By Ed Rast
Did you know that after police staffing reductions in 2005, San Jose’s property crime rate increased 25%, causing us to lose our “Safest Big City in the United States” ranking after six consecutive years at the top?
The San Jose Police Department in 2005 was required by city administration to reduce staffing because of budget cuts. This brought police staffing back to nearly 1998 levels — though the city’s population had grown 10% between 1998 and 2005 — and forced the department to appropriately prioritize violent crimes against people over property crimes.
The 2005 staffing and budget reductions resulted in many property crimes not being prevented, investigated or cleared due to officer and police staff shortages. Property crimes increased as well as misdemeanor and financial crimes.
If you go to City-Data.com’s San Jose page and scroll down to he chart labeled “Crime in San Jose by Year”, you can see the increase in crime after 2005 in the eight categories used by the FBI to determine the safest cities. (Click a category to compare San Jose’s crime rate to national crime rates in a bar graph.)
Many property crimes like burglaries and vehicle theft are committed by habitual criminals who will continue to commit increasingly more property crimes unless prevented by patrolling officers or arrested after their crimes are investigated. But due primarily to officer shortages, San Jose’s property crime rates are on the rise.
For example, San Jose’s car theft rate first exceeded the national vehicle thief average in 2004, when 4,517 vehicles were stolen here. The rate dramatically increased after 2005 staff cuts to reach 2006’s high of 7,139 stolen vehicles. That and the 6,413 vehicles stolen in 2007 were both almost double the national rate. 2008’s 5,229 stolen vehicles — while a substantially lower number — still exceeds the national average.
Reducing police staffing in 2005 as opposed to adding additional police staff proportional to San Jose’s increased population was not the only factor in the increase in overall and property crime rates, but it was likely a very significant factor. The FBI Crime Report cautions: “Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.”
Crime will predictably increase during recessions due to unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, and reductions in government and non-profit social services.
Further police staffing or budget cuts do not seem to be in the public interest for San Jose’s residents or businesses, especially during a recession. These cuts should not be imposed in the 2009-2010 budget without asking city administration to clearly answer two questions for the City Council and residents:
1. Why have San Jose’s overall and property crime rates increased since 2005 police staff and budget cuts?
2. If proposed reductions to police staffing occur in the next round of budget cuts, what effective actions will be taken during this recession to prevent potentially increased crime rates?
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful questions on last week's open thread. I will look to answer many of them over the coming weeks.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting stuff, Ed. I guess we'll find out if the city administration has learned from their past mistakes. Somehow, I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that these cuts have made a difference in our safety status. No doubt at all. However, I'm looking at it from a wider angle. Let me ask you this, how many of those stolen vehicles were stolen by juveniles? how many of the property crimes by juveniles? I ask because I don't think the juvenile system is doing a good enough job. A majority of juveniles committing crimes never see the inside of the hall. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteIf we see more cuts in parole and probation then I'm affraid these figures are going to get worse because we have less police to stop the crimes from happening
To get a true status of the man power for the San Jose Police Department, I think someone needs to use the F.B.I.'s officer per citizen ratio for the population of the city the department is in. With out these numbers it is just a guessing game. I have yet to see these figures in any of the San Jose Mercury News articles that I have read, that talks about police staffing.
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteHow many Police Officers could the City hire if they didn't do stupid, wasteful things like this? http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12991999?nclick_check=1
Attard was making over 160K a year. This is outrageous!
If citizens only knew how critically understaffed our department is. I go out to a large district every night with 6 beats and only 4 get filled with an officer if we are lucky and many times have had to make do with only 3. I have no time to proactively police the district nor address the community needs of having abandoned vehicles towed or clearing out vacant homes where gang members frequently party and use various forms of alcohol/narcotics. If the city administration doesn't hire more officers, I would gamble to say in 10 years we won't even make the top 10 of the U.S. safest cities.
ReplyDeleteDitto what anonymous said above. I too work nights and routinely go out to a 6 beat district with just 3 or 4 officers. If there is a call for service then this huge area is down to 1 or 2 officers. You do proactive police work at your own peril, as fills become extremely extended. Officer safety is routinely compromised. I cringe every time I hear an officer make a car or pedestrian stop knowing there is no fill available if a suspect were to attack this officer. When I first came on every beat would be filled and there was even usually an extra officer on the team. You could be proactive knowing someone had your back. Not anymore though. With over 100 officers set to retire soon one can only imagine how bad the staffing situation will become. More calls for service will be cancelled, response times will be greatly increased, and most importantly officers will routinely have their safety compromised as a matter of policy. The men and women I work with have so much integrity that they often go into high priority calls knowing there are not enough officers assigned to the call. 99% of the time we get away with that. The other 1% ends up in officers getting hurt, or in some cases killed. From my perspective as an officer on the street, the staffing level is at critically, critically low levels.
ReplyDeleteThe Mercury news had an article on Wed Aug 5 on the back page mentioning what a big hit the city is taking on the former police auditor's loan for a downtown condo. The auditor, Barbara Attard, walked away from paying the city after the city did not renew her contract. Sounds like someone with no moral compass. Yet she was trying to tell the SJPD how to do their job at a high moral standard. Boy does this sound like double standards or what. Something to think about.
ReplyDeleteSo you have a city that has grown in population 10% since 1997 and it still has the same number of police officers? The additional people are completely honest and crime ridden right. I guess the city is completely willing to burn out its police force? Live hard die young and leave a good looking corps. This is ridiculous. If I was applying to be an officer, San Jose would be the last place (if at all) I would go!
ReplyDelete