No study can be complete without much clerical and technical support. For this I would like to thank Deborah A. Celland and Judith R. Baker, who assisted on the specialized‘ police unit section of the Model Evaluation Project with data collection and coding. And a special note of thanks to Denise Wootton, who did the typing of this manuscript. I am also indebted to a very good personal friend, John E. Angell, who has played a very important role in guiding my interest in criminal justice. Lastly, I again wish to thank my wife Jan and son Gregory, for their patience, understanding, and devotion, that has made this all possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. II. III. IV. THE PROBLEM Purpose . Research Question and Hypotheses Research Question Overview REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Early Views of the Detective Function Early Attempts at Assessing Detective Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . Deve10pment of Specialized Police Units Deve10pment of Performance Measures Summary and Conclusions DESIGN OF STUDY Introduction . Limitations of Study Design Data Sources Limitations of Data Sources Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Question . Description of Study Variables Research Site Selection . Summary ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Phase One - Annual Level Analysis Phase Two - Monthly Time- Series Analysis Page vii H U'IU'I-fi-LN 11 15 27 28 28 37 42 44 50 52 53 S3 S6 58 64 77 Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 97 Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . . . 98 APPENDICES . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 A DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . 103 B STATES SURVEYED BY COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM RECORDS 105 C EXTRANEOUS SOURCES OF INVALIDITY . . . . 106 D REASONS AND RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE TARGET CRIMES — BURGLARY, ROBBERY AND LARCENY 108 E SITE SELECTION IN BROADER EVALUATION STUDY . . . 110 F NON- SPECIAL POLICE UNIT JURISDICTIONS . . . . 112 G ANNUAL LEVEL UNIFORM CRIME REPORT STATISTICS FOR EACH OF THE RESEARCH SITES AND NON- SPU JURISDICTIONS . . . . . . 113 H MONTHLY CLEARED BY ARREST DATA FOR SITE AND SITE B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 GENERAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 vi 4.10 4.11 LIST OF TABLES Special Police Unit Impact Model Time-Series Design Sources of Instability for Selected Research Designs Time-Series of Connecticut Traffic Fatalities Example of 'Lag' Function for Site A - Robbery-Offense Founded Conviction Rates. Robbery-Clearance Rates Burglary-Clearance Rates Larceny—Clearance Rates. Robbery-Founded Conviction Rates Burglary-Founded Conviction Rates. Larceny-Founded Conviction Rates Robbery-Charged Conviction Rates Burglary-Charged Conviction Rates. Larceny-Charged Conviction Rates Example For Differencing Process Monthly Level Time-Series Results for Robbery-Cleared by Arrest Monthly Level Time-Series Results for Burglary and Larceny Clearances - Change in Level Monthly Level Time-Series Results for Burglary and Larceny Clearances — Change in Slope vii Page 29 32 35 38 62 64 66 67 68 70 71 73 74 75 80 84 90 92 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Over the years, many police agencies have committed considerable resources to the collection and analy- sis of crime statistics in an effort to measure efficiency of police Operations. Most of these agencies have had limited success in selecting the best indicators and interpreting them in terms of effective performance. In June of 1975 President Gerald R. Ford sent a special message to Congress on a subject that has long troubled the Nation and frustrated local, state, and federal officials: the Nation's growing crime problem. By any measurement, crime has become an ominous national concern. "Since 1961, the rate for all serious crimes has more than doubled. From 1973 to 1974, it jumped 17 percent - the largest increase in the 44 years that national statistics have been collected."2 In re- sponse to the mounting fear of personal harm, loss of property and public disorder in recent years, municipal police expendi- tures increased 70 percent; from $2.1 billion in 1967 to $3.5 1 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 151. 2 Time, June 30, 1975, Vol. 105, No. 27, p. 10. 1 billion in 1971. Total federal, state, and local expendi- tures for police services reached $6.2 billion in 1971, a 20 percent increase over the previous year.3 These soaring crime rates and law enforcement costs have produced wide- spread disillusionment and disenchantment with our criminal justice system. The job of the police manager, as with any administrator, is to exercise control over the use of scarce resources, to "guarantee" that the results of the work effort (output) are commensurate with the level of resource input. Limited public resources and citizen concern about crime are forcing public policy-makers to seek substantial increases in police produc- tivity. As a result of the deepening concern the public has about crime, its costs, and accountability, public attention has been directed toward police agencies' response to the crime problem. This concern has forced police administrators to implement organizational changes to impact upon crime problems or to improve the utilization of existing resources. One of the impact responses that police administrators have developed and implemented for the prevention, control and investigation of suppressible crimes is the proactive specialized police unit,4 whose primary emphasis is to anticipate criminal activity and crime targets. Their response varies from covert 3 Report of the National Advisory Group on Productivity in Law Enforcement, Opportunities for Improving Productivity in P0- lice Service, National Commission on Prodfictivity, 1973. p. 1. 4 See Appendix A for Definition of Terms. (surveillance) to overt (saturation patrol) activities as the crime analysis dictates. However, very little is known about the effectiveness (productivity) of these specialized units. This study will investigate the effectiveness of these spe- cialized units on improving the performance capabilities of the police departments in which they are located. Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore ways of measuring a police agency's performance after the introduction of a new organizational technology - proactive specialized police units. These units were created'as a new technology to attempt to achieve a measurable reduction in crime and criminal activity by improving the investigative capability of the police orga- nization to which they were attached. It was through the fol- lowing basic impact model5 that this reduction was to be rea- lized. Improved investigative capability will: increase the costs (risks) associated with criminal activity by, increasing the probability of apprehension and/or the probability of conviction once apprehended, which will remove individuals from circulation (through arrest and detention) or deter indivi- duals from committing crimes. 5 For an analysis of this comment, see: George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment - A Summary Report. Police Foundation, 1974. It appears that the creation of the proactive special- ized police unit is in response to the recognition, that the reactive nature of most patrol Operations (uniformed divi— sions) is only marginally effective as a response to the increase of crime.6 While the concept of proactive special- ized police units has been more fully developed in terms of vice, gambling, and narcotics enforcement for some time, only recently has the concept been applied to the criminal activi- ty of burglary, robbery and larceny. As a result, the utili- zation of specialized Operational units may be viewed as the develOpment of an operational technology, specifically de- signed to enhance the proactive capabilities Of a police department. It is the purpose of this study to analyze whether pro- active specialized police units improve the effectiveness of the investigative capabilities of departments in which they are located. Research Question and Hypothesis Before the specific research question and hypothesis are developed it is necessary to review conceptual points as they relate to the issue Of effectiveness (productivity). Since proactive specialized police units are intended to achieve a reduction in crime and criminal activity by improving the in- vestigative capability of the police departments, 3 basic 6 Basic causal assumptions relating project activities to anticipated outcomes. intermediate question arises concerning their Operation; Have improved investigative capabilities resulted from the estab- lishment of the proactive specialized police unit? It is from this question that a general research question will be gene- rated that will lead to an examination of the performance (productivity) issue by analyzing the effects proactive specialized police units have on the productivity (effective- ness) of the departments in terms of three crimes - burglary, robbery and larceny. Research Question DO proactive specialized police units improve the investigative capabilities of departments in which they are located? As a part of the effort to answer this question the fol- lowing hypotheses will be tested: H1: H2: ”32 Overview There will be significant differences in offense clearance rates, for the crimes Of burglary, rob- bery and larceny, in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. There will be significant differences in offense- founded conviction rates, for the crimes of burglary, robbery andlarceny in the research jurisdictions . between the pre/post intervention periods. There will be significant differences in offense- charged conviction rates, for the crimes of Burglary, rOBBery and larceny, in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. This thesis is presented in five chapters. Chapter I has been an introduction to the necessity for establishing productivity measures. The present day circumstances of rising law enforcement costs as well as rising crime rates have combined to make the improvement of police productivity a desired goal. One such approach has been the develOpment of proactive specialized police units. Though the concept Of specialized police units is not new, in that they have been used to deal with crimes of vice, gambling, and narcotics enforcement, they have only recently been applied in a pro- active nature to the crimes of robbery, burglary, larceny, rape, and auto theft. What is not known about these units is, how effective (productive in improving the investigative capabilities) these units have been. Chapter II is a review Of the literature related to the detective (investigative) function and to performance measure- ment. The detective (investigative) function is examined from early views of police scholars and administrators on through the development of proactive specialized police units. Given the nature of crimes upon which special police units were designed to impact, i.e., crimes of burglary, robbery, and larceny and the means and methods that were employed, the special police unit personnel came the closest to performing the function(s) of detective(s) rather than traditional patrol Officers. The section on police performance measurement begins with early views, attempts and difficulties in the develOpment of performance measures. In addition, there is a discussion Of the establishment and development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, as thecuflqraccepted Operating method currently available for accurately assessing an important aspect of police activity. In Chapter III, the research and sample populations and the measures and the analysis are explained. Each hypothesis is restated in agency Operational terms, with the terms defined. The results of the analysis for each hypothesis are presented in Chapter IV. The summary and conclusions are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The detective bureau - A branch of the police ser- vice as essential tO the preservation of public security as the uniform division itself. Operating for the most part after crimes have been committed, its duty is to apprehend those Offenders who have escaped arrest at the hands of the uniformed force. To that end it requires a degree of talent and spe- cialization in its personnel distinct from the qua- lifications of the uniformed men. Raymond B. Fosdick, 1920 EarlyfViews of the Detective Function Historically, there has always been a mystique regarding the detective function, and much of this image can be directly traced to the time of the "Bow Street Runners and Peel's guinea-a-week policeman; for detective work during much of the nineteenth century, was the Cinderella of the police ser- vice."2 Detective work was a rather drastic change in Opera- tional style from the uniformed officers; detectives were 'allowed' to work in plain clothes and associate with crimi- nals, to gain information about crime. 1 Raymond B. Fosdick, American Police Systems (New York: The Century Publishing Company, 1920), p. 326. 2 T. A. Critchly, A History of Police in England and Wales (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1972), p. 160. 8 But, the Cinderella image and unconventional methods of Operation for detectives also led early writers and scholars in the police field to develop diminished Opinions of them. Many considered the detective to be beneath the uniformed patrolman, but necessary to the Operation of the department's goals. Leonard Fuld wrote: The detective is a policeman who is detailed to duty in citizen's clothes for the purpose of discovering and arresting the criminal responsible for a parti- cular crime. The work of the detective is essentially that of the spy and the class of men that are attrac- ted to this work is such as one would naturally find there. In the historical develOpment of the police force the detectives are generally and almost in- variably criminals who consider spying more profit- able than the commission of a felony. Though Fuld was critical of the detective function, he did admit that the detective's life was not an easy one. He stated: The detective's work is a combination of mystery and hard grind. Mystery is a valuable assistance to the detective in his work and besides is impressive; any- thing that is not understood is bound to be more or less impressive. Early Attempts at Assessing Detective Performance Fuld was also one Of the earliest police scholars to ad- vocate that the selection of personnel for the position of detective should be on the basis of demonstrated ability. He stated: 3 Leonardlfl Fuld, Police Administration (New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1909), p. 171. 4 Ibid., p. 172. 10 Successful detective work does not, as so many seem to think depend very much upon theory; it depends rather upon sound common sense . . . men of limited education may be naturally endowed and may be able to get at the heart Of things with much greater quickness than men who have enjoyed a much better education but who are conscious of the mechanical part of the reasoning process.5 Fuld continued to press for performance criteria, when he stated: Furthermore the tenure of the detective should not be permanent. His tenure should be dependent on the pleasure of the chief, which in turn should mean under an efficient police administration that the chief can reduce a detective to patrol duty whenever his work is inefficient Diaries are supplied to officers of the detective force and these form a most valuable record of their conduct and official acts. They become the property of the police department, when filled, and can be used by the Assistant Commissioner or by any other officer of the detective force. General entries in these diaries are not permitted. When an inquiry is made the diary must contain a full statement of the purpose and the object of the inquiry, and similarly, the object in view in visiting a certain place must be inserted . . . the entry 'patroling' is not ac- cepted as sufficient because it is almost impossible that an intelligent police officer sees nothing worthy of closer investigation and notice. Raymond Fosdick, another early scholar found in his ana- lysis that detective bureaus lacked an ordinary amount Of business sense, or to put it in contemporary terms, were very inefficient. This was particularly evident when he examined the arrest records and annual reports of departments and found 5 Ibid., pp. 172-173. 6 Ibid., pp. 182-183. 11 that arrest statistics "were something of a badge of distinc- tion - a certificate that time had not been wasted."7 What is indicative Of these early police scholars, is that from the inception of the detective function there have been attempts at assessing detective performance. Though these attempts were rather simplistic, the issues had been raised, and when one parallels the develOpment of the detective func- tion with the develOpment of police performance measures, it is apparent that the identification of performance measures for specific police tasks has not progressed very far in the last forty years. Develppment Of Specialized Police Units //The concept Of specialized police investigative units, that is the distinction between patrolmen in uniform and those police Officers uniquely assigned to detective functions in plainclothes, has been develOping since the time of Peel.\ In the United States, Leonard Fuld made the distinction that the "detective function may be divided into two closely related categories - the prevention, and detection of crime."8 What appears to have contributed to this increased specialization were the passage of laws and the resultant sophistication of criminal acts and activity. This develOped into a challenge 7 Raymond B. Fosdick, American Police Systems,(New York: The Century Publishing Company, 1920), p. 340. 8 Leonard F. Fuld, Police Administration,(New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1909), pp. 171-172. 12 for the criminal investigator, attracting those officers who were more motivated, or who possessed special talents and interests. As a result, detective bureaus began to further specialize into crime specific sections, i.e., homicide, robbery, burglary, etc. This concept of investigative spe- cialization was limited for a number of years to the above definition. However, only recently, due to an increased emphasis on crime, has the concept of investigative speciali- zation been expanded to the contemporary terminology of pro- active specialized police units. One of the early movements which led to the expansion of investigative specialization evolved from uniform patrol activities — task forces. 