#4c Crime Trends - Police StaffingJANESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
September 30, 2010
TO: Eric Levitt, City Manager
FROM: David Moore, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Crime Trends – Police Staffing
This memorandum identifies Janesville’s crime index (Part I Crimes) and a comparison
with its peer cities for the past ten years, 2000 through 2009. Staffing information is for
the years 2001 to 2010.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Janesville has been above the peer cities’ average in Part I crimes per 1,000
●
population for the past ten (10) years.
Total Part I crime index in Janesville decreased from 2,985 in 2008 to 2,407 index
●
crimes in 2009 representing a 19% decrease.
Arrests for Part I crimes decreased 7.4% from last year.
●
Police officer activity decreased 9.2% from last year.
●
In 2010, the Janesville Police Department was authorized 104 sworn officer
●
positions, which provides a ratio of 1.64 officers per 1,000 population. The peer
city ratio average is 1.78 police officers per 1,000 population.
Police sworn staffing has fluctuated between 106 and 103 positions from 2001
●
through 2010, a period of ten years.
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 2
INDEX CRIME
The crime index is the total of all Part I crimes which are known or reported to the police
and is commonly referred to as the “crime rate”. The eight (8) Part I crimes are; murder,
forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and
arson. Attempts to commit these crimes are also counted.
NON-INDEX CRIME
There are a very large number of crimes, called Part II, which are not included in a
community’s crime rate. In this category are forgery, fraud, embezzlement, non-
aggravated assaults, stolen property offenses, weapons offenses, drug violations,
vandalism, sex offenses other than rape, and gambling, to name several. The non-
inclusion of these type crimes results in a failure to provide a total picture of “crime” in a
community.
UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING
Crimes are counted through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR
Program was developed in 1930 so that city, county and state law enforcement
agencies would be able to provide the FBI with standard crime statistics. UCR crime
statistics are used in many ways. Law enforcement agencies use the statistics in
operation, management and administration. A community’s crime index, or “crime rate”,
is based upon the total number of Part I crimes and the community’s population.
The UCR Program classifies offenses using specific definitions so as to eliminate
differences among various states’ definitions of crimes. The UCR system collects data
in summary form showing one count for each offense reported. No indication as to the
range of seriousness for each offense was made. One offense is counted for each
victim in crimes against persons, and one offense is counted for each distinct operation
in crimes against property.
If multiple types of offenses are committed during the same crime, only the most serious
offense is reported through UCR using the Hierarchy Rule. Arson is an exception and is
always counted as an offense with the remainder of offenses following the Hierarchy
Rule. The Hierarchy Rule only applies to crime reporting and does not affect the
number of charges the defendant may be prosecuted for.
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 3
PEER CITY COMPARISONS
Janesville’s peer city group includes; Appleton, Beloit, Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, Green
Bay, Kenosha, LaCrosse, Manitowoc, Oshkosh, Racine, Sheboygan, Waukesha and
Wausau.
It is difficult to compare one city’s crime index with another’s and draw any conclusions.
Not all cities may investigate or handle incidents the same. Table #1 compares
Janesville’s crime index with the average crime index of the peer city group.
INDEX CRIMES PER 1,000 POPULATION
PEER CITY COMPARISON
Peer City of Relation to Actual
Average Janesville Average Position
2000 37.87 53.58 +41.4% 1
2001 37.13 53.22 +43.3% 1
2002 40.29 57.82 +43.5% 3
2003 37.94 55.98 +47.6% 2
2004 37.37 47.53 +27.2% 3
2005 36.47 50.70 +39.0% 3
2006 39.19 49.90 +27.3% 3
2007 37.47 46.21 +23.3% 4
2008 36.91 47.75 +29.4% 3
2009 33.44 38.50 +15.12% 5
Table #1
Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Population
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
JanesvillePeer City Average
Chart for Table #1
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 4
JANESVILLE PART I CRIMES AND ARRESTS
The following tables show Part I crimes by type of crime and then by crime index for the
City of Janesville.