0. W. Wilson, a prOponent of 'special task forces' viewed them from the uniform patrol perspective. He stated: "A mobile strike force is of value in those situations which call for the saturation of an area either to prevent the outbreak of criminal activity or a racial, religious, or national conflict, or when an emergency of major prOportions ngcessitates the assistance Of additional personnel." Wilson was emphasizing that the essential characteristic Of the task force was its flexibility. As an expansion of Wilson's view, the President's Com- mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration Of Justice in 1967, and more recently the National Advisory Commission 9 Orlando W. Wilson, Police Administration,(second edition; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), p. 250. 13 on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973, made recom- mendations and standards for the use of special crime tactical units. Among the recommendations and standards were the following: - establishment Of written policies and procedures that govern deployment of the tactical force against any problem. - tactical force be deployed on the basis of current crime pattern analysis or validated current infor— mation on expected crime activity. ,- tactical force deployment strategy be based on an objective analysis of the (enforcement) problem. Because of the increased exposure the task force strategy gained pOpularity and programs were developed with and funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, launching the police into an era of proactive crime prevention. Historically, police Operational strategies, in an effort to reduce crime, have relied almost exclusively on the concept of preventive patrol. The Fielding brothers and Peel were the principal innovators of this concept, which has had great in- fluence upon American police administration. The preventive patrol concept is reflected in the early police writings of Fuld, Fosdick, Vollmer, Smith, and O. W. Wilson. The assumption underlying the concept Of preventive patrol, is that given a high probability of being observed in the commission of a crime, only potential Offenders would be deterred from committing 10National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police,(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 238. 14 that crime. However, indications are that the preventive patrol approach has not been sufficiently tested11 for a variety of reasons, i.e., increased calls for all types of activity. One of the responses that police agencies have Opera- tionalized, due to increased federal, as well as citizen support, has been the proactive specialized police unit. It appears that the creation Of the proactive specialized unit is in response to the recognition that the reactive nature of most uniformed patrol Operations is only marginally effective as a response to the crime problem. Though the concept of specialized police units has been more fully develOped for the crimes of vice, gambling and narcotics, only recently has the concept been applied to the criminal activi— ties Of burglary, robbery, and larceny. Though the concept of developing specialized police units to impact on the crimes of burglary, robbery, and larceny is relatively new, the idea of assessing investigative perfor- mance is not. As previously noted, both Fosdick and Fuld were concerned with the issue, but the early attempts were rather simplistic in that emphasis was given to the keeping Of diaries and activity reports to insure that 'time had not been wasted.’ The next section will review the development Of police performance measures. 11For an analysis of this comment, see: George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment - A Summary Report. Police Foundatibn, 1974. 15 Development of Performance Measures The concept of police performance measurement is far from being a novel idea. For in a generic sense the measurement of police performance can be traced back to Sir Robert Peel}2 Peel13 demonstrated to Parliament in his analysis of police reform, that prior to the 1820's the traditional patrol pro- grams of London were seriously inadequate. As a result of this analysis, Peel was allowed to develop and establish a uniformed patrol force Of "Bobbies", that is now considered the model of modern police organization. In the years since Peel, police performance measurement has continued, but in a less than organized manner. In the United States, the first state to systematically collect cri- minal statistics with the dual purpose of using the informa- tion for administrative purposes, as well as to give an index of the nature and extent Of criminality,was New York,in 1829. In 1850, under a law which governed the census Of 1860 and 1870, the gathering Of federal statistics was attempted. However, most of the information gathered concerned prisoner dispositions, which entailed examination of court records; the venture failed. Then in 1880, Fredrick H. Wines sought to enlarge the scope of the inquiry on crime through the use Of court dockets, prison records, records Of justices of the 12T. A. Critchley, A History of Police in England and Wales, (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1972), pp.47-SO. 13Melville Lee, A History of Police in England, (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1971), pp. 227, 228, 230. 16 peace, and reports from police departments, for the 1890 census. But what information appeared in the census was of little or no value, due to the incompleteness Of the informa- tion. The period Of 1920-193014 produced a great deal Of dis- cussion concerning the best measures Of assessing police activity. Police leaders (chiefs) of the early 19005 con- tinuously judged programs or departmental performance in an informal, 'seat-Of-the-pants' manner. That is, methods or tactics were considered and appraised, but the process was not recorded or retained. Criteria underlying decisions of adequacy or deficiency were not clearly articulated, and sometimes bore little relation to program Objectives. 14For a comprehensive analysis of the develOpment of criminal statistics see, Louis A. Robinson's article, "History Of Criminal Statistics (1908-1933)" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 24, pp. 125-139; Crimes of Violence, AIStaff—Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Vol. II, December, 1969, pp. 13- 42; Sanford Bates, ”Criminal Records and Statistics," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science, Vol. 19 (1928) p. 8; Joseph A. Hill, "Cooperation Between State and Muni— cipal Bureaus and the Federal Census Bureau in the Compila- tion of Criminal Statistics," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science, Vol. 12 (1922), p. 529; Fred A. Knoles, "The Statistical Bureau - A Police Necessity," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science," Vol. 19 (1928), p. 383; John Koren, "Report of Committee on Statistics of Crime," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science, Vol. 1 (1910), p. 417; Thorsten Sellin, "The Basis of a Crime Index," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science, Vol. 22 (1931), p. 335. 17 One of the best early examples of this 'seat-of-the- pants' management was found by Raymond Fosdick in his analy- sis Of detective bureaus. Fosdick noted that there was an "amazing lack of an ordinary business system in the prose- cution Of work." He stated: The head of a detective force deals with crimes which come to him generally in the shape of spe- cific complaints. It would seem, therefore, that some knowledge of the relation between complaints and arrest - that is, between crimes known to the police and crimes 'cleaned-up' - was absolutely indispensable to adequate supervision. In only a few departments, however, were records maintained upon which this knowledge can be based . . . In most departments the records Of complaints have no relation to the records of arrest, with the result that it is impossible for the head Of the (detec- tive bureau) department to establish any standard for measuring the effectiveness of his effort. Fosdick further reported: The annual report of most chiefs of police in the United States solemnly set forth the number of arrests during the preceding year as if this num- ber large or small as it may be were something Of a badge of distinctipg - a certificate that time had not been wasted. It was not until 1929 when International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee17 on Uniform Crime Records published its 15Raymond B. Fosdick, American Police Systems, (New York: The Century Publishing Company, 1920), pp. 339-340. 161bid., p. 340. 17Acting on the recommendation of the International Associ- ation Of Chiefs of Police Committee, Congress, on June 11, 1930, gave the Federal Bureau Of Investigation the respon- sibility for supervising the collection of data as well as publishing it in the Uniform Crime Reports. 18 report - "Uniform Crime Reporting," that any systemized proce- dure became known. It was this report which was to "consider all phases of police records and statistics in so far as (they) "18 As it de- are related to national and state reporting. veloped, what the Committee on Uniform Crime Reports accom- plished, was the difficult task of establishing the foundation for the collection of police statistics of crimes and arrests. The Committee established a recording and classification pro- cedure to be followed when various crimes had been committed. The Committee was of the opinion that when a crime had been committed, established recording and classification procedures should be set, based upon the facts of the crime. Therefore, the best way to establish these facts was to rely on statutory definitions. With this in mind, a preliminary study was made, surveying 29 states and the District of Columbia.19 18Bennett Mead, "Police Statistics," The Annals, November, 1929. In the development of the report, the International Association of Chiefs of Police committee conducted re- search in the following areas: 1) a survey of what other countries were doing in the field; 2) a study Of existing records in which the desired data would be found; 3) consi- deration of the inherent problems posed by the nature of a federal system with its multiple jurisdictions; 4) consi- deration of the plans for uniform schedules and forms; 5) the drafting of instructions for filling out reports; 6) a recommendation of the development of a plan of organi- zation for the entire system. See, Louis A. Robinson, "History of Criminal Statistics (1908-1933)," Journal Of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 24 (1933), p. 133-134. 19See Appendix B for a list of the states. 19 Since the Committee survey clearly demonstrated that there was widespread variation in the statutory definitions of crime, Offenses such as "robbery, burglary, and larceny were broadly defined so that crimes committed under each of the varying state statutes could, for statistical purposes, be . 2 . embraced by the uniform classification system." 0 The cr1me definitions were then divided into two major categories - Part 1 offenses and Part 2 offenses. The category of Part 1 offenses included the following: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and automobile theft. The rationale for using these seven offenses as the "Crime Index", was and still is today: The total number of criminal acts that occur is unknown, but those that are reported to the police provide the first means of a count. Not all crimes come readily to the attention of the police, not all crimes are of sufficient importance to be sig- nificant in an index; and not all important crimes occur with enough regularity to be meaningful in an index. With these considerations in mind, the above crimes were selected as a group to furnish an abbreviated and convenient measure of the crime problem. All other crimes were classified as Part 2 offenses. When the function of developing crime reports was finally 20Crimes of Violence. A Staff Report to the National Commis- sion on fhe Causes and Prevention of Violence. Vol. II, December, 1969. p. 15. 21Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports, 1968. Federal Bureau of InvestigatIOn, Supefintendent of Docu- ments, U. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. p. 57. 20 placed in the Bureau of Investigation - later known as the Federal Bureau Of Investigation - it was rather remarkable at the outset in 1930, 400 cities were voluntarily reporting crime statistics to the Bureau of Investigation. Since this period had generated a great deal of interest in assessing the type and amount of crime by the establishment Of a crime index, other formal measures were being developed due to the concern for increasing formality as well as admin- istrative utility. One such attempt was made a few years after the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reports, by Arthur Bellman in 1935. Bellman developed an extensive evaluation scale to systematically evaluate a police organi- zation's overall quality. In essence, the scale was a qua- litative list of significant items designed to be completed by 'experienced police analysts', or as Bellman put it: Inexpert persons or groups, looking for a chance to 'stir up something,’ will come to grief if they attempt to use the score sheets, which are in- tended to be used by experts only. Many of the matters listed on the sheets are technical and re- quire professional diagnosis. A rating by a lay- man would in all probability, not resent a true existing state of affairs at all. What Bellman did to refine his scale was to develop broad functional areas, and then break them down into six hundred eighty-five (685) different questions that concerned 22Bruce Smith, "Crime Reporting As A Police Management Tool," The Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 291, January, 1954, p. 127. 23Arthur Bellman, "A Police Service Rating Scale,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 26 (1935), p. 79. 21 departmental policies, procedures and equipment. This process was based on the available literature concerning the topic, discussions with numerous police officials, and from Bell- man's personal investigation of police agencies in the United States. It was his belief that the development of such a method would "accomplish a two-fold purpose: the rating of a police organization according to certain standards, and the improvement of the service."24 Regarding the detective function, Bellman prepared a list of duties and then developed a rating process by assigning a maximum value of two points for each duty. An example of how a "perfect score" could be achieved for a detective in- volved in the investigation of a crime is shown below. Three hundred seventy-six (376) points could be earned as follows:25 24Ibid., p. 75. 25See, Arthur Bellman, "A Police Service Rating Scale,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 26 (1935), p. 74-114, for a complete breakdown of the scale. 22 Numberof Total Duties Total Performed per Possible Function Score 1. General duties of detectives ll 22 2. Pawnshop 20 - 40 3. Fugitive 15 30 4. Forgery 17 34 5. Narcotics 19 38 6. Burglary 15 30 7. Homocide 15 30 8. Arson 13 26 9. Robbery 12 24 10. Auto theft 18 36 ll. Bunco-pickpocket 13 26 12. Adult missing person 15 30 13. Post Office 5 10 "Perfect Score" 376 Despite the fact that this effort by Bellman was rather massive and a novel approach to examining a police organiza- tion to determine functional efficiency, it fell to attack in less than a year. Critiquing the Bellman Scale in the same journal was Spencer D. Parratt,26 who questioned the arbitrary weighting process that Bellman assigned to the duties under each function. The basic question asked by Parratt was, "To what extent is the Bellman instrument.analogous to a yardstick, 26For a full account of the questions raised, consult Spencer D. Parratt, "A Critique of the Bellman Police Service Rating Scale," Journal Of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 27 (1937), pp. 895-905. 23 a balance or a thermometer as a measuring device?27 What Parratt was pointing out was that 'quality' and 'efficiency' in a police department did not necessarily mean a high score, since there were no instructions in the Bellman Scale, as to what was included or excluded in the terms 'quality' and 'efficiency'. To illustrate his point, Parratt said that the "modern police department is at least as complicated as vege- table soup,"28 and since soup can be evaluated as to its qua- lity only by listing every ingredient, the use of the "Bellman instrument as the formula for qualitatively describing a com- plete department is Obviously deficient since it is highly selective in its classification."29 It is this rather selec- tive classification process, with regard to quality that makes polioeadministrationso complex. As Parratt pointed out: Police administration is a composite of many con- tinua, or variables, in behaviors, states of mind or attitudes and external conditioning factors. Qua- lity is an abstract moral term which might be signi- ficantly applied in the balance of constituent ele- ments in what the evaluator considers correct propor- tions of each. A police administering system is more or less of many things, but quality is a relationship between these many things in their Operative condi- tioning. One cannot aspire to measure quality as a moral abstraction without first providing for evalu- ating the constituent elements contributing to its 27Spencer D. Parratt, "A Critique of the Bellman Police Ser- vice Rating Scale," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 27 (1937), p. 895. 28Ibid., p. 897. 291bid., p. 898. 24 totality. The Bellman instrument has undertaken an insurmountable task in disregarding the fundamental and seeking to measure the composite. It seeks to erect guperstructure where no foundation has been built. 0 SO, as Parratt perceived the issue, one should isolate a large number of significant criteria which are concerned with police operation and then treat them separately. Once this is done, that necessary foundation will have been cast, al- lowing for what he termed a superstructure to be built. After Parratt had written his critique Of the Bellman scale and in an attempt to build what Parratt termed the super- structure for measuring police performance, he developed an alternative instrument to measure the effectiveness of policing in a democracy. It was Parratt's reasoning that the Objective of the police in a democracy was to serve the citi- zenry and a standard of police performance, under such condi- tions, must be in compliance with citizen opinions. SO, Parratt designed a public attitude survey to measure public confidence in the police. The instrument that he developed consisted Of three hundred forty-two (342) statements grouped under eight (8) major headings: 1) characteristics of per- sonnel; 2) selection, discipline, training and equipment; 3) influence of politics; 4) public and press relations and crime prevention; 5) treatment of groups and minorities, 6) treatment of suspects and witnesses; 7) apprehension and 30Ibid., p. 899. 25 investigation; and 8) vice. It was Parratt's intention to overcome the deficiencies of the Bellman attempt and to ob- tain a more realistic measure Of public effectiveness in a democracy. However, there were problems with this method, especially when contrasted with the Bellman instrument. The major and most Obvious problem was that the Bellman scale was concerned excessively with functional tasks, whereas the Parratt scale was only concerned with citizen percep- tions. Any time one relies on citizen perception (public Opinion polls) of performance, a clouding effect develops. The public is not able to make the fine distinctions that are necessary to develop performance criteria, nor are they aware of what is entailed in the job, since most peOple do not know what policemen actually do, nor do many citizens know police- men. There have been, since the Bellman and Parratt attempts, efforts to establish other police evaluation procedures, i.e., Program, Planning, Budgeting, Systems (P.P.B.S.), Management by Objectives (MBO) and program evaluation. But, they have not operated to the extent or have they been accepted by police agencies, as have the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR is the only uniform measurement system established which covers 95 percent31 of the national population through 31During the calendar year 1975, crime reports were received from law enforcement agencies representing 97% Of the United States pOpulation living in the standard metrOpolitan sta- tistical areas, 93% of the population in other cities and 83% of the rural pOpulation. The combined coverage accounts for 26 reporting police agencies. Though there are problems and criticisms concerning the use of the Uniform Crime Reports as indicators of crime, by placing the information in per- spective, the Uniform Crime Report information can be a valuable police management tool in assessing the performance of specialized police units. Police scholar Bruce Smith had the following caution for users of UCR data: It cannot be denied that the size, training and general efficiency of the police departments have some effect on the local crime picture. On the other hand, there are other factors affecting the amount of crime which merit careful consideration. These include such matters as the composition of the population of the city, as regards to age, sex, and race, as well as the size and characteristics of the population of any adjacent metropolitan area; the economic status of the population, the climate of the area; the general nature of the community, that is residential, recreational and religious facilities Of the community; and the attitudes of public prosecutors, the courts, the public in general toward the problems of law enforcement. A comparison of the raw figures or even the crime rate of one community with another may not be par- ticularly significant. The important thing is the extent to which the local crime rates exceed or fall short of the average for cities of the same pOpulation group. geographic division or state. Such a comparison sheds light on the relative size of the problem at hand.3 95% of the total national population." Federal Bureau of Investigations, U. S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Re orts, 1975. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printlng Office, 1975), p. 3. 32Bruce Smith, "Crime Reporting as a Police Management Tool,” The Annals of the American Academy,(Vol. 291, January, 1950, P. 132. ‘ 27 Summary and Conclusions The concept Of specialization for detectives as well as the develOpment of performance measures for the police, have not been recent innovations. The early police scholars, Peel, Fuld, Fosdick, Smith, Bellman and Parratt were cer- tainly aware of the importance of these issues. What is significant in this review is the heavy reliance that has been placed on these founders in shaping the specialization and performance measurement of the investigative function. The purpose for presenting this material has been to illustrate the development and difficulties that have been encountered in arriving at a method for assessing police performance, specifically the police investigative function. What is evident in this review is that there is not a 'tested formula' for assessing police performance, that has functioned as have the Uniform Crime Reports. Using the preceding summary of the literature on the development of the detective function and performance measures, as well as the information contained in the previous section, a methodology will be developed to examine the effectiveness of special police units. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF STUDY Introduction This study is designed to examine an issue of police performance measurement (productivity) by analyzing the effects which proactive specialized police units have on a police department's ability to deal with three crimes - burglary, robbery and larceny.1 This study is a subset of a broader evaluation project conducted by the Criminal Justice Systems Center at Michigan State University for the State of Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs. The broader evaluation project is designed to evaluate approxi- mately twenty-three specialized police units, ranging from regionalized detective bureaus to crime specific task forces which sought to achieve a reduction in crime and criminal activity by improving the investigative capability Of the parent organization. Thus the logic Of this impact model (See Table 3.1) is as follows: Improved investigative capability will: increase the costs (risks) associated with criminal activity by, 1See Appendix D, Reasons and Rationale for the Selection of the Target Crimes - Burglary, Robbery, and Larceny. 28 nowuospom mEHHu _ mpuommm 895:: fiIIII mmocmpm3<.IIII praflnmnopm wohm>oocs op HH«3.OEHHO was» xuwfiwnmnopm pommOhOcH _ copmwwumo>cH on HHw3,Oswho umzu zuflfiwnmnonm powwowuaH OEfluu Oefiho wouhoamuII.Hm:uom.IL mmOH mmOH pouco>opm\coppoumm zua>upu< chfleflau :Owumasupflu mo use mfimcflefipo ufiwwoomm 4mQOZ.BU§EZH FIIIII mmocohm3<. IIIL. :OHuOfi>:ou _ poESSE 8 a: $55.5 9.5 spflfianmnopm powwowucH _ :Ofimcocoymg< m0 commohucH zuflummmu :Ofipmwfiumo>:H po>OHmEH pommmhocH _ VONHHGGOMHDHMHmflH mpoommm opmprEHoucH HHZD mUHAOm A. '3 :5 . 5: 5 'E 5 c >. .3 c 5 H -H a) n-I o +4 HO-I-Il -H :4 +3 60 E m -:--I 0H u-I-Ip .o m c m .u .a mxu m 88888888889 8.8“888°E“23“ Ea :: :§ Eu +4 Ix co :2 Iacnzg Pre-Experimental Design: One Group Pretest- - - - - - 9 + + — Posttest Design 0 X 0 _True Experimental Design: Pretest-Posttest - + + + + + + + + Control Group Design R 0 X 0 R 0 X 0 Solomon Four-Group DeSign R 0 X 0 - + + + + + + + + R 0 0 R X 0 R 0 Posttest-Only Control Group Design - + + + + + + + + R X 0 R 0 TQpasi-Experimental Design: One Group - Group Time + - + + ? + + + + Series Design 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Multiple Group Time Series Design +- + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 9Modified from, Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand MCNally and CO., 1963), p. 5. NOte: In the chart, a Minus (-) indicates a definite weakness, a plus (+) indicates that the factor is controlled; a question mark indicates a possible source of concern; and a blank indicates that the factor is not relevant. See Appendix C for a defini- tion Of the nine sources of instability identified by Campbell and Stanley. 36 of measures, fluctuations in sampling persons or components, autonomous instability of repeated or 'equivalent' measures."10 In general terms, instability refers to the fact that all time- series data are unstable (fluctuate from time to time, even when no planned interventions are involved. These fluctua- tions may be classified into four main types and one or more of them may be present in the same series of data Observations. The four main types of fluctuations are: 1. long term movements - which indicate the general direction the series is going over an extended period of time; 2. cyclical movements - which indicate repeated oscillations about the general trend line; 3. seasonal movements - which indicate identical or almost identical patterns which a time-series appears to follow during correSponding months of successive years; 4. irregular or random movements - which indicate sporadic motions of a time-series due to chance events. In reality it is the factor Of data instability which limits the value of the pretest-posttest designs where there is only one pre- and one post-intervention data point, because such designs cannot eliminate the possibility of normal fluc- tuations in the data series as the probable cause of any Ob- served changes in the dependent variable. Time-series though, 10Donald T. Campbell, "Reforms as Experiments," Evaluating Action Pro rams, Carol H. Weiss, Ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972), p. 190. 11Scarvia B. Anderson, Samuel Ball, Richard T. Murphy and Assoc. Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975), p. 436-39. 37 controls for the problem of data instability by extending the number of time points, which make it possible to identify and if necessary eliminate other patterns of movement in the data series. Table 3.4 presents an example of Campbell's time-series analysis of a crackdown on speeding in Connecticut which was initiated as a response to an unusually large number of traf- fic fatalities in 1955. If one only examines the decrease in the number of fatalities between 1955 and 1956, it appears as though the crackdown was successful. Looking at the extended time-series, however, raises some doubts about this interpre- tation. The cyclical pattern of pre-intervention fatalities could indicate that the 1956 decrease was merely a continuation of a well-established pattern. The constant downward trend of post-intervention fatalities does provide some support for believing that the speeding crackdown did contribute to the decrease in traffic fatalities. It is obvious then that the number of data points available for the analysis make a sub- stantial difference in evaluating the effects of the interven- tion. Limitations of Study Design Referring back to Table 3.3, one can see that the quasi- experimental designs are an improvement over the pre-experimental designs since they come the closest tO the true experimental designs in controlling against the problem of internal validity. However, the most definite weakness of the time-series design 38 TABLE 3.4. TIME-SERIES OF CONNECTICUT TRAFFIC FATALITIES12 325 300 \ 275 Traffic Fatalities 250 225 Treatment__ 200 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Year is its failure to control for history and instrumentation. History is defined by Campbell and Stanley as "specific events occurring between the first and second measurement in addition to the experimental variable."13 That is, this design does not control for the possibility that some event unrelated to the intervention is responsible for Observed changes in the depen- dent variable. In this study the potential for historical in- validity is very high, because the research was conducted on a complex problem in a multi-faceted social system. Under these 1zDonald T. Campbell, "Reforms as Experiments”, Evaluating Action Programs, Carol H. Weiss, editor (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972), p. 201. 13Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. (Chicago: Rand McNally and CO., 1963), p. 5. 39 conditions it is very difficult to sort out the effect of one intervention from the effects of other interventions. For example, over time there may be a variety of factors that could produce changes in the occurrence and reporting of crimes. The police may change their enforcement policy for a particular crime and such a change could obviously pro- duce changes in crime statistics. Or, general economic con- ditions such as unemployment or inflation could change, there- by producing changes in the number of individuals committing crimes or the value of prOperty involved. In a similar manner, changes in the characteristics in the local pOpulation could produce changes in the occurrence and reporting of criminal acts. In general, historical factors are beyond the control of researchers and beyond even those who are directly responsible for implementation of social interventions. Thus, in many cases all that a researcher can do is to attempt to learn all that he can about rival events or conditions that might cause a change in the dependent variable and attempt to make informed judgments concerning the likelihood that they produce the Observed effects. Instrumentation is the other possible source of invalidity which is not sufficiently controlled for in the time-series design. This type of error can occur if there is a drastic ”change in the methods of observing the outcome variable".14 14Ibid., p. 59. 40 Campbell and Stanley give the following example of instrumen- tation: The term refers to autonomous changes in the measuring instrument which might account for an 01-02 difference. These changes would be analogous to the stretching or fatiguing of spring scales, condensation in a cloud chamber, etc. Where human observers are used to pro- vide 01-02, processes of learning, fatiguing, etc., within the observers will produce 0 -02 differences. If essays are being graded, the grading standards may shift between 01-02 (suggesting the control technique of shuffling the 01-0 essays together and having them graded without knowledge of which came first).15 The reason for the question mark under instrumentation in Table 3.3 is that it calls attention to possible instances where the measurement instrument could possibly be misinter- preted as the effect (change) of the intervention variable. For this study, the issue of instrumentation would be particu- larly important if there were major changes in the record- keeping procedures for crime statistics during the course of the special police unit project. However, the best estimate is that this problem does not exist: 1) at the national level, the last major change in the proscribed procedures for reporting crime statistics under the Uniform Crime Reporting system was 1958.16 This predates the initiation of any special police unit project by over 20 years and is Obviously not likely to influence the statistics in this study; 2) at the state level, major changes in UCR procedures were instituted between 1970 151bid., p. 59' 16Federal Bureau of Investigation, U. S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Report, 1958, Special Issue. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1958). 41 and 1971, but the statistics available for this study all came from the period after the changes were made; and 3) at the local level attempts were made to check on all project jurisdictions, and to the best estimate possible none of them have made any changes in their reporting procedures since the initiation of the special police unit projects. Finally, one additional source of invalidity must be mentioned as a limitation to this study design, that is, change in experimental unit composition. Although this prob- lem was not specifically identified by Campbell and Stanley in their original work (it is related to the issues of selec- tion and experimental mortality) it is important in terms of evaluating social interventions. Glass defines the problem as: When the experimental unit comprises a number of individuals (persons, geographical units, etc.) the composition of this group may change across time.. The loss of several individuals from the experimental unit immediately before the inter- vention could cause the time-series to change its course abruptly, even though under other cir- cumstances the intervention would have not al- tered the series. Incorrectly attributing a change in the series to an intervention when in fact the change is due to the loss or gain of subjects between time points n and n2 t l is in- validation due to change in experimental unit com- position. In this study the potential for this issue does exist, since the data base consists of city and county pOpulation, which could change during the time these special police unit 17Gene V. Glass, Victor L. Wilson and John Gottman. Design and Analysis of Time-Series Experiments. (Boulder,ColoradO: Associated University Press, 1975), p. 62. 42 projects were in operation. However, the demographic trends have been analyzed and there is no reason to conclude there have been any significant changes in the research jurisdic- tions for the time period used in the evaluation. Data Sources The data which is used in the analysis for this study comes from both monthly and annual level state uniform crime reports for the years 1971 through 1976. In Michigan crime data is collected monthly18 from every law enforcement juris- diction, which is provided the standardized reporting forms19 by the Michigan Department of State Police. The Department of State Police then tabulates the crime information collected into crime rates and trends, etc. for presentation in quar- terly preliminary and annual published reports?0 Though these 18On July 3, 1968 every law enforcement agency in the State of Michigan was required to report certain criminal information to the Michigan Department of State Police as authorized by Act 319, Public Act of 1968: The Michigan Uniform Crime Reporting Act. In essence this act mandated law enforcement agencies in the state to report the same type of information that is requested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its annual published Uniform Crime Report. 19For a detailed description of the Michigan Department of State Police crime reporting procedure, see: Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of State Police, 1974). 