JANESVILLE PART I CRIMES
FORCIBLE AGG. M.V. PERCENT
MURDER RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT BURGLARY THEFT THEFT ARSON TOTAL CHANGE
2000
0 19 29 117 425 2,487 108 19 3,204 -2.58
2001
1 17 20 104 503 2,441 110 23 3,219 +0.47
2002
1 15 52 79 497 2,714 141 15 3,514 +9.16
2003
0 20 38 90 566 2,583 102 22 3,421 -2.65
2004
1 25 31 67 498 2,176 103 13 2,914 -14.82
2005
0 34 64 72 515 2,319 136 10 3,150 +8.10
2006
0 43 42 49 555 2,315 104 13 3,121 -0.90
2007
0 25 55 78 431 2,217 83 9 2,898 -7.1
2008
1 23 53 95 507 2,215 74 17 2,985 +3.0
2009
1 18 40 94 332 1,839 74 9 2,407 -19%
Table #2
Janesville Part I Crimes
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
Chart for Table #2
JANESVILLE CRIME INDEX
(PART I CRIMES PER 1,000 POPULATION)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
PART I CRIMES 3,204 3,219 3,514 3,421 2,914 3,150 3,121 2,898 2,985 2,407
TOTAL PER 1,000 POP. 53.58 53.22 57.82 55.98 47.53 50.70 49.90 46.21 47.75 38.50
Table #3
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 5
ARRESTS
The following three (3) tables show Part I arrests, Part II arrests, and a table combining
Part I and Part II arrests. Each table includes adult arrests, juvenile arrests and the total
of both. The percentage change from the previous year is also included.
ARRESTS - PART I CRIMES
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
418443494571510480520538640659
ADULT
459526686553418379379320384289
JUVENILE
TOTAL8779691,1801,1249288598998581,024948
PERCENT CHANGE-10.3%10.5%21.8%-4.7%-17.4%-7.4%4.7%-4.6%19.3%-7.4%
Table #4
ARRESTS - PART II CRIMES
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
3,4053,9524,0654,8794,7754,5764,2544,6744,6914,022
ADULT
2,1122,1792,2612,2452,2092,2231,9771,8222,0121,648
JUVENILE
TOTAL5,5176,1316,3267,1246,9846,7996,2316,4966,7035,670
PERCENT CHANGE-8.5%11.1%3.2%12.6%-2.0%-2.6%-8.4%4.3%3.2%-15.4%
Table #5
ARRESTS - ALL CRIMES
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
3,8234,3954,5595,4505,2855,0564,7745,2125,3314,681
ADULT
2,5712,7052,9472,7982,6272,6022,3562,1422,3961,937
JUVENILE
TOTAL6,3947,1007,5068,2487,9127,6587,1307,3547,7276,618
PERCENT CHANGE-8.7%11.0%5.7%9.9%-4.1%-3.2%-6.9%3.1%5.1%-14.4%
Table #6
Janesville Arrests - All Crimes
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
Part I ArrestsPart II Arrests
Chart for Tables #4-6
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 6
CALLS FOR SERVICE
For many years, the police department relied upon an “incident report type” list as a
means of reporting calls for service. While descriptive of the types of incidents the
police handle, it was not inclusive of all police activities and it did not describe the calls
without an incident report.
On June 1, 2001 the countywide records management system began using a new
computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. This system allows all officer activity to be
tracked. The activity includes officers being dispatched to a call as well as self-initiated
calls such as a traffic stops and follow-ups.
Beginning in 2003, the department transitioned to the Police Activity Report to describe
calls for service.
CALLS FOR SERVICE
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
CALLS FOR SERVICE 39,397 40,210 38,813 40,335 41,979
PERCENT CHANGE +4.39 +2.06 -3.47 +3.92 +4.07
Table #7
POLICE ACTIVITY
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
POLICE ACTIVITY 65,460 68,061 67,392 68,290 65,233 68,383 69,470 63,077
PERCENT CHANGE +3.97 -.98 +1.33 -4.48 +4.83 +1.59 -9.20
Table #7A
Calls for Service and Police Activity
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009
Calls for Service (1999-2003)Police Activity (2002-2008)
Chart for Tables #7 & 7A
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 7
PATROL DUTY
Table #8 illustrates, by month, the average number of officers on patrol duty each day
for each shift, and includes a twelve-month average. Table #9 illustrates the history of
the twelve-month average of officers on patrol duty each day for each shift.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFICERS ON PATROL DUTY EACH DAY
BY MONTH AND SHIFT
1st Shift2nd Shift3rd Shift
September, 200910.210.98.7
October, 20099.810.28.5
November, 200910.39.48.3
December, 20099.09.28.0
January, 20109.310.27.9
February, 201010.310.48.1
March, 20109.911.19.1
April, 20109.511.29.9
May, 20109.49.49.1
June, 20109.810.39.1
July, 20109.810.18.2
August, 20109.410.08.5
12 Mo. Average9.710.28.6
Table #8
Monthly Average Patrol Officers on Duty
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulyAug
200920102010
1st Shift2nd Shift3rd Shift
Chart for Table #8
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 8
AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFICERS ON PATROL DUTY EACH DAY
TWELVE-MONTH PERIODS BY SHIFT
September – August 1st Shift 2nd Shift 3rd Shift
2000 - 2001 11.3 11.0 9.8
2001 - 2002 11.3 10.6 9.9
2002 - 2003 10.5 10.6 10.2
2003 - 2004 10.0 9.8 10.2
2004 - 2005 10.1 11.2 9.9
2005 - 2006 9.8 11.9 9.4
2006 - 2007 9.3 10.9 9.4
2007 - 2008 10.1 11.6 9.8
2008 - 2009 10.1 9.9 9.6
2009- 2010 9.7 10.2 8.6
Table #9
Annual Average Patrol Officers on Duty
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
00-0101-0202-0303-0404-0505-0606-0707-0808-0909-10
1st Shift2nd Shift3rd Shift
Chart for Table #9
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 9
AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
Table #10 shows, by position, all the authorized sworn positions in the police
department from 2001 through 2010. The table also shows the positions as budgeted
for 2011. Table #11 shows, by position, all the authorized non-sworn positions in the
police department from 2001 through 2010. The table also shows the positions as
budgeted for 2011. Table #12 shows the combined sworn and non-sworn authorized
positions.