20The Department of State Police publishes for the State of Michigan both quarterly and annual reports known as the Michi- gan Uniform Crime Report. Nationally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation publishes, Crime in the United States, a com- posite of reported crime, as reported by 95% ofiihe law en- forcement agencies in the U. S. The information that Michigan reports for the state is then forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 43 reports were available they did not provide information spe- cific enough for this study. The design required the use of both annual and monthly level jurisdiction specific data for the Offenses of burglary, robbery and larceny including in- formation concerning arrests, clearances and court disposi- tions. The formally published reports contained some but not all of this data at the annual level but no jurisdiction spe- cific monthly statistics. Since the published reports were unable to provide the necessary information for the annual level data, computer printouts, from which the published reports are compiled, were obtained from the Michigan Department Of State Police for each of the jurisdictions included in the evaluation. However, only five years (1971-1975) of annual level reports were Obtained, since printouts later than 1971 were no longer retained. Even though this was a limited number of observa- tion points, it was felt that the multiple group time-series analysis, using pre-post intervention trends, could be ex- plored concerning the effect of special police units. The necessary information was then extracted from these printouts and processed to create annual level Uniform Crime Report data files which were project specific for the multiple-group analysis. For the monthly level data, a different data collection procedure was involved. Since monthly published reports did not exist, due to the large amount of crime data collected each 44 month from every reporting jurisdiction in the State, and com- puter printouts were not retained by either the individual jurisdictions or the Michigan Department of State Police, due to storage problems, c0pies of Uniform Crime Report data tapes for the years 1972-1976 were obtained from the state UCR data center. Each of these tapes contained all of the UCR statis- tics for all of the law enforcement jurisdictions in the state- approximately 690 jurisdictions.21 However, these original tapes had to be processed to produce tapes that were compa- tible with the Michigan State University Control Data Corpora- tion 6500 computer, containing only the monthly level statis- tics for each of the crimes, for each specific special police unit jurisdiction in the evaluation. These monthly level data files provided the input for the Correl and TSX time-series programs described in Chapter 4. Limitations of Data Sources Despite the fact that the Uniform Crime Reports provide the only state and national view of crime data collected from law enforcement agencies in the United States, they have still been the focal point of a great deal of criticism. Much of this criticism is due in part because the Uniform Crime Reports are quoted as the Index of Crime (Official summary of crime) by politicians, the public and the media. This has led to misuse and misrepresentation. The most frequent criticisms 21The data tapes were obtained from the State Police in Septem- ber 1976 and as a result only eight months of data for 1976 (January-August) exists. 45 generally attack the UCR on its structural integrity. There are arguments that: ”The system can never measure the real crime rate, since it only counts those offenses known to the police,"22 and that the statistics "fail to consider that the crime among the most crime-prone age group has increased dis- prOportionately (standardization by age and sex is perhaps necessary for any index); joyriding does not belong in the serious crime category (nine out of ten "stolen" cars are re- turned to their owners); and, that the definition of grand larceny as 'theft of more than $50.00' is not in keeping with the great increase in prosperity."23 The criticisms emphasize that the Uniform Crime Reports do not take into account the volume of crime which is com- 24 and as a result there mitted but not reported to the police is a "lack of any constant ratio in the UCR . . . between the known quantity (i.e., offenses known to the police) and the unknown 'universe', (i.e., the total number of offenses actually 22U. S. Department of Justice, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report, 1971, (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 5. 23Criminal Statistics, National Institute of Mental Health, (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 13. 24The questioning of police statistics has not begun with the UCR, for in 1897, a British commentator noted, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the number of crimes known to the police is a complete index of the total yearly volume of crime. The actual number of offenses annually committed is always in excess Of the number of officially recorded crimes." LX Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1, 4 (1897), cited in Albert Biderman and Albert J. Reiss, "On Exploring the 'Dark Figure' of Crime." The Annals, Vol, 374 (1967), p. l. 46 committed), including the unreported crimes."25 Without this ratio, it is difficult to determine when an increase or de- crease is reported and if it is reported, whether it is the result of the number of crimes committed or a change in the number Of crimes reported. For example, even though the actual number of robberies is the same, the UCR may indicate a robbery decrease simply because fewer victims reported them.26 Closely akin to the misuse and misrepresentation issues is the emotionalism issue surrounding the crime problem, which has resulted in manipulation and the distortion of the crime data. For example, it has been charged that the FBI generates the maximum amount of terror from the crime reports by pub- lishing only the upward side of the crime charts, claiming that there are record all-time highs in crime. The use of crime clocks are another example, for every year they depict a shorter time period between the commission of crimes without correcting for the large growths in population. 25Lawrence J. Center and Thomas G. Smith, "Crime Statistics - Can they be Trusted?", American Criminal Law Review, Vol. II, No. 4, (1973), p. 1052. 26In a nationwide victimization survey, conducted by the Na- tional Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, for the Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, it was found that victims who did not report offenses to the police did so for a variety of reasons. Many felt it was a private matter, or did not want harm to come to the offender (50% of aggravated assault vic- tims and 30% Of burglary victims gave these answers). Other victims did not want to take the time to report the accident (9% of the robbery victims and 7% of the larceny victims gave this answer. Some were just too confused by the incident or didn't know what to do to report it (18% of the robbery vic- tims and 8% of the aggravated assault victims gave this an- swer). Most significantly, the survey found that the reason 47 In addition to these described misuses, misinterpreta- tions and manipulations, concern has been eXpressed regarding the reliability and comparability across time and jurisdic- tions. Administrative changes within a particular police jurisdiction concerning the compilation of crime statistics from year to year may create "paper" fluctuations in that jurisdiction's crime rate, compounding interpretation of the crime data. Sigi and Wellford found that UCR crime rates have varied directly with the number of civilian employees pre- paring and recording the data.27 Additionally researchers have found slight changes from year to year in classification guidelines and practices,28 and variations within jurisdictions on the amount of discretion a "beat patrolman" has in recording crime.29 These are all recognized as factors which play a most often given for not reporting a crime was that the po- lice would not be effective or would not want to be bothered by the crime (63% for burglary, 62% for larceny, 60% for auto theft, and 45% for robbery). The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact - An Assessment, (1967), p. 17- 18. 27Sigi and Wellford, "Age Composition and Patterns Of Change in Criminal Statistics", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 59 (1968), p. 29, 33. 28Report of the President's Commission in the District of Colum- bia (1966) p. 67, quoted in Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact - An Assessment, (1967), p. 24. 29Where police commands reduce the discretion of the on-the- beat patrolman as to where to file a report on a citizen com- plaint, and where they require a patrolman to file reports on all criminal complaints, the crime rate is bound to rise. In Chicago for example, Police Chief O. W. Wilson instituted a full reporting system and the Chicago crime statistics for larceny rose from about 10,000 yearly reports to 30,000; 48 large part in exposing or hiding more of the 'dark figure' of crime within the jurisdiction. In short, the practices and procedures of the police crime recorder determine, to a great extent, the validity of the first UCR statistics.30 There are, however, despite these inherent inadequacies and criticisms of the UCR, reasons to believe that these prob- lems are not likely to be significant sources of invalidity for this study. The first has to do with known changes in the reporting procedures. At the national level the last major change in the prescribed procedures for reporting crime statis- tics under the Uniform Crime Reporting System was in 1958. This predates the initiation of any special police unit project site by over twenty years, and is not likely to influence the statistics used in this study. At the state level, the last major changes in UCR procedures were instituted between 1970 and 1971, but the statistics available for this study all came from the period after the changes were instituted. At the local level, attempts were made to check on all project juris- dictions and to the best estimate possible none of them had made any formal changes in their reporting procedures since the initiation of the special police unit projects. reported auto thefts rose from 7,000 to 23,000 in one year. As one commentator said, "the actual number of thefts didn't increase, just the number of reports. The same volume of crime was there; it just wasn't being counted before." Mor- rissey, "Nixon Anti-Crime Plan Undermines Crime Seats". Justice, Vol. 1 (June-July, 1972), p. 10. 30Lawrence J. Center and Thomas G. Smith, "Crime Statistics - Can They be Trusted?", American Criminal Law Review, Vol. II, NO. 4 (1973), p. 1054. 49 Second, it seems unlikely that self-initiated changes in record keeping procedures would have significantly influenced the UCR statistics used in this study. There is no question that self-initiated changes in record keeping can and do take place in order to achieve results that are consistent with such interventions as special police units. This type of de- "" E velopment is particularly common when the data collection pro- cedures are under the direct control Of individuals who have a strong vested interest in the apparent success or failure ‘77-" of the project. The crime statistics used in this study, how- ever, are department-wide figures and their collection and processing were never under direct control of individuals who were members of the special units. In addition, since the special police units were fairly small, and dealt with a rela- tively small number of crimes and criminals, and were generally viewed as temporary "add on" to the department, it seems doubt- ful that even administrators would have changed department-wide statistics just to make the special units look good. Since this particular evaluation design using UCR data in a time- series design was not developed until most projects had been in Operation for numerous months, it is doubtful that anyone would have intentionally manipulated UCR statistics to give the appearance of successful projects. Finally, despite inherent inadequacies and limitations, UCR statistics still remain the best generally available data sources on crimes and police activities throughout the United States. As the UCR states: 50 It is believed desirable to point out that there is no way of determining the total number of crimes which are committed. Many criminal acts occur which are not reported to official sources. Esti- mates as to the level of unreported crime can be developed through costly victim surveys, but this, of course, does not remedy the reluctance of vic- tims and/or other members of society to report all crimes to law enforcement agencies. In light of this situation, the best source of ob- taining a count of crime is the next logical ungverse, namely, crimes which come to police attention. 1 This is especially significant when considering the uti- lization of the UCR in this study to measure the effective— ness32 of proactive specialized police units. No attempt is made to claim that the UCR is a measure of the nation's or its cities' criminality. The focus Of the UCR for this study is the number of Offenses processed and the relationship be- tween crimes reported and offenses cleared by arrest. It is through these reported crimes that the UCR is being used so that references may be made as to the effectiveness (produc- tivity) or changes in effectiveness (productivity) in the research jurisdictions. Research Qpestion and Hypotheses As previously stated the establishment of the proactive specialized police unit was intended to achieve a reduction 31H. S. Department of Justice, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report, (1970), p. 5. 32Wesley G. Skogan, Efficiency and Effectiveness in Big—City Police Departments," Public Administration Review, (May/ June, 1976), and Lawrence J. Center and Thomas G. Smith, "Crime Statistics - Can They be Trusted?", American Crimi- nal Law Review, Vol. II, NO. 4 (1973), p. 1063. 51 in crime and criminal activity by improving the investigative capability of the departments in which they are located. The logic of this is that: Improved investigative capability will: increase the costs (risks) associated with criminal activity by, increasing the probability of apprehension or the probability of conviction once apprehended, which will remove individuals from circula- tion (through arrest and detention) or deter individuals from committing crimes. Depsite this ultimate focus on crime reduction, emphasis has also been given to performance criteria for these special units. Eight of the nine special unit evaluation factors, in the 1976 Michigan Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan, were performance criteria: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Method used to determine current and expected crime targets. Process used to determine tactical strategy and targets. Method used to select supervisory and patrol personnel. Specialized training programs. Organizational and procedural manual for the Operation of the unit. Method used to determine the resource allocation of each investigation and the use of that infor- mation. Method used to provide the community with infor- mation about the unit. Method used to compile arrest and conviction record. 52 What these performance evaluation criteria are emphasi— zing is the need to determine, in a normative sense, how well these units have performed, which is then translated to the ultimate effects of crime reduction. However, when these criteria are examined in view of the impact model (Table 3.1) it is apparent that the intermediate effects (linkages) have been overlooked as criteria for performance evaluation. Recog- nizing the absence of the intermediate effect, this study is concerned with determining if there is any indication that these units (special police units) improved the investigative capabilities of departments to which they were attached. From this logic, 3 general research question will be generated that will lead to a further examination of perfor- mance (productivity) by analyzing the effects proactive specialized police units have on the crimes of burglary, rob- bery and larceny. Research Question Do special police units improve investigative capabilities of departments in which they are located? From this research question, as well as information pre- sented in previous discussions the following hypotheses are advanced: Hypotheses H1: There will be significant differences in offense clearance rates, for the crimes of burglary, rob- bery and larceny, in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. 53 H2: There will be significant differences in offense- founded conviction rates, for the crimes of burglary, robbery and larceny in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. H3: There will be significant differences in offense- charged conviction rates, for the crimes 0 Burglary, rObbery and larceny in the research jursidictions between the pre/post intervention periods. Description of Study Variables Dependent Variables - The dependent variables in this study have been selected to reflect the kinds of measures for which information is generally available and traditionally utilized in evaluating the performance of police departments. Specifically they are: offense clearance rates, Offense- charged conviction rates, and offense-founded conviction rates.33 Independent Variables - The independent variable in this study was the introduction of the proactive specialized police unit (Metro Crime Unit and Surveillance Unit) into the police department Of the research site.34 Research Site Selection As was previously stated, this study is a subset of a broader evaluation project, which was designed to evaluate twenty-two specialized police unit projects. Six of these 33See Appendix A, Definition of Terms. 34Ibid. 35The descriptions of the research sites were taken from the official records of the Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs, the funding agency. This information included project prOposals, quarterly and annual reports, as well as Official correspondence between project personnel and the funding source. 54 twenty-two specialized police units were selected for inten- sive evaluation, and it is from these six that two research sites were selected for this study.36 The primary criteria for their selection was the completeness of the data available and the degree of COOperation received from the agencies in which the units were located. The following descriptions of the two special police units used in the study are designed to describe the general characteristics of the units and the environments in which they Operated. It should be pointed out that this is a metho- dological study of the effectiveness of the concept of proac- tive specialized police units. As such, specific sites only provide the vehicle for obtaining crime statistics and experi- menting with the concept of proactive specialized police units. No attempt is made to compare sites (cities) with one another, for the focus of this study is the concept of the proactive specialized police unit. Site A - County-Wide Metro Crime Unit - The County-Wide Metro Crime Unit Operates on a county-wide basis in the south- western part of the State of Michigan. It was created to address: 1) the lack of coordination in the investigation of crimes affecting more than one law enforcement jurisdiction, and 2) the lack of personnel to adequately cope with criminal activity on an inter-jurisdictional basis. 36See Appendix E, for a discussion of site selection in the broader evaluation study. 55 Nine county-wide police agencies were selected to parti- cipate in this inter-jurisdictional unit, which was to have an investigative strength of 16 persons plus a unit commander. The unit members were selected by their respective jurisdic- tions and then approved by the unit commander. To coordinate the unit with other county governmental agencies, a county police services council was formed, which was composed of chiefs of police of county police departments, a county sheriff and a representative of the Michigan State Police. In addition to coordinating the unit's Operations, the council determined policy, priorities and Operational ob- jectives through the unit commander, who was directly respon- sible to the council. It was under this administrative struc- ture, that the council determined that the unit's primary goal was to reduce violent personal and prOperty crimes occurring within the county. Specifically the unit was to concentrate on robbery, larceny, burglary, and auto theft. Operationally the unit was located in a "store front" location, totally independent from local area police agencies. It was divided into two groups, one concentrating on active crime prevention, employing such techniques as saturation patrol, and decoys, while the other concentrated on crime in- vestigation, using overt and covert surveillance techniques. Site B - Investigations Coordination Unit - The Investi- gations Coordination Unit operates with a large single city jurisdiction located in central Michigan. Utilizing 56 on-uniform proactive undercover surveillance techniques in its operation, the unit's goals included: increase the detection of crimes in progress, increase apprehensions, reduce criminal acts in high crime areas, increase public awareness and en- courage COOperation and participation between the public, other law enforcement agencies, and the unit. The unit was located in the local police department and administratively attached to the Field Services Bureau and was supervised by the commander of the Detective Bureau. Opera— tionally the unit was composed of eight patrol Officers and two detectives. These personnel were divided into two opera- tional teams of four officers each and directed by a detective to carry the gathering of criminal intelligence data and suspect-oriented surveillance activities (primary crimes of burglary, robbery, larceny, murder, rape and auto theft). Given the nature of the unit's Operation, arrests were only made by unit personnel and only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise the uniformed patrol-members were summoned by the unit personnel. In addition to the tactical Operations, the unit maintained a crime analysis function, collating information for department- wide investigations, determining high crime areas for personnel deployment, and developing detailed profiles of criminals, victims, and premises within the city. Summary This study examines the effectiveness of specialized po- lice units on the investigative function in departments in 57 which they are located. To investigate this question, two research sites were selected. The quasi-experimental design, Time-Series, was employed to analyze the research sites on measures of effectiveness-crime rates. This study is a subset of a broader evaluation project, which was designed to evaluate twenty-two specialized police unit projects. Six of these twenty-two specialized police units were selected for intensive evaluation, and it is from these six that two research sites were selected for this study. The primary criteria for their selection was the completeness of the data available and the degree of COOperation received from the agencies in which the units were located. In Chapter IV, the results of the analysis will be pre- sented, each Operational hypothesis will be restated, and the significant findings will be discussed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In this chapter, an analysis of special unit effects - do special police units improve investigative capabilities of departments in which they are located - is presented for each of the three hypotheses. All three of the hypotheses are examined using a multiple-group time-series design and annual level data. In addition, the hypothesis concerning clearance rates is examined using a more SOphisticated statistical time- series model and monthly level Uniform Crime Report data. In using these two designs, the general analytical strategy em- ployed is two-phased. In the first phase of the time-series analysis, a multiple-group design is employed through which an attempt is made to establish the existence of both pre— and post-intervention trends in investigative productivity. This analysis uses Uniform Crime Report data from each of the research jurisdictions as well as comparison statistics, based upon a 1 sample of non-special police unit jurisdictions. The advan- tage of the multi-group design is that it allows the comparison 1 In Chapter 111, there was no discussion of the establishment of a non-spu group, however, it became apparent after the design was established that a comparison group was necessary in order to establish a state-wide crime trend. These 58 59 of a number of jurisdictions simultaneously, providing some control for the possibility that extraneous events, fi.e., historical invaliditfi, may have caused changes in the depen- dent variable. In the second phase of the time-series design, monthly level crime statistics are used in a one-group time-series l analysis. The objective of this statistical analysis is to extract the effects of other possible causal factors from the effects Of the intervention in order to determine whether the I introduction of special police units increased, decreased, or did not affect departmental productivity. In phase one, the technique that is employed in the analysis of the annual level data, is to examine the data for each of the measures (hypotheses) in order to identify pre- and post-intervention changes in the effectiveness (producti- vity), and on-going post-intervention patterns (trends) in each of the research jurisdictions. By examining annual level data in this manner, one should be able to get a "feel” for the effectiveness, these special police units had on the in- vestigative capabilities of the departments in regard to the crimes of burglary, robberx and larceny. comparison statistics were developed from a sample of non- special police unit jurisdictions in the following manner. First, every sixth city was selected from the 1973 Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report listing of Michigan cities over and under 25,000 residents. This re- sulted in a total sample Of 69 reporting jurisdictions. However, this sample was reduced when actual data collection efforts were attempted.. It was discovered that data could only consistently be obtained for 21 jurisdictions, for the years 1971-1975. See Appendix F, for a list of the Non- Special Police Unit Jurisdictions. 60 Before looking at the annual level data, several addi- tional points should be made. First, there needs to be a description of the specific variables used to measure produc- tivity. For this study, three hypotheses (measures) were developed in an attempt to assess the effectiveness (produc- tivity) of the flow or quality of cases through the criminal justice process in the research jurisdictions. Hypothesis One states: There will be significant differences in Offense- Clearance Rates, for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and ‘;m_1_ larceny in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. This hypothesis was developed as a measure of how well the police are doing in making arrests on founded (actual) offenses in terms of the number of crimes committed. In other words, How well do they deal with input to the department? TO establish the offense-clearance rate, the number of crimes cleared (arrests) in a given year were divided by the number of founded (actual) crimes in the same year.2 This method of dividing crimes cleared (arrests) by founded (actual)crimes in the same year was used because this has been the traditional measure of assessing program per- formance. In addition, the best available information indi- cates that clearances tend to take place in the same year that the crimes are reported.3 2 See Appendix G for a listing of the Annual Level Uniform Crime Report statistics for each of the research jurisdictions. 3 See Peter W. Greenwood, et. al., The Criminal Investigative Process, Volume III: Observations and Analysis, Santa Monica, CalifOrnia: Rand Corporation, 1975, p. ix. 61 The second hypothesis is concerned with Offense-Founded Conviction Rates. That is, "There will be significant dif- ferences in Offense-Founded Conviction Rates for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and larceny in the research jurisdic- tions between the pre/post intervention periods." For this hypothesis, the productivity measure is an offense-founded conviction rate. This hypothesis was developed as a measure of how well the police are doing in getting convictions for the cases they recognize as actual crimes. Such a measure is important because the police control the number of cases claimed as cleared. As a result it is possible for a depart- ment to develOp an artificially high clearance rate. This offense-founded measure provides some control against this possibility by determining the relationship of founded crimes to convictions. It is also a measure Of how well the police do with input, in terms of founded cases. This measure was developed by dividing the number of individuals found guilty of the specified offense in a given year by the total number of actual Offenses in the previous year, thereby establishing a "lag". For example, in Table 4.1, are the actual numbers for each of the categories for the years 1972-1976. By dividing 8 (in year 1973) by 105 (in year 1972), equaling .08, the Robbery Offense-Founded Conviction Rate is created with the "lag" function. The rationale for developing this lag is that it is unrealistic to think that persons charged for a crime are also going to be adjudicated for that crime in the same year. Therefore, there is a spill—over of persons from the 62 previous year in which they were charged. As a result, the rationale for establishing a "lag" provides a more realistic approach to assessing research jurisdiction effectiveness in the flow of obtaining convictions for founded convictions. TABLE 4.1. EXAMPLE OF 'LAG' FUNCTION FOR SITE A - ROBBERY-OFFENSE FOUNDED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total Persons Charged Guilty -- 8 4 10 8 Total Number of Actual Offenses 105 107 106 98 -- Robbery-Founded Conviction Rate .08 .04 .09 .08 -- The third hypothesis or measure is concerned with Offense- Charged Conviction Rates. That is, "There will be significant differences in Offense-Charged Conviction Rates for each of the crimes of robbery, burglary;and.larceny in each research juris- diction between the pre/post intervention periods." This hypo— thesis was developed to determine how well the police are doing 4 in getting convictions for charged cases. To calculate the 4 In the formulation of this hypothesis an attempt was made to develOp a ”quality of arrest" measure by dividing Total Per- sons Charged by Arrest Grant Total. However, when this was attempted, it became apparent that Arrest Grand Total and Total Persons Charged were either the same figure or were very close. (See Appendix G). Therefore this measure (Of- fense-Charged Conviction Rate) is the best that could be devised. The reader also has to recognize that this measure is vulnerable to the quality of the performance of the pro- cess. 63 Offense-Charged Conviction Rate for each of the crimes, the number of convictions (guilty) were divided by the number (total persons) charged not in the same year, but with a "lag", like the one discussed previously, only using the number of convictions (guilty) as the numerator. By using "guiltys" one can ascertain the highest level of success that can be associ- ated with the disposition of a case, thereby further establishing l the flow or quality of cases processed through the research jurisdictions. I The rationale for develOping this "lag"iE;the same as that described above. It is unrealistic to think that persons charged for a crime are going to be adjudicated in the same year in which the crime occurred. At best, those persons arrested and charged for a crime, have six months, from the time of the arrest to be convicted in the same year, that is if the court dockets are operating smoothly. In reality it may be that there is even more than a six month lag, and as a result the necessity for approximating reality, with the "lag" convention. Secondly the actual date of project funding as well as the selection of an intervention point presented some diffi- culties. As for the project funding date, there was difficulty in identifying complete years as to the pre/post intervention point. Given that most projects require some start-up time and usually go through a phasing out process, it is likely that projects funded in the middle of the year would have minimum 64 opportunity to affect annual level crime statistics in both their initial and closing years. Thus :itappeared necessary to provide some period of time, in the analysis, to account for the period in which these projects were becoming Operational. Phase One - Annual Level Analysis The data is presented in Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 for the hypothesis that there will be differences in Offense-Clearance Rates, between the pre/post intervention periods. TABLE 4.2. ROBBERY-CLEARANCE RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST5 Site A6 .31 .16 .31* 20* .12* .94 Site B .53 .49* .57* 48* .75 .49 Non-SPU .32 .29 .30 .34 .31 -- * Indicates the years the special police units were funded, in each Of the research jurisdictions. 5 To establish a percent change, pre/post, the post-intervention value (.31) was subtracted from the pre-intervention (.16) value and then divided by the post-intervention number (31), resulting in the percent change of .94. 6 In the broader evaluation study, a questionnaire was adminis- tered, in which special police unit commanders and members of the authority structure at the six intensive sites were asked how long it took for the special unit to become Operational. Twenty-one respondents answered three months, eleven said six months, and four said more than six months. In this study, Site A and Site B were funded Aprillq 1974 and April], 1973 re- spectively. Given that the majority(twenty-one)in the broader study stated that it took three months to become operational after the grant had been formally awarded, the three month start-up period was accepted. As a result the funding years have been included as the first year in which one might expect to observe changes in the annual level statistics, due to the intervention of the special police unit in the research site. 65 As indicated in Table 4.2, the percentage change pre/post for Sites A and B were rather dramatic. In Site A, in 1973- 1974, there was a 94% increase and for Site B, in 1972-1973, a 49% increase, in robbery clearance rates. These changes became even more impressive when the results for each of the research sites were compared to the Non-Special Police Unit (Non-SPU) sample. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated) I1 there was a 10% decrease in the clearance rate for the Non—SPU 1 sample. Thus, for Site B, the increase in effectiveness was I counter to the decreased effectiveness of the Non—SPU sample. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated), there was a 03% increase in the clearance rate in the Non-SPU sample. This increase in effectiveness was in the direction of the change in effectiveness of Site A, but at a rate that was not nearly as great. These results appear to indicate the possibility that special units were having a positive effect (increasing) on the productivity of the funded jurisdictions. However, when the post-intervention data series is viewed, only Site B seems to reveal a steady trend (pattern) toward increased robbery clear- ances. It should also be noted that this increase in effective- ness went beyond the actual funding period. For the Non-SPU sample, there seems to be little variation at all in the data series; for at no time point in the five-year period, does the clearance rate increase or decrease 05%, and certainly there is no indication of a consistent increase in productivity. Thus for Site B, there seems to be some evidence that the initiation 66 of the special police unit may have had an effect on robbery clearance rates. Site A, on the other hand, appears at best to have a decreasing pattern and thus there is no indication that the unit had an overall (positive) effect on cleared robberies. TABLE 4.3. BURGLARY-CLEARANCE RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .14 .11 .11* .10* .09* 0 Site B .19 .24* .24* .26* .29 .21 Non-SPU .13 .15 .17 .15 .17 -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Units were funded in each of the research jurisdictions. In Table 4.3 the clearance rate data for burglary is dis- played. It indicates that for Site A there was no change at the pre/post intervention point (1973-1974), while at the same time point, the Non-SPU sample demonstrated a .2% increase. Thus, Site A had a smaller change in clearances than the Non- SPU sample. Site B on the other hand experienced a 21% pre/post intervention increase in burglary clearances at the 1972-1973 intervention point. For the same period the Non-SPU sample had a 13% increase in the productivity of burglary clearances. These results provide no support for believing that the special units had a positive effect on the research jurisdic- tion's productivity. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the entire post-intervention data series. At neither site was there a strong upward trend in the clearance rate during the 67 post-intervention period. This is based on the fact that the year to year change for the two sites is very small and that the Non-SPU sample demonstrates the same pattern year to year. TABLE 4.4. LARCENY-CLEARANCE RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .10 .14 .16* .15* .13* .13 Site B .21 18* .20* .22* .15 -.17 Non-SPU .16 .20 .20 .19 .17 -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Units were funded in each of the research jurisdictions. The clearance rate data for larceny is presented in Table 4.4. It indicates that for Site A there was a 13% increase at the pre/post intervention point (1973-1974), while at the same time point, the Non-SPU sample had no change. Thus, Site A had a larger increase in clearances than the com- parison group. Site B on the other hand, experienced a 17% pre/post intervention decrease in larceny clearances at the 1972-1973 intervention point. In the same period the Non-SPU sample had a 20% increase in the productivity of larceny clearances. These results provide no support for believing that the special units had a positive effect on the research jurisdic- tion's productivity. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the entire post-intervention data series. At neither site is there a strong upward trend in the clearance rate during the post-intervention period. And this is based 68 on the fact that the year to year change for the two sites is very small and that the Non-SPU sample demonstrates a very similar pattern year to year. Summary - In Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 clearance rates were presented for the three target crimes - burglary, rob- bery and larceny. Of the three crimes examined, only the data for robbery indicated that the special unit had any positive effect (increasing rate) in the effectiveness of clearances in the research jurisdictions. For burglary and larceny the results provided no support for a positive effect on clearances, as examined in this hypothesis. The data presented in Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 is concerned with the hypothesis that there will be differences in Offense- Founded Conviction Rates, between the pre/post intervention periods. TABLE 4.5. ROBBERY-FOUNDED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 19767 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .08 .04 .09* .08* —-* .55 Site B .02 .03* .03* .02* -- .33 IHon-SPU .05 .03 .05 .05 -- -- g * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in each of the research jurisdictions. K 7 In the remaining tables of this hypothesis and the next, 1976 ciata is not available because of the use of the "lag" func- ‘tion previously described. In order for the 1976 data to be Zincluded, 1977 Uniform Crime Report Statistics would have to [De available and that is impossible at this time. 69 As Table 4.5 indicates, the percentage change, pre/post for Sites A and B, was rather substantial. In Site A in 1973-1974, there was a 55% increase and for Site B in 1972- 1973, a 33% increase in Robbery-Founded Conviction Rates. These changes become rather impressive when the results of the research sites are compared to the Non-SPU sample. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated), there was a 66% decrease in the Robbery-Founded Conviction Rates for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B, the increase in effectiveness was counter to the decreased effectiveness of the Non-SPU sample. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated), there was a 40% increase in the Robbery- Founded Conviction Rates in the Non-SPU sample. Thus, Site A experienced a greater increase in productivitity (55% com- pared to 40%) than the Non-SPU sample. These results appear to indicate that possibly special police units were having a positive effect (increasing) on the productivity of the funded jurisdictions. However, when the entire post data series is viewed, support for the effect the special unit had is more limited. If it was expected that the special police unit was to have a continuously in- creasing effect on the robbery conviction rate, a. review of Table 4.5 would indicate that this is not the case. For at Sites A and B, the post-intervention conviction rate remained fairly stable. 70 TABLE 4.6. BURGLARY-FOUNDED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .016 .011 .015* .037* --* .26 Site B .010 .012* .016* .014* -— .16 Non-SPU .013 .011 .012 .013 -- -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in l 1 each of the research jurisdictions. The Offense-Founded Conviction Rate data for burglary is presented in Table 4.6. It indicates that for Site A in 1973—1974 there was a 26% increase, and for Site B in 1972- 1973 a 16% increase at their respective pre/post interven- tion points. These changes become more impressive when the results Of each of the research sites are compared to the Non-SPU sample. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated) there was a 18% decrease in the Burglary- Founded Conviction Rate for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B, the increase in effectiveness was counter to the de- creased effectiveness of the Non—SPU sample. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated) there was an 8.3% increase in the Burglary Offense-Founded Conviction Rate in the Non-SPU sample, indicating that the increase in effec- tiveness was in the same direction as the increase in effec- tiveness of Site A, but at a rate that was very slight. These results appear to indicate the possibility that special police units were having a positive effect (increasing) on the productivity of the funded jurisdictions. ThisiESparti- cularly the case when the entire data series is viewed. 71 Site A demonstrated a consistent increase, while Site B main- tained a higher level of convictions after the pre-intervention period. During the post-intervention years (1973, 1974, 1975) the conviction rate of the Non-SPU sample remained fairly stable. TABLE 4.7. LARCENY-FOUNDED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .064 .056 .064* .082* --* .13 Site B .056 .042* .052* .046* -- -.33 Non-SPU .046 .042 .040 .035 -- -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in each of the research jurisdictions. The Founded Conviction Rate data for larceny is shown in Table 4.7. It indicates that for Site A there was a .3% in- crease at the pre/post intervention point (1973-1974). But for Site B, in 1972-1973, there was a 33% decrease at the pre/ post intervention point. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated) there was a 10% decrease in the Larceny- Founded Conviction Rate for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B, the decrease in effectiveness was greater than the comparable figures for the Non-SPU sample and obviously pro- vides no support for believing that the special unit helped increase departmental productivity. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated), there was a 5% decrease in the Larceny-Founded Conviction Rate in the Non-SPU sample. Thus, the increase at Site A was counter to the trend for the Non-SPU sample. 72 These results seem to indicate that,at least in Site A, the special unit may have had a positive (increasing) effect on the effectiveness of the Larceny-Founded Conviction Rate. When the entire post data series is viewed, it is evident that Site A had a steady increase in founded convictions from the time the unit was initiated. As for Site B, the insta- bility of the data series does not support the possibility that the special unit had a positive effect on departmental productivity. Summary - In Tables 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, the founded conviction rates were presented for the three target crimes - burglary, robbery and larceny. Of the three crimes examined, only robbery and burglary reflect that the special unit had any positive effect (increasing rate) on the effectiveness of founded convictions in the research jurisdictions. For lar- ceny the results seemed to indicate that only in Site A was there a positive (increasing) effect on founded convictions. The results in Site B,on the other hand, provide no support when examined for this hypothesis. The data is presented in Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, for the hypothesis that there will be differences in Offense- Charged Conviction Rates, between the pre/post intervention periods. The charged conviction rate data for robbery is presented in Table 4.8. It indicates that for Site A there was a 44% increase at the pre/post intervention point (1973-1974). But for Site B, in 1972-1973 there was a 20% decrease at the 73 pre/post intervention point. Thus, if we only used the pre/ post data it would be concluded that there was no effect, because of the inconsistency of the results. TABLE 4.8. ROBBERY-CHARGED CONVICTION RATES \ 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .21 .10 .18* .14* --* .44 Site B .15 .13* .13* .07* -- -.20 Non-SPU 19 12 18 18 -- -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in each of the research jurisdictions. The conclusion is supported by the comparison of the changes in the Project-Charged Conviction Rate with the figures for the Non-SPU sample. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated) there was a 30% increase in the charged conviction rates for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B the decrease in effectiveness was inconsistent to the increase in productivity of the Non-SPU sample. Obviously a decrease at Site A compared to an increase for the Non—SPU sample does not provide evidence of a positive effect. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated), there was a 33% increase in the charged conviction rate of the Non-SPU sample. Thus for Site A the increase in productivity was somewhat greater than for the Non-SPU sample jurisdictions. What these results appear to indicate is the possibility that,at least in Site A, the special police unit was having a positive effect (increasing) on the effectiveness of the 74 Robbery-Charged Conviction Rate for Site A. However, when the entire data series is viewed neither research jurisdiction has a pattern which supports the idea of increased productivity. In fact, if anything, there appears to be a downward trend in charged convictions while the Non-SPU sample seems to remain stable. TABLE 4.9. BURGLARY-CHARGED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .09 .06 .09* .21* --* .33 Site B .13 .ll* .14* .12* —- -.18 Non-SPU .14 .10 .10 .09 -- -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in each of the research jurisdictions. The charged conviction rate data for burglary is shown in Table 4.9. It indicates that for Site A, there was a 33% increase at the pre/post intervention point (1973-1974). But for Site B, there was an 18% decrease at its pre/post inter- vention point (1972-1973). When these results are compared to the Non-SPU sample, an interesting pattern develops. For the years 1972-1973 (the year Site B was initiated) there was a 40% decrease in the Burglary—Charged Conviction Rate for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B, the decrease in effectiveness was at a lower rate. As a result it is possible to consider the idea that the SPU inhibited what might have been an even greater decrease. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was 75 initiated) there was no change in the Non-SPU sample, indi- cating that the increase in effectiveness was much greater for Site A. These results appear to indicate that possibly the two special police units were having a positive (increasing) effect on the productivity of their jurisdictions for bur- glary charged convictions. It becomes very evident that when the entire data series is viewed, Site A reveals a steady trend (pattern) toward increased charged convictions, from the time the unit was initiated. As for Site B and the Non- SPU sample, there appears to be stability in the data series; therefore, the conclusion could be made that in Site A the special unit was having a positive effect. TABLE 4.10. LARCENY-CHARGED CONVICTION RATES 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 % CHANGE PRE/POST Site A .48 .31 .40* .40* --* .23 Site B .57 .51* .60* .45* -- -.12 Non-SPU .37 .30 .26 .30 -- -- * Indicates the years the Special Police Unit was funded in each of the research jurisdictions. The charged conviction rate data for larceny is pre- sented in Table 4.10. It indicates that for Site A, there was a 23% increase at the pre/post intervention point (1973- 1974). But for Site B, there was a 12% decrease at its pre/ post intervention point (1972-1973). These changes become rather interesting when the results for each of the research 76 sites are compared to the Non—SPU sample. For the years 1972- 1973 (the year Site B was initiated) there was a 23% decrease in the Larceny-Charged Conviction Rate for the Non-SPU sample. Thus, for Site B the decrease in effectiveness was at a lower rate. As a result it is possible that the operation of the SPU inhibited what might have been an even greater decrease. For the years 1973-1974 (the year Site A was initiated) there was a 15% decrease in the Non-SPU sample, indicating that the 23 increase in the productivity of Site A may have been a o\° result of the establishment of the special unit. These results appear to indicate that at least in the two jurisdictions the special units may have had an effect (increasing) on the effectiveness of the Larceny-Charged Con- viction Rates. It becomes very evident that when the entire post-intervention data series is viewed there is a stable but increasing pattern toward charged convictions. But for Site B and the Non-SPU, there appears to be a rather unstable post- intervention data series. From this pattern, it would be very difficult to attribute any positive long-term effect with regard to productivity to the SPU in Site B. Summary - In Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, the charged con- viction rates were presented for the three target crimes - burglary, robbery and larceny. Of the three crimes examined, only burglary and larceny indicate some support for the hypo- thesis that the special unit had any positive effect (increasing rate) on the effectiveness of the charged conviction rate in the research jurisdictions. As for robbery, the results 77 indicate that there was no support in either research juris- diction for the hypothesis. Phase Two — Monthly Time-Series Analysis While the multiple-group design used in Phase One allows for a number of sites to be included in an analysis at one time, it is limited by two factors. First, as is illustrated in the above tables, the use of annual level statistics as data oberrvation points in an analysis is severely limited. These limited data points become parti- cularly critical in terms of being able to identify and adjust for the various forms of data fluctuation described earlier on the problem of data instability. Also, the small number of data points limit the user's ability to utilize statistical techniques to test the significance of any observed changes in pre/post intervention periods. The second factor concerns assumptions about the relationships between separate data Observations. Most statistical techniques utilize a series of measures (data observations) which are assumed to be independent. However, an assumption of independence using data such as crime statistics cannot be made. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume crime statistics to be dependent upon each other from one observation to the next. Thus, it is assumed that a city with a high burglary rate will continue to have a high burglary rate and that the rate may escalate. As a result we need to employ a statistical technique that takes 78 into account the dependency between observations and the general pattern of data. The second phase of the analysis addresses both of these problems by using monthly level crime statistics in a one-group time—series design. The statistical model upon which the one-group time-series analysis is based was originally developed by Box and Tiao as a technique for making inferences about changes in the level of a time- series.8 The objective of the statistical analysis is to extract the effects of an intervention in order to determine whether the introduction of an intervention, such as a special police unit either decreased, increased or did not affect the variables on which the data was collected. Employing this statistical model we must make two fundamental assumptions concerning the time-series process. First, it must be assumed that some portion of the current observation is the result of a series of random shocks to the variable of interest (time-series), which may or may not be measureable. In dealing with crime statistics, such shocks may be factors such as economic conditions, population increases, changes in pOpulation makeup or increasing urbanization. The usual assumption is that it is the entire series of past random shocks that affects the current obser- Vation. Hence, the concern is not just with last year's (Reorge E. D. Box and George C. Tiao, "A Change in the Level C)f Non-Stationary Time Series,” Biometrics, (52, 1965), pp. 181-92. 79 urbanization pattern, but with the pattern over an extended period of time. However, it is assumed that last year's changes are more important than those of two years ago, and that both are more important than changes from a decade ago. The effect of previous random shocks is known as the Moving Averages Process. Second, it may also be assumed that the observations may affect each other - last year's burglary rate may affect this year's burglary rate. Procedures are available to establish the degree of correlation between the same variable at different points in time (auto-correlations). The results of such procedures are known as the autoregressive process. One more assumption needs to be made of the statistical time-series model and that is through a simple transformation that levels of observation can be reduced to a constant. This process is called differencing. Differencing can best be explained in the following manner: If the following series of points (3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) were graphed, there would be a straight line with a steady upward trend as depicted in Table 4.11. Then by subtracting the previous point from each, or (5—3), (7-5), etc., there would be a series, which fit the assumption Of a level and constant series. This example presents what is known as difference order one. Difference order one will eliminate a linear trend (a straight 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 TABLE 4.11. 