SWORN POSITIONS
Budget
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Deputy Chief 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Inspector 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Captain 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Lieutenant 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sergeant 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 11 11 11
Patrol Officer 60 60 60 60 65 65 65 63 63 63 63 *
K-9 Officer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
Special Operations Unit 6 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drug Investigation Unit 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Street Crimes Unit 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Detective 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7
Police-School Liaison 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
School Resource Officer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Identification Officer 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Safety Officer 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neighborhood Officer 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Court Officer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Crime Prevention Officer 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SWORN 106 106 106 104 106 106 104 104 104 104 104
Table #10
* Two officer positions will remain vacant for 2011
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 10
NON-SWORN POSITIONS
Budget
2011
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Administrative Aide 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Records Supervisor 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Computer Operator 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Computer Aide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Records Specialist 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Record Clerks 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Part Time Record Clerks 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Part-Time/Parking Enf. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Community Svc Officer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Part Time Community
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Svc Officer
TOTAL NON-SWORN 18 18 17 16 15 15 17 16 17 17 17
Table #11
TOTAL AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
Budget
2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011
TOTAL EMPLOYEES 124 124 123 120 121 121 121 120 121 120 120
F.T.E.’s 121.5 121.5 121 118 119.5 119.5 119.5 118.5 119.5 119..5 117.5
Table #12
Police Department Authorized Positions
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
200120032005200720092011
Budget
Sworn OfficersCivilians
Chart for Tables #10 & 11
Crime Trends – Police Staffing
September 30, 2010
Page 11
OFFICERS PER 1,000 POPULATION
Table #13 shows the number of police officers per 1,000 population authorized for
Janesville and the cities in the peer city group. The average is the average ratio for the
peer city group, excluding Janesville.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Racine 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.57 2.48 2.46 2.49 2.42 2.48 2.44
Beloit 2.23 2.24 2.24 2.16 2.13 2.19 2.07 2.13 2.08 2.05
Kenosha 1.98 1.99 2.05 1.94 1.98 1.99 1.95 1.93 2.02 1.99
Manitowoc 1.96 1.96 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.84 1.85 1.96 1.84 1.96
Lacrosse 1.91 1.86 1.91 1.90 1.85 1.81 1.80 1.87 1.83 1.83
Green Bay 1.89 1.84 1.84 1.85 1.84 1.78 1.80 1.85 1.81 1.83
Wausau 1.66 1.66 1.65 1.62 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.81 1.74 1.69
Waukesha 1.71 1.76 1.71 1.71 1.67 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.69 1.68
Fond du Lac 1.67 1.67 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.64 1.69 1.71 1.67 1.70
Sheboygan 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.80 1.79 1.80 1.80 1.77 1.63 1.54
Oshkosh 1.58 1.60 1.56 1.51 1.53 1.51 1.49 1.55 1.50 1.50
Eau Claire 1.60 1.67 1.67 1.57 1.53 1.52 1.52 1.51 1.50 1.47
Appleton 1.57 1.57 1.56 1.53 1.46 1.47 1.46 1.54 1.49 1.49
AVERAGE 1.86 1.86 1.85 1.82 1.80 1.80 1.79 1.82 1.79 1.78
Janesville 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.70 1.71 1.69 1.66 1.66 1.64 1.62
Table #11
Sworn Officers per 1,000 Population
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
2001200220032004200520062007200820092010
JanesvillePeer City Average
Chart for Table #13