80 EXAMPLE FOR DIFFERENCING PROCESS 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 J... 81 line that slopes up or down, or a linear trend that has a temporary change in level). Differencing order two elimi- nates a quadratic trend and also eliminates temporary changes in the SIOpe of the graphed line of Observations. The computer program used in this evaluation allows for the use of all three processes simultaneously. This pro- 1 vides the possibility for the use of a variety of differ- encing orders and levels of the other processes. For example, the program allows for the determination as to whether the effect of the autoregressive process is zero and whether only the moving averages process is generally Operating. The model being used is known as the Auto- Regressive Integrated Moving Averages model or ARIMA. Although a variety of alternatives are possible with ARIMA, the analyses in this evaluation are based on a (0, 1, 1) model that is no autoregressive process, a dif- ferencing order of one and a moving averages process at level one. This model was selected for two reasons. First, a preliminary analysis of the data indicated that it seemed to be the model that most nearly "fit" the data. Second, the 0, 1, 1 model provided the procedures to make adjustments for seasonal cycles which are generally expected in crime data. Existing opinion supports the view that crime data is seasonal in nature, that is, a tendency for data observa- tions to repeat basic patterns during corresponding months of successive years. Even the Michigan Department of State 82 Police includes the following statement in the annual state- wide uniform crime report: As is well known to all law enforcement agencies, most crimes follow distinct time patterns, rising and falling in level throughout the day, week, month and year. While the Michigan Uniform Crime Report does not collect data on the variations in Crime during the day, week or month, it does pro- vide monthly crime totals which can be used to show the variation in crime on a monthly basis, throughout the year.9 The general time series model is based on a process which statisticians call multiple regression. It is rarely, if ever, the case that a series of points on a graph which represents measured observations will fall on a perfectly straight line. The process used is a mathematical determi- nation of that line for which the summed error (or distance from the line) of the collection of points is at a minimum. This is referred to as minimum error variance. The actual process uses the square of the distances from the line to eliminate negative numbers. In multiple regression, the equation itself has five types of elements. The simplest equation is: y = ax + b CK) and (y) are measured variables. What is attempted is to luie (x) to predict (y) or as in this evaluation, to establish ‘Ule relationship between time (x) and crime (y). Thus, it g hiichigan Uniform Crime Rgport. (East Lansing, Michigan: [Department of State Police, 1973), p. 17. 83 may be said that (x) is the independent variable and (y) is the dependent variable or the effect. As indicated earlier, the monthly time-series data for the broader evaluation study was obtained from the Michigan Department of State Police UCR computer tapes. However, for this study the data were obtained directly from the research jurisdictions. For Site A, forty-eight months of data - January 1972 through December 1975 were collected, and for Site B, seventy-two months of data were obtained - January 1971 through December 1976. Tables 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 present the results of the time-series analysis using the ARIMA (0, 1, 1) statistical model, with the monthly crime statistics for Hypothesis 1: there will be significant differences in Offense-Clearance Rates, for the crimes of robbery, burglary and larceny in the research jurisdictions between the pre/post intervention periods. However, the statistical time-series analysis is based on the number of offenses cleared rather than clearance rates. This was done because of computer programming problems associated with calculating clearance rates from the raw data. The use of absolute numbers rather than rates has increased the potential for finding post-intervention increases in clearances, because they would not have been adjusted for mere increases in the occurrence or reporting of target crimes. As a result, positive results - increases in clearances - must be more carefully examined than would be necessary if one were using rates. 84 Hm. I we. I 5?. mo. om. av. No.v o.m mm mm om m ouflm Ho.H- HH. - me. mo. ma. - RH. - mm.~ n.~ we ma om < ouflm ooam>Ib macaw 03Hm>-9 omofim o:~m>-e Ho>mq oSHm>IH mopon oeauv mm umom Ohm :H omcwgu CH omcwnu Ho>mq HmfipficH macaw mmflhom-osfle Ho>oq mofiuom-osfle maofium>pomno mama mo Honssz Hmmmm< wm mmmmmmmom mom mHADmmm mmHmmmImzHH qm>mq %AIHZOE .NH.v mqmoH mo. may .Eopoohm zoaon #0 pm ucmofimficwwm mo.H u H « oo.HI mH.mI mm. mm. mm.NI mv.HI oo.HI No. I mm mm om we ma om m Ouflm < Opfim «o:~m>-b Ho>oq :H omcmno «ozfim>IH Ho>og cw omcmgu we pmoa pea kaoOqu xpmfiwpsm mcowum>uomno mums mo poneoz qm>mg zH mozzmummmq >AIHZOZ .mH.v mamOH mo. ecu .Eovoohw onon go um ucmufimficwflm wc.H u H * mm. we. mm. I me. I om. mm. me. me. mm mm om we ma om m euam < ouwm gonam>Ib Ho>oq cw omcmnu «oSHm>IH Ho>og cw owcmnu on Head eye xcoopmq zpmfimpsm maofipm>uomno moan mo honeoz .mmuzmmg >AEHZOZ .¢H.v mqmH®HCH fl av mm N N NN NN NN NH HN H H H e HeNeNeem NN N NN NH NH N AN NH N N e N eeNEN>ez Ne NN Ne NN NN NH N NN H H N N HeNepuo NN NN NN NN N N NH NH N N N a HNNENHHNN NN NN NN NN N HN NH NN N N N N BN2N3< NH HN NN NN NH NH HN NN N e N N Hst NN NNIIIINN NN N NN NH NH N N N N eesN Ne HN NN N N NH NN HN N e N N am: AN NN NN NN N NN NH HH N N H N HHNH< 44 N NN AN N NH HH NN N N N H .Nupez NN NN HN NH NH HN N NH H N N N Npeszem me He NH N NN HH NH N N N H H apeseem NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NaoOHmH HHNHMHsm Humanom NNNH-NNNH - HouaH n ONH OHH wwH HwH co me wO wOH OO mm OOH ww mm nw BOH owH mo wHH mmH Nu mOH ON HOH HOH mm us me mOH Om Hm On an Nw NO mo mm mm OO OHH OOH OHH OHH mOH ONH me ONH Hm OO Om OO Ow owm mmm mmm mmm wwm OOH OON mmH NO on wO HO mu Hm Nw mm ON ON OH mm wm NN wn NO OO O me ww mm On mm ow mm Om mm NO Nw ow ow mm mm mm Hw ON ow nw mm Hm mm wHH .OO mw mm wm mw NN mm mm mm mm OmH om OO Ho Nw HO Om wn wHH mm ow ON NO 5w mm m HH O OH mH OH mH wm mH mN mH O OH ON w mH n O O O O OH mH HH 5 HH m 5 NH OH O HH 5 wH w m mm 5 NH mH HH wH NH OH O HH w mH 5 HH O OH O HonEoOOO Honao>oz Honouoo HonEOuaom pmzms< Hsz mash we: HHHaw coax: thspnom xhwzcmh ONOH mmOH wNOH muOH NNOH HNOH ONOH mNOH wan mmOH NNOH HNOH ONOH mNOH wnOH mmOH NNOH HNOH xcoopmq HHNHMHom Nponnom ONOHIHNOH I m QmmHIHZOZ I m mHHm B IBLIOGRAPHY 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Scarvia B.; Ball, Samuel; Murphy, Richard T.; and Associates. EncyclOpedia of Educational Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publighers, I975. Bates, Sanford. "Criminal Records and Statistics," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science. Vol. 19 (1928), p. 8. Bellman, Arthur. "A Police Service Rating Scale," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXVI (May-June, 1935), p. 74-114. Biderman, Albert D., and Reiss, Albert J. "On Exploring the 'Dark Figure' of Crime," The Annals. Vol. 374 (1967), p. 1. Borg, Walter R.,and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. Box, George E. D., and Tiao, George C. "A Change in the Level of Non-Stationary Time-Series," Biometrics. Vol. 52, 1965. Campbell, Donald T. "Reforms as Experiments," Evaluatipg Action Programs. Edited by Carol H. Weiss. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963. Center, Lawrence J., and Smith, Thomas M. "Crime Statistics - Can They be Trusted?" American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 11, No. 4 (1973). Critchly, T. A. A History of Police in England and Wales. Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson SmifE, 1972. Fuld, Leonard F. Police Administration. New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1909. Fosdick, Raymond B. American Police Systems. New York: The Century Publishing Company, 1920. Glass, Gene V.; Wilson, Victor L.; and Gottman, John. Design and Analysis of Time-Series Experiments. Boulder, Colorado: Associated University Press, 1975. Greenwood, Peter W. The Criminal Investigative Process. Volume II: Observations and Analysis. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1975. 119 Hill, Joseph A. "Cooperation Between State and Municipal Bureaus and the Federal Census Bureau in the Compilation of Criminal Statistics,” Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science. Vol. 12 (1922), p. 529. Kelling, George L.; Pate, T; Dickman, D; and Brown, C.E. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summapy Report. waShington: Police Foundation, 1974. Knoles, Fred A. "The Statistical Bureau - A Police Necessity," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science. Vol. 19 (1928), p. 383. Koren, John. "Report of Committee on Statistics of Crime," Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science. Vol. 1 (1910), p. 417. Lee, Melville. A History of Police in England. Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1971. Michigan Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. East Lansing, Michigan: Department ofCState Police, 1974. Morrissey, William R. "Nixon Anti-Crime Plan Undermines Crime Stats," Justice. Vol. 1 (June-July, 1972), p. 10. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Crimes of Violence. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, December, 1969. National Commission on Productvity. Report of the National Advisorinroup on Productivipy in Law EnfOrcement: Opportunities for Improving Productivity in Police Service. Washington: U. S. Government Printing OffiEe, 1973. National Institute of Mental Health. Criminal Statistics. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1973. Paratt, Spencer D. "A Critique of the Bellman Police Service Rating Scale," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXXVII (March-April, 1937), p. 895-905. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact,- An Assessment. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 120 Robinson, Louis N. "History of Criminal Statistics," Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 24 (May-June, 1933] and March-April 1934), Northwestern University. Sellin, Thorsten. "The Basis of a Crime Index," Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Cfimifiology. Vol. 22 (May 1931, March 1932), NorthWestern University. Sigi, Louis,and Wellford, Charles F. "Age Composition and Patterns of Change in Criminal Statistics," Journal of Criminal Law Criminologyyand Police Science. Vol. 59 (1968). Skogan, Wesley G. "Efficiency and Effectiveness in Big-City Police Departments," Public Administration Review. May-June, 1976. Smith, Bruce. "Crime Reporting as a Police Management Tool," The Annals of the American Academy. Vol. 291 (January, 1954), p. 127. Time, June 30, 1975, Vol. 105, No. 27. U. S. Department of Justice. Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report - 1958, SpecialiIssue. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1958. . Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1968. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968. . Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report 1971. Washington: U. 8. Government Printing Office, . Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report 1975. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Wilson, Orlando W. Police Administration. (second edition) New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963. GENERAL REFERENCES 121 GENERAL REFERENCES. Administrative Behavior and Police Organization. Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Co., 1974. Advisory Group on Productivity in Law Enforcement. Opportu- nities for Improving Productivity in Police Services. Washington: National Commission on Productivity, 1973. American Bar Association. American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to the UiBan Police Function (Approved Draft). Washing- ton: American Bar Association, 1973. American Justice Institute. "Criminal Justice Roles, Tasks, and Performance Objectives,” Project Star. Marina del Rey, California: American Justice Institute, 1973. Angell, John E. Police Consolidation Project: Staff Report. Portland: Police Consolidation Project, 1974. Balk, Walter L. "Why Don't Public Administrators Take Pro- ductivity More Seriously?" Public Personnel Management. 111 (July-August 1974), p. 318-324. Barbour, George P. ”The Challenge of Productivity Diversity," Improving Productivity Measurements and Evaluation in Local Government. Innovation, Six Cases. Part IV. Washington: The Urban Institute, 1972, p. 141. . "Measuring Local Governmental Productivity," Muni- cipal Yearbook 1973. Washington: International City Management Association, 1973. Barbour, George P. and Everett, Ed. Service Management System Handbook. Palo Alto, California: City of Palo Alto, 1974. Barbour, George P. and Wolfson, Stanley M. "Productivity Measurement in Police Crime Control," Public Management. LV (April 1974), p. 16-19. Beattie, Ronald H. "Problems of Criminafi Statistics in the United States," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. Vol. 46 (I955-1956), p. 178. 122 Bellman, Arthur. "A Police Service Rating Scale,” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Crimino- logy. XXVI (May-June 1935), p. 74-114. Berk, Richard A. "Performance Measures: Half Full or Half Empty?" Social Science Quarterly. 54 (March 1974), p. 762-764. - Block, Peter B. Equality of Distribution of Police Services - A Case Study of Washington, D.C. Washington: The Urban Institute, 1974. Block, Peter B. and Ulberg, Cyrus. Auditing Clearance Rates. Washington: Police Foundation, 1974. Blumstein, Alfred. "Systems Analysis and the Criminal Jus- tice System," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. CCCLXXIV (November 1967), p. 92-100. Blumstein, Alfred and Larson, Richard. "Models for a Total Criminal Justice System," _perations Research. XVII (March-April 1959), p. 199-233. Bottoms, Albert M. Allocation of Resources in the Chicago Police Department. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. "Boosting Urban Efficiency," Business Week. January 5, 1975, p. 37-39. Carfield, Roger B. "Citizen Satisfaction and Police Effective- ness: Perspectives Beyond Productivity and Social Equity." Paper prepared for presentation at the 1974 National Conference on Public Administration, American Society for Public Administration, Syracuse, New York, May 5-8, p. 54. Carte, Gene E. "Changes in Public Attitudes Toward the Police: A Comparison of 1938 and 1971 Surveys," Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. I (1973), p. 182-200. Carter, Steve. "Trends in Local Government Productivity," Municipal Yearbook 1975. International City Management Association. Vol. 42 (1975), Washington, D.C. Carter, Robert M. "The Evaluation of Police Programs," The Police Chieffl Vol. 38, NO. II (November, 1971). Cassell, Frank H. "Productivity in Government: The Human Factor," Good Government. Spring 1974, p. 1-5. Center, Lawrence J. and Smith, Thomas M. "Crime Statistics - Can They be Trusted?" American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 11, No. 4 (1973), pp. 1045-1086. 123 Child, J. "What Determines Organizational Performance- Universal vs. It All Depends," Organizational Dynamics. 3 (1974), p. 2. Chilton, Roland J. and Spielberger, Adele. "Increases in Crime: The Utility of Alternative Measures," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology! and Police Science. LXIII (March 1972), p. 68-74. Cogan, Eugene A. and Lyons, Daniel J. Frameworks for Measure- ment and Quality Control. Alexandria, Virginia, Human Resources Research Organization, 1972, Presentations at New York University, First Annual Training in Business and Industry Conference, New York, 1972, p. 16-72. Council on Municipal Performance. "City Crime," Municipal Performance Reports. May-June 1973. Dart, Richard;Lubans, Val; and Showalter, Ralph. A Plan to Increase Police Productivipy: A Report on the Reorgani- zation of the East Hartfo d (Connecticut) Police Depart- ment. Bethesda, Maryland: Social Deve10pment Corpora- tion, 1974. Davis, Audrey M. "Criminal Statistics and the National Com- mission's Report," Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 22 (May 1931-March I932), Northwestern University, p. 357. Davis, Robert H. "Measuring Effectiveness on Municipal Ser- vices," Management Information Service Reports, 11 (1970). Drake, William R. "Standard Setting: Clarification Needed," Criminal Justice Newsletter. VI (January 20, 1975), p. 1-2. Drake, William R. and Kelly, Thomas E. Jr. "Standards--What Do We Really Mean?" Criminal Justice Newsletter. VI (January 6, 1975), p. 4-6. Eastman, George D. (ed.). Municipal Police Administration, 6th Edition. Washington: InternatiOnal City Management AEsociation, 1969, p. 71-157. "Economic Analysis of the Deterrent Effect of Law Enforcement on Criminal Activity," Journal of Criminal Law, Crimino- logy, and Police Science. LXIII, No. 3 (September 1972), p. 330-342. Eisinstein, James and Jacob, Herbert. "Measuring Performance and Outputs of Urban Criminal Courts," Social Science Quarterly. 54 (March 1974), p. 713-723. 124 Fairley, W. and Liechenstein, M. Improving Public Safety in Urban Apartment Dwellings. New York: Rand Institute, 1971. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reperts-1972. Washington: U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1973. Finz, Samuel A. "Productivity Analysis:' Its Use in a Local Government,” Governmental Finances. II (November 1973), p. 29-33. Fisk, Donald M. "Issue in Local Government Productivity Measurement," Public Management. LVI (June 1974), p. 6-8. Fisk, Donald M. and Winnie, Richard E. "Output Measurement in Urban Government: Current Status and Likely Projects," Social Science Quarterly. 54 (March 1974), p. 725-740. Friedman, Burton D. The Quest for Accountability. Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1973. Furstenburg, F. and Wellford, C. "Calling the Police: The Evaluation of Police Service," Law and Society Review. (Spring, 1973), pp. 393-406. Gass, Saul I. and Dawson, John M. An Evaluation of Policy Related Research: Reviews and Critical Discussions of Police Related Research in the Field of Police Protec- fion. Bethesda: Mathamatica, Inc., 1974. Gastil, R. "Social Indicators and Quality of Life," Public Administration Review. Vol. 30 (1970), p. 596-601. Glaser, Daniel. "National Goals and Indicators for the Reduc- tion of Crime and Delinquency," The Annals of the Ameri- can Academy of Political Science and Social Science. CCCLXXI (May 1967), p. 104-126. Routinizing Evaluation: Getting Feedback on Effec- tiveness of Crime and Delinquency Programs. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Goldstein, H. "Police Response to Urban Crisis," Public Administration Review. Vol. 28 (1968), p. 417-423. Greenwood, Peter W. An Analysis of the Apprehension Activi- ties Of the New York City Police Department. New York: The New York City Rand Institute, 1970. Greytak, David; Phares, Donald; and Morley, Elaine. Municipal Output and Performance in New York City. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1976. 125 Grimes, John. "The Police, the Union and the Productivity Imperative," Nation's Cities. 13 (March 1975), p. 24-25. Guide to Performance Evaluation. Gaithersburg, MD Interna- tional Associatidn of Chiefs of Police, 1972, p. 24. Halpern, Stephen C. "Police Employee Organizations and Accountability Procedures in Three Cities: Some Reflec- tions on Police Policy," Law and Society Review. Summer 1974. Hamilton, Edward K. "Productivity Bargaining and the Police," Guidelines and Papers from the National Symposium on Labor Relations, June 9-12, Washington: The Police Foun- dation, 1974, p. 51-59. .________. "Police Productivity: The View from City Hall," Nation's Cities. 13 (March l975),p. 21-22, Hatry, Harry P. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Non-Defense Public Programs," Operations Research. XVII (September- October 1970). ”On Measuring Local Government Efficiency (A Pre- l1minary Examination): Draft," Report prepared under grant no. GI—37l80 of the Research Applied to National Needs Program of the National Science Foundation, August 8, 1974. ________ "Wrestling with Police Crime Control Productivity Measurement," Nation's Cities. 13 (March 1975), p. 27-29. Hatry, Harry P. and Fisk, Donald M. Improving Productivity and ProductivityManagement in Local Governments. Wash- ington: The Urban Institute, 1971. Heller, Nelson B. and McEwen, Thomas J. "Applications of Crime Seriousness Information in Police Departments," Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 1 (1973), p. 241-253. Hill, Norris. "A Method for the Evaluation of Transportation Plans," Highway Research Record. No. 180-1967, p. 21-34. Hirsch, Gary B. and Riccio, Lucius J. "Measuring and Improving the Productivity of Police Patrol," Journal of Police Science and Administration. 11 (June 1974), p. 169-184. Hirsch, Werner. "EXpenditure Implications of MetrOpolitan Growth and Consolidation," Review of Economics and Sta— tistics. 1959, p. 232. 126 Hoffman, Fred S. "Program Execution and Performance Evalu- ation," Improving Federal Program Performance: A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee for Economic Deve10pment. New York: Commit- tee fOr Economic Development, September 1971, p. 50-61. Hoffman, Robert. "Performance Measurement in Crime Control," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 8, No. 2 (1971), p. 165-174. Holzer, Marc. "Police Productivity: A Conceptual Framework for Measurement and Improvement,” Journal of Police Science and Administration. 1, No. 4 (1973), p. 459-467. . "Productivity Management: A Multi-Faceted Learning Package," Public Administration Review. XXXV (March- April 1974), p. 765-770. , ed. Productivity in Public Organizations. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat, I976. Hoover, Larry T. "Planning - Programming - Budgeting Systems: Problems of Implementation of Police Management,” Journal of Police Science and Administration. II (March 1974), p. 82-93. Institute of Municipal Treasures and Accountants. "Police and Protection," Output Measurement Decision Papers. Vol. 3, London, December 1972. International Association of Chiefs of Police. ”Behavioral Science Application to Police Management," Police Chief. Vol. 37, No. 5 (May 1970), p. 46-50. "Part III: Productivity in Law Enforcement," Guidelines and Papers from the National Symposium on Police Labor Relations, June 9-12, 1974, Washington: The Police Foundation, 1974, p. 7-9. "National Symposium on Police Labor Relations - Guidelines and Papers," Washington: International Association of Chiefs of Police, June 9-12, 1974. . "Police Productivity”, Police Chief, Vol. IV, No. VII (July 1974), p. 28-30. International City Management Association and the Urban Insti- tute, "PrOposed Public Safety Effectiveness and Produc- tivity Measurements for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida: Discussion Draft," Washington: The Urban Institute, 1973. 127 Jones, Terrence E. "Evaluating Everyday Policies: Police Activity and Crime Incidence," Urban Affairs Quarterly. Vol. 8, No. 1 (March, 1973). Kakalik, James S. and Wildhorn, Sorrel. Criteria for Evalu- ating Police Patrol Services and PoliEies. Rand Corpo- ration Report D-2033l-HUD, SantaiMonica, California, June 1970. Kakalik, James S. and Wildhorn, Sorrel. Aids to Decision Making in Police Patrol. Santa Monica: Rand Corpora- tion, February 1971, (R-593). Kelley, Clarence M. "A View of Police Productivity," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. June 1975, p. 7-9, 18. Kelling, George L.; Pate, T; Dickman, D.; and Brown, C.E. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington: Police Foundation, 1974. Kiernnan, Edward J. "Productivity: The UniOn Viewpoint," Nation's Cities. 13 (March 1975), p. 26. Kirchoff, Bruce A. "Using Objectives: The Critical Variable in Effective MBO," Michigan Business Review. XXVIII (January 1974), p. 17-21. Landy, Frank J. Police Performance Appraisal. Pennsylvania State Univeraity, University Park,’Pennsylvania. Landy, Frank J. and Goodin, Carl V. "Chapter IX. Perfor- mance Appraisal," p. 165-184, from 0. Glenn Stahl and Richard A. Staufenberger (eds.), Police Personnel Admi- nistration. Washington: Police Foundation, 1974. Leonard, A. E. "Crime Reporting as a Police Management Tool," The Annals of the American Academy. Vol. 291 (January, 1954), p. 127. Lewis, Joseph. Evaluation of Experiments in Policing: How Do You Begin? (Four Cases). WaShington: Police Foun- dation, December 1972. Lind, Robert C. and Lipsky, John P. "The Measurement of Police Output: Conceptual Issues and Alternative Approaches,” Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 26 (1971). LMRS Special Report. "Tying City Pay to Police Performance: Early Reports on Orange, California and Flint, Michigan," The City of Orange, California's Performance Incentive Plan for Police. December, 1974. Maiben, Dean. "Barrington, Measures Productivity," Police Management. LVI (June, 1974), p. 17-19. 128 Maiben, Dean H. and Schwabe, Charles J. "Government by Ob- jectives: A Management System (for small cities)," Governmental Finance. 111 (February 1974), p. 2-5. "Managing Law Enforcement," a collection of articles com- prising an issue in Public Management. Vol. 55, No. 4 (April 1973). Mark, Jerome A. "Concepts and Measurements of Productivity,” The Meaning and Measurement of Productivity. bulletin 714, preparedfor the National CommissiOn on Productivity by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, September, 1971. . "Meanings and Measures of Productivity,” Public Administration Review. XXXII (November-December 1972), p. 747-753. . "Progress in Measuring Productivity in Government," Monthly Labor Review. XCV (December, 1972), p. 3-6. Marx, Gary T. "Alternative Measures of Police Performance," papers delivered at the meeting of the American Sociolo- gical Association, 1973. (mimeographed) Mehay, S. "Police and Productivity," Business Review. May, 1973, p. 3-12. Meyer, John C. Jr. "Police Attitudes and Performance Apprai- sal: The Forest and Some Trees,“ Journal Of Police Science and Administration. I (1973), p. 201-208. Morehouse, Thomas A. "Program Evaluation: Social Research Versus Public Policy,” Public Administration Review. XXXII (November-December 1972), p. 868-874. Morgan, James M. Jr. and Fosler, E. Scott. "Police Producti- vity," Police Chief. Vol. XLI, No. 7 (July 1974). Morgan, James P. "Planning and Implementing a Productivity Program," Nation's Cities. 13 (March, 1975), p. 29-31. Morris, Norval and Hawkins, Gordon. The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, I969. Murphy, Patrick V. Accountability and Productivity Progress Toward a Professional Police Service. New York: Police Department, City of New York, Public Information Divi- sion, 1972, p. 9. 129 "Lehigh University Speech," speech given to the Criminal Justice Symposium on Police Productivity at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, July, 1974. . "Police Accountability," Nation's Cities. 13 March,1975), p. 22-23. Nash, Christopher; Pearch, David; and Stanley, John. "Cri- teria for Evaluating Project Evaluation Techniques," American Institute of Planners Journal, 41 (March, 1975), p. 83-89. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. A National Strategy to Reduce Crime. Wash- ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Community Crime Prevention. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. . Police. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. "Program Measurement and Evaluation," Appendix C, Criminal Justice System. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. National Commission on Productivity. Opportunities for Improving Productivity in Police Services. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Report of the Advisory Group on Productivity in Law Enforcement on Opportunities fOr Improving Produc- tivigy in Police Service. Washington: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1973. New York City Police Department. "Police Productivity," Overview. Vol. I, NO. 1 (April, 1973), p. 18-20. New York City-Rand Institute. Analysis of the Apprehension Activities of the New York City Police Department. New York: Rand Institute, 1970. Olson, Bruce T. "Designing a Police Performance Evaluation Form," Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Deve- 10pment, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University Technical Bulletin, B-59, 1969, p. 333. Ostrom, Elinor. "Institutional Arrangements and Policy Con- sequences in Urban Areas." Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, Department of Political Science, Report R 71-2, 1971, p. 40. 130 "On the Meaning and Measurement of Output and Efficiency in the Provision of Urban Police Services," Journal of Criminal Justice. 1 (1973), p. 93-112. . "The Design of Institutional Arrangements and the Responsiveness of the Police." February 15, 1973. "Community, Police Services, and Responsiveness: On the Design of Institutional Arrangement for the Pro- vision of Police Services,” Prepared for the 1974 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Associ- ation. Ostrom, Elinor and Parks, Roger B. "Suburban Police Depart- ments: Too Many and Too Small?" The Urbanization of the Suburbs, Urban Affairs Annual Review. 7: 637-405, 1973. Ostrom, Elinor; Parks, Roger B.; and Whitaker, Gordon P. "Do We Really Want to Consolidate Urban Police Forces?" Public Administration Review, 33, NO. S (1973), p. 423- 433. Ostrom, Elinor; Parks, Roger B.; and Whitaker, Gordon P. "Defining and Measuring Structural Variations in Inter- organizational Arrangements." Parks, Roger B. "Measurement of Performance in the Public Sector: A Case Study of the Indianapolis Police Depart- ment," Masters Thesis, Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, June, 1971. Paratt, Spencer D. ”A Critique of the Bellman Police Service Rating Scale," The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimino- logy. XXXVII (March-April,1937), p. 895-905. "A Scale to Measure the Effectiveness of Police Functioning," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXXVIII (1938), p. 739-756. Peart, Leo E. ”A Management by Objective Plan for a Municipal Police Department," The Police Chief. XXXVII (June, 1971), p. 34-40. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and CO. Performance Auditing Project: Public Safety Function. Sunnyvale, California: City of Sunnyvale, 1974. "Performance Auditing and Local Government," Public Management. LVI (February, 1974). Phillips, Llad and Votey, Harold. "An Economic Analysis of the Deterrant Effect of Law Enforcement of Criminal Activity," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. LXII (1972), p. 330. 131 Plan to Increase Police Productivity-A Report on the Reorga- nization offthe East Harthrd Police Department. Hart- fOrd: ConnectiCut Governor's Planning Committee on Crime Administration, 1974. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Science and Technology. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. "Productivity Measurement in Police Crime Control,” Public Management. Vol. LV, No. IV (April, 1973), p. 16-19. "Productivity Management,” Public Management. LVI (June, 1974). Reppetto, Thomas A. "The Influence of Police Organization Style on Crime Control Effectiveness," Journal of Police Science and Administration. Vol. 3, No. 3 (1975), p. 274-279. Riccio, Lucius. "Proceeding of the Criminal Justice Sympo- sium Focusing on Police Productivity," Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, July 19, 1974. Ridley, Clarence E. and Simon, Herbert A. Measuring Munici- pal Activities. Chicago: International City Management Association, 1968. Ridley, Clarence E. and Simon, Herbert A. "Measuring Police Activities,” Public Management. Vol. 19, No. 5 (May, 1937). Robinson, David D. "Predicting Police Effectiveness from Self Reports of Relative Time Spent in Task Performance." Columbus: Ohio State University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1969, p. 70. Robinson, Louis N. "History of Criminal Statistics," Journal Of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 24 (May-June, 1933 and March-April 1934), North- western University, p. 125-139. Rosenblum, R. "Real Productivity Crisis is in Government," Harvard Business Review. Spring, 1973, p. 156-168. Ross, John P. and Burkhead, Jess. Productivity in the Local Government-Sector. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (P.C. Health and Co.), 1974. Rossi, Peter H. and Williams, Walter. Evaluating Social Pro- grams: Theory, Practice and Politics. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. 132 Russell, Willy. ”Criminal Ecology: The Effect of Changes in the Crime Rate on the Performance on the Police Detecting Crime Discussed in Ecological Terms," Police Research Bulletin. No. 3 (July, 1967), p. 11-16. Rutledge, William P. "Progress Report of the Committee on Uniform Crime Records," Journal of the American Insti- tute of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 19 (May, 1928-Fehruary, 1929i] Northwestern University, p. 378- 382. Schaenman, Phillip S. "Measuring Police Effectiveness in Crime Control," Draft final report to National Science. Foundation, The Urban Institute, Washington, August 8, 1974. The Challenge of Productivity Diversity: Im- provingProductivity Measurements and Evaluation in Local Governments. Part III: Measuring Police Crime Control. Washington: The Urban Institute, 1972, p. 162. Schick, Allen. ”From Analysis to Evaluation," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. CCCXCIV (1971), p. 57-71. "The Road to PPB: The Stages of Reform," Public Administration Review. XXVIII (December, 1966), p. 224. Sellin, Thorsten. "The Basis of a Crime Index," Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 22 (May, 193l-March, 1932), Northwestern University. Sellin, Thorsten and Wolfgang, Marvin E. The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Shoup, Donald C. and Mehay, Stephen L. Program Budgeting for Urban Police Service, with Special Reference to Los Angeles. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Shulman, Harry M. "The Measurement of Crime in the United States," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. Vol. 57, No. 4 (1966), Northwestern University, p. 483. Skogan, Wesley G. "The Validity of Official Crime Statistics: An Empirical Investigation," Social Science QuarterIy. 55 (June, 1974), p. 25-38. "Measurement Problems in Official and Survey Crime Rates," Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 3 (1975), p. 17-32. 133 "Efficiency and Effectiveness in Big-City Police Departments,” Public Administration Review. May-June, 1976, p. 278-286. Starr, Martin K. "Productivity is the USA's Problem," California Management Review. XVI (Winter, 1973), p. 6. Stone, D. C. "Can Police Effectiveness be Measured?" Public Management. Summer, 1930, p. 465-471. Suchman, Edward A. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Swan, L. Alex. "The Politics of Identification: A Perspec- tive of Police Accountability," Crime and Delinquency. XX (April, 1974), p. 119-128. "Symposium on Productivity in Government." Public Adminis- tration Review. XXXII (November-December, 1972). Terris, Bruce J. "The Role of Police,” The Annals of Political and Social Science. CCCLXXIV (November, 1967), p. 58-69. Tittle, Charles R. and Rowe, Alan R. ”Certainty of Arrest and Crime Rates: A Further Test of the Deterrence Hypo- thesis," Social Forces. 52 (June, 1974), p. 455-462. Tosi, Henry; Rizzo, John R.; and Carrol, Stephen J. "Setting Goals in Management by Objectives,” California Manage- ment Review. XII (1970). Thurow, L. "Equity vs. Efficiency in Law Enforcement," Public Policy. 18, No. 4 (1970), p. 451-462. The Urban Institute. "Part III: Measuring Police Crime Con- trol Productivity," The Challenge of Productivity Diver- sity: Improving Local Government Prodhctivity Measure- ment and Evaluation. Washington: The National Commis- sion on Productivity, 1972. The Challenge of Productivity Diversity: Improving Local Government PrOductivity Measurement and Evaiuation, Part III: Measuring Police - Crime Control Productivity. Washington, 1972, p. 160. Challenge of Productivity Diversity - Improving Local Government ProductivityMEasurement and’Evaluation, Part III: Measuring Appendices. washington: 1972, p. 72. Managing Human Resources in Local Government - A Survey of Employee Incentives. Washington: Ufhan Insti- tute, 1973. 134 Urban Institute and International City Management Association, Project Team. ”Measuring the Effectiveness of Basic Municipal Services," Initial Report, Washington: Inter- national City Management Association, February, 1971. U. S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Operations Research Task Force. Allocations of Resources in the Chicago Police Depart- ment. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 206. Votey, Harold and Phillips, Llad. Economic Crimes, Genera- tion, Deterrence and Control. NILECJ Report "LEAA-Nl- 69-041, December 31, 1969. Votey,Harold and Phillips. Llad. "Police Effectiveness and the Production Function for Law Enforcement," Journal of Legal Studies. I (1972). Webster, J. A. "Police Task and Time Study," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Service. VOI. 61, No. 1 (March, 1960). Wellford, Charles F. ”Crime and the Police: A Multi-Variate Analysis," Criminology. XII (August, 1974), p. 195-213. Wheeler, Stanton. "Criminal Statistics: A Reformulation of the Problem," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Services. Vol. 58, No. 3 (1967), p. 317. Wilson, James Q. Varieties of Police Behavior: The Manage- ment of Law and Order in Eight Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wolfe, Joan L. and Heaphy, John. Readings on Productivity in Policing. Washington: Police Foundation, 1975, p. 149. Zacker, Joseph and Bard, Morton. "Effects of Conflict Manage- ment Training on Police Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology. 58 (1973), p. 202-208. Zagoria, S. ”Productivity Bargaining (Governmental Employees),” Public Management. LV (July, 1973), p. 14-16. HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES llll llll llllllllI III III! 9 312 3105906469